Historic District Commission

AGENDA Historic District Commission Meeting Date: Monday, June 10, 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: May 13, 2024 5. Correspondence: 6. Old 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 foot wood privacy fence along the side yard. Parcel #1640-00-062-0. 7. New Business: A. H06-24 (130 Frelinghysen Ave) Petition, filed by Laurie Sullivan for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of a new 6 foot black chain link fence in the rear yard. Parcel #5350-00-012-0. B. H07-24 (43 Howland St) Petition, filed by FenceMen Co. for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of a new 4 foot chain link fence in the front and side yards of the property. Parcel #5020-00-102-0. 8. Comments by the Public: 9. Comments from Commission members and Staff: 10. Adjournment: The City of Battle Creek will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as signers for the hearing impaired and audio tapes of printed materials being considered in the meeting upon notice to the City of Battle Creek. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary aides or services should contact the City of Battle Creek by writing or calling the following: Office of the City Clerk, P.O. Box 1717, 10 North Division – Suite 111, Battle Creek, MI 49016, (269)966-3348 (Voice), (269)966-3348 (TDD) Division Site 117 Battle Creek M Fax (269) 910 N. Di 10 N. DIVISION ST. P.O. BOX 1717 BATTLE CREEK MICHIGAN 49016-1717 PHONE (269) 966-3320 FAX (269) 966-3555 WWW.BATTLECREEKMI.GOV  2 of 40 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING 10 North Division, Battle Creek, MI 49014 Minutes for Monday, May 13, 2024 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: By Chairperson Simpson at 4:00 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Roll call was taken: Comm. Simpson, Present Comm. Drozdowski, Present Comm. Davis, Present Comm. Sallee, Present Comm. Thornton, Present Comm. Steinbrunner, Present Comm. Case, Present Staff Present: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen, City Planner, Melody Carlsen, Administrative Assistant, Darcy Schmitt, Planning Supervisor, Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney. Chairman Simpson welcomed Commissioner Case to the Historic District Commission. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of April 8, 2024 meeting minutes. COMMISSIONER DROZDOWSKI MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APRIL 8, 2024 MEETING MINUTES, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THORNOTN. A vote was taken and all those in favor to say “aye”: ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. Commissioner Case did not vote. CORRESPONDENCE: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: A. H05-24 (265 Capital Ave NE) A petition, filed by Joe Rocha for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the property located at 265 Capital Ave NE, for the addition of a new 6 ft 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 replacement of the 4 ft sections of wrought iron fencing. 1  3 of 40 Applicant Presentation: Joe Rocha was present to speak and answer questions from commissioners. Mr. Rocha asked the Body of they would allow him to use black aluminum fencing if black wrought iron is not available. Stated he would consider a black privacy fence and would bring some historically accurate photos. Commissioner Question: Commissioner Simpson inquired to type and placement of fencing, asked Comm. Case what is concerns with the 6 ft white vinyl fence was, would the applicant consider plant material in front of the fencing and if that was an option, and showed the applicant photos of some trees. Commissioner Stienbrunner asked if the applicant would consider putting in a picket fence instead of the 6 ft white vinyl, if he had pictures of the proposed white vinyl fence. Suggested the use of trees. Commissioner Case clarified fence type and placement, the reason for choosing a 6 ft white vinyl fence and why does it need to be 6 ft in height, pointed out the fence design guidelines from the City of Battle Creek, also asked if the applicant would consider a black privacy fence, asked if the applicant would bring in some historically accurate photos to look at. Commissioner Davis asked the applicant why he went with a white vinyl instead of a wood privacy fence, mentioned historically the privacy fence would have started at the back corner of the house, not the front corner. Commissioner Thornton clarified some of the requests and suggestions to ensure we were not misleading the applicant. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER STEINBRUNNER TO PATRIALLY APPROVE ITEM H05-24 TO INCLUDE THE APPROVAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE BLACK WROUGHT IRON/ALUMINUM FENCING IN THE FRONT YARD AND MUST MATCH THE EXISTING BLACK WROUGHT IRON FENCING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DAVIS. A roll vote was taken: ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER STEINBRUNNER TO ADJOUN THE REMAINDER OF ITEM H05-24 TO INCLUDE THE PRIVACY FENCING PORTION TO THE JUNE 10TH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALLEE. A roll vote was taken: ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: None. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF: Commissioner Steinbrunner inquired to a date of when the roof of City Hall is going to be redone. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Simpson adjourned the meeting at 4:39 p.m. Submitted by: Melody Carlsen, Planning and Zoning Administrative Assistant 2  4 of 40 Battle Creek Historic District Commission Staff Report 265 NE Capital Ave Staff Report Meeting: June 10, 2024 To: Historic District Commission From: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen Date: May 30, 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. This report details a proposed alternative to the previously denied 6’ white vinyl 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.  