Historic District Commission

1 of 34 AGENDA Historic District Commission Meeting Date: Monday, April 8, 2024 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: March 11, 2024, March 18, 2024 5. Correspondence: 6. Old Business: A. Economic and Technical Feasibility, Undue Financial Hardship, Economic Hardship and Economically Feasible Plans 7. New Business: A. H04-24 (265 Capital Ave NE) A petition, filed by Real Renovations for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of a new privacy fence along the side yard and the replacement of the 4 ft fencing along Chestnut Street. Parcel #1640-00-062-0. B. 2024 1st Quarter Administrative Approval Report 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 of 34 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 10 North Division, Battle Creek, MI 49014 Minutes for Monday, March 11, 2024 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: By Chairperson Simpson at 4:13 p.m. ATTENDANCE: A roll call was taken: Comm. Simpson, Present Comm. Drozdowski, Absent Comm. Davis, Present Comm. Sallee, Absent Comm. Thornton, Present Comm. Steinbrunner, Absent QUARUM NOT MEET. Staff Present: Darcy Schmitt, Planning Supervisor, CJ Sivak-Schwennesen, City Planner, Melody Carlsen, Administrative Assistant, Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney. Commission and Staff Comments: Discussion was held to hold a “special meeting” to review and vote on the agenda items. Commissioner Simpson asked staff to poll members to hold a special meeting. COMMISSIONER THORNTON MADE A MOTION TO ADJOUN THE MEETING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DAVIS. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Simpson adjourned the meeting at 4:19 p.m. Submitted by: Melody Carlsen, Planning and Zoning Administrative Assistant 1  3 of 34 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING 10 North Division, Battle Creek, MI 49014 Minutes for Monday, March 18, 2024 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: By Chairperson Simpson at 4:02 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Roll call was taken: Comm. Simpson, Present Comm. Drozdowski, Absent Comm. Davis, Present Comm. Sallee, Present Comm. Thornton, Present Comm. Steinbrunner, Present Staff Present: Travis Sullivan, Planning Administrator, CJ Sivak-Schwennesen, City Planner, Melody Carlsen, Administrative Assistant, Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA: Removal of the Minutes. Minutes will be added to future agenda. CORRESPONDENCE: None. NEW BUSINESS: A. H02-24 (178 Manchester St) A petition, filed by Calhoun County Land Bank Authority for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a single family home located at the parcel. Parcel #3550-00-016-0. Staff Presentation: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen gave the staff report for H02-24 for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a home located at 178 Manchester St. with staff’s recommendation for the approval of this item. Applicant Presentation: Quinton Hay and Krista Trout Edwards of Calhoun County Land Bank were present to speak and answer questions from commissioners. Commissioner Question: Commissioner Simpson inquired to how long the Calhoun County Land Bank has owned the property and if there is funding for another project at the adjacent property. Commissioner Steinbrunner asked what will happen to the land once the house is demolished, if some of the architectural features will be saved and about splitting the land to balance out the parcels. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER THORNTON TO PRODEED WITH ITEM H02-24, FOR THE DEOMOLITION OF THE HOUSE ON 178 MANCHESTER ST. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEINBRUNNER. 1  4 of 34 A roll vote was taken: ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. B. H03-24 (28 Woodmer Lane) A petition, filed by Mark Thomas for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a hot tub/spa in the backyard. Parcel #5390-00-029-0. Staff Presentation: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen gave the staff report for H03-24 for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a hot tub with staff’s recommendation for approval. Applicant Presentation: Applicant was not present to speak. Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Steinbrunner asked if the applicant is going to build a structure around or above the hot tub, if neighbors or the Neighborhood Planning Commission had been notified and if there was an existing structure at the location the hot tub will be. Commissioner Davis asked if HOA or deed restrictions apply. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER THORNTON TO APPROVE H03-24, CERTIFICATE OF APPRORIATNESS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A HOT TUB/SPA WITH THE CONDITIONS STATED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEINBRUNNER. A roll vote was taken: ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. OLD BUSINESS: A. Historic District Commission Bylaws Amendment Staff Presentation: Travis Sullivan gave the staff report highlighting changes to the Bylaws Amendments. Commissioner Questions: Commissioner Simpson asked a clarifying question in regards to the markups and mentioned the word “said” that was not crossed out, as others were. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER STEINBRUNNER TO APPROVE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION BYLAWS AMENDMENTS. SECONNED BY COMMISSIONER SALLEE. A roll vote was taken: ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: None. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF: 2  5 of 34 Commissioner Steinbrunner asked about the window in the ceiling in the adjacent room on the third floor of City Hall. Commissioner Davis inquired to a previous item on an old agenda. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Simpson adjourned the meeting at 4:39 p.m. Submitted by: Melody Carlsen, Planning and Zoning Administrative Assistant 3  6 of 34 Battle Creek Historic District Commission Staff Report Staff Report Economic and Technical Feasibility Plans Meeting: February 12, 2024 To: Historic District Commission From: Travis Sullivan, Planning and Zoning Administrator Date: January 25, 2024 Subject: Economic and Technical Feasibility, Undue Financial Hardship, Economic Hardhship and Economically Feasible Plans Summary The Battle Creek Historic District Commission (HDC) was established by the City in 1981 for the purpose of safeguarding the heritage of the City and preserving Historic Districts and historic resources within the City which reflect significant historic, cultural, or architectural value. The HDC has recently reviewed a number of projects which, according to the strict letter of Chapter 1470 (Historic Preservation) as well as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, have experienced challenges in fulfilling each of the respective sets of requirements. Given these challenges, the HDC has maintained laudable consistency in balancing strict interpretation of the historic preservation standards with the practical realities of many of the application’s the body has reviewed over the years. However, Planning and Zoning staff recognize the necessity of providing for a codified approval process for projects of this nature in order to establish consistent standards, as well as creating a formal process for applicants seeking flexibility in the consideration of their project. Planning and zoning staff has spent the past month speaking with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as well the City of Grand Rapids in discussing their approach to addressing similar challenges. Based upon the information gathered, staff has drafted the Economic and Technical Feasibility, Undue Financial Hardship, Economic Hardship and Economically Feasible Plans policy attached to this report for consideration by the HDC. Recommendation Staff recommends that the HDC entertain a discussion regarding the proposed feasibility and hardship policy. Given the level of detail and complexities involved with a policy of this nature, staff recommends that the HDC provide feedback on the proposed document to be incorporated and presented for continued discussion and/or action at a future meeting.  7 of 34 Support Material Proposed Economic and Technical Feasibility, Undue Financial Hardship and Economically Feasible Plans policy 2 of 2  8 of 34 ECONOMIC & TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY, UNDUE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AND ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE PLANS Definitions Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) – Written approval of a permit application for work that is historically appropriate and does not adversely affect an historic resource. MCL 399.201a(b); Battle Creek City Code Chapter 1407, Section 1407.01(d). Notice to Proceed (NTP) –Written permission to issue a permit for work that is inappropriate and that adversely affects a resource, pursuant to a finding under Battle Creek City Code Chapter 1407 Section 1407.01(o) and MCL 399.205(6). Resource – One or more public or privately owned historic or non-historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, features, or open spaces located within a historic district. MCL 399.201a; City Code Title V, Ch. 68, § 5.393(18). Pertinent Laws • Michigan Local Historic Districts Act (LHDA), Public Act 169 of 1970 (MCL 399.201-215) • Battle Creek City Code, Chapter 1407 • United States Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards), 36 C.F.R. Part 67 • Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Takings Clause (a) Economic and technical feasibility: The Historic Commission (HDC or Commission) must apply the Standards and Guidelines to rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 36 C.F.R. § 67.7(b); Battle Creek City Code Section 1470.09(a) (b) Undue financial hardship: The HDC may issue a Notice to Proceed if it finds that: 1. Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a government action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owners control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include placing the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner. 2. The proposed work is necessary to substantially improve or correct the undue financial hardship. MCL 399.205(6)(c); Battle Creek City Code, Chapter 1470.09(e)(3) (c) Economic hardship: The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the Commission and City through the Fourteenth Amendment, states that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This precludes application of the Standards and Guidelines such that denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) imposes an economic hardship to the extent it deprives the owner of all reasonable beneficial use of, or return on, the property. U.S. Const., 5th Amend. (d) Economically feasible plan: If an application is for work that will adversely affect the exterior of a resource the Commission considers valuable to the City, State, or nation, and the Commission determines that the alteration or loss of that resource will adversely affect the 1|Page  9 of 34 public purpose of the city, State or nation, the Commission shall attempt to establish with the owner of the resource an economically feasible plan for preservation of the resource. MCL 399.205(5); Battle Creek City Code, Chapter 1470.15 Historic District Commission Considerations The Historic District Commission must consider the above legal principles in rendering its decisions. • Economic and technical feasibility are distinct concepts from financial and economic hardship. The Commission must consider both economic and technical feasibility in evaluating applications for Economically Feasible Plans and CoA’s. • Financial hardship, by contrast, may justify a Notice To Proceed for inappropriate work where retaining the resource would impose undue financial hardship on the owner through no fault of the owner. • Economic hardship, in turn, would arise where the denial of a CoA for work on an historic property in a way that may not strictly comply with the Standards and Guidelines but adheres to the intent of, would rise to the level of depriving the owner of all reasonable beneficial use of, or return on, the property. Compliance with the historic