Historic District Commission

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Meeting Minutes February 13, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Mr. Jim Hopkins, called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Daniel Buscher Mike Troutman Jim Hopkins John Paul Wilson Bruce Phillips Kaytee Faris (City Commission Liaison) Excused: Patrick Barnett and Kim Tuck Staff Present: Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney Glenn Perian, Senior Planner Leona Parrish, Admin. Assistant, Planning Dept. ADDITIONS / DELETIONS TO AGENDA: None APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES: MOTION MADE BY MR. DAN BUSCHER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 12, 2016 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING, SECONDED BY MR. MICHAEL TROUTMAN. ALL IN FAVOR; NONE OPPOSED; MINUTES APPROVED CORRESPONDENCE: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: A.) Request by Calhoun County Land Bank property owner for a Notice to Proceed to demolish the following residential structures: 1. 162 W. Manchester Street 2. 166 W. Manchester Street 3. 68 Oaklawn Avenue 4. 26 Reed Court Ms. Krista Trout-Edwards, Executive Director, Calhoun County Land Bank Authority, stated they have four homes on today’s agenda and have received a large grant to be used for demolitions and with those dollars; they are trying to clean-up any outstanding properties that they have. Said the four properties noted represent ones they have either tried to market and find a buyer who can overcome some of the economic barriers to rehabbing. Said 162 & 166 W. Manchester Street had been on the market for sale with no success as they have economic barriers such as 166 W. Manchester St. has a failing foundation and would need to raise the whole house in order to fix the foundation to rehab. 162 W. Manchester Street has a roof failure, noted both are directly across from the Old Advent Village and are thinking if they can be removed they would allow for them to 1 expand. Stated they also own the property at 172 W. Manchester that is in better shape and would like to market it without the blighted other two properties. Ms. Edwards noted that 68 Oaklawn Avenue have been urban mined and have no basic mechanicals such as electric, plumbing, furnace, etc. Stated the County also owns 64 Oaklawn Avenue, which is structurally in better shape with good bones and have no mechanicals. Said with 68 and 64 Oaklawn Avenue being adjacent to each other that after the demolition of 68 Oaklawn Ave., the vacant lot could be combined to 64 Oaklawn Avenue to be a more marketable property. Ms. Krista Trout-Edwards stated that 26 Reed Court is in bad shape and is on a gravel road and is the last of five houses that were on this street with much of the surrounding land being owned by the Land Bank, Neighborhoods Inc. or Adventist Village. Said it seems the best use for this property is to demolish and combine the parcel with the other vacant lots. Stated she is happy to answer any questions and they had provided rehab performance information based on their and city inspections on the properties. Mr. Mike Troutman asked if the Adventist Village would want the two houses on W. Manchester Street that is adjacent to their property. Ms. Edwards stated in the past they had went through them for a bed and breakfast, but it was too costly. Said they do not want the house as it is too much work for the repairs, but they would take the land and that this was stage one as they would need to go to the State Historic Preservation District for any in the National District, which it does include all of them noted except 26 Reed Court. Mr. Bruce Phillips asked why the cost to demolish for 26 Reed Ct. was more costly. Ms. Edwards stated it has stucco siding that could be asbestos containing, which is more expensive to have removed. With no others wishing to speak, Chairperson Mr. Hopkins asked commissioners for a motion. MOTION MADE BY MR. DAN BUSCHER TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A NOTICE TO PROCEED BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO DEMOLISH THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES: 162 W. MANCHESTER ST., 166 W. MANCHESTER ST.; 68 OAKLAWN AVE.;AND 26 REED CT., AS THEY MEET THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 1470.09(e); SECONDED BY MR. BRUCE PHILLIPS. Discussion: Mr. Mike Troutman stated that it is unfortunate that these buildings have gotten in this condition where the best thing to do would be to take them down. Mrs. Kaytee Faris stated that would be her advice as well to have them removed as it is beyond the point of repair and that the County had done their due diligence in trying to market them. Said with their proximity to the Old Adventist Historic Village; it would add to this location for the visitors that come to the historic village on a daily basis. VOTE ON MOTION: ALL IN FAVOR; NONE OPPOSED; MOTION CARRIED. B.) 50 W. Michigan Ave. (Preliminary submittal of proposed redevelopment for a state-of-the-art Climbing Gym and Recreation Center by Cereal City Athletics.) 2 Ms. Mary Whittaker Duncan, Architect, IN.FORMarchitecture, 401 E. Michigan Ave, Ste. 100, Kalamazoo, MI 49017, present today on behalf of Cereal City Athletics who is interested in acquiring this property from the Calhoun County Land Bank. Stated she was here today with Ms. Hannah Knowel and Mrs. Emily Bandeen, Cereal City Athletics, to speak regarding the submittal of a preliminary design for the redevelopment of 50 W. Michigan Avenue for a climbing gym. Ms. Mary Whittaker Duncan stated she had with her a larger printout of the designs submitted along with a Power Point presentation to view on the monitors. Stated the proposed redevelopment would require a partial demolition except the first-floor slab, leaving the building foundation, basement level and first floor structure intact of this non-contributing structure to the Historic District Central Business District. Stated they would build a new 40 ft. high building on the existing first floor structure which will house the climbing gym “Battle Rock” which will feature an indoor climbing facility. Ms. Whittaker Duncan said the interior and exterior drawings provided have a translucent