HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

Transcription

1 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS Chair Amanda Harrell-Seyburn Vice Chair Jessica Flores Chuck Roboski Aron Sousa Diane Wing James Robertson VACANCY City Coucil Liaison Ruth Beier Staff Liaison Pablo Majano Cty of East Lansing PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT 410 Abbot Road East Lansing, MI (517) AGENDA June 8, :00 p.m. 54-B District Court, Courtroom #2 101 Linden Street 1) CALL TO ORDER A) Roll Call B) Approval of Agenda C) Approval of Minutes May 11, ) COMMUNICATIONS 3) COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS A) A request from Teresa Dunn and Derek Busch, for the property at 120 Cowley Avenue, to modify the front porch. 5) OLD BUSINESS A) A request from Dr. Gary Bente, for the property at 303 Chesterfield Parkway, to construct an addition of a front porch to the home. 6) NEW BUSINESS A) House of the Month Award B) Update Bylaws 7) COMMISSIONER REPORTS 8) STAFF REPORTS 9) ASSIGNMENTS 10) ADJOURNMENT Future Meeting: July 13, 2017 Historic District Commission Meeting, 7:00 PM City of East Lansing Historic District Commission Agenda June 8, 2017 Page 1 of 1

2 Historic District Commission Amanda Harrell-Seyburn Chair Jessica Flores Vice Chair James Robertson, Charles Roboski, Aron Sousa, and Diane Wing Pablo Majano, Secretary Historic Preservation Code The East Lansing Historic Preservation Code was adopted in The purpose of the ordinance, as noted under Section 20-2, is to: "Ensure the recognition, preservation and protection of historical and architectural sites, buildings, structures, objects, features, and open spaces;...encourage property owners and residents to participate in preservation activities; enhance, improve, and preserve neighborhoods; stabilize and improve property values...strengthen the local economy; foster civic beauty and pride; and promote the use of Historic Districts and Heritage Neighborhoods for the education, pleasure and welfare of the citizens of East Lansing... In addition, the scope of the Ordinance notes under Section 20-4: "The provisions of this Code are intended to acknowledge the eclectic nature of early 20th century architecture and are expressly intended to permit changes to buildings within Historic Districts which help them retain their historic character as established by this Chapter." Historic District Commission Review The Historic District Commission meets the second Thursday of each month. The Historic District Commission's review of proposals that require a public hearing use the following process: 1. Staff report is given which describes location, property owner, description of building and building history, current zoning, applicant's request, and the relevant sections of the Historic Preservation Code. 2. Applicant's presentation - Applicant may speak on his/her own behalf and present additional information. 3. Questions by the Commission. 4. Public Hearing Opened (pertaining to this case). 5. Rebuttal/additional comments by applicant. 6. Public Hearing Closed, followed by Commission discussion and action. The Historic District Commission will act on each request within 60 days of the filing date of the application unless an extension is agreed upon in writing by the applicant and the Commission. Guidelines for Public Comment The Commission asks that if you have written comments, please submit a copy to the Secretary for inclusion in the record and give a summary of the comments in the public comment portion of the meeting. Thank you for your interest in East Lansing s Historic Districts

3 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS Chair Amanda Harrell-Seyburn Vice Chair Jessica Flores Chuck Roboski Aron Sousa Diane Wing James Robertson VACANCY MINUTES May 11, 2017, :00 p.m. 54-B District Court, Courtroom #2 101 Linden Street Present: Harrell-Seyburn, Roboski, Sousa, and Wing City Coucil Liaison Ruth Beier Staff Liaison Pablo Majano Absent: Staff Present: Flores and Robertson Majano Cty of East Lansing PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT 410 Abbot Road East Lansing, MI (517) ) CALL TO ORDER Harrell-Seyburn called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. A) Roll Call At the calling of the roll, Commissioners Flores and Robertson were absent. B) Approval of Agenda Motion: Sousa moved to approve the agenda. Motion was seconded by Wing. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 4 to 0. C) Approval of Minutes Motion: Wing moved to approve the March 9, 2017 minutes as presented. Motion was seconded by Sousa. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 4 to 0. Motion: Wing moved to approve the April 13, 2017 minutes as presented. Motion was seconded by Sousa. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 4 to 0. 2) COMMUNICATIONS Teresa Dunn,. 120 Cowley, addressed the Commission and stated they are proposing an alteration to the porch and repair the screens and will be at the June HDC meeting. City of East Lansing Historic District Commission Minutes May 11, 2017 Page 1 of 4

4 Harrell-Seyburn asked for detail on how the screen was going to meet the column. The Commission and the owners discussed: Screens Column bases Clarify materials being proposed Windows approved previously through the HDC 3) COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS A) A request from Xinyi Fang, for the property at 942 Cresenwood, to remove and replace all existing siding. The applicant is also seeking to replace the existing windows. Majano reminded the Commission they tabled the window replacement portion of the request until their May meeting. He stated he provided additional photos of the windows and all the windows were operational albeit drafty. Jessica Lee, the applicant addressed the Commission and spoke about their request. Lee described the difference between the first set of windows she brought to the Commission and the new ones. Taylor Teachout, the contractor addressed the Commission and provided a sample Pella window. He stated the color was the only sample available and not the color being used. Roboski asked if it was wood aluminum clad. Teachout replied affirmatively. Motion: Sousa moved to approve a request from Xinyi Fang, for the property at 942 Cresenwood, to replace the existing windows. Motion was seconded by Roboski. Sousa stated unless a house was a landmark property he would be in favor of replacement windows with the one being proposed. Harrell-Seyburn concurred and stated Pella Architect Series is a really good window. Harrell-Seyburn stated the exterior sash seems to be in good condition but the interior is in poor condition. Sousa stated it is really hard to insulate the area where the ropes are as the insulation is what is keeping the ropes from working in his house. Harrell-Seyburn stated she wanted to be sensitive to budget and there is almost no financial difference between repair and new; however, new offers a substantially higher performance. City of East Lansing Historic District Commission Minutes May 11, 2017 Page 2 of 4

