Historic District Commission

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Meeting Minutes October 10, 2016 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Mr. Jim Hopkins, called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Daniel Buscher Kim Tuck Jim Hopkins John Paul Wilson Excused: Kaytee Faris, Patrick Barnett, Bruce Phillips and Mike Troutman Staff Present: Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney, Admin. Services Glenn Perian, Senior Planner Leona Parrish, Admin. Assistant, Planning Dept. ADDITIONS / DELETIONS TO AGENDA: None APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES: MOTION MADE BY MR. DANIEL BUSCHER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2016 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING, SECONDED BY MR. KIM TUCK. ALL IN FAVOR; NONE OPPOSED; MINUTES APPROVED CORRESPONDENCE:  Mr. Steven Halldorson had provided additional information regarding his property at 68-70 Frelinghuysen Avenue. (Attachment A)  Document submitted by HDC members, Mr. Kim Tuck, Mr. Bruce Phillips, and Mr. John Paul Wilson regarding 86 S. Division Street on today’s agenda; request is from Schweitzer Inc., to designate their property to become a Historic Property on the city register. (Attachment B) OLD BUSINESS: A) 86 S. Division Street - (Request by Schweitzer Inc. to be put on the list of the City’s Local Historic Places) Request from Schweitzer Inc., Mr. Andrew D. Schweitzer, V.P & COO, for property formerly known as Taylor Produce/Norman Foods to be considered for inclusion on the City of Battle Creek Register of Historic Places. Mr. Glenn Perian stated at last month’s meeting the Historic District Commission appointed three members; Mr. Tuck, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Wilson as a committee to review this property on behalf of Schweitzer Inc. request in order to have their property at 86. S. Division Street placed on the registry as an Historic Place. Stated they had met at the property to review the building and determined the structure met the criteria to be designated as a Historic Building (See attachment A). Mr. Perian noted with the Historic District Commissions blessing, the Planning Department would then prepare a resolution to be presented to the City Commission for approval. 1 Mr. Kim Tuck stated the building is an excellent representation of post and beam construction of which was built really well originally with iron fittings and post and beam connections, with the primary structure being in really good condition. Stated based on the significance of the type of construction and its quality they recommend it be approved and be presented to the City Commission for approval for this property to be placed on the city’s register of historic buildings. Mr. Glenn Perian stated in following that recommendation they will take it to the City Commission by way of resolution to have this property placed on the city register for Historic Places. Chairman Hopkins asked if a motion was required by the Historic District Commission. Mr. Perian stated he would defer that question to our city attorney Mr. Stoetzel; who agreed they should vote. With no others wishing to speak, Chairperson Mr. Hopkins asked commissioners for a motion. MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. KIM TUCK TO APPROVE THE DESIGNATION OF THE 1930 ORIGINAL PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 86 S. DIVISION STREET AS A HISTORIC BUILDING IN BATTLE CREEK; SECONDED BY MR. DANIEL BUSCHER. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR; NONE OPPOSED; MOTION APPROVED Mr. Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney stated the guidelines under Chapter 1470.06, review of applications for city historic registry designee should be approved by the body of the Historic District Commission and a written notice be sent to the applicant of the commission’s decision. B) 68-70 Frelinghuysen Avenue – (Request to demolish and rebuild front porch from owner Mr. Steven Halldorson.) Mr. Halldorson stated he is requesting to demolish the porch and referenced the documents he submitted and that he had an independent building inspector, who is the building inspector for the City of Athens and also does contract work the City of Birmingham, look at the porch and it was of his opinion that it needed to be demolished. Stated the city is requesting some porch boards be replaced, re-roofing done and some minor things; but the contractor feels that there are more structure issues than was noted by the code inspector and would later require more extensive work. Said he provided a drawing done by his brother showing the structure with the porch removed, quotes for the repairs, and a copy of a letter he had submitted in the past that note corrections made. Mr. Halldorson stated the quote he received to rebuild the porch to its original would cost $31,000 dollars, which is greater than the value of the building. Said he had another estimate of $15,000 dollars plus other costs would exceed the value of the property; so he is hoping this smaller repair