5 of 40 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 initially submitted a proposal in April 2024 wherein damaged sections of wrought iron fencing would be replaced with 4’ black chain link, the installation of new 4’ black chain link on small sections of the property, and the installation of 6’ white vinyl privacy fence along the property line between 265 and 285 NE Capital Ave. At the April 8, 2024 HDC Meeting, 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. The applicant reapplied in May 2024. The new proposal consisted of an in-kind wrought iron replacement for the damaged fencing along the NE Capital Ave frontage, the installation of new wrought iron where the previously proposed new 4’ black chain link was to be installed, and the installation of 6’ white vinyl privacy fence along the property line between 265 and 285 NE Capital Ave. At the May 13, 2024 HDC Meeting, the Commission approved the section of the proposal involving the replacement and installation of wrought iron fencing and requested that the applicant return with a new plan for the privacy fence due to concerns about how the white vinyl would visually impact the neighborhood. Figure 2: Street view of the subject site at 265 NE Capital Ave., August 2023. Photo courtesy of Google Street View. Summary of Request 2 of 7  6 of 40 The applicant has submitted this addition to the previously submitted HDC Certificate of Appropriateness application regarding only the installation of new privacy fencing along the side lot line between 265 and 285 NE Capital Ave. The proposed material is vertical wooden rails with a 30% visibility. The fence is comprised of 2 / 4 rails, 4 / 4 posts, and 3 / 4 pickets. The proposed fence is 6’. A grayscale image of the fencing is attached to this report as a visual example of what the fencing may look like. The privacy fence will start at the back corner of the yard between 265 and 285 NE Capital Ave and end at the front corner of the residential structure at 285 NE Capital Ave. Figure 3 demonstrates this location for the privacy fence. A 4’ iron fence will begin at the front corner of the residential structure and run the remainder of the side lot line. Figure 3: Breakdown of the proposed fencing work along the side lot line between 265 and 285 NE Capital Ave. 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 7  7 of 40 (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 new proposed privacy fence makes a reasonable effort to maintain a historic appearance that minimally alters the view shed from NE Capital Ave. The wooden material is appropriate to be installed within a historic neighborhood. The wrought iron fencing also preserves the existing view shed and matches the existing fencing along the rest of the fencing along the street frontage. 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. Staff finds that the distinguishing quality of the wrought iron fencing is maintained for the section of fencing in the front yard. The privacy fence does not destroy an original quality or character of the resource found at 265 NE Capital Ave. Its installation does not require the removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features. 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 installation of the new wrought iron fencing has historical basis found in the existing wrought iron fence that is being preserved and 4 of 7  8 of 40 repaired. The proposed wooden picket fence does not seek to 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 both the wrought iron fencing and privacy fencing do not endanger any changes to the property that may have acquired significance since the original construction of the property. The placement of the fencing along the side lot line is in kind with what would be expected from installing fencing. 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 in the existing wrought iron fencing is being treated with sensitivity due to the extension of the style to the front yard portion of the side lot line fencing. This preserves the material and how it visually impacts the neighborhood. Staff finds that the proposed wooden picket fencing maintains a historic appearance through the material selected. The extension of the privacy fence to the front corner of the house was previously noted at the May 13, 2024 Historic District Commission meeting to not be historically appropriate. However, this concern does not involve a distinctive stylistic feature or example of skilled craftsmanship 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 and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other resources. This subset of the original Staff Report does not consider the replacement or repair of existing architectural features. The Commission may find this standard to be met for the entire proposed scope of work. 5 of 7  9 of 40 (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. (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 the wrought iron fence in the front yard is consistent with the historic design of the property, as there is already wrought iron fencing present and being repaired on the property. The proposed privacy fencing does not significantly destroy a significant historic or cultural material associated with the property. As an architectural feature, there has been previously stated concerns that the privacy fence would damage the view shed due to the prominence of the property within the neighborhood. The new wooden material will have a less dramatic effect than the previously proposed white vinyl due to its range of natural zones. 