A PERSON DESIGNATED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS MUST BE PRESENT AT THE MEETING.

Transcription

1 AGENDA BIRMINGHAM HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MUNICIPAL BUILDING-COMMISSION ROOM-151 MARTIN STREET WEDNESDAY September 17, 2014 ***************7:00 PM*************** 1) Roll Call 2) Approval of the HDC Minutes of August 6, ) Sign Review 217 S. Old Woodward Fleur Detroit (Postponed from ) 4) Historic Design Review 220 Merrill Pergola review 5) Historic Design and Sign Review 6) Short Term Projects 7) Miscellaneous Business and Communication A. Staff Reports Administrative Approvals Violation Notices Demolition Applications B. Communications Commissioners Comments 8) Adjournment Notice: Individuals requiring accommodations, such as interpreter services, for effective participation in this meeting should contact the City Clerk's Office at (248) at least on day in advance of the public meeting. Las personas que requieren alojamiento, tales como servicios de interpretación, la participación efectiva en esta reunión deben ponerse en contacto con la Oficina del Secretario Municipal al (248) por lo menos el día antes de la reunión pública. (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). A PERSON DESIGNATED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS MUST BE PRESENT AT THE MEETING.

2 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014 Municipal Building Commission Room 151 Martin, Birmingham, Michigan Minutes of the regular meeting of the Historic District Commission ( HDC ) held Wednesday, August 6, Chairman John Henke called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. Present: Absent: Chairman John Henke; Commission Members Mark Coir, Natalia Dukas, Darlene Gehringer, Vice-Chairperson Shelli Weisberg (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Michael Willoughby; Student Representatives Mitch Boorstein, Cambrea Rush Commission Member Keith Deyer Administration: Matthew Baka, Sr. Planner Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES HDC Minutes of July 16, 2014 Motion by Mr. Coir Seconded by Ms. Gehringer to approve the HDC Minutes of July 16, 2014 as presented. Motion carried, 5-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Coir, Gehringer, Dukas, Henke, Willoughby Nays: None Absent: Deyer, Weisberg FINAL HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW 631 Bates Infill house (postponed from May 7, 2014) Bates St. Historic District Zoning: R-3 Single Family

3 Historic District Commission Minutes of August 6, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Proposal: This application was discussed regarding its feasibility at the February 19, 2014 HDC meeting. The Historic Major Jones House is located on the north half of a large lot at 607 S. Bates. The south half of the lot is vacant. A Lot Split Application for the property was reviewed and approved by the City Commission at their March 10, 2014 meeting. The 631 S. Bates address is tentative, and has not yet been approved by the City. The applicant appeared before the HDC to seek preliminary approval for the design of the new infill house on May 7, 2014 and the application was postponed. The new plans have been revised since that time to reduce the amount of brick on the structure to just the foundation and chimney. The body of the house is now comprised completely of siding. Also, additional supplemental information on the massing of the new house has been provided on a sheet that places the new home in context with other homes on the street. Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct an infill house in the vacant lot next to 607 S. Bates. The proposed house is reminiscent of a traditional farmhouse but it will use contemporary materials. The applicant has detailed the following points regarding the new house: A farmhouse will be an appropriate addition to Bates Street (Historic District). The simplicity of the proposed house with its use of gables and simple shapes, use of a combination of brick (foundation and chimney) and lap siding and modest color scheme will blend with its neighbors. The houses in the Bates Street Historic District vary in size; the proposed house will be in scale with the smaller houses an eave height of 20 ft. and overall height of 25 ft. 4 in. (as measured to the midpoint of the roof just over 30 ft. as measured to the peak of the ridge) and a footprint of 1,142 sq. ft. The house will be street friendly including a front porch. The first floor will have nine foot ceilings; The proposed home is in the style of a farmhouse; similar to homes in the area. The house will include a covered front porch. Exterior: Brick (foundation and chimney) and lap siding; Combination of asphalt and metal roof; The trim will be simple flat stock; The windows will have appropriate muntins; Detached, single story garage (no habitable attic) at the rear of the yard. Mr. Jeff Dawkins, the architect, was present. The chairman complimented him on the great job he has done in meeting the concerns this commission has raised with respect to the scale and materials that will be used on the infill house. Motion by Mr. Willoughby

