Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 January 18, 2023 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Baldwin, Bruinsma, Gleisner Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich Mr. Dixon called the meeting to order. III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from December 7, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Tim Gleisner IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF COAS STAFF APPROVED COA PERMITS Motion by Ms. Kindt, supported by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, to approve the Certificates of Appropriateness issued by staff. Motion carried unanimously. 20 Union NE 32 Union SE 35 Oakes SW 47 Williams SW 111 Madison SE 222 Fulton E 227 Henry SE 235 Eastern SE 322 Morris SE 418 Union SE 550 Fountain NE State Street RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Tim Gleisner V. Old Business Generated 1/24/2023 3:56 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 January 18, 2023 VI. New Business A. 15 UNION NE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking to retain a fireplace vent that was installed on the north elevation near the front/east corner of the house on the third floor. The structure in questions was built in circa 1890 and converted to a multi-unit overtime. PRESERVATION GUIDELINES: Mechanical Equipment New mechanical systems will be installed so that it causes the least alteration possible, both physically and visually, to the building’s exterior elevations, site and environment, and the least damage to historic building material. All mechanical equipment shall be installed in the least visible location possible, typically the rear of the structure. Roof top installation will be considered if it causes minimal damage to historic material, doesn’t obscure character-defining features, nor detract from the character and integrity of the historic structure. Mechanical installations proposed at or near a street façade will require HPC review. The applicant must be able to illustrate that the system is needed and that no less obtrusive location, exists. When mechanical equipment is affixed to a building, it must be installed to avoid damaging the structure. For example, when affixed to a masonry structure, it will be attached to the mortar joints, not the brick or stone. Visual and physical affects to the structure or neighborhood must also be taken into account. When the equipment requires screening or camouflage to be appropriate the HPC may dictate that the equipment be painted to match the structure. Cutting through, obscuring, or covering over historic character-defining features to install mechanical equipment will not be undertaken. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The Standards define Rehabilitation as the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 January 18, 2023 #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. #9 New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Chapter 68: 5.395(3) In reviewing plans the HPC shall follow the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings as well as design review standards and guidelines created locally that are incompliance with the U.S. Sec. Standards. In addition, the Commission shall also consider the following: a) The historic or architectural value and significance of the resource and its relationship to the historic value of the surrounding area. b) The relationship of any architectural features of the resource to the rest of the resource and to the surrounding area. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 January 18, 2023 i. This relates to the specific features of a structure that are important in defining the character and integrity of a contributing structure. Compare the feature in question with the other components of the building and assess its importance in the character of the structure and surrounding area. Essentially gaging the overall impact of the proposed change. c) The general compatibility of the design, arrangement, texture, and materials proposed to be used. i. Is the new change compatible with the character and features of the main building and surrounding area? d) Other factors, such as aesthetic value, that the Commission finds relevant. STAFF NOTES & GUIDELINES The owner is seeking to retain a single vent that was installed on the north elevation near the front/east corner of the house on the third floor. The original CoA allowed for a short vent through the roof but during the installation the contractor installed the vent through the north wall rather than the roof. Upon inspection staff noted the change in location and contacted the owner to notify them that the new installation does not comply with the CoA permit and because of its location near the front a request for retention will require HPC review. The owner has submitted the application and is seeking retention. The contractor elected to install the wall vent through the wall because a vent through the roof would have required a very tile pipe, which would likely be very noticeable as it is the front facing roof plane. The contractor has stated that he could not locate the vent further west away from the front of the house because it would create too many 90-degree bends. The fireplace was installed namely to provide heat to the living room and kitchen, and secondarily for its ambiance. The owner has submitted two alternative exterior wall vent covers as possible options should the existing cover be found to be inappropriate or too obtrusive. The existing vent has been painted to blend with the siding around it, any alternative vent cover would also be painted to blend. GUIDELINES New mechanical systems will be installed so that it causes the least alteration possible, both physically and visually, to the building’s exterior elevations, site and environment, and the least damage to historic building material. What are the direct and indirect impacts, if any, to the structure and site? Are the impacts minimal, do they alter the historic character of the structure or environment in such a manner as to cause loss or degradation of integrity? Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 January 18, 2023 All mechanical equipment shall be installed in the least visible location possible, typically the rear of the structure. Roof top installation will be considered if it causes minimal damage to historic material, doesn’t obscure character-defining features, nor detract from the character and integrity of the historic structure. Mechanical installations proposed at or near a street façade will require HPC review. The applicant must be able to illustrate that the system is needed and that no less obtrusive location, exists. As noted above it appears that the current location might be the only feasible option, per applicant’s submittal. Installation through the roof would lead to a very tall pipe projecting well above the roof surface which is located front façade. Visual and physical affects to the structure or neighborhood must also be taken into account. When the equipment requires screening or camouflage to be appropriate the HPC may dictate that the equipment be painted to match the structure. To lessen any potential impact the applicant has painted the vent to blend with the surrounding clapboard. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Reversal would be simple through the toothing in of new wood siding to match the existing. Ms. Baker introduced the request to retain a fireplace vent that was installed on the north elevation near the front/east corner of the house on the third floor. Originally, a small vent was supposed to go through the roof and painted to blend with the shingles. When the contractor did the installation he discovered that in order to do that a vent through the roof would have to be considerably tall to meet code. He considered placing it out the north wall, closer to the rear, but that required too many 90 degree angles so he put it through the wall adjacent to the fireplace, which is somewhat close to the front façade. He didn’t inform the owner until the work was completed. The owner is present requesting to retain the vent. Ms. Baker explained that the fireplace was installed mainly for heating of the living room and kitchen of the unit and secondarily for aesthetics. They have painted the vent to blend with the siding. The owner has also included options for vent covers if the Commission finds the existing one to be inappropriate. Mr. Dixon asked if the fireplace is the sole means of heat for that particular portion of the unit. Ms. Baker replied that that is her understanding. Daniel Johnson was present on behalf of the request. He stated that he is willing to do whatever he needs to do to keep this. He explained that there will be some challenges if modifications are necessary because it has been dry walled and tiled over. It is a big part of his space now that he has become attached to. Mr. Dixon asked if the fireplace is the sole means of heat in that portion of the house. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 January 18, 2023 Mr. Johnson replied that it isn’t. There is radiator heat on the other side but the fireplace makes a big difference with the drafty windows on the front. Mr. Dixon clarified that going up through the roof was not an option because the vent stack would be too tall and to take it out any other side wall or out the back would introduce too many 90 degree bends. Mr. Johnson agreed indicating that was what he was told by his contractor. The work was done while Mr. Johnson was at work. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon reminded Commissioners that, when considering a request to retain, they look at it as a new application/as if the work hasn’t been done. Ms. Kindt stated that when looking at the local guidelines they direct that mechanical equipment be installed in the least obtrusive way. She believes what they would have asked for had this request come before them would be to explore all of the options, which it sounds like the contractor considered multiple options that weren’t feasible or would have been more obtrusive. Ms. Kindt feels they did try to do it in the least obtrusive way possible. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. While it is never their preference to see mechanical equipment so close to the front of the house, it does seem that given the circumstances for legal and functional use of the fireplace that this is the least intrusive of locations. He added that he visited the site in person and, while he was looking for the vent in question, because it is now painted the same color as the siding he doesn’t know that it would have caught his attention. In that way he felt it satisfied the language of the guidelines in that it not destroy or harm any vistas or historic character of the block. Mr. Dixon agreed with the comments offered and feels this would qualify as a technical infeasibility of trying to run this vent any other direction. His only problem with it is that there is language in the guidelines about mechanical equipment and one of the items states that the applicant must be able to illustrate that the system is needed and that no less obtrusive location exists. Per testimony, it sounds like this is not the sole heat source in the area and that it is more aesthetic and more secondary comfort. Mr. Simmons agreed adding that the drafty windows can also be fixed. Mr. Johnson clarified for the Commission that the two radiators he mentioned are on the other side of the house in the two bedrooms. The fireplace is the only heat source in the living room and kitchen area. Mr. Dixon stated that that makes a difference and satisfies his concern. He also visited the site and having the vent painted the same color as the siding does help it to disappear. It is a minor change and not a huge visual impairment. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 January 18, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. The fireplace is an auxiliary heating source but primary for this area of the unit. Ms. Kindt agreed. Based on the packet, she doesn’t feel the two alternate vent options would be any less obtrusive. She doesn’t feel there is a reason to require the vent be swapped out. Mr. Dixon and Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE, WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, based on the local preservation guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 2, 5, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Tim Gleisner B. 50 LOUIS - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 50 LOUIS NW - REQUEST TO INSTALL ANTENNA AND PLATFORM Ms. Baker explained that this building is a seven story structure downtown at the edge of the Heartside Historic District. The request is to install three cellular antennas and a platform on the roof. Of the three proposed antenna, one is independent and located at the northeast corner. Ms. Baker clarified that the building is on an angle so it is more like a diamond than a square. The single antenna will be toward the Louis and Ionia intersection. It will be 15 ft. tall as measured from the roof surface to the top of the antenna. It is proposed to be located 14 ft. back from Louis and 16 ft. back from Ionia. The other two antennas are proposed to be located at the southwest corner, in conjunction with a platform. The platform is 8 ft. x 10 ft. It will house an approximately 2.6 ft. x 6 ft. tall cabinet. It will have metal rails and various other equipment that will be attached to it, all of which will be supported by the outside walls of the building. Ms. Baker clarified that it is not a roof placement; it is supported by the west and south walls. The platform itself would be approximately 2.4 ft. from the west wall and 2.3 ft. from the south wall. The antennas will be in roughly the same location/distance from the walls. Ms. Baker explained that they are proposing to remove the parapet cap, which is an aluminum coping, not historic clay tile, and install an 8 in. x 6 in. pre-cast concrete lentil in its place to help offset and support the structure. To help screen it, because it is so close to the walls, they are proposing a screen wall. Her understanding from the application information is that the screen would go all the way around. Ms. Baker suggested the Commission may wish to confirm that. The screen would be in line with the outside walls and is designed to look like a continuation of the brick wall. The screen is proposed at 13 ft. in height. Ms. Baker explained that it will be necessary for the applicant to obtain Zoning approval, in addition to HPC approval. The request doesn’t currently meet Zoning requirements. Zoning requires an antenna be a minimum of 1 ft. back for every foot of height of the antenna. The Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 January 18, 2023 antenna at the Louis and Ionia intersection is close to meeting that requirement with one of the setbacks being approximately 1 ft. off. The other two antennas and platform do not come close to meeting the setback requirement. Ms. Baker isn’t aware of whether they will have to go before the BZA or if there is another process for that. Ms. Baker displayed specs of the equipment and aerial images of the building. She noted that there are bricks, partially covered by the coping. If the bricks are found to be deteriorated, the plan calls for the removal. Ms. Baker referred to the aerial image noting