district Standards and Guidelines as well as the general maintenance and upkeep of the historic resources is the responsibility of the owner. Applicants seeking to claim hardship or infeasibility are strongly encouraged to consult with City Historic Preservation Staff prior to applying to ensure that all relevant application materials are submitted. Economic & Technical Feasibility and Economically Feasible Plans The City Code empowers the Commission to implement its obligation to apply the Standards and Guidelines in a reasonable manner, taking account of economic and technical feasibility, by authorizing it to establish with the owner an Economically Feasible Plan. The Plan must still meet the intent of the Standards and Guidelines through their reasonable application, if not strict adherence, and will thus support issuance of a CoA. All requests are heard on a case-by-case basis. Upon receipt of a completed CoA application packet, including supporting documents regarding the claim, the Commission will determine if sufficient evidence and information exists to warrant issuance of a CoA and an associated Economically Feasible Plan. Under such, the Commission may work with the applicant to create the Plan, they may adopt the proposed work as submitted by the applicant (as the Plan), they may create a completely new Plan of action or, they may modify the proposed Plan to bring it closer to compliance with the spirit and intent of the Standards and Guidelines. To issue a CoA through an Economically Feasible Plan, the Commission must find that the work is appropriate and will not adversely affect the resource. Should the Commission find that the request does not qualify for a CoA as presented, the Commission may deny the request, deny portions of the request and approve other portions, modify, or table to allow the applicant time to revise the request to bring it in line with the Standards and Guidelines for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness through an Economically Feasible Plan. Economic Feasibility While the Commission considers similar factors in evaluating economic feasibility and undue financial hardship, they support different outcomes. Economic infeasibility can be overcome through an 2|Page  10 of 34 Economically Feasible Plan that supports a CoA to proceed with work consistent with the intent of, if not strict compliance with, the Standards and Guidelines, whereas undue financial hardship can support a Notice to Proceed with work that is inappropriate and adversely affects a resource. Economic infeasibility requires the Commission to find that the applicant has met the burden of proof to illustrate that strict adherence to the standards and guidelines (often in-kind replacement) is economically and/or technically infeasible. If the Commission makes this finding, it shall work with the owner to create an Economically Feasible Plan that, although is not necessarily in-kind, still reasonably meets the intent of the Standards and Guidelines and implement that Plan through a CoA. To establish economic infeasibility for specific proposed restoration work in a rehabilitation project, the owner must demonstrate: • Significantly greater expense necessitated to meet strict adherence to the standards and guidelines (often in-kind replacement of traditional materials when compared to modern counterparts); and/or • Unavailability of any reasonable, historically correct preservation methodology. Cates v Adrian Historic District Commission, State Hist. Pres. Rev. Bd., Nov. 16, 2001 (Docket No. 01- 223-HP). Technical Feasibility Technical infeasibility occurs when any reasonable, historically correct, strict adherence to the Guidelines and Standards is not possible because of an inability to obtain materials and/or skill set. When this occurs a plan for an economically feasible alternative shall be considered. Such plan shall still reasonably adhere to and meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation as well as the Local Guidelines and thus support a Certificate of Appropriateness. Examples of Economic Infeasibility and Technical Infeasibility (a) Example: House is clad in historic asbestos tile siding; the product is no longer made and thus strict adherence to a historically correct preservation method for repairing and/or replacing this deteriorated feature is not technically feasible. 1. With the material no longer available, strict adherence is technically infeasible and economic feasibility becomes irrelevant. Review moves to proposed alternative(s). 2. The alternative(s) must reasonably meet preservation methodology and, comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the City’s Preservation Guidelines, considering the features and character of the historic resource and surrounding historic district. 3. In such instances, a Certificate of Appropriateness would be issued based on an Economically Feasible Plan, which will outline the technical infeasibility issue(s) and proposed alternative(s). (b) Example: A house is clad in a special stone “flick” style of stucco and needs repair/replacement in whole or in part. Research found no craftsperson with the skill set to recreate this style of stucco. It would thus be technically infeasible to meet strict adherence to preservation methodology as the skills are unavailable. In addition, or alternatively, in-kind replacement maybe economically infeasible if craftsperson(s) are available but not within a feasible distance. 3|Page  11 of 34 1. With the skill set unavailable, such requests are viewed for alternate finishes that will reasonably meet preservation methodology consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the City’s Preservation Guidelines and considering the features and character of the historic resource and surrounding historic district. 2. In such instances, a Certificate of Appropriateness would be issued based on an Economically Feasible Plan, which identifies the infeasibility issues and proposed alternative(s). (c) Example: The historic slate roof on a house is past its life expectancy and beyond repair, needing full replacement. Investigation of options finds that an in-kind replacement that meets the strict adherence of preservation methodology is available, but the cost was found to be economically infeasible. 