4 Historic District Commission Minutes of August 6, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Seconded by Ms. Dukas to approve the Final Historic Design Review for 631 Bates as submitted. There were no comments from the public on the motion at 7:10 p.m. Motion carried, 5-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Coir, Gehringer, Dukas, Henke, Willoughby Nays: None Absent: Deyer, Weisberg MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Staff Reports -- Administrative Approvals 101 N. Old Woodward Ave., Cosi Restaurant. - Requesting approval to reskin awnings of restaurant with text printed on them. -- Violation Notices (none) -- Demolition Applications 187 Glenhurst 888 Chapin 767 Smith 1165 Fairfax B. Communications -- Commissioners Comments It was noted that so far there have been mixed reviews on the pergola at 220 Merrill St. ADJOURNMENT No further business being evident, the board motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:12 p.m.

5 Historic District Commission Minutes of August 6, 2014 Page 4 of RECONVENE Chairman John Henke called the meeting to order again at 8:03 p.m. Ms. Barbara Spencer, 563 Bates, received confirmation that the infill house at 631 Bates will be real brick, as opposed to brick veneer. Additionally, with respect to the historic house 607 Bates the porch will be changed back to the original design. ADJOURNMENT No further business being evident, the board motioned to adjourn at 8:04 p.m. Matthew Baka Sr. Planner

6 MEMORANDUM Date: August 28, 2014 To: Historic District Commission Members From: Matthew Baka, Senior Planner RE: Sign Review 217 S. Old Woodward Zoning: B-2 General Business Existing Use: Retail Proposal The applicant proposes to install new name letter sign reading Fleur Detroit on an existing one-story building. Signage The total linear building frontage is 15 5, permitting square feet of sign area. The proposed name letter sign will measure 10 h x 7 w or square feet. In accordance with Article 1.0, section 1.04 (B) of the Birmingham Sign Ordinance, Combined Sign Area - For all buildings, including multi-tenant office or retail buildings, the combined area of all types of signs shall not exceed 1 square foot (1.5 square feet for addresses on Woodward Avenue) for each linear foot of principal building frontage. The proposal meets this requirement. The mounting height of the sign is not indicated on the plans. In accordance with Article 1.0, Table B of the Birmingham Sign Ordinance - Wall signs that project more than 3 inches from the building facade shall not be attached to the outer wall at a height of less than 8 feet above a public sidewalk and at a height of less than 15 feet above public alley. It appears the proposal meets this requirement. However, the applicant must update the plans to verify the mounting height The name letter sign is proposed to be constructed of ¼ steel and mounted 5 off the face of the building. In accordance with Article 1.0, section 1.05 (K) of the Birmingham Sign Ordinance, No wall signs shall project more than 9 inches measured from the wall to which it is attached to the outer surface. The proposal meets this requirement. Illumination The applicant is proposes to use the existing goose neck lamps to illuminate the sign. Sec Design review standards and guidelines. 1. (a) In reviewing plans, the commission shall follow the U.S. secretary of the interior's standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings as set forth in 36 C.F.R. part 67. Design review standards and guidelines that address special design characteristics of historic districts administered by the commission may be followed if they are equivalent in guidance to the secretary of interior's standards and guidelines and are established or approved by the state historic preservation office of the Michigan Historical Center. (b) In reviewing plans, the commission shall also consider all of the following: (1) The historic or architectural value and significance of the resource and its - 1 -

7 relationship to the historic value of the surrounding area. (2) The relationship of any architectural features of the resource to the rest of the resource and to the surrounding area. (3) The general compatibility of the design, arrangement, texture, and materials proposed to be used. (4) Other factors, such as aesthetic value, that the commission finds relevant. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Commission issue a Certificate of Approval for the historic sign review application for 217 S. Old Woodward. The work meets The Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, standard number 9, New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic material that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. WORDING FOR MOTIONS I move that the Commission issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for. The work as proposed meets ''The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" standard number. I move that the Commission issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for, provided the following conditions are met: (List Conditions). ''The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" standard number. I move that the Commission deny the historic application for. Because of the work does not meet 'The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" standard number. "THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION AND GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS" The U. S. secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation are as follows: (1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. (2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The - 2 -

