Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 September 7, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Baldwin, Gleisner Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from August 3, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 914 Virginia SE 708 Cherry SE 254 Fulton E 569 Morris SE 534 Wealthy SE 320 Eureka SE 541 College SE 253 Diamond SE 237 Henry SE 553 Lafayette SE 538 Logan SE 15 Union NE 537 Lafayette SE 634 Wealthy SE 235 Warren SE 345 Paris SE V. Old Business A. 100 SHELDON - LOCAL LANDMARK 100 SHELDON - PROJECT PROGRESS UPDATE Ms. Baker recalled that on September 4, 2019, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, a local landmark, received a 24-month Certificate of Appropriateness for installation of temporary bracing to secure the northeast tower to prevent failure due to structural issues while they formulated a plan for restoring/repairing the tower and to conduct fundraising for the project. COVID became an issue shortly after that and the 24-month period was basically unproductive. They returned to the HPC on September 1, 2021 for a 24-month extension. The HPC granted the extension, again stipulating that they return in 12 months with a progress update. The matter is before the Commission today as required. No action is required by the Commission; it is strictly informational. Generated 9/18/2022 6:05 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 September 7, 2022 Ms. Baker explained that, essentially, they have decided to forego an independent study of the north tower issue because as of November, 2021 they have established a long-range planning committee that will be looking at the entire complex. They hope to complete their strategic plan by mid-2023. When they return in September for the end of the 24-month period they are hoping to provide the HPC with a plan for the tower and will of course be asking for additional time for fundraising and implementation. Ms. Kindt asked if it remains stable with the bracing. Ms. Baker replied yes, as far as she is aware. There was no applicant present. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. B. 50 COLLEGE NE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 50 COLLEGE NE - REQUEST FOR A NEW SOUTH STOOP Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez requested to be recused in order to present the request. Motion by Ms. Kindt, supported by Ms. Van Wormer, to recuse Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baker recalled that in June of 2022 this applicant received a Certificate of Appropriateness to do some window alterations, door work and to construct a new porch, along with a one-story, non-contributing addition on the south side of the house. Through further review of their project they have decided they would rather go with a smaller porch footprint than previously proposed. Nothing else has changed in the proposal. The only alteration before the Commission is a change in the porch size. The new porch is proposed to be 6.3’ wide and 3.9’ deep with a very low pitch roof, which will appear as a flat roof. The columns and rails will match the front porch, standard tongue and groove wood floor, and beadboard ceiling. The overall design aesthetic hasn’t really changed, it will just be more open and smaller. Ms. Baker displayed the footprint image as well as elevation images. Photographs of the front porch were also displayed to provide a visual of the columns and rails proposed. She noted that the original approval was provided in the packet. Mr. Dixon asked if there are no current windows where new windows are shown. Ms. Baker clarified that all the windows that are being shown were previously approved. The Commission is just considering the changes to the porch. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez clarified that the windows Mr. Dixon was referring to were not visible in the previous elevations because the porch covered them. They are drawn on this elevation. The number and location were previously approved. He clarified that they are requesting that the overall openings change dimension slightly. They were previously approved as 2 ganged windows at 4.4’ wide and they are now asking for 4.6’ wide. The 3 ganged windows were Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 September 7, 2022 approved at 8.10’ wide and they are now requesting that the overall width of the 3 ganged windows be at 9.3’. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez invited questions related to the proposed porch alterations. Ms. Kindt referred to the photos of the rails on the front noting that the rail on the stairs appears to be a pipe rail. She asked if that is what the proposal is based on. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez explained that the handrail in the front is actually a painted wrought iron rail with a profile; it isn’t actually a pipe rail. They are proposing a pipe rail on the back. If the Commission prefers to emulate the front profile exactly, they are open to that suggestion but it will be metal and it will be painted, as proposed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez left the meeting room. There was no public comment. Ms. Kindt feels the scale and massing are still consistent with the house and do not over power the house. She added that it is on a non-contributing part of the building. The trim, profiles and materials seem to match the guidelines and complement the existing house. Ms. Van Wormer agreed. Mr. Bruinsma also agreed. If anything, it is a bit more aesthetically balanced. Mr. Dixon feels the articulation of it is largely the same as what was approved, just smaller. He agreed with the previous comments offered. He is comfortable with this modification of the plan. Ms. Kindt added that she is comfortable with the painted pipe handrail as it does complement what is seen on the front of the house. Originally, she questioned that just based on the guidelines but she feels there is precedent on site and it makes sense. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO APPROVE with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez returned to the meeting. RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 0] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Peter Bruinsma, Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Heather Van Wormer ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner RECUSED: Michael Rodriguez Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 September 7, 2022 C. 946 CHERRY - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 946 CHERRY SE - WINDOW ALTERATIONS Ms. Baker related that the applicant received a Certificate of Appropriateness in February 2022 to replace the first floor siding, new storefront windows and add an ADA access and ramp to the west façade. The project is well underway. They are back before the HPC requesting additional alterations; replacing the existing first floor windows with a different design window. What is currently there is a set of double hung windows. There are five in total throughout the first floor. They want to replace them with what is essentially a fixed aluminum system with a four over one pattern with muntins between the glass. Ms. Baker displayed the elevations used for the original review in February. There is one window in the back, one window on the east façade facing Warren, and a set of ganged on the west façade. The two windows on the east façade in the recess are not highlighted as part of the project and should remain the same. The example provided is essentially what the windows would look like but not a silver finish. Ms. Baker reminded the Commission that this structure is not contributing to the District. The review must be based on any potential impact to the contributing historic structures around it and the historic environment rather than the