Historic District Commission

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 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 Charlie Fulbright Kim Tuck Jim Hopkins John Paul Wilson Bruce Phillips Kaytee Faris (City Commission Liaison) Excused: None Staff Present: Christine Zuzga, Planning Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney Eric Feldt, Planner Glenn Perian, Senior Planner ADDITIONS / DELETIONS TO AGENDA: None APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES: MOTION MADE BY MR. BRUCE PHILLIPS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING, SECONDED BY MR. KIM TUCK. ALL IN FAVOR; NONE OPPOSED; MINUTES APPROVED CORRESPONDENCE: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: A.) 10 N. Division Street: Presentation by City of Battle Creek, Ms. Katie Norton, Reprographics/Facility Manager, and Mr. Ken Peregon, O’Boyle, Cowell, Blalock & Assoc. Inc. regarding the restoration of the retaining wall at City Hall. Ms. Katie Norton stated she had recently worked with O’Boyle, Cowell, Blalock & Assoc. Inc. to do an assessment of the perimeter retaining wall for Battle Creek City Hall. Stated the wall has undergone numerous past repairs over is lifespan which were patching methods and a variety of sealants used in the coping stone joints in addition to a gutter system and have discovered that all of these repairs have been caused by numerous water damage and collection of water behind the wall, which has deteriorated the wall over time. Said the purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the existing condition of the wall and provide recommendations for potential treatments or replacements of the existing wall. Stated she has Mr. Ken Peregon here today from O’Boyle, to explain the different options they have for either repair or replacement of partial wall. 1 Mr. Peregon stated they were landscape architects in Kalamazoo, Michigan with a long history of working in Battle Creek including the river walk about 30 years ago. Said they were asked to look at the existing conditions of the wall, evaluate those conditions, and make some recommendations as to how to respond to those conditions. Mr. Peregon stated they made a site visit and partnered with a firm called Wiss, Janney, Elstner Assoc. Inc., engineers with multiple offices and visited this site in June and noted aerial map he provided and documented what they saw with the wall varies in height from about 17 inches on east sided to about 30 inches on the west. Stated there was a small drainage gutter behind the wall that is not effective at all of which drainage is a major component issue they believe. Noted they had photographed the area and that on the east end of the building the wall is buried with just the stone cap showing and the back of the wall is made of brick masonry with the face of the wall which makes it unique with the face of the base and cap being a limestone cap that is fairly standard. Said the base is what is deteriorating which has been repaired multiple times with repairs not lasting. Noted the caps are in relatively good shape with situations having some deteriorating and they believe they can reuse the cap if they replace the wall. Mr. Peregon said there is approximately 450 linear feet of wall that range in height 17 – 36 inches high and in looking at the report from Wiss, Janney, Elstner provided to you, it documents their observations. Said they have three recommendations: Option #1: Watch to see what happens (no changes); Option #2: Look further to see what they have to get a much more detailed understanding of how it was constructed; (which does not give you a change) and Option #3: Removal and Replacement (which he would like to focus on). Said they “OCBA” have provided an Option #4: Straight concrete wall with cap. Mr. Peregon reviewed options 1(a) & 1(b) call for one form of a wall or another along that west side with the rest on the south and east side having the slope cut back and landscaped. Said options 2, 3, & 4 of which remove and replace the entire wall in different configurations. Said the key thing is to improve the drainage system to avoid the same problems they have had and suggest they replace a sub-surface drain at the back of the wall and install some leaching basins on the west and south side; noted in the southeast corner there is a storm catch basin manhole in the sidewalk and can punch into that basin going into the storm system in the parking lot. Said in the southwest and west side they suggest leaching basins for drainage into the soil. Mr. Peregon said with all the options they plan to reuse the existing stone cap, which are in good shape. Said they would replace with a cast in-place concrete base and shared the options 3(a) and 3(b) noted in the document provided and spoke in regards to the other proposed changes. Mr. Bruce Phillips asked if City Hall was in a Historic District. Mr. Feldt stated yes, it was in the Historic Central Business District. Ms. Katie Norton stated they are here today to ask what direction move forward as far as to find funding for this and the commission’s opinion as far as approval for the type of option that the commission feel would be best, as she cannot see funding without knowing exactly what the Historic District Commission feel is best. Mr. Bruce Phillips stated his personal option was #3(b) was his favorite. 