8 removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. (3) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. (4) Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. (5) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. (6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. (7) Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. (8) Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. (9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Notice To Proceed I move the Commission issue a Notice to Proceed for application number. The work is not appropriate, however the following condition prevails: and the proposed application will materially correct the condition

9 Choose from one of these conditions: a) The resource constitutes hazard to the safety of the public or the structure's occupants. b) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances. c) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district. have been attempted and exhausted by the owner. d) Retaining the resource is not in the best of the majority of the community. Sec Duties of Design Review Board. The Design Review Board shall review all documents submitted pursuant to this section determining the facts given in this section. (1) All of the materials required by this section have been submitted for review. (2) All provisions of chapter 126 of this Code have been complied with. (3) The appearance, color, texture and materials being used will preserve property values in the immediate neighborhood and will not adversely affect any property values. (4) The appearance of the building exterior will not detract from the general harmony of and is compatible with other buildings already existing in the immediate neighborhood. (5) The appearance of the building exterior will not be garish or otherwise offensive to the sense of sight. (6) The appearance of the building exterior will tend to minimize or prevent discordant and unsightly properties in the city. (7) The total design, including but not limited to colors and materials of all walls, screens, towers, openings, windows, lighting and signs, as well as treatment to be utilized in concealing any exposed mechanical and electrical equipment, is compatible with the intent of the urban design plan or such future modifications of that plan as may be approved by the city commission. (Code 1963, 5.192(4)) - 4 -

10 Article 2, Sign review (b) Restrictions. (1) The Historic District Commission, Design Review Board or Planning Board may impose restrictions on the size, placement and appearance of signs in addition to those requirements set forth by this ordinance. (2) The Historic District Commission, Design Review Board or Planning Board shall not allow the alteration or construction of any sign which would violate the requirements of this ordinance

11 Sign Ordinance Requirements Name Letter/Wall Signs Planning Division Property Address: 217 S. Old Woodward Current Zoning: B-4, Business-Residential Sign Copy: Fleur Detroit Maximum Area Maximum Height Other Sign measurements Illumination Required Proposed Review Woodward 1.5 square feet per linear foot. Other 1 square foot per linear foot 15.4' Total Linear Street Frontage Name Letter Sign Woodward 3 Other 2 Wall Sign Woodward 4 Other 3 Logos/design elements may be greater than 3 in height subject to approval Thickness = 9 maximum Height from grade = 8 sidewalk if over 3 thick Height from grade 15 alley, etc. Non-historic District Steady light only No exposed neon B1 Zone 10:00pm or ½ Hour after close of Business Adj. residential no side or rear lights Historic District As listed above Halo backlighting Exterior light fixtures No internal illumination # Allowed Principal Wall Sign 1 street = 1 sign 2 streets = 2 identical sgn 3 + streets = each frontage Front Sign height: 16" Sign width: 7' Total sign area: sq. ft Front Sign height: 16" Front Logo height: N/A Sign Thickness: 1/4" Sign Height above grade:tbd Existing Goose neck lights One Street = One Sign One rear Sign Meets requirements Meets requirements Meets requirements Meets requirements Meets requirements

12 Reviewed by: Matthew Baka Date: August 28, 2014 All above can not exceed maximum sign area for building Wall / Name Letter Sign Limited by area per frontage