1. In such instances, the Commission would review the financial information presented by the owner related to the economics of the property as well as its ability to continue use, etc. Should the Commission find that requiring strict adherence to the standards and guidelines would be economically infeasible, it moves on to review alternative(s). 2. An alternative must reasonably meet preservation methodology, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the City’s Preservation Guidelines and considering the features and character of the historic resource and surrounding historic district. Is there an economically feasible alternative roofing material that can sufficiently mimic the historic roofing material or a new design/material that is appropriate considering the historic character of the resource? Through this discussion, an Economically Feasible Plan would be created. 3. In such instances a Certificate of Appropriateness would be issued based on findings related to the economic infeasibility (as it pertains to the property and not personal finances of the owner/applicant), and the Economically Feasible Plan which identifies an appropriate alternative. Economically Feasible Plan The Commission and property owner shall attempt to establish an Economically Feasible Plan for preservation of a resource where strict adherence to the Standards and Guidelines is tempered by the Commission’s obligation to apply them reasonably, considering both economic and technical feasibility. An Economically Feasible Plan is utilized in combination with a Certificate of Appropriateness, or CoA, as long as it reasonably meets the intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, maintains the preservation of basic form and rhythms, and does not adversely affect the overall integrity of the subject resource, historic district or, landmark. All requests are heard on a case-by-case basis. Upon receipt of a completed CoA application packet, including supporting documents regarding the claim, the Commission will determine if sufficient evidence and information exists to warrant issuance of a CoA. Should the request fail to meet strict adherence to the Standards and Guidelines, but sufficiently illustrates the existence of either technical or economic infeasibility the Commission shall attempt to develop an Economically Feasible Plan with the owner. The final plan would be adopted by issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). The Plan may be the proposed work as submitted by the applicant, it may be a new plan created by the Commission, or the Commission may modify the applicants proposed plan to bring it into compliance with the spirit and intent of the Standards and Guidelines. 4|Page  12 of 34 Review of an Economically Feasible Plan When reviewing requests that might qualify for an Economically Feasible Plan, the Commission may consider, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Has the applicant shown the issue was not self-created? (Example: The applicant claims it is too costly to replace the siding in a manner that meets the standards, but the failing condition of the siding is a result of the owner’s lack of maintenance over time—this is a self-created issue.) Failure to maintain the property in good repair shall not be basis for economic infeasibility. (b) Reducing property expenses or maximizing profitability is not economic infeasibility. (c) Has the applicant provided clear evidence that the issue exists and that this is the only means by which to address it? What other alternatives to address/correct the issue have been explored and why would they not be effective or feasible? Are there smaller, appropriate, corrections that can be undertaken immediately? Can corrections be phased over time to minimize the financial impact? (d) If the applicant is claiming that appropriate work would create economic infeasibility, the applicant must provide the Commission with appropriate information to justify that determination. This may include proof that other means of financial assistance have been researched and exhausted. Had the applicant: 1. Investigated assistance programs? 2. Supplied sufficient information and documentation to support the need for the work and exploration and exhaustion of alternatives? 3. Supplied sufficient information and documentation to support proof of economic infeasibility? (e) Will the cost of compliance exceed the assessed value of the property? Would there be a substantial decrease in fair market value or pretax or after-tax return on the property if the Commission denies a CoA. (f) Is the information submitted relevant, credible, and consistent? (g) Will the economic impact of denial raise to the level of economic infeasibility? 1. Review of expenditures alone will not provide a complete or accurate picture of economic impact. 2. Regarding income producing properties, impact is generally measured by looking at the effect of a particular course of action on a property’s overall value and return. This allows the Commission to focus on the bottom line. 3. Would the fair market value of the property in its current condition plus rehabilitation expenditures exceed the fair market value of the house upon rehabilitation? (h) Investment backed expectations for home ownership often presume that investment in home improvements or renovations is done without expectation of recouping the full cost of the improvement in the form of increased property value. 5|Page  13 of 34 Basic Discussion Points: • What is the character-defining features that are essential to the property? • What is the issue? • Is the issue self-created? • Is the work, as proposed, needed? • Have all avenues/alternatives to correct the issue in a manner that qualifies for a CoA without an Economically Feasible Plan been explored and exhausted? • Has sufficient information to support claims been submitted? Does technical or economic infeasibility exist? • Does the request maintain compliance with the intent and spirit of the Guidelines and Standards? In all instances, the burden of proof for all claims is with the applicant. Interpretation and determinations are at the sole discretion of the Commission. Should the Commission grant approval, it shall take the form of a CoA. Application Submittal Requirements for Technical & Economic Infeasibility: (a) Provide a written and photographic description describing the following: 1. Complete description of work proposed. 