Historic District Commission

1 of 43 AGENDA Historic District Commission Meeting Date: Monday, July 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: June 10, 2024 5. Correspondence: 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. H08-24 (51 N Wood St) Petition, filed by Daniel Peterson for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the property located at 51 N Wood Street for the removal of one window and dimension changes to the roof cornice. Parcel #5020- 00-014-0. B. H09-24 (29 Woodmer Lane) Petition, filed by Jeff Breedlove for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the property located at 29 Woodmer Lane for an addition to the pitch of the car port. Parcel #5390-00-022-0. C. 2nd Quarterly 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 Planning & Zoning, 10 North Division – Suite 117, 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 43 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING 10 North Division, Battle Creek, MI 49014 Minutes for Monday, June 10, 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, Present Comm. Case, Present Staff Present: Travis Sullivan Planning & Zoning Administrator, CJ Sivak-Schwennesen, City Planner, Melody Carlsen, Administrative Assistant, Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of the May 13, 2024 meeting minutes. COMMISSIONER THORNTON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAY 13, 2024 MEETING MINUTES WITH THE CORRECTION NOTED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CASS. A ROLL VOTE WAS TAKEN. ALL IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED. Commissioners not voting: Drozdowski, Steinbrunner and Sallee.all were not present at the time of the vote. CORRESPONDENCE: None. 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. Staff Report: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen gave the staff report for H05-24, 265 Capital Ave NE. Applicant Presentation: Joe Rocha was present to speak and answer questions from Commissioners. Commissioner Questions: Commissioner Simpson asked for clarification on the location of the fence and if the property owner is adding any landscaping. 1  3 of 43 Commissioner Case asked what type of finish will be applied to the wood fence. Commissioner Davis addressed staff on the wording of “windows” in the staff report. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CASE TO APPROVE ITEM #H05-24. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DROZDOWSKI. Commissioners not present for the vote: Sallee was not present at the time of the vote. ALL IN FAVOR, NONE APPOSED, MOTION APPROVED. NEW BUSINESS: A. H06-24 (130 Frelinghuysen 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. Staff Presentation: Travis Sullivan gave the staff report for H06-24, 130 Frelinghuysen Ave. Applicant Presentation: Laurie Sullivan was present to speak and answer questions from Commissioners. Commissioner Question: Commissioner Simpson varied the material being used for the fencing and the reasoning for a 6 foot fence. Commissioner Case asked if a 6 foot fence was allowed in the proposed area of the yard. Commissioner Steinbrunner asked about placement of the fence. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CASE TO APPROVE ITEM #H06-24. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THORTON. ALL IN FAVOR, NONE APPOSED, MOTION APPROVED. 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. Staff Presentation: Travis Sullivan gave the staff report for H07-24, 43 Howland St. Applicant Presentation: Amber Mead of FenceMen Co. was present to speak and answer questions from Commissioners. Questions from Commissioners: Commissioner Simpson asked for clarification on the reason for the fence, material being used for the fencing and gate, placement and inquired to the gate across the driveway. Expressed concerns of the gate in front of the property. Commissioner Case asked about the amount of fencing and placement. Commissioner Steinbrunner asked about placement of the fencing and if there will be plantings in front or the back side of the fence and the reasoning for the gate. 2  4 of 43 Commissioner Davis inquired to whether the property owner may want to extend the fence along the front of the house in the future. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER DROZDOWSKI TO APPROVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A CHAIN LINK FENCE BUT AMENDED SO THAT THERE IS NO GATE BUT OTHERWISE APPROVE THE REQUEST. COMMISSIONER DROWSDOWSKI CLARIFIED THE MOTION WAS TO ONLY APPROVE THE SIDE FENCING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THORNTON. Discussion: Commissioner Case asked for clarification on the motion. City Attorney responded to the question. A roll vote was taken: ALL IN FAVOR, NONE APPOSED, MOTION APPROVED. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: None. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Simpson adjourned the meeting at 4:37 p.m. Submitted by: Melody Carlsen, Planning and Zoning Administrative Assistant 3  5 of 43 Battle Creek Historic District Commission Staff Report 51 N Wood St Staff Report Meeting: July 8, 2024 To: Historic District Commission From: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen Date: June 20, 2024 Subject: The petition, filed by Daniel Peterson on behalf of Adventist Heritage Ministries, is for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed replacement of windows and siding, as well as the reconstruction of a cornice to new dimensions and the reroofing of the cornice on the residential structure at 51 N Wood St. Summary Staff recommends approval of the subject petition at 51 N Wood St, as the proposed removal of the window beside the front door and the subsequent residing and the reconstruction of the cornice to new dimensions and subsequent reroofing 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. Site & History The subject site is located at 51 N Wood St, between Champion St and W Van Buren St, within the Old Advent Town local historic district. The Old Advent Town Historic District was platted in two phases. The “Manchester’s Addition” section was platted in 1836, and the “Graves’s Addition” section was platted in 1852. This district features primarily Colonial Revival, American Foursquare, Bungalow, and American Craftsman style single-family residences that were constructed throughout the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. The district was added to the National Register of Historic Places on June 30, 1994. Figure 1 provides an aerial view of the property.  6 of 43 Figure 1: Red pin on aerial points to subject site (51 N Wood St). Photo courtesy of Google Maps. The subject property consists of a two-story single-family home between 1,144 sq. ft. and 1,906 sq. ft. and was constructed around 1866. The property has previously applied for Certificates of Appropriateness for a new roof (2014) and for new siding and the replacement of existing windows (2024). Both requests were approved. Figure 2 provides a view of the home from the street, captured in September 2019 by Google Street View. Figure 2: Street view of the subject site at 51 N Wood St, September 2019. Photo courtesy of Google Street View. Summary of Request The applicant has filed the subject HDC Certificate of Appropriateness application for the removal of one window to accommodate the interior design of the structure and the alteration of the roof cornice 2 of 8  7 of 43 dimensions to match the surrounding homes. The window to be removed is on the diagonal wall adjacent to the front door, shown on the subject property and compared to an already rehabilitated property on the same street and of the same design in the photos submitted by the applicant. The siding to be used on the wall where the window was removed is LP Smartside, which is an engineered wood material that maintains a wood-like appearance while providing a longer material lifespan with less maintenance than traditional wood siding. The difference in cornice dimensions is also shown in the photos in Figure 3, as well as in the Supplementary Material. The proposed roof material is wood, to match the existing material and surrounding homes. Applicable HDC Guidelines and Analysis for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Window Removal and Cornice Reconstruction at 51 N Wood 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. (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 has determined that the removal of the window and subsequent residing of that section of the structure creates a minimal alteration to the structure. The placement of the window is not notable to the style in which the structure is built, as structures in a similar style do not always have this feature. The resource will still be used as a residential structure and the removal of the window does not 3 of 8  8 of 43 alter nor inhibit this use. The replacement of the cornice material is minimally different and serves to make it more similar to the other neighboring structures constructed in the same style. The proposed replacement material is an aesthetic and component match to the current cornice roofing material, with the difference being a slight change to the dimensions of the cornice itself. Both the window removal and the cornice replacement are considered to be minimal alterations to the structure that maintain its current use. 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 window subject to this proposal, the one beside the front door, is not a distinguishing original quality of the structure. The window itself does not appear to contain any notable design characteristics in the glass pane or frame that would diminish the character of the building in their absence. The applicant provided photos of a neighboring structure built in the same style as the subject structure where the window is not present. Considering this as an example of what the structure would look like in the absence of a window, the style and character of the structure was not changed. The siding will match that on the rest of the subject structure and has been determined to be an appropriate contemporary replacement for the existing siding. The cornice resizing is being conducted to match that of the surrounding homes, which are constructed in a similar style to the subject structure. The cornices are considered to be a distinguishing quality of the structure, which leads staff to consider the degree to which the dimensions will be changing. Based on the photographs of the existing and proposed future dimensions of the cornices, staff has determined the change to be very minor. The photographs are included below for the Commission’s reference as Figure 3. Based on this, the resizing and re- roofing of the cornice are determine to preserve the distinguishing character of the feature. 4 of 8  9 of 43 Figure 3: The existing cornice at 51 N Wood St (left) and an example showing the proposed dimensions of the new cornice (right). 