2  Mr. Mike Troutman stated he felt that option #2 & #4 were the least desirable. Mr. Kim Tuck stated he also is in favor of the #3(b) option as one advantage he sees is that in the future if any repair is required it is fairly easy to replace a precast concrete section and aesthetically it also is reminiscent to what is there now even though it is not exactly the same. Said it does take advantage of maintain the similar exposure for the full length of the wall rather than the way it is now where one-half of the system is buried. Mr. Jim Hopkins asked if this should be opened up to, the residents as an outreach through the City Current for residents or have Battle Creek Enquire News provide input. Noted there is also a maintenance to consider. Ms. Norton stated she did not feel there would be much maintenance for a new wall as the old was 100 years old with numerous repairs having been done. Mr. Troutman noted the new precast and old will not match. Commissioner Faris stated she is in agreement with option 3(b) as being the best option as to what is there currently with lower maintenance in the long run, agree that if they were to get more citizen input, as there is no funding set aside, and would inform persons of why it needs to be done. Ms. Katie Norton stated she could do a public survey and bring it back to the Historic District Commission. Mr. John Paul Wilson asked if they could do a spray foam form in front of it and spray behind it in sections. Mr. Kim Tuck stated he was here years ago when they had done the last major repair; that there is no uniformity to any of it and if you look down the length of it, it waves like the ocean, so what you see presently does not reflect what is there originally. Mr. Peregon said they could pick a section and use as a model to duplicate. Mr. Buscher asked that if they choose option 3(b) and have no idea what the maintenance cost would be in 5, 10,15, or 20 years and is there some what of knowing what that might be. Mr. Peregon stated he is sure there is a way to generate the long term or lifetime cost of the wall. Chairman Hopkins stated there is no action to be taken today; and that their recommendation is option 3(b) with public input and look into the maintenance aspect of the wall. B.) 199 E. Emmett Street: Request from Mr. David Bye (owner) for new Windows. Mr. David Bye was present to speak and stated he purchased the home at 199 E. Emmett St. unaware of it being in a Historic District and invested a lot of money into it; one being new windows and choose the same windows as his neighbors. He received notification from the city that his property was in a Historic District and Eric Feldt, City Planner came to his home and created a proposal and that is why he is here today. Mr. Eric Feldt stated after visiting the site and determined the building structure is good and the updates done were minor aesthetic elements with new plumbing, electric and hvac needing to be replaced and is currently under construction. Stated part of staff’s analysis of the property is to look at the history of the property and looked at the Willard Library resource and it is clear 3  that the subject house and the house to the east both had windows with muntins, which breakup the windows. Said staff had looked at a third tutor style house that is south of this neighborhood and is not in a historic district (provided photo in report) that also has muntins and it plays an overall feature of the building itself; so staff had to take that into consideration and determined that new modern vinyl windows with lack of muntins while keeping and preserving the framework of the windows did in fact remove some of the historic integrity of the house itself. Noted the house to the east with the similar style as the subject house does have the modern vinyl windows. Staff looked into how that had been approved and had not found any prior permits for the windows. Said the windows are installed and would be a considerable expense to the owner and how can they preserve the windows and yet still retain some amount of historic integrity and have found there are muntins that can be purchased that have an adhesive back and stick onto the vinyl windows and staff finds that with the addition of those muntins they can recommend a Certificate of Appropriateness for approval and it is acceptable by Mr. Bye, property owner. Mr. Feldt stated staff is recommending approval of the application. Mr. David Bye stated there was a garage door he wants to replace; it is the same color and does not have any windows. Stated it was included in the application for today’s meeting. Mr. Feldt stated the proposed garage door is similar to the neighboring property’s garage door and stated the integrity would need to be kept and preserved. With no others wishing to speak, Chairperson Mr. Hopkins closed the public hearing and asked commissioners for a motion. MOTION MADE BY MR. DANIEL BUSCHER TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK TO INCLUDE NEW EXTERIOR WINDOWS, GARAGE DOOR WITH THE CONDITION TO ADD MUNTINS “GRILLS” TO THE WINDOWS FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY: 199 E. EMMETT STREET, AS THEY MEET THE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 1470.09 AND 1470.17 PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC FEATURES; SECONDED BY MR. BRUCE PHILLIPS. Discussion: Chairperson Hopkins asked staff what a reasonable time would be for Mr. Bye to add the muntins to the windows. Mr. Bye stated he was not sure how long it would take to order them as they would need to be special made. Mr. Feldt referenced page 9 in the staff report in bold letters, staff recommended work to be done by May 30, 2018. Mr. Bye stated he was in agreement with that timeframe. VOTE ON MOTION: ALL IN FAVOR; NONE OPPOSED; MOTION CARRIED. C.) 31 N. Washington Avenue: Request from Church of Scientology of Battle Creek, Mr. David Enders, 151 north Ave., Battle Creek, MI 49017, regarding new signage and building renovations. Mr. Christopher Sanders, Ginsler