Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 June 21, 2023 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: VanWormer Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from May 3, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma 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 15 Union NE 40 Union NE 55 Prospect NE 142 Prospect NE 218 Prospect SE 230 Prospect SE 241 Warren SE 246 Charles SE 301 College NE 332 Morris SE 408 Morris SE 423 Crescent NE 435 Fulton E 441 Crescent NE 441 Paris SE 455 Prospect SE 456 Lafayette SE 545 prospect SE 566 College SE 605 Madison SE 733 Wealthy SE 801 Broadway NW 932 Virginia SE 945 Virginia SE 1000 Monroe NW Motion by Ms. Kindt, supported by Mr. Bruinsma, to approve the Certificates of Appropriateness issued by staff. Motion carried unanimously. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Heather VanWormer Generated 7/5/2023 7:19 AM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 June 21, 2023 V. Old Business A. 1 IONIA SW - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 1 IONIA SW - REQUEST ALTERATION TO OUTSIDE BAR Ms. Baker recalled that the applicant was before the Commission in 2022 and received temporary approval for a removable bar structure that was part of the pandemic assistance. The Commission gave a three-year extension for its retention with the caveat that they return within the first year to amend the look of the bar. During the discussion the Commission had issues with the rough sawn barn wood being incompatible with the high quality and finish of the oak entry of the building itself. The applicant is before the Commission with a potential solution to paint the barn wood the same color as the adjacent walls. If that is not amenable to the Commission, they would appreciate input on what would be amenable. Mr. Dixon referred to packet page 173, which shows a mock-up of the proposed. He asked if the intent is to paint the barn wood. Ms. Baker replied affirmatively. There was no applicant present. Mr. Dixon invited public comment. Cory DeMint stated that he is present on other business but is familiar with the bar in question. He likes the barn wood vs. the paint. He also understands the Commission’s viewpoint and it would be easy enough to get some oak boards and stain them to match the entryway. If the choice was walling that off or painting the barn wood, he would leave the barn wood. As much as it doesn’t match, he felt it was appropriate and looks nice. Ms. Kindt indicated that she had the same question as Mr. Dixon. The representation provided makes it appear to be a smooth panel but she feels what they propose is to simply paint the barn wood so the texture and irregularity would still show through. Ms. Baker explained that she did verify with the applicant that they are not proposing a panel; they just want to paint the barn wood. Ms. Kindt recalled that the Commission was concerned about the rough, unfinished texture vs. the higher level of carpentry used at the entrance. She isn’t sure that painting it would alleviate that concern because the texture and irregularity of the board joints would remain visible. Mr. Dixon agreed with Ms. Kindt. Based on their previous conversation, he doesn’t feel that painting the wood alleviates the concerns. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez wished to clarify for the record that what they are discussing is temporary given the three-year extension. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 June 21, 2023 Mr. Dixon agreed and clarified that if they make a change to the barn wood finish, they have two years remaining on that extension. Ms. Baker asked if the Commission would be amenable to a painted, smooth finish panel for the remaining two years. Another thought she had for this particular structure would be to keep the slat appearance but with clean, not rustic, all even and evenly spaced, and either stained or painted wood. Mr. Simmons stated that if he were to use a natural product, he would use oak and stain it to match. Ms. Chapman stated that she wouldn’t be opposed to a smooth panel if it had some sort of trimmed element to it, not dissimilar to how the opening is trimmed out. Mr. Dixon feels there are a number of options that would be more in keeping with the aesthetic of the building and neighborhood. An oak finish would be fine. He feels a panel finish with some relief to it would also be fine. He prefers it not be painted the same color as the brick wall. He favors the two different elements reading separately from each other. That being said, color isn’t something they generally rule on. By not matching in color, he doesn’t believe one would think it is part of the original construction. However, in this case, it is unlikely one would presume that it is. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed with the comments offered. Painted barn wood is not appropriate or suitable for this temporary structure. Normally he would want to see something that matches the grace of the door in terms of material and finish. His only concern there is that they are still talking about a temporary installation. The nicer it is the more likely there is going to be momentum for it to remain. He would be in favor of a low-bar intervention that very obviously needs to go at the end of its permitted time line. He suggested that a smooth panel, recessed as deeply as possible from the brick face, preferably not painted the same color as the brick face, would seem to fall between something that is as least distracting as possible but not confused for something that is assumed to be permanent. Mr. Dixon agreed. He would also be amenable to the slatted finish Ms. Baker mentioned. The objection to the barn wood is about the level of irregularity and unfinished nature. By nature, barn wood looks unfinished and that is contrasting the very finished, well dressed opening. He feels that anything with clean lines that will visually disappear a bit will be in keeping. He would be comfortable with staff reviewing some options along those lines. Ms. Kindt agreed; dress it up a bit but not to the extent of matching the level of the opening. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO DENY the application for 1 Ionia SW with the specific finding that the proposed work does not comply with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 1, 2, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 June 21, 2023 RESULT: DENIED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Heather VanWormer VI. New Business A. 35 DIVISION S - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 35 DIVISION S - REQUEST FOR A MURAL Ms. Baker introduced the request to paint a mural on a portion of the north brick wall of a non- contributing building built in 2019. The review is based on impact to the surrounding historic character of the environment and contributing buildings and not the impact to the structure itself. The structure was approved based on its current materiality and design. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled from the application that it would either be applied directly to the masonry or on a panel attached to the masonry. Ms. Baker clarified that those are two options. She does not have any specifications on the panel. Mr. Dixon noted that when reviewing murals on existing historic structures they typically rule that if it is previously painted brick that is different than previously unpainted brick. This is previously unpainted brick but on a non-contributing modern structure. He asked if there is any precedent for this. Ms. Baker couldn’t recall any. It is before the Commission because it is unpainted brick. If it was a painted modern structure, it would have been staff review. The guidelines and Standards find it inappropriate for unpainted historic structures. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if Zoning has an opinion on murals of this size. Ms. Baker replied that they look at murals solely to determine if it is considered advertising for the use within. If in a historic district it goes through the HPC and then, historic district or not, they go through the Arts Advisory Council. They look at how the mural will be maintained, content, etc. There would be another layer of oversight besides the HPC. Mr. Dixon asked if maintenance of the underlying structure is addressed when they do the review for how the mural will be maintained. Ms. Baker replied that she isn’t very familiar with the process. Her understanding is it is more about making sure it continues to look good or it is painted back over. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 June 21, 2023 Jen Schaub related that this is part of an ongoing series called the Heartside Historic Mural Project. They are located in the Heartside District, which means they are also often painting about history on historic structures. This is a bit of a deviation for them because they are proposing a mural on a new build. The artist would be just as thrilled to paint on a mounted panel and, in that case, they would be using sign board supplied by a local sign board painter and anchoring it into the mortar of the building. There are other examples of that in the district where they have a historic building where they have sign board painted and mounted on the building. Rockford Construction is technically the owner of the subject building. Ms. Schaub stated that she is here with their consent and support and she is present to talk about the mural process. The tenant of the building approached them about wanting a mural on the side of the building. As part of the process, they will present to the Arts Advisory Council and they will approve content. Ms. Chapman asked if they are leaning one way or the other on the install; painted on the brick or on the panel. Ms. Schaub replied that it is really up to the HPC. The artist would be fine either way. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked the location of the other sign board panel(s). Ms. Schaub replied that there is one on Vern Berry Place at 62 S Division. It is mounted up on the side of the historic structure. Most of the time they replace murals every 3-7 years but that mural has lasted longer. It is beginning to show wear so they will be taking it down as part of the renovation of that building. They will return to the HPC to apply for a new mural on a board to be installed in that same location. That is the only one that comes to mind that is in the district and part of their project. There is also one on a board outside of the Meanwhile, mounted in the parking lot. That one has had some wear and tear damage and a couple of the boards are currently being replaced. Ms. Baker recalled another on Williams. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon felt Standard 9 applies. This is not a contributing structure and they are simply looking at the impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the rest of the district. Mr. Bruinsma suggested there are plenty of examples of that type of thing around. His opinion would be that it is not impacting the environment in a negative way. Ms. Kindt added that on a non-contributing building this would actually have a positive impact on the district bringing some art to the community. Ms. Kindt doesn’t feel it would have a negative impact on the district. Since it is new construction she is comfortable with either painting directly on the brick or on a panel. If on the panel it will be mounted into the mortar joints, which is what they recommend on historic buildings. Ms. Kindt suggested they consider maintenance and what will be easiest long-term. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 June 21, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that the presence of a mural would not have a negative impact on the district. Thinking about the future potential maintenance of a mural in that location he would be in favor of a panelized mural because that can be relatively easy whereas a painted masonry wall would not. In the future, a poorly maintained painted masonry wall may have a negative impact on the district. Mr. Dixon agreed with Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. He doesn’t know that they can necessarily require it be mounted on sign board but he would also recommend it. Ms. Chapman MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 35 S Division with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #9. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dru Chapman SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Heather VanWormer B. 38 COMMERCE SW - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 38 COMMERCE SW - REQUEST TO INSTALL SECURITY GATE AT NORTH ENTRANCE Ms. Baker introduced the request to install a retractable metal security gate across the recessed opening on the north side of the building. The gate would be attached to the inside of the entry to be recessed slightly from the face of the building. The building is a non-contributing structure built in 2009-2010. They are requesting the gate to address consistent issues with inappropriate use of the recessed entry during after hours, which is resulting in unsafe conditions and exposure to unsafe materials and unsafe encounters with other people. They have tried numerous ways to alleviate the issue. They’ve worked with the Grand Rapids Police Dept. for quite a while, installed lighting and have made consistent attempts to keep people moving along but it has been unsuccessful. There is also a heat grate in front of this entrance. The site is located approximately halfway up the block between Commerce and Division, which is somewhat of a dead zone; most of the traffic is at the intersections. It is also adjacent to a parking entrance, which is also a recess in a darker location. They are hoping to install the gate relatively quickly. Mr. Bruinsma asked if they are taking notes from the other one they addressed on Weston. Ms. Baker recalled that was for Premier Skate and was likely 15 years ago. They had a series of break ins because they sell merchandise that is highly valuable and resaleable. They tried everything and were unsuccessful and they were approved for basically an emergency situation. Theirs is a retractable gate also. She believes it is black. The color isn’t called out in the subject application. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 June 21, 2023 Ms. Kindt asked if a scissor style gate has been used previously in the district either on contributing or non-contributing structures. Ms. Baker replied that is the one they were discussing; Premier Skate. It collapses small enough that on that particular historic building it is actually recessed behind part of a column. The subject site doesn’t have that but it is also a non-contributing structure. The Commission is considering the environment. David Emdin related that he is present on behalf of the property owner and management company of the building. They have struggled with people sleeping, urinating, and defecating in the doorway. It has become a huge problem, not only for the building but particularly for the tenant. They try to open in the morning and have a mess to deal with. Mr. Dixon asked what times of day the gate would be open/closed. Mr. Emdin replied that they open at 11 a.m. currently. They greatly reduced their hours because they’ve had trouble keeping staff because of this issue. They’ve even reduced the number of days they are open. It has dramatically impacted the financial performance of the tenant. The problems are occurring at night. Their idea would be to lock it down when they close at night and open it in the morning. Mr. Dixon asked if it would be hours such as 6 p.m. to 9 a.m. Mr. Emdin wasn’t certain how late they are open. It may be 7 or 8 p.m. They open at 11 a.m. currently. Mr. Bruinsma asked if there are any other proposed fixes besides the gate. Mr. Emdin replied that they have tried. GRPD has been there on a regular basis to try to get people out of there. They are technically trespassing but it isn’t the same people every time. A trespassing matter requires them to go down there and meet the police for them to issue a ticket vs. a warning. It has been a slow process that just hasn’t worked. Mr. Emdin stated that they’ve been dealing with this for a year. They feel that a gate will solve the problem. It will block off the recessed area. As Ms. Baker stated, it is a side street so it is quiet and dark; an easy place to hide out. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if they considered a different style of gate, such as one that would hinge. Mr. Emdin replied that they met with a couple of consultants and the proposed is what they recommend because it folds up and can fold in against the vestibule wall so it is hidden and doesn’t cause an impediment to get into the space. Mr. Dixon asked the proposed color. Mr. Emdin replied that it is a galvanized gate. He believes they can get it in any color. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 June 21, 2023 Mr. Simmons asked if the gate is secure when it is open/lockable so it can’t be opened by anyone. Mr. Emdin replied that it will latch. He isn’t sure if it will lock. Mr. Dixon added that he believes there is a place for a padlock to keep it open when in the open position. Mr. Emdin felt they would be able to lock it to the adjoining wall. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels the need for some kind of gate is obvious. It is not difficult to imagine. His question is whether this particular gate is most appropriate for the historic district. Ms. Kindt agrees. The application documented the steps they’ve already taken. Her question would be whether this gate style is appropriate for the surrounding district. Mr. Dixon agreed that the need for a gate has been well documented. Personally, he feels that since this is a non-contributing structure and this particular element on the non-contributing structure won’t be adjacent to an existing historic structure, he feels it is a minor enough change that it won’t be visually impactful enough one way or the other to call it a detriment to the surrounding district. Mr. Bruinsma agreed. It is a pattern seen in downtown areas. If all of the businesses were out of business and these gates were up all over downtown during the daytime that would be detrimental. Whatever they can do to support the businesses staying open and control this problem will help prevent that from happening. Mr. Dixon wished to clarify that if this were a historic structure he wouldn’t feel as he previously stated. However, since it is non-contributing, he feels it is a minimal change. Ms. Chapman agreed. She added that it being adjacent to the entry and exit ramp of the parking garage it is a utilitarian area so when the gate is closed it doesn’t strike her as out of place. Mr. Dixon recalled that they heard in testimony that they intend to recess it slightly from the face of the building. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that it is to be recessed 4”. Mr. Dixon feels that is an appropriate amount that will give it the necessary relief and hide it slightly without compromising the functionality. He feels they should require that it either be black or dark bronze to match the rest of the dark material on the building. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 June 21, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 38 Commerce SW with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 9 & 10, with the condition that the finish of the gate be a dark color, either black or another color that matches the finishes on the existing building. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Thomas Simmons YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Heather VanWormer C. 1017 WEALTHY SE- WEALTHY STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT 1017 WEALTHY SE- REQUESTING CANOPY SIGN Ms. Baker presented the request relating that the building in question dates to the 1800’s but underwent extensive remodeling in the 1950’s to what is present today. As the structure exists today, it is a contributing structure to the Wealthy Street Historic District. The changes were considered significant in their own right over time. What is being proposed is a three part installation. Ms. Baker displayed a historic photo dating to approximately mid- to late-1950’s. The Baker Bookhouse sign was individual, likely wood or metal, letters sitting on top of the canopy. Ms. Baker related that she included that because it is similar to what they are proposing to do. The canopy has a metal face but it is a wood structure. It has an 11” tall face and is approximately 22” deep and 15’ wide. As stated, the request is a three-part project. The moon is attached to the panels. It is 24” round, with a 2” thick aluminum frame. Her understanding is that it is to be internally lit but the fabrication is solid so she assumes that the face is transparent and will glow like a moon. The wolf is an independent part of the installation. It is a statue that is 32” tall and 40” wide, made out of metal. Testa Rossa is ¼” thick aluminum individual letters that are 10” tall and attached to a bracket, which will be attached to the roof of the canopy. The overall length is 10’ and it will have independent uplighting. The track lights won’t be visible. Her understanding is the lighting would be in front of the letters. Mr. Dixon asked if the wolf is illuminated. Ms. Baker deferred to the applicant. Her assumption is the track goes across the whole span of the canopy. Ms. Kindt recalled that the moon is to be attached. The application says either adhered or screwed in. Ms. Baker indicated that those are the two attachment methods they have offered. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 June 21, 2023 Mr. Dixon asked if the paneled material is historic, dating to the 50’s. Ms. Baker replied as far as they know it is. It has been painted several times. Ms. Kindt noted that the letters are 10” tall and the wolf 32” tall, which is three times taller. In the image it appears to be about twice as tall. Ms. Baker explained that the image is just a rough image to provide an idea of what it would look like. Mr. Bruinsma recalled when the space was occupied by Brick Road that there was some discussion about the history of the buildings and that the Baker Bookhouse was the original brick building with the subject space being added on later. Ms. Baker explained that the true two-story is the building from the 1800’s. It obviously got a new face and the entire front was recessed and the portion that is mid-century modern looking was added to it in the 50’s. Mr. Dixon asked if the small blade sign is lit. Ms. Baker replied that it is not. Brick Road had awnings with their name on it. The awnings are gone now. Ms. Baker responded to Mr. Dixon indicating that the period of significance for this building would be the 50’s renovation. Cory DeMint was present on behalf of the request. He related that the sign on the side of the building is not lit. Mr. DeMint circulated his phone with an updated photo that shows a much better representation of the size of the letters vs. the wolf statue. Those are the actual letters, which they had made regardless. They figured if they weren’t approved for outside they would go inside somewhere. That is also the actual statue. Mr. DeMint stated that he would like to have the wolf illuminated but it doesn’t have to be. The light would be inside the wolf. The wolf is made from geometric pieces of metal and there are small seams between where the metal is put together. His thought was to put a red LED light inside of it so at night the wolf would look geometric. The front light that will light up the letters will be one strip that will hardly be visible if at all. He will install it in a track angled at 45 degrees. From the street he doesn’t believe the strip of light will be visible. The moon is LED lights in an aluminum panel. It is an acrylic front and they will have a film made that will give it the contours of actually looking like a moon and the color of that will be appropriate to a moon; a whitish blue glow. It is dimmable because they don’t want it to be too bright. Mr. Dixon asked if Mr. DeMint knows what the black panel material is. Mr. DeMint replied that they believe it is steel but it has been painted many times. Mr. Dixon asked if they have a plan for how they will attach the moon to the steel panel. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 June 21, 2023 Mr. DeMint replied that without interrupting the integrity of the original material that is on there they could use a type of construction adhesive that would hold it and it wouldn’t come down but when they want to remove it they could pry it off the material and peel the material off or it would be attached with sheet metal screws on top of the adhesive material, which would ensure it would stay. The back of it is very flat so a minimal amount of adhesive would hold it up. The wire for the lighting would come out of the bottom and would be within black conduit. There is already electric present. He was told previously that they ran electric out there and later had leaking issues so they covered all the junction boxes with rubber roofing material but they are very obvious where they’re located. A certified electrician will reopen them so they can use the existing wires that all tie into the house lights that are on a timer. For the lights in front there would be a connection that would light up the strip lights that wouldn’t be seen. The letters themselves have a black protective membrane that will be flat/flush and not seen, which is what the base of the letters are adhered to. It would be the same with the wolf. One of the wolf’s feet would be sitting an inch from the junction box and everything would be black so you wouldn’t see it. The only thing he anticipates would be visible is the ¾” or ½” conduit that would have to attach to the bottom of the moon and go straight down to a junction box. The conduit could be painted black to match the panel behind it. Mr. Dixon asked if they considered using magnets to attach the moon to the steel panel. Mr. DeMint feels it is a good idea and obviously there are very strong magnets but with the right gust of wind getting behind the moon it might blow it off. He didn’t consider magnets and it sounds easy. Depending on the number of layers of paint the magnets may not actually hold. Mr. DeMint responded to Mr. Dixon further relating that Testa Rossa means redhead but it is also a Ferrari and the appeal to that name is to people of his generation who wanted that picture from the magazine that folded out with a huge Ferrari to put on your wall. He has already heard from people that they had that poster on their wall. Mr. DeMint stated that he has reached out to some Ferrari groups in town to inquire whether they would be interested in a Ferrari night in front of the restaurant and park all their red Ferrari’s out front. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt stated that when she reviewed the application she had some concern with scale. The photo the applicant provided this evening helped with that in terms of comparing it to the historic picture and also understanding that the wolf does seem in scale with the letters and the moon. Her concern was that the moon and wolf were too large for the letters. Mr. Dixon noted that the Baker Bookhouse sign that was offered as evidence of what was there in the 50’s during the period of significance was also quite large, likely larger than the final design circulated this evening. Mr. Dixon acknowledged that he tends to be the one opposed to illuminated signage within districts. However, he feels this is a unique situation in that it is a building whose period of significance dates to the 50’s when electric/lit signage was far more common. He feels this is a perfect use and place for it, especially given some of the materiality and forms that are on this structure. It is a creative idea and he doesn’t feel that it detracts from the building or district. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 June 21, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked, when referring to internal illumination, whether Mr. Dixon was referring to the moon or the wolf. Mr. Dixon clarified both. Internally illuminated signage was more common during that time period, which mostly applies to the moon. The wolf is not likely something they would find in any time period but it sounds like the light coming from the wolf will be fairly minimal and is not going to be a detractor in any way. Ms. Kindt agreed that internal illumination is always a hot point in terms of the local guidelines. She agrees that the light coming from the wolf will be fairly minimal. She continues to wonder about the moon just because of the size. She recalled that they have recently seen some signs with film on them that tamps down the LEDs inside. She wonders how bright the moon will be. Mr. Dixon recalled from testimony that it will be on a dimmer and adjustable. It is possible that the HPC could have a subcommittee go out once the sign is installed to review the light levels. If they are going to put a film on it to read like the contours of the moon, the light level would have to be fairly low to keep that visible. Otherwise it will wash it out. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled that they recently denied an application for an internally lit circular blade sign. The intention was not to overpower the name of the business that was to be on the exterior film of the sign. He asked how the moon is different? Because it isn’t a blade sign? Because it isn’t a business name but rather an ornamental element? Mr. Dixon didn’t recall the issue being it overwhelming the name of the business. He recalled that the issue was the light levels and brightness of that section of the street. If he is remembering correctly, it was on a non-contributing structure. This is a contributing structure from an appropriate era for this kind of signage. Mr. Dixon feels that is the main difference; the context of what else is on that block and in that particular area of the district. Ms. Baker recalled it being the amount of light coming from the sign combined with the fact it was extremely shiny metal, which made the illumination even brighter. Mr. Dixon also feels that this being building mounted and not a blade sign does have an impact to it in terms of the amount of light it will throw on any surrounding historic structures. The brick portion of the building is proud of the surface they will mount it on and there is no neighboring business on the other side; it is the street. Mr. Simmon noted that the lettering is similar to the former Baker sign. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels the sign is in excellent taste, recalling the style of the building. Mr. Dixon doesn’t feel they can support attachment of it with sheet metal screws as it would be damaging to the historic steel membrane. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 June 21, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled from testimony that it wouldn’t be sheet metal screws to the existing face but rather a steel panel that the moon would be attached to and the panel would be attached with construction adhesive. Mr. Dixon clarified that the point is that it should be an easily removable sign in the same way they require a sign on brick to be mounted through the mortar joints so it doesn’t do permanent damage to the building. This should be mounted in a way that it is removable in the future without damaging the steel skin. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 1017 Wealthy SE with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 1, 2, 9 & 10 with the stipulation that the scale of the letters be approximately half the size of the wolf, and per testimony. The moon is to be installed in such a way that it can be removed in the future without damage to historic material. The luminosity of the moon should be muted and not appear like a spotlight. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Thomas Simmons YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Heather VanWormer D. 226 COLLEGE SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 226 COLLEGE SE - REQUEST TO ALTER REAR SCREENED ADDITION Ms. Baker introduced the request relating that the house was built in 1891 with clapboard on the first floor and wood shake on the upper levels. In 1972 it was completely covered in aluminum siding. Very early on, a two and a half story addition was added to the southeast corner of the building. At that time, or shortly after, a one-story sunroom structure was also added. Ms. Baker related that both of the additions are contributing. For discussion this evening is the second floor structure. It is much more modern; 30-40 years old. Long after the sun room was constructed a flat deck was constructed on top of the flat roof. Her assumption would be that portion was not done within the period of significance. It was poorly constructed and not designed to be structurally sound long term. It is a screened in structure with storm windows and a shed roof. It has leaked several times over the years causing damage to the interior. The owners would like to make it a more solid structure. They intend to keep the walls where they are and the same roof but increase the framing on the inside. They would take the windows out of the north and south elevations and make them solid walls and clad them in wood shake to match what was historically next to them. The rear/east wall would maintain an opening. The opening would be approximately 10 ft. wide by 3.5 ft. tall to accommodate four ganged windows. The windows are proposed to be wood double hungs, two over one. The casing is a flat stock 4 in. trim and the sill projects about 2 inches. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 June 21, 2023 Mr. Simmons asked if there was any detail provided on the soffit. Ms. Baker replied that her understanding is that it isn’t changing. There is a bit of crown under the flashing and the soffit is still there. They will replicate whatever is missing or deteriorated. Mr. Dixon asked if the existing aluminum siding has been removed or is still in place. Ms. Baker replied it is still in place. Mr. Dixon asked what photos they are seeing the cedar shake in. Ms. Baker replied that their goal is to slowly start removing the aluminum so they want it to match what it is going to be. Mr. Dixon clarified that there is a small section removed for reference. Ms. Baker agreed. There are small sections exposed on the back of the building. Ms. Kindt noted from the packet that there is a reference to clad wood windows. Ms. Baker suggested clarifying that with the applicant. Mr. Dixon asked if they were just repairing what was there in the exact space that would be staff review because it is existing construction. Ms. Baker agreed. The Commission isn’t discussing massing, etc. As an existing structure they are considering the finish and change in openings. Doug Meeks was present on behalf of the request. He related that they are the fourth owner of the home. The third owner put this section of the house over the flat roof. It isn’t well insulated in any respect. The windows are storm windows and fall down regularly. It causes a lot of ice damage on the back of the house, which has caused leaking in several areas of the house. Mr. Dixon asked if Mr. Meeks is aware of the age of the addition. Mr. Meeks related that a neighbor informed him that it was put on about the same time as the siding was, which was approximately 3 weeks prior to the district designation. In order to make it more efficient they are suggesting installing four wood windows, similar to the windows below and installing shake siding. It is their hope in the next couple of years to remove all of the siding and restore the historic architecture. There is hidden water damage as well, which is another reason they want to open it up and make necessary repairs. Ms. Chapman referred to packet page 240, a view of the east elevation. Mr. Meeks related that that is currently what it looks like. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 15 June 21, 2023 Ms. Chapman asked that Mr. Meeks speak to the decision to go to four windows on the upper level over three below. Mr. Meeks related that they are flexible. If the Commission feels that three windows in a larger size would be more appropriate, they can take that into consideration. Ms. Chapman also asked the thought behind making the end walls solid. Mr. Meeks explained that that section is off the back end of the master bedroom. As you walk into this area there is a built in closet. Their hope is to create a closet or storage space on both sides. They are hoping to make the walls solid and add insulation and have the ability for shelving/storage space. Ms. Kindt asked if the proposed windows are wood on the inside and outside or clad. Chuck Longstreet was also present and replied that they call it clad but it is just a paint on the outside that they use making it more weatherproof; similar to a marine paint. The windows will be solid wood, inside and out. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon noted that the subject area is a non-contributing part of the structure. They are looking at what impacts the changes to it will have to the rest of the historic structure and is it in keeping with the historic character of the rest of the house. Ms. Kindt feels the scale is in scale with the rest of the building. She understands the need from the inside to make the walls solid. They do see that at times to make the structure compatible with the new use. Ms. Kindt is comfortable with the gang of four windows on the back. The scale of them is more vertical. Mr. Simmons agreed. The windows are symmetric with those below. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed with the previous comment. Mr. Dixon also agreed. While he understands the desire to make them three and three, the proportionality is more important than the number of windows. Additionally, a small deviation like that helps tell the story of the historic construction vs. the non-historic construction. Ms. Kindt noted that the corner detail appears to have a bent shaped cap at the corner where they removed some of the siding; page 244 of the packet. Sometimes with shake on contributing portions of the structure, they’ve required it to be overlapped. She isn’t sure they want to speak to that here or since it is non-contributing what they’ve shown is fine. Mr. Dixon felt the difficulty would be that they haven’t begun that portion of the restoration project. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 16 June 21, 2023 The applicant referred to a photo in the packet and explained that it is a portion of the siding on the front that was taken off previously that shows the shake above and clapboard below. That was provided to the Commission to give an idea of what is underneath. Mr. Meeks also circulated a photo of what the house previously looked like stating that it is their goal to recreate the look and extend it to the back, which is why they are requesting the materials they are. Mr. Dixon stated he would be comfortable not requiring any specific details for the corner at this point because it is new construction. If they do end up with a corner board or something similar it helps tell the story of the new vs. old construction, especially knowing what they are proposing for the rest of the structure in the future. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez suggested that most likely it would have been a mitered corner and not a cap; Boston weave. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 226 College 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 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Heather VanWormer E. 540 WEALTHY SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 540 WEALTHY SE - REQUEST FOR NEW GARAGE Ms. Baker related that the house in question was built circa 1880. There was once a small narrow garage at the rear that was built in 1949 and demolished decades ago. It was 10’ wide and 20’ deep. The current parcel is 52’ wide and 127’ deep. Ms. Baker related that the owner is asking to build a single story, two-stall garage at the rear of the lot. The structure will be free-standing, 22’ deep, 22’ wide and 19’3” tall as measured from grade to the roof peak. It will be placed 12’9” south of the rear porch, approximately 7’ from the east lot line and 6’ from the west lot line. Other site elements include replacing the existing fence with a new, 6’ tall wood privacy fence. They haven’t submitted the design. If they don’t know the design this evening, they can work with staff for approval of the design. They are also planning to install brick pavers between the house and garage and along the east side. Ms. Baker commented on the design elements relating that it has a hipped gable roof drawn from the house, clapboard siding also drawing from the house, and vertical board and batten. It has a continuous eave across the north and south faces. The proposed overhead door is steel. The proposed garage is 22’ wide and the house ranges from 26’ wide to 31’ wide, depending on Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 17 June 21, 2023 which architectural features one is taking in. The garage is 22’ deep and the house is 46’ deep. The garage is just over 19’ tall and the house is 2.5 stories; approximately 40’ in height. For reference, given the proximity, the rear porch from grade to the porch eave is 11’6” Mr. Dixon expressed his understanding that the hipped gable is drawn from the back of the house. He asked if the back of the house is an addition or original. Ms. Baker replied that it appears to be original. There is also a fallout shelter in the back yard. Mr. Bruinsma asked if an HPC approval overrides the green space requirement. Ms. Baker replied that they still have to meet the green space requirement. In looking at the parcel she believes they will meet that requirement. Ms. Kindt noted that the proposed windows are 8 over 1 and a lot of the windows on the house are 1 over 1. Ms. Baker agreed. Rebecca Klesmith and Leo Makinen were present on behalf of their request. Ms. Klesmith circulated a photo of a fence they are basing theirs off of. She noted that they are using the same designer and builder that did the neighbor’s garage that wasn’t shown in the aerial photo; it is in the alley photo. Ms. Kindt asked about the decision for the 8 over 1 windows. Ms. Klesmith indicated that she believes they were matching the back door of the house. They are flexible if the Commission has a different suggestion. She also related that they had the excavator come out and there won’t be any impact to the bomb shelter; it can stay. Mr. Makinen also addressed Ms. Kindt’s question about the window choice. It somewhat matches the back window to the side of the porch. Ms. Klesmith added that the front door is multi-pane. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted from the packet that the window cut sheet shows a 6 over 1 pattern. The drawn elevation shows 8 over 1. Mr. Dixon clarified that they don’t have a preference for the window patterning. Ms. Klesmith agreed. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. He suggested the Commission discuss size, scale and location. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels it is appropriately sited, scaled, and located. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 18 June 21, 2023 Mr. Dixon agreed. On a larger lot they say it should be behind the house and subservient to the house. There isn’t much of an option on this lot; it has to be behind the house. The scale is appropriate and it is definitely subservient. Ms. Kindt agreed. Mr. Dixon added that the massing and elements are drawn from the house. The roof pitch appears to match the house. Ms. Baker explained that they can’t match the roof pitch identical or it would exceed the height permitted by Zoning. Ms. Kindt feels the features do a good job of complementing the house but not copying it. Mr. Dixon agreed. He doesn’t feel a Queen Anne window and an 8 over 1 pattern are necessarily interchangeable. They also don’t have 100% direction what the plan is given that the elevations show 8 over 1 but the cut sheet is 6 over 1. He feels 1 over 1 could easily be approved based on the existing home. The predominant window patterning is 1 over 1. There is some Queen Anne detailing around some of them so that would also be approvable. Ms. Chapman feels it is a tasteful design for a garage. She appreciates the attention to detail and composition. It doesn’t over power the house. Mr. Bruinsma wondered what the more ornate window is playing off of. Ms. Kindt noted that there is a gang of three windows on the front with the same Queen Anne square pattern. Mr. Bruinsma doesn’t feel the garage needs to complement that ornate style window. Mr. Dixon feels 1 over 1 is most appropriate. He doesn’t feel 6 over 1 or 8 over 1 is appropriate. There is no evidence of that anywhere on the house that he is aware of. Mr. Bruinsma stated that he doesn’t see any windows that wide and short unless they are fixed. Mr. Dixon feels that what is seen on the garage is a reasonable divergence from the house architecture to have on the out building; the change in window proportionality. Mr. Bruinsma feels it looks slightly out of place. Ms. Baker advised that it isn’t uncommon for the outbuildings to have different shaped windows. The Commission was comfortable with staff review and approval of the final fence design. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 540 Wealthy SE with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 19 June 21, 2023 Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 1, 2, 3 & 9, with the stipulation that the double hung window be 1 over 1 in pattern and the final fence design shall be reviewed and approved by staff. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd- Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Heather VanWormer F. 341 CHALRES SE - CHERRY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 341 CHARLES SE - REQUEST TO REPLACE FOUNDATION Ms. Baker pointed out that the engineering report that was very recently received was provided at the Commissioner’s seats. The request is to replace a deteriorating foundation. They will lift the house, remove what is a several layer brick foundation and replace it with concrete. The goal is to maintain the exposure above grade. It is parged on the outside currently and they would like to mimic that with a stucco coating. As part of the request they would also like to install an egress window on the south side of the house, just behind the chimney. They also want to change the back door that is in the basement. Ms. Baker recalled that this property was before the Commission to consider an addition. The Commission approved changing the location of the first floor door, moving it to the right. There is a basement entry below that that they also wish to move to the right and align under the first floor door. It would be hidden under the approved deck. They would like to install a metal door in that location. They are basically swapping the location of the window and door. Ms. Baker noted that the details on the new poured foundation weren’t provided, such as how thick it is. Information was not provided on the wells that will be created; the stairs down and the egress window well. The head height must be clarified for the record. The well will be concrete but the lip height above grade needs clarifying. It is unclear if the foundation will recreate all the existing basement window openings and, if so, will they match in location, dimension, and windows to the existing. Mr. Dixon asked whether this would be a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Notice to Proceed since it is technically a demolition. Ms. Baker replied that it could fall under either. Mr. Dixon asked how it would fall under a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Baker replied that the Commission doesn’t even have to find it appropriate. The walls are completely parged on both sides. Ms. Baker indicated that she isn’t well versed on brick foundations as she hasn’t seen many. The few she has seen have been parged, if not on the exterior than on the interior. She isn’t sure if that was a standard application practice for that Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 20 June 21, 2023 material. Ms. Baker suggested it would likely fall as a technical infeasibility process. First the Commission would have to determine it needs to be replaced. If so, is it technically feasible to replace it with a brick foundation? Adrian Byl, Byl Builders, was present on behalf of the request. Mr. Byl stated that the brick foundation is shot. It is Chicago brick. It has taken on moisture, evidenced by spots in the basement where it is coming through the parging. Mr. Byl would argue that the parging was done to protect the brick because it isn’t a quality brick; it takes on moisture and deteriorates. The new foundation will be 8” thick and 9’ tall, which is shown on one of the prints submitted. Ms. Kindt asked if windows will be put back in place or closed up. Mr. Byl replied that all windows will be in the same location. All of the windows have been ordered and were part of the previous approval. The request includes the addition of an egress window, which was not previously approved. It will be a wood window. Mr. Dixon clarified that the 36 x 36 window shown in the packet is the new egress window. Mr. Byl agreed. Ms. Chapman asked the current foundation wall height. Mr. Byl replied it is approximately 6’. They will be going deeper with the new foundation. There are multiple locations in the basement where they just set posts on top of the concrete and it is punching through the 1-2” of concrete. Mr. Dixon asked if they will reuse the door that is being relocated. Mr. Byl replied that they would like to get a new door. The existing door is a steel door. Mr. Dixon advised that they should work with staff on the door approval since it isn’t part of the submittal. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon noted that the first step is to determine if the foundation needs to be replaced. The house is contributing to the neighborhood. Mr. Dixon has no reason to say that the foundation isn’t contributing. It dates to the original construction of the house. It is an example of unique craftsmanship as you don’t see a lot of brick foundations. Part of the reason for that is that they don’t work very well. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez related that it was parged on the exterior to protect the brick and usually on the interior because it was buttressed by dirt, ruble, anything they could find. The parging was an attempt to unify and solidify the mass. Mr. Dixon asked if the finding is that the foundation is in need of replacement. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 21 June 21, 2023 Ms. Chapman deferred to the report signed by the structural engineer recommending a new foundation and not recommending repair of the existing. Mr. Dixon agreed. Mr. Simmons agreed that the report is compelling that the foundation needs to be replaced. Ms. Kindt agreed. She believes it falls under technical infeasibility. You could technically do it but it wouldn’t be a good idea to recommend or require that. It is more feasible to replace it with structurally sound material vs. reinstalling a brick foundation. Mr. Dixon agreed but is somewhat stuck on the process they are to follow. Ms. Baker asked if you could actually build a brick foundation and meet current building codes. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez replied that you can. You probably wouldn’t use Chicago common. No one does it because there is no advantage and it is more labor. Mr. Dixon noted that their purview as it relates to these buildings is the exterior of the building. What they can see from the outside is a parged finish. You don’t see whether it is a brick back up or CMU. As long as it remains a parged surface he feels that is functionally the same. It will maintain the same final appearance. Ms. Baker added that it could actually be the historic appearance. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if the parged finish will be painted or unpainted. The current parging is painted. He would lean toward a cement product for the parging. Others agreed. Ms. Chapman recalled a recent request to relocate a house to Prospect and being placed on a new foundation. There was discussion to continue siding surface over the new foundation and the determination was no and that the foundation be exposed so you could show the differentiation between the new and the old. To her, she doesn’t see the basis for requiring a stucco finish. They are saying they are going to do that however. Mr. Dixon pointed out that the HPC isn’t necessarily requiring it but rather approving what they are applying for. Ms. Baker added that the new foundation under the house being moved is telling the story of the move. This is more of a request to replace an actual feature of a house that is remaining in place. The Commission discussed the proposed egress window. Mr. Dixon noted that they have approved egress windows being cut in in the past, specifically on secondary elevations and preferably where they are hidden by an architectural feature on the home that makes it more Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 22 June 21, 2023 difficult to see from the street. Mr. Dixon feels the proposed satisfies both of those requirements. It is a modern modification for the continued use of the structure. Ms. Kindt agreed. She feels you will see it somewhat. In terms of a modern use and an increase in safety, they do typically allow that on the secondary façade. The Commission discussed the relocation of the door on the back of the house. The HPC previously approved moving the door on the first floor away from it being in line with the door to the basement. The proposed move of the basement door will realign the doors. Mr. Dixon feels it is a fairly minor modification and realigning the doors, based on the fact that they were previously aligned, is a reasonable modification and request. Ms. Baker added that neither door opening is historic; it was originally toward the south. There was additional discussion on the finish of the foundation. Ms. Kindt stated that it should look like it does now, whether cementitious or not. Mr. Dixon added that EIFS wouldn’t look the same. It is an extruded product that would add thickness to the wall assembly and therefore wouldn’t look the same. It must be a direct applied finish of one kind or another. Mr. Dixon acknowledged that he doesn’t have the experience to say whether cementitious or acrylic is better or worse. He feels that comes down to a maintenance concern of the owners. Ms. Baker asked if the Commission wants a painted finish or cement look finish. She suggested offering the option to paint it if they desire to do so. Mr. Dixon agreed. Since it is currently painted, they could paint it or leave it natural if they’d like to. There was no disagreement from other Commissioners. Mr. Dixon recalled from testimony that they are recreating all of the historic basement windows and matching dimensions, location, etc., which has already been approved. Mr. Dixon noted that they didn’t clarify the head height of the window. Mr. Dixon asked the head height for the new egress window. Mr. Byl explained that because they would like to have egress it would make the head height 19” below the top of the wall; the top of the new window will not align with the other windows. He also clarified that they would like to add a 40” x 24” window on the north side. It would be toward the road. It would match the two existing in the foundation on that side. Ms. Baker referred to packet page 292 noting what the proposed change is. She stated that she would be comfortable offering staff approval with respect to the window change proposed. Essentially, they will continue the rhythm on the driveway. There are two existing windows but Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 23 June 21, 2023 none toward the front of the façade. They want to continue that rhythm by adding one in the solid surface of the north wall. Mr. Dixon noted that that is included in the blue prints. Ms. Baker agreed. It is the same on the other side. Mr. Dixon clarified that the east-most windows on the side elevations are to be new openings/windows. Based on the fact that those are repetitions of an existing pattern and that they are located roughly aligned with the window above in the main structure, and being on a secondary elevation, Mr. Dixon finds it to be a minor modification for a new use. There was no disagreement. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 341 Charles SE, per the application, engineering report, and testimony with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 & 10 with the stipulation that the exterior face of the new foundation have a direct applied trowel parged finish. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Heather VanWormer Motion by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, supported by Mr. Simmons, to adjourn for a brief recess. Motion carried unanimously. G. WEALTHY & PROSPECT - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT WEALTHY & PROSPECT - REQUEST APPROVAL OF DESIGN FOR NORTHEAST BUILDING Ms. Baker related that this is the Wealthy, Prospect, Lafayette project and they are back before the Commission to discuss formal approval of all design elements, features, finishes and materials for the northeast-most L-shaped building/the corner of Prospect and Wealthy. They intend to come at a later date for the second portion of the development. Ms. Baker recalled that the massing, scale, and placement was already approved. Ms. Baker noted that the application is fairly thorough. She noted that the windows have a variety of operations. They are fiberglass windows and samples have been provided. Doors are also fiberglass, all full-light with the exception of the fiberglass sliding doors, which are full- Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 24 June 21, 2023 light with different operation. Siding is smooth finish, fiber cement clapboard style siding with a 4” reveal with a fiber cement shake for accent. All trim and ornamental panels are also fiber cement with smooth finish. All stoops are concrete. Entry canopies are aluminum, 3’ x 5’, and 7” tall. Rear balconies are 4’ deep with aluminum rails and composite flooring. The garage doors will be overhead, raised panel, metal material. The porch at the corner has a concrete base and 8” x 8” square wood columns and wood rails. Ms. Baker related that the applicant has submitted some clarifications, which she sent out to them earlier. The submitted clarifications are in the packet. All of the questions she had have been answered. Anything listed as staff awaiting has been addressed. They have submitted updated elevations so the Commission can see the west side of both the residential and commercial structures. Ms. Baker stated that the building really hasn’t changed in terms of design from what the Commission saw last month during the Advisory Discussion; more detail has been provided. Ms. Kindt recalled from Ms. Baker’s request for clarifications that it talked about the balcony top rail terminating into the post. It appeared from the elevations that it still had the aluminum one going over the top. Ms. Baker’s understanding of his comment responses is that it is supposed to terminate into the post. Ms. Kindt clarified that they aren’t reviewing the location of the AC units this evening. Ms. Baker felt those should have been addressed during the site review. Ms. Kindt recalled from one of the sheets sent to them today that one of the balconies on the back side of the Wealthy building showed the rail at 36”. A guardrail would be required to be 42”. She asked if they approve the rail at 36”, if they override building code/safety. Ms. Baker replied that they can. It is stronger to do so on an actual porch than a back balcony. In the past they have allowed for something taller. When looking at what is consistent and appropriate for the neighborhood, it still looks consistent and appropriate for the neighborhood like a front porch. On new construction the HPC has never approved a 42” high front porch rail; they have always been lower. Mr. Dixon’s understanding is that they allowed that on a front porch rail because it is still within building code to do so if it isn’t more than a 30” drop from the porch to grade. Ms. Baker stated that if the drop is under 30” you don’t need a rail. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed that they have approved the lower rail height many times. Architect Greg Schmidt was present on behalf of the request. The guardrails are intended to be 36” per the residential building code. The top rails for the back balconies terminate at the post. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 25 June 21, 2023 The posts don’t rise higher than the top rail’ they are also 36” in height but the top rail is not continuous across the post. Mr. Dixon asked if they will be doing the townhomes under the residential code and the corner building under the commercial code and separating them with a fire wall. Mr. Schmidt agreed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that the porch at the corner of Wealthy and Prospect doesn’t have a handrail on the steps. He believes that will be required by building code. He asked the material for that rail. Mr. Schmidt agreed that a rail will be required; it was an omission. The handrail will be the same material as the guardrail; painted wood with the same spindles. The one thing that will be different is that it will have a post at the bottom. In all of the other locations they are spanning the rail between the porch columns. Mr. Dixon asked that Mr. Schmidt describe the window profile samples that were brought in. Mr. Schmidt related that the windows proposed are the Marvin Essential Line. It is a full fiberglass unit. Mr. Schmidt noted that he has provided samples of the casement and single hung windows. The third sample is also a Marvin product with the same fiberglass on the outside. It is for all of the swing doors both at the entries and the back balconies. Mr. Schmidt noted that the samples represent three different color options and they haven’t decided on colors. The drawings currently show black but they aren’t presenting colors at this time. Their understanding is they don’t need to present colors except for the brick. Ms. Baker agreed that the brick color will have to be reviewed. Mr. Schmidt stated that the corner building is brick and they are evaluating brick colors and types for both the northwest building and the small building. They aren’t at the point that they are ready to propose a brick today. Mr. Dixon asked if the only sliding doors remaining are on the inside of the U of the building. Mr. Schmidt replied the inside of the L. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon noted that they’ve seen most of this before. The only real change he noted was the change from sliding doors to swinging doors on the front elevation. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled that he wasn’t at the previous meeting. He asked for a summary of the discussion regarding having two door leaves swinging or sliding on a front elevation. That seems to be a departure from the pattern of the neighborhood. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 26 June 21, 2023 Mr. Dixon didn’t recall that that was discussed at the last meeting; having two leaves. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if that was approved. Ms. Baker replied that it was an Advisory Discussion. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that the floor plans seem to indicate one hinged door and one fixed side light. Mr. Schmidt stated that the elevation is not correct. What they intend there is that only one of the leaves would be operable. It is not intended to be detailed like a side light; it is more like a fixed leaf door. It would be two identical leaves where only one side is operable. It is commonly seen more on patio uses but they felt it was more appropriate here than a door and side lights. Mr. Schmidt stated that what he likes is the symmetry and he wanted to maintain that symmetry. They could have achieved it with a single swing door and double side lights but he preferred this design. He believes there are some examples in Heritage Hill. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that he is ambivalent about the double leaf door with one fixed. Ms. Baker noted that there is an example of that type of door on Prospect. Mr. Dixon asked the applicant forward. He noted from the elevations that it reads that the doors are not at the same level as the porch. There is a trim board at the base of the door. Mr. Schmidt agreed. There is a step out of the door onto the stoop. That is true of both the double and single doors. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez acknowledged that the double doors do exist at 421 and 427 Prospect. Ms. Baker added that they are also located a few doors down. Mr. Dixon stated that he doesn’t have a problem with having a step up into the doors but he does have a problem with the trim coming down and wrapping the bottom of the door. He feels it needs a concrete sill or step of some kind, something that unifies it with the porch. Right now they are reading as patios and he believes that the intent of the design is to mimic more of a traditional townhome where this would be the main entry to the structure. He feels the trim needs to return to the patio level and you need to have a separate entry step there of some kind. Ms. Chapman related that she is struggling with what is labeled as R; large Hardi panels between the second and third floors and at the bottom of the second floor. The relief is too large as a single piece. It doesn’t strike her as proportional to the rest of the façade. She would like to see more relief there. Knowing how Hardi behaves she would be concerned that would begin to warp or bow out. Mr. Dixon indicated that would be his primary concern. He is comfortable with it visually based on the fact that it is new construction. He can agree to it as a contemporary definer but he agrees Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 27 June 21, 2023 that he would be concerned about an uninterrupted panel that large, based on the behavior of the material. Ms. Chapman also commented on the proportion of the window trim. It is the same at the sill, sides, and at the head. Sometimes, especially in Heritage Hill, there is rich detailing at the trim or the head might be expressed or sill might be dropped a bit. She feels it could go a step further to make things a bit more interesting. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if she would want to see a sill stool that has a different depth than the rest of the casing. Ms. Chapman replied perhaps; just one more level of detail than a single plain. Mr. Dixon stated that he doesn’t disagree. It is likely he wouldn’t have articulated it that way but looking at it and considering whether that will be a detractor to the neighborhood, based on the fact that this is new construction, he doesn’t personally find it to be egregious enough to throw a red flag on it. It seems like the intention is to keep things as simple and almost as stark as possible while also respecting the visual forms of more historic architecture in order to draw a distinct line between this being new construction vs. historic. Therefore, he is willing to accept a couple of those things as head nods in that direction. Ms. Kindt agreed. Under Standards 9 & 10 she sees it as identifying itself as not historic. They wouldn’t want them to copy something ornate that doesn’t fit a newer building. Mr. Dixon related that the advice he typically gives his clients for new elements on a historic property is simple, streamlined, and keep it clean. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if having a window sill would be overdoing it. Mr. Dixon replied no. He doesn’t feel it would have a negative impact on surrounding buildings however. Ms. Kindt agreed with the longevity concerns of the Hardi panels. Also, having that big of a panel, the flat surface, and the bump outs on a townhome is something she is trying to figure out. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if the brackets that hold out the second story bays are called out in terms of material. Ms. Baker replied it is in the side profile; aluminum clad. Mr. Dixon noted that the issues of concern are the trim and the panels. He personally doesn’t find them to detract from the neighborhood. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. He would prefer to see window casing terminate on a window sill. However, he isn’t sure that in this case, with this being new construction, that it doesn’t Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 28 June 21, 2023 fulfill the Standards. However, the casing that extends around the bottom of the doors is not appropriate. Mr. Dixon agreed. That is an identifiable form/feature of every other building found in this district. He doesn’t feel saying it is a delineator of new construction is justification. The side trim should not continue along the bottom of the door. It should terminate in a sill or step of some kind. He clarified that his comment relates to the doors. Mr. Dixon suggested a condition that the doors need to have a threshold or sill at which the side trim terminates, which can be approved by staff. He would also be comfortable with staff approval of the porch handrail. There is no approval of the brick color as part of this submittal. All were in agreement. Ms. Baker clarified that the Commission is approving brick, just not the color at this time. Ms. Kindt asked if all are comfortable with the exposed concrete under the storefront windows. Mr. Dixon felt that is a modern interpretation. He doesn’t want to override the energy code. It must be insulated and can’t just be a turned up portion of the slab. Ms. Kindt stated that she is comfortable with the mix of double hung and casement windows. Mr. Dixon agreed. In his experience, fiberglass profiles are a near enough match to historic wood profiles as to be something that can be approved. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the northeast building of the Wealthy Prospect project with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 & 10, with the stipulations that the omitted porch railings be approved by staff; that the condition of the exterior door threshold be approved by staff; and that the applicant return with final selections for brick colors. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Thomas Simmons YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Heather VanWormer VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 29 June 21, 2023 1. 553 FULTON E - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 553 FULTON E -ADVISORY DISCUSSION - ADDING DORMERS It was noted that the property owner/applicant was not present. Ms. Baker related that the property owner is asking for feedback on whether or not one or two new dormers on this house is potentially feasible. They are illustrated as looking very similar to the historic one, which is something that can be adjusted. Adding a dormer to the rear/north is one option. The other, less specific drawing, is trying to show the same thing on the east roofline. They are trying to get a little better use of the large amount of space in the attic. They are wondering if one or the other, or potentially both are even feasible. The house is pretty well intact with the exception of the front porch rail; it was historically brick with no roof over it. Over the years the brick was lost. All of the homes around it are similar; craftsman style. Mr. Simmons asked if they are asking for dormers of equal proportions on the side and back. Ms. Baker replied that is what is being suggested. It is a relatively large dormer. Mr. Dixon stated that for him the argument will hinge on the need for the new dormer. Per the letter submitted, it is for additional head room and natural light in the attic. He would like to hear more about that. Ms. Baker suspects there is no dire need but rather a desire to utilize the space. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that in theory he has no issues with having dormers. They are functionally very appropriate to roofs of all different scales and styles. Dormers take a wide variety of size, shape and character. In his mind it hinges more on whether they will be able to differentiate in a compatible way. He usually errs on the side of harmony rather than something discontinuous and jarringly different but that would be on them to design it in a way that does that. Mr. Dixon agreed. He doesn’t feel the roofing material can be considered to be a character defining feature of the property so he doesn’t have concern destroying some asphalt shingles. Ms. Kindt stated that for her it is also the visibility from the street and some of the symmetry in the façade and how that will be maintained or complemented. On the back/north it would be less visible and she would be more comfortable with that one. If they want to go on the sides where it will be visible it would be interesting to see how they could make that work. Ms. Baker suggested the Commission offer general thoughts on a back dormer. Mr. Dixon felt the size and proportion they’ve shown is in keeping. It will be how it is articulated. They need to be careful to do it sympathetically so it isn’t jarring but it shouldn’t be a copy of the one on the front. Others were in agreement. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 30 June 21, 2023 Ms. Baker asked about the dormer proposed on the east. Ms. Chapman stated that she agrees with the comment about it not feeling balanced from the street view. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that he is struggling to understand how perceptible it would be from the street. Mr. Dixon suggested they be careful about whether it is visible from the street. That isn’t technically what their charge is. They are given some leeway for things on secondary elevations. Ms. Baker advised that one consideration is looking at the mass and scale of the structure and the mass and scale of the roof. What would an east dormer do to the roof configuration and the layout, which is an important feature. Mr. Dixon noted that it is a hip and it is long and sleek. The roof structure is symmetrical and a straight shot from the front to the back. Putting a dormer in the back would likely be an easier discussion to have. Ms. Chapman referred to packet page 347 stating that you would definitely see a side dormer. The consensus was to potentially pursue the rear facing option. IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 7:47 PM