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 removal of the window and subsequent re-siding of the wall does not seek to recreate an earlier appearance of the home, nor an earlier style of architecture. The cornice replacement and re-roofing seeks to create a historical appearance that is appropriate for the structure while making it more similar to the surrounding structures. This suggests a historic basis for the cornice being this shape and size. The materials used in the reroofing seek to emulate the existing character of the roof and the roofs in the surrounding structures. 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. Neither the window removal nor the cornice reconstruction impacts changes that may have taken place over time since the original construction of the structure. 5 of 8  10 of 43 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. The window proposed to be removed has been determined by staff to not be representative of a distinctive stylistic feature of the structure. The cornice is, however, a distinctive stylistic feature of the structure. The proposed roofing material is a like-for-like replacement of wood shingles. This is representative of treating the appearance of the feature with sensitivity for both aesthetics and historical preservation. The change in cornice dimensions has been previously determined to be a minor change with respect to the visual impact that this will have on the structure. The feature itself will remain in appearance, changing to be anchored outside of the window frame as shown in Figure 3. Staff believes this to be appropriate for the preservation of the structure as a whole and that its change is not insensitive to the historical significance and appearance of the structure. 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 has identified that the proposed siding material has been previously determined to be an appropriate replacement material. LP Smartside is an engineered wood material that maintains a cedar-like appearance while having a longer material lifespan and fewer maintenance needs than traditional wood siding. This ensures that it will aesthetically match the rest of the home, as it is being re-sided in the same material, and that it will maintain the appearance of wood siding characteristic of the time period when the structure was constructed. The proposed cornice re-roofing material is a like-for-like wood shingle, which preserves the material and aesthetic appropriate for the structure. The feature in it of itself will be accurately reconstructed to the new dimensions, matching similar features in the neighboring properties. 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 believes that it is reasonable to assume that a surface cleaning method may be needed for this project due to the installation of siding and the reconstruction 6 of 8  11 of 43 of the cornice on the existing wall. 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. No groundwork is expected to occur during the process of the proposed window replacement and cornice installation. However, as is standard, staff recommends a condition of approval that if any archaeological resources are discovered 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 alterations to the building seek to maintain a historical appearance of the building. They do not destroy significant features through their installation, as the window has been deemed by Staff to not be significant and the cornice is being reconstructed to new dimensions within reasonable alterations for the feature and structure. Similarly, the proposed siding material will maintain a wood siding appearance while increasing the longevity of the siding and the like-for- like roofing material will not destroy any significant aspect of the structure. 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. If the window beside the door were to be reinstalled at a later point, this would not damage the essential form and integrity of the structure, as the structure has existed until this date with a window in that position. Both designs maintain the overall structure and style of the property. The cornice reconstruction and re- roofing is not considered a new addition or alteration for the purposes of this criteria. The Commission may find this standard to be met. Recommendation The applicant’s proposed removal of the window beside the front door and subsequent re-siding, as well as the cornice being reconstructed to match the dimension of the surrounding homes, is expected by Staff to continue the building’s historic design and maintain the significant feature of the cornice. With Staff’s recommended conditions, the proposed work complies with the standards outlined in Chapter 1470 “Historic Preservation” and should be approved. As contained herein, Staff is not aware of any issues 7 of 8  12 of 43 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 removal of the specified window and subsequent residing, as well as the change in dimensions to the specified cornice and subsequent reroofing, 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:  Sandblasting and similarly harsh surface cleaning be avoided if they are used during the construction process.  