Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 April 19, 2023 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Chapman ABSENT: Simmons Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from March 1, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Chapman ABSENT: Thomas Simmons IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF REPORT STAFF APPROVED COA PERMITS 27 College NE 50 Louis NW 103 College SE 211 Union NE 221 Warren SE 222 Diamond SE 246 Diamond SE 332 College SE 334 Hollister SE 341 Charles SE 354 Washington SE 424 Union SE 505 Cherry SE 517 Prospect SE 521 Crescent NE 532 College SE 534 Morris SE 601 Paris SE 804 Wealthy SE Motion by Ms. Kindt, supported by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, to approve the Certificates of Appropriateness issued by staff. Motion carried unanimously. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Chapman ABSENT: Thomas Simmons V. Old Business Generated 4/24/2023 8:01 AM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 April 19, 2023 VI. New Business A. 70 IONIA SW - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 70 IONIA SW - REQUEST FOR INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED UPPER LEVEL SIGN Ms. Baker recalled that this building was recently before the Commission for an upper level sign at the north corner of this façade. The proposed sign is for the south corner. Ms. Baker provided background of signage on the non-contributing, 2005 building. In 2005 the HPC approved a sign in the subject location that was 14’ wide, 1.6’ tall, and approximately 6” deep. The sign was for Beta Design and was very similar to what is being proposed. That sign was removed in 2010 and was replaced with the existing sign for Grid70, which was also approved by the HPC. That sign is 4’ wide, 5’ tall and 3” thick. The sign being proposed is approximately 14’ wide, 1.6’ tall and 6” deep. It is an aluminum channel letter type of style, directly mounted to the wall with no raceway. Mr. Dixon recalled that the Commission required a diffuser on the lens of the sign approved for the Cure facility next to this. He asked if the proposed sign will include the same diffuser. Ms. Baker replied that they have a different face application. She deferred to the applicant to explain it. Her understanding is that it is supposed to have a dimmer effect. Mary Cook, Valley City Sign, was present on behalf of the request. She explained that they are proposing perforated vinyl on a face lit channel letter. Their logo will appear as their logo during the day and at night it will change over to a white light, but not a bright white. Ms. Cook provided a physical example of the different lighting options; one with a diffuser, a sample of the Cure letter approved with a diffuser, and one without a diffuser. Ms. Cook clarified that there are two examples of the look with the perforated vinyl; one with a diffuser and one without. She explained that they are proposing the perforated vinyl. It is up to the HPC whether they desire a diffuser as well to mute it further. Without the diffuser, it will still be much more muted than the Cure signage. Ms. Cook responded to questions indicating that the perforated vinyl will be on the lettering as well as the logo. The perforated vinyl has a life span of approximately 15 years. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon thanked the applicant for the examples provided. He explained for Commissioners that were not present that the Cure sign is the other sign on the building. It was originally proposed to be a white sign. A sub-committee went out for some field testing and found that the diffuser applied to the face dimmed the bright whiteness and helped prevent it from detracting from the rest of the historic neighborhood. The building itself is non-contributing so the consideration is whether it negatively impacts the neighborhood and landscape. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels the perforated vinyl does a great job filtering/subduing the light in a way he imagines will have a minimal impact. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 April 19, 2023 Ms. Van Wormer feels it makes sense to have the two signs similar; it may look better. Mr. Dixon related that he couldn’t tell the difference between the examples of the perforated vinyl with or without the diffuser. Ms. Kindt found the example provided helpful. Her only concern with the application was the brightness. She doesn’t feel, as proposed, that the brightness will have a negative impact on the district. Mr. Dixon suggested they discuss massing and scale and the impact on the district vs. the impact on this building. Ms. Kindt doesn’t feel it has a negative impact on the district. The massing and scale is reasonable in terms of size and placement. Mr. Bruinsma doesn’t feel the scale of the sign has a negative impact on the historic character of the environment. Mr. Dixon and Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 70 Ionia SW, with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 1, 9 & 10, approving either perforated vinyl option; with or without the diffuser. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Chapman ABSENT: Thomas Simmons B. 144 DIVISION S - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 144 DIVISION S - REQUEST FOR UPPER LEVEL SIGN Ms. Baker recalled that this building was before the HPC in 2021 for approval of three ground level signs. She displayed the original submittal that included a ground level sign on Division, one on Cherry, and one on Sheldon. Since that time, Degage has done some rebranding and reconsidered their signs. They came to staff to eliminate the Cherry St. sign, retain the Sheldon sign, and move the Division sign to the north corner of the building instead of the south and using their new brand. That was a minimal change to what the HPC previously approved so a staff approval was issued. Since that time they have integrated a new use on the first floor at the corner and don’t want their sign above it making people think that is the entrance for Degage. They are requesting a new location for branding of the building between the third and fourth floors. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 April 19, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez clarified that they are requesting to move the previously approved location because that entrance is no longer utilized for Degage but the building is still used by Degage. Ms. Baker agreed. They have a bakery that is a component of Degage and open to the public. They have a store front at the corner so it is now access to that business vs. access to Degage. They don’t have signage proposed for that currently, other than perhaps a decal on the door or window. The main entrance for Degage has shifted to Sheldon St. Ms. Baker clarified further that none of the signs have actually been installed yet and they’ve indicated that they don’t plan to install the sign on Cherry. In the past the HPC approved the use of internal illumination on signage for this building because it dates to 1929 on the front. The overall concept of a channel letter was also approved. The focus today is on the location. The lighting method and size of the proposed sign is a bit different. It is proposed to be 7.41’ wide, 3.25’ tall, and 2.5” thick. It will stand off the building 1.5” so it will have a total projection of approximately 4”. Ms. Baker related that they don’t have the dimensions for the keystone detailing or the sills but the best guess is that the sill projects approximately 2-3”. The D is 1 1/8” below the sill and will project out past it. The lower parts of the g’s will be 1.8” above the keystone detailing. It shouldn’t project out past the keystone detailing but it will be close. Ms. Baker explained the lighting method. It is a channel letter with a solid front and sides. It is back lit/halo lit. When looking at the side profile you can see that the lighting is attached to the back of the face and projects toward the wall creating the halo effect. It tends to be a softer lighting than coming out of the face of the letter. The sign is proposed to be attached through the mortar joints. Ms. Baker clarified that the Sheldon sign has not changed. It has been approved but hasn’t been installed yet. Mitch Conroy, Bear Sign Company, was present along with Thelma Ensink, Degage Ministries Executive Director, on behalf of the request. Ms. Ensink explained that they originally planned to have the sign at the street level at the corner of Division and Cherry. They now have the Open Door Bakery business there. The signage for the bakery is on the awning and they have decals on the windows. They would like to move the lit sign to the upper level because, as you drive up the hill, a sign at the street level would be blocked by the gazebo in the park. The only place to see it from the bottom of the hill would be at a higher level on the building. They feel it is important to have a sign there so when clients are seeking the location of Degage Ministries they can see it but they don’t want them to be confused about where the entrance is. Therefore, they feel the higher sign is the best placement. Mr. Dixon clarified that the main entrance is now off of Sheldon. Ms. Ensink agreed; 139 Sheldon, the corner of Sheldon and Cherry. Mr. Dixon asked if they are still planning to install a sign over that door. Ms. Ensink replied affirmatively relating that it is currently being manufactured. Ms. Van Wormer clarified that the sign being considered this evening isn’t really to identify the correct entrance, it is to identify the building. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 April 19, 2023 Ms. Ensink agreed. It is to let clients know where Degage is located. They have a lot of clients coming from the bus station that need to find it. As they come up the hill it will be clear where the Open Door Bakery’s entrance is. Ms. Kindt asked that they speak to the specific location in terms of being centered on the building and the size within the band. Mr. Conroy related that the size is consistent with the Sheldon location. They felt it looked odd to offset it to one side or the other, which is why it is centered. The space between the windows is 8’ so the sign will be just slightly inside the large windows. Placing it higher sets it as a beacon for finding the building. Mr. Bruinsma asked if other locations were explored, vertically. Mr. Conroy replied that they did consider other locations, such as between windows. There is no good way to turn the sign vertically and have it look appropriate on the building. As Ms. Ensink mentioned, they considered the left side of the building but at that time he wasn’t aware of the awnings. The awning work made the lower windows look consistent and you can’t put a sign where an awning will be. Mr. Dixon asked if the awnings cap out at the top of the windows leaving the masonry above them exposed. Mr. Conroy replied that his company didn’t do the awnings so he isn’t aware. Ms. Ensink added that there isn’t much room above the awnings. They utilized the same holes for mounting as the previous awnings. Ms. Baker circulated a file photo of the former awnings. Ms. Van Wormer noted that there is space above the awnings. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt appreciates the applicant’s explanation of the locations they considered and how visibility is important, particularly with how the building is typically approached. However, she is having difficulty with the location so close to some of the important historic architectural features; just over an inch from the sills and keystone that are contributing features to the building. Historically, a sign would be in the sign band at the top that doesn’t obscure anything. The previous application had the sign in the sign band at the street level, which was approved. Ms. Kindt stated she is having difficulty with the placement, not so much the size. Ms. Van Wormer agreed. With the style of the building it makes more sense at the street level above the awnings where the sign was already approved. She understands not placing the sign over the door to the bakery but it could be centered or placed to the other side. The proposed location in the center of the building is problematic. It does identify the building but she feels Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 April 19, 2023 that message could also be further down and not conflict with the style of the building and the architectural features. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed with the comments offered and that was his thought prior to hearing the applicant’s testimony. What the applicant’s testimony communicated is that this wouldn’t have been their ideal choice, as demonstrated by their previous applications. However, now that there is a change of use with the storefront, there is a lack of clarity in the purpose of the sign in its previously approved location and the fact that the geography of that region is that as one is going east on Cherry, toward that intersection, anything at ground level is difficult to see from a pedestrian perspective. Therefore, for the purpose of wayfinding, it does make sense that it would need to be higher up on the building. The proposed location is somewhat unconventional. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez would prefer to see it in the frieze but the frieze is already occupied by something that no one would want to damage or obscure. For that reason, he is leaning toward recognizing that in this particular application this may be the best fit for both the use of the sign and not damaging or obscuring historical features higher up on the building. Ms. Baker asked if Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez could tie that to a Standard or guideline. Ms. Chapman appreciates Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez’s comments. Contextually, she feels it works. She is somewhat concerned that the “ministries” text might be small as far as wayfinding goes from a pedestrian perspective. If they were to explore a location above the awnings she isn’t sure there is enough room. Additionally, it would still be somewhat obscured given the geography. Mr. Bruinsma feels Standards 2 and 9 speak to the situation. The historic character of a property needs to be preserved, and that includes architecture and repetition and the relationship between the windows. He doesn’t recall approving a sign breaking up that pattern to this extent. To him that is a significant point as to why this wouldn’t be appropriate. Mr. Bruinsma feels it is important to recognize the work that Degage has done to the building, the funds they raised, moving the entrance to Sheldon, which have all incredibly increased the appeal and added to the area and streetscape. Mr. Bruinsma feels that for those trying to find the building the sign will be important at night. The lighting of the sign is important. They won’t be coming in from high up or a great distance away to where the height of the sign is going to be a debilitating factor. Perhaps because of the awnings some things could be adjusted. The big thing for him is that before the renovations the main entrance was where the sign is. At dusk or at night if someone pulls up they will want to go in that door so moving the sign makes perfect sense. Perhaps putting it to the center of the façade or possibly changing the nature of the sign and making it a projecting/blade sign would be more appropriate. The size and look of the sign are not an issue. With respect to the historic character of the property, the only thing he feels conflicts with the Standards is placement in the middle of how the building looks from the front. The front/primary facade of the building is on Division even though the main entrance is at the back on Sheldon. Mr. Dixon agreed with all of the comments. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez’s points are good. The applicant has demonstrated why this particular location was proposed and their reasoning is sound and logical. Mr. Dixon also agreed with Mr. Bruinsma that Degage has done a lot of good work for this building and for this area. It is beautiful and they’ve done a very nice job with it. Mr. Dixon also agreed with the Commissioners that are concerned with the proposed placement Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 April 19, 2023 of the sign. The Standards often talk about the character defining features and it is easy to lose sight of the fact that negative space can still be a character defining feature in an elevation, especially an elevation like this that is strongly organized, strongly rhythmic, and doesn’t have any other elements that break up the contiguous band of brick in between the tops of the arched windows and bottom of the lancet windows above. Mr. Dixon’s perspective is that while he agrees with Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez and the applicant, that the signage being located where it is now is not in Degage’s best interest, putting the signage where proposed is not in the building’s best interest, which is where their duty as the HPC lies. Ms. Kindt agreed. It is a challenging application because it makes sense raising the sign because of the approach, topography in the area, and the contribution of the building the applicants have made in that area. However, in terms of the Standards they are enforcing, she has difficulty with the proposed placement. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled Ms. Baker asking that he associate his comments with the Standards or guidelines. Standard 2 talks about the retention of historic character and Standard 9 talks about new alterations or additions destroying historic materials. Nothing in this application would suggest to him that materials are being destroyed so that is not a concern. The question is whether the historic character is being preserved and retained. In a similar way the local guidelines discuss whether or not new signs in their illumination, scale, or logo do anything that would damage, obscure or destroy historic defining features. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels the question is whether this sign in its scale, size, and location destroy, obscure, or otherwise harm character defining features. He appreciates Mr. Dixon’s comments about the negative space/ the space between identifiable features also being part of that. For that reason, he appreciates that they have proposed a sign that is quite minimal in dimension and thickness and he feels it will read as part of that negative space. For that reason, he would argue that even though the location is not ideal, per their testimony, the wayfinding needs they have, and the geography of this particular site, he can accept that they have made a proposal that doesn’t detract, obscure, or harm historic materials or character. Ms. Van Wormer asked what guidelines he is referring to. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez replied both the local guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards. With respect to Standard 9, there has been nothing in the application or testimony that suggests to him that historic materials are being destroyed. Standard 2 is the consideration; is the historic character being retained and preserved? The related local guidelines discuss whether or not the addition of a sign would obscure, damage or destroy historic defining features of the building. Mr. Dixon agreed that no materials are going to be destroyed. Per testimony and the application, attachment would be through the mortar joints. Mr. Dixon feels Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez is missing the second half of Standard 9 however, which is that the new work has to be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Mr. Dixon feels that while no historic character is being destroyed per se, although an argument may be made that special relationships are being damaged, he doesn’t find this to be new work that is compatible with the architectural features of the structure. He is struggling with that portion of Standard 9. While this does speak to damaging Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 April 19, 2023 materials, typically when considering permanent damage to materiality that is more Standard 10. Because of the second part of Standard 9, he has a different understanding of it. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez expressed his appreciation of the comments. He would still argue that, although maybe not his first choice of location, the application is acceptable because the design features of this particular sign are, in their materiality, very minimal. Mr. Dixon agreed that during the day that may be true but he would be concerned that at night it wouldn’t be as minimal. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO DENY the application for 144 S Division with the specific finding that the proposed work does not comply with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #2 and #9. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. YEAS: 4. NAYS: 2 (DeMaagd-Rodriguez, Chapman). MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Baker circulated a photo of the building under construction in 1929-1930. She identified brackets on the corner at the upper level. Another photo depicted that the brackets were for a projecting sign on the corner all the way up without hitting the cornice. Ms. Baker added that the brackets are still there. Mr. Dixon agreed that the applicant should explore that option further. He suggested working with Ms. Baker and bringing a request back to the Commission. RESULT: DENIED [4 TO 2] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Peter Bruinsma, Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Heather VanWormer NAYS: Michael Rodriguez, Dru Chapman ABSENT: Thomas Simmons VII. Public Hearing 1. 2350 LEONARD NW - NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION 2350 LEONARD NW - NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION Ms. Baker explained that as part of the Certified Local Government program, all National Register Nominations for properties located within the jurisdiction of the City of Grand Rapids require review and input by the HPC. The HPC is simply being asked for input. If there are any comments about the report they should be presented for inclusion in the minutes and be forwarded to the State level. A motion is desired offering either support and the findings that it meets Secretary of Interior Criteria C, or opposition. This is also the avenue for public comment, which is required as part of the process. Valerie VanHeest, Lafferty VanHeest & Associates, related that their team put this nomination together. The home owners had a desire see this listed as significant in its architectural style, its integrity of the original 1911 design, and the significance of the architect, Frank Allen. Mr. Allen Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 April 19, 2023 designed a number of buildings in Grand Rapids, two others that are listed on the National Register. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Chapman felt the specification book was a contributing factor in the nomination and not just the house itself. Ms. VanHeest explained that the report talks about a specification document created by the architect’s office in 1911. No other specification books have been found. What is significant about this house is that the original owners sold to three other people and everyone along the way retained the specification book, photographs of the house, photographs of the family that built it, and photographs of the home owners originally. That is unheard of. Frank Allen created a lot of architecture in Grand Rapids, including other National Register buildings. However, in his residential work there isn’t another specification book that exists. It provides 18 pages of insight into the materials and the way that the home was built. Ms. Van Wormer felt it is a great way to show that when looking at the home now it is still original. Ms. VanHeest agreed it is still very intact to the original design with the exception of modern amenities for kitchen and an addition of a porch. Ms. Chapman referred to the Statement of Significance. Criteria C is checked but she wondered, because of the inclusion of the specification book, if D would also be applicable. Mr. Dixon explained that from his experience the threshold for the criteria is a bit higher. The specification book is great supporting documentation but he isn’t sure it would qualify in its own right. Ms. Van Wormer added that the property isn’t yielding or likely to yield information from history that they don’t already have. It is a much stronger National Register nomination under Criteria C. Mr. Dixon explained that you can check more than one box but he agrees that the case for C is much stronger. Ms. Kindt appreciates the report. It was interesting to read. The spec book does support Criteria C. She had some questions on the integrity based on some of the changes but within the report, the architect, and the spec book there is enough there to qualify under C. Ms. Kindt stated that as a resident of the northwest side she drives by this house occasionally and it is a real head turner. She will be happy to see it on the Register. She advised that if they are looking to do any work the State Historic Tax Credit has a residential component and the application period is open now. The listing would help them qualify for that. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO SUPPORT the application to the National Register of Historic Places for the Dean, Irving Andrew and Olive Crane Kendall house located at Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 April 19, 2023 2350 Leonard Street NW, Grand Rapids MI. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Baker asked which Commissioners visited the property. Five Commissioners responded affirmatively. VIII. Discussion 1. 241 STATE SE -HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 241 STATE SE - ADVISORY DISCUSSION- POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Ms. Baker advised that this is an Advisory Discussion and is not binding on the HPC or the applicant. They are here to discuss a potential development project on a unique parcel of land. It is triangular in shape, located between Washington, State, and Lafayette. There are four contributing structures within those boundaries/the block: a City pocket park at the Washington/State intersection occupied by the Calkins Law Office building; a converted gas station on the Lafayette/State corner; a late 1800’s Queen Anne house on the corner of Washington/Lafayette; and in the center is a mid-century modern medical office building surrounded by surface parking. Ms. Kindt asked if the house on the corner includes the oddly shaped garage when stating significant. Ms. Baker replied that she doesn’t know if the garage was researched to determine if it is contributing but the house is contributing. The proposal would be to develop on the surface parking lots. They are present to get a sense of what may or may not be possible. They don’t have designs or materials at this point. They are trying to figure out site layout, what is possible to build on, massing, scale, height, potentially putting a small addition on the mid-century modern building, and how to address each of the streets; some generalities to determine whether or not this is a project they feel they can move forward with. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that 3 of the 4 contributing structures on the block make perfect sense. He asked when it was decided to declare the fourth a contributing structure; the multi- story medical office building in the center of the block. He asked the history of that contribution. Ms. Baker replied that approximately 5-6 years ago a re-survey study was done of Heritage Hill and Heartside because the reports were so old and lacking and because there was a 40 year gap that didn’t address mid-century structures. Everything from ’26 through 1979 were researched and surveyed for both districts to determine if they contribute to the district or not. The context for those districts were expanded to include that history gap. At that point it was determined to be contributing. It is actually pretty much intact with the exception of a couple of glass and metal additions over the entry canopies. That information could be available to the Commission if desired in the future. Ms. Baker clarified for Mr. Dixon that the faux stone finish on the front is original. Ms. Baker suggested the Commission may wish to take public comment before hearing from the applicant so that they can address any comments. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 April 19, 2023 Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon read two letters into the record. A letter from Barb Rohwer quoted the Heritage Hill Assoc. Executive Director stating that the property under consideration, along with surrounding parcels along State St., used to serve as a vibrant connector from downtown to Heritage Hill. They would love to see the area become that again with mixed-use buildings, residences, as well as pedestrian and street friendly shops and restaurants. General guidelines in the Area Specific Plan could allow for new construction in the area up to three stories high. There could be some flexibility there but likely opposition to a proposal that is six stories. Ms. Rohwer wrote that they love the idea of development in that area of this seemingly forgotten part of the city. They are in total agreement with four stories being too high but three being just perfect. Maria Zache wrote that she is not opposed to a thoughtful development of the property. State St. has needed thoughtful infill for decades and Grand Rapids needs housing. Also, if the development plans go through, the law office will be dwarfed. It’s protection during construction should also be kept in mind. Jon Blair, r2 Design Group, related that the diagrams provided were really just massing to help facilitate the conversation this evening. It reflects the opportunities based on the Zoning Ordinance and not necessarily what people might want to see. They are present this evening to receive feedback so that they can be thoughtful as it relates to scale, proportion, site lines, etc. Mr. Dixon understood that the massing is based on the Zoning. He asked if there is a low income component to the proposed 5-story building. Mr. Blair replied that there are certain qualifiers. If they were to pursue five stories that is one of the components needed to qualify for the bonus floor. They would set aside the required percentage for that. Ms. Kindt asked if the site plan is meeting the setbacks and required building lines (RBL). Mr. Blair replied affirmatively. Mr. Dixon felt height, parking and lot coverage were likely going to be important considerations. HPC does supersede some of the Zoning requirements but parking is not one of those. That is something they would need to address with Planning. Mr. Dixon asked if it is fair to say they won’t be proposing any parking on the property. Mr. Blair replied that they would provide limited parking but, for the most part, it wouldn’t accommodate those that live there. They would likely be seeking a waiver for parking and residents would utilize street parking. Mr. Dixon felt there may be challenges with that plan. While there is street parking in Heritage Hill, at night many of the streets are relatively full. That is something to keep in mind and discuss with Planning as it may not be possible to expect 100% street parking. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez pointed out that that isn’t in the HPC’s purview. However, in recent history he has seen neighbors come out in opposition specifically related to those points and they Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 April 19, 2023 will use this forum to express that opposition. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez just wanted them to be aware that is a strong possibility. Ms. Kindt stated that while they can’t directly address the parking, indirectly it will impact the neighborhood and get people coming here either in support or opposition. Mr. Dixon stated that while parking isn’t in their purview, site layout/coverage is. They should be respectful of that as well. This is a mid-century modern building and they typically had some breathing room around them. Others agreed. Ms. Kindt agreed. The windows were intended to have a view of the parking but they were meant to be getting daylight into the building, which is tricky because now it is showing almost side yards between the two proposed buildings. It really changes the context and site relationship with the mid-century building. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that he doesn’t know he would agree with that. It is a mid- century modern building but it is an urban neighborhood. The schematic site plan has a 20’ and 30’ lane. He isn’t sure he would go out of his way to protect the windows on the side of a building in an urban environment unless the windows were really special. Mr. DeMaagd- Rodriguez would like to see the report that discusses the contribution of this particular building before making final judgement on that. Ms. Baker stated that the report does discuss the building but doesn’t find the surrounding surface parking lots to be a contributing factor. It wasn’t built in a suburban area with that mid- century modern context. It was built within an urban area so the context is completely different and always has been. More weight was given to the surrounding district than to the context of the one site. Mr. Dixon added that in the surrounding district there is density. It is an urban environment and mostly residential but the commercial buildings that are there have no real standard set for densities or even street setbacks along this particular corridor. Ms. Kindt noted from the Sanborn maps that it used to be residential during the original period of significance. They also had side yards so there was a pace, a solid and void/house and side yard. Some of the site context would change by adding the two proposed buildings. It is basically adding the sites together so it will just be a solid. There will be a loss of some of the solid and void relationship that was there when it was fully residential. Ms. Kindt isn’t sure that is an issue but wanted to bring it up. The local guidelines do say the consolidation of lots into larger properties that disrupt the character defining patterns of historic districts should not be undertaken. Mr. Dixon suggested that is already done; the lots are already unified. Ms. Baker agreed it is one parcel. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez appreciates Ms. Kindt’s comments. If there were more of those houses still on the block that would be a very compelling reason to maintain that. If the applicant wanted Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 April 19, 2023 to they would have a very compelling reason to reconstruct a similar pattern but that pattern is gone. There is one house left. Ms. Kindt added that this is somewhat of a transitional zone between where the residential houses still stand and the larger buildings down town. Ms. Van Wormer stated that the Calkins building is a significant building. When looking at the drawing of the purple building it appears there will be very little space. One drawing has the shadow of the law office building hitting the purple building so it seems like there will be no space between them. That is concerning to put something that close to that historic building that is now so much larger. When looking at where the garage is, the green building does a framework around it. Even though it is a higher building it seems like it still preserves some space around it a bit. That may be because of where the lot lines are but in some way it gives a framework that that building isn’t right up against the new building. She would like to see something on the purple building side that respects the site for the law office. Mr. Dixon feels that is tough because it isn’t the original site for the law office. It was moved there. His first reaction was also that they need to protect some of the pastoralness for the building. Ms. Van Wormer clarified that she wasn’t saying to protect pastoralness but from the drawings it is difficult to tell how much space there will be and how much the new building will overshadow the law office. Ms. Chapman asked if the suggestion is to acknowledge its presence somehow. Ms. Van Wormer agreed. They also have no idea what the buildings will look like. She understands this is very conceptual. It is hard to know without having some of the details. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked, for the benefit of the applicant, if her apprehension would be better solved if there was a muted backdrop to the significant architecture of the Calkins law building or something that is sympathetic. Ms. Van Wormer feels there are a number of ways to do it but there is nothing in what they have that says that is a concern, which is why she wanted to bring it up that it may be a concern. She feels it can be solved without saying a four story building can’t go there. Ms. Chapman agreed, for the gas station as well. There seems to be some sort of acknowledgement with the building wrapping but she doesn’t know that does it yet. There aren’t any architectural moves being shown. Ms. Van Wormer noted that it says residential over commercial/office/restaurant. The first floor could end up being something that fits with the gas station era building or even the mid-century modern building in the middle. What the first floor looks like could solve a lot of the questions. Mr. Dixon stated that their architecture only has to span about 200 years. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 April 19, 2023 Ms. Baker summarized that what they do has to give consideration to the historic buildings there. Don’t envelope or overpower them. Ms. Kindt recognized that it doesn’t help that there are two small buildings book-ending the subject site. The law office was moved there but is still historic and has to be considered even though it isn’t the original site. The Commission moved on to depth, width, and height of the buildings. Mr. Dixon feels depth is appropriate. It is an odd site. It is an angled, shallow site. He has no problem with the purple building spanning all the way from State to Washington because of the shape of the site and historically that was done frequently. With respect to width, there seems to be several opinions. Giving some breathing room and reverence to the other historic properties on the block should be what they watch. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. Particularly with the gas station on State and Lafayette, that is the back side of the building which currently houses dumpsters and other unmentionables. Reverence to that building doesn’t necessarily mean a 20’ ring on all sides. Mr. Dixon agreed. He moved on to height. There are two single-story buildings on the block, one two and a half story building and the two and a half story house. Five stories starts to feel like a stretch. There is some leeway on the eastern part of the parcel because State St. is coming down at an angle so you will get a little bit of free height out of that one. On the west side is the opposite problem. You would be driving up State St. and anything on that end is going to feel taller than it actually is. Mr. Dixon likes the idea of a vertical addition to the mid-century modern building, especially the way it is shown as being pulled in from every side. Pulling it in helps mediate some of the height being requested. However, the nearest four and five story buildings within Heritage Hill are blocks away. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez pointed out that one block over on Prospect and State, 340 State, there is a four story building and one block from that is another four story building. Mr. Dixon noted that the building at Prospect and State was originally two stories and there was a vertical addition. If the site was closer to the apartments on the hill it would be different. Everything in the immediate vicinity is one and two stories. Three or three and a half stories seems reasonable and could work. He is concerned with going significantly higher than that. Mr. Bruinsma wondered about the parking lot across the street, closer to the tall hospital buildings, developing into a four story building. That could easily happen. Mr. Dixon pointed out that that isn’t in the district. Ms. Baker stated that the medical buildings that are in the district are the Lacks Cancer Center, the nuns house across the street, and the Wege Center. The taller portions of the hospital itself are all outside the district. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 15 April 19, 2023 Mr. Bruinsma understands the parking lot isn’t in the district but it won’t be a parking lot forever. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez suggested not using the term stories as shorthand for the impact of vertical height. One, three, and five stories can all be done well and can also all be done in a way that is damaging to the district. He would prefer to empower the design team to explore architectural options with that in mind rather than say nothing over three stories is going to happen. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez can imagine possibilities for three, four, or more stories that could work. It is the impact of the vertical height on the district and not the number of floors. Stories is likely a term that will be used again and again when the public has the opportunity to comment on this. Mr. Dixon agreed that is a very good point. For the purpose of offering guidance, while it is possible to design architecture that may work at some heights, he thinks it is in their best interest not to aim for 62’ tall. Ms. Chapman asked if the heights are based on the number of units they are trying to achieve. Mr. Blair stated that he isn’t sure Mr. Elliott has a specific unit count. However, in today’s environment to make this project feasible they have to create enough density for return on investment. Mr. Dixon stated that it is a difficult balance because of where this is being proposed. Ms. Chapman asked if it has to be three buildings. The buildings won’t only be competing and needing to tie into the surrounding context but they are also creating somewhat of a campus so all of that has to tie in together. She asked if they considered connecting to the existing. Mr. Blair stated that he wouldn’t necessarily use the word campus but perhaps community. There is obviously a lot of health care in the area. If it were two buildings that look like four or three buildings, but creating the dynamic where it is a small village not only supporting people that live there but the surrounding area. The ground level retail will be an amenity to the whole community and certainly the people that work in the area. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez felt Ms. Chapman made an interesting point that he hadn’t previously considered. Are these buildings and their architectural character going to be of like mind but on separate parcels. Are they going to have different character responding to the nuances on the west side of the site vs. the east? It is an interesting problem. Mr. Dixon feels that development on the site is a great thing. Personally, he feels a small vertical addition to the mid-century modern building is great. Ms. Kindt understands they are just starting out to get a feel. However, how it feels right now is that it dwarfs the block, especially with the two small buildings that aren’t helping. Perhaps the fourth and fifth stories are set back so it feels smaller and relates more to the houses that are two and a half stories. What is the relationship and the feel of it vs. the specific stories and height. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 16 April 19, 2023 Mr. Blair agreed that they will explore stepping back as they go up. It is a challenge. Any significant structure adjacent to either of the two small buildings is going to feel dominant but he feels there are ways to do it. Ms. Kindt related that she previously lived in the area and can’t picture a five story wall behind the gas station building. She understands it is just a representation right now but it will be very important. Kris Elliott, applicant, stated that he has been building for approximately 25 years. He thanked the Commission for their feedback. He has heard things that will provide great direction. Normally, when they do a mixed-use building they only do zero lot line. Normally they would build an edge across the whole property line. In a historic district it is different. He heard solid and void relationship. Mr. Elliott feels Mr. Blair would agree that this would be much easier if they did an edge across the entire