located in Atlanta with a Detroit office was present on behalf of the Church of Scientology located on 31 N. Washington Avenue, Battle Creek, MI. Stated he has been in communication with city staff, Mr. Eric Feldt and they provided the information in the meeting packet along with a sign application in addition to a site plan application. Stated the 4 photos provided were from 1930 to current with granite, noted the entrances, awnings, signage, and history of the changes through the years. Mr. Sanders stated they were the architects for the Church of Scientology and had provided the photos and reviewed the suggested restorations and renovations to the property. Noted the proposed two roof signs on each street facades that would be illuminated and would identify that corner as being a landmark in the community. Noted they plan to restore the granite on the ground floor with a new storefront on both street fronts. Said the canopy’s would be a modern design with a glass covering with the Scientology name which would mark the entrance along with in- ground lights; noted there would be building mounted lights to make this property shine. Mr. Sanders stated they plan to use most of the granite as possible within the code to make it structurally sound. Stated this is a fully renovation project on the interior and know they are here today for the exterior work they are requesting. Mr. Buscher asked Mr. Sanders if he had the opportunity to review the staff report and its recommendations. Mr. Sanders stated, yes he had. Mr. Buscher noted that in chapter 1470.17 the staff considered ten criteria and indicated the presentation did not meet eight of those ten and asked if they had an opportunity to work with city staff in regards to those and voice any concerns. Mr. Sanders stated in regards to the staff report Mr. Feldt had prepared, there were two items that did not meet the criteria; one was the roof signage also the canopy. Mr. Buscher stated he sees there are 8 out of 10 with only meeting the criteria of (h & g). Mr. Eric Feldt stated indicating the findings and the features of the building that staff found a compromising integrity of the historic district, so the applicant is mentioning two of them; the canopy and roof top signage and you are talking about the findings so both of you are correct. Mr. Feldt stated the applicant is working with inspections department regarding the rooftop signs in regards to the size allowed and depending on if, the HDC approved the signage, they would move forward with what would be allowed. Noted staff’s recommendation is against the proposal was because of the roof top signage and canopy; knowing the history of the site with being placed on the dangerous building list staff had reached out with the applicant in order to move forward with the project and staff recommended an alternate recommendation as follows: Mr. Feldt stated staff could support if removal of canopy renovations and roof top signage. With that if, HDC would support the other work noted with the exception of canopy renovations and roof top signage. Mr. Sanders stated he was hoping their design proposal would be accepted; he understands this is hearing for Historic Appropriateness and not Code and feel the roof sign that we currently have it show is a better choice for visibility and currently with the old images shown on the corner, they do not think having a sign there would be a first choice and at some point it was removed and added blade signs. Said from a design proposal they feel that this would help to embellish the project and being a historic property that the font speaks to the Kellogg font that is similar with a modern twist and also with the canopy’s they would like to make it more modern that are still there, so instead of having the edge band canopy with the flat roof they would like to accentuate that more and add a touch of the old and mix with the new. 5 Mr. Buscher asked the Mr. Sanders if they were considering any of the changes or are they asking the commission to vote on the entirety for the determination of appropriateness presented today. Mr. Sanders stated in speaking with staff he believes there was an alternate choice where portions of the project be approved and then address the canopy and signs at a later date in an effort to keep the project moving. Mr. Fulbright asked regarding the meeting packet they planned to paint the tops of the windows gold; his opinion is leaving it stone maintains its historic appearance and takes away from its historic value. Commissioner Faris stated she is in agreement with staff alternate recommendation; that by changing the canopy, you are taking away a contributing element of the historic value of the building and the signs do not seem appropriate in her opinion and is in agreement with the findings in the staff report. With no others wishing to speak, Chairperson Mr. Hopkins closed the public hearing and asked commissioners for a motion. MOTION MADE BY MR. MIKE TROUTMAN TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR RENOVATIONS WITH THE OMMISSION OF ROOF TOP SIGNS AND CANOPY FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY: 31 N. WASHINGTON AVENUE, AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS THEY MEET THE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 1470.09, SECONDED BY MR. CHARLIE FULBRIGHT. Discussion: Chairman Hopkins asked if the sign met requirements; staff does not feel it complies with the architectural integrity. Mr. Feldt stated that staff finds that the location is the most critical issue with trying to move forward with them wanting a more larger sign specifically in that area. Chairman Hopkins asked if they made it smaller and