2. Is the work time sensitive to avoid damage to the structure or can work be phased? 3. Cost of work using required materials vs Cost using proposed alternative material. 4. Supporting photographs and when needed, drawings. (b) Minimum of two (2) quotes from reputable contractors/crafts-persons and professionals with established experience with historic structures, that illustrates and estimates expenses and methodology proposed to correct the issue in strict adherence to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and City’s Guidelines. Alternatively, provide evidence such as e-mail correspondence showing that the contractor was unwilling or unable to quote the job. (c) Minimum of two (2) quotes and reports from reputable contractors/crafts-persons and professionals with established experience with historic structures, that illustrate and estimate expenses and alternative methods proposed for an Economically Feasible Plan. (d) Exploration of assistance programs, including why such programs, if available, are not viable options. Examples of possible programs/assistance: 1. Rehab Loans 2. Lead Programs 3. Project Rehab 4. Tax Credits (e) Information and documentation to support proof of technical infeasibility, the unavailability of historically correct preservation methodology to mitigate the issue and the results of that investigation, i.e., in-kind replacement of a contributing historic feature. 1. Is the material/product and/or skill set not available? (f) Information and documentation to support proof of economic infeasibility such as: 6|Page  14 of 34 1. Property value. Recent assessed value of the land and improvements, market value, any appraisals done within last 2 years. 2. Property purchase information. 3. Income made from property. E.g., financial documents from the last 2 years, annual gross income from the property, itemized operating and expenses for the property, real estate tax statements, proof of annual debt service, mortgage balance and terms, annual cash flow and any federal income tax deductions or depreciation claimed for the property. 4. Property tax returns for the last 2 years or similar documentation to illustrate value of land, benefits or income from land and expenses. 7|Page  15 of 34 Battle Creek Historic District Commission Staff Report 265 NE Capital Ave Staff Report Meeting: April 8, 2024 To: Historic District Commission From: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen Date: March 28, 2024 Subject: The petition, filed by Real Renovations on behalf of Joseph Rocha (265 NE Capital Ave), is for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed installation of a new privacy fence and the replacement of existing fencing. Summary Staff recommends a partial approval of the subject petition at 265 NE Capital Ave., as the proposed replacement of the existing wrought iron fence facing NE Capital Ave does not 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. This aspect of work should not be approved as it destroys the wrought iron fence without adequate consideration for its historic and aesthetic significance. Figure 1: Red pin on aerial points to subject site (265 NE Capital Ave). Photo courtesy of Google Maps.  16 of 34 Site & History The subject site is located at 265 NE Capital Ave between Chestnut St and Orchard Pl within the Old Maple Street local historic district. The subject property consists of a 5,148 sq. ft. two-story single-family home constructed in 1865. The home currently has a fence on the frontage of the property on Capital Ave and Chestnut St. Previous requests for Certificates of Appropriateness for this resource include a repair of the roof in 2023, the construction of a new garage in 2023, and the replacement of windows and siding as well as the repair of sidewalk in 2007. All requests were approved. In 2011, a Notice to Proceed was approved for the demolition of the original carriage house. Figure 2 provides a view of the home from the street, captured in August 2023 with Google Street View. Figure 2: Street view of the subject site at 265 NE Capital Ave., August 2023. Photo courtesy of Google Street View. Summary of Request The applicant has filed the subject HDC Certificate of Appropriateness application for multiple types of fencing work at the subject property, 265 NE Capital Ave. Figure 3 demonstrates the various types of work and their location on the subject property. The proposed work can be broken into four types: Installation of a New Privacy Fence (Orange), Installation of a New Chain Link Fence (Teal), Replacement of an Existing Chain Link Fence (Red), and Replacement of an Existing Wrought Iron Fence (Pink). The proposed privacy fence would be 6’ white vinyl and abuts the property at 285 NE Capital Ave, which is also owned by the applicant. The proposed chain link fence would be 4’ and black. In the Pink section, the applicant stated that he intends to replace damaged wrought iron panels in the Green section after its replacement with chain link fencing. 