Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 July 19, 2023 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Bruinsma Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from June 21, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Peter Bruinsma IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF COAS STAFF ISSUED COA PERMITS 60 College NE 200 Prospect NE 223 Charles SE 254 Fulton E 260 Eastern SE 322 Fountain NE 340 Hollister SE 346 James SE 349 Paris SE 350 Cherry SE 351 Eureka SE 416 Washington SE 423 Madison SE 439 College SE 534 Morris SE 569 Lafayette SE 573 College SE 640 Union SE 701 Wealthy SE 708 Cherry SE 708 Cherry SE 863 Fairmount SE 916 Virginia 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: Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Peter Bruinsma V. Old Business Generated 7/20/2023 10:08 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 July 19, 2023 VI. New Business A. 916 FAIRMOUNT SE - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 916 FAIRMOUNT SE - REQUESTING AN EGRESS WINDOW AND WELL Ms. Baker introduced the request to create a basement egress and well along the east side of the house to accommodate a change in use on the interior. The existing head height and width will be maintained. They will drop the sill below grade and install a new window to meet egress requirements. Ms. Baker explained that the subject location, the east side toward the rear/south, was chosen since the rear of the home has no basement openings or access, the southwest most window abuts a poured concrete patio and, the southeast most window abuts the driveway and is located in a non-habitable area of the basement and has a concrete pad poured next to it. The proposed window is vinyl and operates as both a double hung and casement for meeting egress requirements. The well will have corrugated metal sides, a metal grate, and a plastic cap to keep water and snow out. Mr. Dixon noted that they don’t typically allow vinyl replacement windows. However, this is a sub-grade application. What has been approved in the past? Ms. Baker replied that there has been a variety and it has been a case by case basis. The Commission has approved vinyl and aluminum clad wood. Very few have been wood windows. She responded to Ms. Kindt indicating that the windows on the house are wood. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if the Ordinance or Zoning have an opinion about an egress well adjacent to a driveway. Ms. Baker replied that Zoning requirements relate to the distance to the lot line. The Building Code has a provision to prevent one from opening a car door and stepping into a well; it would require a rail of some kind in that instance. They have quite a bit of distance between the well and driveway. The well has a 36 inch projection from the house. Mr. Dixon noted that some of the HPC’s decisions trump residential code and others don’t. Would it be important to stipulate that this decision does not? Ms. Baker feels it is more important in the instances when they do. This well is shallow but wider to provide the room to get out. No rail is required at this location. Kelsey Groesbeck was present on behalf of the request. She added that they do plan to retain the integrity by matching the historical nature of the house. They will paint the window to match the tan finishes already on the house. As mentioned, they are not increasing the width or height; they are just going down. Following installation of the egress window they plan to add a bath and bedroom in the basement. Mr. Dixon asked if they explored anything other than a vinyl window. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 July 19, 2023 Ms. Groesbeck replied not for this installation. They have had all of the other windows restored. Being an egress window, it is hard to find one to fit this custom size. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels the proposed location is appropriate given the constraints of the structure and site. He is somewhat hesitant to imply that vinyl is an appropriate material for the new window but he does understand it is below grade and has a unique function given that it works as an egress window. There probably aren’t many options for that. Mr. Dixon agreed. The applicant has demonstrated the need for a new window well and egress window knowing that a basement bedroom requires a means of egress. He feels the location and size are appropriate. Mr. Dixon shares the concerns about the vinyl window. What is swaying him in the direction of approval is the fact that, per testimony, the vinyl window functions both as a double hung and as a casement. That is what is allowing it to be used for egress purposes. Mr. Dixon doesn’t know of an aluminum clad wood product that offers that particular function. Ms. Chapman related that when she reviewed the request yesterday she didn’t have any particular concern and she isn’t sure she does now. However, she wished to point out that she believes the corrugated metal of the well will be visible above grade in order to make the cover work. Otherwise, the window wouldn’t be openable with the cover on. Mr. Dixon suggested the sketch isn’t to scale. He doesn’t know of any reason the window head and top of the well would be aligned. There is no harm in stipulating in the motion that the top of the well should be flush, or within a margin of error of flush, with the surrounding grade. Ms. Baker indicated that she has never seen more than a few inches of the well above grade. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked the applicant if the cover is flat. Ms. Groesbeck replied that the grate is flat and the plastic cover is domed. Ms. Chapman noted that you can’t open the window with the cover closed unless the bubble dome is bigger than the window itself. She believes a good portion of the well will be visible. Mr. Dixon suggested a motion approving the window and well but to either deny or table the cover. The applicant can work with staff to get something to work or the cover shouldn’t be included. Ms. Baker suggested that a motion to approve should include the maximum amount of well that should be exposed above grade. The Commission reached a consensus of 4 inches. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 916 Fairmount SE for a modified window opening to accommodate Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 July 19, 2023 egress, a new vinyl window, and a corrugated steel window well with the maximum vertical height of 4 inches above grade and to DENY the proposed cover, allowing the applicant to work with staff on an appropriate solution. The request complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards 1, 2, 3, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Thomas Simmons YEAS: Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Peter Bruinsma B. 240 WELLINGTON SE - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 240 WELLINGTON SE - REMOVE LEAN-TO Ms. Baker presented the request to remove a lean-to addition from the rear of the house. The house dates to 1910 and appears to retain most of its architectural character. The rear lean-to addition was tacked onto the back of the house some time after 1950. The size of the addition is 13.8’ east to west and 16.3’ north to south. The construction of the addition is substandard and adhered to the house with a small ledger board over the wood clapboard siding and no known footings. It does have a concrete floor. The rear wall is partially sub-grade. The north wall is nearly all plywood. A previous owner put asphalt shingles on the very low pitch. It has caused some major structural issues to the roof members as well as the wall. The property owner doesn’t have a need for it and would simply like to remove it and repair any damage that was caused by its attachment. What is seen from the interior of the addition is the clapboard on the back of the house and the window remains. The window well for the basement window is also still there. Mr. Dixon clarified that the clapboard would be patched and repaired, as necessary, where attachments to the house were made. Ms. Baker agreed. They will likely retain the concrete floor for now. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if this is an alteration vs. a demolition. Ms. Baker agreed; it is an alteration. William Lindstrom was present on behalf of the request. Mr. Simmons asked if there is any possibility they would want to restore it. Mr. Lindstrom replied no. It would cost a lot more to restore it than to take it off. If they stay in this house for a while the intent was to pursue building a garage at some point on the adjacent lot. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 July 19, 2023 Mr. Dixon suggested they begin with whether this addition has acquired historic significance in its own right. Ms. Van Wormer doesn’t see any reason it has. It isn’t adding to the character of the house. It is questionably attached, the east wall is over the property line, and it is rotting. It is not contributing to the historical integrity of this house. Mr. Dixon added that there are no distinctive character defining features. Ms. Kindt stated, regardless of some of the issues with the construction, her initial thoughts were it is within the period of significance. They have talked about other additions, in other locations, contributing to the story of the house; people needing more space/more storage space. She feels there is a story there that it does contribute to. Ms. Van Wormer doesn’t feel that a lean-to slapped on the house contributes to the story of that house in a way that means it needs to be retained. Ms. Kindt clarified that she was just talking about the significance right now. It doesn’t change the rest of the conversation. Ms. Baker clarified that whether it is found to be significant or not will direct the rest of the conversation. Mr. Dixon added that if it is found to be significant then it is a Notice to Proceed vs. a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez doesn’t feel it is significant. It tells a story in as much as any human artifact tells a story but this one is a ramshackle afterthought. In his opinion, it actually detracts from what is significant about the property. He would be glad to see an alteration removing it. Ms. Chapman agreed with Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. Mr. Dixon feels the appropriate language is in Standard 2; features and spaces that characterize a property. He agrees that this particular addition doesn’t characterize the property. There are no character defining features to it and it doesn’t meet the historic integrity they typically require to determine something to be character defining. Ms. Van Wormer added, with respect to Standard 4, it has not acquired historical significance in its own right. Standard 9 states it should not destroy historic materials. She feels they can make the argument that how this addition was attached didn’t do any benefit to the house. Even though it hasn’t destroyed historic materials, it has the potential to. Standard 10 speaks to removal in the future and the essential form and integrity of the property remains. If the addition is removed it gets it back to the essential form and integrity of the rest of the house. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 July 19, 2023 Ms. Baker stated that she isn’t certain it was built within the Period of Significance. She believes the Period of Significance for Fairmount Square ends in the ‘30’s. She is fairly certain it doesn’t carry into the ‘50’s. Mr. Dixon felt that was an important point. If this were Heritage Hill it would be within the Period of Significance. Ms. Baker agreed. Fairmount Square and Cherry Hill were not updated. Ms. Kindt was comfortable with that. Mr. Dixon moved on to the next question before them; does the removal damage the historic building in any way or negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. He finds that it does not. He is in favor of the removal. Ms. Chapman MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 240 Wellington SE with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 2, 4, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dru Chapman SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Peter Bruinsma VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion 710 Wealthy SE Ms. Baker distributed the approved plans and photos of the completed work on the back building. The work that was done differs from what was approved. Instead of putting windows in the back facing the parking lot/facing out of the District, they installed glass block. Instead of building a block wall they went with what appears to be fiber cement on the north and west facades, which were plywood before they started. Instead of two overhead doors, they installed one. Ms. Baker clarified that this is a non-contributing building. Ms. Baker asked if they need to come back for Commission review or can the deviations be staff approved. The consensus was that the changes are significant and the applicant should return. Murals on unpainted non-contributing buildings - potential guideline adjustment Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 July 19, 2023 Ms. Baker asked if the Commission desires to continue to review requests for murals on unpainted, non-contributing buildings. She recalled that whether contributing or not, if a building is painted and there is a request for a mural, that is staff review. Ms. Van Wormer felt that by bringing it to the Commission it provides an opportunity for public input. Staff review doesn’t provide that opportunity. Ms. Baker advised that anyone can voice concerns to the Arts Advisory Council. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez would like them to come before the Commission. Masonry buildings last a long time. Painted masonry does not. He understands they can’t discuss content but painted masonry surfaces do have an impact on the environment. Ms. Kindt agreed. The scale of the mural has the potential to impact a historic district also. Decks (in rear yards) - potential guideline adjustmentBU Ms. Baker related that rear yard decks fall under essentially the same category as an addition or new construction. For some reason, over the years they have adopted that it needs to match in material, and she isn’t sure why. That isn’t a requirement for an addition or new infill. It needs to be compatible but differentiate. Those are the areas where they allow a difference in materials to show it is a product of its time. They have been allowing Trex or other synthetic material for the flooring but it makes very little sense why you couldn’t use that material for other elements. Ms. Baker referenced photos she circulated of metal rails. It is similar to a traditional wood rail. Why couldn’t something like this be used on a rear deck. It is showing compatibility but differentiation at the same time. Ms. Kindt asked if the reason Ms. Baker was stating “rear” is because it isn’t visible. Ms. Baker clarified that rear is the only location you can put a deck; the non-character defining façade. The guidelines do a good job of describing decks; they are to be located in the rear. If it is in the side yard you follow the porch guidelines. As long as the design is contextual, she doesn’t understand why not. Is it time to upgrade and modernize some of the items? Wood and metal pergolas are permitted in a back yard. Mr. Dixon stated that he doesn’t have an issue with the rail on a rear deck situation. He is less convinced on the matter of using Trex as a facing material. If someone wanted to build a garage in their rear yard they wouldn’t be permitted to put vinyl siding on it. To him that is a very similar argument. They allow the walking surface to be a composite material because of its longevity and the fact that it literally isn’t visible to anyone but the building owner. He feels the facing material is a different conversation. Ms. Kindt asked how it would be handled if someone was building a new deck vs. rehabbing an old. Ms. Baker replied it would be the same thing. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 July 19, 2023 Mr. Dixon felt it would depend on if it was a character defining deck. Ms. Baker acknowledged that they have seen those but it has been a very long time. They will potentially start to become contributing because they do tell the story of the shift of how we socially interacted. She stated that it wouldn’t be handled much differently than it is now. If it is something relatively traditional, that would be something she could staff review. If they are proposing something ultra-modern or that may not be compatible, she would bring it to the Commission. Mr. Dixon acknowledged that they allow metal railings currently but they should be designed like metal railings used to be designed as opposed to the photos being a wood articulation but done in metal. His only concern is if they open the door to this there will be more misunderstandings and they will see more violations where people put it up on the front. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez didn’t understand the wood articulation in metal reference. Mr. Dixon stated that when he looks at the examples, he agrees with Ms. Baker that it is somewhat of a historic pattern. Ms. Baker clarified that it is similar to the wood, square spindle, rail. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked what about the anodized aluminum. Ms. Baker noted that the guidelines currently state that you have to use wood, masonry, or iron and the design needs to draw from the porches. That is typically much more ornate than it should be in the back. She feels it can be rewritten to simplify it and allow some more simplistic options that would be better. She asked if she can look at adding potential alternative materials on a case by case basis. Other guidelines are written that way. Ms. Van Wormer feels if it is made very clear that it is just at the rear then it should be fine. Ms. Baker explained that she would like to allow for the opportunity to consider something beyond the three options listed now. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked how often, if ever, people request to remove or alter the wrought iron fences in front yards. They are difficult to repair. Ms. Baker replied that most don’t touch them. They have had very few requests related to those. IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 5:45 PM