Historic District Commission

1 of 20 AGENDA Historic District Commission Meeting Date: Monday, May 13, 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: April 8, 2024 5. Correspondence: 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. H05-24 (265 Capital Ave NE) Petition, filed by Joe Rocha for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of a new 6 ft privacy fence along the side yard and the repair and replacement of the 4 ft sections of wrought iron fencing. Parcel #1640-00-062-0. 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  CITY OF BATTLE CREEK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING 10 North Division, Battle Creek, MI 49014 Minutes for Monday, April 8, 2024 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: By Chairperson Simpson at 4:01 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Roll call was taken: Comm. Simpson, Present Comm. Drozdowski, Present Comm. Davis, Present Comm. Sallee, Present Comm. Thornton, Present Comm. Steinbrunner, Absent 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: None. CORRESPONDENCE: None. OLD BUSINESS: A. Economic and Technical Feasibility, Undue Financial Hardship, Economic Hardship and Economic Feasible Plans Staff Presentation: Travis Sullivan gave an update on the Economic and Technical Feasibility, Undue Financial Hardship, Economic Hardship and Economic Feasible Plans and answered questions from Commissioner. Commissioner Questions: Commissioner Simpson asked Staff is they feel the net result of this will help people that have financial hardship, by helping people in this manner, are we lowering our standards and who determines financial hardship. Asked the City Deputy Attorney if this will put the City in danger when approving some applicants and not others. Also, feels the verbiage would put the burden of determining financial hardship on the Board and feels proving a hardship should be placed on the applicant not the Board. Commissioner Davis would like to make sure the Board is strict enough with their determination on when people don’t have the money or when they feel they do not want to spend the money. Would like to see there is an actual hardship present. NO ACTION REQUIRED. WILL CONTINUE WITH DISCUSSIONS AND UPDATES. 1 NEW BUSINESS: A. H04-24 (265 Capital Ave NE) A petition, filed by Real Renovations for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the property located at 265 Capital Ave NE, owner Joe Rocha, 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. Staff Presentation: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen gave the staff report for H04-24 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. Applicant Presentation: Applicant not present. Commissioner Question: Commissioner Davis inquired to the existing wrought iron fencing along Capital Ave and if that would be replaced and asked about fencing in the driveway area. Also inquired about the privacy fencing on the side yard of the property and if the neighbor has submitted correspondence. Commissioner Simpson does not like the ideal of white vinyl fencing in a Historic District and had concerns over the multiple styles of fencing on the property. Commissioner Drozdowski stated wrought iron fencing was their when the property was purchased and is historically appropriate. Commissioner Thornton brought up the fact that the Staff Report does not recommend the entirety of the proposal. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER DAVIS FOR H04-24, 265 CAPITAL AVE NE, FOR THE DENIAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPOPRIATNESS FOR THE ADDITION OF A NEW PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE SIDE YARD AND A REPLACEMENT OF 4 FOOT FENCING ALONG CHESTNUT STREET WITH THE NOTICE OF DENIAL TO INCLUDE DENIAL NOTICES FOUND IN SECTION 1470.09 (h)(i). SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THORNTON. A roll vote was taken: ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. B. 2024 1st Quarterly Administrative Approval Report Staff Report: Travis Sullivan gave the staff report for the 1st Quarter Administrative Report. Gave a brief outline of the item that were approved administratively. Commissioner Questions: None. NO ACTION REQUIRED. INFORMATIONAL REPORT ONLY. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: None. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF: 2  Commissioner Thornton commented on the progress of the retaining wall at City Hall. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Simpson adjourned the meeting at 4:44 p.m. Submitted by: Melody Carlsen, Planning and Zoning Administrative Assistant 3  5 of 20 Battle Creek Historic District Commission Staff Report 265 NE Capital Ave Staff Report Meeting: May 13, 2024 To: Historic District Commission From: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen Date: May 1, 2024 Subject: The petition, filed by 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 approval of the subject petition at 265 NE Capital Ave., as the proposed in-kind replacement of the existing wrought iron fencing facing NE Capital Ave, as well as the new white vinyl fencing constructed along the lot line between 265 and 285 NE Capital Ave 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 (265 NE Capital Ave). Photo courtesy of Google Maps.  6 of 20 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. The applicant previously submitted a proposal for a Certificate for Appropriateness in April 2024 for the same scope of work as proposed herein. The primary difference was that damaged sections of wrought iron fencing would be replaced with 4’ black chain link. New black chain link was also proposed for small sections of the property. The section of new white vinyl privacy fence has remained unchanged between applications. It was not recommended by staff, as the visual appearance of chain link did not maintain and respect the historic significance, distinguishing character, and visual impact of the existing wrought iron fencing. The Commission denied the proposal with a request for reapplication and the applicant’s presence at any future meeting where this reapplication would be considered, as the Commission had many questions about the proposed materials. 