would satisfy the commission. Mr. Jim Hopkins, Chairperson stated he was at a loss and does not know what to say, as last month a building inspector came in from Athens. Mr. Halldorson stated that was correct; noted he would need permission from Mr. Don Wilkinson, City Building Inspector, who has not responded 2 back that he would need a variance as the placement of the post do not go beyond the frost line and explained how he would need to repair to its original and that it would be difficult to do with the building codes today. Stated Roach Construction would take out the pillars in the front and that four 6x6 posts would go from the roof down 42 inches into the ground; hand rails are not legal size and need replaced also the porch flooring needs replaced. Mr. Kim Tuck wanted to comment on the type of construction: Stating you can use staged level construction where you do not have to have a full length column that goes from frost all the way to the roof and can be done in two sections or another form of construction to provide the support that is needed for the more decorative columns that were typical of the original construction. Said the statement that it would need to be full length is incorrect. Mr. Halldorson stated o.k. that is different than what he was told. Mr. Hopkins asked if someone need to be here from the city from Code Enforcement. Mr. Marcel Stoetzel stated not necessarily as we have in the audience the city attorney Mr. Ian Wright who was dealing with the proceedings in the 10th District Court for failure to comply with various (3) open code enforcements with this property. Mr. Halldorson stated he needs to get Mr. Don Wilkinson, City Building Inspector to the property to provide some kind of idea of what he would be looking for in terms of the 2016 Building Code; he can then take it to his contractor With no others wishing to speak, Chairperson Mr. Hopkins asked commissioners for a motion. MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. KIM TUCK TO DENY THE NOTICE TO PROCEED FOR THE PROPOSED WORK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 68-70 FRELINGHUYSEN AVENUE BASED ON THE LACK OF ADEQUATE SET OF SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTON SUBMITTED; SECONDED BY MR. JOHN PAUL WILSON. Discussion: Mr. Perian stated today was the first time he heard Mr. Halldorson state he wished to remove the porch, roof and build a smaller porch; he is not sure which estimate entails that work. Said Mr. Halldorson continually says he wants the city to provide him guidance as to what he should do with his property; noted it is not the city’s job to tell him how to do a project to his building as it is for him to submit the proper information and they will then review and either approve or deny. Stated he is not clear of what he is wanting to do with his property, as he has provided three different quotes that have different options listed and does not feel we have received enough information and the application is not clear as to what is being proposed. Stated this body does not choose which option for the property owner of the work to be done. Stated the owner needs to submit what he chooses to do to his property and then this body can decide what would be appropriate for a historic building. Mr. Perian he is in agreement with Mr. Tuck in saying there is not enough information here to make a determination. Mr. Buscher asked Mr. Perian regarding his staff report prepared; what was his recommendation at this time as to the compliance and non-compliance of what has been submitted with this petition. Mr. Perian stated one of the things that would comply with the chapter and code allowing approval of a project is from his letter where he corrected the address and highlighted some things; saying one would be with new materials and try to construct it to the original design and size as much as 3 current materials would allow. Said that would be the ideal plan for the historic building they are talking about today. Said the cost ranges from $31,000 dollars from Roach Home Construction to an estimate of $15,000 dollars that Mr. Halldorson and partner put together as far as materials; there is some confusion to what Mr. Halldorson wants to do or is willing to do with his property. Said we would like to see would be the porch and roof replicated as closely as to what is there now. Mr. Buscher asked Mr. Perian if he has submitted enough supportive documents to meet the statutory criteria to approve. Mr. Perian stated depending on what he wants to do, he has an estimate here to construct it to the original design, and if Mr. Halldorson chooses option we can approve with what we have received. Mr. Buscher asked Mr. Perian with the information you have before you today, are you comfortable rendering an opinion today to approve or not. Mr. Perian stated no. VOTE ON MOTION: ALL IN FAVOR; NONE OPPOSED; MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Halldorson stated he put the specs together and the to put the building back to its original design is greater than the value of the building. Said