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 proposed fencing on the side lot line between 265 and 285 NE Capital Ave extends the aesthetic of the existing wrought iron fencing, as well as the newly proposed wooden privacy fence being visually compatible with the wider historic district. These revisions to the original and updated proposal demonstrate a respect the historic significance of the property at 265 NE Capital Ave and the 6 of 7  10 of 40 distinguishing character of the existing wrought iron fencing. These updates provide a scope of work that complies 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. Therefore, planning staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed replacement and installation of wrought iron and 6’ wooden 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. Support Material Historic District Commission Application Email Visual Example of New Privacy Fences Provided by Applicant 7 of 7 11 of 40 12 of 40 13 of 40 14 of 40 15 of 40 16 of 40 17 of 40 18 of 40 19 of 40  20 of 40 Battle Creek Historic District Commission Staff Report 130 Frelinghuysen Ave Staff Report Meeting: June 10, 2024 To: Historic District Commission From: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen Date: May 7, 2024 Subject: The petition, filed by Laurie Sullivan (130 Frelinghuysen Ave), is for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed installation of a new chain link fence in the rear yard. Summary Staff recommends approval of the subject petition at 130 Frelinghuysen Ave., as the proposed installation of a new 6’ black chain link fence in the rear yard 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. Site & History The subject site is located at 130 Frelinghuysen Ave, west of the intersection between Frelinghuysen Ave and Chestnut St, within the Old Maple Street local historic district. The subject property consists of a 2,322 sq. ft. two-story single-family home constructed in 1908. A garage was built in the rear yard of the property after the construction of the home, but this date is estimated to be in the 1950s by the applicant. A previous request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for this structure entailing the installation of a new front door was approved in 2009. Figure 1 gives an aerial view of the property, and figure 2 provides a view of the home from the street, captured in July 2012 using Google Street View.. Figure 1: Red pin on aerial points to subject site (130 Frelinghuysen Ave). Photo courtesy of Google Maps.  21 of 40 Figure 2: Street view of the subject site at 130 Frelinghuysen Ave., July 2012. Photo courtesy of Google Maps. Summary of Request The applicant has filed the subject HDC Certificate of Appropriateness application for the installation of a new 6’ black chain link fence in the rear yard of the property with the intent of completely fencing in the rear yard. A fence does not currently exist at this location on the property, and the proposed installation location is not visible from Frelinghuysen Ave. Applicable HDC Guidelines and Analysis for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Window Replacements at 130 Frelinghuysen 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. 2 of 5  22 of 40 (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 there is no alteration made to the existing house or garage in the proposed scope of work for this application. 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. Staff finds that, since the existing structures are not the subject of this application, any distinguishing original qualities or character will not be destroyed. The view shed of the neighborhood shall also not be impacted, as the proposed fence is located in the rear yard behind the existing house. 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. Staff finds that this proposed installation does not seek to create an earlier appearance for the property, nor does it alter an existing structure or feature without historic basis to do so. 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. 3 of 5  23 of 40 Staff finds that, as was stated above, the proposed scope of work will not be impacting the existing structures on the subject property. This means that any significant changes acquired by the structures are not expected to be impacted by the proposed fence 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 there are no distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship characterizing this resource that will be replaced or interfaced with during the course of the proposed fencing installation. 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. Staff finds that there is no replacement of existing features proposed within this scope of work. 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 4 of 5  24 of 40 with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. The proposed installation of 6’ black chain link in the rear yard of the subject property does not destroy significant historic, architectural, or cultural material within the neighborhood as it cannot be seen from the street. The proposed material is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property and surrounding neighborhood. 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 fence installation is considered an addition or alteration to the resource that would not 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 installation of 6’ black chain link fence at 130 Frelinghuysen Ave maintains the historic character of the property and surrounding neighborhood. The 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. Therefore, planning staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed installation of a 6’ black chain link fence at 130 Frelinghuysen 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. Support Material Historic District Commission Application 5 of 5 25 of 40 26 of 40 27 of 40 28 of 40  29 of 40 Battle Creek Historic District Commission Staff Report 43 Howland St Staff Report Meeting: June 10, 2024 To: Historic District Commission From: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen Date: May 28, 2024 Subject: The petition, filed by FenceMen Co. on behalf of Kitty Hillman (43 Howland St), is for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed installation of a new 4’ chain link fence in the front and side yards. Summary Staff recommends approval of the subject petition at 43 Howland St, as the proposed installation of a new 4’ galvanized chain link fence in the side and front yard 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. Site & History The subject site is located at 43 Howland St, south of the intersection between W Manchester St and Howland St, within the Old Advent Town local historic district. The subject property consists of a 1,346 sqft. two-story single-family home constructed in 1918. A detached garage was built in the rear yard of the property in 2000. Figure 1 provides