Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 September 6, 2023 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from August 2, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF REPORT STAFF APPROVED COA PERMITS 11 Ionia SW 24 Fountain NE 124 Lafayette NE 211 Henry SE 217 Henry SE 226 College NE 240 Paris SE 265 Henry SE 309 Crescent NE 318 Paris SE 422 Fountain NE 450 Fountain NE 452 Union SE 454 Wealthy SE RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Dru Chapman YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman V. Old Business A. 710 WEALTHY SE - CHERRY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 710 WEALTHY SE - ALTERATIONS TO REAR BUILDING Ms. Baker recalled that this project was approved by the HPC in 2021. It involved renovating the historic commercial building fronting Wealthy as well as the building behind it. While Generated 9/12/2023 4:27 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 September 6, 2023 renovating the rear building there were some changes made on-site. They are present to request retention of those changes. The building in question is non-contributing to the District. Additionally, the south boundary of the District is basically the rear property line of the site. Both buildings to the west are also non-contributing modern buildings. Ms. Baker displayed and described the approved plans. It was basically to retain the roof slope, retain two existing masonry walls, replace the plywood on the north and west side with masonry units, install aluminum windows on the back, and install two overhead doors and a man door on the north elevation. Ms. Baker displayed the plans that were executed. Instead of doing masonry units on the north and west they used a rough textured LP clapboard style siding, installed a single overhead door and a man door on the north elevation and installed glass block in the south elevation openings. The dumpster enclosure was not added to the west wall. The applicant is requesting to retain those changes. Ms. Baker displayed images of the completed work. Ms. Baker reiterated that it is a non-contributing building and the HPC’s review is solely based on the potential impacts to the surrounding historic environment and contributing historic buildings. Mr. Dixon asked if it is correct that the glass block windows are not visible from within the District and located on the south wall of the District. Ms. Baker agreed. Eric Wynsma, Terra Firma Development, stated that the building in question is the storage building; an accessory building to the main structure. They purchased it a couple of years ago and had a long-term tenant lined up for the building. Due to some COVID related issues the restaurant tenant decided not to go forward. The plan the tenant had for the rear building is what was submitted to the HPC for approval. Mr. Wynsma related that he didn’t catch all of that and when the tenant fell through, they went back to their speculative renovation of the building. The original plans for renovation, which the HPC never saw, is the work that was completed. They retained the two existing masonry walls. The two plywood particle board walls that were very dilapidated were replaced with similar material; wood. They chose a pre-finished wood product and that was installed. The submittal packet included two overhead doors, which were unique to the use by the tenant. Mr. Wynsma stated that they fully acknowledge that differences exist between what was approved and what was completed. The window openings had been infilled with plywood. Presumably they had windows or glass block in them at one time; they don’t know which. The site abuts a public parking area so from a security standpoint they installed glass block. The entirety of the roof structure was demolished and replaced as originally built. They matched the slope and dimensions and installed a new rubber membrane to make it water- tight. Mr. Wynsma believes that at one time the HPC also approved the option to demolish the entire building. They chose not to do that as it has some practical advantages. It also makes the back yard of the main building more private for the eventual tenant they now have, which is Mammoth Distilling. They will be activating the alley between the subject property and the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 September 6, 2023 building next door, as well as the rear yard space, for retail purposes. The subject building will be used for storage and he believes also where they will locate their dumpster. Ms. Van Wormer asked if the dumpster will be moved outside each time it is to be emptied. Mr. Wynsma replied that he believes they will be using a residential rolling cart since it isn’t going to be a food service establishment. Mr. Bruinsma asked the specific building material used to cover where the old wood was. Ms. Baker replied LP siding. Mr. Dixon explained it is a bonded wood grain product. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez commented on the glass block windows noting that the local guidelines state that glass block windows are generally not appropriate and the only potential feasible location is in basement windows and under certain conditions. He strongly believes in reinforcing the local guidelines by holding true to that. However, finding that the southern edge of the district is basically the property line of this building and it is on the rear of the structure, surrounded by non-contributing buildings and it is not contributing in and of itself. Additionally, they don’t know what the original glazing was. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels that while it is generally not appropriate, and for good reason, this is a circumstance in which he believes an argument could be made to retain glass block in this location. Ms. Kindt agreed. Additionally, the adjacency to a public parking lot adds to the argument for retention. Mr. Dixon commented on the siding used. Typically, a weathered wood texture is not allowed; it is to be flat because a weathered wood texture is meant to look like old wood. That being said, this is a non-contributing building that is hardly visible from within the District and surrounded by non-contributing buildings. While he is typically a strong enforcer of the idea that a request to retain be reviewed as a fresh application, as if the work had not yet been done, to him this is a small enough deviation on a secondary building, surrounded by other non-contributing structures. Ms. Baker clarified that the HPC is reviewing this request as a new application; as if the work has not been done yet. Mr. Dixon clarified that the HPC is typically very strong enforcers of the fact that the work already having been done is not a criteria for approval. Ms. Kindt added that since it is a non-contributing building they consider how it impacts the historic district. She feels the change in siding and change in openings doesn’t have a negative impact on the district. It continues to maintain the scale and the historic patterns in the area. She doesn’t feel the changes are something they would have denied upfront. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 September 6, 2023 Mr. Bruinsma personally feels the faux wood grain takes it down a notch for the area. However, it is in the alley. He would have recommended not using that material. Ms. Baker advised that the HPC would have to find that the use of the material is not impactful to the contributing structures in order to approve. Ms. Van Wormer stated that when considering site and environment she is comfortable with the request. She doesn’t feel anything impacts the site and environment substantially enough to deny the request. Mr. Dixon doesn’t feel this has a negative impact on the surrounding district based on the fact that most of the locations you can view it from are either not in the district or surrounded by other non-contributing structures. Mr. Bruinsma disagreed. However, it isn’t a huge impact. People will be out in the yard looking at the siding, which probably shouldn’t have been faux wood grain. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 710 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 #s 1, 2, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Chapman. YEAS: 6. NAYS: 1 (Bruinsma). MOTION CARRIED. RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 1] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Dru Chapman YEAS: Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman NAYS: Peter Bruinsma B. 553 FULTON E - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 553 FULTON E - REQUEST TO ADD A REAR DORMER Ms. Baker recalled that this application was tabled at the last meeting to provide the owner time to supply additional information to address numerous questions that came up at the meeting. The request is to build a small dormer on the rear. New information received indicates the owner has decided to use stucco for the exterior vs. EIFS, the dormer will not have eave brackets, rake returns or muntins within the window frame to differentiate it from the front dormer. Additional photos of the historic dormer at the front were also provided. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that there appears to be a kick out slope on the primary slope of the dormer. Is that to be included on the new dormer. Ms. Baker replied that it isn’t in the drawing. She suggested verifying with the applicant. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked what there will be instead of a rake soffit return. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 September 6, 2023 Ms. Baker replied her understanding is it will be the basic rake. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that the bottom of the side soffits of the dormer are horizontal to the horizon. Without some kind of return, you have to reconcile the geometry between the sloped portion of the roof and the flat soffit. Ms. Baker deferred to the applicant. Ms. Kindt asked if a soffit material was identified. Ms. Baker replied that all trim will be wood to match the profile of the existing dormer. However, the proposed dormer is slightly smaller so everything will be scaled accordingly. Ms. Kindt asked if that goes for the flat trim around the windows that has a bead at the edge. Ms. Baker agreed. Ms. Chapman noted that the elevation provided of the new dormer appears to have a rake return. Ms. Baker agreed that it did. There were some things she had to verify with the owner because they weren’t called out. Derek Krajewski was present on behalf of the request. He explained that he is looking for feedback as to how to make the proposed dormer addition most appropriate. He is looking to build a dormer to add space into the attic area. The other option would have been a skylight to add light. His preference is for a dormer. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that he loves the project, in concept. He is a champion of all different ways to gently add density. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez appreciates the applicant taking the time to consider their feedback. He is thrilled with the choice to use stucco. Mr. DeMaagd- Rodriguez noted that on the existing dormer there is the primary slope of the gable and then it goes to a slightly smaller slope where it meets the soffit. He asked if the proposed dormer will also have that feature. Mr. Krajewski explained that the proposed dormer shown in the sketch does have that. He had originally planned to have the kick backs. However, he is happy to do the standard flush roof. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez clarified that the slope of the roof will have a single angle and not kick out. Mr. Krajewski agreed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels either option is acceptable. He just wished to clarify the intent. Mr. Dixon clarified that either option is acceptable to Mr. Krajewski. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 September 6, 2023 Mr. Krajewski agreed. If the added slant and kick backs are too similar to the existing then he is happy to eliminate those and do the standard roof; whatever the Commission feels is more appropriate. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that from his reading of the Standards either option can be done in a way that is appropriate and differentiated. With respect to the rake eave returns, the part of the side soffit that turns the corner around the front, he feels it would be a good idea to retain that element simply because there is a flat soffit and where that meets an angled roof there is a triangle shaped gap. Pork chop eaves should be avoided. A rake return is an excellent way to reconcile that geometry and he doesn’t feel that is too closely appropriating the original architecture. Mr. Dixon agreed. From a technical standpoint, there is a finite number of ways to do that detail and the existing dormer is a better detail than a pork chop edge, which would not be appropriate. Ms. Chapman agreed, if you want a flat soffit. If amenable to a single slope, then you wouldn’t need a return. She would rather not design by committee. Mr. Krajewski noted that the neighboring house has flat and you can see the rafters whereas his house has the kick back. He is happy to maintain the soffit and add the rake return to keep it in line with the house and different than the neighboring house, which is how it was shown in the drawing. Mr. Dixon stated that he appreciates the difficulty that the requirement for differentiation presents. It is a fine line. Mr. Simmons indicated he would like to see a new drawing of what is actually proposed. He doesn’t mean to hold the project up but there are a lot of things involved. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon noted that the drawing they are considering shows the dormer elevation with the rake returns. From the scale of the drawings, it is difficult to tell whether there is a flared out secondary slope or not. It is also difficult to see trim detailing. Mr. Simmons and Ms. Chapman agreed. Mr. Bruinsma noted however that the staff report indicates no rake returns, brackets or muntins. Mr. Dixon summarized that the drawings they have no longer match the verbal description of the project. Ms. Chapman recognized that, in general, the Commission seems to be comfortable with the single slope or the double slope with a flat soffit. She doesn’t wish to direct the applicant one way or another but would like to see the intent in drawing form. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 September 6, 2023 Mr. Dixon pointed out that if they are going to request additional drawings then they would table and would typically send the applicant away with some sort of direction. Mr. Simmons explained that he doesn’t want to see a repeat of what happened in the previous case and that what is approved is what gets built. Ms. Van Wormer indicated that she would be more comfortable if the written description in the staff report and the drawings matched. Mr. Bruinsma expressed his appreciation for the applicant’s presence. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. The intent and prototype is built; it is on the front of the house. If he says he is going to differentiate it by not including brackets and by not having muntins in the window then he feels they could approve, with the exception of reconciling what the gable to soffit eave condition is going to look like. If he says he would like to follow suit with what already exists on the house, Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels that is enough. The onus is then on the applicant to ensure the contractors do what is appropriate. Tabling for greater detail in the drawings would likely provide more confidence for the Commission but the fact that the applicant has testified that he would like to follow as closely what already exists, has provided overall dimensions, and how he will differentiate it satisfies Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. Additional discussion took place regarding whether new drawings should be required. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez suggested a motion to approve with the condition that the roof and eave conditions match the existing dormer on the front of the house, with the exception of the eave brackets with the option for the kick outs. Mr. Dixon asked Ms. Chapman if her objection is to the design as proposed or that they shouldn’t be dictating design. Ms. Chapman replied that she doesn’t feel they should be designing by committee; they can provide feedback and direction. She also continues to disagree there is sufficient differentiation. She believes this checks the box where an addition needs to be proportionally smaller. However, if someone proposed an addition that was just a smaller version of their house would that be okay just because it was smaller. She doesn’t feel differentiation and smaller are the same thing. Ms. Kindt responded indicating she doesn’t feel they are designing it; they are using the drawing provided and removing the discrepancies between some of the testimony and what was in the rest of the packet. She feels the design is there but that it got confusing when trying to understand what the options were and some of the discrepancies in the packet. Mr. Dixon agreed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 553 Fulton E with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #’s 2, 3, 9 & 10, with the following conditions: Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 September 6, 2023 · The roof and eave conditions are to match those existing on the front of the house · Differentiation shall occur without the inclusion of brackets and with windows without muntins. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. YEAS: 6. NAYS: 1 (Chapman). MOTION CARRIED. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [6 TO 1] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons NAYS: Dru Chapman VI. New Business A. 450 LAFAYETTE SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 450 LAFAYETTE SE - REQUEST TO REPLACE EXISTING REPLACEMENT WINDOWS Ms. Baker explained that the owner is requesting to replace 23 non-historic, ill-fitting, replacement windows that were installed in 2000. The windows installed were the completely wrong size resulting in a significant amount of filler around each of them. The only thing they replicated of the historic windows is the ratios; they were historically cottage style in areas and 50/50’s in other areas. They are all rotting. The existing replacement windows are a wood/vinyl hybrid. The wood is rotting out and some of them are falling out and jamb liners are failing. They are proposing to replace them with Anderson Renewal windows that would be sized more appropriately to bring it back as close as possible to the original opening size, fix the trim work and remove all of the fillers. They will continue to match the ratios; cottage style will be replaced with cottage style. Anderson Renewal windows are a fibrex material, which is 40% wood fiber and 60% thermoplastic polymer (vinyl). The product was introduced in the ‘90’s and can be custom made and sized to fit. Ms. Baker related that the couple of remaining historic wood windows are fixed and they will be retained. Ms. Baker clarified for Mr. Dixon that the proposed windows have a different variation of the same materials used in the existing replacement windows. Mr. Bruinsma asked what was used for filler with the existing replacement windows. Ms. Baker displayed a photo noting that they used what ever they had that could be cut down to fit and it goes around every window. The window in the photo shows the filler below but there is actually more that the screen is hiding and that is the case with every window. Mr. Simmons clarified that they are going back to the original sills and frames. Ms. Baker replied as close as they can get. She clarified for Mr. Bruinsma that the framing and everything that came with the replacement windows is in poor condition. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 September 6, 2023 Patrick Boylan, 450 Lafayette NE, and Brett Mahaffey, Renewal by Anderson, were present on behalf of the request. Mr. Boylan related that he works with wood and wood grading and in working in construction and learning about today’s wood products his opinion is that moving to a more modern material might be the best case in this situation considering all the rot, etc. He believes they will be able to seal everything up better. The plan is to keep the house forever and eventually convert it back to a single-family vs. the current upper- and lower-unit situation. The existing windows were replaced in approximately 2010 and are deteriorated. He would like this product to last longer than 15 years. Mr. Dixon recalled Ms. Baker’s testimony that the previous replacement maintained the cottage style windows. He asked if there is any evidence that the original windows were 1/1 cottage windows. Mr. Boylan replied that he does not have any evidence. He displayed a photo that included images of neighboring houses and pointed out that both neighboring houses have cottage windows. Ms. Baker provided Mr. Dixon with the Assessor’s report for the building and it is apparent that they were originally 1/1 cottage double hung windows and the intent is to maintain that. Mr. Boylan agreed. Mr. Mahaffey circulated a sample of the window proposed. Ms. Kindt asked how the profile of the proposed window