feel for appeal to draw people to the building and would have clear glass (provided samples of glass, metal exterior wall panels and dark bronze storefront system with a metal panel where an image would be embedded.) Stated this would be a pre-engineered building and with the entrance having a metal panel with an image on it done by a Dry Design Company. Ms. Whittaker Duncan said this facility would be a climbing gym for all ages and group skill levels and that the buildings lower level would be leased to tenants for fitness facilities and the loft area would be a party level area. Stated they are here today seeking a preliminary approval in order for them to move forward and solicit further investment for this project. Mr. Troutman asked it would have that lit look shown at night. Ms. Whittaker Duncan stated yes. Mr. Jim Hopkins asked how would this dry guard metal be cleaned and/or maintained and if it would blacken. Ms. Whittaker Duncan stated it would have a paint coating and she would need to check further regarding the maintenance. Mr. John Paul Wilson asked if the front dry guard material was it considered windows, and if so does it meet the required safety standards for downtown. Ms. Whittaker Duncan stated yes it is a polycarbonate glazing or a translucent panel, and is sure it meets all safety requirements. Mr. Troutman stated it was nice that they provided the architectural renderings of how it would fit in with our downtown and compare to the adjacent buildings. Mr. Jim Hopkins asked if there were other similar facilities like this in Michigan. Ms. Emily Bandeen stated yes, there are other facilities in Michigan, but none will compare to what they are planning to build. Mr. Jim Hopkins asked if they felt this gym facility would be highly successful and attract more traffic to the downtown area. Mrs. Emily Bandeen stated what they are planning for Battle Creek is to bust through the glass ceiling for climbing gyms as the ones around here are not exactly what they want to duplicate. Said they want to create their own sense of a recreation center that combines the fun walls and activity centers for children of all ages and adults for learning and would be challenged to do different skill levels where they would change the climbing boards and would hold team challenges. Said they plan to have a high ropes course where they intend to facilitate different corporate team building 3 activities and would have a zip-line. Stated it would be an attraction for groups to come to downtown and go to other businesses, as they would host competitions for climbers to come to Battle Creek from other communities and feel it would change the dynamics of the downtown area. Mr. John Hart, Downtown Development Director, City of Battle Creek, stated as a part of this application the Bandeen’s have to make application to the MEDC for grant funding and if the commission decide to allow this project to move forward at this location they would need to have the demolition to come down to grade level. Said it would need to be reflected in the minutes of this meeting that this building is noted as a non-contributing building and be allowed to be demolished to grade and rebuilt, so it is clear to the State of Michigan. Mr. Buscher asked what Mr. Hart meant by non-contributing. Mr. Hart stated the existing building is non-contributing which would then allow it to be demolished to grade. Mr. Mike Troutman asked Mr. Glenn Perian regarding when the Historic District Commission in the year 2010 had voted to approve a Notice to Proceed to demolish this property and if it was still an option. Mr. Glenn Perian stated yes, that was correct it had been approved. Mr. Bruce Phillips asked if it was approved under this current ownership or someone else. Mr. Perian stated that Battle Creek Unlimited was the owner that requested the Notice to Proceed for demolition in year 2010, as a part of the downtown transformation plan and that the staff report does acknowledge and mention that the building itself is non-contributing and hopefully that would be sufficient. Mr. Dan Buscher asked for purposes of the record; is the Bandeen’s grandfathered in under that prior petition. Mr. Perian stated yes, that should hold, but can check with the City Attorney to make sure and feel if it was approved for demolition it would not expire. Mr. Buscher asked if they would need a new motion to demolish at this time to make it cleaner. Mr. Glenn Perian stated the criteria for this property has not changed and should still be the same and remain. Mr. Dan Buscher asked Mr. Marcel Stoetzel, City Attorney if they needed to re approve the Notice to Proceed for the demolition. Mr. Mike Troutman asked if they were now only asking for the preliminary approval of their plans. Mr. Perian stated yes, they are and would need to come back in future to ask for the formal plans to be approved. Mr. Buscher asked if the formal plans include the words “Notice to Proceed for demolition”. Mr. Perian stated he believes that the Notice to Proceed would still be in effect and would defer that question to council. Mr. Stoetzel stated their request is for the approval of the preliminary renovation today and if they wish to proceed and regarding the 2010 approval of the Notice to Proceed, if that is still an issue they will at that time research and respond accordingly later when they submit the request for the Notice to Proceed. Mr. Stoetzel said; in a short answer, he does not see any reason why they should decide something that is not before them today. 