Historic District Commission

1 1 of 14 AGENDA Historic District Commission Meeting Date: Monday, August 14, 2023 Time: 4:00 P.M. Where: City Hall, Room 301 1. Call to Order: 2. Attendance: 3. Additions or Deletions to Agenda: 4. Approval of minutes: July 10, 2023 5. Correspondence: 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A) H08-23 (178 Oaklawn Ave) The petition, filed by Mr. Roswell Pittman of 178 Oaklawn Ave., is for the construction of a 6’ tall wood privacy fence in the side yard of the property. Parcel # 3550-00-070-0. 8. Comments by the Public: 9. Comments from Commission members and Staff: 10. Adjournment: The City of Battle Creek will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as signers for the hearing impaired and audio tapes of printed materials being considered in the meeting upon notice to the City of Battle Creek. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary aides or services should contact the City of Battle Creek by writing or calling the following: Office of the City Clerk, P.O. Box 1717, 10 North Division – Suite 111, Battle Creek, MI 49016, (269)966-3348 (Voice), (269)966-3348 (TDD) Division Site 117 Battle Creek M Fax (269) 910 N. Di 10 N. DIVISION ST. P.O. BOX 1717 BATTLE CREEK MICHIGAN 49016-1717 PHONE (269) 966-3320 FAX (269) 966-3555 WWW.BATTLECREEKMI.GOV  2 2 of 14 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 10 North Division, Battle Creek, MI 49014 Minutes for Monday, July 10, 2023 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: By Chairperson Newman at 4:00 p.m. This meeting was held in-person. ATTENDANCE: A roll call was taken: Comm. Drozdowski, Present Comm. Newman, Present Comm. Simpson, Present Comm. Davis, Present Comm. Sallee, Present Comm. Thornton, Present Comm. Steinbrunner, Present Staff Present: Melody Carlsen, Administrative Assistant, Travis Sullivan, City Planner, Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of June 12, 2023 minutes. MOTION MADE BY COMM. DROZDOWSKI TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 12, 2023 MEETING MINUTES, SECONDED BY COMM. THORNTON. A vote was taken and all those in favor to signify “aye”: ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. CORRESPONDENCE: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: A. H05-23 (265 NE Capital Ave) The petition, filed by Joe Rocha for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property located at 265 NE Capital Avenue, Battle Creek for the construction of a new garage in rear yard. Parcel #1640-00-062-0. Application Presentation: Travis Sullivan presented the Staff Report for property located at 265 NE Capital Ave. The applicant has filed the subject HDC Certificate of Appropriateness application for the construction of a new 40’ x 36’ garage in the rear yard of the property. The garage meets the standard outlined in Chapter 1470.06 “Review of Applications,” Chapter 1470.17 “Preservation of Historic Features” and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Staff recommends approval. Applicant Presentation: Joe Rocha, was present to speak and answer Commissioner’s questions. 1  3 3 of 14 COMMENTS BY COMMISSINERS AND STAFF MEMBERS: Commissioner Davis inquired about the location of the new garage and to whether it would be located where the original carriage house was once located and to which type of materials would be used. Commissioner Drozdowski inquired about the tenants using the parking lot and what the garage will be used for. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER THORNTON FOR THE APPROVEL OF ITEM H05-23 AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THORNTON. ROLL VOTE WAS TAKEN: ALL INFAVOR, NONE OPPOSED. MOTION APPROVED. B. H06-23 (32 Woodmer Ln) Petition, filed by Roach Home Improvements for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property located at 32 Woodmer Lane, Battle Creek for the construction of a deck on back of the home. Parcel #5390-00- 030-0. Application Presentation: Travis Sullivan presented the Staff Report for property located 32 Woodmer Lane. The applicant has filed the subject HDC Certificate of Appropriateness application for a freestanding deck. The deck meets the standards outlined in Chapter 1470.09 “Review of Applications,” Chapter 1470.17 “Preservation of Historic Features” and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Staff recommends approval. Applicant Presentation: Applicant was not present. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF: None. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER DROZDOWSKI TO APPROVE ITEM H06-23 SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIMPSON. ROLL VOTE WAS TAKEN: ALL INFAVOR, NONE OPPOSED. MOTION APPROVED. C. H07-23 (200 Capital Ave NE Petition, filed by Luke Drallette for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property located at 200 NE Capital Avenue, Battle Creek for a 4-foot high white picket fence in the secondary front, side and rear yards. Parcel #4110-00-016-0. Application Presentation: Travis Sullivan presented the Staff Report for property located 200 Capital Ave NE. The applicant has filed the subject HDC Certificate of Appropriateness application for the construction of a new 4-foot high wood picket fence located in the secondary front, side and rear yards for the Victorian house located in the Old Maple Street historic district. Staff recommends approval of this petition, as a 4-foot high wooden picket fence is appropriate fencing for a Victorian (about 1850- 1910 in the United States) era house. Applicant Presentation: Luke Drallette was present to speak and answer questions from commissioners. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF: 2  4 4 of 14 Commissioner Steinbrunner asked for clarification on the fence location. Commissioner Davis inquired about the style of the fence and materials being used. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER THORNTON TO APPROVE ITEM H07-23 SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALLEE. ROLL VOTE WAS TAKEN: ALL IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED. MOTION APPROVED. D. 2023 2nd Quarter Administrative Approval Report Travis Sullivan gave a report of the 2nd Quarter Administrative Approval Report. An inventory of each certificate of appropriateness issued for a minor class was provided in the meeting packet. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC: Stacey Konkle Deputy Director of Safe Place, introduced a proposed project at 303 Capital Ave. Safe Place would like to demolish the existing carriage house and build a four until shelter to house Trafficking victims and their children. Joe Rocha of 265 NE Capital Ave. expressed concerns about adding more residential units in the Capital Ave. area, it is already a congested area and adding more housed would be detrimental to the area. Mr. Rocha would like the Commission to keep that in mind when considering the four until shelter at 303 Capital Ave. COMMENTS BY COMMISSION AND STAFF MEMBERS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Newman adjourned the meeting at 4:07 p.m. Submitted by: Melody Carlsen, Planning and Zoning Administrative Assistant 3  5 5 of 14 Battle Creek Historic District Commission Staff Report Staff Report 178 Oaklawn Ave. Meeting: August 14, 2023 To: Historic District Commission From: Travis Sullivan, Planner Date: July 25, 2023 Subject: The petition, filed by Mr. Roswell Pittman of 178 Oaklawn Ave., is for the construction of a 6’ tall wood privacy fence in the side yard of the property. Summary Staff recommends approval of the subject petition at 178 Oaklawn Ave., as the proposed privacy fence meets the standards outlined in Chapter 1470.09 “Review of Applications,” Chapter 1470.17 “Preservation of Historic Features” and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Figure 1: Red pin on aerial points to subject site (178 Oaklwan Ave.) located within the local Old Advent Town Historic District. Photo courtesy of Google Maps.  6 6 of 14 Site & History The subject site is located at 178 Oaklawn Ave. at the northeast corner of Oaklawn Ave. and N Wood St. within the Old Advent Town local historic district. The home on the site was constructed in 1915 with an area of 2,358 sq. ft. and is currently in use as a single-family residence. The building is a two-story single-family home consisting of a stucco façade, with a later addition to the front of the home clad in traditional siding. The front of the building includes an enclosed porch/foyer area including a walkway and steps leading to the front yard sidewalk. Roofing material on the home consists contemporary asphalt shingles. The subject parcel is a corner lot, with the adjacent property to the east along Oaklawn Ave. featuring a privacy fence along the lot line in the rear and side yard. Figure 2: Street view of the subject site at 178 Oaklawn Ave. facing north, July 2023. Red arrow line indicates the location of the proposed privacy fence. Photo courtesy of City of Battle Creek staff. 2 of 6  7 7 of 14 Summary of Request The applicant has filed the subject HDC Certificate of Appropriateness application for the construction of a new 6’ tall wood privacy fence in the property’s side yard. The proposed fence is intended to stretch approximately 18 feet from the east side of the applicant’s house, connecting to the neighboring privacy fence to the east along the shared lot line. The proposed fence would prevent trespassing on the applicant’s property, as passersby currently are cutting through the applicant’s rear and side yards to get out to Oaklawn Ave., or conversely the properties along Ann Ave. to the north. The proposed fence, while visible from Oaklawn Ave., meets all requirements of the fence ordinance and matches the general character and aesthetic and property and the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has stated in conversation that the proposed fence will be entirely freestanding and self- supported, and is not proposed to be attached to the house. Applicable HDC Guidelines and Analysis for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new 6’ tall wood privacy fence at 178 Oaklawn Ave. This property is reviewed in accordance with City of Battle Creek Building and Housing Code Chapter 1470 "Historic Preservation", as amended, the Michigan's Local Historic Districts Act, as amended, and the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places as outlined in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. Specifically, the Commission shall follow Section 1470.09 Review of Applications, as follows: (b) 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 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. (c) The Historic District Commission shall review and act upon only exterior features of a resource and shall not review and act upon interior arrangements… And 1470.17 PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC FEATURES. (a) Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a resource which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure or site and its environment, or to use the resource for its originally intended purpose. 