Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 October 4, 2023 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Dixon, VanWormer Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from September 6, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas Simmons SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Heather VanWormer IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF COA'S STAFF ISSUED CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 16 Portsmouth NE 119 Union NE 157 Campbell NE 228 James SE 316 Henry SE 327 Henry SE 327 Paris SE 340 Robey SE 340 Union SE 437 Prospect SE 501 Morris SE 527 Crescent NE 604 Evans SE 607 Union SE 710 Wealthy SE 831 Fairmount SE 921 Fairmount SE Motion by Ms. Chapman, supported by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, to approve the Certificates of Appropriateness issued by staff. Motion carried unanimously. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dru Chapman SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Heather VanWormer Generated 10/9/2023 10:13 AM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 October 4, 2023 V. Old Business A. 946 CHERRY SE - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 946 CHERRY SE - REQUESTING RETENTION OF SIDING AND ADDITION Ms. Baker recalled that in 2022 the HPC issued a CoA for renovation work to the structure that included replacement of the first-floor aluminum siding with a smooth finish fiber cement, replacing all of the windows, new storefront windows, and west ADA access. The structure in question dates to around the 1880’s but it was significantly altered over the years and holds no integrity. It is considered non-contributing to the district. Any review of the building is in reference only to how it affects contributing structures around it and the historic environment. During the renovation project the scope of the work expanded and, through unfortunate health issues and other circumstances, the work was undertaken without first getting approval. The applicant is present asking to retain four items. Ms. Baker displayed a before photo. On the second floor there was a wide reveal aluminum siding. It is now 4” reveal smooth finish fiber cement. There was also previously decorative brick, approximately 1960’s vintage and painted, on the corner and that was removed and the previously approved vertical board and batten siding was continued over it. On the east elevation there was a recessed entry near the back that has been infilled and the façade made one flush wall with a window. On the rear there was a series of additions. Ms. Baker’s understanding is that when they dug into the back area it was completely rotted so they needed to reconstruct. They essentially consolidated the additions into one two- story addition. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if there was any indication in historic images about the origin of the east recessed opening/how long it has been there. Ms. Baker replied no. The only thing visible is the northeast corner of the building and it is from a half block down the street. Bruce Kwekel was present on behalf of BDD Construction. He explained that when the owner asked them to remove the brick he didn’t see any difficulty since they had a photo from, he believes, 1928. At that point there was a door in that corner and no brick. There was also no mansard roof. When they removed the air conditioners and installed central air it resulted in a large hole and you couldn’t get brick to match, which is why they pulled that off. With respect to the work done on the back, Mr. Kwekel explained that he got a call from his cardiologist relating that he had calcification in his arteries and he had an appointment the following week. That appointment likely saved his life as he had 80% blockage. The crew continued to work and found it to be completely rotted. They made repairs. They didn’t add any square footage to it. It was an open stairway and windows that resemble the window in the back. All of the water ran down the back and spilled onto the sidewalk, freezing during the winter, and the stairs were rotted. With respect to the side door, Mr. Kwekel deferred to the property owner for an explanation of that change. The property owner added, with respect to the brick, that he recalls his father putting that brick on approximately 45 years ago. A drunk driver hit the building, which actually occurred twice. They installed the brick and moved the door over to the side. As it relates to the side door facing Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 October 4, 2023 Warren, it was a gathering area for people hanging out. They would get ice cream and leave all the garbage in the area. There were cement sides and small children would jump off of it, which they felt was dangerous. With the step sticking out into the sidewalk they felt it would be better to make it flush. It was also an issue of noise at times for those working in the office. The door was never used by staff or clients, they always came through the front entrance, which they changed to the side and were able to create the ADA access. From their perspective there was no use of that door and it was a hazard. Mr. Bruinsma asked if he knew why they used the brick 50 years ago. The owner replied that it is likely because his uncle did brick work. His father had his uncle put the brick up because if a car hits it it would likely do more damage to the car than the building. Ms. Kindt invited public comment; there was none. The HPC addressed each of the points individually, beginning with the second floor aluminum siding replacement with smooth fiber cement clapboard. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez had no issue with that change considering it is likely an improvement to what was there with respect to the local guidelines and Standards. Ms. Chapman agreed. The material was also approved for the first story. With respect to the removal of the corner brick and installation of the vertical fiber cement siding, Ms. Chapman noted that it is a non-contributing structure to the district and the brick work was done outside the period of significance. Mr. Bruinsma added that it is compatible with what was already approved and they removed something that was incompatible. Aesthetically it seems to be an improvement overall. Ms. Kindt agreed. Overall, the siding changes help the building to look a bit more continuous and not detract from other historic areas in the district. The Commission commented on the removal of the east recessed entry. Considering that it is a non-contributing building, Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that they have no evidence to support the purpose or history of that entrance. He has no objection to the change. Mr. Bruinsma added that he can’t think of a reason to preserve that, although it was an architectural feature, albeit outside the period of significance. He feels they would have approved it had it been requested before the work was done. Ms. Kindt agreed with the points made, as well as the safety concerns and trash that the applicant mentioned during testimony. The Commission addressed the final item of combining the rear additions into one. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 October 4, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez again noted that it is a non-contributing building and they have no evidence to support the historic merit of any of those previous additions. It seems there is no risk in removing them and combining them into a single, well configured addition. It has no negative impact on the surrounding contributing buildings. Ms. Kindt agreed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness with the specific findings that the work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #s 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kwekel related that when they were doing the deconstruction, they found an old stained- glass window in the wall that may have been original to the building. They installed it between the entry and the conference room. They couldn’t use it outside because of the condition. He suggested Commissioners stop in and look at it if in the area. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Thomas Simmons YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Heather VanWormer B. 100 SHELDON SE - LOCAL LANDMARK 100 SHELDON SE - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY BRACING Ms. Baker related that this is a local landmark. It was a Seventh Day Adventist Church for quite a long time. In 2019 they received a CoA for installation of temporary bracing to stabilize the northeast tower of the building, which was having masonry issues. They were given 24 months to help them go through a planning process. Shortly thereafter, COVID hit and everything got pushed back. They returned in 2021 asking for a reset of that time line. It was approved with the caveat of returning after 12 months for a progress report, which they did in August of 2022. It is now the end of the initial 24 months. They have nearly completed the strategic plan for their entire campus, including the structure. Their goal is to present to the congregation in early 2024. They are asking for another 24 month extension as they continue through their process of finishing the plan and figuring out how to address the building. If granted, the extension would take it out to October 4, 2025. They are amenable to returning in 12 months with a progress report. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if it is a two year extension to stabilize the structure or a two year extension to provide an update. Ms. Baker replied that will depend on how their process proceeds. She doesn’t know that there will be physical work beginning within the two-year period. The extension would be extending Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 October 4, 2023 the ability to retain the temporary stabilization for a minimum of two more years. At the end of two years the HPC could impose a completion date or continue to work with them depending on where they are at. Ms. Baker recommended a condition of the 12-month progress report. Ms. Kindt asked if the applicant mentioned any signs of shifting or changes. Ms. Baker replied that they said they hadn’t noticed anything new. It was stabilized pretty well. There was no applicant present. Ms. Kindt invited public comment; there was none. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that it is a very unique structure that is worthy of attention. It is probably in very delicate condition and deserves all the planning required to stabilize it for the future. He has no issue with an extension of the temporary shoring and agrees it would be appropriate to ask for an update after 12 months. Ms. Chapman agreed. Ms. Kindt also agreed. It is a big undertaking, especially to get an entire congregation to have a master plan and agree, as well as do fund raising. Mr. Bruinsma suggested when they come back in a year with an update it may be worth requiring a specific examination to determine if there has been any movement or change; a reevaluation of the temporary shoring up of the structure. Ms. Chapman wondered if it would be too much to ask for an anticipated schedule at the time of the 12-month update. Others agreed with both suggestions. Mr. Simmons noted that it has been 3 years. Ms. Chapman MOVED TO APPROVE A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION with the stipulation that the applicant provide a 12-month progress report, including a sealed structural report and a proposed timeline for repair. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: GRANTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dru Chapman SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Heather VanWormer C. 318 DIAMOND SE - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 318 DIAMOND SE - REQUESTING AN EXTENSION TO CORRECT DOORS Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 October 4, 2023 Ms. Baker related that in 2021 the property owner received a complaint notice for replacing the two front doors without a permit. They requested to retain the doors and the HPC denied the request finding that the doors were inappropriate and required that they be replaced by June, 2022. The owner found some reclaimed doors that staff approved. She worked on them for some time and when she tried to put them in they didn’t work. She was given an extension to September 1, 2023. She is now requesting another extension until October 4, 2024 as she has been working on replacing the furnace, doing work on the foundation, and having difficulty finding adequate door replacements. Ms. Baker responded to Mr. Bruinsma explaining that the replacement doors need to be all wood and match the doors that were removed. In the past, where corrections have lingered, the Commission has issued an extension with the caveat that it would be the last one. The applicant was not in attendance. Ms. Kindt invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Simmons indicated he is comfortable with an additional one year extension with the caveat that it is the final extension. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that he feels empathetic about this being the final extension because it does sound like the owner has done a lot of other work to stabilize the structure. They haven’t provided any information regarding financial hardship but he can appreciate how difficult that can be and the unknowns. Ms. Chapman was comfortable with a final one-year extension. Mr. Bruinsma agreed since it sounds like the renovations are complete. A year seems reasonable to save up some money and put new doors on. Ms. Kindt recalled from the owner’s email in the packet that she mentioned the foundation needs to be addressed. Therefore, she doesn’t believe the renovation is complete. Ms. Kindt is torn on this request. The process began in March, 2021 so it has been two and a half years. She also understands the financial impact and trying to get contractors and have quality work done, especially the costs associated with furnace and foundation repairs. There was additional discussion regarding whether it should be stipulated that this is the final extension, requiring a progress report in six months, and how enforcement would proceed if the work isn’t completed during the extension period. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO GRANT a 12-month extension with the caveat that this will be the final extension to replace the two doors. SUPPORTED by Ms. Chapman. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 October 4, 2023 RESULT: GRANTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Dru Chapman YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Heather VanWormer D. 101 FULTON E - LOCAL LANDMARK 101 FULTON E - MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Ms. Baker pointed out that this property is a Local Landmark. The building in question is a contributing feature to a Local Landmark. It is not a stand alone item and it is necessary for the Commission to take into consideration what the context is, which is the park itself and nothing outside of it. Ms. Baker recalled that in 2022 they proposed and were approved to do some work to the building for the adaptive reuse. At that time it was proposed to have shorter mechanical equipment in what is a patio near the north corner with the decorative balustrades in it. The units weren’t to be any higher than the balustrades. As they continued doing work, it became clear that in order to meet code requirements the units would have to be larger. The applicant is back for consideration of options of possible placement, all within the north patio location. Option one is to position them perpendicular to the building and placed on the curb. Placing it on the curb raises it 9”. It would be approximately 29” taller than the