Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 December 7, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Baldwin, Gleisner Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from November 2, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF REPORT STAFF ISSUED COA PERMITS Motion by Ms. Van Wormer, supported by Ms. Kindt, to approve the Certificates of Appropriateness issued by staff. Motion carried unanimously. 40 Portsmouth NE 60 Portsmouth NE 100 Monroe Center NW 220 Paris SE 225 Antisdel NE 306 Union NE 320 Henry SE 334 Union SE 335 Morris SE 351 Eureka SE 352 Morris SE 436 Union SE 528 Lyon NE 549 Fulton E 1154 Wealthy SE RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Heather VanWormer SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner Generated 12/12/2022 10:07 AM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 December 7, 2022 V. Old Business A. 45 COLLEGE SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 45 COLLEGE AVE SE - EXTENSION REQUEST TO REINSTALL FENCE Ms. Baker introduced the request for an extension. She recalled that in October, 2021, she approved a request for the temporary removal of the historic wrought iron fencing located along the west property line to enable construction of a new retaining wall. The wall is complete but the owner has had issues finding someone to help reinstall the fence. The Certificate of Appropriateness expired on October 19, 2022 and the owner is seeking an extension of the permit to July 1, 2023. They hope to complete the work yet this year but would like some flexibility in case of issues. There was no applicant present and no one present for public comment. Ms. Kindt feels that with the difficulty of finding contractors the request is reasonable. Additionally, the weather in the near future may not be conducive to completing the project. Mr. Dixon agreed adding that a seven-month extension is not extraordinary. Motion by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, supported by Ms. Kindt, to approve the requested extension until July 1, 2023. Motion carried unanimously. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner B. 318 DIAMOND - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 318 DIAMOND SE - Request for an extension of time to correct 2 doors Ms. Baker presented the request for an extension. In March, 2021, the owner had two front doors replaced without a permit. They received a complaint notice for that violation and came to the Commission requesting to retain the doors. That request was denied in June, 2021, requiring the owner replace the two metal doors with staff approved wood doors by June 2, 2022. Since that time, they have been working with staff on a variety of other things that needed to be done to the house so the Certificate of Appropriateness was combined with the violation case so they had one completion date moving the completion date to October13, 2022. The owner found two matching salvaged doors that Ms. Baker approved for the right material and design. They spent several months repairing them and getting them in good condition only to find that they didn’t quite work, which they discovered at the end of October/beginning of November. Mr. Dixon asked what didn’t work. Ms. Baker believes the owner was a bit optimistic on how much could be taken off without it compromising things. The other door was a bit too thick. They are now back to square one and Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 December 7, 2022 she is asking for time to find and order the correct doors. She is asking until July 1, 2023. She just began looking again in the last couple of weeks. Mr. Dixon clarified that in Ms. Baker’s opinion they are doing their best with what they’ve been given and for technical reasons they need extra time. Ms. Baker agreed. She found the salvaged doors rather quickly and desired to find salvaged vs. new. They have done quite a bit of additional work to the house in the meantime. Ms. Baker isn’t certain she will be able to meet the July 1 date by the time something is found, ordered, and installed. As long as she can show Ms. Baker that she has it set, she can provide some flexibility at that point. Ms. Baker suggested granting until July 1, 2023. There was no applicant present and no public comment. Mr. Bruinsma found no reason to deny the request for the stated reasons. Additionally, they have done other work. Mr. Simmons doesn’t feel July 1 will provide them enough time. He asked if the Commission can grant them more time than July 1. Ms. Baker replied affirmatively. Mr. Simmons suggested an extension until September 1. Other Commissioners were in agreement. Motion by Mr. Simmons, supported by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, to approve an extension until September 1, 2023. Motion carried unanimously. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas Simmons SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner C. 24 FOUNTAIN NE - LOCAL LANDMARK 24 FOUNTAIN NE - EXTENSION REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY SAFETY MEASURES Ms. Baker introduced the request for an extension. She recalled that in November, 2021, the applicant approached staff for an emergency Certificate of Appropriateness to install netting and other supportive elements around parts of their bell tower because it was becoming structurally unsound. For emergency purposes, since it abuts a sidewalk, the CoA was issued by staff with the caveat that they had one year before something else needed to be done. Over the course of the year they hired an architect and engineering firm. They did an assessment of it and found a lot of areas of deterioration. They wanted to do an x-ray to determine