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 Photos of the Subject Property and Comparison Property 8 of 8  13 of 43 City of Battle Creek Community Services – Planning and Zoning Division 10 N. Division Street, Ste. 117 • Battle Creek, Michigan 49014 Phone (269) 966-3320 • www.battlecreekmi.gov HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Information and Procedures A local historic district is a historically significant area that is protected by historic district ordinance under the authority of Michigan P.A 169 of 1970. The purpose of the districts is to safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving the resources located within the districts, foster civic beauty, strengthen local economy, and encourage property owners and residents to participate in preservation activities. The City of Battle Creek has designated four Local Historic Districts in order to preserve the architectural, historical, and/or cultural resources of the community. Proposed modifications affecting the exterior appearance of buildings (except minor classes of work) and property improvements within a historic district require approval from the Historic District Commission (HDC). PRE-APPLICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Prior to submitting an application to the Historic District Commission for review it is recommended that an applicant consult with Planning Department staff to discuss the proposed work and application requirements. It is further recommended that the applicant contact the Inspections Department at (269) 966-3382 to discuss any possible requirements of the building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, and/or fire code.  14 of 43 City of Battle Creek Department of Planning and Community Development 10 N. Division St., Ste. 117 • Battle Creek, Michigan 49014 • (269) 966-3320 APPLICATIONS TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Typically, any exterior changes to a structure require an application to the Planning Department to ensure that modifications and improvements do not compromise the historical integrity of the building or district in which it is located. Staff will determine if the proposed work is considered a “minor class of work” requiring only administrative staff approval, or it if will require approval by the Historic District Commission. Projects involving repairs or rehabilitations require a Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the Historic District Commission and demolition requests require a Notice to Proceed. Certificate of Appropriateness (repair/rehab) In order to be approved for a Certificate of Appropriateness, a project shall conform to each of the following standards. As outlined in chapter 1470.09 “Review of Applications” of the City of Battle Creek Codified Ordinances, the Historic District Commission shall follow the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. These standards can be found at the following website: http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/rehab/rehab_standards.htm Please note that the above website also contains guidelines concerning specific building improvement projects, i.e. window repair vs. replacement, masonry repair, cleaning methods, and general maintenance. The commission shall also consider 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. Lastly, the Historic District Commission shall review the plans for compliance with the preservation standards adopted by the Historic District Commission set forth in Chapter 1470.17 as follows: (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. (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. (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. (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. (e) Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a resource shall be treated with sensitivity. (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 HDC Information and Procedures, 06/16 Page 2  15 of 43 City of Battle Creek Department of Planning and Community Development 10 N. Division St., Ste. 117 • Battle Creek, Michigan 49014 • (269) 966-3320 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. (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. (h) Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by or adjacent to any project. (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. (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 be unimpaired. Notice To Proceed (demolition) Demolition is irreversible, and therefore the Historic District Commission encourages creative rehabilitation and adaptive re-use solutions be considered before demolition of a structure is proposed. There may be situations in which the quality and/or condition of a structure make demolition an appropriate solution. Demolition of properties within a Historic District shall be permitted through the issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the Commission if any of the following conditions prevail and if the proposed work can be demonstrated by a finding of the Historic District Commission to be necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions: (1) The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or to the structures and occupants. (2) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community, and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals and financing and environmental clearances. (3) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God or other event beyond the owner's control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering 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. (4) Retaining the resource is not in the interests of the majority of the community. SUBMITAL REQUIREMENTS In general, the completed application must be submitted to the Planning Department at least three weeks prior to a scheduled Historic District Commission meeting. Meeting dates and application deadlines can be found on the city website, or by calling the department. In order for the application to be accepted, the following items must be submitted with the completed application: 1. An affidavit authorizing an applicant to act on behalf of the owner if the petitioner is not the owner. 