Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 November 2, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Baldwin, Bruinsma, VanWormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Dixon, Kindt, Gleisner Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez called the meeting to order. Being that the Chair and Vice-chair were absent, Mr. Bruinsma nominated Mr. DeMaagd- Rodriguez to serve as Chair. Supported by Ms. Baldwin. Motion carried unanimously. III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from October 5, 2022 Motion by Ms. Van Wormer, supported by Mr. Bruinsma, to approve the minutes of the October 5, 2022 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff Motion by Ms. Van Wormer, supported by Mr. Bruinsma, to approve the Certificates of Appropriateness issued by staff. Motion carried unanimously. 217 Antisdel NE 315 Crescent NE 550 Lyon NE 11 Ionia SW 602 Evans SE 504 College SE 601 Crescent NE 316 Claremont NE 16 Union NE 234 Madison SE 320 Madison SE 320 Union NE 553 Union SE 114 Lafayette SE 209 College NE 811 Fairmount SE 922 Virginia SE RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Heather VanWormer SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Heather VanWormer, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Tim Gleisner V. Old Business Generated 11/7/2022 5:54 AM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 November 2, 2022 VI. New Business A. 223 WASHINGTON SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 223 WASHINGTON SE- REQUEST TO EXPAND PARKING LOT Ms. Baker identified the building as the City’s Archive and Research Center. It was built as a phased project from 2001-2002. Several of the phases were not actually undertaken. As the years have passed, they have found a great need for additional parking. The request is to expand their existing parking lot 20 ft. to the west. The location of the existing parking on the east side would remain and the west line would move further west by 20 ft. It will not go in front of the building. There will be a small, 3 ft., concrete service walk along the west side of the new parking. Currently there is a brick wall that separates the front half of the parking lot from the back half. They propose removing that and building a 4 ft. tall brick wall around the existing mechanical equipment, which is located at the back of the lot. It will match the screen wall surrounding the dumpster. The parking surface will be asphalt to match existing. There are no proposed changes to the curb cut design. Ms. Baker clarified that this is a non-contributing building and site. The Commission’s consideration is based on impact to the surrounding historic structures and context. She explained that this area is transitional into the more residential area. To the east of the subject property is a contributing mid-century modern medical office surrounded by an asphalt parking lot. Directly to the west of the subject property is part of the addition; another non-contributing structure from the early 2000’s. It is attached to the old historic museum structure, which is contributing to the district. On the other side of the street is the Calkins Law Office from the early 1800’s. It was moved to this location. The City pocket park is modern era and was designed to hold the Calkins Law Office, which is a local landmark that falls within the boundaries of the district. Next to it is a contributing mid-century medical office building, which is surrounded by a surface parking lot. On the corner is a contributing, late 1800’s, house. The context of this particular street is fluid. Kevin Koster, Prein & Newhof, related that they were hired by the City in 2018 to provide conceptual ideas for expanding the parking lot in this location. They were asked again earlier this year to assist with the final design and implementation of the design. Mr. Koster explained that the facility was originally built in 2000 primarily as a storage facility for the City, County and museum. As a storage facility, with very limited staff, the parking was sufficient at the time. However, the Community Archive and Research Center currently has 2 full-time staff members, 4 volunteers and 2-4 college interns depending on the day and that is just for the City’s portion of that work. The Grand Rapids Public Museum has also rapidly increased their use of the facility in the last 15 years and now have 9 permanent staff members and are frequently visited by staff members who aren’t working from that location, as well as tours and other work. Some of the notes they provided are that typically, in a week’s activity, they have 10-15 active volunteers or interns who are using the site. They regularly host guests during business hours and for research. They host tours for school groups, sometimes up to 60 additional students. The museum is also considering building out a white box space that would create additional parking needs for the facility. The Dominican Sisters of Marywood have also been using the Center for storage as they renovate their own facility and they have guests and researchers that actively use the site as well. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 November 2, 2022 Mr. Koster related that the existing parking lot has approximately 10 spaces and one handicap accessible space. He displayed a photo noting that staff and others using the facility are finding whatever means that they can to park and others are utilizing other parking lots or street parking. The configuration of the existing parking lot is also very problematic because you are forced to back out of the parking lot with the angled parking. They’ve had issues with scrapes, door dings, etc. and they have greater concerns that some day it could lead to someone being hurt. During the winter, with snow piles, it becomes that much more problematic. Mr. Koster explained that the proposal is to expand the parking lot another 20 ft. The existing brick wall would be removed and a half wall will be placed around the generator building matching the aesthetics of the dumpster enclosure. The parking would be 90-degree parking, vs. angled, on both sides and have ample room for cars to back out of the parking spaces and drive out of the parking lot. The expansion would provide approximately 10 additional parking spaces and one handicap space. Ms. Baldwin asked if there is street parking. Mr. Koster replied that there is on the south side of the road. With the tours they have a fair amount of people in and out of the building that they weren’t originally planning for. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked how many spaces are required. Mr. Koster was not aware of the requirement. Mr. Bruinsma noted that the brick wall appears to have been put up at the same time as the building. He asked if the intention will be an exact or similar match. Mr. Koster replied that they will match it as closely as possible. Ms. Baker explained that they will require a Zoning variance. Mr. Koster advised that Zoning has presented an option to them that may not require a variance. It requires a buffer screen; a retaining wall or some fencing in front of the parking lot. They are exploring that option. Ms. Baker suggested the applicant speak further to that as front yard fencing requires HPC review. Mr. Koster explained where the fence/wall would be located. It would either be a complete brick wall or a brick wall with some decorative fencing and some landscaping in front of it. His understanding is that City staff prefers the greener look rather than just a solid brick wall. Ms. Van Wormer asked if that will block visibility for those existing the parking lot. Mr. Koster replied that at the point where the wall ends it would have to be set back far enough so as not to affect the sight lines. Ms. Baker added that they will be required to keep it out of the clear vision triangle required by the Zoning Ordinance. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 November 2, 2022 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked the approximate height of the wall. Mr. Koster replied that it would have to be between 36 and 48 inches. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Bruinsma recognized that this area is an exception to other areas in Heritage Hill. It is a transitional area with a lot of asphalt and commercial mixed with historic properties. There are other properties in this area with a substantial amount of asphalt. While that isn’t normally a material to be used in the area, and would be off-putting in a lot of areas, in this location it is normal and accepted and meshes with the rest of the neighborhood. As far as fitting into the area, this is one of the few areas where you could do that. Ms. Baldwin agreed adding that this change would seem to have a minimal impact on the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. He felt it was worth reiterating that the site and structure are non-contributing. It is the impact on the surrounding contributing buildings and sites that they are considering. He agreed that this minimal increase of asphalt for parking won’t be perceived as a significant impact to the surrounding contributing district. Ms. Van Wormer agreed, particularly since the surrounding contributing buildings are surrounded by asphalt. Mr. Bruinsma added that it doesn’t remove historic materials or change spatial relationships. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez finds the application complete with respect to the proposed expansion of the parking. However, if Zoning is going to require the applicant to install a fence or masonry wall or landscaping buffer, how can they evaluate something they haven’t seen? Ms. Baker advised that if it is entirely vegetation then the Commission won’t be looking at it. She suggested the Commission could provide her with direction they would be comfortable with such as whether it would be okay to be solid, the height, material. If the Commission isn’t comfortable with that, they could return in December with that proposal. Ms. Van Wormer referred to the photos noting that from the sign to parking lot is the entire front of the area in question. She would feel more comfortable seeing their proposal. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez understands the benefits of screening the parking but a 3-4’ high brick wall is going to have a greater impact on the surrounding area than a surface parking lot. His personal feeling is that if it is a landscape buffer it would not require HPC review but if it is a fence or wall, that should return. All Commissioners were in agreement. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 November 2, 2022 Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO APPROVE the application as submitted, with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 2, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Baldwin. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO TABLE the verbally proposed screening. SUPPORTED by Ms. Van Wormer. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Kerry Baldwin YEAS: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Heather VanWormer, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Tim Gleisner B. 11 IONIA SW - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 11 IONIA SW - REQUEST TO REPLACE SKYLIGHTS Ms. Baker related that the subject building was constructed in the early to mid-1880s. Per the Sanborn maps, the building had two independent sky lights. The applicant is proposing to replace the two sky lights with a single, larger, sky light. The existing sky lights are taking on moisture and they have other issues. She deferred to the applicant to explain the condition. The proposed sky light is approximately 30 ft. long and 10 ft. wide with a very similar profile and design as the existing, which is a basic triangle with no side walls. The structure will be several feet back from any of the edges of the building and not visible from anywhere other than inside the adjoining buildings through windows or from overhead. Ms. Baker shared that she asked the applicant why they are proposing going from two sky lights to one. She displayed