he is trying to find a solution that does not require him to do that; that is why there is multiple quotes, one is to build a small porch other is for building the larger structure and the last time he was at this meeting the commission asked for both quotes. Mr. Halldorson referred to Mr. Tuck that it is obvious he is not familiar with building codes and he is getting an experienced building inspector and contractor; does Mr. Tuck have any suggestions with working with contractors in trying to figure out how to restore it historically and still meet 2016 codes. Mr. Kim Tuck stated he needs to get good plans and specifications so you can get comparable bids from different contractors. Said without a set of specifications and drawings, each contractor you go to will have some other concept of what is constructed and without those plans and specifications you do not have a good starting point. Mr. Halldorson said thank you for the advice. Mr. Tuck stated from a building perspective once you have good plans and specifications you can submit those and get a plan review done to see if it complies with the code or not. Mr. Halldorson said thank you again. NEW BUSINESS: A.) Approval of Year 2017 Historic District Commission Mtg. Dates The Meeting dates noted for the year 2017 are all to be held on the second Monday of each month, as there are no conflicts with any holidays and not requiring an alternate date to be selected. With no others wishing to speak, Chairperson Mr. Hopkins asked commissioners for a motion. MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. DANIEL BUSCHER TO APPROVE THE MEETING DATES FOR THE YEAR 2017 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AS PRESENTED; SECONDED BY MR. KIM TUCK. ALL IN FAVOR; NONE OPPOSED; MOTION APPROVED PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 4 COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF: Mr. Kim Tuck comment regarding the last case heard; noted that a building inspector would not approve anything without adequate plans and specifications submitted for approval. Said he knows from the City’s Building Inspector, Mr. Don Wilkinson perspective that it would definitely be required in a situation like this one. Mr. John Paul Wilson asked if they replaced everything with like materials would there be any requirement for changing anything on it to bring it up to newer codes. Mr. Tuck said part of the issue is that era of construction of porches was that they lacked adequate structural support; said all of that is hidden, so all of it could be replaced with current type of beam and joist construction and none of it would show; then it is a matter of applying the finishes that would replicate or restore portions to its historic grandeur. Stated in one of Mr. Halldorson’s documents it stated the roof could be saved; then save it. Mr. Wilson stated he had looked at the square footage and the rebuild cost for what he is talking about is actually more per square foot than the replacement of the full sized one. It appears to be juggling numbers around that are getting bigger. Mr. Glenn Perian stated the difficulty that staff is having is we do not know what he is wanting to do; code issues do not have anything to do with the Historic District Commission issues and the cities building inspector will not go there and tell him what he needs to do; the owner needs to get a plan and present it to the commission. Mr. Hopkins asked Mr. Perian if there is anything we can to do better as a commission in a situation like this one. Mr. Perian said he has no idea what they can do other than what they have done in this case and think the owner is reluctant to submit the information. Mr. Marcel Stoetzel stated he believes what Mr. Perian was indicating was there were quotes and estimates with some engineering reports on file that years ago an engineer noted the structure was good and to take care and maintain it. Said the letter he submitted from his building official had a reasonable estimate but did not include a plan and it is not the job of the HDC or City to tell an owner how to do a job. Said it is their job to make a decision on what is presented to them and for Mr. Halldorson there has been multiple enforcements over the years that have taken a lengthy amount of time to be resolved. Stated in the past he has struggled to get through the process and at our last meeting Commissioner Faris noted the doors were boarded up and on the 19th of last month Mr. Halldorson was informed to get that issue resolved by last Friday by the City Building Inspector. Mr. Wilson asked if anyone knew how long Mr. Halldorson had owned this property. Mr. Stoetzel stated he believed it was in the year 2008- 2009; where the engineering report was one of the first entries for this property and they have approximately 20 or 23 code compliance issues since owned by Mr. Halldorson. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Jim Hopkins, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:43 P.M. Submitted by: Leona A. Parrish, Administrative Assistant, Planning Department 5