balustrades. Another aspect of this placement is that it would put a substantial amount of it in line with a solid building wall. Ms. Baker again noted that it would be taller than the balustrades and by putting it in this location on the curb it raises the equipment up to where it begins to impede on the raised panel details below the windows. Option two is orienting them perpendicular but placed at grade. It brings it down 9” in height, dropping it well below the panels, but it would still be approximately 20” taller than the balustrades. Option three is to orient them parallel with one unit on the curb and the other on the patio. The location on the curb begins to infringe on the panels and putting it at grade does not. Ms. Baker displayed images of the options proposed and of the mechanical units. Photos of the park and an image of the overall park plan were also displayed. Ms. Kindt clarified that the previous application infilled the opening where they are now looking to place the unit on the slab. Ms. Baker agreed. Previously there was a grate that covered the access to the lower level. The curb is actually the daylight well you can see down into. Ms. Kindt recalled that they infilled it with sand and poured a 4” slab on top. Ms. Baker agreed adding that everything was done to be removable. Dan Harding, Ghafari Associates, related that they are the architect for the project. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 October 4, 2023 Ms. Kindt recalled that the packet had some description of the other locations considered. She asked that Mr. Harding provide further details. Mr. Harding explained that on the back side of the building is a patio for the coffee shop that they created using stones from the original fountain. Therefore, that area isn’t a good location for the mechanical units. To the south and north of the building there are stairways and you can’t get through the stairway with the mechanical lines. Additionally, on the south side approximately 12’ from the building is a memorial so they wouldn’t want to locate them near that. As you go to the north side of the building there is a pump room underground that has the pumps for the fountain mechanicals. There are stairs and a walkway on the other side of that and then there is the electrical service that serves the building, park and street lighting for the area that they don’t want to cross over. The final option is the other side of the building. When before the HPC previously the intent was to infill those areas because they were basically blocked off with bar grating to keep people out and it wasn’t very attractive. They infilled them and on the south side it would be a patio for seating. The north side they saw as having the mechanical units. They had hoped they would be shorter. The mechanical code requires that they provide mechanical heating and cooling for the building because of the proposed use. In addition, OSHA requires that they provide cooling for the workers in the area they are making coffee because the equipment generates quite a bit of heat. The mechanical engineer calculated that it was 100+ degrees. Cooling requires condensing units so they considered where they could put them. Again, they thought they would be shorter and hide behind the balustrade. As they went through the systems, a traditional furnace type system one would have in their home has duct work and the size of the duct work inside the building took up quite a bit of space. The building is 900 sq. ft. and includes a bathroom and stairway to the lower level so there is really only about 700 sq. ft. of actual area. The coffee shop area is in the middle of that. They are nearly done with the renovations and the final element is the mechanical units. When the units arrived, the size that they are, they realized they would have an issue and contacted Ms. Baker. Mr. Harding related that they did look at other types of units. The advantage of the selected units is their thin refrigerant lines that can basically go down through a pipe in the wall so they don’t have a lot of duct work or space being consumed by the mechanicals. The system itself is very efficient in that it is a heat pump system provides both heating and cooling. They knew they didn’t want to put window shakers in the windows and also that they wouldn’t be allowed. Mr. Harding further related that they had considered screening with a decorative fence with perforated metal screening behind it on that section of the patio area. Ms. Kindt clarified that the mechanical units are on site. Mr. Harding agreed that they are on site and the supplier will not take them back, which they understand is their problem. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked the status of the decorative metal screening. Mr. Harding explained that that is something they had submitted as part of the original permit set and Ms. Baker nixed that. At that time they talked about a smaller unit but the smaller units didn’t come to pass. They have recently looked into smaller units and there is a smaller unit option but it is also a smaller performing unit as well and wouldn’t perform in the extremes of Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 October 4, 2023 heat and cold and it was only 9” shorter so it didn’t change much of the impact. They will have to have condensing units somewhere in order to provide cooling. Mr. Bruinsma asked their preference for the location of the units. Mr. Harding felt he could make a case for either. If placed perpendicular they have a narrower profile as you are looking at the building. If placed parallel you see them less as you are driving by the building. He would definitely suggest putting them on the lower platform to keep them lower. If placed parallel and painted the same color of the building he feels they would disappear more. If placed perpendicular they can tuck into the corner up against the stair a bit tighter because of the working clearances required around the equipment. Ms. Kindt asked Mr. Harding to provide more detail on the slab infill. Mr. Harding explained that they did a masonry wall, setback about 18” from the existing building, and built that up as a wall to support the end of the slab. It is somewhat of a retaining wall but not a real retaining wall because there isn’t much pushing on it. It was then infilled with sand and capped with concrete so that it could all be removed. The slab is independent of the retaining wall. The reason they have a curb is so they could put the grates for the window well up a bit higher to protect the opening a bit more. Mr. Simmons asked if they could lower the slab; take it out and repour it. Mr. Harding explained that there is a stair that goes down into what was originally the comfort station. You would go down approximately 3’ and there was a landing and then down another 2’ to get to the lower level. They would possibly be able to put one unit at the lower elevation and the second unit would probably have to be at the landing but then that also opens that area up to the problems they had in the past and the reason they covered it with grating. Ms. Kindt invited public comment; there was none. Based on the applicant’s testimony, Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recognized that none of this is an afterthought but rather the consequence of site constraints, mechanical code, OSHA, and the constraints of what units they are able to purchase that meet their needs. It makes sense that they need to have a unit like this and it is the size it is. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez appreciates the detail they went into to consider alternative locations but the best one, although not perfect, is the location presented. All else being equal, he would be in favor of units that are lower vs. higher so not installed on the curb. If weighing visual impact, he is always in favor of deferring to the impact it would have on the pedestrian experience of the resource. Whichever orientation is least obtrusive to a pedestrian is the option he would be in support of. He believes that would be perpendicular to the building. Ms. Chapman feels that parallel to the sidewalk would be preferable for the pedestrian experience. As you are approaching it you would be seeing the narrower dimension. You are rarely looking at a building head on. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 October 4, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez clarified that he was thinking of the experience as one walks up the front steps rather than down the block. He can see an argument for either. Ms. Chapman agreed with Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez that they have to make the assumption that they are at the point of choosing between these options. She is convinced the team has done their due diligence. Ms. Kindt understands it is a difficult site. She prefers the lower location. She had wondered if they could lower the cap slab to have them appear smaller. However, that doesn’t seem reasonable. Therefore, based on the local guidelines, the lower location obscures the building. She recalled Ms. Baker mentioning that the context is the park so it is on the side away from the park essentially making the building the screen from that direction. Ms. Chapman wondered if the sidewalk counts as part of the park. Ms. Baker clarified that the park starts at the interior edge of the sidewalk. Ms. Chapman recognizes that dropping the slab is likely not desired from a scheduling standpoint. Ms. Kindt clarified that it would still be level but the slab would be lower. She is sure they would prefer not to back track on the work that has been completed. Mr. Bruinsma doesn’t feel the units will diminish the historic character of the site or building. The guidelines direct the least alteration possible and least visible is important. They are satisfying those, especially with the intention of painting them to match the building. It is really important that the lines will be buried and not visible; it will just be the boxes. It is really just a foot higher than what was previously approved. He doesn’t feel that is a huge deviation. Ms. Chapman felt that lowering the slab would be a hefty task. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez added that it would seem the slab height was determined by the stairs below. Ms. Kindt added that lowering the slab would likely cause more damage to the historic resources than the visual impact the units will have. Ms. Chapman understands that there was discussion of metal screening. She asked if there was any discussion about landscape screening. Ms. Baker asked if any type of screening would begin to make the inside courtyard feel even more solid. Is that more or less intrusive? Ms. Kindt feels comfortable with the placement at the lower elevation on the slab as it is now. The question is whether the orientation should be perpendicular or parallel. Screening of any kind seems to create issues of its own. The goal is to not obstruct the building but what is the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 October 4, 2023 preference; as you move up the stairs or from the sidewalk. Packet page 182 has an image where it tucks behind the stair a bit better. Ms. Chapman suggested there are more pedestrians on the sidewalk than accessing the stair. She would lean toward the parallel orientation. Mr. Bruinsma stated that if placed at the lower elevation his biggest concern is how far it sticks above. For him the orientation doesn’t have a significant impact. Ms. Kindt asked if the Commission is open to either orientation and leave the decision to the applicant. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez indicated he would be open to either orientation. It may be more valuable for the architect to have the opportunity to see them and make a determination on the site. Ms. Kindt agreed adding that the direction the lines come out and the required clearances may have an impact on the decision. She asked if they could stipulate in the motion that they make the units and lines as inconspicuous as possible. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez thanked the applicant for the diagrams provided in the application. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO APPROVE the amendment to the Certificate of Appropriateness as proposed, at the lower level, with the stipulation that the mechanical units be painted to blend in to the side of the building and that the lines are installed in the least conspicuous manner possible and that the units be pushed toward the curb, based on the Local Historic Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #s 2, 5, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Heather VanWormer VI. New Business A. 955 CHERRY SE - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 955 CHERRY SE - REQUEST FOR INTERIOR REEDED SASH Ms. Baker introduced the request explaining that the building in question is the Boulevard House, which is a local landmark as well as part of the historic district. The wing in question dates to 1912 and is not part of the original construction in 1874. Ms. Baker explained that there is an opening in the east elevation. It has a window in it. They aren’t proposing to change the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 October 4, 2023 opening at all or remove the window. They basically want to install a new sash on the inside that has reeded glass to afford some privacy between the users of the building and the users of the adjacent patio. Because it is in a window and is doing something that affects the exterior is the reason it is before the Commission. Based on her research, Ms. Baker found that in the 30’s there were no windows or openings in the subject façade. Historically it likely had one but it was gone sometime between 1912 and 1936. The window and opening are not historic. Ms. Kindt wished to clarify that the patio and building next door are non-contributing. Ms. Baker agreed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if there would be any value in having staff approve the final material sample. Ms. Baker indicated that she would do that as part of the building permit package. Chris and Allaire Swart were present on behalf of the request. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if they’ve selected a specific product for the glazing. Mr. Swart replied that they are meeting with their designers and general contractor tomorrow and will be looking at some materials. He isn’t sure they’ll have glass samples at that time but their mill worker is supposed to be in conversation with glass providers to find the best fit. Ms. Kindt clarified that the reeded glass would be clear but with reeded pattern; it won’t be frosted. Mr. Swart agreed. It will have 100% light transparency with no tinting or frosting of any sort. Ms. Kindt invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt stated that she likes they are retaining the existing window. As noted, it is a non- historic location and opening. The proposed work would be entirely removable. It is a minimal change to keep two functioning uses. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. Ms. Chapman agreed. It is a minimal change for a new use. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness with the stipulation that staff review the glazing prior to installation and with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #s 1, 2, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 October 4, 2023 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Thomas Simmons YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Heather VanWormer B. 532 PARIS SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 532 PARIS SE - REQUEST TO ALTER REAR WINDOW OPENING Ms. Baker presented the request to remove a rear window unit with three ganged casement windows, drop the sill height and install a new wood window unit with three ganged casement windows. The head height, width, and trim would remain the same. The sill height would drop approximately 14”. The reason they would like to drop the sill is to take it closer to the countertop to have better visibility into the back yard. The remainder of the house is all wood, double hung windows. There are a couple of fixed windows in the staircase. There are no other casement windows. When looking at the back façade there is no symmetry to it. None of the openings are the same size. The only thing they have in common is that they are double hung, with the exception of the casements. Mr. Bruinsma asked if there is any reason to understand why the window is in that location and that size. Was it around a porch or something? Ms. Baker replied no. The side porch seen in the photo is historic to the house. It may have been a remodel. It does stand out from everything else on the house. Ms. Kindt recalled from the packet that it likely isn’t a historic window unit or operation. She asked if that is accurate. Ms. Baker felt it was very likely a later addition to the home. Ms. Kindt asked if the plan is to retain the trim at the head and jamb since the height is remaining the same. Ms. Baker replied affirmatively. They would just have to replace the casing on the side and install a new sill. Earl and Linda Oakley were present on behalf of the request. Mr. Oakley stated that the reason they are making the request is they can’t see into their back yard when standing at the sink. They have a beautiful back yard so they would like to drop the sill 14” and maintain the width. He explained that they bought the house in 2020 and haven’t done anything to the window. He believes the kitchen was remodeled sometime within the last 15-20 years and that may have been when the current window was installed. There are seven houses on Paris of this craftsman style. He has walked in the back and looked at them and every one of them is different. Team Restoration will be doing the work and the wood window information has been provided to Ms. Baker. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 October 4, 2023 Ms. Kindt invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Bruinsma stated that the rear architecture of homes in the area is interesting. They rarely make sense likely because no one wanted to see what was in the back yard at the time and now they do. The increase in window size is a minor change. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. He supports the application specifically because the windows to be removed are not believed to be original to the house and are not supporting any meaningful symmetry or composition on the rear façade. Mr. Bruinsma asked if any historic material will be destroyed, such as clapboard. Mr. Oakley explained that Team Restoration will use as much of the original material as possible. Ms. Kindt recalled a recent request to raise the sill height because it was right on the counter top. She recommended leaving some backsplash. Ms. Chapman MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #s 2, 9 &10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dru Chapman SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Heather VanWormer C. 736 CHERRY SE - CHERRY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 736 CHERRY SE - REQUEST TO RETAIN NEW DOORS Ms. Baker related that the applicant has requested the matter be tabled to the November 1st meeting. There is currently a sale pending and the new owners would like to be in attendance as they will be accepting the responsibility of any required corrections. Motion by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, supported by Mr. Simmons, to TABLE TO THE MEETING OF 11/1/2023. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 15 October 4, 2023 RESULT: TABLED OPEN [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Thomas Simmons YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Heather VanWormer D. 59 COMMERCE SW - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 59 COMMERCE SW - REQUEST FOR NEW STOREFRONT Ms. Baker related that the subject building was constructed in 1926. While it has had a few alterations to the front, it is still a contributing structure to the district. There are five items being requested. In the back there is a 1960’s addition to the structure with a metal overhead door that they wish to remove and install a man door, flush metal, and infill the surrounding space with cement block to match the existing wall. The front façade does have the original historic columns, the center door opening, and the opening to the north is in alignment with what was there historically. The opening to the south has been a bit more altered over the years; it used to have two openings. The project would be to remove the mansard roof. They are requesting to work with staff on some of the detailing because they don’t know what is or isn’t underneath it. If the Commission finds this application appropriate, they would like the Commission to defer some of that detailing to staff, which includes the installation of a wood sign band. Placement of the sign band is what they are seeking to work with staff on, depending on what they find once the mansard is removed. They would also like to remove all of the infill and replace it with an aluminum storefront system with wood bulkhead below, giving more glass expansion to the openings than is there currently. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that they are requesting to work with staff after the demolition. He asked if they are uncertain of the total structural height of the brick wall or they are uncertain about whether or not there are blemishes that a sign band could obscure. Ms. Baker deferred to the applicant for an explanation. She believes it is based on the fact that they don’t know what they will find. Is it painted brick, is the brick even there any more, etc. Ms. Baker continued relating that the center door will be a full light aluminum door. One thing different is that they are requesting a walk-up service window, which is a drum service window. It would project approximately 6” past the face of the glass. The owner is requesting that type of service window for security. Ms. Kindt asked if the drum window would be reviewed under the building code. Ms. Baker agreed that the Building and Planning Departments would look at it and they will have to prove it isn’t extending into the public right-of-way. An HPC approval wouldn’t override that. They may need a special permit for it to extend into the right-of-way. Lisa Miller, Lott3Metz Architecture, expanded on the sign band. She explained that they pulled a bit of the canopy away and it appears that there is some painted brick above. Without knowing the condition of the brick above they wanted to propose a wood sign band to help them transition Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 16 October 4, 2023 from the original columns, which are unpainted masonry, to probably having to either repair the brick and paint it or something like that. The band would be the transition between materials. They would scale it appropriately. There are a couple of buildings on the street that have some trim work at the pedestrian level that they will look to for scale purposes. With respect to the spinning window, it was a request of the owner. The use will be a restaurant/bar. They have a successful restaurant in Jenison and they do a lot of take out. They are expecting that the take out window could possibly be a big part of their business. They wanted to have a window with a level of safety because of the night time hours. It allows them to do the transaction through the spinning door and not have to open a window in the larger opening. Ms. Miller explained further that what they are proposing is to design the storefront with 3 equal divisions; they aren’t designing the storefront around the service window. They would have an insert, built as a frame for the spinning window, that could be easily removable in the future. It wouldn’t disrupt the layout of the storefront. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if it is the size of the sign band that is to be determined or its location. Ms. Miller replied a little of both. They don’t know what the condition is across the whole face. They know that historically there was some painted lettering there. Once they open it up they can determine what the sign band needs to be and come back for the signage and how it interacts with the façade. Ms. Kindt invited public comment; there was none. The Commission discussed each of the five requests as laid out in the staff report. Ms. Kindt began the discussion with the non-historic metal overhead door. She feels comfortable with the proposed change as it is a non-historic addition. They are infilling it partially with material that wont detract from the surrounding district. The Commission agreed. They also felt that the second item, removal of the mansard, was appropriate. The proposed wood sign band was discussed. Ms. Kindt noted that they are considering material, size and placement. Mr. Simmons feels it is a good way to proceed; working with staff once the mansard is removed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. Ms. Baker asked, on the off chance that the original material all remains, does the Commission agree it should be retained. The Commission agreed. They are comfortable with them doing some site investigation work and working with staff. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 17 October 4, 2023 The Commission was comfortable with the proposed storefront replacement. The final item of discussion was the proposed drum take out window. Ms. Chapman appreciates that the drum is removable. They aren’t creating a new opening for the device. It would be going within the storefront system so it isn’t damaging any of the structure. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed that it wouldn’t damage any historic material but he has concerns about the visual impact on the historic streetscape. A rotating drum extending beyond the plane of the building likely wouldn’t be seen historically in this context. Furthermore, while he appreciates the owners concerns for security, he isn’t so certain he is willing to introduce infrastructure for security that only reinforces a negative perception. Mr. Bruinsma agreed. Ms. Chapman appreciated Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez’s comments about not perpetuating a negative perception yet it is difficult to argue the desire for safety for employees. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez argued that there are dozens of restaurants in Heartside that offer take out at all hours and none have asked for a drum window. He is concerned about feeding into a negative perception of a neighborhood by introducing this kind of infrastructure. Ms. Baker asked that the Commission reference the guidelines. Mr. Bruinsma feels Standard 9 addresses the matter. Ms. Chapman finds that is appropriate per Standard 9 because it is to be differentiated from the old that it is set within a new proposed storefront. Ms. Baker stated that it has to be both compatible and differentiated. Mr. Bruinsma suggested imagining the drum with the historic painted sign. It would be conflicting. He understands what Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez is saying about drawing attention to negative aspects of the area. Additionally, they’ve seen a lot of buildings offer food to go with sliding, flush windows. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez suggested imagining there wasn’t a profile at all. The impact for him, with respect to the Standards, is that it introduces a new element to a historic storefront that would not be compatible with a traditional storefront. Ms. Kindt referred to the local guidelines noting that it speaks to new storefronts following historic storefront patterns along the historic streetscape including proportion, scale, display windows, bulkheads, cornices, and recessed entries. This isn’t something seen in this area historically or currently. It is changeable and the proportions of the storefront system are based on the opening and the infill could basically be swapped out for a new glazed panel. However, they do need to take into account the impact on the district. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 18 October 4, 2023 Mr. Bruinsma feels that minimizing the impact would be to find an alternative way to make it safe without being incompatible. Ms. Kindt asked if it is the projection or the drum itself that the Commission finds incompatible. Would something similar, recessed, be appropriate or does it need to be less obtrusive visually? Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez replied less obtrusive visually. Ms. Chapman feels it needs to be in a similar plane. Ms. Baker asked if they went with a standard walk up window with no shelf if that would be staff approvable or need to return to the Commission. Anything projecting would have to come back to the Commission. The Commission felt it could be staff reviewed. Ms. Miller asked if the Commission was referring to alternate sliding windows. Ms. Kindt explained that they are trying to determine a less visually obtrusive option that won’t have as much impact on the district. Ms. Miller explained that she did do some research on the sliding windows. They used them before at Donkey. They are a lot larger window and it was more visually impactful to have a sliding window introduced. It is another type of operation. She felt the proposed was more minimal because of its square footage. It is a very small piece on this façade vs. the larger standard sliding window. It was a much larger window and she would have to divide the windows in two vs. three. Ms. Kindt asked if there was a sliding window that could be installed within a larger unit to allow her to keep the proportions of the storefront. Ms. Miller replied that she would have to have an asymmetrical storefront. One side would be divided into three and the other would have to be divided into two because the slider windows are 48” wide. The 48” dimension is a standard take out window. She suggested they are designed to be more car friendly vs. pedestrian friendly. The drum fit the concept of the balanced storefront. Mr. Bruinsma asked the dimensions of the window panes. Ms. Miller replied approximately 30” wide. She believes the overall windows are close to 9’ wide so they are likely 36”. Ms. Kindt recalled that Hopcat has a sliding service window. She asked if that was something they designed. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 19 October 4, 2023 Ms. Miller agreed that is likely smaller than 48”. Ms. Kindt suggested that they are thinking a sliding window would be appropriate because of the flat plane. However, there are also those that open in. Ms. Miller explained further that when she did her research to look at these she found that there are all sorts of different take out windows downtown, although she doesn’t know if they’ve all been approved. She views this as a minimal change. ATM machines are a much larger, modern convenience and she has seen those a lot in Heartside also. She felt this would be a minimal change to the storefront that could easily be removed. Commissioners felt there was likely a service window that could fit within the width of the pane. Ms. Kindt indicated she would support tabling that portion of the request for the applicant to explore additional options. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels that is appropriate. He appreciates how thoughtful they were proportioning the store front. It is a well-proportioned storefront that is very compatible with the building and district. He would like to see this small addition as unobtrusive as possible. If that means tabling to allow them to fully explore their options, he would support that. Mr. Bruinsma stated that windows are an important architectural component. It won’t be similar to an ATM machine or something else fading in. Ms. Kindt feels there are more options available for them to explore Ms. Chapman MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for items 1 - 4 as listed in the staff report dated October 4, 2023, and per testimony, based on 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, 3, 6, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO TABLE item #5 from the staff report dated October 4, 2023 - that the northernmost storefront panel would include a rotating drum service window - to allow the applicant to fully explore alternatives that will fit the proposed storefront proportions. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. E. 212 UNION SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 212 UNION AVE SE - REQUEST TO RETAIN EXTERIOR LINE SETS. Ms. Baker related that the applicant has requested the matter be tabled to the November 1st meeting due to an unexpected family emergency. Motion by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, supported by Ms. Chapman, to TABLE TO THE MEETING OF 11/1/2023. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 20 October 4, 2023 RESULT: TABLED OPEN [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Dru Chapman YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Heather VanWormer F. 300 WEALTHY SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT WPL - REQUEST APPROVAL NORTHWEST BUILDING Ms. Baker explained that this is the last portion of the development to come before the HPC for this project. She recalled that the HPC already approved the location on the site, footprint, massing and scale. The HPC has seen concepts for this particular building; the west-most building and U-shaped structure at Lafayette and Wealthy. It has not significantly changed from what the Commission saw as conceptual. The extra story on the top has been reduced in size considerably. More detail has been provided for all of the elevations. The Commission is considering design, materials and finishes for the building. Greg Schmidt, Indigo Design & Development, was present on behalf of the request. He related that he is presenting the western building. It is primarily brick clad with some Hardi siding. Ms. Kindt referred to the renderings noting that the first story appears to be a darker brick. She asked if there will be a difference between the first story and the upper stories. Mr. Schmidt indicated that they are envisioning a difference. They didn’t want to try to replicate any type of historic detailing but they wanted to recognize the purpose of some of the features in more historical buildings. One of those is a differentiation of how the windows are expressed on the first floor and how windows could be expressed on floors two and three. One way to do that is to provide some type of a horizontal expression. It could contain signage or be another building material. They propose suggesting that line by a change of material. It also establishes the entire base as being somewhat different from levels two and three. Mr. Schmidt presented some brick samples identifying the color pallet for levels two and three. The darkest brick from the blend is proposed for the base. They have been exploring options with the brick supplier. They may not be there yet with the selection of the bottom brick; they may need to go a little darker. However, that is the intent. Changing the color is an obvious thing. They were trying to be somewhat subtle and considered other options which would potentially change the texture of the brick but keep the same color. They were also considering changing the grout color in the base of the building but maintaining the same brick throughout as a way of differentiating. At this point they felt comfortable with going with a darker brick as the most appropriate way to achieve the look they want. Ms. Kindt stated that since they can’t dictate color, the intention is that there is some differentiation on the first floor that hasn’t completely been determined yet. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if they’ve selected a mortar color. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 21 October 4, 2023 Mr. Schmidt replied that for the upper floors it would be natural. It would only be colored on the lower level if they aren’t satisfied with the darker brick to achieve the differentiation they want. In working with the brick company and the mason they fully intend to do mock ups to evaluate the choices in a manner other than renderings. Ms. Kindt asked if the vertical recess lines are a 1” recess. Mr. Schmidt agreed. It will be a modular brick recessed in between the townhome units. It extends from the brick cornice down to a 1” protruding horizontal soldier course at the first floor level. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if the blind openings on the other side of the storefront on the corner would also be recessed. Mr. Schmidt agreed. Ms. Chapman asked if the exposed architectural header at the bottom floor aluminum store front will be a continuation of the storefront material. Mr. Schmidt replied affirmatively that it is aluminum. The idea initially was that it would be flush with the storefront. If there is an opportunity to protrude that an inch or so from the storefront that might be desirable once they get into that level of detail. It will be minimal however. Ms. Kindt recognized that on the balcony a Hardi fascia is noted around the sides. From below will the wood framing be visible? Mr. Schmidt explained that that was actually an error. It was intended to be an aluminum frame balcony. On the chamfered corner there is a balcony with a composite deck material on the top but in all cases, whether a balcony or Juliet balconies, it would have an aluminum soffit panel on the bottom of the balconies to cover the framing of the underside of the decking. In the case of the balconies, on the chamfered edge, it will be 3 or 4 inch soffit panels that connect to each other and on the Juliet balconies a single panel may be used and you wouldn’t see the individual lines. Ms. Kindt asked about the sill of the double hung windows. In the rendering it appears to be a 2” cast stone or the slope of the sill. Mr. Schmidt clarified that it is the slope of the sill and metal flashing. There will be a flashing detail but they aren’t intending to put any type of brick row lock under the windows. It would be a more contemporary detail. Above the windows they have a soldier course header that is flush with the surrounding brick. They don’t want to emphasize that but did want to provide some type of detail. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 22 October 4, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if they have determined locations for control joints in the masonry. Mr. Schmidt replied no but he understands that it can dramatically affect the appearance of the exterior. Ms. Kindt asked if they anticipate the mechanical units on the roof being visible from the sidewalk and other areas within the district. Mr. Schmidt replied no, especially considering that the site slopes down as you go west. They don’t have the size of the units yet but they have positioned them intentionally away from the edge as far as they could. You can see just a couple inches of them in the elevation drawing but in the prospectives at street level you really can’t see them. Mr. Bruinsma noted that the windows look a little different. He asked what they’ve done with those. Mr. Schmidt explained that because of what is happening on the interior of the unit they changed the size of the windows. Previously they had two sliding door units side by side on each one of the townhome units. They replaced one of those 5’ wide openings with a double hung window. It primarily had to do with what was happening on the inside of the building but he doesn’t feel it is detrimental to the façade. He feels it is an appropriate window proportion and similar to adjacent buildings with the punched, vertically oriented window openings. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked the approximate size of the slider units on the balconies. Mr. Schmidt replied that he believes they are 30” width leaves for a total of 60” and 6’10” tall. Ms. Kindt invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt began the discussion with the proposed materials; brick and Hardi siding. Ms. Chapman feels the materials are compatible with materials previously approved on other buildings in the PUD and they are compatible with the surroundings. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. He appreciates the effort the applicant is making to materially differentiate the first floor from the upper floors. It creates a proportion which is historically appropriate. He wondered about a subcommittee to review the mockups of the brick. Mr. Bruinsma suggested approving as proposed and that they return if the brick color changes. Ms. Kindt was apprehensive about approving as proposed because there wasn’t a lot of difference in the color of the brick for the first floor. She feels they need to see the final selection and mortar color. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 23 October 4, 2023 Additional discussion took place regarding the brick color selection. The Commission further considered a subcommittee as well as approval in concept of the materials with final approval by staff. The consensus was to table approval of the brick. The understanding is the brick will be a blend of red/brown with natural mortar. Ms. Chapman finds the Hardi siding to be compatible with what was previously approved and with the larger historic district. Ms. Kindt agreed adding that it creates some continuity between the buildings on the site, which complements yet still differentiates itself from the district. She noted that aluminum brake metal is proposed around the balconies and metal handrails. She is comfortable with the use of that material. It is compatible with the district but is a slightly more modern interpretation of some of the items strictly in the guidelines regarding balcony rails. The Commission was in agreement regarding the aluminum brake metal and handrails. Windows and doors were discussed. Ms. Kindt noted that they are proposed as fiberglass and fiberglass clad wood. She recalled they talked about those materials on the other buildings as being compatible with the district and not a detriment. The Commission agreed. Ms. Kindt asked for comments regarding the opening proportions of the windows and doors, as well as the stoops. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if slider doors were discussed on the previous review. Ms. Baker recalled that they were. Ms. Kindt recalled that at one point they were proposed as French doors and were changed to sliders on the other building. Mr. Bruinsma feels the ratio of solids to openings are more compatible with the removal of the second slider. Instead of the second slider it is a double hung window next to a slider. Ms. Chapman feels the changes are subtle and thoughtful and based on the comments given in the previous meeting. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that he generally finds sliders on a front façade odd. However, these proportions look very compatible with the district Ms. Kindt stated that with the minimal profile difference between how you would see a slider vs. a French door or a single swing opening she feels the change is so minimal. She is comfortable if they find that the sliders are more functional for their floor plans. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 24 October 4, 2023 Ms. Kindt asked about the differentiation of the brick on the façade with the recesses and cornice and the cap stone. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that the cornice is very minimal. He understands that is a contemporary interpretation and well within the guidelines. The vertical recess is a nice way to differentiate these as townhouses vs. apartments. He doesn’t feel it is a detriment to the historic character of the district. Ms. Kindt agreed; it was a nice way to break up the façade so it didn’t look like a very large plane of brick. She wondered about the chamfered corner where they have punched openings with the inset. They seem to be the same proportion as the window, which she can see keeping the alignment. However, it almost looked like a window that has been bricked in already even though it is a new building. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels blind openings are very useful and a common compositional technique on a façade. He likes that it is there as opposed to a larger mass of brick. He asked how the chamfered corner will be resolved; will it be cut brick, toothed or mitered? Mr. Schmidt explained that what they would like to do is have a custom brick made that is basically an angle; it matches the angle of the building. The angles on either edge aren’t the same so they would be two custom molds. It won’t be a zipper edge; it would be a straight, clean edge. Ms. Kindt added that the finish would be the same since it is molded that way and not because it was cut. Mr. Schmidt agreed. One thing they want to make sure is that it isn’t the same color brick just on the edge. They want to make sure there is a variation even on the edge pieces. Ms. Kindt moved on to the garage doors, which are steel with raised panel. Ms. Baker indicated that they are the same doors as approved for the other building. Ms. Kindt noted that the roof top addition is smaller and is finished in the Hardi siding. She wonders what the visibility of the mechanical units on the rooftop will be. As you’re walking on the same side of the street, and possibly even on the other side which is technically out of the district, she doesn’t believe they will be very visible. She wonders about coming down the hill on Wealthy if they will be visible. Ms. Kindt wondered about tabling for more evidence, more examples or a prospective of west bound Wealthy St. If it can be shown that they aren’t very visible that would be fine but if they will be visible from within the district they may wish to consider screening. They could also accept the applicant’s testimony that they will be minimally visible. Ms. Baker advised that if the size of the roof top units changes substantially, she would bring that back to the Commission. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 25 October 4, 2023 The storefront system was discussed. Ms. Chapman feels the proposed is proportionate to the building and district. Ms. Kindt agreed. It partners well with the other building on the site. They complement each other so that it feels like a cohesive development that differentiates itself from the historic district but is still compatible. Mr. Bruinsma agreed. Ms. Kindt asked if the Commission is comfortable with the exposed concrete base. As the grade steps down there will be portions of that exposed above grade. She noted that is the case with the other building as well. The Commission was comfortable with that. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, with the stipulation that the applicant return with brick and mortar samples for further review, with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Thomas Simmons YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Heather VanWormer VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion 1. ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE - DECK GUIDELINE MODIFICATION DRAFT Ms. Baker explained that several of the changes were just to clean it up so it makes better sense. She briefly reviewed the other changes. The Commission was comfortable with the proposed changes. IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 7:27 pm