what is going on with the anchors and structural aspects. It is a church with Boards and Committees, which is a timely process to make decisions. They are currently awaiting the x-ray. Once they have that they will Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 December 7, 2022 get bids from the contractor and be able to prepare their work plan. They didn’t specifically indicate how much time they were requesting. Ms. Baker would suggest one year to return with a work plan in place to present for HPC approval. Mr. Dixon clarified that this extension is simply for the temporary security netting. When they return for repairs, they will return to staff or the HPC for a separate CoA. Ms. Baker agreed. She responded to Mr. Simmons relating that they have hired a contractor and an architectural firm. Both have extensive knowledge of historic structures of this scale. Ms. Baker has not seen a report from them yet. There was no applicant present and no public comment. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez related that he was involved in an early assessment of the tower. It is no longer a conflict of interest for him. It is a complex project and one he would expect to take a lot of time and due diligence. He would fully support an extension for that reason. It is not something they can easily acquire information on or even qualified contractors. Mr. Dixon added that it is definitely something the HPC would prefer they take their time with and do correctly vs. rushing through it. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez doesn’t believe there is any way to rush through it. Logistically it is incredibly complex in terms of access. Mr. Dixon feels that, per Ms. Baker’s testimony, they are acting in good faith and moving along. He sees no reason to deny this. He feels a year is appropriate and allows the HPC to stay up to date on what is happening and be informed when they come back with an application. Ms. Kindt agreed. They are making good forward progress. It is just going to take time. Motion by Ms. Kindt, supported by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, to approve an extension until November 23, 2023. Motion carried unanimously. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner D. 223 WASHINGTON - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 223 WASHINGTON - REQUEST FOR FRONT YARD FENCE Ms. Baker recalled that this is the site of the City Archive’s research and museum structure. It is not contributing to the district so the review is based on impacts to the surrounding context. They were before the HPC in November for expansion of their parking lot, which was approved. During that review it came to light that Planning was offering them an option of installing some Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 December 7, 2022 sort of screening along the front of the property as a method to facilitate the approval through Zoning. At that point there were no plans for what it would look like or what it would be made of so that portion was essentially tabled. They are before the HPC now with a plan. Ms. Baker explained that the proposed screening is basically a brick pier and ornamental aluminum fencing system. It will be placed along the front of the property approximately 5 ft. in from the sidewalk, from the monument sign to the new service walk that goes along with the expansion of the driveway. The piers are approximately 1.4 ft. square and 4 ft. tall. The fence is approximately 3 ft. 6 in. tall with 3 in x 3 in square aluminum support posts approximately every 6 ft. There would be landscaping between the fence and the sidewalk to meet Zoning code. Ms. Baker displayed an image of what it would essentially look like. Additional images of the streetscape and surrounding area were provided for context. Ms. Baker recalled that this is an eclectic block as it transitions into the more heavily residential portion of the neighborhood. Ms. Baker identified the contributing museum structure on the corner, a contributing 50’s medical office on Washington and Lafayette. Everything between those buildings is not contributing. On the south side of the street is a pocket park, which itself is non-contributing but it houses the Hawkins Law Office, which is a local landmark. There is also a contributing medical building and contributing late 1800’s house with a sea of surface parking lots. Mr. Dixon asked if Planning requested this buffer. Ms. Baker explained that the Zoning code doesn’t permit front yard parking. Portions of the expanded parking lot would technically be in the front yard. By creating a buffer or wall that aligns with the south wall of the other buildings they can look at that as more of the edge vs. the south façade of the existing archives building. The proposed fence doesn’t actually screen anything; it is more about creating an edge. Mr. Dixon clarified that it isn’t creating an edge of the building; it is creating an edge of their property. Mr. Dixon asked if the parking lot expansion is contingent upon this approval. Ms. Baker deferred to the applicant. Her understanding is if the fence isn’t approved, they would likely be required to seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Baker responded to Mr. Simmons relating that the caps of the columns would be cast stone. Ms. Kindt asked how the HPC relates to the variance if they have to seek one. Ms. Baker replied that other than providing comments, it would go to the BZA and they have their own standards that have to be met to grant a variance. Kevin Koster, Prein & Newhof, was present on behalf of the request. They were hired by the City in 2018 to provide conceptual ideas of what the archive building could