compares to the fixed historic windows. She understands that fixed will differ from operable. She was interested in the trim profile differences. Mr. Mahaffey related that it appears that quite a few windows may have been moved when additions were put on the back of the house, which was included in his report. It is possible that windows were shifted toward the front of the house. On the front of the house that appears to be the original opening and they can typically remove the rope and weight pocket and get the window in and over to get the widest opening possible with the least amount of trim. They won’t cover anything on the exterior; it will be a small L-shape. Mr. Dixon clarified that Ms. Kindt was asking about the profile of the windows themselves. Mr. Mahaffey related that they are matching double hungs. Mr. Dixon explained that one of the things they are concerned about are the window profiles. A historic wood window profile vs. a vinyl window profile is vastly different. The aim would be toward the historic wood profile. Mr. Mahaffey stated that there are two options on the interior. It can be like the old square where you can put knick knacks on the top or it can be more rounded. What the sash will look like from the exterior is evident from the corner sample provided. It will have the angled beveled edge. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 September 6, 2023 Ms. Kindt asked how that compares to the fixed historic windows that are still on the house. Mr. Mahaffey replied that the fixed windows are not operable and are just actually little squares. He wasn’t able to get up to the third floor. The one on the side of the house is above an entry door. Mr. Boylan added that the one above the entry door doesn’t open; it is for light. The attic is accessible through the upstairs tenant’s ceiling; it isn’t an easily accessible attic. Ms. Baker circulated a photo of the historic window above the door. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled that the application noted that a similar product has been used in historic districts elsewhere in the country. He asked if there are any examples. Mr. Boylan provided examples of installations in historic districts in Ypsilanti and Frederick, Maryland. Ms. Baker also related that she sent the question out to the National List Serve and received responses that some have used them in new construction, some in additions, and several in contributing houses that no longer had the historic windows. Mr. Dixon felt it was important to note that all windows proposed for replacement are already replacements. If these were the historic wood windows, they likely wouldn’t be entertaining the same possibility. As they are proposing to replace replacement windows, he is comfortable with the product based on the fact that the profiles of this particular product more closely match a wood window or aluminum clad wood window than vinyl replacement windows. Additionally, the sizes will be more accurate to the historic rough opening. Ms. Baker asked that Mr. Dixon address how the proposed meets the guidelines. Ms. Kindt referred to the Local Guidelines which state that when replacing a non-historic window the new unit will be sized to fit the existing or historic rough openings…The new unit can either duplicate the appearance of the existing window or replicate the missing historic. Mr. Dixon added that it states that if a window or door is completely missing it should be replaced with a new unit based on accurate documentation of the historic or a new design compatible with the historic opening and historic character of the building. He feels there is no argument that the proposed don’t match the historic opening or historic character; they are as close of a match as possible. The Guideline goes on to say that material for the new window will match existing historic windows in the building, including glass. While there is at least one historic window in the building, it is a historic fixed window in a dormer opening that doesn’t have much bearing on the other window openings. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 September 6, 2023 Ms. Van Wormer added that they propose a better fit than the existing replacement windows. The proposed will better fit the historic character and the filler will be eliminated. Ms. Kindt noted that the Guidelines indicate the new unit must match a number of elements of either the existing or historic window, including material. Since they were already replaced with a hybrid material the wood windows no longer exist. Mr. Simmons asked if the proposed are single or double-hung. Mr. Mahaffey replied that they are double hung/both moveable. Mr. Dixon stated that, because the existing windows are not historic, Standards 2, 5, and 6 don’t apply. Standard 9 relates to new elements and whether they will detract from the character of the home. He doesn’t believe that it will. The profiles will similarly match and the historic rough openings will be more closely matched. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO APPROVE a Certificate of Appropriateness for 450 Lafayette SE with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #’s 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion IX. Public Comment 1. 