2. Property Site Plan: HDC Information and Procedures, 06/16 Page 3  16 of 43 City of Battle Creek Department of Planning and Community Development 10 N. Division St., Ste. 117 • Battle Creek, Michigan 49014 • (269) 966-3320 a) For residential occupied properties, applicants shall submit a drawing of the property indicating existing and proposed property features, including but not limited to any structures, drives, fences, decks/patios, etc. The dimensions of all existing and proposed features shall be labeled, as well as property dimensions. Distances between existing and/or proposed buildings and property lines shall also be included on the drawing. Indicate location of any proposed building additions subject to review by the HDC. b) Non-residential properties that propose any revisions from an approved site plan will require a new site plan submittal, per Ch. 1294 of the Zoning Ordinance. If the requested project will NOT result in changes to the property including buildings (new or additions), parking, landscaping, etc. the applicant shall submit a drawing as specified in 2a. 3. Photographs of the property and structure, including all four elevations of the building, historical photographs of the property and structure (check the Willard Library 1940 picture file), and street photos of structures adjacent to the property. Photographs shall be mounted, and labeled, on an 8 ½ x 11 sheet of paper. 4. For Certificate of Appropriateness applications only: a) Provide one set of drawings that explain exactly what is being proposed including details of the project, specifications, and product information as needed. All drawings should be to scale. b) Provide specific information on all materials proposed for the project including manufacturer names, illustrations, specifications, and samples. Material information should be submitted with this application and all samples should be brought to the meeting. 5. For Notice to Proceed applications only: a) Labeled photographs of the interior and exterior of the structure proposed for demolition b) Estimates for the complete repair of the property and estimates for demolition of the property OR c) Documentation that the demolition is needed in order to further a major improvement program that has community wide benefit OR d) Any other supporting documentation that demonstrates compliance with any of the above standards for issuance of a Notice to Proceed. REVIEW PROCESS At the time the application is submitted, you will be given the date of the Historic District Commission meeting at which your request will be discussed, and once prepared, an applicant will be mailed a meeting agenda and staff report specific to the application. The Historic District Commission meets once a month, on the second Monday of each month at 4:00 pm, and are conducted in the Commission Chamber (Rm 301) of City Hall. Please call or email to verify the date of the meetings. It is possible that some months may have required a different meeting date to accommodate holidays or other events. There is no fee to make application to the Historic District Commission. At the meeting the applicant is asked to present their request. The Historic District Commission will discuss the request, possibly asking additional questions of the applicant and/or staff. The Historic District Commission may postpone a decision pending additional information that is needed in order to make a decision. They may also approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on the standards listed above. The applicant or a representative is highly encouraged to attend the meeting to present your request and answer any questions. HDC Information and Procedures, 06/16 Page 4  17 of 43 City of Battle Creek Department of Planning and Community Development 10 N. Division St., Ste. 117 • Battle Creek, Michigan 49014 • (269) 966-3320 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Staff will be available to review applications for completeness and advise applicants in the preparation and submittal of their application. For complex projects, such as building additions, applicants may consider seeing the advice and expertise of an architect familiar with historic preservation. Please ensure that the application fully details the proposed work that warrants review by the Historic District Commission. The Certificate of Appropriateness or Notice to Proceed is based upon the contents of the submitted application. Any future proposed exterior change must be reviewed with the Planning Department to ensure consistency with the approved work, and may be subject to additional review by the Historic District Commission. QUESTIONS Please contact the Planning Department if you have any additional questions regarding the Historic District Commission, the application, or other requirements. HDC Information and Procedures, 06/16 Page 5  18 of 43 City of Battle Creek Department of Planning and Community Development 10 N. Division Street, Ste. 117 • Battle Creek, Michigan 49014 Phone: (269) 966-3320 • www.battlecreekmi.gov HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Application for: _____ Certificate of Appropriateness (for repairs or rehab projects) _____ Notice to Proceed (for demolition requests) _____ Minor Class of Work (admin approval) Petition No. Date Received: APPLICANT** NAME: Daniel Peterson ADDRESS: 52860 Hathaway Rd. Marcellus, MI 49067 PHONE: (269) 569-1261 FAX: EMAIL: OWNER (if different from applicant) NAME: Adventist Heritage Ministries ADDRESS: 411 Champion St. Battle Creek, MI 49037 PHONE: FAX: EMAIL: **If the applicant is not the property owner, a letter signed by the owner agreeing to the application to the Historic District Commission must be included with the application. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS/EXISTING CONDITIONS Address(es) of property for which the request is being sought: 51 Wood St. N Current use of the property: Volunteer Housing List existing structures on the property and the approximate age of each. Primary House c.1900 Please list all activities/proposed work for the property area and how the proposed work relates to the building as a whole. Siding replacment, Window Replacment  19 of 43 City of Battle Creek Department of Planning and Community Development 10 N. Division Street, Suite 117 • Battle Creek, Michigan 49014 • (269) 966-3320 Indicate in which manner the proposed work will result in changes to the size and/or appearance of the features outlined in this application. Removal of one window to accomodate interior design (see Photos) Roof cornice dimensions changed to match surrounding homes. Does the work proposed include maintenance/repair of existing features of the structure, or will it create new features that do not currently exist? Please indicate the existing building materials of the following structural features and the proposed materials if that feature is included as part of the application. Existing Materials Proposed Materials (if applicable) Roof Wood __ Wood Windows __ Siding Wood (mixed) __ Wood (LP Smartside) Foundation __ Other __ __ For Notice To Proceed requests only: What options have you explored for the repair or relocation of the structure proposed for demolition? SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS As outlined in “HDC, Information and Procedure”, each request requires supplementary items that thoroughly describe the existing structure and proposed project. These items are to be submitted with the completed application; incomplete applications will not be forwarded to the Historic District Commission. APPLICANT SIGNATURE By signing this application, the applicant hereby declares that all answers given herein are true to the best of their knowledge, and confirms that all information required for Historic District Commission review has been submitted. Furthermore, the applicant confirms that they have thoroughly read the “Historic District Commission, Information and Procedures” and agrees to comply with all requirements and procedures outlined therein. 06/24/2024 Name Date HDC Application, Rev. 09/17 20 of 43 21 of 43 22 of 43 23 23 of 43 24  24 of 43 25 Battle Creek Historic District Commission Staff Report 29 Woodmer Staff Report Meeting: July 8, 2024 To: Historic District Commission From: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen Date: June 21, 2024 Subject: The petition, filed by Jeff Breedlove on behalf Chris McCoy (29 Woodmer), is for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed addition of a pitch to the carport roof on 29 Woodmer. Summary Staff recommends approval of the subject petition at 29 Woodmer, as the proposed addition of a pitch to the carport roof 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 29 Woodmer, within the Merritt Woods local historic district. The Merritt Woods Historic District was platted around 1921. This district features primarily Colonial Revival and Tudor Revival style single-family residences that were constructed during the 20th Century. The district was added to the National Register of Historic Places on June 17, 1994. Figure 1 provides an aerial view of the property.  25 of 43 26 Figure 1: Red pin on aerial points to subject site (29 Woodmer). Photo courtesy of Google Maps. The subject property consists of a 2,288 multi-story single-family residence constructed in 1928. The property has no prior applications for Certificates of Approval. Figure 2 provides a view of the home from the street, captured in June 2023 by Google Street View. Figure 2: Street view of the subject site at 29 Woodmer, June 2023. Photo courtesy of Google Street View. Summary of Request The applicant has filed the subject HDC Certificate of Appropriateness application for the addition of a 12” roof pitch to the left side of the carport roof. This proposal also includes the necessary re-roofing. The new roof material is EPDM, which a rubber roofing membrane used on low pitch roofs. This is different from the current material, which is rolled roofing (MSR). Comparing photos of each roofing type, they appear visually similar. Also, from the street, the roofing material is not visible. The siding used on the fascia of the roof will be a like-for-like replacement of T 1-11 siding stained to match the existing siding. A new gutter will also be installed on the right side of the carport. Applicable HDC Guidelines and Analysis for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Addition of a Pitch and Roofing at 29 Woodmer. 