2 of 8  17 of 34 Figure 3: Breakdown of the proposed fencing work at 265 NE Capital Avenue. Applicable HDC Guidelines and Analysis for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Window Replacements at 265 NE Capital Ave. This property is reviewed in accordance with City of Battle Creek Building and Housing Code Chapter 1470 "Historic Preservation", as amended, the Michigan 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 of 8  18 of 34 (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 majority of the proposed fencing work at the subject property will not require a significant alteration to the existing structure or site, excluding the Pink section. This section is a complete replacement of the existing wrought iron fence without providing documentation that highlights the infeasibility of replacing with an in-kind material and in-kind techniques. The replacement of existing chain link in the Red section does not pose this same concern because it is an in-kind replacement that will enhance the aesthetics of the property by making the chain link fencing more aesthetically similar to the existing wrought iron. The proposed installation of the privacy fence in the Orange section does not require significant alteration to the existing structure or site. The openness between the subject property and the abutting 285 NE Capital Ave would not be considered a significant aspect of the environment nor would it limit the use of the resource or site in any significant way. The Commission may find this standard to not be met for the replacement of the existing wrought iron with chain link. The Commission may find this standard to be met for the rest of the body of proposed work. (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. Staff finds that the proposed work in the Pink section constitutes the destruction of a distinguishing quality or character of the site. This destruction can be avoided through in-kind material replacement, in-kind material repair, or an aesthetic match in a different material subject to review by staff and the Historic District Commission. The applicant has not presented these alternatives to preserve the existing wrought iron fence. 4 of 8  19 of 34 Staff finds that the proposed installation of the 6’ white vinyl privacy fence (Orange) and new sections of the 4’ black chain link (Teal) will not be destroying the original quality or character of the existing structure. This replacement will not be removing or altering any historic material or distinctive architectural features already existing on the sites. The replacement of existing chain link (Red) similarly is not removing or altering any distinguishing original qualities on the site. The Commission may find this standard to not be met for the replacement of the existing wrought iron with chain link. The Commission may find this standard to be met for the rest of the body of proposed work. (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. Staff finds that the proposed scope of work does not seek to create an earlier appearance. The use of modern materials like chain link and vinyl does not recreate any other historic fencing style. Similarly, the replacement of existing wrought iron with chain link does not restore the property to an earlier historic design. 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. Staff finds that the proposed scope of work does not endanger any changes to the property that have acquired significance since the original construction of the home. The placement of the fencing either is maintained in the case of replacement or is in kind with what would be expected from fencing in the case of new installation as seen in the Teal and Orange sections. 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. Staff finds that the Pink section does treat the existing wrought iron fence with less sensitivity than it is due. The proposed replacement of damaged panels in the Green section with those being removed from the Red section does demonstrate an awareness of the significance of the existing wrought iron fence as well as a sensitivity its appearance and maintenance of the resource that staff would like to recognize. 5 of 8  20 of 34 Staff finds that the proposed installation of the 6’ white vinyl privacy fence does not impact any distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship present on the structure. The proposed plan of work does not alter or replace any stylistic features. Further, the installation of new chain link fencing as in the Teal sections would not impact any distinctive or stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship present on the site. The Commission may find this standard to not be met for the replacement of the existing wrought iron with chain link. The Commission may find this standard to be met for the rest of the body of proposed work. (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 proposed replacement of the existing fence with 4’ chain link fencing does not seek to recreate the features present on the existing fence, which is a metal fence with uprights and small decorative features on the posts. This exterior fence could likely be replaced with an in-kind or aesthetically similar fence given the availability of decorative metal fencing in the modern era. Chain link fencing would be a significant departure aesthetically from the current fence. Repair of damaged fence segments could be possible, depending on the availability of material and craft to individually replace segments and uprights as needed. However, this pathway was not proposed by the applicant. The proposed 6’ white vinyl privacy fence will be located in the side yard abutting 285 NE Capital Ave. It is not replacing any existing fencing or deteriorating architectural feature. The Commission may find this standard to not be met for the replacement of the existing wrought iron fencing with chain link fencing. The Commission may find this standard to be met for the rest of the body of proposed work. (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. Staff is unaware of any surface cleaning methods needed for this project. Nonetheless, staff recommends a condition of approval that the use of sandblasting or other damaging cleaning methods not be used. (h) Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by or adjacent to any project. 