Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 March 1, 2023 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from February 1, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF APPROVALS STAFF ISSUED COA PERMITS 40 Prospect SE 326 Madison SE 480 Fountain NE 534 Morris SE 212 Diamond SE Motion by Ms. Kindt, supported by Ms. Van Wormer, to approve the Certificates of Appropriateness issued by staff. Motion carried unanimously. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman V. Old Business VI. New Business A. 320 UNION NE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 320 UNION NE - REQUEST TO RETAIN SMART VENT Generated 3/6/2023 7:31 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 March 1, 2023 Ms. Baker introduced the request to retain a venting system that was installed outside of the permitted Certificate of Appropriateness, which covered reroofing, ridge vents and pop vents. The type of vent that was installed was a smart vent. Ms. Baker displayed images of the roof. She explained that a smart vent is designed to intake air to help keep the roof dry and free of heat and pushing the air out through a ridge vent, pop vent or other means. The vent runs parallel with the roof. On average, it is located approximately 18 to 30 inches from the roof edge, up the roof plane. The application packet included an illustration describing how the smart vent works. They are basically placed under the roofing shingles, pushing them up between ¾ to 1 inch. Per the submittal, the issues they ran into with doing a soffit vent is that the soffits were too small, location of the fire block and location of knee wall and the fact that it is conditioned space on the inside. Ms. Baker responded to questions clarifying that the ridge vent was part of the original staff approval for a new roof, which included a ridge vent and soffit venting. She doesn’t have the authority to approve smart venting. There was one other roof approved with a smart vent as a trial, which was approximately 8-10 years ago. Ms. Chapman asked if houses with such a narrow eave condition have typically been able to utilize eave vents. Ms. Baker replied that she has issued a lot of permits for soffit vents over the years. This is a significantly narrow, very slender soffit. Those she has seen with a request for soffit vents were much wider. She clarified that a soffit vent is a vent on the under-side of the soffit in the carpentry. Mr. Bruinsma clarified that for soffit vents they would drill into the wood and that is staff approvable. Ms. Baker replied affirmatively. The only way you notice them is when standing under the house and looking up. They can be made flush with the soffit area and most times it is a flat board. Joe Clausen, Rasmussen Exteriors, was present on behalf of the request. He concurred with Ms. Baker’s presentation. Their intent was to ensure that the house was preserved without having to drill holes into something that is very small. In addition, fire blocking and the knee wall were in the way so it wouldn’t vent properly. They wanted to preserve it in the best way they know how. Mr. Dixon asked if it was his professional opinion that a soffit vent wouldn’t have been a functional choice in this case. Mr. Clausen agreed, because of the knee wall and fire wall blocking. There wouldn’t be enough net free area to have the correct amount of intake as exhaust. Mr. Bruinsma asked if they could have done the smart vent closer to the gutter. Mr. Clausen replied possibly but they would also run into the knee wall and fire blocking issue again. You also usually have insulation between the lower slopes where the fire blocking is so they try to get it up to where it won’t be blocked. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 March 1, 2023 Mr. Bruinsma asked if a pop vent could have accomplished the same thing. Mr. Clausen replied that they wouldn’t have gotten the net free area necessary. It would have resulted in 8 - 10 of the pop vents in a row. There was no one present for public comment. Mr. Dixon summarized that their consideration is whether or not the roofing material and lines created are a contributing feature of the structure. If they find that it is, is the smart venting a minimal change? Ms. Kindt recalled from the staff report that it previously had rolled roofing that had horizontal lines. The asphalt shingle lines are something that there isn’t a record of with this structure, although obviously a feasible material to put on a roof. Horizontal lines have been on the roof in the past and now it is a different material. Ms. Van Wormer suggested that the smart vent would have been better hidden under the rolled roofing. Mr. Dixon stated that the roof itself is a contributing feature. Is the shingle material and patterning it creates a contributing feature? Ms. Kindt’s point is valid in that asphalt shingles were not the original condition for the home. Things can develop historic significance over the years but he doesn’t feel a typical asphalt shingle roof is something that illustrates enough craftsmanship or unique materiality to warrant its own historic designation. Ms. Kindt agreed. The monolithic roof surface appearance may be what is contributing and not necessarily the material. Mr. Dixon agreed adding that the original rolled roofing doesn’t appear monolithic. There is a noticeable horizontal line to it. There is also something to be said for the fact that roof venting has been proven to be helpful for elongating the life of wood framed construction. Per testimony, this is the most effective way to achieve that. Ms. Kindt added that it is perfectly reasonable to be able to want to vent your roof and for current building standards it is required. The addition of the horizontal line, whether shingles or the historic rolled roofing, is a minimal change especially with the circumstance of the small soffit, knee walls and fire blocking. More historic material would be destroyed trying to do the soffit vent, which wouldn’t provide proper venting. Mr. Bruinsma agreed. Adding an extra line, of the same color and direction of the roof line, is as minimal of a change as putting holes in the bottom of the soffit that is likely more visible from the ground. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed with the comments offered. Mr. Simmons agreed that it is the least amount of invasion to the house, based on the need for venting. It doesn’t impact anything to do with the architectural detail of the soffit. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 March 1, 2023 Mr. Dixon added that concessions have already been made, due to the fact that venting is needed, by adding a ridge vent and pop vents. A ridge vent is just as visibly noticeable as the smart vents are. Ms. Van Wormer felt it was important for the record to point out that the smart vent is not what was approved and when it was determined that a change was necessary they should have returned to staff/the Commission. Mr. Dixon agreed that the correct process wasn’t followed. While technical infeasibility is not what is being applied for, there is a degree of technical infeasibility based on the construction of this particular house and how narrow the soffits are and the challenges of installing a soffit vent. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the request to retain the smart vent, with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 320 Union NE with the finding that the work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 2, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Thomas Simmons YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 5:16 PM 1. TRAINING - NO PUBLIC COMMENT WILL TAKEN OR HEARD - NO BUSINESS WILL BE HEARD