Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 December 6, 2023 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich Mr. Dixon called the meeting to order. I II. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from November 1, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF ISSUED COA PERMITS 1 Ionia SW 4 Fulton E 7 Ionia SW 10 Ionia NW 15 Ionia SW 152 Prospect NE 231 College NE 253 Henry SE 256 Prospect SE 266 Prospect SE 304 College SE 310 Lyon NE 314 Claremount NE 319 College SE 324 Lyon NE 332 College SE 351 Eureka SE 431 Lyon NE 441 Madison SE 445 Wealthy SE 519 College SE 546 Wealthy SE 606 Wealthy SE 607 Union SE 736 Cherry SE 1136 Wealthy SE Motion by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, supported by Ms. Chapman, to approve the Certificates of Appropriateness issued by staff. Motion carried unanimously. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Dru Chapman YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman Generated 12/8/2023 8:56 AM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 December 6, 2023 V. Old Business A. 212 UNION SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 212 UNION AVE SE - REQUEST TO RETAIN EXTERIOR LINE SETS Mr. Dixon introduced the request noting that a subcommittee was formed to further review the request. A report from the subcommittee was included in the packet. Todd Hodsdon was present on behalf of the request. He agreed that a subcommittee was appointed at the last meeting to visit their home and perform an inspection. The subcommittee performed a complete inspection and provided recommendations on how they may be able to make the installation a bit less intrusive. The follow up was to have a couple of HVAC companies come out to the house, provide quotes, and review the recommendations and provide comments and feedback on whether those were viable or not. Mr. Hodsdon related that O’Neill Plumbing and Mechanical and VanderHyde Heating and Cooling came out. Mr. O’Neill has provided an email in response to his visit and inspection. Mr. Hodsdon read the email from Mr. O’Neill into the record. Mr. O’Neill wrote that, after having visited the home and reviewing possibilities and reading through the subcommittee’s report, the historical damage that would need to be done to the home to allow for any portion of the linesets, control wires, and drains to be embedded in the walls is not worth attempting. Notwithstanding all the obstacles they could and most definitely would encounter in opening walls and ceilings, the change in historical preservation inside compared to the change on the exterior that has already taken place is not remotely comparable in his opinion. He also believes that when it comes to preserving the property value, they would do far more fiscal damage by undertaking this attempt to reroute the lines along the interior. Mr. O’Neill acknowledged that he is no expert on property values or historical preservation. He is basing this opinion on the numerous problems they most definitely would encounter when opening walls. He could almost guarantee there would be a point where no option would be given and make the attempt that much more futile to continue. It would be a different story if they were gutting the interior of the house and attempting to modernize. The path that was chosen by the installers was the least damaging and was designed with the most common sense in mind, while attempting to not disturb the historical preservation. With respect to the suggestions in the subcommittee report, most of them aren’t feasible because they don’t take into account the drainage needed for each individual head. Mr. O’Neill also noticed in most cases they were going to leave the horizontal portions, which is great but makes attempting to change the vertical portions seem like a hit or miss solution. Regarding cost effectiveness, all of these options more than supersede the cost of the original install by 4-5 times. He would budget close to $80,000 just for the HVAC portion of making an attempt at hiding some of it in the walls. That estimate is if everything went perfect with no obstacles. Mr. O’Neill estimated another +/- $15,000 dependent on opening the walls. They would then have to address repair/modify framing, drywall, new bulkheads, and finishings to match, if that is even possible. Based on standard remodel costs he would guess those repairs would cost between $100,000 and $300,000. There is also the possibility that electrical, plumbing, and hydronic systems could be damaged or need to be redone/rerouted to accommodate. A good rule of thumb, even on a standard job, would be to add 25% to the entire budget. Mr. O’Niell also mentioned the potential for disturbances to asbestos pipe coverings and the cost of any remediation needed would be extravagant. Mr. O’Neill concluded his comments Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 December 6, 2023 stating that the home is one of the best preserved he has been in, with very functional systems installed by quality contractors. He would hate to see any of the interior disturbed to make this attempt. His suggestion would be to paint the lineset covers to match the house or find a carpenter that can mill exterior trims and come up with wooden trim coverings that would match the historical look of the outside, built in a way that they are removable in the future. Don Manske, VanderHyde, related that he has been in the business for 25 years. He also visited the subject home and concurs with everything that Mr. O’Neill wrote in his email, which he expressed to the homeowner when on site. Just the magnitude of what they would have to do would be damaging either the outside or the inside. Mr. Dixon recalled from the email a statement that they would reach a point where there is no option. He asked Mr. Manske if he has any idea what that means. Mr. Manske replied that that relates to the fact that they don’t know what is behind the wall and siding. There may be cross beams making it necessary to do more cutting and opening. The home was built with perfect craftsmanship many years ago