an aerial view of the property and Figure 2 provides a view of the home from the street, captured in September 2019 using Google Street View. Figure 1: Red pin on aerial points to subject site (43 Howland St). Photo courtesy of Google Maps.  30 of 40 Figure 2: Street view of the subject site at 43 Howland St, September 2019. Photo courtesy of Google Maps. Summary of Request The applicant has filed the subject HDC Certificate of Appropriateness application for the installation of a new 4’ galvanized chain link fence in the side yard of the property, with a double-door gate extending across the current driveway to the left of the residential structure currently existing on the lot. The site plan provided to staff indicates that the fence will be constructed along the side lot line of the property for a total of 225’. The double-door gate across the driveway will extend from the front corner of the chain link 65’ across the front of the lot. The applicant is submitting the request due to the dumping of garbage and intrusion of vehicles, children, and dogs onto their property from the neighboring property. Applicable HDC Guidelines and Analysis for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Window Replacements at 43 Howland St. 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) 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. 2 of 6  31 of 40 (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 alteration to the site, the proposed chain link fence, does not impede the use of the overall resource as a residence nor does it replace the originally intended purpose of the resource as a residence. In addition, the proposed fence is being constructed in a location that previously did have a chain link fence, as seen in the Street View imagery from 2019. This presence, and subsequent absence, of a fence does not provoke a significant alteration to the site and its use/purpose. 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. Staff finds that the proposed scope of work does not include the removal or destruction of any distinguishing qualities or character of the resource and its related site. The view shed of the home from the street will be minimally impacted by the 224’ length of chain link proposed along the side yard, but will be to a greater degree by the double-door gate across the existing driveway. The proposed material, galvanized steel, mimics the street appearance of 306 Champion St (Ann J Kellogg Elementary School), which also has galvanized steel chain link along its Howland St frontage. Figure 3 presents a Street View image of the fencing present at 306 Champion along Howland St for a visual comparison. Due to this similarity between an existing material in the Old Advent Town neighborhood adjacent to the subject property, the view shed from the street is determined by staff to not be destroyed by the proposed scope of work for this application. 3 of 6  32 of 40 Figure 3: Existing fencing at 306 Champion, across the street from 43 Howland St. 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. Staff finds that the two existing structural resources on the site, the detached garage and the home, are not impacted by this scope of work. Similarly, the addition of the proposed fencing does not seek to create an earlier appearance without historic basis for the property. 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, as was stated above, the proposed scope of work does not impact the existing structural resources on the subject property. Similarly, the proposed scope of work has been determined to have minimal impact on the view shed of the property from the street. 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 proposed scope of work does not interact with any distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that may be present on the subject property. The Commission may find this standard to be met. 4 of 6  33 of 40 (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. Staff finds that the proposed scope of work only involves the installation of new fencing without the need for removal or replacement of existing architectural features. 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. Staff is unaware of any surface cleaning methods needed for this project. (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. Staff finds that the proposed 4’ galvanized chain link in the side and front yard of the subject property does not destroy any significance held by the existing structural features, nor does it have significant impact on the view shed associated with the property. The design and material are compatible with the existing material character of the environment, as was explained earlier in reference to similar fencing existing across Howland St at 306 Champion St. Please refer to Figure 3 for a visual example of the existing chain link within the existing environment. The Commission may find this standard to be met. (j) Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to resources shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the resource would not be impaired. 5 of 6  34 of 40 Staff finds that the proposed scope of work would not damage the essential form and integrity of the existing structural resources, as it does not seek to change them in any way. Similarly, the view shed and material impact of the proposed installation would not impair the property should it be removed in the future. The Commission may find this standard to be met. Recommendation The applicant’s proposed installation of a new 4’ galvanized chain link fence at 43 Howland St is determined to maintain the historic character of the property and surrounding neighborhood. The proposed scope of work complies 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. Therefore, planning staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed installation of a 4’ galvanized chain link at the proposed locations on 43 Howland St., 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. Support Material Historic District Commission Application Fence Permit Application Site Plan Property Owner Letter 6 of 6 35 of 40 36 of 40 37 of 40 38 of 40 39 of 40 40 of 40