Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 March 2, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Baldwin, Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Gleisner, Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from February 9, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kerry Baldwin SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Baldwin, Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Gleisner, Wormer, Rodriguez IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF REVIEWS STAFF APPROVED COA PERMITS 15 Union SE 14 Weston SE 535 Fulton E 714 Wealthy SE 334 Cherry SE 569 College SE 421 Fountain NE V. Old Business A. 959 CHERRY - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 959 CHERRY SE - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE NORTH ELEVATION Ms. Baker recalled that this property was considered by the HPC in 2021 and received approval for various renovations to the Cherry Street (south) façade. At the time, no work was proposed for the Lake Dr. (north) façade. They are requesting to locate a dumpster on the north side, which requires an enclosure to meeting Zoning Code requirements. The applicant is present for consideration of the dumpster enclosure. Ms. Baker also recalled that the structure has been altered a number of times and is considered non-contributing. Therefore, the Commission is considering this request solely on the affects the Generated 3/7/2022 8:07 AM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 March 2, 2022 requested project would have on the surrounding historic streetscape and contributing historic buildings and not as it relates to the subject property itself. Ms. Baker displayed an aerial view and explained that the area of impact that is within the district is the south side of Lake Dr., from Diamond to the west lot line of Brewery Vivant. Everything north of Lake Dr. is out of the District and everything on the south side of Lake Dr. and west of Brewery Vivant is also out of the District. When looking at the area, the building’s front/main facades face Cherry. The north is the secondary façade by design. Ms. Baker noted the presence of parking lots on Lake Dr. and Brewery Vivant having at least one dumpster enclosure, if not two, as well as chillers, coolers and towers. Lake Dr. is definitely treated as a secondary elevation. The proposed dumpster enclosure would go in front of the northwest portion of the north façade. It would not be attached to or abutting the structure. The enclosure is 6’ tall, 12’ deep and 18’ wide. It will have metal posts and they are proposing composite material for the infill sections in a horizontal orientation. The composite is their preferred choice. However, if the Commission finds that material inappropriate, they will consider the use of wood. Ms. Van Wormer related that she went by the site today and observed that there appears to have been a cement pad put in place where the enclosure is proposed. She wasn’t certain whether it was attached to the building or not. Ms. Baker pointed out that the entire area is already concrete from the sidewalk up to the building. It has been used for parking and drop off. Ms. Van Wormer clarified that it appears they’ve added a raised portion in preparation for the enclosure. Ms. Kindt referred to the site plan noting that a walk-in cooler is identified within the proposed enclosure. Ms. Baker deferred to the applicant to clarify whether a cooler is proposed. Ms. Kindt pointed out that walk-in coolers can sometimes be outbuildings themselves, taller than 6’, and shiny metal possibly. Ms. Baker noted that Brewery Vivant has a walk-in cooler next to their dumpsters. Mr. Dixon also referred to the site plan observing a ramp and concrete stoop. However, based on the photos, the entry appears to be at grade. He asked if there is an existing stoop or height differential. Ms. Baker replied that there isn’t, unless they are creating it. Her recollection is that the concrete is smooth all the way up to the building. Ms. Van Wormer stated that it isn’t now; there is a big concrete pad there. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 March 2, 2022 Kyle Van Strien, co-owner of Long Road Distillers, related that this location will be known as Less Traveled. It is licensed as an off-premise tasting room. As a manufacturer of distilled spirits in Michigan, that is the type of license they can use for this project. In all practicality it will operate as a cocktail bar with both indoor and outdoor seating. There will be approximately 40 seats inside and 40 outside on the Cherry side. Mr. Van Strien agreed that the stoop/pad was installed at the time that the concrete work was done in the front because of the weather and a misunderstanding about what the requirements were for installing that. The purpose of the enclosure is not for a dumpster; it is for the walk-in cooler. The walk-in cooler is an integral part of the project since the space inside is so small. There is no space for a kitchen and very limited space overall. Having the outdoor cold storage will be critical for the operation. The pad is not attached to the building but there is a grade change from the door itself to Lake Dr. To level the pad appropriately for the walk-in, the stoop and ramp were installed to meet code so that it is still accessible. Mr. Dixon clarified that the level of the concrete pad and the indoor floor level are the same. Mr. Van Strien agreed. Mr. Dixon also clarified that the door was not modified to make that change. Mr. Van Strien agreed. He continued in response to the previous questions indicating that the cooler is likely taller than 6’. They proposed 6’ in height for the enclosure as he believes that is the code requirement. They would be amenable to making it taller if permitted by Zoning. Mr. Dixon asked the dimensions of the cooler. Mr. Van Strien referred to the site plan, his recollection being that the height is 8’. The exterior will be the typical insulated metal panel. They are amenable to painting it a color that is not shiny. Mr. Van Strien also noted that Gemini Handmade has their refuse and recycling bins at the back and they plan to let them use the remainder of the enclosure for their bins, as well as the bins associated with the subject business. Less Traveled won’t have much trash or recycling for their use but there will be enough space for those containers within the enclosure. Mr. Van Strien stated that it is challenging having two frontages to know which side to treat as back of house. As Ms. Baker pointed out, Brewery Vivant has similar activities occurring behind their space. Mr. Van Strien added that they hope to be back before the HPC soon with proposals for improvements to the Lake Dr. elevation. Mr. Dixon noted that there was no one else present, therefore no one to provide public comment. Ms. Kindt asked Ms. Baker how an exterior cooler is handled; as a permanent structure? Ms. Baker replied that it falls under mechanicals. They have also looked at them as additions but not very often. She indicated that there have been several restaurant locations considered. Donkey has one and her recollection was that it was required to be painted. Mr. Gleisner clarified that this is a non-contributing structure and they are only considering the streetscape and how the proposed affects the neighborhood. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 March 2, 2022 Mr. Dixon agreed. They are looking at it under Secretary of the Interior Standards 9 & 10 for basically an addition to a non-contributing structure within the district, and not attached to the building in any way. Mr. Gleisner stated that he has no problem with the proposed. His personal feeling would be to have the enclosure taller to hide the cooler, especially if it is shiny metal. Mr. Gleisner is very familiar with the neighborhood. The Brewery Vivant coolers are visible. He doesn’t see it taking away from the streetscape at all on that side of the street. If anything, that area doesn’t offer much in terms of streetscape. It is the back of the buildings. If they are willing to hide Gemini’s carts also, that would actually be a welcome improvement. Ms. Kindt agreed that the Lake Dr. façade reads as the secondary façade. It would be an appropriate location to place mechanicals. If it were just a mechanical, would they require it to be screened more, understanding that it is non-contributing but thinking of the impact to the District? Which would be more appropriate in terms of impact to the district, painting to tone down the shiny silver color or a higher fence? Mr. Gleisner feels the higher enclosure would be most appropriate. Mr. Dixon agreed that higher would be fine. He referred to packet page 33 noting however that a lower fence, with the cooler painted, might allow a better view of the contributing structure next door. It is only 2’ so a minor concern. Ms. Van Wormer pointed out that it may be more than 2’ if it is on top of the pad that is there. If the enclosure were increased to 8’ in height and placed on the pad/stoop, it would reach the top of the eave. Ms. Baker advised that Zoning may not allow the increase in height of the enclosure. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez doesn’t feel that a higher fence would do it any favors in terms of diminishing any negative impacts. The fact that a walk-in cooler exists there doesn’t bother him considering that this is a non-contributing structure and that it is the back side of the structure. An 18’ wide x 12’ deep by 8’ tall fence would bother him; it would be read as a larger mass than just a walk-in cooler partially concealed. Mr. Dixon agreed. He is leaning toward the 6’ height with the cooler painted either black or to blend with the building. Ms. Van Wormer suggested it would likely be better to blend it with the building. Black may defeat the purpose of trying to keep that cool during the summer. Mr. Dixon suggested they discuss the enclosure material. They are proposing a composite material. The HPC has approved that material in the past but only for horizontal surfaces. The Standards allow for alternative materials if the overall design, details and finishes are compatible with the surrounding historic district. His concern is that composite never will look like wood. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 March 2, 2022 They are similar enough from a distance but, from a variation standpoint, you don’t get differences in stain and there are parts of the finish that will never fully emulate wood. Ms. Baldwin agreed. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez asked if there is anything in the Standards that suggests the material should be wood. Mr. Dixon clarified that it doesn’t specify that it should be wood specifically but it states that materials will be selected that may include historic materials or the use of alternative materials. In the past they have often looked at materials that were used in a historic context, such as wood or brick, as preferable over modern materials unless a convincing reason is made to use the alternative materials. Ms. Van Wormer stated when looking at the view of Lake Dr., and being that it is setback from the sidewalk, she isn’t sure either one of the proposed materials will blend better or match what is around it since there isn’t anything like that around it. She doesn’t feel either of the choices will make much difference in what it looks like. Mr. Dixon clarified that he wasn’t suggesting it needs to be wood. However, he is struggling with the composite decking material. Another element in what has been presented is that it appears to have a raised wood grain texture to it. When considering siding materials, they require a flat finish because wood siding would not have the faux raised texture. Mr. Gleisner suggested that wood would take less away from the streetscape as a whole. When considering the contributing structure next door, he feels wood is more fitting with that structure. To Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez’s point regarding the sheer size of it, in his opinion wood would be a more suitable structure. He is having a hard time with an enclosure of that size in composite material on that street. Ms. Baldwin agreed, especially with the faux wood grain. Mr. Dixon added that the faux wood grain and plasticized deck boards do have a different sheen. Mr. Bruinsma feels that as proposed, with the exception of the composite material, it will be fine. He also suggested wood would be more appropriate. The massing seems to blend in fine. His opinion would be for the 6’ height. Ms. Van Wormer also felt the cooler should be painted. Mr. Dixon asked, if wood is the preferred material, is the Commission comfortable with either painted or stained wood or is there a preference. There were no preferences expressed. The applicant should work with staff on the appropriate finish. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 March 2, 2022 Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE, WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, the fencing and general construction and layout with the stipulation that the cooler be painted to minimize its appearance and that wood is the approved material for the enclosure/fencing, with staff approval of the wood finish, based on the Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Baldwin. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO DENY the use of the composite fencing/enclosure material based on the local preservation guidelines for additions and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VI. New Business None. VII. Public Hearing None. VIII. Discussion None. IX. Public Comment None. X. Adjourn 5:25 PM