Historic District Commission

1 1 of 23 AGENDA Historic District Commission Meeting Date: Monday, September 11, 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: 5. Correspondence: 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: H09-23 (86 Oaklawn Avenue) Petition from property owner of 86 Oaklawn Avenue, Joy Brown, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for restoration and/or replacement of front porch decking, front and storm doors, windows, replacement of back porch, and repair of basement brick wall, as well as various additional external repairs and replacements. Parcel #3550-00-053-0. 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 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 23 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 10 North Division, Battle Creek, MI 49014 Minutes for Monday, August 14, 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. Newman, Present Comm. Simpson, Present Comm. Drozdowski, Present Comm. Davis, Present Comm. Sallee, Present Comm. Thornton, Present Comm. Steinbrunner, Present Staff Present: Susan Cronander, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Melody Carlsen, Administrative Assistant, Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of July 10, 2023 minutes. MOTION MADE BY COMM. DROZDOWSKI TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR JULY 10, 2023. SECONDED BY COMM. THORNTON. A vote was taken and all those in favor to say “aye”: ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. CORRESPONDENCE: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: A. H08-23 (178 Oaklawn Ave) Petition for a Certificate of Appropriateness, 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. Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Newman asked if the fence next door to 178 Oaklawn Ave. has a fence permit. Commissioner Steinbrunner inquired about a picket style fence down the street and why one would be allowed to have a 6’ privacy fence or picket style fence. Public Comment: None. 1  3 3 of 23 MOTION MADE BY COMM. SIMPSON TO APPROVE ITEM #H08-23, COMMISSIONER, SECONDED BY COMM. DROZDOWSKI. A roll vote was taken: ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: None. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF: Susan Cronander informed the Board that she will be leaving the City of Battle Creek for employment elsewhere. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Newman adjourned the meeting at 4:12 p.m. Submitted by: Melody Carlsen, Planning and Zoning Administrative Assistant 2  4 4 of 23 Battle Creek Historic District Commission Staff Report Staff Report 86 Oaklawn Ave. Meeting: September 11, 2023 To: Historic District Commission From: Travis Sullivan, Planner Date: September 1, 2023 Subject: The petition, filed by Ms. Linda Joy Brown of 86 Oaklawn Ave., is for various repairs and replacements of deteriorated external features of the house. Summary Staff recommends approval of the subject petition at 86 Oaklawn Ave., as the proposed exterior repairs and replacements meet 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 (86 Oaklawn Ave.) located within the local Old Advent Town Historic District. Photo courtesy of Google Maps.  5 5 of 23 Site & History The subject site is located at 86 Oaklawn Ave. at the northwest corner of Oaklawn Ave. and Howland St. within the Old Advent Town local historic district. The home on the site was constructed in 1910 with an area of 3,170 sq. ft. and is currently in use as a single-family residence. The building is a 2 ½-story single-family home consisting of a brick façade on the ground floor with wood shingle siding on the upper levels, with a prominent upper-level turret on the side of the home facing Oaklawn Ave. A covered porch exists long the same side of the home and just below the turret, notably still supported by the original stone and wood columns extending from grade to the porch’s ceiling. Roofing material on the home consists of contemporary asphalt shingles. Figure 2: Street view of the subject site at 86 Oaklawn Ave. facing north, September 2023. Photo courtesy of City of Battle Creek staff. 2 of 8  6 6 of 23 Summary of Request The applicant has filed the subject HDC Certificate of Appropriateness application for the restoration and/or replacement of the following items:  Front porch decking, stairs, railing and banisters The applicant is proposing to replace the deteriorated existing porch decking with tongue and groove cedar boards. Additionally, the applicant is proposing the replacement of the stairs, railing and banisters associated with the front porch. Many of these features are no longer present on the existing porch, and as such, staff would recommend that the replacement of these features replicate as closely as possible the aesthetic represented in the historical photo of the building from the Willard Library collection included in this staff report (bearing in mind that all railing, banisters, balusters, and skirting will also need to meet current requirements of the State Residential Code). The applicant has supplied a photo of what the reconstruction would look like, with new steps up to the porch being constructed as well as a paved walkway leading from the sidewalk to the steps.  Roofline The applicant states that the roofline along the rear porch area is badly deteriorated as a result of work done by a previous owner. The applicant intends to reconstruct the original roofline with materials matching the existing.  Replacement of the front door and storm door The applicant has a custom-made oak replacement door on order which matches the existing door, and will require no alteration to the height or width of the entryway. The storm door will likely be constructed of contemporary materials (the Commission may wish to seek further information from the applicant regarding material composition).  Replacement of all but two storm windows The existing storm windows on the home appear to be of a metal material. The applicant is proposing the replacement of the damaged storm windows (all but two) with new storm windows constructed of a contemporary material. The Commission may wish to seek specifics regarding the existing and proposed replacement materials with regard to the storm windows.  Replacement of the 2nd floor decorative porch Visible in the historical photo of the building is a porch on the second floor nearest to the corner of Oaklawn St. and Howland Ave. The original porch is no longer present on the home, and the applicant is proposing its replacement with materials and design matching the original as closely as possible (or as closely as can be determined, which will likely include similar materials for the both the decking and the railing/balusters as the will be used for the front porch on the main level).  Replacement of the back porch The back of the home has fallen into a state of significant disrepair, and the back porch is in need of complete replacement. The applicant intends to the replace the porch with materials matching the existing.  Replacement of the kitchen window (over the sink) The Commission may wish to seek clarification from the applicant regarding the location of this window, as well as whether the new window will be of the same size and dimensions. As with other items, the applicant is proposing like for like replacements where possible.  