front and then it would look like one building and not three. He wondered if that is something they should explore. They can create an edge that is visual with metal and brick. Mr. Dixon advised that changing the front of the mid-century modern building extensively would be problematic. Mr. Elliott clarified they wouldn’t touch that one but they could still create a plain across the front of the site without creating the voids. They thought creating the voids was the right thing they should do. Mr. Dixon suggested that creating the voids is still the right thing to do because of the window situation in the mid-century modern building. Ms. Kindt related that she wondered about taking out the lot lines around the mid-century building and make it more like a double H so you’d still have all the green space but it would be in the H’s and the buildings would be closer in the middle. Mr. Elliott stated that this is definitely a riddle. They love the mid-century building and it would be great for micro-lofts. However, they also have two entrances. Therefore, they aren’t only addressing one side but two. Where do they put the emphasis? Mr. Dixon stated that State St. is by far the busier street. That isn’t to say that Washington should be treated like the back of the building. Ms. Baker pointed out that none of the buildings front Washington except for the archives building, which is actually an addition to the museum. They either front State or Lafayette. Mr. Elliott stated that the irony, from a development standpoint, is that looking north is more appealing. Ms. Kindt stated that when the green building is looking at Lafayette it is a different scale of residential on that side. When the architecture turns that corner it will be necessary to look at how the scale changes to relate to that. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 17 April 19, 2023 Mr. Dixon recognized that it is shown as stepping down. Mr. Elliott stated that the other thing they noticed from the photos, when it was all residential, is that the houses were all set back, which means the gas station never looked small even though the houses were huge that were there. Ms. Kindt added that there were also storefront additions to two houses, per the Sanborn. They were single story but they came right to the sidewalk. Mr. Elliott stated that as developers they are trained to take the building to the lot line in an urban setting. Would they ever consider pushing this back 6-10’, which wouldn’t make the two buildings on each end so small. Ms. Chapman felt it was worth exploring. Mr. Dixon felt there was an argument on both sides. On one hand there is urban development and you respect the line and follow it; the mid-century modern building on the site has made a line so follow the line. The counter point is if they are set back a bit they will dwarf the existing buildings a little less. You will also be able to see and experience more of the mid-century modern building. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that that building is experienced from the corner. It doesn’t face Lafayette or State, it faces the corner. Mr. Dixon felt they were on the right path but he could consider a setback also. Ms. Kindt feels it could go either way but even if it is setback it will be the massing/height they will be reacting to and then they’ve lost the square footage by setting it back. Mr. Dixon added that setbacks in this area are all over the place and buildings are turned in odd ways. Mr. Elliott stated that when he met with Planning he was informed that HPC trumps them on setbacks. Planning is interested in no setback. Mr. Elliott also recalled comments about the Calkins building from this evening’s discussion. He stated that they fully intend to celebrate that building. He feels that the addition of a living wall or art could help. Mr. Dixon advised that they will look at the aesthetics of a building but don’t dictate color etc. Mr. Elliott asked if the HPC trumps green space requirements also. He also asked if green roofs are acceptable. Ms. Baker replied that she believes that falls under a different table. Mr. Dixon added that his experience with green roofs is that they count as long as they can be experienced by people/residents. Green walls also count. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 18 April 19, 2023 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez related that his understanding was that green space related to storm water management vs. an experience. Mr. Dixon agreed that is part of it. It is currently all hard surfaced so they wouldn’t be increasing the amount of impermeable surface. That is something to talk through with Planning. Mr. Elliott asked, if they choose to proceed with this project, if the Commission would like to see more detail the next time they return for an advisory discussion; materials and windows? Mr. Dixon stated that it would help to add some feel of the aesthetic. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez added articulation of massing and articulation of solid vs. void or the fenestration pattern would be helpful. Ms. Van Wormer felt knowing more about what the first floor will be like and how it relates to the other things would also be helpful. Ms. Kindt stated that she is motivated to see something happen here. When she walked the site it didn’t feel safe; it was just a void. She also suggested conferring with the Heritage Hill Association. Mr. Elliott related that they have met with them and they are excited to see a project here. 2. HP AWARD NOMINEES HP AWARD NOMINEES Motion by Mr. Bruinsma, supported by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, to approve the following Historic Preservation Awards: Special Recognition: Jim & Char Payne and Mara (Braspenninx) Lancaster; Commercial Preservation Project: 710 Wealthy SE; Project by a Group: 455-475 E Fulton and 415 Martin Luther King (Franklin) SE; Residential Preservation Project: 547 Lyon NE, 314 Cherry SE, and 312 Paris SE. Motion carried unanimously. 3. RELOCATION GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS RELOCATION GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS The Commission had no questions regarding the proposed amendments. Motion by Mr. Bruinsma, supported by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, to adopt the Relocation and Garage guideline amendments. Motion carried unanimously. IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 7:10 PM