13 MEMORANDUM Date: June 12, 2014 To: From: RE: Historic District Commission Members Sheila Bashiri, City Planner Historic Design Review 220 Merrill Historic Detroit Edison Company CBD Historic District Zoning: B-4, Business-Residential Existing Use: Restaurant Proposal The applicant was granted temporary approval for the pergola in the outdoor dining area on June 18 th, 2014 with the condition that they return to the Board at the September 17 th meeting for final consideration. The following report and meeting minutes detail the proposal and discussion for this project. The applicant proposes to update the outdoor dining area of a two-story single tenant contributing historic building in the CBD Historic District. The building was originally constructed in by the Edison Electric Company at a cost of $100,000. The building was designed in the English Revival style to compliment Birmingham s City Hall and the Baldwin Library. The building was sold in 1978 for use as a restaurant and office. It was recently purchased by a new owner, and it is undergoing an interior renovation. The applicant is proposing to increase the outdoor dining area, add a pergola, and replace a window with a door. This application was reviewed at the May 7, 2014 HDC Meeting, and the changes to the building were approved (See attached minutes). The HDC requested that the applicant return with clarification on the following items: Intended plantings on the pergola; Lighting spec sheets; Tear sheet for the chair; Floor plan for winter and summer placement of the planters; and Pergola detail winter and summer. Additionally, the applicant made some changes to the proposal regarding adding pavers to the front of the building. Outdoor Dining Area The existing outdoor dining area is located directly in front of the building s three storefront windows. The applicant proposes to expand the existing 360 square foot outdoor dining area to both the east and west to extend the full length of the property. The applicant is also proposing to include a new outdoor dining area west of the restaurant s entrance door to the bollards that delineate the Active Via. The existing outdoor dining area will also extend into the public sidewalk to the north. The total outdoor dining area proposed is 825 square feet. The applicant has provided a trash receptacle within the outdoor dining area as required by the Zoning Ordinance

14 The applicant is proposing a total of 70 seats in the expanded outdoor dining area, 64 of which are located at dining tables, and 6 of which are located next to 3 side tables in the lounge area proposed at the east end of the building. The applicant brought a sample of the proposed chair to the meeting and the HDC requested a specification sheet for the chair. The applicant has not yet provided the information, but intends to do so at or before the meeting. Pergola The applicant proposes to install a pergola structure in front of the storefront windows of the original dining area. The proposed pergola will be constructed of 5 square metal tube columns with bolted connections and decorative metal finials. The pergola is proposed for the central portion of the outdoor dining area and it will be 26 4 wide x 8 3 above grade. The pergola will extend over approximately 300 sq. ft. of the outdoor dining area. The pergola structure will have a patina colored finish to match the entry canopy. The proposed pergola will remain in place during the winter season when the outdoor dining area is not in use. The Planning Division is of the opinion that the proposed pergola has the more delicate decorative styling that is associated with French architecture, and is not quite compatible with the strong bold lines associated with the historic English Tudor styling of the building. Landscaping The majority of the proposed outdoor dining area is located on private property. However, some of the planters extend into the public right-of-way in the central portion of the outdoor dining area. The existing concrete planters that surround the current outdoor dining on the site will remain, and new ones will be manufactured to match for a total of 11 planters surrounding the expanded outdoor dining area. For the winter season, the applicant proposes to remove and store the planters. The applicant provided photos of the pergola but it will not have any plantings. Pavers The applicant proposes to add pavers to the dining area. The applicant proposes to install Unilock Select, Umbriano pavers in the color Summer Wheat. The Summer Wheat (creamy white) pavers will be bordered by Unilock Select, Belpasso pavers in the color Nuvola (Medium grey). The proposed pavers will be located on the front and west side of the building. The Planning Division has determined that the proposed two-tone pavers are not appropriate for this historic building. The pattern is busy and adds another color, not found in the building. The proposed pavers will detract from the style and details of the historic building. Illumination The existing pedestrian light fixtures on E. Merrill in the right-of-way will remain. The applicant is proposing to remove the two existing ground mounted light fixtures that flank either side of the existing entrance to the restaurant. No new building lighting is proposed and no lighting is proposed for the pergola. Sec Design review standards and guidelines. 1. (a) In reviewing plans, the commission shall follow the U.S. secretary of the interior's standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings as set forth in 36 C.F.R. part 67. Design review standards and guidelines that address special - 2 -