interior photos explaining that there is approximately a 6 ft. space between the finished ceiling and the sky lights so it has a tunnel or spot light effect for the natural light; it doesn’t diffuse out. The space is very long and skinny and has a small storefront system. The space relies heavily on interior lighting sources vs. natural light. Her understanding is that their goal is to introduce more natural light into the space. Jared Helfrich, Integrated Architecture, stated that the sky lights are approximately 50 ft. back in the space. It appears that in the 60s or 70s they dropped an additional ceiling below the existing ceiling. There are a couple of columns inside that really only support the ceiling structure. From an interior perspective the idea is to overhaul and expose a lot of the existing wood beams to get some visual interest and open it up. The former use was more of a bar than restaurant and the future use is more restaurant than bar. They desire more daytime users and to add more daylight to make it more of a dining experience vs. a bar experience. Mr. Helfrich agreed with Ms. Baker that the sky lights are not visible without a drone. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked how tall the existing sky lights are. Mr. Helfrich estimated they are approximately 2 ft. tall. It is a low pitch and so they are approximately at a 30 degree angle and sit on a little curb on top of a flat roof. The proposed sky Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 November 2, 2022 light is approximately 3 ½ ft. It will still be a low pitch and still have a bit of a curb. The goal is in the amount of glazing they can get to open it up. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Bruinsma suggested that their first consideration is whether the existing sky lights are contributing. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez pointed out that the original sky lights existed for a very long time, pre-dating establishment of the district but they aren’t visible from anywhere in the public realm. Ms. Van Wormer appreciates that they are in the Sanborn map but doesn’t feel they are contributing based on where they are located on the roof and not visible from the street. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. It is difficult to argue that because they are visible on the map in the archives that they are contributing to the character as they would be experienced from the streetscape. Ms. Van Wormer added that you could probably make an argument if they were mentioned in the Sanborn, which is fire insurance, that there was a reason that they thought there should be windows there; light, access into the building from that roof. In her opinion it would be more problematic to eliminate those sky lights than to expand them. Ms. Baldwin asked if the rationale is that because they aren’t visible from anyplace except inside is why they are non-contributing. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez replied non-contributing to the character of the building. It is hard to imagine them contributing to the character if no one can perceive them as part of the assembly of the building. Ms. Baker agreed that it would be a struggle to find them contributing just based on being visible from the interior. Ms. Baldwin understood the point and agreed. Ms. Van Wormer indicated that she would have objection if they were being removed entirely knowing that they were present and included in the Sanborn. Mr. Bruinsma asked if the opening then would be contributing. Ms. Van Wormer replied not just the opening but the fact that the proposed will be larger and is not being positioned somewhere else closer to the street or the back. Mr. Bruinsma recognized that their typical discussions are almost entirely about what is visible from the exterior and then they discuss the degree to which they are visible. In this case they are not visible unless from above. He doesn’t ever recall discussing sky lights before but does recall discussing roof lines, types of roofs, and types of openings that are visible. It is a unique and Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 November 2, 2022 interesting part of the building that they built it with sky lights in the 1880s but it is difficult to argue that they need to be preserved. The consensus was that the existing sky lights are not contributing to the character of the building as they are perceived from the exterior. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked then if the proposal for a much larger opening is appropriate. Does the proposed new structure meet the guidelines and standards? Ms. Baldwin pointed out that it won’t be visible from the exterior or impact the surrounding area or the subject building. Ms. Van Wormer agreed; it is just expanding what was already there. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. It isn’t adding a sky light where there was none. It is combining two openings into one much larger opening. Mr. Bruinsma stated that it won’t damage the character of the structure or any character defining features. The location is on the flat roof, centered away from both the front and rear parapet walls. Visibility is only from the interior. Considering those things, it seems to be a minimal change. The scale, material and design seem compatible. Ms. Baldwin MOVED TO APPROVE with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the fact that the sky lights are a non-contributing portion of the building and the Secretary of Interior Standards 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Van Wormer. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kerry Baldwin SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Heather VanWormer, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Tim Gleisner VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion 1. 2023 HPC MEETING SCHEDULE Motion by Ms. Baldwin, supported by Ms. Van Wormer, to adopt the 2023 meeting schedule. Motion carried unanimously. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 November 2, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kerry Baldwin SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Heather VanWormer, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Tim Gleisner IX. Public Comment None. 1. Informal Discussion - Security Gates Informal Discussion - Security Gates Ms. Baker requested direction from the Commission. She doesn’t feel it is necessary to amend the local guidelines. It can be establishing a process or supplement if the Commission feels it is appropriate. When considering everything, it is still the same thing they have always dealt with, with respect to security and security gates. When requested, they have typically required illustration of a perpetual issue and what other things have been tried to alleviate the issue. She asked if the Commission feels that would work in this instance as the process for someone who may wish to request a security gate. Ms. Van Wormer isn’t sure it would apply but in some historic buildings there used to be a security gate. If someone wants to put one up again, for whatever reason, would there be another way that they could apply without having to show that they’ve tried everything else. Ms. Baker stated that if they could illustrate that it was a contributing historic feature of a building that would be no different than someone saying their porch was removed in the 50s and they want to restore it back based on photographic evidence. That would be staff reviewed. She doesn’t know many that could say that because many security gates came in around the 60s and 70s and aren’t really historic features to the property. What has been requested is to identify gates that would be appropriate but you can’t do that in a historic district because every building is different. What might be appropriate for one may not be for another. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. Different doorways or openings on a single edifice can be dramatically different. Ms. Baker explained that she is having difficulty. She believes there is a desire for standardizing but she doesn’t know that is possible. They may be able to provide a cut sheet of possibilities depending on the building era. Things like pointing out that chain link is not appropriate; that it will have to be something somewhat ornamental; iron or ornamental aluminum; recessed and not applied to the face of the building; attached through mortar joints; reversable. Those are all things built into the guidelines and could be quantified into a handout. The Commission felt that was an accurate summary. There really isn’t a way to provide examples. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 November 2, 2022 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez suggested that another factor may be whether it is a publicly accessible building such as an office building or storefront or a secondary exit for an apartment building. They may have some trouble with egress because a gate can’t swing out into the sidewalk. You also can’t have egress that swings in against the flow of traffic. Ms. Baker believes Zoning will have to be involved as well. No matter what, it will have to be case by case. There are too many variations to make it standardized. She noted that another question is what to require as far as content for burden of proof. She recalled an instance of a commercial business on Weston with a product highly sought after and very marketable illegally. They were getting broken into on a fairly regular basis. They documented the police reports, the lighting they installed, security system, etc. and demonstrated that it was a perpetual problem they needed to address. With the issues occurring downtown, it isn’t a matter of them breaking in. Therefore, in many instances there likely won’t be police reports. Ms. Baker doesn’t want to receive photos when they find something every other day in their doorway. She asked what kind of information or documentation the Commission would want to see. Ms. Van Wormer asked if the problem is homeless sleeping in the doorways. Ms. Baker replied that it has always happened downtown, regardless of the city you’re in. It has escalated a lot over the last few years. They aren’t only occupying the space but defecating in the space and engaging in other inappropriate activity. It isn’t just at night; it also occurs during the day at times. It makes it unsafe feeling for both employees and clientele. The level it has escalated to has brought it to the City’s attention. Ms. Van Wormer pointed out that during the day a gate won’t make a difference if the business/building is open. Ms. Baker agreed. The gates won’t solve everything. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled that when Heartside Park wanted to relocate the restrooms from the rear of the park to near the sidewalk they testified to a long history of security issues related to the placement and they weren’t asked for documentation. Per testimony, and using common sense, the Commission accepted that as a valid argument. Ms. Baker recalled that was a non-contributing site and non-contributing building. She felt they could do something like that in combination with asking what else they’ve done to help mitigate the situation. Ms. Van Wormer suggested they provide a chronology of the issues. Ms. Baker agreed; provide a chronology, express what the issue is, when is it occurring and how long has it been occurring, what has been done over that period of time to try to address it, and information on the structure itself. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if it would be helpful to form a sub-committee to help draft a simple process. Both Commissioners that are absent this evening have a lot of experience with commercial design. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 November 2, 2022 Ms. Van Wormer suggested researching what other cities have done. Ms. Baker stated that she would be more than happy to work with a committee. She suggested she would put something together and send it to Ms. Kindt, Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, and Mr. Dixon for feedback. X. Adjourn 6:00 PM