Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 August 2, 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 July 19, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF REPORT STAFF ISSUED COA PERMITS 259 Charles SE 263 Charles SE 313 Hollister SE 34 Visser SE 445 Pleasant SE RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman V. Old Business VI. New Business A. 38 COMMERCE - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 38 COMMERCE SW - REQUEST FOR A MURAL Ms. Baker introduced the request to paint a mural on an unpainted brick wall of a non- contributing building in the Heartside District. The building was constructed in 2009-2010. It is located at the southeast corner of Commerce and Weston. Ms. Baker displayed information as to Generated 8/9/2023 6:24 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 August 2, 2023 how large the mural would be and where it would be placed on the east wall. Street views of the subject façade were displayed. Ms. Van Wormer asked if the mural was approved by the Arts Advisory Council. Ms. Baker replied that she doesn’t receive that information. Mr. Dixon recalled that the HPC approved a mural on a painted surface that was to be attached to the brick. Ms. Baker clarified that it is an unpainted surface and they were given the option to paint it on the wall or on a panel to be attached to the wall. Jen Schaub, Dwelling Place, was present on behalf of the request. She explained that with the previous request they have decided to paint the mural on a panel to be attached to the brick, giving the owner the option to remove the piece in the future. The challenge with this request is that the mural is nearly five stories tall so painting it on a panel and attaching it to the brick would be difficult. The option is to paint the mural on the wall or not at all. Ms. Schaub stated that she doesn’t represent the building owner but is present on behalf of them. The application was submitted with their approval and consent. They are well aware of the process before the HPC. Ms. Schaub related that it was approved by the Arts Advisory Council pending the HPC approval. Mr. Bruinsma asked the expected life span of the mural. Ms. Schaub explained that the installation is part of the Women’s Way project for the City of Grand Rapids through Downtown Grand Rapids Inc. Part of the contract stipulates that as the mural ages it needs to be repaired and DGRI would use their funds to renew the mural and keep it up to date. It is a three-way contract with Dwelling Place acting as the commissioned organization. DGRI has the option to go back to the original artist and recommission them to do the touch up but DGRI assumes the cost. The building owner is responsible for reaching out to DGRI to start that process when updating is needed. If there is any reason to return to the HPC at that time, it would be DGRI taking on the maintenance. Mr. Dixon asked if there is an expiration to the contract. Ms. Schaub stated that there is no current expiration date on Women’s Way because it is also a renaming of the adjacent alley. She would assume they will try to keep the mural as long as they can but there is no time limit. Mr. Dixon clarified that DGRI is contractually obligated to touch up the mural but for no specified period of time. Ms. Schaub stated that as long as people continue to pay taxes downtown and the TIF remains in place, the funding should be there. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 August 2, 2023 Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt noted that the building is non-contributing. There is momentum to add murals to this District. In terms of size and scale, this is a rather large mural. She isn’t concerned about negative impact on the historic nature of the District. She believes the art work will have a positive impact. Ms. Van Wormer agreed, especially given the historic nature of the topic. If it was completely modern it may be different. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that while they don’t consider the content, he found the packet very informative. Given its location on the building it is clearly a secondary façade facing an alley, adjacent to a primary façade but also directly adjacent to what is an open parking deck and fire stairs. He feels a mural in that location on a non-contributing building makes sense. Although it is very large in scale, he isn’t sure it would be confused for any architectural feature or cause the building to be misread at an architectural scale. Therefore, he is very comfortable with that. In terms of materiality, it is contemporary brick and a non-contributing building of recent construction. Usually they are concerned about paint on brick, degrading the masonry face that it is applied to. That is less of a concern here because he doesn’t believe the brick will be irreparably damaged in a significant way. He was concerned about the longevity of the mural. Even if the brick is undamaged, he could see the mural itself not fairing well long-term. Per the applicant’s testimony, there is a contractual agreement with DGRI to maintain it in perpetuity, which gives him reassurance. Mr. Dixon clarified that it isn’t in perpetuity; there is a contract that they must keep it up but there is no time frame. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez expressed his understanding that there is a contract that is undefined. All the same, he is encouraged that the contract is in place. If the mural did fall into disrepair at an unknown future time, such that it caused harm to the character of the District, it would likely become a Building Code maintenance issue. Ms. Baker agreed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that given the location on the building and that there is at least consideration for its long-term maintenance and the material itself is new and there is no protection for a non-contributing building, he doesn’t have any apprehension about it. Ms. Van Wormer added that it is connected to the renaming of an alleyway, which also connects the mural to the area. Therefore, she would think that would make them more apt to maintain it longer. Mr. Dixon indicated that he has some concern about the proliferation of paint on brick that they have begun to see in the District. Mr. Dixon stated his agreement with Mr. DeMaagd- Rodriguez’s comments; this is an appropriate location for it and being a non-contributing structure they don’t need to worry about its protection as much as the rest of the District. He is Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 August 2, 2023 just sensitive to the fact that it is something that can’t be undone once the brick is painted. There is no sandblasting or removing it without permanently damaging it beyond repair. He isn’t necessarily opposed to this request but he is expressing that concern for the applicant to hear. Ms. Kindt understands the concern. Considering the Commissioners sitting in their position 50 years from now, those might be considered contributing buildings. However, as of now and the Ordinance they work within, it is non-contributing. Mr. Dixon agreed. He feels there is some ambiguity in the guidelines related to this. If they were building this building new, one of the guidelines is to use materials that are congruent with the surrounding neighborhood and non-historic materials are discouraged. He feels painted brick is something they would cast a weathered eye on if they were reviewing this as new construction. Ms. Chapman asked if there is a history of painted advertisement on brick in the area. Mr. Dixon replied that there absolutely is. Ms. Chapman expressed curiosity about the guidelines and where they draw the line with this conversation. The guidelines direct that they aren’t considering the impact of the mural on the subject structure. Ms. Van Wormer pointed out it is non-contributing and the structure is already there. Mr. Dixon agreed. However, he expressed caution about the argument that you can do anything to a non-contributing building. Ms. Van Wormer didn’t feel that was what was being expressed. Ms. Chapman agreed. Her point is regarding the paint and the impact on the subject structure in terms of the longevity. Mr. Dixon agreed that isn’t something they are necessarily taking into account. When he stated that it is impossible to reverse, he meant that there will always be a painted façade here within the historic district. If the contract does sunset and someone decides they don’t want the mural anymore they may just cover it with white paint. That is impossible to know but he is just expressing the concern. Mr. Bruinsma also feels that relatively new, non-historic brick, could undergo paint removal should they get five years in, it starts peeling, and no one wants to maintain it. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed that there are gentle chemical strippers that work much better on smooth, new brick than a soft brick. Mr. Bruinsma related that he has successfully removed paint from foundations with porous surfaces without any kind of impact he has recognized. He believes their purview in this case is simply whether there would be impact on the neighborhood and, overall, he believes it will be a Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 August 2, 2023 positive impact and not overpower any architecture in the area or be a distraction to drivers, etc. In his opinion it meets all three of the Secretary of Interior Standards they are considering. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 38 Commerce SW with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #9. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman Ms. Baker suggested moving on to 700 Wealthy since the applicant for 553 E Fulton isn’t present. The Commission was amenable. C. 700 WEALTHY SE - CHERRY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 700 WEALTHY SE - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT ADDITION Ms. Baker presented the request to construct a small addition on the west side of the non- contributing building at the corner of Wealthy and Henry. The building in question dates to 1991. In 2012, the Commission approved an addition on the front of the building which brought the façade closer in line with those on the streetscape. It is a flat roof, cement block structure. They are proposing a small addition on the west side toward the rear. With respect to the site, Ms. Baker stated that very little is changing. The existing ornamental fence will remain. They are proposing a small concrete pad near an existing rear door. They would like to replace an existing wood privacy fence, located near the southeast corner of the parcel, with a metal fence designed to look similar to the siding they are proposing for the new addition. Alternatively, if that isn’t found to be appropriate, they would be interested in replacing it with a wood fence. Ms. Baker stated that the proposed addition is 11.6’ x 20’ in size. The overall height is 11.3’. It will be just under 2’ from the west property line. It is proposed to have 12” wide metal panels with hidden fasteners, fixed aluminum square windows, a sliding window on the north/Wealthy facade for walk-up service, simple coping, and a concrete foundation. The colors were not included and isn’t something the Commission always considers but they have in the case of metal. The Commission will want to discuss that with the applicant. There will be some minor repair work to the existing building and they’d like to replace the existing small shed roof that goes over the 2012 addition, and the same portion on the west side over the entrance, with a product more similar to the metal proposed for the subject addition so it is cohesive. At the southeast corner is an overhead door they would like to replace with a storefront system with double doors. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 August 2, 2023 Ms. Baker identified the location of the proposed fence on the site plan for Mr. DeMaagd- Rodriguez. The ornamental fence that encloses the outdoor eating area is proposed to remain. Ms. Baker responded to Mr. Dixon indicating that the Period of Significance is 1870 to 1943. Lisa Miller, Lott3Metz Architecture, provided some information regarding the siding. Ms. Baker stated that they will be replacing a shed roof. However, it is just a metal panel on the façade above the windows that wraps around slightly. They are proposing to replace that metal panel in kind with a wider rib. That will also be used for the addition to tie that in. It will give the existing metal panel a refresh. The color will be a neutral, darker color. The packet also states that they will repaint. Ms. Miller clarified that they will only repaint the existing painted block. There is exposed concrete on the front and that would remain exposed and unpainted. Ms. Miller recalled that Ms. Baker described a proposed walk-up window on the front. It actually wouldn’t be a walk-up window; it is just an operating window to match the three existing windows that are already there. Ms. Miller noted that there is an existing dog-eared wood privacy fence on the site. She believes there is a dumpster in that area and they’d like to refresh the fence as it is deteriorated. Instead of wood they would like the Commission to consider approving a decorative metal fence that matches the material they will be using on the addition. It would be a backdrop that hides the dumpster enclosure and a parking space as well as tie the site together with the material. Ms. Miller identified the location of the existing wood fence. The low ornamental fence will likely die into the addition. The garden area wouldn’t be accessible but may be a potential sculpture area. The use proposed is a wine bar with an art gallery inside. The owner wanted some flexibility for displaying larger pieces outside or perhaps a water feature. The addition location was intentional because there is an existing door they didn’t want to block as they needed access out to the patio. There is an overhead door also where they don’t want to lose the connection to the outdoor space. They are trying to keep the open space flexible for different events. There are some existing trees on the site providing shade. Mr. Dixon asked that Ms. Miller further describe the existing metal siding on the north side of the building. Ms. Miller stated that it is an existing ribbed siding, light silver in color. It is approximately 6” metal panel with metal trim. The existing has a bit of a rib and they are proposing more of a flush panel that has a shadow line between. It is an effort to give the building a refresh for the new use. Mr. Bruinsma asked if loading occurs at the back. Ms. Miller described the access through the gate. Because it will be a wine bar, they don’t anticipate food delivery trucks coming in. It is a small kitchen and will be light fair. There won’t be any fryers. Another benefit to the location of the addition is that the City has asked them to relocate the water meter closer to the street. They have carved out a water meter closet for that reason. There are double doors for special events where they can pull food trucks in. Mr. Dixon asked about the proposed neutral color of the metal panel. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 August 2, 2023 Ms. Miller replied that they are looking at a medium gray, something a bit darker than the existing. It will likely be something similar to the existing painted block. The block would then be painted to match the metal so it doesn’t appear so choppy. It will likely be a color between a light gray and charcoal; it wouldn’t be black or white. It will be a standard color and if the metallic look is desired there is an upcharge. Ms. Miller doesn’t believe their budget will allow for that. It will come down to what looks good with the existing dark bronze windows. Ms. Miller offered to submit a color sample to Ms. Baker when finalized. There was no one present in the audience for public comment. Ms. Dixon suggested they begin their deliberation with massing, size, scale and site plan. He noted that they are considering this in the context of its impact on the surrounding district and not on the individual resource. Ms. Kindt stated, in terms of size and scale, that it is subservient to the main building as well as the contributing structures within the district. She doesn’t have any concern about its general size or scale and the location is pulled back from the main street. Mr. Dixon added that it is occupying space that is currently part of a fenced in yard. He agreed that based on the location, pulled back from Wealthy St., he doesn’t see any way that it can be considered a detriment to the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez pointed out that the existing building is non-contributing. He asked if it would be distracting if it were proposed closer to Wealthy. Mr. Dixon replied not necessarily. Ms. Kindt added that it isn’t impacting the general building line on Wealthy. When experiencing the historic district, she feels that is along the street where the front of the building is. With the addition pulled back it takes it out of consideration when looking at the historic surroundings. If it were on the street they would likely have a similar discussion about it being non-contributing but she feels it helps that it is pulled back. Mr. Dixon agreed. He isn’t certain that the proposed addition, right at the property line on Wealthy, would be distracting but an addition possibly could be. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recognized that it isn’t a very beautiful building and he doesn’t know that the addition will change that in a fundamental way. However, the urbanistic pattern of the historic district is to have very little setback from the street. As best as they can repair that, even on the side street, is a good thing. Ms. Chapman agreed. Even though it is set back it helps hold the corner a bit more. Mr. Dixon moved the discussion to materiality of the addition as well as the recladding. He recalled that in the past he has fought against metal panel on additions such as this in the districts, both this district and Heartside. Typically, he doesn’t feel that metal panel is an Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 August 2, 2023 acceptable material in a historic district based on the fact that it isn’t in keeping with the historic materials of these districts. However, in this case, based on the fact that the building already has metal on it and they are replacing that metal more or less in kind that extrapolating that metal finish to the rest of the addition is appropriate in this case. The Commission agreed. Ms. Chapman added that the ribs will be less prominent, which should help calm any distraction. Mr. Dixon agreed it will have a smoother face, which emulates more of a historic patterning. Mr. Dixon asked if there are any objections to the proposed solid fence. Per testimony, they are applying the same material to it and it is basically a dumpster enclosure. It is also on a tertiary elevation. He finds it appropriate. Ms. Chapman agreed. Knowing that they intend to put art on it makes the request for a metal fence more worthwhile. Ms. Van Wormer added that it will, in some way, connect with the metal fence that is already there, even though the existing is a short fence and it won’t be the same. It will match more in kind compared to the existing wooden fence. Ms. Miller clarified for the Commission that there is an existing wood fence, which is in line with the truck in the photo. She identified the location of the dumpster and explained that they want to move the dumpster over a bit and the location of the wood fence would also be moved and swapped out with metal. She identified where the existing ornamental fence stops noting they will have to order a gate and continue that ornamental fence to die at the corner. Once turning the corner, they would transition to the taller fence. The taller fence would hide a potential delivery truck and the dumpster enclosure. She also clarified that the existing ornamental fence is black aluminum. Mr. Dixon noted that they would be extending an existing item with the addition of more ornamental fence. In his opinion, the only discussion point is the privacy fence. Ms. Kindt stated that she is a bit torn on the privacy fence. The vocabulary of the new panel on the building makes sense because it reads as an addition and solid but when taking it back to the screening and the dumpster it will read a similar way but not perform the same way. She isn’t sure if that distracts from the District or is a modern interpretation of the privacy fence. Ms. Van Wormer stated that she is somewhat comforted that it is moving further away from the corner. The existing privacy fence is closer to the sidewalk and they are moving it back behind the building more, putting it even further from where it would be visible. Mr. Dixon understands that it is a material used solely on the building that is being extrapolated to a non-building circumstance. He feels the location on the site at the southeast corner, as far away from the historic buildings as it can be, along with the fact that it is a fairly neutral color, Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 August 2, 2023 likely wouldn’t distract from the district; the materiality, based on the location, will not be detrimental to the surrounding area. There is an argument to be made that it detracts from the building itself, diffusing the materiality, but it is a non-contributing building. Ms. Chapman stated that she views it as an improvement over the existing wood fence. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that his opinion, be it wood or metal panel, is that it has such a small impact to the surrounding environment at this location on the site. It may be more attractive to spray paint/graffiti. Mr. Dixon suggested it may be easier to clean. The final point to cover is the new aluminum storefront in the existing overhead door. This is a non-contributing structure and he doesn’t find any way to argue that the change detracts from the historic district in any way. It is on a tertiary elevation and is not changing any rough opening. There may be a change to transparency but that would be localized to the building itself and it is a non-contributing structure. Ms. Chapman added that the building is also adjacent to a non-contributing building. Ms. Chapman MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition and exterior renovations at 700 Wealthy SE with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #s 1, 2, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dru Chapman SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman B. 553 FULTON E - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 553 FULTON E - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT REAR DORMER ADDITION Ms. Baker recalled that this was before the Commission in June for an Advisory Discussion related to the possibility of adding a dormer or two dormers to the house. At that time the Commission suggested one may be feasible. The applicant was provided with that information and is applying for formal review of one additional dormer on the rear façade. The house in question dates to circa 1920. Ms. Baker displayed a drawing of the back as it exists and a drawing with the proposed dormer. The style of the dormer is very similar to the dormer at the front. There are a couple points of clarification she hasn’t received from the applicant: it has a rake return; Palladian window; it doesn’t illustrate brackets, which the front dormer has; it is smaller than the front dormer. Ms. Baker doesn’t know if the windows in the Palladian will have muntins like the front does. The dormer itself would have a roof ridge that sits below the main roof ridge a minimum of 14”, which is in keeping with what the front does. The dormer is roughly 18 - 24” back from the roof edge. The height of the dormer will be approximately 70” and the depth ranges from 86” to 106” depending on where you measure. The width is 64”. The Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 August 2, 2023 eave line is called out as being 1.6’ deep and the fascia is 6” wide, flat, smooth wood whereas the window trim is called out as 5” wide, flat, smooth wood. Ms. Baker stated that they propose EIFS to simulate the stucco to match the house but they are also open to other materials such as fiber cement to get the stucco look. Ms. Baker again stated that there will be a Palladian window with an overall width of 54” and the height of the windows is 29” with the center window being 49” Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked what points of clarification remain unsatisfied. Ms. Baker replied that the application doesn’t indicate what the windows will be made of. It shows them without muntins so there should be clarification as to whether they will match the front and have muntins. It also doesn’t show that it will have brackets but, because the applicant has stated it will match the design of the front, it should be clarified whether brackets are proposed or not. Finally, it should be verified that all trim will be wood since the application only calls out the fascia. Ms. Baker stated that essentially what the drawing shows is corner boards, stucco finish, small rake returns and a Palladian window, very similar to what is in front but simpler. At Ms. Chapman’s request, Ms. Baker displayed an image of the front dormer. There was no applicant present and there was no one present for public comment. Ms. Chapman appreciates that the proposed is differentiated. The difference between the two is that the proposed is smaller. They don’t know about the muntins but the overall dormer is smaller and there is a lack of brackets. Ms. Chapman stated that she doesn’t know that is enough differentiation for her, based on the guidelines. Based on what has been provided the plan is to use similar materiality. However, differentiation doesn’t have to come from materiality. It would be beneficial to have the applicant present to hear more of what they are thinking. She isn’t seeing enough of what is different between old and new. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels the differentiation is satisfied in that it is a smaller scale, simplified, yet taking inspiration from the front dormer; it isn’t a replication. He would like to see more detail in the sketch concept but he feels the differentiation is satisfied. Mr. Dixon asked if he was hearing there is insufficient information provided in the application. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels it could be approved in concept. Additional details do need to be provided, especially related to the windows. With respect to materiality, EIFS makes him somewhat uncomfortable unless they were to see a more detailed wall section because of the nature of EIFS. He would like to see how it is flashed and meets the roof. Mr. Dixon added that there are control joints in EIFS. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez added that it is the same with Hardi panel. It is unlikely that it will be a solid panel; it will have joints and that is concerning. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 August 2, 2023 Mr. Dixon advised that they can table the application for further information. If the Commission takes that action, he would suggest giving the applicant direction on what they feel appropriate solutions are, in addition to advising them on what additional information is necessary to consider this application. Ms. Chapman would like more information on how the new construction is being differentiated from the old. Mr. Dixon feels they should provide a more detailed elevation of the proposed dormer, something in a larger scale than the sketch provided. They should provide trim information and more information on the materiality and the detailing of the material. Mr. Bruinsma asked if the consensus is that it could be approved with the additional information. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that the concept is approvable. Mr. Dixon feels it meets the guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards but there are gaps in the information. Mr. Bruinsma feels it is worth investing further in developing the plans because it would appear to be approvable. Mr. Dixon agreed they could move forward with some confidence. Ms. Kindt requested better photos of the existing dormer for the comparison discussion. Ms. Baker suggested that may be difficult to get but she would do her best. Motion by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, supported by Ms. Kindt, to table the request to provide the applicant an opportunity to provide additional information. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: TABLED OPEN [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons, Chapman VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion 1. 974 FRONT NW - NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION 974-1010 FRONT NW - NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION Mr. Dixon requested to be recused given the fact that he is the applicant. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 August 2, 2023 Motion by Ms. Kindt, supported by Mr. Simmons, recusing Mr. Dixon. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baker explained that this is a National Register nomination. The Commission is only reviewing it to provide feedback and comments as to whether or not the nomination is sufficient and meets Criteria A under significance. A formal motion will be necessary. Ms. Baker related that she enjoyed the read and the tour. She asked if all Commissioners visited the site. Commissioners responded affirmatively. Matt Dixon stated that he is an employee of Pinnacle Construction Group, the property owner and applicant for the National Register nomination. He offered anyone interested a private tour. Ms. Van Wormer noted that in several locations within the report it identifies the period of significance ending in 1920. She asked why that is since the company and what they were doing goes at least until the 1940’s. She understands that 1920 is when the last building was constructed but the historical significance isn’t only attached to when the buildings were constructed; it is attached to the historical context of what was done in the building. Ms. Van Wormer feels the argument would be stronger if the historical significance wasn’t ending when the last building was constructed. They could then say that the 1930s photos are within the period of historical significance. Mr. Dixon understood the point. He explained that when they were looking at it they were looking at the extant complex as it is and what is significant about the extant resource they still have there and those resources that were constructed in that time, which ended in 1920. He completely understands the point that the history of the company itself extended past that window extensively. Ms. Van Wormer feels that when talking about the historical significance, technology, and what company it was, and all of those other context pieces that are very important to make the argument, she feels the argument would be stronger if they hadn’t repeatedly said that the only history they feel is significant is 1920 or before. Mr. Dixon asked where Ms. Van Wormer would end the period of significance. Ms. Van Wormer replied, based on the history of the company provided, she would likely put it at least out to 1940 or 1942. Mr. Dixon noted that the company itself existe\ until the 1980s when it was purchased by Flexco, which is still a company in the region. It then changed hands to become part of Grand River Interiors. Ms. Van Wormer argued that their influence in the industry, what they were making, and the technology they were doing changes massively in the ‘40’s. She feels they can make the argument that it goes much later but she feels it is a stronger argument to put it a little later. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 August 2, 2023 Ms. Baker agreed with Ms. Van Wormer. She believes that will come up during the review. She suggested they would only need to make a date change and not necessarily beef up the report. Ms. Kindt found that interesting and didn’t think of that when looking at Criteria A, which is that the property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Ms. Van Wormer stated that because this isn’t creating a district it doesn’t have to have a precise end; it will just make the significance argument stronger. It is already a strong argument because of what the company did and because of the buildings but she believes it would be a stronger argument. Ms. Kindt agreed. It will be interesting to see if they shift the date and how you define what that date is based on the change in the company or ownership, technology, etc. She also stated that she appreciated the argument for the integrity and the significance was well supported. She found the connection to US131 interesting and that this is one of the only remaining examples of the company campus that didn’t get destroyed during that time. Ms. Van Wormer MOVED TO SUPPORT the National Register nomination for the Clipper Belt Lacer Company complex at 974-1010 Front NW under Criteria of Significance A. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Mr. Dixon was recused) 2. PROCESS QUESTION Ms. Baker referred to photos of a surface coating that were distributed to the Commission. It is basically a paint or epoxy base coat and flakes are placed over it to make it non-slippery and then a top coat is applied. She explained that she has been asked a couple of times about the appropriateness, most recently a property owner with a concrete slab porch and concrete steps. They are currently painted. She asked if this is a staff review process or a Commission review process. The consensus was that such a request should come to the Commission. IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 6:07 PM