building itself. Mr. Dixon asked if the windows they had planned to install, the double hung, are present now. Ms. Baker replied yes, the existing windows are double hung. From what she understands they prefer the look of what is proposed. Mr. Dixon asked the material of the windows that are present. Ms. Baker replied that she believes there is a mix in the building; some are wood and some are not. Bruce Kwekel, BDD Construction, was present on behalf of the applicant. He related that the owners are very flexible. They aren’t particular if they have that particular grid pattern or they simulate a double hung window. They had asked him about just a clear glass panel and he suggested they would want something in it to simulate something. Their goal eventually is to brick the entire building or use hardi board over the entire building. Mr. Dixon asked the reason behind replacing the windows that are there now. Mr. Kwekel replied that some of the windows are failing. Some have been replaced more recently with a vinyl Pella window. They were amazed when they foamed the inside and installed the new windows how much quieter it was even without the drywall in it. Additionally, by installing new, all of the windows would match. Mr. Dixon explained that frequently they see a punched opening such as this done in a more residential style vs. a storefront system. What is proposed is a storefront system. Is there a reason for that. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 September 7, 2022 Mr. Kwekel replied that they want to keep it consistent and they love the windows in the front. It is a commercial use so they don’t need to open them. Ms. Kindt asked if they are proposing a picture window or will it have a mullion pattern. Mr. Kwekel replied a mullion pattern but it doesn’t necessarily have to be the example provided. He would rather it simulate a double hung. They come from Superior Glass and they can simulate a double hung but it is a storefront window. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt stated that with this being a non-contributing building they are considering the request based on the impact to the environment. She doesn’t feel this has any negative impact on the historic character of the neighborhood. It doesn’t destroy any historic character in the neighborhood. She does like that they are adding consistency to the window material and frames on the first floor. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez commented on the point of consistency asking for Ms. Kindt’s thoughts on the proposed simulated divided light. His thoughts are that it makes them further inconsistent with the other windows, both new and existing. Ms. Kindt agreed. It would be nice to have consistency on the first floor especially with the storefront picture windows they’ve already replaced. The second floor would then be the double hungs. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez indicated that would be his preference as well. Mr. Dixon clarified that the suggestion isn’t to remove the horizontal muntin but remove the artificial grill on the upper pane. It will be a falsified one over one. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. His impression, unless he misunderstood, is that it would be a true one over one but not operable. He is suggesting they not use the grill in between the panes of glass. Mr. Dixon related that he is struggling with this request. It is non-contributing to the District. Typically, they permit a modern aluminum storefront system to be installed as a replacement for a traditional storefront assembly. Using it as a punched window opening is abnormal and he doesn’t believe they would allow it on a contributing structure. He understands they are only looking at this as how it pertains to the neighboring environment but he feels there is something to be said for honesty of materials and truth of construction when talking about a historic district even if this is a non-contributing building. Ms. Van Wormer wasn’t sure she agreed because it is non-contributing. She agrees about not having the grill on the top so it is more consistent but other than that she doesn’t see it in any way being negative to the surrounding area or really standing out as a strange window. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 September 7, 2022 Mr. Bruinsma agreed with Mr. Dixon. However, he doesn’t feel they can deny the request they’ve been presented with. Aesthetically, he feels that is a good suggestion and he would prefer to see that. Mr. Dixon stated that if they feel strongly about it he believes it is enforceable under Standards 9 & 10; if they feel it is a negative impact to the surrounding community. It sounds like most don’t feel that way however. In his opinion, a traditional punched opening window would be preferable. Ms. Kindt asked if it is a matter of material. If it wasn’t the storefront system would they be more comfortable with that? Mr. Dixon replied that it isn’t materiality because an aluminum covered wood window would be okay in this instance. It’s the profiles, shadow lines, etc. An aluminum storefront system is so flat in comparison to a traditional punched wood window, especially a double hung and single hung. Sashes are offset from each other and there is a lot of shadow depth there. The profile thickness around the window is different as well. Ms. Kindt stated that what is difficult on this building is that it looks residential even though the first floor is commercial. In commercial you typically see aluminum storefront quite a bit. To her it doesn’t feel like a wood window or a true double hung on a commercial building fits, which is why she is more comfortable with the aluminum as proposed. Mr. Dixon stated that commercial vs. residential is less important than the void it represents. The void of a storefront system in commercial or residential is different than a punched opening. He does understand the point. It is an odd structure in that it feels residential while it has a commercial purpose. Ms. Kindt clarified that he would prefer to see a true double hung with that profile in there. Mr. Dixon replied that because it is non-contributing he isn’t sure that it needs to be a double hung. These are not historic windows and the aren’t trying to preserve the actual window patterning. He would be okay with a picture window or a slider. It is the punched opening vs. the storefront system he is struggling with. Ms. Kindt asked if he would be comfortable with a picture window with a different frame style. Mr. Dixon stated he would be more comfortable with that. They aren’t changing massing, size or scale. There is a case to be made that this differentiates old from new construction. It is a non- contributing feature so they are really just looking at whether it is going to impact the environment. Mr. Dixon feels they will be noticeable from the street that this isn’t a punched opening window. Ms. Kindt asked if they should be looking at the second floor windows as to the frame and window style. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 September 7, 2022 Mr. Dixon feels that is reasonable. In commercial structures the secondary elevations often have punched window openings as opposed to a storefront system and they were often a traditional window. Mr. Dixon feels the additional discussion was warranted. He suggested a motion was in order. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE as proposed with the exception of the simulated divided light grills, with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, finding that the structure nor the windows are contributing and that the alterations can be supported by the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. YEAS: NAYS: 1 (Dixon). MOTION CARRIED. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [4 TO 1] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Peter Bruinsma, Anna Kindt, Heather Van Wormer, Michael Rodriguez NAYS: Matthew Dixon ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner VI. New Business A. 1 IONIA SW - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 1 IONIA SW - REQUEST TO RETAIN OUTDOOR WALK UP BAR Ms. Baker recalled that during the pandemic both State and local governments initiated temporary changes to help support businesses through difficult times, such as social zones. In an effort equal to that, on a temporary basis staff has approved some alterations to help accommodate walk-up and take-out types of service. As we are coming out of the pandemic, governments are looking toward retaining some of the changes. However, she has had to go out and remind affected owners that the temporary approval issued by staff does expire October 1 of this year. Their options are to remove those temporary changes or request to retain them permanently. 1 Ionia is one example. It is the Hawkins building, built in 1885. It is on the southwest corner of Fulton and Ionia. They would like to retain a walk-up bar that was installed in one of the recessed entries on the north façade. They have decided that the walk-up service has become a substantial benefit to their business and is very important to its health and survival. Ms. Baker displayed images of the bar. It is set flush or recessed from the front façade within the recessed entry. It is not attached. It is constructed of wood. Ms. Baker displayed an image of the north façade indicating that it fronts Fulton St. The actual storefronts for the building front Ionia. There is a drive entrance to the City parking lot across the street. That drive entrance and the 50 Louis building next to it are the last properties within the historic district. The rear of the subject building is the west boundary of Heartside. Ms. Baker displayed additional photos of the building. The request is to retain the bar. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 September 7, 2022 Mr. Dixon asked if there is any reason to view this differently than a typical request to retain a non-conforming feature. Ms. Baker suggested the first consideration is to determine if it is non-conforming. This is a new application and it should be treated as if it isn’t there. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked what the impact is in closing off a door with respect to egress. Mr. Dixon replied that whether the bar is there or not, the door is not functional. It is blocked off from the inside. Michelle Ary related that she is the brand manager at Bar Fly. She read a prepared statement indicating that she is proud to speak on behalf of Grand Rapids Brewing Company in hopes to retain this outdoor walk-up bar, which has been coined the GRBC mini bar. The first day they opened the mini bar they stood beside local elected officials as they advocated for them and spoke about the economic importance of trying new things like bringing GRBC right to the streets of Grand Rapids. They applauded the commitment and investment in the business. GRBC invested in restoring the doors that haven’t been operable in years and also adding a free- standing bar top for easy access for the community. As the oldest brewery brand in the heart of Beer City USA they understand the importance of prioritizing historic preservation. They pride themselves on brewing the same recipe that was written in the late 1800’s. Day in and day out they stand beside their history and salute the six brewers who, in 1893, went against the odds to join forces to form Grand Rapids Brewing Company. Like the founders, they continue to rely on strategic thinking and community alliance to continue to bring the City of Grand Rapids great beer. The GRBC mini-bar has been an integral part of their survival. They have been unable to communicate directly with those who seek to experience the iconic beer destination of Grand Rapids. Depending on the activity in the city, the sales from the GRBC mini-bar can generate between 5 and 15% of the total revenue on any given day. When events are in town it has also been proven to create several thousands of dollars of sales in a week. Today this location has only recovered 67% of the pre-COVID sales for the entirety of 2022. Without this outdoor walk- up bar they will be faced with a difficult decision, a decision they fear will result in becoming just another statistic of local breweries to close their doors due to the odds stacked against them. While $5,000 a week in sales may not sound like a whole lot to some, in this moment it is the difference between making or losing money as an already struggling business. They are grateful for the City, local elected officials, and this committee for granting outdoor options like the GRBC mini-bar thus far and hope they are allowed to retain it. They are open to reasonable suggestions from the Commission. Ms. Ary thanked the Commission for their consideration. Ms. Kindt asked how the bar was installed in the opening and what the impact was to the existing building. Ms. Ary replied that it is her understanding that the doors that were once inoperable were restored to be opened again. In addition to that, the bar top is freestanding. She acknowledged that she is a bit naïve as to how it is standing there on its own but it is not touching the sides of that entryway. She is almost certain it is not secured to the side of the building at all. It is just a freestanding bar top connected to the base. How it is connected, she isn’t sure. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 September 7, 2022 Mr. Bruinsma asked the possibility of it being removed daily and being put back daily. Ms. Ary isn’t sure how heavy the structure is. They are open to considering a different material if the Commission desires. Mr. Bruinsma asked why it needs to be there semi-permanently. Ms. Ary explained that the reason it is pushed out is that when you open the doors they built a freestanding jockey box that allows them to put kegs inside and keep them cold in coolers. That is inside of a private dining space so if they push it back any more they will be at risk of losing the private dining room space, which is also part of their income. Mr. Dixon asked if they have a plan as to what months of the year they would be serving from this bar. Ms. Ary replied that since they have opened it they have taken advantage of any warm day, even in the months of November and December when there are concerts in town. It is mostly weather dependent. Ms. Van Wormer was curious about the barn wood that was selected and the consistency with the historical character of the building. She asked if she is missing something about the building where barn wood would be part of its historical character. Mr. Dixon suggested it is old and old. Ms. Ary agreed that was a fair assessment. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Van Wormer stated that the barn wood doesn’t seem to go with the rest of the building or the block. Mr. Dixon agreed it is not a reference that is otherwise established by this building. He can conclusively say that there is no other barn wood on this structure. Ms. Van Wormer felt it would have to be attached in some way to stay there for this period of time with that much use. Mr. Dixon suggested it could be attached to the ground. The concrete apron isn’t necessarily a historic material they would want to protect in the same way of the wood surrounds of the door. It is also possible that it is a heavy, freestanding structure. Ms. Kindt stated that the barn wood stood out to her as well. When you look at the door opening it has a high level of finish carpentry with what appears to be stained oak. The barn wood is more of a rough carpentry. In terms of compatibility, it is a bit jarring. It does differentiate but she feels there is likely a material that would be more compatible than the rustic barn wood, even though they wouldn’t require it match what is there. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 September 7, 2022 Mr. Dixon agreed. He suggested they take a step back. Dismissing the materiality of it, do they feel having the modification of this location, to have a bar of some kind, is supportable by the guidelines and Standards. Ms. Kindt replied that is difficult for her as well. However, they also have to take into consideration that they want these historic buildings used and occupied. Secretary of the Interior Standard 1 says minimal change to features and spatial relationships. She feels that the door recess is a spatial relationship on the façade. To have that off the space is kind of a negative space on the brick façade. She doesn’t feel it is ideal but with the bar being partial height you still understand that it is a door and see most of the recess. There may be a compromise there making these buildings useable for a new use, especially with COVID. Mr. Dixon agreed. While a door opening is an important spatial relationship, materiality aside, the way this is done the door opening still reads, especially because the building is so strongly masonry on the first floor that the infil of the different material still reads. He personally thinks that there is a way to do this that is supportable under the Standards and guidelines as a minimal change for a new use and changing times. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if there is any possibility of granting approval on a renewal basis. He gave the example of requiring it to be reconsidered every several years as the building use changes, etc. Ms. Kindt wondered if the approval could remain with the owner so that if the tenant or owner changed then it wouldn’t be permitted. Ms. Baker advised that all approvals are attached to the property, not to the use or user. The Commission could grant a temporary approval and require them to return after a certain period. Mr. Dixon suggested that at the very least they would want to stipulate that it not be attached to the building and that it be a reversible condition. He agreed that it would be nice if it weren’t a permanent condition. Mr. Bruinsma suggested that if they correct the materiality that encourages permanence. He feels a generous temporary approval during COVID recovery is appropriate. It is obviously temporary. It doesn’t feel right to him to build a permanent bar in that location. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that he feels the same way. Because it is barn wood it almost feels more appropriate than if a new bar were constructed in similar material and quality of the original opening because that bar would feel permanent and there would be no reason to reverse it. However, a structure that is built out of seemingly temporary materials and crude craftsmanship for a temporary purpose in his mind seems far more fitting for what they are protecting, which is the historic opening. Mr. Dixon expressed that his concern is that temporary, with an unlimited renewal possibility, becomes permanent. The Commission approved the cubes for two years and they are now on year four. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 September 7, 2022 Ms. Baker clarified that the cubes were approved for one year and they asked for an additional year. Mr. Dixon stated that there is typically no need to deny an extension so things that are supposed to be temporary live on in perpetuity, which is his concern. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez can envision a lot of good reasons that a future renewal could be denied, such as the economic climate being entirely different or the materiality of the temporary bar starts damaging the historic character of the opening. He would not be in favor of an application if the material, quality and craftsmanship are required to enhance or match that of the existing historic opening because that, in his mind, would symbolize a permanent feature. Mr. Dixon stated that he doesn’t disagree. If he were building this his recommendation wouldn’t have been to use stained oak. His recommendation would have been to go with something flat gray so that it visually disappears into the shadows of the opening. He feels that would be more successful and still differentiate between new and old, more so than barn wood. His concern remains that they will live with barn wood there for 8 years. What is the opinion of the Commission for a possible time frame for temporary approval. Ms. Van Wormer stated that she appreciates the work they’ve done on the door that is there. She is concerned about whether this is attached and how it is attached. She understands and agrees that the barn wood looks temporary and like it doesn’t fit but that makes her concerned about what it looks like in the environment. It isn’t a change in the building, it is just a change there, and if it is temporary and really meant to be temporary then she is more comfortable with it. Mr. Dixon agreed. He does see it having a negative impact on the rest of the District visually. If there was an infil building going up in Heartside and they wanted to use barn wood it would not be approved because it isn’t in keeping with the historic character. Ms. Van Wormer noted that that is an entire structure vs. a temporary piece. Mr. Bruinsma compared it to boarding up a window on a house. Ms. Van Wormer stated that she would be comfortable if they strongly voiced that this needs to be a temporary piece and that how it is attached needs to be very clear and that it shouldn’t be permanently attached in any way. Ms. Baker related that her understanding is that it is not attached to the structure at all and the Commission can stipulate that remain that way. She advised that the Commission has two avenues; approvable under criteria 1 if the design and materiality of it change or approvable as it is, with some modifications, on a temporary basis. She would suggest a period of 3 years to allow for recovery due to the pandemic. Process was discussed. Ms. Baker advised that the Commission can approve the request on a temporary basis and require alterations or approve it as is on a temporary basis, or table it for design changes. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 September 7, 2022 Mr. Dixon agreed with tabling. He doesn’t feel they can make a call on design based on what has been provided. Mr. Bruinsma stated that his logic is that it is here because of COVID. COVID isn’t over so he feels they could allow it to remain temporarily. Ms. Van Wormer feels that if they follow staff’s advice that it has to be revisited in three years, first off they don’t know what the effects of COVID are yet or what changes there are going to be but in three years they will likely have a better understanding in the business aspect as well as in the historic business aspect and how those environments may be changing in function. They don’t know that yet and she would not like to decide today and guess what that is going to be. She would rather have a temporary approval so that decision can be made when there is more information. Mr. Dixon stated that he doesn’t disagree. If they approve this temporarily for three years he doesn’t personally believe it is a big ask of the owner to reclad it in a more appropriate material in keeping with the District. Mr. Bruinsma agreed. Ms. Van Wormer agreed, as long as the more appropriate material still makes it clear that it is temporary. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez expressed his comfort in approving, as is, on a temporary basis for a period of 24 months. He doesn’t believe that as constructed it will be there in 36 months. Mr. Dixon pointed out that if they approve as is for three years and the barn wood falls apart in a year, they could put new barn wood up. Ms. Baker advised that the Commission can approve it temporarily with the stipulation that the barn wood be replaced with a flat, smooth panel, painted gray. Mr. Dixon suggested temporary approval for three years with one year to change the exterior material, which is to be approved by the HPC. Ms. Baker advised that that would be an extension of the emergency action. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF THE EMERGENCY APPROVAL for the outdoor bar for a period of three years with the requirement that the applicant return within one year for consideration of a new face material with the stipulation that the existing bar and future bar be completely freestanding and reversible. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 September 7, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner B. 25 IONIA SW - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 25 IONIA SW - WALK UP WINDOWS Ms. Baker identified the building as the Lemon & Wheeler Company Building at the northwest corner of Ionia and an alley that can be considered an extension of Weston. The building dates to 1883 and is a contributing structure to the District. Staff granted a temporary emergency approval related to the pandemic. Ms. Baker displayed a photo explaining that they simply raised the lower sash and installed two sliding walk up windows; the entire sash is still there. The main reason is that the existing windows can’t handle all of the up and down movement required for a service window. They have found this beneficial to their business. The windows in question are on the first floor, south elevation, located directly underneath the fire escape. Part of the fire escape ladder blocks one of the windows. From a bit further down Ionia, looking north, the trees block the view. Mr. Dixon asked how the sliding windows are attached. Ms. Baker replied that her understanding is that they were fit between the interior and exterior stops and screwed into the sash. That was the original conversation she had with them. She doesn’t believe they were able to friction fit them but they may have been able to. Mr. Dixon clarified that the existing lower sashes are still in place, they are just raised as if the window was opened. Ms. Baker agreed. Andrew Woodruff, VP of Finance for Barfly, was present on behalf of Hop Cat. Hop Cat was one of the first restaurants to revitalize Ionia St. in 2008 and they are proud to be a staple of the corridor. It is no secret that COVID has been a major struggle for restaurants everywhere. This location has only recovered 65% of it’s pre-pandemic sales thus far year to date. This trend has led them to seek out alternative revenue sources via a new use of an existing space within the building; the windows in question. By installing the to-go windows, they were able to tap into unanticipated success by being able to serve guests as they pass through the Ionia social district. They have seen strong sales and have needed to add additional staff to be able to execute on big event days. Depending on the night, these windows generate an additional 3-10% of the sales for the day. The to-go windows also have a great secondary benefit by allowing them to keep staff and guests safe during Omicron waives by keeping food delivery drivers and pick up customers outside the building. Their intent and view on the matter is that these to-go windows are as minimal of a change as possible. They carefully worked to source a product that would not detract from the historical nature. From the street they intended that this would be indiscernible to anyone passing by. Mr. Woodruff stated that he understands the Commission’s decision is not Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 September 7, 2022 based on their economic woes but rather the historic preservation guidelines. He wished to impress upon the Commission how critical a seemingly small change like this can be and how it can have a significant impact on their ability to continue to operate. Mr. Woodruff related that they have several locations that are beating pre-COVID by 110 - 135% but the Grand Rapids area locations have struggled mightily. Mr. Woodruff thanked the Commission for their consideration. They propose to keep the windows in their current form but are open to any reasonable recommendations. Mr. Dixon asked if there is a time of the year they expect this to be open or is it just as often as possible. Mr. Woodruff replied it is opportunistic. It is even less seasonal because a staff member doesn’t have to be outside. Therefore, it is year-round. Mr. Dixon asked if he was aware how the windows are attached. Mr. Woodruff wasn’t completely certain. He responded to additional questions indicating that the windows are aluminum. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon finds this to be a pretty ingenious solution to the problem. All of the historic material has been retained. There is a reversible solution. He agrees that from the street it is a minimal change to accommodate this new use and allow for the COVID restrictions to play themselves out. Several Commissioners agreed. Mr. Dixon asked how others felt about a temporary or permanent approval. Ms. Van Wormer stated that if what is in there isn’t affecting the original window, she is comfortable with this approval being permanent. This fits the building and the street much more than the previous consideration. She doesn’t feel that they need to come back. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed that it doesn’t obscure the original windows and is easily reversible. He would be comfortable approving it as applied for. He noted that the operation does require a particular type of window so it is unreasonable to request that they use the original sash window. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 15 September 7, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner C. 550 MADISON SE- HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 550 MADISON SE- REQUEST FOR GLASS BLOCK IN BASEMENT OPENINGS Ms. Baker related that this house dates to approximately 1885 and is a contributing resource to the Heritage Hill Historic District. The owner is requesting to replace the boards that currently infill three basement window openings with glass block. The openings do not have window sashes or frames within them. Two of the windows are located on the rear façade. The third is located on the north façade directly under the middle window. Ms. Baker displayed a photo to illustrate some of the issues they are having with water run off. The property to the north is considerably higher and drains toward this foundation. The sill of that window is almost even with grade. Ms. Baker displayed an image of the type of glass block proposed. It would be recessed to be flush with the interior wall and they aren’t proposing any venting. Ms. Van Wormer asked if the vent in the existing window would be moved. Ms. Baker replied that they will either have to relocate it up or there will be a vent through the glass block. It just won’t be the typical air vent. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that the local preservation guidelines state that the HPC may require screening with screens or storm widows. There is no criteria in the guidelines to describe when or why that would be required. Ms. Baker explained that there have been a couple of times where it’s been found to be necessary. A lot of times screening is involved when dealing with an unusual situation and the window opening may be slightly more visible from the public right-of-way. Mr. Dixon noted that although the window on the north is fairly far back from the street it may be minimally visible. Ms. Baker indicated that you can’t see the window on the north side from the sidewalk. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that the guidelines state that vents within glass block will not be permitted. Ms. Baker explained that that relates to the long rectangular vents that allow air flow. It breaks up the symmetry and pattern of the glass blocks. It is an eye catching piece that you don’t want in an area that you’re trying to diminish the visibility of. With regard to mechanical vents, it is a square and the glass block is square. That location is also at the rear so it won’t have any more impact than it already does compared to putting a hole into the historic material above it. If the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 16 September 7, 2022 Commission approves, the approval could include allowing for the dryer vent going through the glass block rather than damaging historic material. Ms. Kindt noted the presence of a basement window through the foundation on the south side that has a 3-pane window in it. Ms. Baker believes that the south side does have the windows and they are not a part of this request. They are potentially historic. There is no doubt that the house had windows of that type in the basement at one point. There was no applicant present. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels the application for glass block is approvable in this instance considering the location of the openings. Mr. Dixon agreed adding that there is the added plus to this application that there is no existing historic material that they’re replacing so there is no damage being done to historic materials. Mr. Bruinsma feels they made a valid point about the potential for historic materials to be damaged because of water leakage. They are also concerned about security and energy efficiency. He would not be in favor of this in a visible location. Ms. Van Wormer would like the dryer vent to be approved in the glass block so as not to impact historic material. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 2, 6, & 9 with the stipulation that the new dryer vent opening go through the glass block and the glass block windows are to be recessed as deep as technically feasible in the existing openings. SUPPORTED by Ms. Van Wormer. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Heather Van Wormer YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner D. 534 WEALTHY SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 534 WEALTHY SE - REQUEST TO REMOVE TWO BANKS OF WINDOWS Ms. Baker related that the house dates to approximately 1880 and is contributing to the Heritage Hill Historic District. The period of significance for Heritage Hill is 1845 to 1968. This is a two- part request. One request deals with the one-story addition located on the west side near the rear. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 17 September 7, 2022 Ms. Baker explained that she has no historic photos and was unable to find any that illustrate that side of the house. Using Sanborn maps, Building records and the Assessor’s records she tried to figure out the history or origin of the addition. The best she can determine is it appeared somewhere between 1936 and 1946. Her best guess is closer to 1940. They do know that an enclosed addition was added to the north side of it, covering up a couple of the west windows of the house in 1946. It was removed in 1988. Prior to this installation, there appears to have been an open porch in this location but it too morphed and shifted. From 1895 to 1913 its footprint and location moved, shifted, or changed. As far as the footprint, she would guess it is from approximately 1940 but there is no way to know if the current exterior design and materials are historic to the 1940 construction or not. That proposal includes removal of the gang of five windows on the south/rear façade of that structure. Per the applicant, they are having difficulty not only utilizing the space but controlling the temperature in the space. They are hoping by removing the bank of windows it will assist with those issues. They would infil the space with wood clapboard siding to match the surrounding house. The first order of business is to determine if the structure has gained significance in its own right over time as a contributing feature of the home. Is it some sort of important architectural design, does it show a certain level of craftsmanship, is it part of some sort of historical movement or important defining point in the home? Whether it is contributing or not will dictate which path the Commission takes in terms of applying the guidelines for the rest of the request. Ms. Baker explained that the second portion of the request is removal of the gang of four fixed/casement windows on the west façade, first floor nearest the corner. Again, there are no historical photos. The owner did open up the wall and found an oddity within that location so it is possible that it has been altered over time. Ms. Baker stated that her professional opinion is that these are not historic to this home. They were added but she doesn’t know at what point. They don’t follow any rhyme, reason or pattern that exists on this building. It is a quintessential Queen Ann. It has a lot of skinny, tall, double hung windows located throughout. It is asymmetrical but also has a symmetrical pattern as you walk around the house. There are a few minor decorative casements on the second floor front façade but nothing like this in this particular area. The bank next to them could likely have been original. It is very common to have that high of a window in the formal dining room. Those windows are actually in the historic formal dining room. The location of the windows in question is the former parlor. It is very awkward and doesn’t fit the space properly. There are a lot of things about it that just don’t fit. It could have had a window that mirrored the one above it, perhaps no window, or a smaller ornate stained glass window. In her opinion, these are not historic to the house. Since they don’t know how old they are the Commission should consider whether they could have gained significance. Mr. Dixon asked, when Ms. Baker states not historic to the house, is it that they are not original to the house and it was an alteration at some point in history. Ms. Baker agreed; an alteration at some point but how modern or old she doesn’t know. She generally doesn’t use the term original because it isn’t legally defining. She refers more to historic. Mr. Dixon pointed out that saying something is not historic also implies that it has not gained historic significance, which they have to determine. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 18 September 7, 2022 Ms. Baker agreed they have to determine that. Mr. Dixon continued. There is no way to tell whether that addition occurred before or after the period of significance for Heritage Hill. Ms. Baker related that they are there in the early 80s. The period of significance is 1968. Ms. Van Wormer stated that in her view saying not historic is not just about one time period but also does it fit the style. Does it contribute to the historic nature of the house and this is very different from the Queen Ann windows and the rest of the design. Mr. Dixon agreed and suggested they save that discussion for deliberation. Todd Wittlinger was present on behalf of the request. He purchased the property approximately 20 years ago. He has obtained some history on the house having met with two owners previous; Larry and Nancy Beckwith. There was one owner between the Beckwith’s and Mr. Wittlinger. The Beckwith’s did a major renovation in 1988 and then they sold the house. With respect to the proposed removal of the windows on the south/rear elevation, that room has been made into a bedroom. It has five windows facing west and five facing south. It is difficult to keep that room