15 design characteristics of historic districts administered by the commission may be followed if they are equivalent in guidance to the secretary of interior's standards and guidelines and are established or approved by the state historic preservation office of the Michigan Historical Center. (b) In reviewing plans, the commission shall also consider all of the following: (1) The historic or architectural value and significance of the resource and its relationship to the historic value of the surrounding area. (2) The relationship of any architectural features of the resource to the rest of the resource and to the surrounding area. (3) The general compatibility of the design, arrangement, texture, and materials proposed to be used. (4) Other factors, such as aesthetic value, that the commission finds relevant. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Commission issue a Certificate of Approval for the historic design review application for 220 Merrill, provided the following conditions are met: 1. The chair specifications must be provided; 2. The applicant consider using a pergola that is compatible with the design of the building; 3. The applicant change the pavers to a color that is compatible with the historic building; and If these conditions are met, then the work will meet The Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, standard number 9, New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. WORDING FOR MOTIONS I move that the Commission issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for. The work as proposed meets ''The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" standard number. I move that the Commission issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for, provided the following conditions are met: (List Conditions). ''The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" standard number will be met upon fulfillment of condition(s). I move that the Commission deny the historic application for. Because of the work does not meet 'The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" standard number

16 "THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION AND GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS" The U. S. secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation are as follows: (1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. (2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. (3) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. (4) Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. (5) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. (6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. (7) Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. (8) Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. (9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment

17 (10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Notice To Proceed I move the Commission issue a Notice to Proceed for number. The work is not appropriate, however the following condition prevails: and the proposed application will materially correct the condition. Choose from one of these conditions: a) The resource constitutes hazard to the safety of the public or the structure's occupants. b) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances. c) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district. have been attempted and exhausted by the owner. d) Retaining the resource is not in the best of the majority of the community

18 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2014 Municipal Building Commission Room 151 Martin, Birmingham, Michigan Minutes of the regular meeting of the Historic District Commission ( HDC ) held Wednesday, June 18, Chairman John Henke called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Present: Absent: Chairman John Henke; Commission Members Mark Coir, Natalia Dukas, Darlene Gehringer, Vice-Chairperson Shelli Weisberg; Student Representative Mitch Boorstein, Keith Deyer, Michael Willoughby; Student Representative Cambrea Rush Administration: Matthew Baka, Sr. Planner Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary Chairman Henke offered petitioners the opportunity to postpone to the next meeting with no additional cost when a full board might be present, as it requires four affirmative votes to pass a motion. However, everyone wished to go forward this evening HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW 220 E. Merrill Historic Detroit Edison Co. CBD Historic District Motion by Ms. Weisberg Seconded by Mr. Coir to pass for now, as the appellant was not present. Motion carried, 5-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Weisberg, Coir, Dukas, Gehringer, Henke Nays: None Absent: Deyer, Willoughby Zoning: B-4 Business-Residential Proposal: The applicant proposes to update the outdoor dining area of a one-story, single-tenant contributing historic building in the CBD Historic District. The building was originally constructed in 1931 and designed in the English Revival style to compliment Birmingham's City Hall and the Baldwin Library. The building was sold in 1978 for use as a restaurant and office. It was recently purchased by a new owner and is undergoing an interior renovation. The applicant proposes to increase the outdoor dining area, add a pergola, and replace a window with a door

19 This application was reviewed at the May 7, 2014 HDC meeting, and the changes to the building were approved. The HDC requested that the applicant return with clarification on several items. Additionally, the applicant made some changes to the proposal regarding adding pavers to the front of the building. Outdoor Dining Area: The applicant proposes to expand the existing 360 sq. ft. outdoor dining area the full length of the property. The applicant is also proposing to include a new outdoor dining area west to the bollards that delineate the Active Via. The existing outdoor dining area will also extend into the public sidewalk to the north. The total outdoor dining area proposed is 825 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing a total of 70 seats in the expanded outdoor dining area. Four flush in-ground mounted patio umbrellas in Sunbrella "Canvas Parrot" are proposed at the eastern and western ends of the expanded outdoor dining area. Pergola: The applicant proposes to install a pergola structure in front of the storefront windows of the original dining area. The pergola will extend over approximately 300 sq. ft. of the outdoor dining area. The proposed pergola will remain in place during the winter season when the outdoor dining area is not in use. The Planning Division is of the opinion that the proposed pergola has the more delicate decorative styling that is associated with French architecture, and is not quite compatible with the strong bold lines associated with the historic English Tudor styling of the building. Landscaping: The majority of the proposed outdoor dining area is located on private property. The existing concrete planters that surround the current outdoor dining on the site will remain, and new ones will be manufactured to match for a total of 11 planters surrounding the expanded outdoor dining area. For the winter season, the applicant proposes to remove and store the planters. Pavers: The applicant proposes to install Unilock Select, Umbriano pavers in the color Summer Wheat. The creamy white pavers will be bordered by Unilock Serlect, Belpasso pavers in the color Nuvola (medium grey). The proposed pavers will be located on the front and west side of the building. The Planning Division has determined that the proposed two-tone pavers are not appropriate for this historic building The pattern is busy and adds another color, not found in the building. Illumination: The existing pedestrian light fixtures on E. Merrill in the right-of-way will remain. The applicant is proposing to remove the two existing ground mounted light fixtures that flank either side of the existing entrance to the restaurant. No new building lighting is proposed and no lighting is proposed for the pergola. Ms. Denise Ilich and Mr. Zaid Elia, the business partners, were present. Chairs Chairman Henke noted they will need a tear sheet for the chairs