and for them to begin disturbing that would result in an unlimited price tag. Mr. Manske indicated that he actually told the homeowner he wouldn’t do the job because he wouldn’t leave them with the mess of figuring out how to fix it. Mr. Bruinsma asked, knowing that they weren’t allowed to do what they did, what his strategy would have been for getting air conditioning in the house. Mr. Manske replied that the only way to really put AC in the home is exactly how they did it. For them to actually put in a furnace with an air conditioner, and try to run the duct work through the house, would be impossible. They would be right back to tearing out walls, floors, etc. Mr. Bruinsma recalled that the point of tabling was for them to contact contractors for their opinion on alternatives, not necessarily rerouting what is there but what other options could have been considered. Mr. Manske related that they have done a number of homes in Heritage Hill and a lot of them happened to have forced air systems. The subject home is impeccable inside and running ductwork throughout the house would be an undertaking by itself. Ms. Chapman asked if high velocity air conditioning would ever be considered. Mr. Manske replied that would only do for the upper floor because there are three floors. It could have been done going through the basement but the price for that would have been astronomical. Ms. Chapman explained that the HPC’s purview is the exterior of the building. Having been to the site she agrees it would be a lot of work but it could physically be done if all of the work was done on the interior. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 December 6, 2023 Ms. Van Wormer added particularly since some of the interior isn’t finished, especially on the second floor. Mr. Dixon explained that the HPC draws a distinction between technically feasible and financially feasible. They are trying to get some understanding there. Mr. Manske indicated that the answer is two-fold. Could it be done? They would still have to put holes around. He understands that the HPC’s purview is the exterior. It would be quite a bit of work and financially, it is very expensive. Is the house value worth the amount of work that would have to be done to do that? That is a factor. Mr. Dixon asked for a rough estimate of what it might cost. Mr. Manske replied for two units of the high velocity system would likely be $70,000 - $80,000. Ms. Kindt asked a question related to the email, which talked about draining the heads, or the lines, and the orientation of that. She asked if Mr. Manske could explain that further. Mr. Manske explained that there are mountings in the house. Those lines get condensation when the AC is on and you have to drain that. That is hidden behind the lineset. The way it was installed was perfect because every head has a way to be able to drain without causing any warping, plaster damage, etc. Ms. Kindt asked if the suggestions in the report would make draining the heads infeasible. Mr. Manske explained that every head needs to be drained away from the home. The only way to do that is to locate them on an exterior wall so you can put the piping down the house so the condensation runs down the pipe, which is hidden. The other option is to put a pump in, which is very loud, and that still wouldn’t eliminate getting rid of the bigger piping for the refrigerant. Ms. Kindt asked if the condensation piping has to be directly to the exterior or can it follow a lineset for a distance on the interior. Mr. Manske replied that it has to go to the outside. Ms. Van Wormer asked why it couldn’t go beneath the siding. Mr. Manske replied that it could but it would mean literally cutting all of the siding and then he would be concerned about locating the same siding for replacement. He again stated that he wouldn’t take on the job because of all of the uncertainties. Mr. Manske stated that he truly believes that if they painted the linesets it would match the siding. Mr. Bruinsma asked if the recommendation would have been not to install AC, knowing that what they did was not permissible and knowing the circumstances of the house. Mr. Manske replied that they would have gotten the approvals to be able to do what they did. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 December 6, 2023 Mr. Bruinsma noted that there are a number of homes with radiant heat that don’t have the exterior linesets. Mr. Manske replied that there are a few in the neighborhood with exterior linesets. Mr. Hodsdon recalled Mr. Bruinsma asking at the first meeting whether they had seen any other external linesets. They don’t typically snoop in their neighbors’ yards or look for those sort of things but following the last meeting they did walk and found 7 with exterior linesets on their block. He would suspect there are 20 or more within the Heritage Hill boundaries. Some of those they saw were far more of an eyesore than theirs. They didn’t paint them; they are still white. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that they would paint theirs to match the house. Mr. Hodsdon also reminded the Commission that the reason for installing the AC is for aging parents that have health related issues necessitating air conditioning. Ms. Kindt recalled a statement from the email indicating it would be difficult to embed the linesets in the walls without doing damage on the interior. She asked if they ever run the linesets on the surface of the interior wall and provide a sheath of some sort. Mr. Menske replied that they have never done it that way because the pipes can sweat. Putting them on the inside could cause water damage on the interior of the home. Mrs. Hodsdon added that they contacted Ms. Baker with the nine exterior installations they found. Mrs. Hodsdon offered a copy to the Commission. Mr. Dixon indicated that they had a copy available to them. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt thanked the subcommittee for the report and the graphics. She also thanked the homeowners for providing access to their home. Mr. Dixon invited additional comments from the subcommittee. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez offered input that came to mind based on the testimony of Mr. Menske. The assumption is that the house is balloon framed, meaning there is no interruption between floor platforms into the framing and presumably those bays are open from foundation to roof. However, there are sometimes cross bracings that exist within those bays and it is impossible to say with certainty without opening any of those bays up where those might lie. Generally speaking it is not advised to disturb that cross bracing in a balloon frame system; it can be a structural problem. Mr. Dixon added that if not cross bracing it could be blocked in another manner. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that blocking can be removed safely. Cross bracing cannot without whole structure intervention. That is something he didn’t consider when looking at the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 December 6, 2023 balloon frame system on site. It isn’t possible to say whether that would exist in any of the cavities in question, but it could. Ms. Chapman stated that having heard the HVAC testimony today she would argue that the lineset system is not the best system for the house. She also noted that they are looking at this as if the system has not yet been installed. While she understands that there is a significant cost increase for high velocity air conditioning she is more on board with that system because of its smaller impact on the interior, given the smaller duct sizing. It would provide the desired air conditioning, the units are small, and there is space in the basement for that and likely space upstairs for it also. Given the potential condensation issues on the inside, inside the wall cavity, and that that means it has to go to the exterior makes her believe this is not the proper system. Mr. Simmons suggested an inspection of the walls could be done minimally with cameras. Mr. Dixon noted that it is not the HPC’s responsibility or purview to design the system for them from an investigation standpoint or system selection standpoint. Their role is to determine, based on the information provided, whether the existing installation meets the Standards and guidelines. Ms. Chapman disagreed because part of the guideline says that exterior lines may be considered if there are no alternative methods of installation. She feels it is within their purview to determine if all the systems were exhausted. Ms. Van Wormer added that staff reviewed the other examples provided by the applicant and several of them don’t have the system. One had no exterior linesets; they were downspouts not AC lines. At least two of them didn’t have permits or the necessary approvals. Approving for that reason would be problematic, particularly since they don’t have what the other options could have been. Mr. Dixon stated that in his opinion it is irrelevant whether other houses in the neighborhood have it or not. The HPC is determining whether this particular location meets the Standards and guidelines. Mr. Dixon thanked Ms. Chapman for the point about the alternative method of installation. It is correct that they need to make sure that all avenues have been exhausted. There is an argument to be made that that isn’t the case at this time. However, Mr. Dixon cautioned that they are not mechanical designers so suggesting different systems to the applicant may not be their purview. Ms. Chapman expressed her appreciation for that comment. She believes the reason high velocity was eliminated as an option was because of the cost and interior repair that would have to be done. The Commission would have to decide whether that justifies the alternative being infeasible. Ms. Kindt expressed her understanding of Ms. Chapman’s point. It is difficult to understand what went into the initial decision and whether all options were exhausted, especially when the local guidelines say no exterior linesets unless certain criteria are met. Ms. Kindt added that they should also take the email and verbal testimony today from the mechanical contractor into Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 December 6, 2023 account. The HPC requested third party opinions and both agreed that the linesets were installed in mostly a proper location and there would be damage to the interior with a different system. She understands that the interior is not their purview but on these historic homes she feels significant damage to the interior should at least be considered as an issue as well. Ms. Chapman doesn’t personally believe there would be significant damage to the interior knowing how it could be repaired in kind, although not original plaster. Mr. Simmons again stated that there are ways to explore the walls with minimal damage. Mr. Dixon indicated he is struggling with this request. The guidelines state that requests for exterior heating and cooling lines may be considered if: it can be determined that the systems are needed; and that there are no alternative methods of installation; and the installation will not damage, obscure or detract from the historic character of the building and/or its historic character defining features and materials. Mr. Dixon feels they have demonstrated that the system is needed. In theory there are alternative methods of installation. The HPC can discuss financial infeasibility, although there is a higher standard of proof necessary for conversations revolving around that. Personally, Mr. Dixon doesn’t feel any of the impacted features or materials are terribly character defining. The linesets are primarily installed in a field on the back of the house. He would say however that it does detract from the overall character of the building in its current iteration. Ms. Kindt agreed with respect to the linesets at the back. The lineset along the driveway is fairly minimal, especially since it is painted to match. Ms. Chapman agreed. Had the request come to them with a drawing prior to installation she feels it is fair to say they would not have approved that layout. Mr. Dixon recalled the HPC approving a somewhat similar situation a few years ago. He recalls that it was aligned with the trim in such a way to help detract from the installation. He can’t necessarily say that for this project. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed that applications have been approved in the past when they have been able to align with trim or meet up in the corner or be adjacent to a downspout, etc. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled from Mr. Menske’s testimony that had the homeowner inquired about an installation within the wall cavity he/his company would not do it. That isn’t to say another company wouldn’t do it but, in the contractor’s experience, there are enough problems anticipated that they simply wouldn’t attempt it. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez doesn’t know if that can be interpreted to be technically feasible or infeasible based on one/two contractors’ testimony but it continues to weigh on his mind because there are a lot of creative building solutions to a lot of different problems but this isn’t one he is able to say with any certainty whether or not there is technical feasibility. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez explained that he has an imagination that says there are possibilities but he isn’t qualified or experienced to say yes there are or no there are not. Whereas their consultants have strongly implied that there are not. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 December 6, 2023 Mr. Dixon shared the concerns. That is something he is considering as well. His concern is that the testimony they heard is that there are potential solutions. They may be financially infeasible and they may result in rework within the home but there are technically feasible possibilities revolving around other systems. Ms. Van Wormer added that the lines going up under the siding has been assumed to be impossible but it hasn’t been explored. Mr. Dixon argued that it was stated by the contractor that they would not perform that work. Ms. Kindt indicated that if they had an application that had proposed that she would have difficulty thinking about ripping up a whole line of siding to put a line in a wall and then try to patch the siding staggering the seams so you couldn’t tell. She would have had trouble going along with that approach and therefore, has trouble thinking about trying to tuck it behind the siding now. Mr. Bruinsma agreed. On one hand he just wants to say let this be but he does feel that if it had come to them initially they likely would have recommended hiding it behind the chimney or a downspout. There would have been a conversation and if other means were ruled out there would have been exceptions and the least obtrusive method would have been agreed upon. Painting does camouflage it on the side and he also acknowledges the testimony of the two HVAC companies that have indicated they wouldn’t do it a different way. Mr. Dixon summarized that it comes down to whether it meets the guidelines and he doesn’t feel in this case it does. There may be other options but, in his opinion, this particular installation doesn’t meet the guidelines. Ms. Kindt wondered what the Commission’s response would have been had this request come to them prior to installation with a drawing, this testimony, and a letter from a mechanical contractor saying this was a perfect installation and they don’t know how they would have done it differently. Even though it doesn’t perfectly comply with the guidelines, would they have approved it? She feels the testimony has a lot of weight. The Commission is comprised of people in the building trades and architecture, and people that live in the district but none are mechanical contractors. Ms. Chapman stated that she goes back to the fact that the other systems were not exhausted. She has empathy for the applicants but she can’t rectify it with the guidelines. Mr. Bruinsma feels it may be possible to salvage this system and minimize the impact. Ms. Chapman believes that the subcommittee strived for the hypothetical; using this system but locating the linesets differently. They’ve heard testimony that it would be difficult to place it inside the walls, which is what leads her to believe it isn’t the correct system. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 December 6, 2023 Mr. Dixon took a straw poll with five opposed and one in favor of approval. He clarified that a denial would mean that as currently installed it is not approved. That would not preclude them from coming back with a redesign of this system that the HPC may be able to find acceptable. Mr. Bruinsma feels optimistic that that is possible. They would be open to working with a contractor that would look for creative ways to address it. Mr. Dixon recognized that while no one is happy with it, there is a general consensus of denial. Ms. Kindt clarified that a motion to deny would allow them the option to come back with a different lineset configuration to salvage the current installation or an alternate installation or potentially additional information to address financial infeasibility. Mr. Dixon clarified that the request before them is a request to retain the design as is. If denied, that means this particular installation is not acceptable but doesn’t preclude a modified installation proposal being submitted. They would be able to return at any time with a new application. If denied, it is necessary to establish a time frame for correction. A year or two is fairly typical. Given the nature of the request and the fact that there are extenuating circumstances he would lean toward allowing 2-3 years. Ms. Kindt noted that that would allow them to use the system to accommodate the health needs in the short term while making a plan and potentially making the change during the off season. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO DENY the request to retain the exterior linesets based on the local guidelines, testimony, and discussion, allowing the applicant the opportunity to return at any time with a new application, and allowing two years for the correction to be made. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. YEAS: 6. NAYS: 1 (DeMaagd-Rodriguez). MOTION CARRIED. RESULT: DENIED [6 TO 1] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Simmons, Chapman NAYS: Michael Rodriguez VI. New Business A. 25 SOUTH DIVISION - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 25 SOUTH DIVISION - REQUEST TO REPLACE WINDOWS Mr. Dixon introduced the request reading a statement prepared by Ms. Baker. 25 S. Division was built in 1891 and underwent a significant rehabilitation project in 1999. It was during this period that all of the windows were replaced with HPC approved wood double-hung windows to replicate the existing deteriorated historic wood windows and the many missing windows. The owners have had all 182 windows assessed by both HPC staff and a contractor with a Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 December 6, 2023 background in historic buildings and windows. Both parties found serious deterioration of a large majority of the sills, surrounding exterior trim, and the sashes themselves. The owner is seeking to replace all 182 windows. The storefront window systems are not included in this project. As the 1999 windows failed to last 20 years, the applicant is seeking approval to replace them with aluminum units designed to replicate the dimensions, details, profiles, muntins, design and operation of the existing non-historic windows. Property manager Dexter Laraby was present on behalf of 25 S. Division Condominium Association. He introduced Mike Shields of Blackberry Systems. Ms. Kindt referred to packet page 214 noting that it appears the rear façade has divided light windows with a cross pattern in the windows at the top. She asked if that would be replicated. Mr. Shields, Blackberry Systems, explained that they specialize in historic window restoration and replication. Where ever there are muntins now they will replicate them with a three-part muntin; an exterior and interior applied muntin and a shadow line created by a grid between the glass that lines up with those. The windows will be insulated glass. Mr. Dixon expressed his understanding that the decision to go with non-wood windows is because the previous wood windows didn’t hold up for very long, which is an issue with modern wood windows. He asked if they considered an aluminum clad wood window. Mr. Shields replied that their first role was to evaluate the windows and their first intention is always to restore, not replace. They did an extensive review and when they determined there was really no choice but to replace the windows wood clad is always a consideration. The only problem is when you start looking at the trim detail on the exterior the wood clad products that are available have very limited trim options and very limited options to create new trims. Mr. Shields explained that they work in five states in the Great Lakes area and a wide variety of HPCs. The standards they use when replicating are NPS guidelines so that they are consistent, which is plus or minus 1/8 of an inch tolerance in profile and dimension. In most cases, over half the projects that SHPO sees for replacement windows are done with aluminum windows. Mr. Dixon clarified that aluminum provides the ability to match the existing profiles more closely. Mr. Shields agreed. He added that after they had been through the building three different times evaluating the windows is when they approached Ms. Baker to come over, which was very helpful. They wanted someone else’s eyes on what they found. Another element to this is that the building has all the original interior case-work on every window and it is in very good condition. The most that has to be done in some locations is painting. The other task they felt they needed to address was that to remove a window with weights and pulleys you are substantially removing everything but there are jamb extensions. They came up with a design with the aluminum window, which is shown, where they are leaving all the interior casing intact; they are not taking it out and putting it back in, they are leaving it. The ability to do that is much easier with this design using the aluminum replica product. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 December 6, 2023 Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon noted that the first question to address is whether they agree the windows need replacement. They have heard testimony from the applicant, the contractor, and a written report from staff indicating she agrees that the windows need replacement. Unless there is another opinion, he would go with their recommendation. Ms. Kindt agreed that they are quite deteriorated. She added that they are replacement widows. If they were historic windows they would be looking more closely at repair. Mr. Dixon noted that typically when looking to replace replacement windows they are often talking about vinyl replacements because they are typically the windows that have failed. The existing windows are actually wood replacement windows that, to the best of their knowledge, were manufactured to match the historic windows that were replaced in 1999. While they are not the original windows the forms that the windows take, the openings, sash placement, sizes and operation are still in the historic form, which he finds to be character defining features. The Commission agreed. Mr. Dixon noted that the proposed windows are aluminum instead of wood. They have been provided with very good existing and proposed detailed drawings showing the sections of all of the windows and he would concur with the applicant that a closer profile match has been achieved in aluminum than would be possible in a commercially available, non-custom, wood clad window. Ms. Kindt feels the applicant did a good job of very closely matching the historic profile even though it was a replica. Since the windows being replaced are non-historic she feels comfortable with the aluminum material, which they have typically approved when it is non-historic windows being replaced. It also maintains the historic opening, which she appreciates. Mr. Dixon referred to the guidelines: when replacing a non-historic window, the new unit must match either the existing or historic window in design, dimension, proportions, reflective qualities, profile, sash rail styles, muntins, operation, and when technically feasible, material. Profile is not listed as one of the technically feasible items and material is. Therefore, he feels the guidelines state that profile is more important than material making this an acceptable modification. Several Commissioners expressed their agreement. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez thanked the applicant for providing very good existing and proposed window details. Ms. Kindt added that she would be very disappointed in the windows installed in 1999. Mr. Dixon added that modern wood windows don’t hold up the same way historic wood windows did because of the lumber that is used. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 December 6, 2023 Ms. Kindt added that the installation is disappointing as well. Mr. Simmons noted that this installation will eliminate any water penetration. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 25 South Division with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #s 2, 5, 6, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman B. 340 STATE SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 340 STATE SE - REQUEST FOR CHANGE TO REAR OPENING AND ADDING A RAMP Mr. Dixon introduced the request reading Ms. Baker’s summary. The structure was built in 1925 and is a contributing building to Heritage Hill. To meet code and barrier free requirements for the new proposed use the applicant is requesting to remove an existing window and transom unit located center of the rear façade. The existing unit is a modern replica of the steel windows that were once there. The height and width of the opening will remain but the sill will drop down to be flush with the proposed ramp. A metal door with transom will be installed in the new opening. A concrete ramp with simple metal rail is proposed to be installed along the rear/south elevation but not attached to the façade for easy removal in the future. Staff recommends that, if approved, the window unit be retained on site so future owners looking to reverse the change do not have to order a custom new window. Travis Williams, principal of In Parallel Architects + Builders, related that this project requires Special Land Use approval from the Planning Commission and they have received that approval. Construction documents are complete. Mr. Simmons asked if the proposed will eliminate vehicular access by putting in the ramp. Mr. Williams referred to the site plan to provide a sense of how far the new ramp will project into the rear alleyway. The tightest part of the alley access is at the curb cut. The ramp does project into the rear yard setback but not significantly past the existing point of the building. He believes it reduces the existing width if you consider it vehicle access. Vehicles don’t currently access the rear alleyway. There are dumpsters located near the curb cut that are wheeled out into the street to be emptied. Mr. Dixon asked if the door facing State St. is not currently accessible. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 December 6, 2023 Mr. Williams explained that theater/assembly use requires two exits. Because the overall occupancy of the building is more than 50 people both exits have to swing out. The existing door on State St. swings in. They will be maintaining that door and modifying it to swing out. Also, due to the number of occupants they are planning for, it will be required to have panic hardware on the interior. There are two existing rear doors that both swing in. They are too close to each other in sequence to be considered an acceptable exit. The swing in movement could be modified but the most interior door sits within a sunken area in the floor and there is an additional step into an existing stairway that goes to the basement. In addition to the doors being too close to each other in sequence they would be passing through an unprotected stair. Therefore, there is no existing accessible exit out of the rear of the building. They are proposing to utilize one of the existing masonry openings, modify the sill, and put the new exit door there. It will be at the floor elevation, which is why they are providing the new ramp. Mr. Dixon clarified that the issue isn’t really that they don’t have accessibility but rather they don’t currently have two functional means of egress. Mr. Williams agreed. Mr. Dixon asked if this is a higher hazard category with the change of use. Mr. Williams replied that it isn’t a higher hazard category relative to triggering structural reinforcements to the roof or anything like that but it is a higher hazard category that requires more attention to exiting. Mr. Dixon asked if they have investigated the requirements of Chapter 12 provisions for historic buildings. Mr. Williams replied that he has spent time looking at the HPC guidelines but hasn’t gone through Chapter 12 of the Rehabilitation Code. He has reviewed the Rehab Code relative to life safety. Because it is a theater use they are proposing some additional retrofit of the existing floor structure to provide a higher floor load due to a higher concentration of people. He summarized that they have consulted the Rehabilitation Code with respect to life safety issues. Ms. Kindt noted that the narrative described the new poured concrete ramp as entirely independent yet some of the details showed it poured against the building. She asked that he confirm it will be removable/reversible. Mr. Williams stated that the new structure will not be structurally connected to the existing masonry wall in any way. There is a provision on the plans calling for a membrane that will separate the new concrete from the existing wall. Ms. Kindt asked if the patching in the lower door jamb section will be done with salvaged masonry taken out of that area. Mr. Williams agreed. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 December 6, 2023 Ms. Kindt suggested reviewing the Rehab Code about the panic hardware requirements. Sometimes there are ways you can clearly label it or have it be unlocked during occupancy that may negate the need for the panic hardware. Mr. Williams explained that they are particularly sensitive to life safety issues in a theater use with the high concentration of people. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that staff recommended retaining the removed window unit on site for hypothetical future use. He asked if there is a location to safely secure and label a window of that size on site. Mr. Williams replied affirmatively. There is an existing garage space that will be used for storage. The storage is mainly for scenery and material used for performances. There is also a full basement and a significant portion of the basement has a poured concrete slab. The other portion of the basement is crawl space. Either the garage or basement will have enough space for a window of that size to be stored. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon asked if the building is sprinklered. Mr. Williams replied it is not. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels the proposed is a relatively minimal change to a secondary elevation that is well reasoned for the proposed use and not for convenience or preference but for life safety. Per testimony there are opportunities to salvage the window unit to be removed. Ms. Kindt agreed it is a secondary façade so it minimizes the impact and doesn’t detract from the primary façade. It is also reversible. Some of the life safety and traffic issues are under a different purview. In terms of what they are looking at, it is a minimal change to put the building intoa new functional use. Mr. Bruinsma added, per the staff notes, that the existing window is a modern replica designed to match the deteriorated historic metal window that it replaced. It is a secondary façade. He agreed it is a minimal change and a necessary change for the new use. Ms. Kindt suggested requiring that salvaged brick also be stored on site. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 340 State St. SE with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #s 1, 2, 9 & 10 with the stipulation that the window unit and any salvageable brick and sill material be retained on site. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 15 December 6, 2023 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman C. 330 EASTERN SE - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 330 EASTERN SE - REQUEST FOR AN ADDITION Mr. Dixon read Ms. Baker’s report relating that this is the Fisher house that was recently before the HPC for an Advisory Discussion related to an elevator shaft, an 1,100 sq. ft. rear addition, connecting roof canopy and a patio with pergola and fireplace. The submittal has no changes from the Advisory other than the inclusion of more details. The 1,100 sq. ft. addition is 45’ x 24’ and placed alongside the east side of an existing garage addition. It will match the height of the adjacent garage through a parapet along the north wall. It will be block with aluminum doors and reused windows. The elevator shaft will come through the garage addition on the north side and extend through the roof of the second floor. It will have a hipped roof to match and align the eave with the main house and will fall between detailed brackets. A window will become interior and altered to become a door. The exterior of the elevator shaft will be painted brick. A small shed connecting roof will be placed between the addition and the existing garage to cover the access walk. The patio and pergola are 20’ x 17’. The patio will be flush with grade and concrete while the pergola is traditional style and wood. Staff suggests acquiring the height of the pergola for discussion. The chimney is brick and placed as part of the south wall of the new addition with the stack extending above the wall. Jeffery Roberts was present on behalf of the request. He added to the report that they have added the information that Ms. Baker asked for; the height of the pergola, the ceiling and overall structure for comparison to the existing. Ms. Van Wormer noted that the dimensions are provided on packet pages 288 and 289. Mr. Roberts also noted that he added the requested view from standing at the southwest corner looking northeast. Ms. Kindt asked the dimensions and material of the square column for the connector roof. Mr. Roberts replied that there is an existing column holding up a smaller roof, which is wood. The new column is proposed to be wood. It would be painted to match the existing wood trim. The roof will be covered with asphalt shingles to match. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt finds that the application is very similar to the Advisory Discussion submittal. The applicant has provided the additional information requested. The one thing she questioned during the Advisory was the pergola transparency. It is clearly shown in the plans that it will be wood with transparency. Her concern about it feeling like a heavy mass has been alleviated. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 16 December 6, 2023 Ms. Chapman MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 330 Eastern SE with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #s 2, 3, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dru Chapman SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman D. 70 IONIA SW - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 70 IONIA SW - REQUEST TO CHANGE 2 STORE FRONTS TO OVERHEAD DOORS Mr. Dixon read the prepared introduction relating that the building in question was constructed in 2005 and is non-contributing to the historic district. As such, the review is based solely on potential affects and compatibility with the surrounding historic environment and contributing buildings. The applicant is requesting to remove two aluminum storefront systems, from the base of the transom to grade, and insert full light aluminum sliding doors. The new system