4 Commissioner Ms. Kaytee Faris stated this is a non-contributing building and seeing these changes would add significant value to our downtown and she would recommend approval. Stated regarding the design; she would want to see a front overhang the length of the building for the walkability of persons to be more enjoyable during inclement weather. Mr. John Paul Wilson asked regarding the local resource materials and if they are going for lead certification. Mrs. Emily Bandeen stated that has not been discussed. Ms. Mary Whittaker Duncan stated there would be energy codes they would need to comply. Mr. Jim Hopkins stated with a preliminary motion, if it would be for the Land Bank to authorize. Mr. John Hart stated what they were hoping to receive from the commission was how they liked the designs and the input that has been brought fourth is relevant as it can be changed and they need to more quickly for the cost estimation etc. Said they wanted to leave this meeting today with the ability do the demolition piece and be allowed to come down to grade and be allowed to build and the decision made in the past definitely show it can go away even below grade. Said if they can leave this meeting today knowing and being reassured that the building could be removed; then they can go to the State and say this is a non-contributing building. Stated in the past it had been approved for demolition, received the approval of the preliminary plans today and will later come back to request approval of the final plans. Mr. Glenn Perian stated the application submitted was not for a Notice to Proceed for demolition; it was submitted for approval of preliminary plans in order to move forward with their project. Said he believes the applicant is asking for direction from the commission regarding what they have proposed will be approved in the future; which is what he believes they were asking for today. Mr. Dan Buscher they have indicated there might be a time issue regarding removal of the building to grade and this is why he is asking if the Notice to Proceed approved in the past is still valid. Mr. Perian stated he believes it would still be in effect; but the attorney’s office would need to answer that question before he would give that final approval. Mr. Hart stated they are not asking to demolish the building at this time. Said the Land Bank is still the owner of this property and the company that will be created to actually own the property will purchase after all the capital has been approved and know the project will move forward. They just need to tell the State that the Local Historic District Commission is not going to be opposed to what is being proposed, which is the demolition of the existing building and building a new structure. Mr. Mike Troutman asked if they approve this preliminary design as presented; the building is already gone in this design as far as he is concerned. Mr. Perian stated that is correct. Mr. Troutman stated if they approve the design that should take care of the issue. Mr. Hart stated he would think so, as they are approving the preliminary design and if the statement in the motion says it is a non-contributing building and in the past it was approved to be demolished and the preliminary plans are being approved. Commissioner Kaytee Faris stated on page 6 of the preliminary plan under “Approach” it does say, “The proposed approach of this project is to demolish the existing building above the first floor slab 5 leaving only the building foundation, basement level and its first floor structure intact. Said that it is spelled out clearly. Mr. Bruce Phillips asked who is the petitioner, is it the Land Bank, the Bandeen’s or the Architecture firm. Mrs. Emily Bandeen stated they are in the process of applying for a grant from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and as part of the first phase; they need to get it through the State Historic Preservation Office “SHPO”. Said in order for them to change an existing downtown building in such a way that they will be removing part of the structure, it would help them to show that the Local Historic District Commission is behind the project. Stated she is representing Cereal City Athletics, who is petitioning to get approval so they can go forward with a grant application for the Michigan Economic Development Corporation. Mr. Marcel Stoetzel quoted Chapter 1470.08(c) stating the standard that is before them with this particular application; it is preliminary and reads “In order to expedite the timely issuance of permits the Building Inspections Department and Planning and Community Development Department and the Historic District Commission may review preliminary plans in advance of completion of final plans and specifications to determine the appropriateness of alterations, additions, repairs or new construction to resources within the historic district”. Mr. Glenn Perian provided a letter of correspondence between Mr. John Hart and Christine Zuzga, Planning Mgr. who stated the approval in year 2010, for demolition had since expired. Mr. Perian stated the item on today’s agenda is to approve the preliminary design as submitted. With no others wishing to speak, Chairperson Mr. Hopkins asked commissioners for a motion. MOTION MADE BY MR. DAN BUSCHER TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLANS AS SUBMITTED FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 W. MICHIGAN AVENUE, AS IT IS A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING AND MEETS THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 1470.08(c) AND IS IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS; SECONDED BY MR. MIKE TROUTMAN. Discussion: None VOTE ON MOTION: ALL IN FAVOR; NONE OPPOSED; MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Jim Hopkins thanked the petitioner and stated they had done a nice job on the documents submitted regarding the preliminary plans. C) Election of Year 2017 Officers: MOTION TO NOMINATE MADE BY MR. MIKE TROUTMAN TO RE-ELECT MR. JIM HOPKINS AS CHAIRPERSON, AND MR. BRUCE PHILLIPS AS VICE- CHAIRPERSON; SECOND BY MR. DAN BUSCHER. VOTE ON MOTION: ALL IN FAVOR; NONE OPPOSED; MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 6 COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF: Mr. Bruce Phillips stated the plans submitted for 50 W. Michigan Avenue are outstanding. Chairperson Jim Hopkins stated it is critical to try and draw people to the downtown area and this is the type of business or activity that this community and every community needs. Said he thinks this is an outstanding project and hope we see it through. Mr. Mike Troutman thinks that the design fits in well with our downtown even though it does not match the period of significant; it still does not detract. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Jim Hopkins, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:48 P.M. Submitted by: Leona A. Parrish, Administrative Assistant, Planning Department 7