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 both the installation of new privacy fencing and the replacement of existing fencing at 265 NE Capital Ave. The proposed material for the privacy fence is white vinyl and abuts the property at 285 NE Capital Ave, which is also owned by the applicant. The proposed replacement is an in-kind replacement of wrought iron. Figure 3 gives a visual representation of the types of work proposed. When compared to the previously denied proposal for the same scope of work, it can be stated that any work proposed to be 2 of 8  7 of 20 completed with 4’ black chain link will instead be completed with wrought iron fencing to match the existing fencing. A sketch showing the proposed fencing is given on page 5 of the application. 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. 3 of 8  8 of 20 (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 proposed in-kind replacement of the existing damaged wrought iron fencing results in the minimal alteration of the site, both materially and visually. The proposed installation of the white vinyl 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 be met for the entire proposed scope of 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 distinguishing quality of the wrought iron fencing identified by both staff and the Historic District Commission is preserved through the in- kind replacement of the damaged wrought iron panels, as well as the new installation of wrought iron along the side lot line shared with 285 NE Capital Ave. Staff finds that the proposed installation of the 6’ white vinyl privacy fence (Orange) 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. 4 of 8  9 of 20 The Commission may find this standard to be met for the entire proposed scope of 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 in-kind wrought iron replacement clearly aims to maintain the existing historic appearance, while the new white vinyl does not recreate another historic fencing style. 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. 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 distinctive style attributed to the existing wrought iron fencing is treated with sensitivity through the aforementioned in-kind replacement, which not only seeks to preserve the material but also the visual aesthetic of the existing fencing. 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 be met for the entire proposed scope of 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 5 of 8  10 of 20 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 in-kind replacement of the wrought iron fencing aims to repair and replace damaged sections without a complete replacement where the fencing is still intact. This fencing enhances the current aesthetic of the existing fencing by repairing and replacing the damaged panels that would detract from the intended visual impact of the fence in relation to the house and neighborhood. 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 be met for the entire proposed scope of 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. 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 installation of white vinyl privacy 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. 6 of 8  11 of 20 Expansion of the existing wrought iron fence within the scope of what is reasonable for fencing similarly does not destroy significant historic, architectural, or cultural material. Rather, it is highly compatible with the material and character of the property. The Commission may find this standard to be met for the entire proposed scope of 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 new proposed scope of work at 265 NE Capital Ave preserves the visual and material aesthetic of the existing wrought iron fencing, as well as expanding that material use along the side and secondary front lot lines of the property. The in-kind replacement and repair respects the historic significance and distinguishing character of the existing wrought iron fence. This proposed scope does comply with the standards outlined in Chapter 1470 Historic Preservation and is recommended for approval. 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. The installation of the new 6’ white vinyl privacy fence does 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. 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 wrought iron 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. 7 of 8  12 of 20 Support Material Historic District Commission Application Aerial Imagery of Proposed Work 8 of 8 13 of 20 14 of 20 15 of 20 16 of 20 17 of 20 18 of 20 19 of 20 20 of 20