cool. He recently put reflective paint on the metal roof to try to reflect the heat. The windows were in there in 1988 when the renovation was done. There were four apartments in the house prior to the renovation. Mr. Wittlinger hopes the removal of those windows helps with the heating and cooling and creates better living space and provides more privacy than the existing situation with ten windows in the room. Mr. Wittlinger commented on the proposed removal of the windows facing west. He explained that the house now has two apartments, one on the first floor and one on the second floor. On the front facing Wealthy there are eight windows, all of which are primarily double hung. A couple upstairs are casement. There are three doors on that façade. On the east side of the house there are nine windows including the eye brow windows on the third floor. There are nine windows on the south side also. On the west side there are twenty-four windows. Mr. Wittlinger explained that he pulled out a piece of drywall in the living room in an effort to determine whether the subject windows were there. There is a dimensional 2 x 4 in there that doesn’t match the others. It is smooth vs. rough sawn and it isn’t 16” on center. When he talked with Nancy Beckwith they tore out all of the drywall because there was an entrance off of Paris to another apartment on that side. When they tore that off she was adamant that those banks of windows, 4 in the living room and 4 in the dining room, were added/not original. Mr. Wittlinger related that he was thinking about removing the windows in the dining room but he agrees with Ms. Baker that it makes sense to have those windows. Mr. Wittlinger clarified for Mr. Bruinsma that he is proposing to remove five windows on the south side in the bedroom and four in the living room, the high windows. He is not proposing to remove the five in the bedroom facing Paris. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 19 September 7, 2022 Mr. Dixon suggested first discussing the bedroom/historic sun porch to determine whether the windows are a contributing feature to the structure. Ms. Baker advised that the Commission should determine whether that structure is a contributing feature to the house. Mr. Dixon feels the historic sun porch is character defining. It was added during the period of significance. It was a frequent addition to homes of this period and it matches the flat roof structures seen throughout the neighborhood. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez and Ms. Kindt agreed. Mr. Dixon asked if anyone feels the subject windows are not contributing features to that contributing structure. Ms. Kindt noted that there is evidence of the footprint with slight changes over time but they have no evidence of whether it was a true sun porch with a railing. Mr. Dixon added that they know this was a building form that was frequently erected around this time period. Without evidence to the contrary, he finds no reason to assume that it has changed significantly since that addition. Ms. Van Wormer pointed out that if it was a sun porch it has changed. They don’t know if the windows were there when the addition was put on. They have found that the addition is contributing but they don’t know if the windows were part of that. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that they are asked to interpret based on the evidence they have. Mr. Dixon added that they have no reason to believe the windows were added outside of the period of significance or otherwise not contributing. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that he feels similarly. In the sun room addition the pattern of fenestration and proportions of the window openings and divisions are consistent with what he would consider to be a contributing sun room in the District. Ms. Kindt agreed. Whether the footprint and infil panels changed, they are likely to have occurred within the period of significance even if there were some changes to the sun room over time. There was no disagreement. Mr. Dixon asked, based on that finding and the Standards, is removal of the five windows supportable. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez replied no, for the same reasons they have already described. The form of that sun room addition and the windows in it are consistent with a sun room that is in keeping Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 20 September 7, 2022 with the historic character of the property. There is no evidence that those windows weren’t there during the period of significance and therefore, they are worthy of being saved. Mr. Dixon referred to the Standards which state that removing or radically changing windows so that, as a result the character of the building is diminished will not be undertaken. He feels that removing the windows that they have no reason to believe are not character defining would be diminishing the overall structure and not allowable per the guidelines. In addition, the Secretary of Interiors Standard 2 says the historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. Removal of historic materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property shall be avoided. This would be removal of historic materials and features. Ms. Kindt agreed. With the windows occurring during the period of significance, the windows make it read as a sun room. Changing that would qualify as a significant change to the historic feature. The Commission discussed the four windows in the living room proposed for removal. Mr. Dixon recalled Ms. Baker’s statement that the windows occurred sometime after construction. She can’t say whether or not the alteration occurred before or after the period of significance. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez offered his interpretation of the four windows in the living room. Just as they interpreted the sun room windows as being an important part of the character of that room, he interprets the bank of four windows facing west to be an addition. He agrees with staff that there is nothing about the organization or character of the openings that would lead him to assume they are original. His interpretation is that the bank of windows facing west are an alteration from whatever pattern of fenestration was previously there. Because of the character of the nearest bank of four windows that is carefully situated with symmetry beneath the second story bay window, this bank falls out of that pattern of symmetry with respect to the second floor. Additionally, the applicant shared that the stud framing pattern is different in this wall and, per testimony, that the previous owner removed a door that was installed at some point in the midst of this bank of windows. All of those points make him believe that they were not historic and are not necessarily contributing to the character of the building. Ms. Kindt asked if the door and stoop were removed from the sun room. Ms. Baker replied yes. There was an enclosed structure on the north wall of the sun room. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez expressed his misunderstanding. He would still stand by his interpretation based on the composition of the windows as they are and the irregular framing pattern discovered by the applicant. He feels the four windows in question are not historic and are not character defining to the house. Mr. Bruinsma agreed adding the observation that as opposed to the sun room windows, which has been clearly identified as a representation of its time, this might be an opportunity for a false sense of historic development to be undone because it does match but is also clearly of a different time based on the testimony of the owner, the previous owners, and also staff’s observation that it doesn’t make sense in that location. It does look similar but it does appear to Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 21 September 7, 2022 be false development. Therefore, in his mind that is not a historic feature of the home. Mr. Bruinsma expressed that he is also conflicted somewhat because he does believe there was a window there. By removing the bank of windows they are losing transparency, which bothers him somewhat but that pattern of windows, as it exists, doesn’t feel like something that needs to be retained. He clarified that his observation of there having been a window there is conjecture as they have no evidence. Ms. Van Wormer asked if they are saying that because this bank doesn’t fit the logic or style of building, even though they don’t know when these windows were added. She is somewhat conflicted because it seems like they are using different logic and criteria. She isn’t opposed to that but feels they need to be very clear as to why they are using different logic in one place than another. While there may have been something there, they firmly believe that these were not in the pattern of the room. They don’t know if they are pre-1968 or not. With the other windows, because they don’t have any evidence that they were after the period of significance, they are assuming they were during. If they are going to have different logic in the same building for a similar request she wants the reasoning to be very clear as to why. Mr. Bruinsma stated that he feels they need to ask that question and that is the conflict. In his opinion, Standards 2 and 5 apply differently between this bank of windows and the windows in the sun room. Mr. Dixon feels the application of the Standards is logically sound across both for the reason that the sun room/bedroom is a recognizable architectural feature that they can take precedent from other homes and say this is how it was frequently done. Therefore, there is logic to support that this was done at this point. He feels the same cannot be said for the bank of four windows. That is not a recognizable architectural feature in that location. Therefore, that is why they can view them as different. That being said, a feature does not have to be original to a home for it to be historically significant. A later addition, such as a sun room, can gather historical significance of its own right and therefore become a contributing feature of the home. When they don’t have evidence as to whether or not that pre-dates and post-dates the period of significance of the District, he struggles with it as well because his inclination is to bear on the side of protection if they don’t know. Ms. Van Wormer pointed out that they do have what was exposed in the wall. Mr. Dixon agreed but they don’t know when that was done. Ms. Baker suggested the Commission is weighing a bit too heavy on the time frame; that is only one consideration. Did it occur during the period of significance. The second step is whether it is a contributing feature of the house. Do the windows on the west side contribute to the house in architecture. Are they unique craftsmanship. Do they tell a special story like a garage? In the sun room the Commission found that it did fall in the period of significance and yes it is a recognized historic style or architecture and it does tell part of the story of the house and an important part. These are the features of a sun room that give it its character. That is more weighted in the decision than whether it is just historic or not. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 22 September 7, 2022 Mr. Dixon asked Commissioners if they feel the windows meet the other criteria for being a contributing feature since they don’t know whether they were installed during the period of significance. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated no. Ms. Kindt also stated no. On the sun room they found them contributing because the amount of glazing was important to define it as a sun room addition. With this, what differentiates it for her, is that the change in the windows didn’t gain significance because it wasn’t part of how the room was defined and it wasn’t an addition. Ms. Van Wormer felt that was a clear reason for why they are being treated differently. Mr. Bruinsma indicated that that is his opinion as well. It does bother him somewhat that they are being completely eliminated but he doesn’t consider that bank of windows contributing based on the guidelines. Mr. Dixon asked, if it isn’t a contributing feature, does it negatively impact the rest of the structure or neighborhood to have that infilled with siding. He feels the clear answer to that would be no. Mr. Bruinsma noted however that they are losing transparency. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez suggested the local guidelines address that. They say that removing or radically changing windows are not recommended if the result is the character of the building is diminished. Additionally, a spatial relationship that characterizes a property should be avoided. He asked Mr. Bruinsma if he is wondering if removing the windows adversely alters the spatial relationships. Mr. Dixon believes those regulations only apply to contributing features. Ms. Van Wormer referred to packet page 109. There is quite a bit of clapboard on the top and the bay window is right next to these four windows. The four windows being gone and there being more clapboard actually highlights the round window there and it adds another space below that is similar to what is above and fits. Mr. Bruinsma agreed. However, he would personally prefer a single double hung in that location to match what is above. Ms. Van Wormer noted however that she doesn’t see many places in this house where the downstairs windows are exactly in alignment with the upstairs windows of this house. Ms. Baker noted that there is something similar on the east side with a single window above an expanse of solid. Mr. Dixon stated, based on the fact that staff’s opinion is that this is an alteration and was not part of the structure at the time of original construction and because they have found that they are Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 23 September 7, 2022 not a distinctive feature that characterizes the property, he feels that satisfies the Secretary of Interior Standards to remove them. They have found that it has not acquired historic significance in its own right and it is not a distinctive material, feature, or construction technique. The Commission was in agreement. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO DENY the removal of the bank of five windows on the south wall of the single-story addition based on the Secretary of Interior Standards 2, 5, 6 & 9. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO APPROVE, with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the removal of the bank of four windows on the Paris/west elevation based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards 2, 5, 6 & 9 with the stipulation that the infil siding be staggered. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd- Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion Ms. Baker explained that there has been an escalation of inappropriate activity and unsafe use of alcoves and recessed entries downtown. In the past they dealt with that with lighting and getting eyes on the area. That has been moderately successful over the years. As the climate changes, and that the alcoves being lit doesn’t stop the activity, there is an interest in considering alternatives to the sliding security gate systems that no one really wants. They were wondering about the possibility of a more ornate or decorative system that would remain open during the day. She believes they will be seeing a request to do something if the inappropriate use doesn’t begin to turn around. IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 7:07 p.m.