the presence of a previously approved platform and other equipment in the center of the roof. There is a stair entry at the southwest corner. There are two previously approved antennas that are approximately 11 ft. tall and 25-27 ft. back from the roof edges. The closest piece of equipment to the roof edge is a large air condensing unit. Ms. Baker’s best estimate is that that unit is between 9 - 10 tall and is placed approximately 14 ft. back. Ms. Baker displayed street views noting in one image that the previously approved antennas are slightly visible. She reiterated that those antennas are set back further than the proposed antennas would be. Mr. Dixon asked what the screening material will be. The information only states that it will be RF (radio frequency) transparent. Ms. Baker deferred to the applicant to expand upon that. Mr. Dixon asked if the applicant provided rationale for the proposed placement vs. being pulled further back from the edges of the building. Ms. Baker replied that she didn’t ask why. Typically, it is close to the edge so they can reach more individuals at grade. She did ask why it wasn’t proposed to be roof mounted and why it is exterior wall mounted. Essentially it comes down to roof structure and their structural reports. Mr. Dixon recalled that the proposal would not meet current Zoning requirements. He asked if that applies to the antennas and the platform. Ms. Baker replied that she is only familiar with the antenna placement requirements. She spoke briefly with the City’s consultant and his focus seemed to be on the antennas. Ms. Baker is uncertain if it relates to the platform. Ms. Baker clarified for Ms. Kindt that the antenna will be on a roof sled. It is a very weighted sled that will hold it in place. It is not actually affixed with holes into the roof. The antenna that are present now are also on a version of a roof sled. Anthony Amine was present on behalf of Dish Wireless. Mr. Amine explained that they have to balance between the Ordinance, the HPC considerations, and functionality of making the antenna site work, and taking the integrity of the historic building into consideration. Mr. Amine stated that the one antenna that would be by itself, on a non-penetrating mount, is 1 ft. short of complying with Zoning. That is something they can easily fix and it will be at least 15 ft. from both the Louis and Ionia building edges. With regard to the platform and antennas, the Ordinance Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 January 18, 2023 specifically discusses the antennas and not the platform. Mr. Amine related that they did evaluate other buildings in the area in an effort to avoid historic buildings. They were unsuccessful in securing a lease with some of the other buildings or the other buildings didn’t work from an engineering standpoint. Mr. Amine commented on the location of the platform stating that the alpha and gamma sectors are just the two other antennas trying to cover the area. They could move it toward the middle of the building but they are concerned about the structural integrity of it and what they would have to do to the historic building to allow it to withstand the additional weight of the platform. It isn’t that heavy but it would be a stress on that part of the roof and they would possibly have to cut some holes in and do an evaluation. As Ms. Baker mentioned, they are proposing an RF transparent screen. Mr. Amine circulated an image of the screen wall proposed to mimic the brick of the existing building. The panel proposed to go on the southwest corner is a 13 ft. tall x 18 ft. panel on each corner with the wrap on it to mimic the brick. They felt it would be the least intrusive for the building. It will be a structure and RF transparent. They obviously can’t put up a material that will block the antenna signal as that would defeat the entire purpose. Mr. Amine explained that when placing antenna on a roof if they are placed too far back you get shadowing and won’t cover what it is supposed to. In trying to balance all of the variables, the proposed is the ideal situation. It is not the only option. If Commissioners are opposed and would like them to look at another location, they want to be a good partner. Mr. Dixon’s understanding is that they haven’t had a structural engineer evaluate the building yet. If they are asked to move it back further they would have to have that done. Mr. Amine explained that they have had the structural engineer evaluate where it is currently proposed. The structural integrity will allow them to place the equipment where it is proposed now. If the Commission wants them to move it that would involve another structural analysis to make sure the roof can accommodate the relocation. Mr. Dixon asked if the brick wrap is a custom printed wrap to match the brick of the building. Mr. Amine replied that it would be. The example he circulated is just an illustration. One of the proposals they offered was to just put a coating over the antennas; to match the brick and simply wrap the antenna if the Commission is opposed to the screen structure. Mr. Dixon clarified that the platform would still be there. Mr. Amine agreed. Based upon the height it would not be visible from the ground. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if, as proposed, the wrap would be around the entire platform or just the southwest facing portion of the platform. Mr. Amine replied that it would be around the entire platform, which is why it is 13 ft. tall and 18 ft. wide on both the south and west portion of the building. Mr. Amine circulated a crude illustration. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 January 18, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked what the material of the wrap is. He believes he has encountered it on church bell towers, etc. He asked if it is a foam product with an acrylic coating. Mr. Amine replied that they would work with the manufacturer to best match the brick. It is not an actual masonry product. He believes it is a combination of materials such as fiberglass and acrylic. Ms. Kindt asked if the platform will be bearing on the parapet so that it isn’t bearing on the roof structure. Mr. Amine replied that the platform itself will be on the roof and will have spread feet to evenly disperse the load. What is going on the brick would be the screen panel if the Commission is amenable. If there are any loose bricks or anything that isn’t structurally sound they will replace that to make sure it is a strong fitting and there are no issues. Mr. Dixon asked why there is a platform for the two antenna vs. those two just being sled mounted like the one at the other corner. Mr. Amine explained that the platform is specifically for the equipment. AT & T also has a platform on the roof holding their equipment. When you put up a site you want to propagate signal 360 degrees ideally. That is what they are trying to accomplish. As opposed to having different items on the roof they thought they would combine the alpha and gamma sector and put those on the platform so they now basically only have two items on the roof as opposed to four. This way there is only two; the platform that holds two antennas and the individual sled mount for one. Mr. Dixon asked if it is necessary for the equipment to be located with the antennas. Mr. Amine replied that they can be separated but they are trying to put as few items on the roof as possible. Ms. Baker had advised him that if they could slide it over it may be that they wouldn’t need HPC approval. However, because of the structural integrity, the design, and what the engineers are trying to accomplish with this site and the propagation of the signal, this is ideal for them. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Simmons indicated he would like to hear from another engineer. He feels the screening at the corner is rather intrusive. Mr. Dixon began the discussion with respect to the single, sled mounted antenna. There are numerous antennas on buildings downtown and he doesn’t feel the proposed is a visual intrusion provided it is set further back to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission was in agreement. Mr. Dixon indicated that he is concerned with the platform in the corner for a few reasons. It is visually intrusive. It is bearing on the existing masonry, which, per testimony, the engineering Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 January 18, 2023 has indicated is suitable structurally. However, part of the Secretary of the Interior Standards advise that if doing an addition or alteration you are supposed to be able to return it to its original condition fairly easily. This would cause permanent changes. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed with the expressed concerns. Additionally, because it is bearing on an exterior wall, with or without a screen, he feels it would be quite distracting to the character of the building, even if the screen were to perfectly match the existing masonry. It is hard to imagine a circumstance in which that wouldn’t be readily noticeable. He would like to see other placement options that aren’t bearing on the exterior wall. He understands there are limitations for the use of the technology and that they are doing the best they can with the technology available to them. Mr. Dixon doesn’t feel the screen material is a good idea. When doing an addition, which this basically is, there should be differentiation from the existing historic construction. Wrapping it in a faux material intended to look just like the brick is not supported by the Standards. Ms. Kindt agreed. Matching the brick would really change that portion of the elevation and have an impact on how the building is seen. She could see it not matching the brick and providing a screen for the mechanical equipment. If it was set back, per the Zoning requirements, then perhaps it wouldn’t be visible and have an impact on the District. If it has to be closer, per the structural engineer, perhaps a solid color that would be compatible would be more appropriate. Ms. Baker asked the Commission their opinion of having the antenna at the corner and moving the platform further in. Ms. Dixon pointed out that there is still the Zoning issue. While he understands the shadowing effect and intent to reach more people on the ground, he still thinks that having an antenna that close to the edge of the building is too easily readable from the streetscape. Ms. Kindt referred to the local guidelines stating that having it that close, where it is so visible, it really detracts from the historic building. If there was a reason that it absolutely had to be there they could then discuss it further but she would like to see it further back. Mr. Dixon recognized that it is a very tall building and he would be open to considering a set back less than the 15 ft. required by Zoning if Zoning was amenable to that and if they had some tools that could help them visualize it from the street level. Ms. Baker suggested tabling the platform and two antennas at the southwest corner for further engineering studies of different locations and visualizations of locations closer than 15 ft. from the edge. The single antenna could be approved, pending zoning approval. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez clarified that they are talking about both location and the screening. His understanding is that the general opinion of the Commission is that a screen that matches the brick is not preferrable. A screen of a different color or texture, if necessary, may be considered. The Commission was in agreement. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 January 18, 2023 Mr. Dixon feels the location and screen are interwoven. If the final proposal is that it has to be at the edge of the building then some sort of screen may be appropriate. If it is possible to push it away from the edge then the screen may be irrelevant. Ms. Kindt agreed that it depends on the final placement. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the single antenna on the corner of the roof at Louis and Ionia, per testimony that placement will meet the Zoning requirements for setback, based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 2, 5, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO TABLE the two antennas, platform and screening proposed at the southwest corner of the building to allow the applicant an opportunity to provide additional structural information related to the roof and location(s) further back from the exterior walls of the building. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VII. Public Hearing 1. 406-412 LAFAYETTE SE, 300-316 WEALTHY SE & 409-415 PROSPECT SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 406-412 LAFAYETTE SE, 300-316 WEALTHY SE & 409-415 PROSPECT SE - REQUEST TO RELOCATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT TWO NEW BUILDINGS Ms. Baker indicated that she would suggest how to approach the different pieces of the proposal and provide detail about work proposed for the two historic houses. She would then invite questions. Ms. Baker advised that the first question to consider is whether the building at 406 Lafayette SE can be relocated to 415 Prospect SE. Secondly, rehabilitation and additions are proposed to the two historic homes. The applicant is also requesting formal approval of the site plan, including the new building footprints, if possible. The proposed relocation does take the new construction into consideration but it doesn’t need to take the physical aspects of it into consideration. If the relocation is found to be appropriate she would suggest then discussing the proposed changes to the structure itself, as well as the neighboring structure at 409 Prospect. The location of the 409 Prospect structure is not changing but there would be a change to lot lines resulting in a change in its siting. There is also work proposed for the 409 Prospect structure, including an addition. If all of that is approved, the Commission would then consider the site plan for the rest of the project. If the Commission finds that there is adequate information to offer formal approval of the site plan the public hearing would then be closed and the Commission would move into an Advisory Discussion to discuss the design aspects and materiality of the project. Mr. Dixon offered his thoughts on organizing the discussion. They will discuss the relocation of the existing structure at 406 Lafayette, placement of that structure on the site at 415 Prospect, modifications and addition to that structure, modifications and addition to the structure at 409 Prospect, the site plan for the new development, and the advisory discussion. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 January 18, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that the applicant has applied for the relocation of the structure under Notice to Proceed Criteria B. Staff also brought up the possibility of considering it under the Certificate of Appropriateness Standards. He asked if the Commission is limited to considering the relocation under the Notice to Proceed since that is what was applied for. Ms. Baker replied no. The Commission can utilize any tools available to them. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled from the staff report that at one time there were other buildings surrounding the property in question that are no longer there. He asked if the Sanborn map information was included in the packet. Ms. Baker replied that it really wasn’t relevant so it was not included. There is a photo of the house that was located at 412 Lafayette. It was a basic, front gable, Queen Anne structure with a porch stepping down. It is nowhere near as large as the structures that are south of it. It may have been slightly taller than the house in question because it is a bungalow. The Sanborn illustrates that house in addition to homes on the Wealthy lots. They were divided differently at that point. Ms. Baker is not aware of when the houses were moved. It was a very long time ago. The Wealthy frontage lots have seen several changes over time. There was no evidence that 415 Lafayette was ever developed. It was parceled for it but wasn’t built on. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if the existing building that is currently located south of the subject property on Lafayette is a contributing structure. Ms. Baker replied that the issue with Heritage Hill pre-1925 is they don’t have a definitive list so it is necessary to consider whether it is 50 years or older, which it is. It does maintain quite a bit of its integrity when you get past the front façade. Ms. Baker finds it similar to a storefront that has been changed. Mr. Dixon asked if they need to deliberate whether the building at 406 Lafayette is contributing or do they assume that it is. Ms. Baker replied that they can assume it is contributing. Ms. Kindt wished to confirm that notice was sent out about the public hearing. Ms. Baker confirmed that it was sent to everyone within 350 ft.; owners and occupants. Ms. Kindt asked if the proposal is found to meet Criteria B of the Notice to Proceed does that also mean they would have the right to demolish the building. Ms. Baker replied no, that is a completely different request. Ryan Schmidt, Indigo Design & Development, was present along with Steve Ruis of SDR Ventures. Mr. Ruis is partnering with Indigo. He is a long-time adjacent Heritage Hill neighbor and property owner. Greg Schmidt, licensed architect, is also part of the team and also a Heritage Hill neighbor. The final member of the team is Kevin Swanson who is also a licensed architect Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 January 18, 2023 and a resident on Logan. Mr. Schmidt pointed out that the site obviously has a lot of challenges. The site was previously home to a dry cleaner that left contamination. The party store, per members of the community, was a nuisance and is no longer there. It was a cinder block, non- contributing structure. There is a large billboard that is not contributing and they want nothing more than to remove it. The billboard company has a 3-year lease remaining that they are legally obligated to honor. There are two historic homes that were previously converted to duplexes, long time vacant structures and sites. Mr. Schmidt stated that they were ecstatic that the site became available this past year and they were one of three groups that made an offer on the site. They feel honored to be the stewards in this important community as neighbors and individuals that are concerned about historic preservation, the neighborhood, and community. Mr. Schmidt related that they began a community engagement process that involved direct outreach to neighbors, meeting with the Heritage Hill Land Use Committee on site, an HPC Advisory Discussion last June, meetings with various City staff members, and again with the Heritage Hill Land Use Committee. They listened carefully and understood the importance of a proper restoration of the two historic homes. They also heard a community desire for ownership opportunities, particularly around right-sized homes that would be appropriate for those individuals looking to stay in Heritage Hill but possibly down sizing from their historic structures, addressing environmental contamination, reactivating this area of Wealthy potentially creating new commercial space, providing off-street parking so as not to add to neighborhood street parking, good site circulation, and most importantly to add housing to address the community need of the acute housing shortage in West Michigan. Mr. Schmidt explained that they are before the Commission today with a revised design based on the Advisory Discussion. It is obviously mixed-use in nature. Ryan Kilpatrick, Housing Next, has described the proposed project as gentle density at the neighborhood scale. They are trying to respond to the historic neighborhood. They are also reducing their original concept which was relocating both historic structures. Mr. Schmidt clarified that they understand the seriousness of this request to relocate the home at 406 Lafayette and take the criteria for relocating a historic structure very seriously. They are approaching this with a heightened sense of sensitivity. They are not asking to demolish the house, move it out of Heritage Hill or even down the street. They are asking to rotate it on the property and keep it on their site and to put it on what they feel is a contextually appropriate street, Prospect, which will allow them to maximize the community benefit of the proposed development. Mr. Schmidt stated that they know how important historic preservation is to the neighborhoods. The team members all live in historic homes and they respect and honor what they provide to the community. They have also been directly involved and responsible for a number of historic restorations, including many houses on behalf of Mr. Ruis, as well as restoration of Eastern Elementary School, 415 Franklin, and other historic structures in the community. They are trying to be aware of the importance of these historic structures. As discussed in the application packet and the letter of support submitted by Housing Next, the development aims to respond to the acute housing need in the community. Per the Standards, they know that relocations should be treated as a last resort. Their team of licensed architects and developers have studied 50+ concepts for the site to try to minimize the relocation of structures and provide the best community benefit. Mr. Schmidt stated that they make this request carefully and in accordance with the Notice to Proceed Criteria B; that the resource is a deterrent to a major improvement Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 15 January 18, 2023 program that will be a substantial benefit to the community. Mr. Schmidt acknowledged that it is a large application with a lot of detail. He wished to be clear that relocation of the house is unfortunately necessary. The Notice to Proceed guidelines exist for situations such as this. Mr. Schmidt anticipates that the Commission will hear from some in opposition. They have read the letters submitted. These are intelligent, respected, passionate individuals in the community. They have carefully studied what they have written and said in previous meetings. Their opinions are respected and they aren’t trying to gloss over their arguments but they do feel strongly that they have met the standards and are able to make the request honestly and lawfully. Mr. Schmidt related that their hope is that the Commission will take into careful consideration the details that were provided in the application, their credentials as community developers, licensed architects, and neighbors and the community benefit this project will provide, and the countless other ancillary benefits of bringing new life to this long neglected site. Steve Ruis pointed out that he and his wife Amy submitted a personal letter that was included in the packet and hopefully the Commission has heard from a number of other neighbors. Mr. Ruis indicated that he is empathetic with the decisions the Commission has to make, which isn’t always easy. However, he feels that in this instance the project they are proposing is worth what would be the loss of that home in that particular location and the resulting community good. Mr. Ruis related that as a Planning Commissioner he found the most challenging cases were often when being faced with these kinds of decisions. He feels the Standards provide the HPC with the space to make this decision and he would hope the Commission agrees with them regarding the community good and the benefit the development provides. Mr. Dixon clarified that Notice to Proceed Criteria B involves substantial benefit to the community. That is usually interpreted as there is a problem in the community that this is going to solve. His understanding of the application is that the housing shortage that West Michigan is currently facing is the problem they are attempting to help resolve. Mr. Schmidt agreed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled mention of exploring a number of different site plans to try to optimize the site. He also recalled that they believe the proposed site plan does that the best and they have deemed the relocation of the house to be necessary. Without going through the 50+ possible site plan proposals he asked that the applicants speak to what about moving the house is necessary. Mr. Schmidt explained that it comes down to the geometry of the site, the placement of the house within the site, and what area that leaves behind for redevelopment. It is a difficult task to develop a meaningful product that meets the market and can conform to the amount of space that is necessary and that could also chip away at the housing need, in a more meaningful way, than just putting another single-family home on each of the sites. The primary challenge is the geometry of the site. The clipped corner doesn’t help. From a traffic safety perspective, it is likely helpful but it isn’t great from an urban planning and architecture perspective. They are working through a number of conditions on the site in relation to the house. What they feel they have done is provide a solution that is the most contextually appropriate, the least disturbing to the historic neighborhood, and one that also helps address the housing need. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 16 January 18, 2023 Mr. Dixon asked if they have discussed the clipped corner with Traffic Safety considering it is a round-a-bout now. Mr. Schmidt replied that they have met with the Traffic Safety Dept. and they have been helpful with the site design. They are proposing a one-way solution coming from Prospect, through the site, out to Lafayette. That was the preferred option so they would exit out into a round-a-bout where they can choose what direction to go. It also reduces the amount of impact on Prospect from individuals leaving the site. They considered all of the options and the proposed was the preferred option for the development team as well as the Traffic Safety Dept. Mr. Dixon asked if they are delaying construction of the eastern building until the billboard is removed in three years. Mr. Schmidt replied no. The construction can occur because it is a single-facing billboard. It only faces to the west for eastbound travel. Therefore, they can build everything to the east. The site design allows them to build everything at once and still be able to see the billboard. They are proposing a building directly on the site of the billboard so that single, 1,100 sq. ft. building can’t be built until the expiration of the billboard lease. They have provided notice of cancellation of the lease and it has been received and confirmed by the billboard company. Ms. Kindt recalled testimony about the public outreach, off-street parking and the housing shortage. She asked that Mr. Schmidt expand upon what they heard in those discussions and how they’ve responded to it. Mr. Schmidt related that he previously lived in Heritage Hill but no longer does. The other three partners are Heritage Hill residents. They received quite a bit of push back to adding to on-street parking. Except for one individual, who felt it was adequate or that they may be providing too much parking, everyone encouraged them to make sure they had adequate parking on site. The proposed development plan allows for a rear loaded garage stall for every unit. Mr. Ruis added, based on conversations with neighbors, that the one-way route is good. If you are exiting the site onto Prospect the headlights would be pointed up hill directly at neighboring homes. Therefore, the routing was specific in that regard. Additionally, the way that the site works now it prevents a cut through scenario. Some of the plans considered, without moving the house, had more of a straight pass through or no site circulation at all, which would also be impactful. The capacity to build on Wealthy in a fairly large way and possibly push densities higher than proposed, without good site circulation or parking, has met opposition in Heritage Hill most recently on Cherry St. The higher density would further address housing goals but was not acceptable to the neighborhood. As Mr. Ruis had those conversations with his neighbors, this style of plan, home ownership, and soft density was much more favorable. It comes down to a plan that they believe people in the immediate neighborhood would support and treat the site contextually. Mr. Dixon opened the public hearing and read letters into the record that were not received in time to include in the packet. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 17 January 18, 2023 Alyssa Wagner wrote in support of the relocation of the home at 406 Lafayette SE. She and her husband are 12-year residents of Heritage Hill. Ms. Wagner admires the work of Steve and Amy Ruis on all of the homes they have had a hand in owning and restoring. Both of the subject homes, particularly 406 Lafayette, have been a bit of an eyesore and the proposed restorations and improvements will be one more piece of making Heritage Hill the stunning neighborhood it is. Ms. Wagner understands that moving a house isn’t a small decision. However, looking through the plans and proposals, she envisions the incredible, positive potential. She is equally excited about the proposed building on the newly opened lot along Wealthy. It is exciting to see projects like this come to fruition. Tony Baker also submitted written support for the relocation of the home at 406 Lafayette and the development at the corner of Prospect and Wealthy. Mr. Baker related that his first home when coming to Grand Rapids was at the corner of Lafayette and Logan in 1999. Heritage Hill provided an image of the kind of city he wanted to be part of. The one exception at that time was the condition of Wealthy Street, which included the party store at the corner of Wealthy and Prospect and an unwelcoming party store in the current location of Art of the Table. In subsequent years Wealthy Street has become a wonderful urban commercial district, in part due to the investment of the Ruis family. As a recently elected Kent County Commissioner serving the southeast portion of the city and the southern portion of Heritage Hill, he learned of the needs and concerns of area residents in his canvasing. Safe and affordable housing was the number one concern. Many feared that housing investment, if done by outside entities, would not be thoughtful to the needs and character of the community. Mr. Baker cannot imagine a more thoughtfully prepared proposal than that being offered. The Ruis’s commitment to the overall qualify of life of this neighborhood has had a positive impact on everyone living there. The proposal is a model for the balance the city needs in developing housing while preserving the character of the neighborhoods. Rebecca Smith-Hoffman wrote that she is not opposed to the construction of an apartment building along Wealthy. An appropriately designed building will block the noise of the busy street and fill a vacant space. However, she doesn’t feel the applicants are intending a sensitive infill project that complements the neighborhood. They are planning to maximize profit by cramming as many buildings as possible onto the site and randomly moving a historic structure to suit the plan. The aerial image in the packet shows a tree-shaded block in stark contrast to the hospital development across the street, which the applicants are obviously using as the model for the proposed development, which is appallingly inappropriate in many ways. The mass and scale are totally out of keeping with the historic structures around it. The proposed buildings tower over the historic structures that should serve as the model for the scale of the development. In place of mature trees, asphalt is proposed. The applicants should be sent back to the drawing board rather than be allowed to inflict this disaster on the historic district. Richard App, President of the Heritage Hill Association, wrote that the Association conditionally supports the request to relocate the existing house currently located at 406 Lafayette SE to the vacant lot at 415 Prospect SE based on the following conditions and understandings: 1. That the proposed relocation satisfy HPC requirement “b” for building relocation: “The site is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be a large benefit to the community. The proposed improvement must have obtained all necessary approvals. The approvals include Planning, Zoning, financing, and environmental clearances.” Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 18 January 18, 2023 2. That the house relocated to 415 Prospect SE, as well as the existing house at 409 Prospect SE will both be fully renovated, including lower level garages and a new shared driveway, to historic standards as required by the HPC and as indicated in the drawings and documents submitted with the application. It is understood that the two houses, once renovated, will be marketed and sold as owner-occupied single-family residences. 3. That the properties identified as 300 Wealthy, 316 Wealthy, 406 Lafayette and 412 Lafayette SE will be developed for 18 single-family townhomes and 3 commercial suites, with parking and other site amenities, per the drawings and documents submitted with the application. It is understood that the townhomes, when completed, will be marketed and sold as owner- occupied single-family residences. 4. That the parking plan for the townhome development will include one-way traffic flow, entering from Prospect and existing at Lafayette, and that the design be properly reviewed and approved by the City’s traffic engineer. The HHA strongly recommends that the exit drive to Lafayette allow right turn only movement to the northbound lane of Lafayette SE. 5. That the existing billboard located at 316 Wealthy will be removed once the lease expires and new construction in that location will be phased accordingly. 6. That the architectural design of the 18 townhomes and 3 commercial suites will be compatible with surrounding existing buildings, with respect for the character of the Heritage Hill Historic District. It is expected that representatives of the HHA will have ample opportunity to review these designs prior to submittal and review by HPC, Grand Rapids Planning Commission and/or other City agencies. The letter went on to say that their support is based on detailed evaluation of a well-planned proposal that they feel is of benefit to the neighborhood and community. The proposal does the following for the common good:  Saves a house that in its current location is not attractive as a single-family home.  Provides infill for a vacant lot on Prospect, helping to complete the neighborhood setting there.  Rehabilitates two houses to historic standards for single-family home ownership on Prospect.  Develops abandoned property on Wealthy that has been a problem and an eyesore for years.  Eliminates an objectionable billboard on Wealthy SE, located right at one of the entrance points of the historic neighborhood.  Creates an appropriate transition from institutional uses on the west to neighborhood on the east.  Helps address the current housing crisis in Grand Rapids without compromising the residential and architectural integrity of Heritage Hill. The Heritage Hill Association understands the uniqueness of the request. They strongly oppose any thought that their support for this very specific circumstance implies future endorsement for relocation of buildings in this or other historic district. Further, their conditional support is contingent upon assurance from the development team that the current plan or an adjusted plan will address traffic safety concerns to the satisfaction of all parties. The HHA also understands that the HPC review is the first step in several levels of review with various agencies of the City of Grand Rapids. With that understanding, this letter is intended only for support of the subject application to the HPC. Ben Hodges, owner/resident of 432 Prospect SE, expressed support for the Lafayette house being moved to Prospect. He sees no detriment to the historic character of the house or the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 19 January 18, 2023 neighborhood by it being moved. Mr. Hodges also expressed support for the proposed development. Tim and Julia Kelly, 608 Prospect SE, wrote in support of the proposed relocation of the house at 406 Lafayette and the subsequent development of the properties at 300-316 Wealthy and 409- 415 Prospect SE. By approving the relocation of the house and the eventual development along Wealthy, the HPC will drastically improve the character of three corridors that serve as important entryways into both Heritage Hill and downtown. As residents, they have daily experience with the vacant and underutilized lots and believe this proposal will better preserve the Lafayette house and further improve the overall character of the neighborhood. Given the urgent need to provide housing in Grand Rapids, this proposal has the potential to provide real meaningful progress toward the collective community goal of increasing housing supply. Without innovative and intentional solutions, it will not be possible to provide the amount of housing to meet the needs of current residents or accommodate expected growth. The Kelly’s recognize that the relocation of a house within a historic district is not something to be done lightly. However, given the engineer’s letter that it can be done safely and with minimum risk to the structure, it is the type of innovative solution that the neighborhood and City need to accomplish the housing goals. Finally, they believe the development team is the appropriate team to undertake this type of project given their history of both living, restoring and developing in the neighborhood. They believe they will approach the project with the appropriate sensitivity and ingenuity. Denying this proposal would result in the loss of a significant opportunity to demonstrate progress toward the pressing issue of housing and negatively impact future interest in the site. Stacie Behler and husband Tony Baker wrote in support of the application. As residents one block from the proposed project they believe the applicants have developed an excellent plan that will enhance the vibrancy of the neighborhood and work well given the existing uses adjacent to the project. As a former Planning Commissioner, Ms. Behler understands the various considerations to be addressed by the HPC. Given those considerations and the Standards that apply to this project, they offer full support and request that the HPC approve. Ryan Leary related that he is present as a neighbor and friend of Mr. & Mrs. Ruis. Mr. Leary explained that he works as a land manager for a large developer and he understands the importance of these meetings for redevelopment and growth. It has been an honor to live in Heritage Hill where he enjoys the beauty and preservation of the historic homes and roads while being within walking distance of modern amenities the city has to offer. He stated that his role as a residential developer routinely puts him in the path of resistance by local community members who fear change. While change is scary, it brings opportunities and propels communities forward. In this case, new life is being offered to two dilapidated historic homes and opportunities for others to purchase a new, affordable townhouse in the neighborhood. Mr. & Mrs. Ruis are pillars that bet on themselves and this community when it was near a low. Over the past 20 years they have built thriving businesses, acquired and maintained multiple rental homes, and beautifully restored their home on Prospect. Mr. Leary explained that he has only known them for a few years but would be the first to express his admiration for their hard work, community values and love for historical houses throughout the community. Mr. Leary related that he is a perfectionist with high standards and Mr. and Mrs. Ruis are very similar. They take pride in every property they own and meticulously renovate them as if it is their home. This is a Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 20 January 18, 2023 blessing for renters and neighbors in the community and should be a comforting factor to the HPC. Mr. Leary believes they have the best intentions with this venture and took a huge risk purchasing this property without the HPC’s approval in hopes of bettering the community. Their plan will bring historic houses back to life and provide 18 new townhomes that will provide affordable housing to a community in dire need of single-family dwellings. To facilitate their plan, they will need the help of the HPC to approve the relocation of the house on Lafayette to the empty lot across from their home. Mr. Leary asked that the HPC please consider the proposed changes as opportunities to better the community. Wayne Norlan, 558 Morris SE, related that he is the current Chair of the Heritage Hill Association Land Use Committee. The Committee met twice with the development group, most recently last week, and reviewed the plans in detail. The letter presented this evening does have contingencies in its conditional support. They do expect that as the project goes through the various processes that those aspects will be seriously considered. The greatest push back from within the Committee and within the Board of Directors was the issue of traffic safety, specifically related to the school across the street. They have suggested that the exit onto Lafayette be designed as a one-way north exit. They know the traffic issue around the school is an existing condition that this project hasn’t created but they would look for creativity as the plan is developed to help improve that situation. Another thing they hope was clear in the letter is that in the Heritage Hill Master Plan they encourage creative infill. It is a historic district but there are gaps and Prospect has a gap that has been clearly identified by this project. They feel the community good by moving the house into that gap and restoring both houses to the HPC criteria is a great community good for the neighborhood and the city. Don Augustine, resident on Prospect, feels the plan is a well thought out, sized and scaled project compared to what is there now. It is a vast improvement. Mr. Augustine offered his support and agreement with those that have commented and submitted letters. Abby Larimer, 432 Prospect, expressed support for the proposal. They have great confidence in this team. Preston Smith, 408 Prospect, offered support. This will be something he sees daily as he looks out the window or gets his mail. This is the perfect blend of giving the site some positive function without being an overuse of a property that would cause disruptions. It is a very well thought out plan that he looks forward to seeing. Jen Gavin, 428 Pleasant, stated that she is present with a different opinion and it isn’t that Mr. & Mrs. Ruis aren’t doing wonderful things for the community or that something is sorely needed at the site on Wealthy St. Ms. Gavin reminded the HPC that the first question before them is whether moving the house is the solution of last resort. The Standards are very clear in saying that moving historic properties should only be considered as a last resort because even if the properties are stable enough to move, there can still be damage to the historic properties and you do lose historic characteristics, including the siting of the property in its home environment. Ms. Gavin also reminded the Commission that the bungalow in question is on a block that is primarily filled with craftsman style homes whereas the proposed site is within a block of primarily Victorian homes. It is a difference in property style and environment. Additionally, the cut stone foundation upon which the house currently sits will be lost when it is moved, which is Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 21 January 18, 2023 part of its historic character. Ms. Gavin indicated that she doesn’t want to disagree because the Ruis family is wonderful but she would argue that adding 18 housing units to a shortage of 8,000 housing units may not quite meet the standards for a substantial improvement to the benefit of the community. Mr. Schmidt responded to comments. He wished to clarify that there was an error in the packet related to the cut stone foundation. They have spoken with Ms. Baker about it since. They hope to preserve the cut stone foundation around the relocated 406 Lafayette onto 415 Prospect up through the point of the back of the porch. It would remain around the porch and be integrated into the new poured concrete foundation. Mr. Dixon directed the discussion to whether the building at 406 Lafayette should be moved. The tools available to them are Certificate of Appropriateness and Notice to Proceed. His understanding is that with a Certificate of Appropriateness they would be saying that they agree that this proposal meets the local guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards and that a Notice to Proceed is a statement that they don’t feel it meets the local guidelines or Secretary of the Interior Standards but it is being approved because it meets one of the four criteria. Mr. Dixon explained that the reason he feels they should separate the consideration of the relocation of the building and where it is proposed to be relocated to is because he feels a Certificate of Appropriateness for the relocation of the building is not supportable under the guidelines. However, he does believe it is possible to support it as a Notice to Proceed. He would then like to discuss relocation of the structure onto the Prospect site as it impacts the site and basically as an infill building on Prospect. Ms. Kindt referred to the guidelines stating that moving a building is a very sensitive thing to do. The context and history of the site, style of the building and how it relates to the block is important. It is interesting that some of the context of the historic site has changed over time. What they are seeing now wasn’t necessarily what was seen previously. When looking at changing the context she is having some difficulty understanding what context it should be in. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez believes that the challenge is that presently the house in question is surrounded by vacant lots. They have to consider whether its current siting among vacant lots is significant enough to prevent its relocation to a different vacant lot where it would arguably complete a different streetscape. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez understands that Mr. Dixon feels the discussion should proceed under the criteria for a Notice to Proceed. However, he feels they also have to consider whether or not it could be considered for a CoA for rehabilitation of a site. To rehabilitate a neighborhood site it could be imagined that vacant lots are returned to a context in which there are structures on those lots. There is a vacant lot on Prospect Ave. and there are multiple vacant lots fronting Lafayette. To rehabilitate those sites, you could argue that it satisfies a Certificate of Appropriateness guideline to relocate one building surrounded by vacant lots to another site to complete that block. Ms. Kindt feels that makes sense but it only looks at the second half of the action, not the first half, which is removing the building from its historic location. Mr. Dixon indicated that the local guidelines clearly state that moving a building within a historic district is deemed a last resort and will only be considered when all other avenues for Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 22 January 18, 2023 saving the building and retaining it in its original location have failed. To the best of his knowledge they haven’t been presented with any information to the contrary that the building is in stable condition and can remain in its current position indefinitely without damaging the structure. Therefore, he doesn’t believe that all other avenues for saving the building and retaining it in its original location have failed, which is why he feels it doesn’t qualify for a CoA. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez argued that the guidelines also state that rehabilitation is defined as a process of making possible compatible use of a property through repair, alterations, additions…He asked if they are considering the structure or the neighborhood block as the resource. They are intertwined. Mr. Simmons explained that he went through the introduction to the guidelines over the weekend. In the introduction on Preservation Principles and Design Guidelines there were seven points: enhance and protect property values; promote heritage and tourism; reinforce community identity and marketability; protect and encourage investment; maintain a sense of place and community character; promote qualify of life; and promote growth and development. Mr. Dixon found that a fair point to make. He wished to be clear that he isn’t arguing whether or not the building should be moved; he is currently just arguing under what statutes it should be considered. He doesn’t feel, based on the guidelines, that they can consider it under the CoA guidelines. He is having a hard time imagining the site rehabilitation Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez spoke of. He understands the rationale and that introducing a new tooth into a gap is beneficial to the site and property. However, he agrees with Ms. Kindt that that is the second point of consideration under that guideline. He believes they all agree that it would be better to have something there but moving the house is what he is focused on at this time. If it was new construction, he would be interested in considering it. It is removing the current structure from its current location that is against the guidelines. Ms. Kindt related that she reviewed the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation where they go through the recommended and not recommended list. In terms of site, it never mentions moving. It always mentions how important context was, which is why, along with the local guidelines, she doesn’t think they can say it met the Standards, which then kicks it into the Notice to Proceed. Ms. Kindt understands the point about the seven listed goals in the introduction. Mr. Simmons pointed out that there is additional language on the next page of that introduction. The guidelines can also provide a framework for the community to achieve a vision of retaining historic resources and character while still providing a sensitive growth and modernization. It states providing flexible approaches to investing particular needs of an individual property and a neighborhood; provide guidance for maintaining historic character of a structure, building and that of the neighborhood; reduce the potential for adverse impact resulting from inappropriate treatments of individual buildings or a district as a whole; and clarify preservation standards for property owners, architects, designers, contractors, realtors, engineers and the like. The last statement is to provide a consistent basis for well informed decisions. Mr. Simmons feels they can also take the neighborhood into consideration. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked Mr. Simmons what he is arguing for. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 23 January 18, 2023 Mr. Simmons replied moving the house. He has done it. It is technically feasible to move the structure. Ms. Van Wormer argued that whether it can be done or not is not what they should be deciding. Mr. Dixon indicated that he is also in support of moving the house. He is in support of moving it under the Notice to Proceed Criteria B. He doesn’t feel that the application meets the guidelines. However, the Notice to Proceed exits outside of the guidelines and can still be acted upon and he feels that the work being proposed would be of substantial benefit to the community. He understands Ms. Gavin’s point that 18 units is a drop in the bucket when talking about a 10,000 unit housing shortage. In his profession of doing multi-family housing, putting up a 70-unit building would also be opposed by some. However, the only way to chip away a 8,000 to 10,000 unit deficit is with work like this; small developments. Building 8,000 units in a corn field somewhere isn’t going to happen. Mr. Dixon feels this project is of substantial benefit to the community and, therefore, is in favor of moving it but doing it under the correct auspices. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez related that he has a concern about Notice to Proceed. His inclination is very similar to that of Mr. Dixon. The problem is that although their decisions don’t set precedent, they will be reflected upon by future developers, by future Commissions potentially, and he does feel it is a problem when a number of newly developed homes are considered in and of themselves as the benefit. A lot of things can be done through a Notice to Proceed and if they are defining number of units as the benefit then he feels that sets them up for a dangerous impression, even if it isn’t a precedent setting move. Ms. Kindt doesn’t feel density is part of the reason some, including herself, are leaning toward Notice to Proceed. She believes it is the fact that it isn’t appropriate or compatible with the guidelines; local or the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Whether they were providing 2, 18, or 80 units she doesn’t think they are doing it for the purpose of the density being increased. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked what the benefit to the community is. Ms. Kindt replied that the benefit is still the provision of housing but not necessarily that it is increasing the density. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled that Ms. Baker pointed out that in addition to defining what the benefit to the community is, it is important that they also define what community they are benefiting. The community can be defined as the entire West Michigan region that has a housing shortage or the community can be defined as the surrounding neighborhood. The substantial benefit to the community could be defined as increasing housing for the broader community, increasing housing in the immediate community, or infill on an urban lot that would benefit from the development. Mr. Dixon suggested that another angle is that while their decisions don’t create precedent, they are also dealing with a unique opportunity in this particular instance. They are proposing to relocate this home to the same site, not outside of the District or even a different block. Despite Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 24 January 18, 2023 his desire to separate this into two points, it is not a loss of the resource. He feels that is important. Ms. Van Wormer argued that the local guidelines state that moving a building located within a historic district is deemed a last resort and must be considered when all other avenues for saving the building and maintaining it in its original location have failed. Mr. Dixon explained that that is why he is saying they can’t consider it under the CoA and that it should be considered under the Notice to Proceed criteria. A Notice to Proceed exists outside of the guidelines. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez clarified that the Notice to Proceed exists to permit actions which contradict the guidelines. Ms. Kindt clarified with Ms. Van Wormer that there is one discussion about CoA vs. Notice to Proceed and there is also the base discussion about whether it should be moved, fits the guidelines, or not. Ms. Van Wormer stated that she doesn’t feel the plan fits the guidelines for this being moved if they are using the guidelines. If they are ignoring the guidelines and having a different discussion, which is what they seem to be doing, then it is a different conversation. If looking at the guidelines, they are very specific. Ms. Van Wormer clarified that it isn’t that she finds that the plan, or the reasons, or the work that has gone into this, isn’t great but that first piece is difficult to get past. Mr. Dixon expressed his agreement, which is why it wouldn’t be a CoA. Ms. Kindt agreed that it isn’t appropriate per the local guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior Standards but they have the Notice to Proceed tool. Ms. Van Wormer asked then if they are ignoring the guidelines. Mr. Dixon explained that it isn’t that they are ignoring it. Notice to Proceed is another option. The guidelines allow them to take action through Notice to Proceed. Ms. Van Wormer expressed her understanding. However, she also feels that the context of the buildings around it, the architectural style, for both where it is and where it is proposed to be moved, is part of the context of historic preservation and part of the guidelines and something they need to consider. Mr. Dixon agrees that that is part of the guidelines and agrees that it does not meet those guidelines. Mr. Dixon asked if Ms. Van Wormer believes that the proposed development would be of substantial benefit to the community. Mr. Van Wormer replied affirmatively. However, she has problems with the relocation of the house not meeting the guidelines in several different ways. To say they really like the project so they are willing to ignore the guidelines is problematic. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 25 January 18, 2023 Ms. Kindt agreed because the guidelines are what they are supposed to be enforcing. She looked for precedent of buildings moving around the country and how different historic districts have handled it. She shares the difficulty of not following the guidelines, which are clear. Ms. Van Wormer clarified that it isn’t that she doesn’t like the plan or have respect for what the rest of it is. It is the first step. Mr. Simmons asked that Mr. Dixon define the Notice to Proceed. Mr. Dixon explained that Notice to Proceed, Criteria B, which is what they have applied for, states that the resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be a substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary Planning and Zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances. Ms. Kindt added that in the staff report it states that a Notice to Proceed is written permission to issue a permit for work that is inappropriate and that adversely affects a resource, pursuant to a finding under the City Code. It is like saying that they realize it doesn’t meet the guidelines but they have the criteria they can use to supersede the guidelines if it does have the benefit. What is also difficult, as noted in one of the letters, is that the threat to the property is the development, which is self-created. The need to move it is because of the proposed development not because it is a hazard or falling down, etc. Mr. Dixon again stated that he is not arguing the point that the proposed relocation meets the guidelines for a CoA. The Notice to Proceed is a different tool provided by the Ordinance. Ms. Baker agreed that a Notice to Proceed is a different path or tool, afforded through the Ordinance, to address certain types of issues that arise throughout the community. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez wished to clarify his opinion. He feels there is a legitimate interpretation of the Standards and guidelines for rehabilitation that would allow a CoA. He believes he is alone in that opinion. He also thinks that if that is not an acceptable route then Notice to Proceed Criteria B could be entertained. He is sensitive to it, less for the first part as to whether the resource can be moved and more so for the second portion of where is it going to be moved to. Mr. Dixon explained again that a Notice to Proceed is a statement that they recognize the request doesn’t meet the guidelines and they are still saying go ahead with it. A Certificate of Appropriateness is an acknowledgement that it meets the guidelines. By tying the relocation of the building to Prospect they are breaking off the part that doesn’t meet the guidelines and getting it on the record that they feel the relocation to Prospect does meet the guidelines. They know that picking it up doesn’t meet the guidelines but where it is being placed is just as important and it does meet the guidelines. There is an attempt there to future proof it somewhat, saying that this is only happening because they are allowed to pick it up and put it in this spot that is part of the District, on the same block, on the same site, and in a similar context. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 26 January 18, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez disagreed. Stylistically, Heritage Hill is very eclectic. He is less concerned about the different architectural styles because that already exists. However, it is not the same site and context because of the topography. It is going from a relatively flat site to a site that isn’t flat and that creates issues and opportunities in the foundation. That is the part that is most difficult for him to accept because the existing cut granite foundation is so character defining. There is potential to lose a lot of that. He agrees the site is nearby and in a lot of ways fulfills a lot of what they would hope for for infill but it is not the same site because of the topography. To a lesser extent the orientation is also very different. Things that are facing west are now facing east. He can’t say for certain that that was a driving factor in the design and construction of this house on this site originally but it does have a very deep porch and very deep eaves. Those function differently in different orientations. Ms. Van Wormer stated that if losing the foundation was to save the house that is a different conversation. If it were the last resort to save the house then compromising about losing some of those very important elements is different. When it isn’t to save the house, it makes it more difficult to consider. Mr. Dixon related that he is having a difficult time understanding where Ms. Van Wormer is coming from. He again stated that he agrees this doesn’t meet the guidelines. Ms. Van Wormer stated that while it is proposed to be moved within the same block and many aren’t concerned about the stylistic architecture, it won’t be the same foundation and there are a lot of other things. Even if it is successfully moved, there are a lot of things that will change that are part of the context of this historic house. Mr. Simmons asked the developer about the possibility of doing a stepped foundation with peel and stick. Mr. Schmidt replied that they would much prefer to have the expense of saving as much of the stone as possible vs. using peel and stick. It is something they avoid on their projects. Mr. Simmons suggested they could use a veneer. Mr. Schmidt clarified that they are open to whatever the HPC would like them to do. They understand the importance of that stone and are willing to put the time, effort and money into that. If there is an alternative that is acceptable to the HPC they are happy to oblige. Their hope at this point is to actually save the stone from 406 Lafayette. They have to determine whether, when it was built, they used a cut face stone or what the depth of the stone is and how they integrate it into the new foundation. Either way, they can commit to integrating it into the new foundation. If it is a large stone they have talked about shipping it away to have faces cut that can be applied to the concrete foundation. Mr. Dixon felt the point being discussed now is the fact that there is a stone foundation and moving the house will divorce it from that in one way or another. He feels they can talk about what the end product looks like further into the discussion this evening. Mr. Dixon addressed Ms. Van Wormer stating that it is great that she is focused on the guidelines. He is trying to Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 27 January 18, 2023 come at it from a different angle however. He asked if her opinion is that since it doesn’t meet the guidelines that she has no interest in this. Ms. Van Wormer replied no. It isn’t that she has no interest. She has trouble with the thought of recognizing that it doesn’t meet the guidelines yet considering what they need to do to make this work, which seems to be the approach they are at. Mr. Dixon disagreed. The Notice to Proceed language already exists in the Ordinance and is specifically for items such as this, demolitions, and other things that are in the best interest of the community for some reason, whether it is a demolition because it is a hazard or a major improvement program that will be a substantial benefit. That is why it exists. If Ms. Van Wormer doesn’t feel this warrants a substantial benefit, that is another conversation. They aren’t creating a way to get around the Standards, this already exists and is something they have used a number of times in the past. Mr. Dixon expressed his understanding of Commissioners’ comments; that no one believes this qualifies for a CoA except Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. Therefore, the only tool that moves this forward is the Notice to Proceed or it is done. He asked if Commissioners feel this qualifies under Criteria B as a deterrent to a major improvement program that would be of substantial benefit. His opinion is that it does based on the housing deficit they are experiencing in West Michigan. In his opinion, this is a worthwhile relocation for the benefit to be realized from it. Ms. Kindt agreed that this qualifies under Notice to Proceed because it is a substantial benefit. There were multiple letters about housing, affordable housing, and an increased amount of housing is in the Grand Rapids Master Plan. Ms. Kindt feels this is a good location for what is proposed. It is along a transit corridor and is a larger street that can handle it. Moving the house and maintaining that unit supports that because they keep the housing units vs. trying to demolish it. Therefore, she feels that relocating the house supports Criteria B and makes room for housing that will be a drop in the bucket compared to the lack of housing, but it is a start. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels that moving the house can be supported with a CoA seeing the neighborhood block as the resource of rehabilitation. He feels siting it where it is proposed to be sited is a Notice to Proceed because there is a loss of historic material. That being said, he can support a Notice to Proceed that combines both of those items. He doesn’t know that he can support the first item as a Notice to Proceed and the placement as a CoA. Mr. Dixon suggested that if going down that road that they discuss the siting and placement at this time. He referred to the site plan on packet page 218. Mr. Dixon finds that the relocated building is appropriately located on the site based on the fact that the front face of the building itself, not including the porch, appears to be more or less in line with the front face of the existing house at 409 Prospect. The porch depth is slightly deeper than that of 409 Prospect but porches have different depths and aren’t necessarily aligned with their neighboring construction. He feels it is within an acceptable variance. It is located slightly to one side of the lot as most properties were developed historically. Mr. Dixon has no problem with the proposed placement. He understands that the context is different from where it was coming from but looking at it as urban infill, a new element within that area, he feels it meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards 9 and 10 for new construction. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 28 January 18, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that two dimensionally he loves the site plan and it works. Three dimensionally he doesn’t feel it fulfills the guidelines, which is why he feels its placement should be considered under Notice to Proceed. Because of the topography it is a different site. To a lesser extent it is also the orientation. The different location requires the loss of character defining historic materials. Ms. Kindt argued that there is also a lot of character defining historic materials above the foundation level. What she would like to think about is how that foundation can be maintained. She understands they want to construct a new foundation, put the house on it and then move the stone over so they don’t have to hold it in limbo while they build it. If they require the stone to be reused it will be somewhat tricky with how it is attached. She feels they are maintaining a lot of the character defining features on the front and sides. On the back there are obviously changes. Ms. Kindt feels that if trying to maintain as much as possible she doesn’t see it as new construction. She can’t separate the fact that they know it is being moved. They are maintaining quite a bit of what creates the historic character of that house. Mr. Simmons agreed, especially if the original stone is reused. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that he loves that they are intending to reuse as much original stone as they can on the porch but the geometry of the site is the issue. Mr. Dixon again offered his opinion. He feels that a Notice to Proceed to remove the house says that they know that the house is going to be divorced from where it is now. No site where it is relocated will be the exact same site. They know material will be lost the minute the house is picked up. A CoA of where the house is placed allows them to look at it as new construction/urban infill/a new element on this piece of property. The Notice to Proceed clears out the old site and they know they will never get that same site again. Can they put a new house on this existing piece of property and will it negatively impact the District by doing that? Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez suggested that is a very strange way to look at it. It is not new construction. Mr. Dixon argued that it is new to that property. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels they want the same thing but are arguing about how to get there. He refuses to say it is new construction. Ms. Baker recommended the Notice to Proceed placing several requirements on it such as the requirement for the foundation. Mr. Dixon added that any motion needs to include the fact that this is being permitted because it is being moved so close, within the District, neighborhood, etc. Ms. Baker added that they can also include things like the unique layout and environment of what has already happened. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 29 January 18, 2023 Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE THE RELOCATION OF THE HOUSE AT 406 LAFAYETTE SE TO THE PROPERTY AT 415 PROSPECT SE, WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE TO PROCEED, CRITERIA B, with the substantial benefit to the community being the new housing and for the site rehabilitation within the neighborhood block, with the stipulations that the existing foundation material be reused as much as possible and a compatible material to complete the additional required material at a future date. The move is being permitted because the proposed site is within a similar context within the same block and the site has already been modified over time with the change of adjacent housing and commercial properties missing or being vacated. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. YEAS: 4. NAYS: 1 (Van Wormer). MOTION CARRIED. The next point of discussion was the modifications and addition to what will now be 415 Prospect SE; the relocated house. Ms. Baker explained that most of the work falls within the realm of staff approval. They will be restoring porch rails that are deteriorated, general repairs, in kind replacement of missing windows, basement windows are missing and boarded and will be wood windows to match what would be historically accurate. There is one change where one of the basement windows may be widened to meet egress requirements. A couple of the alterations will be on the proposed north elevation near the rear. There is currently what was historically a set of ganged, double-hung, fifty-fifty windows in the partial gambrel roof on the second floor. One of those windows had been replaced with a door with a lower head height. Based on the drawing provided, Ms. Baker believes they intend to reverse that. It appears to be either an upside-down cottage style double-hung or a fixed window with an awning. She doesn’t believe that is their intent so the applicant should provide clarification. On the first floor below that there are some proposed changes. The window furthest to the rear is existing and will remain as is. There is one other window on that façade. It is shorter and smaller than the larger window. It is infilled with a piece of plywood with a hole cut out at the top and either glass or plexiglass to provide the illusion of something you can see through. They want to maintain the head and sill height of that opening but essentially triple it. They would have a window on either side of it making a gang of three and they would be wood, double-hung. In between that new opening and the existing they would like to install a door to provide access to a deck that will be created through their request for an addition located underneath the house. The smaller section of the rear façade will have the majority of the addition underneath it. It will project out past that rear portion of the building but not beyond what would be the proposed north wall of the new foundation; it will still be stepped back by at least a foot. They are also maintaining the rear lean- to addition that is currently on the home. Part of the addition will be under that as well. The only other elements that are changing are staff reviewable. They are removing a non-historic enclosure that was over an added entry, that likely had to do with the conversion at some point, and infilling the area with clapboard. Similarly, the front façade has a secondary door that was added at some point. They want to remove that and return it to a single door entry. The only thing staff noted is that a motion should state that the seams be staggered so there isn’t an outline of those openings. Mr. Dixon clarified that other than the openings mentioned there is no proposed demolition being done with the relocation of the house. Ms. Baker agreed. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 30 January 18, 2023 Mr. Dixon noted that typically when they consider an application that has some staff reviewable items and some non-staff reviewable items, they often discuss all of them. He asked if it is acceptable to discuss only the items that are not staff reviewable. Ms. Baker advised that the Commission doesn’t have to discuss the staff reviewable items unless there is an issue or they want to bring attention to something. For the other home, many of the items have already been staff approved and work is underway. Greg Schmidt, architect, felt that Ms. Baker accurately summarized their intentions. On the proposed north elevation, second story, near the rear they are showing that as a window frame that was repaired in the past. They would maintain it as a window and it would be repaired. Mr. Dixon clarified that the intent is to restore the window. If the two don’t match they will repair whichever one doesn’t match to the existing historic condition. G. Schmidt agreed. He continued relating that on the deck of the addition, on the first floor of the proposed north elevation, they are adding a new railing. The style and construction of the rail will mimic the existing railing at the front of the house. In addition, they will be keeping all of the existing columns at the front of the house and the existing railing. When the house is lifted and moved, what would need to be built new is new porch walls and a new concrete top and steps to match the existing. The porch walls would be reclaimed stone from the existing porch. Mr. Dixon clarified that everything from the columns down will be demolished and rebuilt. Everything from the columns up is being relocated. G. Schmidt agreed. What is not shown is that there is an existing handrail that is not historical so they will provide a new wood rail. Mr. Dixon suggested they discuss the foundation. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that it is a shame to lose historic materials that are character defining the way that the granite is. He appreciates the intent to reuse as much as possible on the porch. He doesn’t have any good options to suggest for the new concrete foundation. Mr. Dixon asked if there is enough material to completely cover the new foundation wall up to the garage addition. G. Schmidt explained that the existing foundation is stone all the way through. The portion of exposed stone on the foundation, on the existing site from the exterior, is limited to 2 ft. above grade. There is actually a lot of stone available in the entire stone foundation. If you go in the basement, it is all stone. The stone that is existing in the basement would not have the same patina that would exist on the exterior of the building. G. Schmidt doesn’t know if there is an expectation that they would select the stones that they would be able to cut. The stones are cobbled together in a manner that they interlock. He doesn’t know enough about it to say that they could identically match the character of the stone foundation but what they will attempt to do is use the same material and do their best to mimic it. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 31 January 18, 2023 Mr. Dixon asked if the intent is to take the stones from the old house, cut them, and apply them or is the intent to build the porch of stone. G. Schmidt replied that the intent is to build a new stone porch. The porch wall can be built against a form, infilled on the inside, and there would be a concrete cap placed on top of it. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked the material for the decking of the flat roof. G. Schmidt replied that it is proposed as a composite material. There is a roof structure underneath it so it won’t be able to be a true tongue and groove because the water has to seep underneath. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recognized that there is a retaining wall proposed but the application doesn’t include the height or material. G. Schmidt explained that they haven’t had the civil work done yet. They know from their preliminary evaluation that it is likely that a retaining wall would be required. They anticipate it being in the realm of 18 inches above grade on the low side. It will likely be poured concrete. From the house you would see the wood fence and from the parking side you would see a fence on top of a retaining wall. He further explained that that is an effort to provide a level parking surface. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon clarified that what the Commission should cover in this request is the new and modified openings, the addition, and the foundation. He suggested they begin discussion with the addition. Ms. Kindt feels that relocating the building to a site with different topography is somewhat tricky. The guidelines specifically prohibit attached garages. It talks about separate outbuildings. With the topography at this site she feels that putting the garage underneath makes sense to take advantage of the topography and minimize the amount of building on the site and the footprint. Mr. Dixon added that this was a building form that was common in this era as vehicles began entering the market more consistently. Mr. Simmons agreed. There are quite a few houses on a slope that have the garage in the house. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed, which is why the guidelines language is confusing. Mr. Dixon would suggest that the language is more geared toward houses on a flat site and a more traditional suburban garage as opposed to this, which is functionally below grade from the street level. He agreed it is a building form that was seen during the period of significance. Ms. Kindt added, in terms of an addition, that it is on a non-character defining façade. It isn’t very visible from the street level because of the grade. She feels the location is appropriate based on the site. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 32 January 18, 2023 Mr. Dixon appreciates that it is set back from the main façade of the house to give it the visual cue that it is an addition and not part of the original structure. The materiality makes sense. The carriage doors are appropriate and they are wood. The fact that they’ve drawn inspiration for the railing from the front of the house is appropriate. Trex, a composite product, is specifically an exception for decks because of the maintenance concerns. He clarified that for the openings it appears everything will be replaced in kind with the exception of the three windows above the addition on the proposed north elevation; there will be a widening of the window bank and the addition of a door. He feels it is a relatively minor change on a secondary elevation. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez related that he is in favor of the proposed opening additions more because they are on a secondary addition to the main house. While it does have character in its own right, it is in every way secondary to the main building. Ms. Kindt feels it is a minor change to continue the use and to access the new addition. Mr. Dixon suggested discussion on the foundation. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez was pleased to hear that there is stone foundation visible in the basement though there are likely technical and feasibility concerns. He isn’t comfortable just saying that because poured concrete as a facing material is the fastest and easiest way to relocate the house on a new foundation that that should be the preferred option. There are questions that remain and he looks forward to the opportunity to hear more about how those questions get answered. Mr. Dixon suggested tabling the materiality of the foundation specifically. There will likely be other questions the applicant will need to return to answer on this entire proposal so he feels it is appropriate to break that piece out to give them time for further investigation. Ms. Kindt clarified however that the intent is that they reuse the existing masonry foundation for the visible portion of the new structure, including under the house but not the garage. Mr. Dixon stated that the intent of tabling would be to give them time to do a more thorough inventory of the material available to them and come up with some potential plans for a cut stone finish back to where the hill begins on the grade change, which is also at the addition. Ms. Kindt explained that her intention for the stone face would be that they take the blocks that make up the structural portion of the foundation, move them, and rebuild a structural foundation with them. She asked Mr. Dixon if he was saying that they could simply reuse them for facing the foundation. Mr. Dixon clarified that he is suggesting tabling to give them time to do the inventory and determine if there is enough material to build a true foundation out of the block. If there isn’t enough material, they can then discuss the stone as a facing alternative. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that building a new foundation of stone is not inconceivable but technically quite challenging. He would be open to consider creative options that at least Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 33 January 18, 2023 preserve the exterior aesthetic of the cut stone. If it were to be a bearing foundation they would have to raise the house, disassemble, clean, sort stone, and rebuild the bearing foundation elsewhere before the house could be moved and that would take an enormous amount of time. Ms. Baker added that it would also provide a false sense of history. Mr. Dixon recalled that that is one of the points they brought up; the patina won’t be the same. He likes that because it is the historic material but it will provide a differentiation between new and historic. Ms. Baker suggested a simple tabling to allow them to explore options would be sufficient for action this evening. The Commission discussed the driveway configuration. Ms. Kindt recognized an air conditioning unit on a concrete pad in the side yard near the driveway. Mr. Dixon feels the air conditioning unit at 409 Prospect is appropriately sited and screened because it is in a narrow side yard with a fence on one side. The unit at 415 would be more visible. He asked if there was any consideration given to having the condensing unit on the southwest side of the house or is there a reason that wouldn’t work. G. Schmidt replied that it just has to do with the distance from the mechanical equipment on the inside. They were trying to keep it as short as possible. If there is a significant concern, they can pursue relocating it. Mr. Dixon’s preference would be to have it located on the southwest side. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. If it has to be on the north for technical reasons, it should be screened. The Commission was comfortable with the shared driveway. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO TABLE approval for the foundation facing material for the house to be relocated to 415 Prospect SE to allow the applicant an opportunity to accurately assess the ability to salvage and reuse existing granite foundation stone. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE, with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, what will now be 415 Prospect, with the exception of the foundation material, with the stipulations that the seams of the infill siding be staggered, the air conditioning unit be moved to the southwest corner or be screened in the currently proposed location, that the front stair handrail omitted from the drawings be reviewed and approved by staff, and per testimony based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 34 January 18, 2023 Ms. Baker introduced the proposed alterations and addition to 409 Prospect SE. As previously stated, several of the projects are restoration work that has been staff approved and work is well underway. With respect to the rear addition proposed off the back, sub-level, it will be a flat story with a walk out deck and a simplified square spindle rail to draw from the front porch but not mimic it. The French doors that exist will be maintained. The house has a substantial overhang that exists and has been with the house as far back as can be determined. In the back corner of the house, opposite the location of the French doors, there was historically a porch. Based on what she can determine from the photos, it was a wood structure. It provided support to the overhang. It was removed several decades ago with the overhang left hanging. A very substantial deck was approved by the Commission in the 1980s with a very similar footprint to what is being proposed. That was also removed recently. For this particular house, the major change is related to the addition. R. Schmidt explained that they didn’t remove the deck; it was removed by the previous owner. It was almost exactly the same shape as they are proposing. The French doors come off of the dining room and went to the deck that was removed by the previous owner. Mr. Dixon clarified that there are new 4 x 4s that will replace the two temporary supports that are there now and the 4 x 4s will bear on the new addition structure. R. Schmidt explained that what is there now is for temporary shoring. The new posts will bear on the deck of the new addition. Ms. Kindt noted that the drawings note a new deck ledger attached to the house. She asked if that replaces the existing. Mr. Ruis replied that there is an existing ledger that was poorly done. They will have to remove it and replace it to modern building standards. Whether their addition is attached or not, some of that will depend on what the Commission prefers. They will have to do some repair there regardless because currently there are 2 x 6s nailed to the house. That either needs to be returned with an apron that matches the rest of the coursing on the house or whatever the structural engineer directs for attaching the new addition. Mr. Dixon noted that the architectural drawings currently show a new stud wall going inside of the existing exterior wall. His assumption is that they could be structurally independent of each other, which would be the preference so that in the future if someone decided to take the addition down the existing material is undamaged. Mr. Ruis agreed. He added that there is evidence of an old opening to the original porch, on the west elevation and north side of the existing window. It is evident from the interior framing. Mr. Ruis clarified that they are not proposing to restore that opening because that is where the new kitchen will be located. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked the proposed deck material. G. Schmidt replied that it will be a similar material to the deck proposed at 415 Prospect; a composite material. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 35 January 18, 2023 Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez indicated that he has no concerns with the proposed addition or rehabilitation. Mr. Dixon stated that the only thing that struck him as odd is that they are proposing awning windows on the north and south elevations of the foundation where there are currently boards. It isn’t an operation seen on any other part of the house. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez wasn’t concerned with that. Mr. Dixon agreed. The siting of the addition seems correct. It is stepped back from the main house, subservient to the main house, and although it is an attached garage it is sub-grade. Ms. Kindt agreed with the comments related to the siting. It is a secondary façade and somewhat reversible since it is built on the outside of the foundation. It is set back. Ms. Kindt noted that the handrail post on the back doesn’t have a cap on it. Ms. Baker suggested that is a minor detail the Commission can include as a stipulation. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the application for 409 Prospect SE, with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, per the application and testimony and based on the local preservation guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 9 & 10, with the stipulation that the posts on the addition railing have caps that are to be reviewed and approved by staff. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. With respect to the proposed new development, Ms. Baker related that the applicants are seeking formal review of the site plan and potentially the massing. It will be up to the Commission to determine whether or not they can offer an approval based off of the information provided without knowing the specific design elements and features of the structure. G. Schmidt explained that they are proposing a series of townhomes. The main intention was to make it not look like there was a single style of home throughout the entire site. They were sensitive to the changing nature of the site from the east side, near Prospect, to the west side closer to the school. They wanted the architecture and massing to reflect that change. They are proposing a gabled roof structure on the east and going to a flat roof structure on the west. The most notable feature is the interior alleyway. It is a pedestrian element for access to 8 of the units. They see it as a great opportunity for an intimate, pedestrian-friendly corridor. Something that doesn’t come through in the plans, but is intended through the massing, are the differing relationships to the street. At the east side of Wealthy they are envisioning that residents would walk out of their units on to a combination stoop/patio space. In the pedestrian alleyway there would be private patio spaces for the residents that would be surrounded by landscaping. On the west side, along Lafayette, there would be two-story covered porches. Each of the townhomes has either a one- or two-car garage space occupying most of the first floor, with the exception of an entryway and access to the staircase. Because of the limited floor space there is no living Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 36 January 18, 2023 space on the inside of the entryway. You walk into the entryway and then up into the second floor living space. G. Schmidt explained that they would like to have some type of outdoor space included for each of the living units whether it is a small balcony off the back or potentially some type of roof deck. There are three commercial units at the northwest portion of the site. The intent is that the commercial spaces furthest to the northwest are slightly higher single-story buildings that would allow views to the existing billboard until that can be removed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked for clarification on the height of the building closest to the round-a-bout. His understanding is that the proposed height relates to the presence of the billboard. He asked if there is any other rationale besides the billboard. G. Schmidt explained that it is also a commercial building. They didn’t consider a two-story commercial building there because, at that size, it would require an elevator. Mr. Dixon asked if the top floor of the condos with the gable roofs is a fourth floor. G. Schmidt replied that it is a ½ story. They are proposing 3 ½ stories. Mr. Dixon asked if the angle at which the northwest building chamfers in, commercial suite A, is determined by the clear vision requirements. G. Schmidt explained that that is a tricky geometry puzzle. That face is perpendicular to a close approximation of where a center line would be going from the center of the round-a-bout into the site. Ms. Kindt recalled that the staff report noted that the project will need to be submitted for a Planned Redevelopment District review by the Planning Commission. She asked what specifically is not permitted outright or why they need to apply for that. G. Schmidt explained that from a Zoning perspective one of the difficulties is that the site spans two Zone Districts; to the north is TBA and to the south is LDR. They are proposing townhomes be built on what is technically LDR zoning at the southwest portion of the site. The PRD is to address that primarily but also for some of the lot changes. The current legal description of the proposed single-family lots on Prospect do not conform exactly with their plan. R. Schmidt added that they’ve met with the Planning Dept. a few times in determining the best path forward. That was their recommendation. They felt that the PRD route would provide the necessary tools to achieve the plan based on six different parcels over two different zone districts. Ms. Kindt asked Ms. Baker if the HPC review supersedes Zoning. Ms. Baker advised that the HPC supersedes Zoning in the site plan layout: where the buildings are located; how big the buildings are; what they look like; and the materiality. The only things they don’t supersede would be Traffic Safety requirements and the use. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 37 January 18, 2023 Ms. Kindt asked if the height is the issue with the building that goes into the LDR district. Is the unit density also an issue. R. Schmidt explained that there are standards in the LDR that don’t easily permit multi-family residential in terms of setback. Mr. Dixon asked their general idea of what the RBL is. G. Schmidt didn’t have that information readily available. There is on-street parking there and the RBL typically required in a TBA would be 14 ft. He believes they are above that. Mr. Dixon explained that the HPC isn’t confined to the RBL but the intent of the RBL is not to be past it either. The building should be at the RBL to enforce the streetscape. He clarified that he is asking because there is no strong streetscape to connect to on Wealthy but there is on Lafayette. The site plan provided only really shows one building just a bit to the south. Having some context for the rest of the neighborhood as it moves further south would be helpful. With respect to the placement of the buildings from the street, G. Schmidt explained that there is an electrical line along Wealthy. They were sensitive to the location of that line when considering porches, etc. Ms. Kindt referred to the site plan for Lafayette and asked if there is any screening proposed between the subject property and 416 Lafayette to the south. G. Schmidt replied that if it isn’t in the drawings the intent would be a 6 ft. tall fence. Mr. Dixon asked if there is a landscaping plan yet. G. Schmidt replied no. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon stated that he isn’t comfortable reviewing massing at this point. They have been provided black and white renderings, which are very nice, but they don’t have elevations, floor plans or materiality, which do impact the massing. The massing of a brick building reads very differently than the massing of a clapboard building. He doesn’t feel they’ve been provided enough information to deliberate that at this time. He suggested they table that portion for now and discuss it as part of the Advisory Discussion. With respect to the site plan, he would like to see a site plan that provides more neighborhood context as well as dimensions to back of curb and parking dimensions, etc. The internal parking is dimensioned but the street parking is not. He would also like to see a landscape plan before formally reviewing the site plan. Mr. Simmons agreed that he would like a lot more detail. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 38 January 18, 2023 Ms. Kindt suggested providing them with as much detail as possible so they don’t get further into the details of something they already know they have comments on. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO TABLE THE SITE PLAN AND MASSING OF THE PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT to provide the applicant an opportunity to provide additional detail on dimensions, architectural elevations, greater architectural detail/materiality, a landscape plan, and a massing model that includes greater neighborhood context. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Dixon closed the public hearing and opened the Advisory Discussion advising that this is not a formal review and no formal decision will be made. Any comments or recommendations made during the Advisory Discussion are not binding upon either the applicant or the HPC. The purpose of the Advisory Discussion is to provide an opportunity for informal discussion of a potential project prior to initiation of the application process. Advisory Discussions are not to be construed as either approval or denial of a project or any portion thereof, nor do they take the place of formal review and application process. Mr. Dixon recalled that the one-way, right turn only, was brought up in public comment. He asked what their plans are for that. R. Schmidt replied that they don’t know yet. They would want to discuss that with John Bartlett, the City’s Traffic Safety Engineer. They heard that desire from the neighborhood and are willing to discuss it with Mr. Bartlett for his reaction. Everyone likely agrees that at two points in the day, Monday through Friday, it gets very busy around the school. What is interesting is that outside of those two points during the week days it is a normal traffic flow. Mr. Dixon feels the site is moving in the right direction. What the Commission would like to see is more detail. Landscape screening between the proposed development and 416 Lafayette will be very important as well as screening between the parking and 423 Prospect. R. Schmidt explained that they didn’t assume that the site plan and massing would be formally approved at this point. A lot hinged on the relocation of the house. They are more than happy to provide more detail and context. Ms. Van Wormer stated that she loves what has been designed for this. She acknowledged her misgivings but they were not about this. She loves the thought being put into this, the design and that there are different elements on the street. She feels they have done an incredible job. Mr. Dixon related that his only concern about the massing is the ½ story at the top along Wealthy. Because Wealthy rises so quickly, he is concerned that those high peaked roofs on a third story are going to read very tall as you go up Wealthy. The houses across the street on Prospect are elevated so that tends to mediate it somewhat but he does have a concern about that. Ms. Kindt added that she also had a note about height. The surrounding houses are approximately 35 ft. and the townhomes appear that they will be above that. From some perspectives that will likely block the parking garage across the street but when coming down Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 39 January 18, 2023 Wealthy they don’t want it to look like it is towering. The fourth story with the steep gable, while it is an efficient way to get more square footage, makes it look quite tall. Mr. Dixon recalled from a couple of the letters that they talked about how it is a big monstrosity. He doesn’t agree with that. It has very smartly been broken down into two separate buildings first of all but also different building heights within the two structures. He suggested that what they are most likely reacting to is the first rendering where you are looking down at Wealthy and Prospect and it is a wall of 3 ½ stories. That makes it look big. Ms. Kindt added that along Wealthy the three separate townhouses are starting to differentiate themselves but she has an issue with still such a flat surface and then a flat panel that is recessed slightly. That seems like a gesture to have different buildings but you can still really tell they are the same and that is what is starting to make it look so large along Wealthy. There are other buildings, such as the brick apartment building at Madison, that is flat across the front but the vertical panels of a different color or material help to separate it into different areas. They aren’t seeing that right now. They are simply seeing a 5 ft. setback to make it look like they are separate. With respect to the commercial, Ms. Kindt likes the interior street. It helps to break it up along Wealthy. She is having trouble with the connection between the commercial and the residential. There is a small setback but the separation is even more important between residential and commercial. Mr. Dixon suggested that materiality will help. The windows will be very important because windows are so integral to historic neighborhoods. Ms. Baker asked about the lack of covered porches. Ms. Kindt replied that when she drove down Wealthy when visiting the site all of the houses that face Wealthy are set back and typically have a porch that faces that direction. The buildings that are directly on Wealthy typically actually face the side street. At College there is the mammoth apartment building that looks like a house but it is very broken up. Going back to breaking up the façade, the porches may be a way to differentiate it. The porch on the end is a step in the right direction. It relates to the houses along Prospect but they aren’t seeing that along Wealthy currently. It would also differentiate between the commercial and residential better. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that in his mind there is some typological confusion. That may address some of the setback and porch issues. There are a lot of different types of buildings in the District and nearby on Wealthy St. and their expression to the public realm, their setbacks and use of porches or not, seems to be really defined on whether or not they are presenting themselves as an apartment building, as a single-family house, as a four-plex, etc. When looking at the corner of Wealthy and Prospect, the elevation facing Prospect reads kind of like a single- family house but it doesn’t have the same setback as the other single-family homes. Attachment is a great tool of urbanism but there is a bit of confusion in his mind about whether they are houses, townhouses, or apartments. Maybe some architectural clarity about what type is used will help them to find what the relationship to the street needs to be and perhaps what the expression of some of the architectural details will be also. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 40 January 18, 2023 With respect to covered porches, Mr. Dixon feels that one of the important things a covered porch does is it draws attention to the entry. In the composition here it seems like the entries are de-accentuated. He suggested looking at that again. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that the townhouses that front Lafayette have very pronounced two-story covered porches. Ms. Baker asked Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez if he feels it reads like a porch on the Lafayette units. Her initial reaction is that it resembles a commercial request downtown where the storefront is recessed but it is solid on the sides. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez replied that he can’t tell without seeing elevations. Mr. Dixon indicated that he struggled with Lafayette a bit. He wants to make sure that portion feels residential. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled the three-story porches on the apartment building located at the northwest corner of Wealthy and College. Ms. Kindt feels it is hard to tell how that will read with the massing information they have now. If that is supposed to be residential it is hard to read the massing of that; what is porch, what is elevation. Mr. Dixon asked the applicant if they’ve provided enough information that they feel comfortable moving forward. R. Schmidt replied that he believes he hears general support of the concept and that they have more work to do. No one is saying that townhomes scare them or that building orientations scare them. The Commission agreed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noticed that it appears the buildings are connected by some kind of wall with a portal at the end of the pedestrian corridor. G. Schmidt agreed. It is a way to terminate that. He isn’t sure what the shape of it will be but it is essentially creating a portal so it isn’t just an open view. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez expressed his support for that element. The site plan is lovely. It is a very urbane, sophisticated site plan. Ms. Van Wormer added that while they aren’t done, it shows a lot of thought already. She is excited to see what it will look like. Ms. Kindt stated that when the U-shaped building goes into the Traditional Neighborhood - Low Density Residential she recognizes that they have kept the height there, which would require a variance from what is allowed there. She has a concern about that and perhaps it means they Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 41 January 18, 2023 have to take off the third story there and that unit is two stories. When it turns onto Lafayette it needs to relate to the residential feel of that Zoning. It would take a lot of convincing for them to override that. G. Schmidt feels an extended site plan and massing model will help to evaluate those concerns. Ms. Baker recommended another Advisory Discussion when the plans are developed further. VIII. Discussion Ms. Baker circulated example motion language for the Commission’s consideration. IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 8:50 PM XI. Staff Reports