3 of 6 8 8 of 14 Staff finds that the proposed fence would require no alteration to the exterior of the building. The proposed fence will be entirely freestanding and will not require attachment to the house itself. The Commission may find this standard to be met. (b) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a resource and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features shall be avoided when possible. The distinguishing original qualities or character of the existing home will not be destroyed by the proposed fence as the fence will be freestanding and will require no alteration to the building. The Commission may find this standard to be met. (c) All resources shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historic basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. The proposed fence will not create alterations that would result in an earlier appearance, as the fence is planned to be constructed of wood and in a typical contemporary fashion. The Commission may find this standard to be met. (d) Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a resource and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. This criteria is not relevant to the project as no alteration is proposed to the resource on the property. The Commission may find this standard to be met. (e) Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a resource shall be treated with sensitivity. No alteration to the existing structure is proposed, and staff finds that the proposed fence would not alter any stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize the resource. The Commission may find this standard to be met. (f) Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material 4 of 6 9 9 of 14 should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other resources. This criteria is not relevant as the proposed project does not entail any repairs to or replacement of any architectural features or material. The Commission may find this standard to be met. (g) The surface cleaning of resources shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic materials shall not be undertaken. Intensive cleaning application such as sand blasting will not be necessary for the project. The Commission may find this standard to be met. (h) Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by or adjacent to any project. As is typical with projects that involve any degree of digging, staff would recommend as a condition of approval that the discovery of any archaeological resources during the construction process be preserved and reported to the City of Battle Creek. (i) Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing resources shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historic, architectural or cultural material and when such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. Staff finds that the proposed privacy fence will not destroy any significant historic, architectural or cultural material. Further, the design of the proposed fence is generally compatible with the size, scale, material and character of the property, neighborhood, and environment. The Commission may find this standard to be met. (j) Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to resources shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the resource would not be impaired. 5 of 6  10 10 of 14 The proposed freestanding privacy fence could be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form or integrity of the existing building on the premises, nor the property as a whole. The Commission may find this standard to be met. Recommendation The proposed fence will provide additional privacy for the homeowner by preventing trespassers from traveling through the property, while resulting in minimal aesthetic change to the property from the street, nor any attachment or alteration to the existing structure. Based upon staff’s analysis of the application and site conditions, the proposal does comply with all standards outlined in Chapter 1470 Historic Preservation and is recommended for approval. As contained herein, staff does not find any conflict with Chapter 1470 Historic Preservation, the Michigan Local Historic Districts Act, or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Therefore, planning staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a new 6’ tall privacy fence in the side yard measuring approximately 18’ in length on the property at 178 Oaklawn Ave., as the request meets the standards outlined in Chapter 1470.09 “Review of Applications,” Chapter 1470.17 “Preservation of Historic Features” and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines, as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends the following condition of approval: a) Should any historically significant or archaeological resources be discovered during the course of construction, such resources shall be preserved by the applicant and reported to the City of Battle Creek. Support Material Historic District Commission Application Fence Permit Application 6 of 6 11 11 of 14 12 12 of 14 13 13 of 14 14 14 of 14