Repair of the exterior door to the kitchen The Commission may wish to seek clarification from the applicant regarding where this door is located as well specifics regarding what the repair will entail. 3 of 8  7 7 of 23  Repair of the brick wall and a hole in the basement wall Photographs supplied by the applicant show a deteriorated brick wall along the back porch area. The Commission may wish to seek clarification from the applicant regarding the proposed repairs, although it appears likely that repairs will consist simply of the replacement of missing bricks and the structural solidification of the wall. Additionally, the applicant has included a “wish list” of items she would like to complete in the future. This list includes the following:  Replacement of the shingle siding The existing siding on the home is of a cedar shingle material. The applicant intends to the replace the siding in the future with matching cedar shingles.  Replacement of the garage (with a smaller one) The applicant would like to replace the garage that once existed on the site (destroyed by a fire) in the future with a smaller garage. The previous garage was located toward the rear of the property (relative to Oaklawn Ave). Detached garages of a similar nature exist immediately adjacent to and in the area generally surrounding the subject property, and a proposed detached garage would not be out of character in this neighborhood. Staff would recommend that with regard to the garage, the applicant provide plans when an exact design has been determined for further consideration by the Historic District Commission.  Replacement of the side driveway (off of Howland St) The applicant’s proposal to replace of the existing cracked concrete driveway off of Howland St with a period appropriate option would seem desirable, although the Commission may wish to seek more information from the applicant regarding specifics of the proposed materials.  Removal of the front driveway The existing front driveway (off of Oaklawn Ave.) currently consists of approximately 10-12 feet of broken concrete, with a deteriorated concrete apron connecting the driveway to the road right-of-way. The Commission may wish to seek more specifics from the applicant regarding future plans for the area, although simple removal of the existing driveway and/or replacement with a more eco-friendly option would likely be viewed as beneficial to the aesthetic character of the subject property. The applicant intends to repair original features when possible, and replace features that are excessively deteriorated with materials matching the originals. Applicable HDC Guidelines and Analysis for a Certificate of Appropriateness for various repairs and replacements of deteriorated external features of the house. 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: 4 of 8  8 8 of 23 (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. Staff finds that the resource, in its existing condition, is in significant need of repair and restoration. The proposed renovations would, in staff’s opinion, be the minimum alteration necessary to return the resource to not only a habitable state, but also one in which the historical character of the resource is maintained and/or returned. 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 resource and its environment will not be destroyed as a result of the proposed renovations. The applicant’s proposed renovations are intended to maintain or restore historic material and distinctive architectural features, and would help to restore the resource to a state much closer to its original. 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. 5 of 8 9 9 of 23 The proposed renovations will not create alterations that would result in an earlier appearance. All renovations proposed by the applicant are intended to repair or restore the defining original historical characteristics of the resource. 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. Any changes to the home which may have taken place in the course of time, based upon historical photographs of the resource, can be attributed to gradual degradation, and not changes that may have acquired significance in their own right. 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. All proposed renovations are intended to restore or replace any stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize the resource that have deteriorated over the years. 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 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. The applicant is proposing the repair of architectural features where possible (front porch decking, stairs, railing and banisters, roof line, brick wall along the rear of the building). The Commission may wish to seek clarification from the applicant, but based upon the application provided, the applicant appears to be attempting to repair as many features of the resource as possible. Should they be satisfied with clarification from the applicant, 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. 6 of 8  10 10 of 23 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 applicant is attempting to repair as many features of the resource as possible, and where repairs are no longer possible, is seeking to replace deteriorated features with materials that match the existing or original. Further, any contemporary materials that may be used would be of such a nature (storm windows and storm doors) that such alterations would not destroy significant historic, architectural or cultural material and would be compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or 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. The proposed renovations are intended to restore the essential form and integrity of the resource to a condition resembling its original stature as closely as possible. Should any new materials or features be removed in the future, it is unlikely that the essential form and integrity of the resource would be impaired. The Commission may find this standard to be met. Recommendation The applicant’s proposed renovations seek to return the resource as closely as possible to its original form and historical character. 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 7 of 8  11 11 of 23 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 proposed exterior renovations at 86 Oaklawn Ave., as the request meets the standards outlined in Section 1470.09 “Review of Applications,” Section 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. b) Should the applicant wish to replace the detached garage which previously existed on the site in the future, a new application to the Historic District Commission should be filed with detailed plans for the proposed building. Approval of the current application (H09- 23) should not be viewed as an approval of a future detached garage in concept. Support Material Historic District Commission Application Supplemental Photographs 8 of 8 12 12 of 23 13 13 of 23 14 14 of 23 15 15 of 23 16 16 of 23 17 17 of 23 18 18 of 23 19 19 of 23 20 20 of 23 Historical photo courtesy of Willard Library collection. Date of photo unknown. 21 21 of 23 Street view of the property from seen from Oaklawn Ave taken by City of Battle Creek staff, September 1, 2023. 22 22 of 23 Side view of the property seen from Howland St taken by City staff, September 1, 2023. 23 23 of 23 View of the driveway off of Howland St taken by City staff, September 1, 2023.