330 EASTERN SE - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 330 EASTERN SE - ADVISORY DISCUSSION - ADDITION Ms. Baker related that the house dates to 1874 as the home for Mr. Fisher, who was a prominent farmer who owned a majority of what is now Fairmount Square. The house later became a girls school followed by a funeral parlor. It was during that time that the garage structure was attached to the north side of the building. The HPC is asked to provide feedback on four potential projects. The proposal is to add a single-story addition off the rear/east side of approximately 1,100 sq. ft., with a flat roof, 45’ x 24’, that would be attached to the garage addition as well as a 1980’s addition. Also proposed is an elevator, carefully placed coming through the 1940’s garage and lining up with one of the second floor windows that would be converted to a door and fit nicely between the roof brackets so none of those details would be affected and would allow ADA access to the second floor. A cover over an open walk is proposed that would essentially Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 September 6, 2023 extend from the existing garage to the new addition. The final component is a pergola that would be attached to the south end of the addition. That component includes a fireplace and a chimney. Jeffery Roberts, property owner, was present for the discussion. He asked the Commission for feedback on what works and doesn’t work from his proposal. The proposed addition is basically because he needs more room for the work he does on site. Mr. Dixon suggested that from a massing and site standpoint, if doing an addition, the proposed is the right location at the back. All of the additions proposed are subservient in scale to the rest of the home. Mr. Bruinsma added that it is in line with the existing structure off the back, and is lower. Mr. Dixon noted that the garage addition took place in 1947. In his mind, based on where the house is located and that the addition is outside the period of significance, the garage addition has not accumulated historic character of its own right. The Commission agreed. Based on that determination, Mr. Dixon stated that having the new structure directly in line with that is acceptable. If it was coming off the historic structure, they would want to see a slight offset to identify where the historic building ended. Mr. Roberts explained that he purposely proposed the subject location because he wants to hide it. He almost removed the 1945-47 addition when he bought the property. He felt it was obtrusive and didn’t work well. However, he needed the space. It was present and is part of the history of the property so he decided to honor it and rehabilitate it for his purposes. He is happy he made that decision. He has gone through several iterations. The first was a detached building that would be in the feeling of the historicalness of the neighborhood. He changed that approach because that wouldn’t be as appropriate as putting an addition on the back of the existing structure. They did an acceptable job on the west façade of somewhat blending it into the brick work, lentils, and window sills. By putting the new building as proposed it loses its vision from the street. Mr. Dixon feels that is the right approach; to embrace the more utilitarian portion of the structure. Otherwise, it would have been a historic home with a utilitarian structure in between two historic looking buildings. Mr. Roberts continued stating that the pergola is added for two reasons. That side of the house is a bit more visible from Wealthy. At some point Wealthy could be developed in such a way that the visibility isn’t as great but it is currently visible. It is also the side of the property where he has eliminated concrete and returned it to green space. That is part of the continued evolution of the property of that area becoming more and more garden-like. By adding the pergola, it also disguises the addition in a way that is more visually pleasing to the garden area. It adds to outdoor living space and provides another buffer from Wealthy. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 September 6, 2023 Ms. Van Wormer expressed her appreciation for the thought that has gone into this. Ms. Kindt related that one thing that stuck out to her when seeing it in the site plan, the scale of the new mass of the studio and pergola is getting larger. The pergola will read as more transparent and lighter, as a garden structure. However, she is watching the scale because what it will end up being is the 1947 garage and the studio addition, which will relate quite a bit to each other in terms of being utilitarian structures. When seeing that mass vs. the mass of the house it begins to read as large and competing. When seeing it on the site, the studio is tucked in the back on the non-character defining façade and the studio only touches that 1947 garage, which is a nice touch. Ms. Kindt just wished to point out that when seeing it they want to make sure that massing is still compatible and subservient. The guidelines state that additions should be 1/3 less than the main house, which this is. However, when seeing it in the site plan view, it will be similar in size to the 1947 garage and begins to look like a large mass. Mr. Roberts asked if she meant the pergola is looking similar in construction style to the studio. Ms. Kindt suggested that as he develops his application that he provide information on the pergola to show the differentiation between the studio. They understand the pergola will look different and lighter. Mr. Roberts referred to the elevation images noting that it shows the pergola and it hints more towards tradition than utilitarian. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if the pergola will have a continuous roof membrane on top of it. Mr. Roberts replied that he was envisioning it being it open, similar to an arbor, with greenery growing up. One wouldn’t want to be under it if raining because they would get wet. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that the model as currently shown makes it feel like a fully enclosed roof, which would have a different effect. To Ms. Kindt’s point, making the pergola more transparent rather than a roofed structure would be appropriate. Mr. Dixon agreed. The whole of the additions shouldn’t overwhelm the existing house. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked the material he has in mind for the proposed chimney. Mr. Roberts replied it would be brick and likely just regular brick, very similar to the brick on the house and painted the same so it blends in. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez felt that would be a good move, letting it recede into the background. Mr. Roberts agreed that he wants it to go away. Under the pergola he would like to use a mantel that was reclaimed from Belgium. It is a vintage, hand carved piece. The structure of the studio he anticipates being cement block, which is what the 1947 structure is. On the wall that creates the back of the pergola, it would be covered with face brick and the chimney would run up and the vintage, hand carved mantel piece would be under the pergola. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 September 6, 2023 Mr. Dixon asked what the material for the dormer form proposed for the new elevator would be. Mr. Roberts replied it would most likely be brick like the rest of the house. They would hold it in place with angle iron from the roof up and build a structure so that what is exposed above the existing roof would be brick and painted to match and blend into the existing structure. He recently replaced the roof on the house and held enough shingles back so if they build the hipped roof dormer over it, it would tie right back in. Ms. Kindt stated that she appreciates the placement of the elevator on the secondary façade and not having to change much on the historic structure by coming off the 1947 garage. Adding ADA accessibility is always appreciated. Mr. Roberts explained that it is a difficult placement from the street level but it does fulfill the requirement for ADA accessibility. It will allow him to live in the house longer, which is basically why he is installing it. It also helps with resale in the future if it is a compliant component. For his personal use he is doing it so that as he ages the stairs become less of an issue. Mr. Dixon referred to the proposed canopy over the walkway. He asked that Mr. Roberts speak to the structure of that, specifically the one column. Mr. Roberts explained that that column shouldn’t be there. It is an existing column because there is currently a small flat roof over the man door. When Integrated Architecture drew it up, he forgot to remove the column. The roof will span building to building in that alcove. Mr. Roberts responded to Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez indicating the roof of the canopy is proposed to be asphalt shingle to match what is on the structure. Using a metal roof would add another material that isn’t present now. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked the material for the fascia of the beam that spans between. Mr. Roberts replied painted wood. All the trim on the house is wood. The pergola will be all wood also and likely have an opaque stain. Mr. Dixon stated that he can’t find any objections to the proposed plans. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. If this had been submitted as an application, with the information just provided verbally, he would be comfortable with approval. Ms. Van Wormer agreed. This is the best advisory submittal they’ve seen. It is well thought through. Mr. Roberts explained that this is likely the third iteration. Ms. Baker has been very helpful and has a wealth of information. They have gone back and forth on this property before he even purchased it so he understood what he could and could not do with the property for his use. He Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 15 September 6, 2023 feels that he is the caretaker of the property and wants to leave it the best way possible for the next person. Mr. Dixon asked what work he does on the site. Mr. Roberts replied that he does architecture and interior design. He approaches his work from being an artist vs. interior design. Mr. Dixon stated that the only thing lacking from an application standpoint is some more detail on materials, windows, etc. It is fairly complete and pretty approvable in its current form. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez added that if the architect will be modeling the final proposal, a perspective from the southwest part of the property would be helpful. Mr. Roberts indicated that he may already have that. Mr. Dixon agreed. The views from the sidewalks along both Wealthy and Eastern would be helpful. X. Adjourn 6:20 PM