Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 November 1, 2023 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Kindt, VanWormer, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Dixon, Rodriguez Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from October 4, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dru Chapman SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, VanWormer, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Michael Rodriguez IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff The staff issued Certificates of Appropriateness will be added next month. V. Old Business A. 59 COMMERCE SW - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 59 COMMERCE SW - SERVICE WINDOW REQUEST Ms. Baker recalled that the applicant presented to the HPC at the October meeting requesting to renovate the building, including new storefront and rear door. The Commission approved the application with the exception of the barrel style service window which was tabled to allow the applicant time to investigate alternative designs. The applicant is present with a new design. The service window is proposed as an inswing sash style. It is 2” thick and will not project into the public right-of-way. It is approximately 7’ tall and 2.5’ wide. It will have aluminum framing and an aluminum panel above so that it fits within the framework of the approved storefront system. Lisa Miller, Lott3Metz Architecture, was present on behalf of the request. As mentioned by Ms. Baker, the HPC asked that they research another solution that fit within the proposed storefront divisions. After looking at different style windows she concluded that the bi-fold window is the best option. She considered a slider window but with that narrow of an opening it was reducing the amount of useable pass-through space because a slider window doesn’t open all the way. The bi-fold window provides the double opening and a larger width to pass items through. Ms. Miller Generated 11/7/2023 2:54 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 November 1, 2023 understands that the bi-fold window is not a traditional window; it is a service window. She would liken it to an ATM or other modern convenience. The unit will fit within the storefront and if removed in the future the balanced storefront remains that was designed for the building and not for the window. Ms. Kindt invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt feels the concerns they expressed have been addressed. The projection has been removed and the proposed is flush with the storefront framing. It also maintains the glazing pattern from the left to the right side of the elevation. Ms. Chapman and Mr. Bruinsma agreed. Ms. Chapman MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 59 Commerce SW with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Van Wormer. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dru Chapman SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, VanWormer, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Michael Rodriguez B. 736 CHERRY SE - CHERRY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 736 CHERRY SE - REQUEST TO RETAIN TWO METAL DOORS RESULT: WITHDRAWN VI. New Business A. 556 WEALTHY SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 556 WEALTHY SE - REQUEST TO RAISE TWO WINDOW SILLS Ms. Baker introduced the request to raise the sill of two windows located on the first floor, west elevation, toward the rear. As is common in some of these homes, the kitchen is fairly small. It has two windows and four doors making it difficult to accommodate counters or cabinets. Ms. Baker explained that she has inspected the windows in question and found them to be seriously deteriorated and candidates for replacement. Rather than replace them totally in kind, they are asking to raise the sill 8” for both to allow for some cabinets within the kitchen space. The head height and width would remain the same. The windows would be all wood, double- hung, to match what is present. The trim and sills would also match what is existing. The infill Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 November 1, 2023 below would be clapboard siding. Ms. Baker suggested, if approved, that the HPC require that the seams be staggered. Ms. Baker displayed a diagram of the current layout of the kitchen, interior photos, and images of the windows themselves. In review of the house, it is asymmetrical in nature. There really isn’t any symmetry to the openings. There are three to four different styles of operation, styles of windows, and even window features. Ms. Kindt clarified that the existing windows are beyond the point of repair. Ms. Baker agreed that they are not reusable. If repaired, she would expect them to last only a couple of years. There is a lot of substantial rot, especially the bottom sashes. Dashiell Kolbe was present on behalf of the request. He had nothing further to add. Ms. Kindt invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Simmons agreed that there is a large variety of windows, both size and function. He doesn’t see how 8” will change much in terms of the character. Ms. Kindt added that the local guidelines talk about the importance of not changing important ratios or symmetry. However, as Ms. Baker mentioned, the windows are in different locations and different sizes. Ms. Chapman added that the general proportion of the subject windows will be maintained. She doesn’t feel it will be a substantial change to a secondary façade. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 556 Wealthy SE with the specific findings that the proposed work, as amended by conditions, complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 &10, with the condition that clapboard siding infill have staggered seams. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Thomas Simmons YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, VanWormer, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Michael Rodriguez B. 250 CHERRY DRIVE - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 250 CHERRY DR SE - REQUEST TO RETAIN SIDING REPAIR Ms. Baker introduced the request. She explained that the house dates to approximately 1896 and has wood clapboard siding that was covered with an Insul-Brick product sometime after 1936. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 November 1, 2023 Insul-Brick is an asphalt product. It was an inexpensive, low-maintenance siding of the time, and very popular from the 1930’s to the 1950’s. It has a faux brick look. This house has the Insul- Brick siding and a small patch of vinyl siding that was installed before the District was designated. It is a contributing structure. Ms. Baker noted that, over time, the Insul-Brick siding does degrade. The portion at the southwest corner had degraded to a point where parts of it were missing and it needed to be replaced; it could no longer be patched. The owner found Insul-Brick siding. It is a match in design and color but hasn’t weathered like the siding on the house. Therefore, it appears a bit darker than the remainder of the house. The reason for bringing it before the Commission is that the design and location it was placed doesn’t match what was there. What was previously there was horizontal faux brick on top of a vertical soldier course that runs around the entire house. What was installed were sheets of horizontal only; there is no vertical soldier course. That brought the replacement out of the realm of an in-kind replacement and changed the design. Ms. Van Wormer asked if it is difficult to find that replacement product. Ms. Baker replied that she was impressed that they found any. It hasn’t been made for a very long time and doesn’t salvage very easily. What was installed appears new. Mr. Bruinsma asked if the product is asbestos backed. Ms. Baker replied typically not. Ms. Kindt clarified that the color is a match but it hasn’t weathered. Ms. Baker agreed. If placed elsewhere on the house it would line up. It has the same configuration. It is the same color it is just new. Ms. Baker doesn’t know where the applicant found the product but when she compared it with the rest of the home, she found that it is the correct material it just doesn’t match the design and the location it is in. Phil Mol was present on behalf of the request. He felt Ms. Baker provided an accurate description. Mr. Mol stated that he is a fan of Insul-Brik. It has an R-value and is made of Celotex; it is basically asphalting covered Celotex, which he learned is a biproduct of sugar cane. Mr. Mol stated that he has a few properties that have Insul-Brick on them. Most are the slate style vs. the brick style. If he comes across it, he saves it. Ms. Kindt asked if he has ever found the soldier course. Mr. Mol replied that it is the rarest to find new because out of a whole project it is only the bottom course that is the soldier course so they didn’t produce it in the same quantities. Additionally, if you happen to find some, the overrun of the project is typically going to be the body of the house vs. the bottom edge. Ms. Kindt invited public comment; there was none. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 November 1, 2023 Ms. Kindt suggested that their first consideration, since the siding was installed after the period of significance, is to determine if the siding has gained its own significance within that time. Ms. Baker clarified that it was after the period of significance so it can’t have significance in its own right. Ms. Kindt clarified then that they are considering the impact to the District. Ms. Baker explained that the house itself is contributing. The HPC must look at the impact to the home itself as well as the surroundings. It is the materiality of it. The siding that is on the house is not a contributing feature to the house. Ms. Van Wormer asked when the Insul-Brick was installed. Ms. Baker replied after 1936. The wood is still present in the 1936 Assessor’s photo. Ms. Chapman asked then if what is contributing is the overall character and volume. Ms. Baker replied it still maintains the overall layout, footprint, roof plane, window openings, windows, the porch. There is still quite a bit of context. The wood siding underneath the Insul- Brick is considered contributing. Ms. Kindt noted that the massing, scale, proportions, window openings, and roof line are still experienced. Ms. Van Wormer added that the Insul-Brick has protected the wood siding underneath. Ms. Kindt feels it would be difficult to find a product that would be the exact correct match of something that hasn’t been manufactured in a long time. Ms. Van Wormer was amazed they found what they did. Mr. Bruinsma suggested it is likely just a matter of time before it all needs to be replaced but, for now, he would guess that a Housing Certification required the repair to the failing siding. Mr. Bruinsma doesn’t feel the patch work looks any worse than it did before. He doesn’t feel it affects the neighborhood negatively in any way. Mr. Bruinsma feels the change would have been approved had the applicant submitted an application prior to installation. It is likely they would have suggested also replacing the vinyl with the Insul-Brick siding. He doesn’t see any reason to deny retention the way it is. Ms. Kindt commented on the impact to the surroundings. The Insul-Brick does a look a bit out of place in terms of impacting the District. However, since it was applied after the period of significance, this at least repairs it to a somewhat consistent state around the house. Mr. Bruinsma suggested, depending on how much of the Insul-Brick is in storage, the house could go another 70 years looking like this if small pieces are patched in as needed. That doesn’t Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 November 1, 2023 seem to be desirable but is also likely not what will happen. For now, it is worth considering that it is reasonable to patch a small failing section. Someday the clapboard will likely be restored and the Insul-Brick is preserving that contributing feature of the home. That would be the most desirable outcome. Ms. Chapman MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 250 Cherry Drive 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, 4, 5, 6, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Van Wormer. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dru Chapman SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, VanWormer, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Michael Rodriguez C. 212 UNION SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 212 UNION SE - REQUEST TO RETAIN EXTERIOR LINE SETS Ms. Baker introduced the request to retain four outside line sets that were installed when they upgraded their mechanicals. The AC unit is located detached at the back of the house in a location that can be approved by staff. The consideration before the Commission is just the exterior line sets. There is one on the south wall and three on the east/rear wall. Ms. Baker felt the applicant’s packet was detailed. She displayed photos as seen from Union. The line on the south side has been painted it to blend with the siding to provide a sense of what that would do for it. A photo of the rear was also displayed. Ms. Baker noted that the applicant included information about the interior layout and a few photos to further explain what is going on with the house and what potential options may or may not be. Ms. Kindt recalled from the packet that it didn’t sound like there was a feasible alternate route for moving it below the siding or bringing it inside. Ms. Baker replied that she isn’t entirely certain about being able to bring it inside as the applicant didn’t fully address her question. In the end, it would still pop out and go up, so she isn’t sure it would do much visually. She agreed with their sentiment about tucking it underneath where the foundation meets the flair; you don’t want water going in behind it and it would still be nearly as visible as it is now and would go in front of openings as well. There are no obvious solutions here. Ms. Kindt also recalled from the packet that line near the rear bump out was also constricted by some of the interior conditions. Ms. Baker agreed. She stated that she took photos but they turned out darker than she would have liked. She didn’t understand either until they brought her inside and she saw the layout and Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 November 1, 2023 where she thought there would be walls there are not. There is very limited space and wall that you could put something like that on that isn’t disrupted by a window or there is a closet there so there is insufficient wall space. There are some interesting limitations on this request. In addition to the old elevator shaft there are two bump outs so her normal resolutions didn’t quite work for this home when she was on site. Ms. Kindt asked if there were any alternate routes for line sets 3 and 4. Ms. Baker replied that there was nothing she could discern that would be less disruptive on the exterior. Obviously, any of it could be run on the inside but it could be even more disruptive to historic features on the interior, even though that isn’t the HPC’s purview. Ms. Chapman asked why the elevator shaft doesn’t work. Ms. Baker replied that there hasn’t been an elevator in it in decades. Her recollection is that they are odd niches and closets now. Ms. Baker responded to Mr. Bruinsma that the heat system is a boiler. Todd and Melissa Hodsdon were present on behalf of the request, along with brother-in-law Mark Baio, who installed the system with their assistance. Mr. Hodsdon apologized to the Commission stating that nothing they did was in an attempt to deceive the Commission or do something underhanded. They moved into the home October 1, 2022. They are on the very eastern border of Heritage Hill and there was no plaque on the house. The realtors never told them they needed approvals. They didn’t receive anything from the historical commission, although Ms. Baker did say that a packet was sent to their home in September. His assumption is it was lost in the shuffle since they didn’t move in until October. Once they got the violation notice, they immediately filed for a permit and inspections and filled out the application for this review. Mr. Hodsdon also related that he and his wife are the primary caregivers for their elderly parents. His mother will be 99 in December. She has COPD, asthma, and respiratory illnesses, which is why they couldn’t make the October meeting. His wife’s father is in the later stages of Parkinsons Disease and her mother has a neurological disorder. It is very likely that in the next few months their parents will be moving in with them. As part of the packet, Mr. Hodsdon pointed out that he provided medical records for his mother and a letter from his father-in-law’s primary care physician basically saying that he couldn’t live anywhere that didn’t have air conditioning. They had to install AC for their parents’ safety. Mr. Hodsdon also pointed out that they attempted to make the addition of the system as unobtrusive as possible. When looking at the house from Union, it doesn’t change the curbside appeal at all. If coming up Union from the south, you can see a line set on the southeastern part of the house. It looks very similar to a drainage spout. On the back their intention is to paint the