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: 2 of 6  26 of 43 27 (1) The historic or architectural value and significance of the resource and its relationship to the historic value of the surrounding area. (2) The relationship of any architectural features of the resource to the rest of the resource and the surrounding area. (3) The general compatibility of the design, arrangement, texture, and materials proposed to be used. (4) Other factors, such as aesthetic value that the Commission finds relevant. (c) The Historic District Commission shall review and act upon only exterior features of a resource and shall not review and act upon interior arrangements… And 1470.17 PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC FEATURES. (a) Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a resource which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure or site and its environment, or to use the resource for its originally intended purpose. Staff finds that the proposed pitch addition to the carport will result in a slight aesthetic change to the home, as it currently is flat. The use of the carport is possible with the roof remaining flat, as it has been flat since at least 2008. However, staff considers the alteration to be relatively minimal when considering the impact of the carport visually. It is partially obscured by vegetation and is largely overshadowed by the house. The inclusion of a roof pitch will also not severely impact the Tudor Revival styling of the structure to which the carport is attached. The use of the carport will be maintained with the proposed pitch addition and the proposed alteration will have minimal aesthetic and functional impact on the resource as a whole. 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 flat roof of the carport, if considered distinguishing, is a minor original quality of the resource and its environment. As stated previously, the carport is partially blocked by vegetation, as well as not dominating the view of the home from the street. Since this feature is relatively minimal and the existing flat roof is not considered a “feature” of Tudor Revival styling, staff has determined that adding a pitch to the carport will not result in the destruction of a distinguishing original quality. The Commission may find this standard to be met. 3 of 6  27 of 43 28 (c) All resources shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historic basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. The flat carport has existed on the property since at least 2008. It, as an addition to the primary structure, can be considered as a resource of its own time. The addition of a pitched roof does not seek to make the carport reminiscent of an earlier styling, as all colors and materials other than the EPDM rubber roofing are to match the existing. 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. As was previously stated, the carport has been flat since at least 2008. It has not been changed since then, therefore accumulating no changes that can have gained significance in their own right. The Commission may find this standard to be met. (e) Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a resource shall be treated with sensitivity. The carport is not an example of a distinctive stylistic feature nor skilled craftsmanship. The maintenance of the structure’s appearance is upheld through all colors and materials to match the existing carport roof. The Commission may find this standard to be met. (f) Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other resources. The proposed roof material (EPDM rubber) will be visually similar and more effective than the current roof material (rolled). Due to the pitch being added, a new roof is required, meaning that preserving the existing roofing material is not possible. Staff believes that the new material has distinct advantages over a like- for-like replacement without compromising the visual appearance of the structure as a whole. 4 of 6  28 of 43 29 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. No groundwork is expected to occur during the process of the proposed pitch addition and roofing. However, as is standard, staff recommends a condition of approval that if any archaeological resources are discovered 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 addition of a pitch to the carport roof does not destroy significant historic, architectural, or cultural material. The design is also compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, and surrounding 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. If the carport were to return to being flat, it would not impair the integrity of the property as a historical resource. The Commission may find this standard to be met. Recommendation The applicant’s proposed addition of a pitch to the carport roof and replacing the roof with EPDM is expected to increase the functionality of the carport while having minimal to no impact on the property as a historical resource. With staff’s recommended conditions, the proposed work complies 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. 5 of 6  29 of 43 30 Therefore, planning staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed addition of a pitch to the carport roof and roof replacement with EPDM rubber material on the carport at 29 Woodmer Ln., 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 Drawing of New Carport with Description of Work 6 of 6 30 of 43 31 31 of 43 32 32 of 43 22 33 of 43  34 of 43 Battle Creek Historic District Commission Staff Report Staff Report Administrative Approval Quarterly Report Meeting: July 8, 2024 To: Historic District Commission From: CJ Sivak-Schwennesen, Planner Date: June 20, 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. 2024 Quarter 2 Administrative Approvals 1. 155 Brook St. – Approval for the installation of mechanical equipment at the rear of the building that is not visible from the road. 2. 238 NE Capital Ave. – Approval for the installation of roofing material that replicates the original Spanish tile roofing on portions of the building. 3. 51 N Wood St. – Approval for the replacement of siding and non-original windows, as well as repair work on the front deck with all materials matching the existing and preserving or replicating any historically distinguishing trim and features. 4. 