6 of 8  21 of 34 Staff recommends a condition of approval that if any archaeological resources are discovered in the course of installation that the applicant contact 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. The proposed expansion of fencing largely does not destroy significant historic, architectural, or cultural material nor are they incompatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property and surrounding neighborhood. The replacement of the existing wrought iron fence with 4’ black chain link fence along NE Capital Ave where indicated on the aerial imagery may be considered to destroy a significant architectural material. However, staff considers that the overall color and scale of the fencing will be preserved, as well as other sections of the wrought iron fence are intended to be repaired during the replacement process. The small proportion of the replacement and maintenance of the size and scale lead staff to believe that this is not a significant destruction. The Commission may find this standard to not be met for the replacement of the existing wrought iron with chain link. The Commission may find this standard to be met for the rest of the body of proposed work. (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. Neither fence is considered an addition or alteration to the resource that would damage the essential form and integrity of the structure or lot. The Commission may find this standard to be met. Recommendation The applicant’s proposed scope of work at 265 NE Capital Ave is expected to, in part, significantly negatively impact the site’s historic-era design and architectural significance. The replacement of the existing wrought iron with 4’ black chain link without consideration of repair of the existing resource or, in the case of this being impossible due to the standards set forth by the Secretary of the Interior, an in-kind replacement, does not comply with the standards outlined in Chapter 1470 Historic Preservation and should be approved. As contained herein, staff is not aware of any issues that the Commission might find in conflict with Chapter 1470 Historic Preservation, the Michigan Local Historic Districts Act, or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. 7 of 8  22 of 34 The installation of the new sections of 4’ black chain link fence, in-kind replacement of the chain link fence, and the new 6’ white vinyl privacy fence do not significantly negatively impact the building’s historic era design and architectural significance. The new chain link sections of fencing will mimic the color and scale of the existing wrought iron fence. Given this, staff recommends that the proposed scope of work be approved with exception of the replacement of the existing wrought iron fencing on the NE Capital Ave frontage. As contained herein, staff is not aware of any issues that the Commission might find with the remaining scope of work in 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 proposed replacement and installation of 4’ black chain link and 6’ white vinyl privacy fence at 265 NE Capital 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, with the following conditions: • Any archaeological or historically significant resources discovered during the construction process be preserved and reported to the City of Battle Creek. • Sandblasting and similarly harsh surface cleaning be avoided if they are used during the construction process. • Approval shall exclude the proposed section of fencing involving the replacement of wrought iron fencing with 4’ black chain link fencing as it does not meet 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. Support Material Historic District Commission Application Aerial Imagery of Proposed Work Site Plan 8 of 8 23 of 34 24 of 34  25 of 34 Orange: New 6’ White Vinyl Privacy Fence Teal: New 4’ Black Chain Link Fence Pink: Existing Wrought Iron Replaced with 4’ Black Chain Link Red: Existing Chain Link Replaced with 4’ Black Chain Link Green: Existing Wrought Iron  26 of 34 Battle Creek Historic District Commission Staff Report Staff Report Administrative Approval Quarterly Report Meeting: April 8, 2024 To: Historic District Commission From: Travis Sullivan, Planner Date: March 28, 2024 Subject: Quarterly reporting of all minor classes of work approved administratively in any of the local historic districts, as required by Section 1470.10 (Delegation of Authority) Summary Section 1470.10 of the City of Battle Creek Code of Ordinances requires that the Historic Commission review, on at least a quarterly basis, the certificates of appropriateness, if any, issued for work by the authorities delegated pursuant to Section 1470.10 to determine whether or not the delegated responsibility should be continued. Given this requirement, staff has provided in this packet an inventory of each certificate of appropriateness issued for a minor class as specified by resolution of the Commission adopted on April 18, 2019. Such certificates were issued during the first quarter of the year 2024. 2023 Quarter 4 Administrative Approvals 1. 69 Walter Ave. – Approval for the like-for-like reroofing of the building located at 69 Walter Ave. 2. 11 Hazel St. – Approval for the like-for-like reroofing of the building located at 11 Hazel St. 3. 135 W Manchester St. – Approval of the like-for-like replacement of the porch facing Kendall St (side porch). 4. 25 W Michigan Ave. – Approval for the installation of a new security drop box and ATM machine in accordance with a change in use of this portion of the building to a new credit union. This item has been reviewed by the State Office of Historic Preservation and has been forwarded to the National Park Service with no concerns. Support Material HDC Minor Class of Work Resolution 69 Walter Ave. Certificate of Approval 11 Hazel St. Certificate of Approval 135 W Manchester St. Certificate of Approval 25 W Michigan Ave. Certificate of Approval and Supporting Documentation  27 of 34 2 of 2  28 of 34 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DE PART MENT – PLANNING & ZONING 01/03/24 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL 69 Walter Ave. Petition submitted by Hunt for Home Construction on behalf of Gloria Quick for the like-for- like (asphalt shingles for asphalt shingles) reroofing of the building located at 69 Walter Ave. Hunt for Home Construction 3720 Adam St. ?????????? Sent via email to: ramon@huntforhome.com By authority given by the Historic District Commission of the City of Battle Creek Planning Department, staff may review applications for approval on minor renovations on behalf of the Historic District Commission of the City of Battle Creek. By decision of the Planner, your request to reroof the building located at 69 Walter Ave with materials matching the existing roofing (asphalt shingles for asphalt shingles), as described in the Minor Class of Work application you submitted meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings for property located at 69 Walter Ave. has been APPROVED as submitted with the stipulation that it meets City Code. Note: Historic District Commission only requires approval of exterior renovations. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Travis Sullivan, Planner at 966-3320 ext 1506. Sincerely, HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BATTLE CREEK Travis Sullivan By Direction of the Chairperson CC. Building Inspections ________________________________________________________ 10 N. Division St., Suite #117/ Battle Creek, MI 49014 Phone: (269) 966-3320 / Web Site: www.battlecreekmi.gov  29 of 34 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DE PART MENT – PLANNING & ZONING 01/30/24 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL 11 Hazel St. Petition submitted by Precision Roofing Services on behalf of Robert Woodford for the like- for-like (asphalt shingles for asphalt shingles) reroofing of the building located at 11 Hazel St. Precision Roofing Services 319 Clinton St. Lansing, MI 48906 Sent via email to: anelson@precisionroofingmi.com By authority given by the Historic District Commission of the City of Battle Creek Planning Department, staff may review applications for approval on minor renovations on behalf of the Historic District Commission of the City of Battle Creek. By decision of the Planner, your request to reroof the building located at 11 Hazel St with materials matching the existing roofing (asphalt shingles for asphalt shingles), as described in the Minor Class of Work application you submitted meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings for property located at 69 Walter Ave. has been APPROVED as submitted with the stipulation that it meets City Code. Note: Historic District Commission only requires approval of exterior renovations. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Travis Sullivan, Planner at 966-3320 ext 1506. Sincerely, HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BATTLE CREEK Travis Sullivan By Direction of the Chairperson CC. Building Inspections ________________________________________________________ 10 N. Division St., Suite #117/ Battle Creek, MI 49014 Phone: (269) 966-3320 / Web Site: www.battlecreekmi.gov  30 of 34 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DE PART MENT – PLANNING & ZONING 02/15/24 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL 135 W Manchester St. Petition submitted by Samuel Barber on behalf of Neighborhoods Inc. of Battle Creek for the like-for-like replacement of the porch facing Kendall St. (side porch). Samuel Barber 31251 56th Ave. Paw Paw, MI 49079 Sent via email to: sbarber@cardinalrestorationcorp.com By authority given by the Historic District Commission of the City of Battle Creek Planning Department, staff may review applications for approval on minor renovations on behalf of the Historic District Commission of the City of Battle Creek. By decision of the Planner, your request to replace in a like-for-like manner the porch facing Kendall St. located at 135 Manchester St. with materials and design matching the previous porch which was destroyed, as described in the Minor Class of Work application you submitted meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings for property located at 135 W Manchester St. has been APPROVED as submitted with the stipulation that it meets City Code. Note: Historic District Commission only requires approval of exterior renovations. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Travis Sullivan, Planner at 966-3320 ext 1506. Sincerely, HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BATTLE CREEK Travis Sullivan By Direction of the Chairperson CC. Building Inspections ________________________________________________________ 10 N. Division St., Suite #117/ Battle Creek, MI 49014 Phone: (269) 966-3320 / Web Site: www.battlecreekmi.gov  31 of 34 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DE PART MENT – PLANNING & ZONING 03/25/24 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL 25 W Michigan Ave. Petition submitted by Cody Newman on behalf of Mark Harmsen for the installation of a new security drop box and ATM machine in accordance with a change in use of this portion of the building to a new credit union location. Cody Newman 117 W Michigan Ave. Battle Creek, MI 49017 Sent via email to: cody@drivendesignstudio.com By authority given by the Historic District Commission of the City of Battle Creek Planning Department, staff may review applications for approval on minor renovations on behalf of the Historic District Commission of the City of Battle Creek. By decision of the Planner, your request to install a new security drop box and ATM machine in accordance with a change in use to this portion of the building to a new credit union location, as described in the Minor Class of Work application you submitted meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings for property located at 25 W Michigan Ave has been APPROVED as submitted with the stipulation that it meets City Code. This item has been reviewed without concern by the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) and forwarded to the National Park Service for consideration. Note: Historic District Commission only requires approval of exterior renovations. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Travis Sullivan, Planner at 966-3320 ext 1506. Sincerely, HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BATTLE CREEK Travis Sullivan By Direction of the Chairperson ________________________________________________________ 10 N. Division St., Suite #117/ Battle Creek, MI 49014 Phone: (269) 966-3320 / Web Site: www.battlecreekmi.gov  32 of 34 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DE PART MENT – PLANNING & ZONING CC. Building Inspections ________________________________________________________ 10 N. Division St., Suite #117/ Battle Creek, MI 49014 Phone: (269) 966-3320 / Web Site: www.battlecreekmi.gov 33 of 34 34 of 34