line sets the same color as the house. Mr. Hodsdon explained that they moved to Heritage Hill from Rockford where they put a front porch and rear deck on their house without needing any Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 November 1, 2023 approvals. They may have acted naively but making this installation without approval is not something they did intentionally. Mr. Hodsdon also feels their house is the nicest on the street. They take great care in making it look exceptionally well. They have photos of many other houses on the street with sagging porches, paint chipping, etc. and are more deserving of a violation. Mr. Hodsdon would like to think that the Commission would encourage single-families to move into the neighborhood and take very good care of the homes as opposed to having landlords come in and break the home up into apartments and neglecting it. Mr. Hodsdon concluded his comments noting that 120 years ago air conditioning wasn’t available. They are trying to do some modernization. By having AC in the house it will keep the wood work intact, there won’t be condensation or warping, and it will prevent mold. Mrs. Hodsdon added that they were deliberate in where they put the lines because they love the house and neighborhood. They did walk throughs and tried to find the least obtrusive locations. They do propose painting the lines but didn’t want to do that until addressing the violation. Mrs. Hodsdon feels that when painted it really blends in well. They have also discussed putting a small fence around the AC unit so it isn’t that visible. Ms. Baker advised that really isn’t necessary because it is in the back and only their immediate neighbor can see it. Their neighbor has stated that it doesn’t bother him in any way because it is highly efficient. Mrs. Hodsdon referred to a photo taken from James/the rear of the house noting that you really can’t see anything on the back. Mr. Hodsdon read a letter into the record from their neighbor, Scott Ziegler. The letter was dated 9/20/23 and stated that Mr. Ziegler is the adjacent neighbor and they share a driveway. The letter offered support for the AC unit that was installed in late August. It doesn’t offend them aesthetically or emit noise. Mr. Zeigler encouraged the Commission to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. They promote single families moving into the neighborhood, especially when they care for their home like the Hodsdon’s do. Ms. Kindt asked what spaces within the home line sets 3 & 4 are serving and what some of the constraints are on the inside. Mrs. Hodsdon stated that 3 & 4 are both bedrooms. The lines go through the wall and are mounted on the wall of the upstairs bedrooms. Line set 2 is a main floor bedroom and 1, on the other side, is the family room. Ms. Kindt recalled from the packet information that if line sets 3 & 4 enter the house on the first floor there are some constraints to bringing them upstairs on the interior. Mrs. Hodsdon explained that they don’t know what is within the walls. Mr. Hodsdon added that they are concerned about causing structural damage. Mr. Bruinsma asked what kind of structural damage it would cause. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 November 1, 2023 Mrs. Hodsdon replied going through the walls and not knowing what is in there. They would be drilling holes into walls and perhaps not be able to snake anything through. Anyone they’ve spoken to has advised them that they don’t know what is there until you start going into the walls. It isn’t just fishing a wire; they are significant. Mrs. Hodsdon related that they spoke with Ms. Baker about going through the basement. Their basement has asbestos, which is wrapped, but what they were told by an inspector and the person that wrapped the pipes before they moved in, is that they can be wrapped but they can’t be manipulated or moved. Mr. Hodsdon recalled that one of Ms. Baker’s suggestions was to move the line set on the side down to the foundation but that would run by windows and potentially cause damage to the foundation. Another suggestion was to go through the basement but they have metal grating on the windows for security purposes. To put a wood board up and cut a hole in it would be a security concern. Mrs. Hodsdon added that once inside that window it is the ceiling of the storage room and that is where the piping was wrapped. Ms. Chapman understands why they wouldn’t want to put a unit in the elevator shaft/closets but why not the line sets. Ms. Baker explained that there is no wall space big enough to handle the unit on that side of the building. If you get to the door of the closet and forward there is another window. The unit has to go on the interior wall, which is on the opposite side of the elevator shaft. Ms. Kindt asked if you can run lines to the same spots the units were installed. Ms. Baker clarified for the applicant that the suggestion of the Commission is running the line inside the elevator shaft and then on the interior over to the units on the walls. Mrs. Hodsdon stated that she doesn’t know what is in the header. They were just trying to make it look the best they could. They love the interior of their home and didn’t want to have to change the inside. They brainstormed on how to make it look the least intrusive on the interior. Ms. Chapman understands the route that line set 3 is taking. She asked if they discussed taking line 4 down vertically for two stories and then across vs. the field goal post. Mr. Baio explained that they wouldn’t be able to go straight down due to the bump out. Additionally, the material is flexible like copper but if it gets a kink in it, it doesn’t work. Mrs. Hodsdon identified the location of a bathroom and the bedrooms. Mr. Bruinsma understood that they have explored houses up and down the street. He asked if they noticed any other homes with systems similar to this. Mrs. Hodsdon replied that they did not but they are aware that there are a couple in Heritage Hill. Mr. Hodsdon added that what they did notice is a lot of portable window units that were rusted, bent, and looked terrible. He understands those can be removed but they don’t look good. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 November 1, 2023 Mrs. Hodsdon stated that there is a similar installation just outside of Heritage Hill on Prospect. Mr. Bruinsma asked if they noticed any other types of air conditioning systems on the block. Mrs. Hodsdon replied no. They didn’t want to go into people’s yards. Mr. Bruinsma asked if a forced air system was explored. Mr. Baio replied that it was but there is no way to fish the duct work through. The basement is finished and there is no attic. Ms. Chapman asked if they considered a high velocity air system. Mrs. Hodsdon related that she saw a home with that system and you need an entire room for all the equipment and they don’t have that kind of space. Mr. Baio added that you would also be cutting into the floors and walls. If it was a complete remodel of the home that would be an option. Mr. Bruinsma asked if they explored installing a forced air system in the basement. Mr. Baio replied yes. They had someone come in and look at that. To get to the second story you’d have to take out interior walls to get the ducts up. By the time you get it up there it reduces the CFMs and makes it less efficient. Additionally, they are trying not to do damage to the house. Mrs. Hodsdon recalled that there is a similar system installed just outside of Heritage Hill; her recollection is that it is at Lake Dr. and Prospect. Mr. Baio added that theirs is all on the front of the house. Ms. Kindt invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt explained that, when reviewing an application to retain, the HPC considers it as they would a new application where work has not yet been done. It is unfortunate that the first introduction to the HPC is due to a violation. The Local Guidelines talk about approving the need for air conditioning due to a health concern so she appreciates that health information was provided, which feels a bit intrusive. Ms. Kindt stated that she would never question if someone wants air conditioning. The Local Guidelines also talk about exterior system lines entering directly into the structure at the base, near the foundation, adjacent to the unit. It does talk about exploring alternatives. In this case this application is about looking at what alternatives were explored and whether those were exhausted, in terms of how the impact to the structure could be minimized. Ms. Chapman stated that, working in the industry, she can appreciate very much that it isn’t ideal to want to open up the interior but that seems that that was the explanation given at face value; that there wasn’t a desire to move the installation into the interior. In her opinion, just because they didn’t want to open up the interior doesn’t necessarily mean that was exhausted. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 November 1, 2023 Mr. Simmons added that the Commission’s main concern is the exterior and there are ways to get around getting into the interior. Ms. Chapman added that they understand it isn’t desirable but that is one option. Mr. Simmons continued stating that there is mitigation for asbestos. There are a lot of things that can be done inside of the building. He isn’t sure it is feasible but what about window units. Ms. Van Wormer understands wanting to keep the aesthetic. Window units do detract from the aesthetics. In making difficult choices, more window units would not be seen as the best way to provide the air conditioning. Ms. Chapman added that that is a more temporary solution and they are seeking a more permanent solution. Mrs. Hodsdon stated that personally she wouldn’t want window units on the main floor due to safety reasons. They did discuss that option with Ms. Baker. Ms. Kindt stated that she is torn as well. She recalled Ms. Chapman referencing what could have been done to bring the lines inside the structure sooner whether it is using the elevator shaft to get from the first floor to the second floor and then perhaps having lines on the interior. The ordinance they are considering references the exterior so they aren’t really supposed to look at the interior impact. However, she does understand that that would mean impacting baseboards, flooring, cornices, and plaster work, which is also historic and has an impact even though that isn’t something they are supposed to look at. It is difficult not to in this case. The visual impact on the interior is also a consideration. Mr. Bruinsma can identify with all the concerns. He explained that he lives in the area and has had all of the same thoughts and has worked with neighbors that have also had the same thoughts trying to figure out a way, especially navigating around asbestos and what might be in the walls, such as gas pipes, a pocket door, etc. Meanwhile they would likely have to remove plaster and then find a specialist to fix that. Mr. Bruinsma believes that the reason you likely don’t see a lot of systems like this is that they likely wouldn’t have been approved. With multiple people in the fields on this panel they are here to provide guidance and feedback on what a proposal is to best fit the historic guidelines. They definitely have empathy for the situation. The problem is that they are tasked by the guidelines to enforce the basic rules; historic character of a property, distinctive materials and features including architecture, repetition, and specific mechanical guidelines. Mechanicals have to be placed in a certain area of the home, out of view, and obscured. Unfortunately, the applicants weren’t aware of the restrictions of the area. Had they been aware of them, he doesn’t believe the system would have been installed the way it was. Everything else about the house is perfect. The previous owners made a lot of effort and the current owners have made a lot of effort to maintain it. It is understandable why they bought such a beautiful house in the area. Standards 2 and 5 are what he is considering. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 November 1, 2023 Ms. Kindt referred to the Local Guidelines which talks about new mechanicals being installed causing the least alteration possible. It talks about exterior lines entering directly into the structure at the base. If the lines are exterior, it is necessary to prove there are no alternatives and that it will not damage, obscure, or detract from the historic character of the building. She suggested going through each of the line sets, since they each have their own condition, and whether all alternatives have been explored and how it is impacting the historic structure. Line set 1 is along the driveway. Mr. Bruinsma feels they have a lot of documentation that shows why this particular system may not have worked for this house. It is difficult to make suggestions on relocating line sets when it should have been an alternate system, in his opinion. Ms. Chapman referred to the image of the basement with the pipes. They are already obscuring the window from the interior. Therefore, a line set brought into the interior of the basement, which she believes could be done without disturbing the wrapped pipes, wouldn’t be obscuring the windows more than they are already obscured. Ms. Baker asked the Commission’s thoughts on forming a subcommittee, since this has so many things going on both outside and inside. Ms. Kindt asked if the subcommittee would be able to see anything beyond or in addition to what Ms. Baker found and included in the staff report. Ms. Baker feels it may be helpful. Mr. Bruinsma stated that he likes the idea but he would also suggest exploring alternatives. If a third-party contractor went in and reported that a forced air system would be impossible to install and for what reason that would go a long way toward making a case for keeping what they have. Right now he sees all the reasons why this system doesn’t work for this house. If it is the best option and they need air conditioning he feels they would have tried to figure out the best solution for the house. Judging by the fact that there is asbestos in the basement he is assuming it is a pretty old system. Perhaps if the entire system was upgraded there would be more options. There are likely multiple alternatives to working around the old system with the asbestos pipes. He also suggested having a broad picture examination by an HVAC contractor on what the alternatives may be or if this system is the only feasible option. Ms. Baker clarified that Mr. Bruinsma is interested in more definitive reasons as to why certain systems cannot be utilized and a more definitive listing of the different types that have been considered and why they do or don’t work. Mr. Bruinsma agreed. The guidelines direct exhausting all other options and he doesn’t see the evidence of that here. He also doesn’t see any other systems like this on the block. There are a number of other houses on the block like this and there may be another way to go. If the determination is that this was the only way to go, they could then discuss whether the line sets are routed in the best possible way. It would be nice to have that information to show that alternatives were explored. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 November 1, 2023 Ms. Kindt asked how that sounds to others; having a third-party contractor explore alternatives and provide information on why other systems would or would not be appropriate. If the third party finds that this is the most appropriate system, they could also provide information as to whether the line sets are in the best possible configuration. Mr. Simmons suggested an HVAC contractor that has worked in Heritage Hill. Ms. Baker suggested the HPC should go out and look. They have that information now and it isn’t being considered sufficient. Ms. Kindt suggested a report from a third party, if this is the best system, if there are other ways the line sets could have been installed less intrusively. Ms. Van Wormer felt that was reasonable. She added that because this didn’t come before them prior to the work being done is why they need more information; it isn’t because they are looking for a way to justify a decision. Ms. Van Wormer also feels it is worth recognizing that there was an attempt to impact the structure as minimally as possible, including the interior. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO TABLE for up to four (4) months and require submittal of information as to what alternatives have been considered, the findings related to the different options (why they do or do not work) and to appoint a subcommittee of Ms. Van Wormer, Ms. Chapman, and Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez to visit the property. SUPPORTED by Ms. Van Wormer. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: TABLED OPEN [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Bruinsma, Kindt, VanWormer, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Michael Rodriguez VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion Ms. Baker related that the change submitted by the National Park Service has caused a pause in the amendments to the Guidelines staff was working on. It affects several sections and will likely result in an additional bullet point(s) giving the HPC an option to consider. IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 6:22 PM