do to address parking concerns. Those ideas were tabled for some time due to budgetary and COVID issues. The City returned to them in mid-2022 to proceed with some designs. Mr. Koster recalled that they were before the HPC on November 2 to discuss the proposed parking lot expansion, which basically pushes the parking lot out to the building edge. That request was approved but the screening was tabled. As Ms. Baker explained, the screening feature was requested by Planning in an effort to avoid having to go to the Zoning Board for a variance. They were led to believe Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 December 7, 2022 that if they had to go before the BZA the request would likely be denied, thus making the parking lot expansion infeasible. Mr. Koster recalled that a comment had been made at the last meeting that instead of a permanent installation could they do a hedgerow or some sort of green fencing. Planning said that would not be a viable option for them; they needed a permanent installation. They suggested either a solid brick fence or the fence that is proposed today; the brick pillars with ornamental fence in between. The City/applicant chose the more cost-effective option with the pillars and fence. Mr. Dixon recalled testimony that the plan is to expand the parking to the building edge. The drawing in the packet shows parking extending all the way to the street. Mr. Koster agreed. It will be pushed to the building in the west direction and then south to the sidewalk. It will approximately double the parking and provide an opportunity for the users to pull in and out vs. backing out onto the street as they do now. Mr. Simmons asked if the fencing material is solid stock or tube stock. Mr. Koster replied that he believes it is tube stock. Mr. Simmons asked how it will be fastened together; welded or pop-riveted? Paul Reinhold, who was also present on behalf of the request, indicated that that hasn’t been determined and isn’t specified at this point. Mr. Dixon stated that if it is aluminum, his assumption would be that it is screws. Mr. Koster clarified that the bricks for the pillars would match the building façade as closely as possible, similar to the screen wall approved in November. Mr. Dixon clarified that the piers only exist on the very ends and the structural infill between is aluminum posts. Mr. Koster agreed. It was clarified that there will be two sections of fence and there would be brick piers at the end of each section for a total of four brick piers. Mr. Dixon asked if the landscape plantings will be installed on the street/sidewalk side and whether they would be irrigated. Mr. Reinhold replied that the plantings would be between the fence and sidewalk. They will be a mix of perennials, shrubs, evergreens and deciduous. The spacing and mix will be per the Zoning requirements. The intent is to fill the area between the fence and sidewalk, not necessarily just the required minimum plantings. It will not be irrigated. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. He reminded Commissioners that the property being discussed is not a contributing resource in the district. The focus is specifically on Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 December 7, 2022 how this proposed new element impacts the site, landscape, the massing of the district itself and not the site it is necessarily on. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez related his opinion. The brick piers and aluminum fence are a minimal change and will have a minimal impact. He is happy to approve as proposed. Ms. Kindt related that she is a bit torn on this request. It seems that there is a bit of bureaucratic catch 22. She agrees that it is a minimal impact. The materials complement the building and district and the scale is appropriate. However, in terms of screening it doesn’t actually screen the parking, which is the purpose. She isn’t sure that should be required. It just creates more divisions on a rather open corner to a building that the public should feel comfortable walking up to. She isn’t sure this accomplishes that, yet she understands their discussion with Planning. Mr. Dixon agreed but he also agrees that the form and materials do not detract from the district. It is reversible in the future with no impact. It isn’t impacting sight lines or having any other negative impacts on any of the historic resources. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE, with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards 2, 9 and 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner VI. New Business A. 226 UNION SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 226 UNION AVE SE - REQUESTED ALTERATIONS TO REAR ADDITION OPENINGS Ms. Baker introduced the request for alterations on a rear, one-story addition. She provided some background relating that the house was built around the 1880’s. It was converted to a multi- family and back to a single-family and suffered a fire but overall stayed fairly well intact. Based on information available, Ms. Baker found that where the addition is now there was no structure in that location whatsoever. The only open porches that were called out in the historical information were the front porch and one located on the southeast side. The porch on the southeast still exists. There is a division line and a separation of foundation material making the addition obvious. Her best guess is the addition dates to some time around 1940. It is listed in the Assessor’s records as being a fully enclosed structure. From what she was able to find, it wasn’t open at that time, if it was ever open. Sometime between 1950 and 1983 the remaining portion was added with a flat roof. They know it was in the current configuration by 1983 because the HPC approved changing the flat roof to a hip roof. Sometime after 1983 the openings changed throughout the structure. None of the windows seen now, or the sliding door, were there in 1983; it was a different configuration. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 December 7, 2022 Ms. Baker explained that what the applicant is requesting to do is remove the window located on the diagonal wall, infill with clapboard to match its surroundings with staggered seams, and the same for the sliding door. They would like to then introduce a new bank of windows. It would be a ganged set of 5 casements, all wood, with a 3 over 1 muntin pattern. The overall width of the openings will be approximately 13 ft. and 44 inches tall. There will be a gap of approximately 1 ft. between the windows and the soffit and 36 inches from the sill to the water table line. The trim will be all wood and match the trim on the existing windows in the home, including the projecting sill. The mullion between would be anywhere from 4.5 to 5-inch flat stock wood. Mr. Dixon asked if the 3 over 1 window patterning exists elsewhere on the structure. Ms. Baker replied not to her knowledge. There are windows of similar dimension but she isn’t aware of any with that muntin pattern. Mr. Dixon clarified that the current fenestration pattern, to the best of Ms. Baker’s knowledge, dates to 1983. Ms. Baker replied after 1983. She couldn’t find records for that change. Ms. Baker responded to Ms. Kindt relating that the period of significance for the district is 1840 to 1960. Ms. Kindt asked if there are other casement windows on the house. Ms. Baker replied there are mostly double hung windows and one or two that are either fixed or casement. Don and Mindy Bryant were present on behalf of their request. Mrs. Bryant explained that the reason behind the particular windows they are requesting is because they would rather not have just regular double hung. Mrs. Bryant presented a photo of an enclosed porch with double hung windows indicating that they don’t prefer that aesthetic. She related that there are casement windows in the front of the house in a foyer. The window Ms. Baker identified is also a casement. The window they propose removing is a casement, which they installed. Mr. Dixon asked if there are any other 3 over 1 windows on the house. Mrs. Bryant replied that there are not. The thought is to attempt to make the back of the house a little bit closer to the build date of the original house. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon noted that the Commission must first determine whether this portion of the house, this addition, has historic integrity of its own right; whether it is a contributing feature to the rest of the structure. Ms. Kindt didn’t feel it was, considering the difference in the foundation. Ms. Van Wormer agreed. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 December 7, 2022 Mr. Dixon agreed. The date of the house is one thing. They could deliberate whether the massing/form of the addition is character defining. The fact that the fenestration is newer than 1983 states that the fenestration pattern itself is not historic and is not a contributing feature. Discussion of modification of the fenestration then falls to Standards 9 & 10; protecting the integrity of the site and whether it is detracting from the rest of the structure as opposed to safeguarding the actual structure itself. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez and Ms. Kindt agreed. Mr. Dixon asked if anyone has any issues with the size and placement of the windows or the removal of the fenestration that is there now. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez replied none. The removal does not negatively impact the rest of the structure. Mr. Dixon asked about the operation and format of the 3 over 1 casement windows. Ms. Kindt stated that with the applicant testifying that there are other casements on the house she is comfortable with the proposed operation of the windows. She is somewhat questioning the 3 over 1 patterning; does it add a conjectural design feature to this portion? Then again, the fenestration pattern has been modified over time and found to be non-contributing but the new still has to be compatible. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if the proposed are true divided light or simulated. Ms. Kindt replied that they are simulated and there was a note from staff that, if approved, the motion should include that the muntins be placed on the exterior. Mr. Dixon indicated that he is also torn on the 3 over 1 format. In his mind there are two standards that disagree with each other. It is conjectural history. At the same time, it helps differentiate the new construction from the old. Based on that and based on the fact that, in his opinion, it doesn’t negatively impact the rest of the structure or site whether they are 3 over 1 or a single casement. Therefore, he would be comfortable with the 3 over 1. Ms. Van Wormer stated that she is comfortable with the 3 over 1, particularly the fact that this is such a later addition. It is at the very back and the front and sides of the house are much more visible. In her opinion, the proposed will be an improvement to how it looks now. It will look better and a bit more historic even though it is not contributing. Mr. Simmons related that his back door is approximately 1 ft. in front to the west and he can’t see it. He agreed it is a vast improvement. Mr. Dixon clarified that this is on a secondary elevation with minimal visibility. Mr. Simmons agreed. You can’t see it from James or from his house next door. You can’t see it from Union or the next house south. It is right next to their garage. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 December 7, 2022 Mr. Dixon cautioned on stating whether a change is an improvement or not. The HPC isn’t charged with debating aesthetics. However, the point is taken. It should be noted that the proposed windows are all wood construction. His understanding of the guidelines is that applied muntins are acceptable as long as they also contain the spacing bar in between panes. Mr. Bruinsma asked if the motion should include that the clapboard be staggered. Mr. Dixon agreed that it should. The clapboard needs to be toothed in in a staggered pattern. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO APPROVE, per the application and testimony, with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 2, 3, 4, 9 & 10, with the stipulation that the muntins are applied to the exterior and that the infill siding be toothed. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner B. 656 WEALTHY - CHERRY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 656 WEALTHY - REQUEST TO RETAIN INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN Ms. Baker introduced the request to retain an existing projecting sign. This sign replaced a previously approved projecting sign that was externally lit. Unfortunately, they did it without a permit and they changed it. If they had made another sign that was slimmer and externally illuminated it would have fallen under staff review. Because it is internally illuminated, it is before the HPC. Ms. Baker related that the building is non-contributing. She displayed a photo of the building that included the old sign. The sign was wood. The building has been altered. It was previously a two-story and is now a single-story. It has had a number of facelifts and what is present now is from 2017. Even the side that had historic siding no longer does. The siding had to be replaced because it was damaged. An internally lit sign may be appropriate for a 2017 building but the question to consider is whether it is compatible with its surroundings and what is the impact to the character of the district around it. Ms. Baker described the existing sign as having a metal frame with a plastic face and an applied decal. The bulbs on the inside make it glow. A photo of the sign was displayed. Ms. Baker described the street as being made up of structures of an age where an internally lit sign would be inappropriate. The bulk of the commercial buildings with signs are externally illuminated or non-illuminated. The only one that is different is the new building near the Wealthy Bakery; it doesn’t have signage yet, other than window decals. The building kitty- Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 December 7, 2022 corner across the street is a 1950’s contributing gas station with a non-contributing modern addition. That sign is open-faced neon. Mr. Dixon noted that it is the same as Hancock. Ms. Baker agreed adding that they are drawing from the era of the contributing building on that site vs. this site that doesn’t have a contributing building. Mr. Dixon clarified that in no way can this be determined to be a restoration of a historical character defining feature. Ms. Baker agreed. There aren’t character defining features on a non-contributing building. Ms. Kindt recalled that Ms. Baker mentioned the thickness of the sign was an issue. Ms. Baker explained that from a staff standpoint if it were non-lit she would have struggled a bit with the overall aesthetic of it because it still reads very modern. It would be questionable whether she could staff approve or if it would have to come to the Commission. Given that it is a non-contributing building she would have suggested something more solid and less shiny and she would staff review it or, if they wanted the sign as shown, she would send it to the Commission. Ms. Kindt clarified that the Winchester building next door is contributing. Ms. Baker agreed. All buildings have externally illuminated signs with the exception of the old Elks next door and the new building they just put in by the bakery. The new building only has window decals and the old Elks building has wall signage that is back lit, not internally lit. Mr. Bruinsma asked if signage on the inside of the glass is within the HPC’s purview. Ms. Baker replied that if it is a decal or a non-moving, non-flashing type of sign it will either be okay outright or staff reviewed. Zoning doesn’t allow them to exceed covering more than 25% of the glass. Ms. Baker encourages placing vinyl on the inside of the glass vs. the outside because it just deteriorates and collects dirt. Moving signage or motion signs would be reviewed by the HPC if within 3 ft. of the glass. Mr. Bruinsma asked if the Commission is considering the large sign they have inside as well. Ms. Baker replied no. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. He explained that when they have a request to retain they look at the request as if the work has not already been done. If this application came before them requesting an internally illuminated sign they would look at the guidelines, which expressly prohibit that except in cases where they are restoring a character defining feature or it is period appropriate either to the building or the district for it to be internally lit. Mr. Dixon does not find this to be appropriate to the district in this location because it is not replacing a character defining feature. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 December 7, 2022 Ms. Kindt agreed. She feels the internal illumination would have an impact on the district. It is inconsistent with signage on contributing buildings and would be a noticeable anomaly. Mr. Bruinsma agreed. However, he does like the sign; the size of it and the design. It seems to fit. If it wasn’t internally lit it would seem to fit fairly well with everything else. He doesn’t believe they would have considered approving the internal illumination had they come in prior to the installation. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez indicated he would be offering a slightly different perspective because, if they were given an application requesting an internally lit sign the Commission might not approve it at face value because the Standards discourage internally lit signs. This is a perfect prototype because it was built and installed without permission. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez related that he had the advantage to walk past it on both sides of the street in the evening when it and other signs were illuminated. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez indicated that he reviewed the language of the Standards and got stuck on the local guidelines that say “if it is appropriate to the building it is directly attached to, in such instance the sign may not detract from the historic character of the environment and vistas or the immediate historic district”. With that in mind, he did not find that it detracted from the character of the environment, the vistas, or the immediate historic district. He thinks the language of an internally lit sign is placed in the guidelines to discourage a specific impact and that wasn’t the case here. The sign is small in scale. Its character seemed appropriate and fitting with its neighbors. For that reason, he would waiver on the side of approving the request to retain because it simply did not detract from the historic environment when he observed it in person. Ms. Baker advised that that is where the Commission should direct their thoughts; not whether it is appropriate or not. She gave the example of Heartside with a number of internally illuminated signs because it is period appropriate for the building. It isn’t that it is not recreating something historic. The focus should be on the impact to the surroundings. Mr. Bruinsma recalled having the conversation previously about how far down the street they compare it to in terms of negatively impacting the environment. Is that the building it is on or the building next door. Ms. Baker advised that if you can see the building from where you are standing, it has effect. Mr. Bruinsma recognized from the photo that there are similarly sized and shaped signs all the way down the road and nothing is lit but this sign. At night, it may impact the entire street. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that when he was there pretty much all of the neighboring signs were lit with external illumination. He was trying to view it as not having seen the application to retain and would that sign have given him pause for concern. Ultimately, on both sides of the street, his opinion was that it wouldn’t. Ms. Van Wormer disagreed. She feels the internal illumination makes a big difference. The size of the sign is fine. She does feel it is a bit too thick but that is minor. It is internally lit which she feels makes it different and makes it stand out, based on the photos. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 December 7, 2022 Mr. Bruinsma respects Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez’s opinion that it isn’t a huge eyesore or black and white decision. However, he feels it fails in terms of the standards based on the internal illumination and the environmental impact. Mr. Dixon stated that his interpretation of the clause “period appropriate to the building it is directly associated with” is specifically for buildings such as Royals, Hancock, etc.; buildings that it was historically appropriate to have lit signage on. He doesn’t believe the intent of that language is to allow for urban infill projects to have internally illuminated signage. He understands they are technically new buildings but his understanding of that is that in the same way they would require a new urban infill structure to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, structures and environment, he feels that any signage attached to that new structure also needs to fit those standards. He doesn’t believe that an internally illuminated sign in this district, on this street, is appropriate for the period. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked staff if this application is for the sign and its illumination or just for retaining the function of the illumination. Ms. Baker replied it is both. The Commission could approve the sign and deny the illumination but enforcement may be difficult. She could ask for evidence of them gutting the interior. The focus should be on the impact to the district. Mr. Dixon agreed. With any urban infill project, they are trying to maintain the period appropriate feel of the district and make sure the new construction elements are compatible with what is there and what is important. The building put up in that location meets the criteria. It is a sensible and well-done urban infill project. He doesn’t feel that just because it is new that an internally lit sign is appropriate for it. Ms. Baker pointed out that Standard 9 speaks to that as well. Mr. Bruinsma again stated that, had they asked prior to installation, he doesn’t believe they would have approved it. The Commission would have provided feedback that would have allowed them to change it so that it would look similar. Mr. Dixon wished to be clear that this isn’t a matter of being punitive. The fact that the work was done before coming to the Commission is irrelevant to the case. They are looking at this as if it was a new application. Mr. Bruinsma agreed, which is what he was referring to. Ms. Baker asked if the Commission has enough to make a decision or is there a desire to make an after hours visit by a sub-committee. Ms. Van Wormer felt that that depends on what they are determining. If they are determining whether they would have approved it that is one question. If they are on site to see how it looks after installation, that is a totally different value set to have a decision on. Is the question whether Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 December 7, 2022 they would have approved it or is it now that it is there does it do as much damage as they would have thought. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez suggested looking at it as building a perfect prototype and giving the Commission the opportunity to review it. Ms. Baker advised that the Commission has to review the sign; the scale, material, and design. That has to be done first. Lighting is a secondary aspect to its design. Her only thought was that the Commission did something similar on Ionia not too long ago. The vendor provided examples for the Commission to get a sense of the luminescence and how it affected the streetscape. Mr. Bruinsma feels the consideration is whether it meets the guidelines. Ms. Baker suggested the Commission discuss the materials, design and dimension and the lighting can be dealt with separately. Mr. Dixon suggested they consider the size, scale, design, materials, finish and texture. He feels the scale is appropriate. It matches what is already in the district and it is reminiscent of historic blade signage that would have hung there. The brass is a little bright but in his opinion that is color and they don’t typically rule on color so he is comfortable with the mounting apparatus. Ms. Kindt agreed that the size, massing and the sign itself has minimal visual impact on the adjacent area. Mr. Dixon suggested that the thickness of the sign Ms. Baker mentioned is a direct representation of the fact that it is an internally illuminated sign. If the Commission finds that isn’t appropriate and they return with an externally illuminated sign, his assumption is that it would be thinner. However, he doesn’t feel it necessary to demand that it be thinner. Ms. Baker explained to Mr. Bruinsma that it is very likely that if they did something very similar without the internal illumination the Commission wouldn’t be reviewing it. Mr. Simmons stated that if the sign becomes externally lit then he feels the sign itself has to become opaque. It is translucent now. Ms. Baker advised that the Commission could require they make it solid as a stipulation and that would be easier to enforce. Mr. Dixon feels that is covered under historically appropriate materials because plexiglass would not be a historically appropriate material. Mr. Simmons pointed out that Royals and Hancock are both plexiglass signs. Ms. Baker added that there are a lot of modern materials used in signage as long as it provides some of the traditional feel and look. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 15 December 7, 2022 Mr. Dixon went back to the point that a translucent, externally lit sign would not adequately replicate the intended materials in the guidelines of wood, cast metal and flat sheet metal. It should be opaque. Ms. Van Wormer asked if they are making separate motions on size, scale, and design and another for the internal illumination. Ms. Baker replied no. Mr. Dixon added that the Commission is either approving or denying the sign as is and then Ms. Baker can work with the applicant to staff approve an appropriate sign if necessary. Ms. Kindt feels the materials, scale and massing seem appropriate to the district and site. There are signs of an opaque material and you don’t necessarily notice it is opaque; it is similar to what milk glass would be. If the applicant wanted to keep the sign and somehow show that the internal illumination had been disconnected and externally illuminate this sign would that be something the Commission would have considered or does the opaqueness need to be changed? Mr. Dixon feels that without internal illumination the sign reads as opaque. Ms. Kindt asked if the Commission would be comfortable with them keeping this sign and externally light it. When it is externally lit, she doesn’t feel you will notice it is opaque. Mr. Dixon feels it will show as opaque when externally lit. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. There will probably be more reflection from the brass with external illumination. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO DENY based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 9 & 10, giving the applicant six months for correction. SUPPORTED by Ms. Van Wormer. YEAS: 5. NAYS: 1 (DeMaagd-Rodriguez). MOTION CARRIED. RESULT: DENIED [5 TO 1] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Simmons NAYS: Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner VII. Public Hearing None. VIII. Discussion 1. ELECTION OF 2023 OFFICERS ELECTION OF 2023 OFFICERS Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 16 December 7, 2022 Motion by Ms. Kindt, supported by Ms. Van Wormer, to appoint Mr. Dixon as Chair, Ms. Kindt as Vice-chair, and Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez as Secretary. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15 Union NE Ms. Baker asked the Commission for direction as to whether a vent installed should come before the Commission for consideration. The Commission felt the matter should come before them. IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 6:17 PM