MINUTES THE COURTHOUSE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION CADILLAC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES CADILLAC, MI JULY 10, 2012

Transcription

1 MINUTES THE COURTHOUSE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION CADILLAC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES CADILLAC, MI JULY 10, 2012 The meeting was held at the Cadillac Administrative Offices, 200 N. Lake Street, Cadillac, MI. 1. Roll Call Chairperson Taylor opened the meeting at 5:03 p.m. and requested roll call. Members Present: Wendover, DeKryger, Brown, Taylor, DuBravec (arrived at 5:06), and King (arrived at 6:10) Members Absent: Snider Staff Present: Schweigl 2. Approval of the Agenda Motion by DeKryger, supported by Brown, to approve the agenda for. The motion was unanimously approved (DuBravec and King were not present at the time). 3. Public Comments None 4. Approval of the May 8, 2012 Meeting Minutes Motion by Wendover, supported by DeKryger, to approve the minutes of the May 8, 2012 meeting. The motion was unanimously approved (King was not present at the time). Approval of the May 19, 2012 Open House Meeting Notes Motion by Wendover, supported by DeKryger, to amend and then approve the meeting notes to add that no official business was conducted at the open house. The motion was unanimously approved (King was not present at the time). 5. Commission Discussion a. Construction Activity Application Mr. Thomas Pierson, 401 E. Harris Street Mr. Tracy Savage, 121 N. Park Street, spoke and indicated that he has been working with the property owner, Mr. Pierson, to make improvements to the subject property. Savage said that the deck (project #3) was not safe and that he wanted to extend the deck and make it safer. His plan was to eventually install a handicap ramp for current residents that have mobility issues. He said that there was no room to maneuver a gurney up the old steps. Savage stated that he looked at the building codes and had spoken with a building official from another county. The commission asked Savage whether he spoke on behalf of Pierson. Savage indicated that he is the contractor on all three projects covered by the construction activity application and that he did speak for Pierson. 1

2 The commission asked Savage to first focus on project #3, specifically what had been there prior to the recent construction. Savage stated that the deck had been approximately one-half the size of the new deck. He said that the goal was to make the deck more accessible. The commission asked whether he meant to make it handicap accessible, as that would carry additional requirements with respect to construction codes, and he said no, only generally more accessible. Savage said that the door adjacent to project #3 is the only entryway to one of the units in the building. The commission asked what Savage planned to do to complete project #3, and he indicated that he planned to continue the railing, in the same style as the railing on the steps, around the deck. He would also construct a four-step stair tread on the opposite side of the deck from the existing steps. Savage indicated that he has not pulled a building permit. The commission advised him to secure a building permit before any additional work is done. The commission advised Savage that based on the photographs that were provided to the commission, the handrail and risers do not meet code. The commission stated that the risers are not close enough to uniform in height and that they will have to be modified to meet code. The commission also stated that the handrail must come out to the end of the bottom stair, whereas it currently does not. The commission asked whether Savage or Pierson intended to remove the existing concrete steps adjacent to project #3. Savage stated that he believes so. The commission stated that it may be best for Savage and Pierson to secure a building permit before HDC approval is given. Schweigl noted that the approval process is structured such that City approval, which would in this case include both zoning and historic district, is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The commission determined that their approval could be made conditional based on the successful issuance of a building permit. The commission then addressed the concrete steps and stated that they will either have to be removed or brought to code by adding a handrail. The commission addressed the issue of continuity between the three projects. The handrail at project #1 is currently partially comprised of wrought iron and partially comprised of wood. The commission said that the handrail should either be all iron or all wood, although a wooden handrail would more closely match what was likely original to the home. The materials used to construct all three projects should be similar in style and complement one another. The commission noted some examples where the three projects do not currently match, such as the post caps and the presence of spindles on in some areas and not others. The commission stated that a covered porch would more closely match the historic nature of the home than an uncovered deck at project #3. Savage stated that replacing the latticework that previously surrounded the area below the deck at project #3 would be a problem because there is an emergency egress window below the deck. Previously, the deck did not extend that far along the building, so the latticework did not block the egress window. The commission asked whether the right (south) half of the deck could be removed, which would return the length of the deck to 2

3 the way it was before. Savage indicated that the long-term plan was to bring the deck along the side of the building from project #3 to project #2. Savage then described other potential plans for future improvements. The commission noted that Wexford County may require a sealed drawing before issuing a building permit. The commission stated that they favored the removal of half of the deck at project #3. The commission asked Savage whether he planned to install spindles on the handrail at project #2 and he indicated that he did plan to do so. The commission noted that the top riser is not close enough in height to the other risers to meet code. The commission discussed its options as far as approval or denial of the application. The commission decided to deny the application and encourage Pierson to reapply when a plan that meets building code is in place. A motion was made by Taylor, supported by DeKryger, to deny the application as presented and provide the following suggestions to Pierson: 1. The handrails and post caps should be uniform among the three projects covered by the application. 2. The existing concrete steps adjacent to the northernmost entry should be removed. 3. The length of the new deck at the northernmost entry should more closely match the length of the deck that was in place before. The width of the new deck may remain as-is. 4. The area beneath the decking on all three projects should be shielded from view by matching latticework or a similar form of skirting. 5. The HDC noted that several aspects of the projects as constructed do not conform to the building code. The HDC suggested that Pierson contact the Wexford County Building Department in advance of the next HDC meeting so that the plans he presents at that time will follow all applicable code requirements. The motion was unanimously approved (King was not present at the time), and Savage was thanked for his appearance. b. Construction Activity Application Cadillac Housing Commission, 111 S. Simons Street Judy Myers, Executive Director of the Cadillac Housing Commission, spoke and stated that the reason for their request to install steps leading from the parking area to the public sidewalk along S. Park Street is the steep hill in that location. Myers distributed two photographs to the commission. She stated that the steps would be safer for maintenance personnel. She also indicated that at present, access to the sidewalk is only available by going through the parking lot, which is unsafe for residents and personnel. The commission viewed photographs of the location of the proposed steps and Myers indicated specifically where on the photographs the steps would be constructed. Myers stated that the steps would begin at the blacktopped edge of the parking area and continue up to the sidewalk at the top of the hill. She indicated that a building permit would be secured prior to any construction work. The commission noted that the construction 3