20 Mr. Elia said they have ordered the chair cushions in mineral blue but they would like to have the option to leave them off. Pavers Chairman Henke voiced his personal opinion that he would like to see one paver color as opposed to two. Mr. Elia indicated they don't want to use concrete because of the cracking. He explained how the two paver colors that are proposed fit in with their overall concept of the restaurant. The consensus of board members was to approve the pavers as presented. Planters Mr. Coir felt the planters overlap the 5 ft. clear walkway in two sections. Mr. Baka added that ADA compliant tree grates are used as part of the 5 ft. easement. Mr. Christopher Longe, Architect, explained they have maintained 5 ft. in all areas. Additionaly, the planters are movable. Mr. Elia agreed to remove the planters, tables, and chairs and store them for the winter. Pergola Mr. Elia advised the design of the pergola was to accentuate the beauty of the building and to create a charming environment that everyone will appreciate. The hanging baskets and plantings have been removed. Ms. Ilich added that two architects have suggested that a pergola would enhance the front of the building. It is a natural addition and it will add life to the street and attract more people to the community. Mr. Coir had a problem with this particular design for the pergola. Something more germaine would be somewhat more English, similar to what is found at Cranbrook House. Ms. Weisberg appreciated Mr. Coir's view but was fine with the pergola as proposed and likes the thought of ivy growing on it. She gives the applicant the benefit of the doubt that they will maintain it correctly. She would be afraid of a wood pergola. Ms. Dukas also respected Mr. Coir's opinion. Additionally she was worried about maintenance of the plantings. Ms. Gehringer was not sure whether a pergola is even necessary. If it is necessary, this particular design may be too simplistic. Mr. Elia questioned what they can do to make their vision happen. Ms. Ilich proposed they erect the pergola for the summer; and if the commission members don't like it they will take it down. The applicants perferred to include plantings. Motion by Ms. Dukas Seconded by Ms. Weisberg to grant temporary approval for the pergola including plantings with the condition they come back on September 17 for review. There were no comments from the public at 8:50 p.m. Motion failed,

21 VOICE VOTE Yeas: Dukas, Weisberg, Henke Nays: Coir, Gehringer Absent: Deyer, Wiilloughby Mr. Elia thought they deserve the benefit of the doubt. The board has nothing to lose over the next two months. Ms. Ilich indicated they just want to prove the pergola can be beautiful. This is the type of differentiator that could make this community really interesting and draw in more traffic to the area. She pleaded with the commission to just give them a shot. Motion by Ms. Dukas Seconded by Ms. Weisberg to grant temporary approval for the pergola including plantings but no lights with the condition the petitioner reappear before the HDC on September 17 for either approval or denial of the pergola remaining in place or being removed from the site. Motion carried, 4-1. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Dukas, Gehringer, Henke, Weisberg Nays: Coir Absent: Deyer, Willoughby Motion by Ms. Dukas Seconded by Ms. Gehringer to approve the two-tone paving as submitted; to approve the planters with the understanding that the ADA compliance of a 5 ft. walkway will be maintained; that the board requires a correct tear sheet on the chairs; and that the planters will be removed completely from the outdoor area in the winter. There were no comments from the public on that motion at 9 p.m. Motion carried, 5-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Dukas, Gehringer, Coir, Henke, Weisberg Nays: None Absent: Deyer, Willoughby HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 7, 2014 Municipal Building Commission Room 151 Martin, Birmingham, Michigan