45 N Wood St. – Approval for the replacement of siding and non-original windows with all materials matching the existing and preserving or replicating any historically distinguishing trim and features. 5. 47 N Wood St. – Approval for the replacement of siding and non-original windows with all materials matching the existing and preserving or replicating any historically distinguishing trim and features.  35 of 43 Support Material HDC Minor Class of Work Resolution 155 Brook St. Certificate of Approval 238 NE Capital Ave. Certificate of Approval 51 N Wood St. Certificate of Approval 45 N Wood St. Certificate of Approval 47 N Wood St. Certificate of Approval 2 of 2  36 of 43 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DE PART MENT – PLANNING & ZONING 06/03/24 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL 45 N Wood St. Petition submitted by Daniel Peterson on behalf of Adventist Historic Property for the like-for- like replacements of siding and windows, as well as like for like repair work on the front deck on the building located at 45 N Wood St. Daniel Peterson 52869 Hathaway Rd. Marcellus, MI 49067 Sent via email to: summitconstructionsolutions@gmail.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 the siding and non-original windows, all with materials matching the existing and preserving or replicating any historically distinguishing trim and features for the building located at 45 N Wood St., 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 45 N Wood 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 ________________________________________________________ 10 N. Division St., Suite #117/ Battle Creek, MI 49014 Phone: (269) 966-3320 / Web Site: www.battlecreekmi.gov  37 of 43 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  38 of 43 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DE PART MENT – PLANNING & ZONING 06/18/24 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL 47 N Wood St. Petition submitted by Daniel Peterson on behalf of Adventist Historic Property for the like-for- like replacements of siding and non-original windows on the building located at 47 N Wood St. Daniel Peterson 52869 Hathaway Rd. Marcellus, MI 49067 Sent via email to: summitconstructionsolutions@gmail.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 the siding and non-original windows, all with materials matching the existing and preserving or replicating any historically distinguishing trim and features for the building located at 47 N Wood St., 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 47 N Wood 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 ________________________________________________________ 10 N. Division St., Suite #117/ Battle Creek, MI 49014 Phone: (269) 966-3320 / Web Site: www.battlecreekmi.gov  39 of 43 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  40 of 43 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DE PART MENT – PLANNING & ZONING 06/03/24 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL 51 N Wood St. Petition submitted by Daniel Peterson on behalf of Adventist Historic Property for the like-for- like replacements of siding and windows, as well as like for like repair work on the front deck on the building located at 51 N Wood St. Daniel Peterson 52869 Hathaway Rd. Marcellus, MI 49067 Sent via email to: summitconstructionsolutions@gmail.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 the siding and non-original windows, as well as perform repair work on the front deck, all with materials matching the existing and preserving or replicating any historically distinguishing trim and features for the building located at 51 N Wood St., 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 51 N Wood 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 ________________________________________________________ 10 N. Division St., Suite #117/ Battle Creek, MI 49014 Phone: (269) 966-3320 / Web Site: www.battlecreekmi.gov  41 of 43 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  42 of 43 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DE PART MENT – PLANNING & ZONING 04/25/24 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL 155 Brook St. Petition submitted by Jeffrey Kling on behalf of Ricky Schaefer, 155 Brook St. for work including the addition of a piece of mechanical equipment not visible from the road. Jeffrey Kling, P.E. Gibbens, Drake, Scott, Inc. 9201 E 63rd St. Raytown, MO 64133 Sent via email to: jkling@gdsengr.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 mechanical equipment at the rear of the building and not visible from the road, as described in the Minor Class of Work application and plans that you submitted meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings for property located at 155 Brook 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  43 of 43 CITY OF BATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DE PART MENT – PLANNING & ZONING 05/17/24 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL 238 NE Capital Ave. Petition submitted by Donald McClellan/Aedenco LLC, 238 NE Capital Ave. for the like-for- like reroofing of portions of the roof with a replica of the original Spanish tile roofing. Donald McClellan Aedenco, LLC 561 Garrison Rd. Battle Creek, MI 49017 Sent via email to: aedenco@hotmail.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 roofing material that replicates the original Spanish tile roofing on portions of the building, as described in the Minor Class of Work application and plans that you submitted meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings for property located at 238 NE Capital 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