4 drawing provided along with the construction activity application would not meet the building code, as risers cannot be more than seven inches in height. Myers stated that the steps would be comprised of poured concrete and that the handrail would be metal, made by Cadillac Fabrication, and that it would be either dark brown or black in color. The commission asked whether there are any other outdoor handrails on the site whose style could be matched by the new handrail. Myers stated that there are not any other outdoor handrails. A motion was made by Wendover, supported by Brown, to approve the application as presented. The motion was unanimously approved (King was not present at the time). c. Construction Activity Application Fortune Wireless, Inc., 111 S. Simons Street Dan Mondrella of Fortune Wireless, Inc. spoke about the proposed project. He indicated that his company is working with Sprint to complete a statewide upgrade of its communications network to accommodate 4G technology. The project involves the installation of three new antennas. After a period of six to twelve months following installation, during which testing and calibration of the new equipment would be completed, the six existing Sprint antennas would be removed. Once complete, there will be three Sprint antennas on the Kirtland Terrace roof, one per sector (one on each of three sides of the rooftop penthouse). At the base of each antenna will be a radio head placed just above the roofline; these will be installed so that they are not visible from adjacent streets. The commission noted that the photos provided to them by the applicant do not all depict the same penthouse elevation. Mondrella handed out a new page to replace page A5 of the construction plans submitted along with the construction activity application. He noted that in the present configuration, there are two Sprint antennas on each of the three sectors. These are the antennas that would be removed once the new ones have been installed, tested, and calibrated. The commission inquired as to the height of the existing and new antennas. Mondrella stated that the existing antennas are 66 inches in height and the new antennas will be 72 inches in height. He said that they would have a flat-panel style so that they more easily blend in with the walls of the penthouse, and that they would not extend upward beyond the roof of the penthouse. Mondrella pointed out where the new antennas would go on the photographs shown to the commission. He indicated that a new battery cabinet and radio equipment cabinet are also part of the project. The commission s attention was directed to page A7 of the construction plans, which shows the plan for the two new cabinets. Mondrella stated that the existing cabinet is 70 inches in height and that the two new cabinets will be approximately the same height. The commission asked Mondrella whether the six existing antennas would definitely be removed, and he said that they would. Mondrella stated that the cabinets would not be seen from the street, but the commission noted that the existing cabinet can be seen from the street. The commission then inquired about potential alternate locations for communications equipment, specifically the City s water tower. Mondrella stated that locating equipment on the tower poses a challenge should the tower need repainting. 4

5 Taylor showed a photograph of the Kirtland Terrace roof taken before any equipment was installed. The commission noted the appearance of the roof then versus its appearance now. The commission viewed page A2 of the construction plans, which shows the location of the existing cabinet relative to the entire roof of the building. Mondrella noted that the existing cabinet, as well as the proposed location of the new cabinets, is near the center of the roof. The commission estimated that the cabinets would be located 15 to 20 feet from the edge of the building. Mondrella indicated that the cabinet is approximately 71 inches in height and 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet in length and width. The commission then discussed the future of communications equipment and asked Mondrella to comment on that topic. He stated that the upgrades being made to communication systems result in less bulky equipment and that the trend now is that less equipment is required. The commission again noted that the existing cabinet can be seen from the street. Mondrella stated that the existing cabinet will be removed and two new cabinets will be installed. The two boxes marked as TELCO and POWER on page A3 of the construction plans are not going to be affected by this project and will remain in place. Mondrella estimated that those two boxes are between four and five feet in height. He noted that the footprint of the existing cabinet (length and width) is approximately equal to the footprint of the two new cabinets, so the overall bulk of the cabinet(s) will not change as a result of the project. The commission asked whether the new cabinets might be placed nearer to the center of the roof. Mondrella stated that might be possible but that he has never seen a configuration similar to what they propose in that case. Judy Myers, Executive Director of the Cadillac Housing Commission, spoke and stated that AT&T and Verizon have been completed upgrades to their equipment within the last few years. Myers stated that she is not anticipating further upgrades from either company. She indicated that Sprint does not have as much communications equipment as either of the other companies. A motion was made by DeKryger, supported by Taylor, to approve the application based on the following conditions as presented by Mondrella: 1. The two new equipment cabinets will not be taller than the existing cabinet. 2. The three new antennas will ultimately replace six existing antennas, resulting in a total of three Sprint antennas once testing and calibration are complete. 3. The new antennas will not extend above the roofline of the penthouse. 4. The new antennas will be painted to match the color of the penthouse wall. 5. Removal of the six existing antennas and one existing equipment box will take place within one year. The motion was unanimously approved 6. Commissioner Comments None 5

6 7. Public Appearances None 8. Adjourn There being no additional business the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. 6