will include three door panels that will slide to the north and south. The existing transoms will remain and no change to the opening is proposed. Mr. Dixon added that the original packet proposed the doors as garage doors. Ms. Baker sent out an update indicating that they would be sliding doors. Josh Strautz, Rockford Construction, was present on behalf of the request. He explained that they submitted the project for permit review. They were advised of being in a historic district, which is why they are present this evening. Additionally, it was noted that the overhead doors didn’t meet Energy Code requirements, which is why they changed to a sliding door system at this time. They are still exploring what options they have to work with for the door system. They are looking at possibly keeping the transom with a thicker line that matches the row/break from the door to the transoms of the existing units on each side. They are also looking at options for potentially doing a full height sliding door in the system without any break line; basically a 12’ x 12’ slider. New today, at the request of the new tenant, is that they would like to keep the existing canopies/awnings on both sides of the street facing sides of the building. In the packet the request was to remove them but they would like to keep them and will return next month with that request. The applicant was advised it would not be necessary to return if they choose to retain the canopies/awnings. Mr. Strautz clarified that it will be necessary to take them down to place the new doors. The Commission confirmed it would not be necessary to return for that. Mr. Dixon summarized that they are still exploring options for the sliding doors and the garage doors are no longer proposed. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 17 December 6, 2023 Mr. Strautz clarified that they are looking at options and costs for both. Based on the discussions with the tenant today, either is acceptable. He asked if there is a possibility to approve both options. Mr. Dixon advised that they will discuss that and provide an opinion on both. Ms. Kindt noted that the previous elevation with the glazed garage door had the bottom panel obscured. She asked if they are still considering that. Mr. Strautz replied not necessarily. They could do full glass if necessary. The thought there was to try to prevent salt build up or uncleanliness. The sidewalk elevation slopes away from the building so there is a step and the doors are not needed for egress. Based on the interior layout there will be patrons right up against it so it was just a bit of privacy also. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon recalled that this is a non-contributing building so the consideration is how the proposed will impact the district as a whole and not this individual building. Ms. Kindt feels it is a fairly minimal change that won’t have much impact on the district. The Local Guidelines speak to maintaining views and the scale within the district. She doesn’t feel this would have an impact, with our without the canopies, whether it is a panel door in the original elevation or the revised elevation. It is utilizing the same materials as the storefront. The second elevation maintains the three panels making it a minimal change. Mr. Dixon agreed. It is the same rough opening and glass for glass. It is a non-historic building so the way the glass is articulated isn’t concerning. Ms. Kindt asked if there are any thoughts about the obscured glass. Mr. Dixon again stated that it is a non-historic building and it will still be in the same plane as the existing windows and won’t change how you read the district or the neighboring construction. Mr. Simmons added that glazing sizes will remain the same. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked Mr. Dixon if he was saying that in reference to both the proposal for an overhead door and sliding door. Mr. Dixon clarified that he was responding to Ms. Kindt. However, he also feels that way about the garage door proposal. The modification of the building to include garage doors as opposed to windows would not negatively impact the district or neighboring buildings. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez related that he sees it a bit differently. An overhead garage door, even one that is glazed, is read within the streetscape as an overhead garage door whereas sliding Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 18 December 6, 2023 doors maintain the proportions of glazing that you would see in a traditional storefront system. In his opinion that is much more harmonious with the character of the district than an overhead door. Mr. Dixon expressed his understanding and in theory agrees. On this particular building, where there is already a large wave form, he feels the glazing already deviates from standard historic norms in enough ways that this is a minor change. Ms. Chapman and Ms. Van Wormer agreed with Mr. Dixon. Discussion took place regarding the obscured panel. The Commission was comfortable with what was presented in the application if the obscured panel is desired by the applicant. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 70 Ionia Ave. SW, per the application and with the option for either a sliding door or an overhead door, with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #s 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Chapman. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Dru Chapman YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion 1. MEETING SCHEDULE 2024 & SELECTION OF OFFICERS SCHEDULE & OFFICERS · 2024 Meeting Schedule - Motion by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, supported by Ms. Kindt, to approve the 2024 meeting schedule with one correction; the February 2, 2024 date should be changed to February 7, 2024. Motion carried unanimously. · Election of Officers - Motion by Ms. Van Wormer, supported by Mr. Simmons, to reappoint the seated officers; Chairman M. Dixon, Vice-chair A. Kindt, and Secretary M. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 6:35 PM