brought it within code would staff be in agreement. Mr. Feldt stated staff would need to look at some options in order to give an answer at this time. Mr. Troutman stated other than the sign and canopy they have done a great job and if they were to come back he would not be opposed to voting for the sign and canopy, as he feels it brings the modern element into an old building, as it is a derelict building at this point in time and anything they do to the building short of the remodel it is still a derelict building. Stated he would be in favor of voting for the application as submitted. VOTE ON MOTION: SIX IN FAVOR (BUSCHER, FULBRIGHT, HOPKINS, PHILLIPS, TROUTMAN, AND TUCK); ONE OPPOSED (WILSON); MOTION CARRIED. D.) Draft Bill to Reinstate Property Tax Savings for Historic Properties: Review information provided regarding Draft Bill. Mr. Eric Feldt stated this was a draft Bill that would reinstate the tax credit for owners of residential and commercial properties. Said we have over 300 properties in Battle Creek and in 6 speaking with Mr. Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney the Bill is well over 20 pages, and staff is recommending at this time that we provide our city attorney’s time to review the draft bill and bring back a recommendation at the December meeting to ask for a resolution from the Historic District Commission in support of this State Bill. Commissioner Faris asked if the Bill may be forward to them via email. Mr. Feldt stated yes. Mr. Feldt stated there is a second part to this that is a Federal Tax Bill that is moving forward and within it is the removal of the Federal Tax credit. Stated staff will keep an eye on that and work with Marcel, our city legal team and perhaps by Decembers HDC meeting have a two-part historic tax recommendation for them to act upon. Mr. Mike Troutman asked if we should invite either a State Senator or someone from staff to come to their meeting and address this with them. Mr. Feldt stated he would reach out to them and ask. E.) Historic District Commission 2018 Meeting Dates: Requesting approval of year 2018 meeting dates. Mr. Bruce Phillips asked what holiday was going to be a conflict in November. Mr. Perian stated he assumed it was Veteran’s Day. With no others wishing to speak, Chairperson Mr. Hopkins closed the public hearing and asked commissioners for a motion. MOTION MADE BY MR. MIKE TROUTMAN TO APPROVE THE YEAR 2018 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING DATES AS PRESENTED, SECONDED BY MR. BRUCE PHILLIPS. VOTE ON MOTION: ALL IN FAVOR; NONE OPPOSED; MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF: Mr. Bruce Phillips welcomed Mr. Charlie Fulbright as a new member. Commissioner Faris asked staff regarding 199 Emmett Street in the past had made modifications to their front entrance, she believes was two years ago and asked what became of that as she knows it has changed hands and nothing has changed with the appearance. Mr. Troutman asked if there was any way to reach out to the board of realtors to have them let persons know when a property is in a Historic District. Mr. Phillips stated the new owner dealt with a Kalamazoo realtor. Commissioner Faris asked what role the local Neighborhood Association in Merritt Woods play in all this and if they would be a good resource for informing people upfront that his is a part of a Historic District and these are the rules and regulations. 7 Mr. Marcel Stoetzel stated he had a brief update regarding at the last meeting there was a question pertaining to 68-72 Frelinghuysen; stated he spoke with staff at the Calhoun County Land Bank who is now the owner of this property, noted they have scheduled an inspection of the interior of this property and will be making a decision soon as to if this property can be rehabilitated or not. They made clear to him their effort was to avoid demolition. Mr. Marcel Stoetzel also stated the Calhoun County Land Bank had discussed the property located at 26 Fremont St.; stating they are looking at this property also and hope to come back to the commission with something specific in terms of a plan for that property. The Calhoun County Land Bank stated they want to speak directly to the Historic District Commission regarding rehab or renovating properties as opposed to demolition, and anticipate that might be at the December meeting. Commissioner Faris stated she has had several discussions with Krista Trout-Edwards, Calhoun County Land Bank and that they have had problems with some demolitions in the Washington Heights area that the HDC had approved and because of SHPO, they cannot take them down and are being stopped from doing so by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Said that would also be a good conversation to have with them in how the HDC can assist them as they have identified these buildings as being hazardous to our community. Mr. Hopkins stated they recently discovered there was another historic property “Irving Park” and the board needs to keep it in mind it is not a district but a property. Mr. Troutman asked if there would definitely be a December meeting as they keep adding items to that agenda. Mr. Feldt stated the Washington property would probably resubmit something for review regarding their sign and canopy. Mr. Troutman asked if they do not resubmit would they then hold a meeting as he was thinking of the draft Bill for submittal to the State. Mr. Feldt stated staff would let them know by the deadline date if there would be a meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Jim Hopkins, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:34 P.M. Submitted by: Leona A. Parrish, Administrative Assistant, Planning Department 8