22 HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW 220 E. Merrill Historic Detroit Edison Co. CBD Historic District Zoning: B-4 Business-Residential Proposal: The applicant proposes to update the outdoor dining area of a one-story, single-tenant contributing historic building in the CBD Historic District. The building was originally constructed in 1931 and designed in the English Revival style to compliment Birmingham's City Hall and the Baldwin Library. It was sold in 1978 for use as a restaurant and office. and recently purchased by a new owner. The applicant is proposing to increase the outdoor dining area, add a pergola, and replace a window with a door. The applicant is required to obtain a Special Land Use Permit ("SLUP") due to the change in ownership of both the restaurant and the liquor license. The applicant has already obtained a recommendation from the Planning Board, and approval from the City Commission for the Final Site Plan and SLUP. Outdoor Dining Area: The applicant proposes to expand the existing 360 sq. ft. outdoor dining area the full length of the property. The applicant is also proposing to include a new outdoor dining area west to the bollards that delineate the Active Via. The existing outdoor dining area will also extend into the public sidewalk to the north. The total outdoor dining area proposed is 825 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing a total of 70 seats in the expanded outdoor dining area. Four flush in-ground mounted patio umbrellas in Sunbrella "Canvas Parrot" are proposed at the eastern and western ends of the expanded outdoor dining area. Pergola: The applicant proposes to install a pergola structure in front of the storefront windows of the original dining area. Overhead planters and lights are proposed for the central portion of the outdoor dining area. The required 5 ft. pedestrian pathway will be maintained along the entire frontage of the building. Landscaping: The applicant is proposing to add ADA compliant tree grates to two existing street tree wells. The existing concrete planters that surround the current outdoor dining will remain and new ones will be manufactured to match for a total of 11 planters surrounding the expanded outdoor dining area. Hanging planters are also proposed along the top of the proposed pergola. Illumination: The existing pedestrian light fixtures on E. Merrill in the right-of-way will remain. The applicant is proposing to remove the two existing ground mounted light fixtures that flank either side of the existing entrance to the restaurant. The applicant is proposing to mount hanging light fixtures in three rows overhead on the proposed pergola. The proposed lights are Denali floodlights, manufactured by B-K Lighting. Mr. Chris Longe, Architect, explained they are seeking to expand the outdoor dining for this building to the east and to the west. The vestibule doesn't meet ADA requirements so they are proposing to install doors that meet those requirements and that also

23 facilitate people moving in and out of the outdoor cafe area. The pergola frames the center section of the building. The idea of the pergola is a trellis that allows plantings to grow up and over it. Planter baskets will hang on the outside of the pergola. Pots with greenery will define the seating area to the east and west and during the Winter they will be pulled back off of the right-of-way. Mr. Deyer liked everything except he did not think the pergola matches the historic building. Mr. Willoughby received confirmation that all of the chairs will match and the marble tables will be the same, except for size. He thought it is good that the pergola doesn't look historic and it will be a nice feature of the facade. Other board members wished to see more detail on the pergola and the type of plantings that are proposed. Ms. Gehringer wanted a rendering that depicts the pergola in summer and in winter. Ms. Denise Elitch, business partner, showed a sample of their proposed classic white chair. Mr. Zaid Elia, her partner, established that part of their design was developed after feedback from residents. They wanted something intimate and inviting that respects the nature of the historic building. They are working with the community development director on the design for replacement of the concrete. Mr. Deyer suggested that the board take a vote on the whole plan and defer the pergola so that Mr. Longe can come back with some cut sheets. Motion by Mr. Deyer Seconded by Mr. Willoughby that the Commission issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for 220 Merrill. The work meets "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" with the exception of the pergola and the terrace area around it. He would like to see the following items brought back for the board's review with the additional detail that was discussed, as follows: Intended plantings on the pergola; Lighting spec sheets; Tear sheet for the chair; Floor plan for winter and summer placement of the planters; and Pergola detail winter and summer. There were no comments or questions from the public at 7:50 p.m. Motion carried, 7-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Deyer, Willoughby, Coir, Dukas, Gehringer, Henke, Weisberg Nays: None Absent: None

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47