5 Amendment 1 Motion: Sousa moved to amend the motion to include the specific window presented at the May 11, 2017 meeting and photographed by the Historic Preservation Officer; subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall replace the windows as presented in the contract at the April 13, 2017 meeting. Motion was seconded by Roboski. Vote: Yeas: Harrell-Seyburn, Roboski, and Sousa. Nays: Wing. Motion failed by a vote of 3 to 1. Wing asked why the motion failed. Harrell-Seyburn stated four affirmative votes are required to grant approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. She further stated the applicant can appeal to the State Historic Preservation Office. Wing stated the reason she did not vote in favor of the motion is the pictures and information she was given is the windows still work. And in her opinion putting a new storm on the window as well as doing minor repairs would make the windows workable. Wing further stated she believes the homeowners are not doing their due diligence in finding out of repairing windows but rather only looking at having them replaced with new. **HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER NOTES: It was discovered after the meeting the HDC Bylaws were incorrect compared to the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Chapter 20 of the East Lansing City Code does not require four (4) affirmative votes to grant approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness; therefore, the motion to approve window replacement at 942 Cresenwood was approved. 5) OLD BUSINESS A) A request from Dr. Gary Bente, for the property at 303 Chesterfield Parkway, to construct an addition of a front porch to the home. Harrell-Seyburn stated Bente has requested his application be considered at the June HDC meeting. Majano stated Bente will be in attendance next month. Motion: Sousa moved to approve consideration of a request from Dr. Gary Bente for property at 303 Chesterfield Parkway, to construct an addition of a front porch to the home until the HDC s June meeting. Motion was seconded by Wing. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 4 to 0 6) NEW BUSINESS A) House of the Month Award City of East Lansing Historic District Commission Minutes May 11, 2017 Page 3 of 4

6 Majano brought forward three nomination to the Commission for house of the month: 415 M.A.C. Avenue 1107 West Grand River Avenue 729 Oakwood Avenue The Commissioners spoke regarding the houses. After discussion, Commission decided upon 415 M.A.C. Avenue as house of the month for the month of May. 7) COMMISSIONER REPORTS Majano discussed the Park District proposal recently approved by City Council and the Center City proposal. 8) STAFF REPORTS Majano stated he, Flores, and Dave Haywood, Planning and Zoning Administrator, met with the Michigan Historic Preservation Network; they want to do a conference in East Lansing in ) ASSIGNMENTS Majano reminded Commissioners to come up with nominations for house of the month award. 10) ADJOURNMENT Motion: Sousa moved to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Wing. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 4 to 0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Amanda Harrell-Seyburn Chair Pablo Majano Secretary City of East Lansing Historic District Commission Minutes May 11, 2017 Page 4 of 4

7 Department of Planning Building and Development City of East Lansing Historic District Commission Staff Contact: Pablo Majano Phone No: (517) HDC Agenda: June 8, 2017 STAFF REPORT June 2, Cowley Avenue Teresa Dunn HDC will make a motion to determine if application is complete EXISTING CONDITIONS STAFF PHOTO This house is a Landmark structure in the City of East Lansing. Previous approval on this house was done in 2011, an approval to replace all the windows by a vote of 6-0. Historic District: Chesterfield Hills Property Status: Residential Zoning District: R-2, Medium Density Single-Family Residential District

8 Staff Report 120 Cowley Page 2 of 9 June 2, 2017 HISTORIC DESCRIPTION ASSESSORS PHOTO 1957 Property Description: This house is a National Folk inspired structure that is one of the oldest structures in the City. The building was built in 1907 according to City records. The house was originally located on the corner of Michigan Avenue and Cowley to the south, but was moved to accommodate the widening of Michigan Avenue in the past This home is more of a modern (1935 to present) house with minimal traditional characteristics. Simplified form loosely based on the previously dominant Tudor style of the 1920s and 30s. Like Tudor houses, these generally have a dominant front gable and massive chimneys, but the steep Tudor roof pitch is lowered and the façade is simplified by omitting most of the traditional detailing. These houses first became popular in the late 1930s and were the dominant style of the post-war 40s and early 50s. (Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984 pg. 477) Historical Ownership: The building was built as a single-family detached home. There are multiple listings in Larry Kestenbaum's book, Significant Figures in the History of East Lansing, regarding historically significant past residents of the home: Ernest K. Bremer, an Assistant

9 Staff Report 120 Cowley Page 3 of 9 June 2, 2017 Professor; Basil Brewer, the publisher and owner of the Lansing Capital News; William R. Davis, the Director of Oral Hygiene for the Michigan Department of Health; and Frederik Marin, a banking commissioner. Additionally, as described below, the house was built for John H. Cowley, the City s first justice of the peace. HISTORIC DISTRICT SIGNIFICANCE There are 27 individual properties in the Landmark Historic District. Each of them are over 50 years old and are the highest rated and most significant historic structures in the City of East Lansing. The City of East Lansing Historic District Study Committee, Final Report of March 1988, states the following: OVERVIEW OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROPOSAL The Committee s proposal has a very strong neighborhood preservation emphasis and is designed to maintain the early 20 th Century streetscapes of East Lansing s older neighborhoods; increase private investment in the older housing stock; foster a greater awareness and appreciation of our City s architectural heritage and diversity; and to enhance the quality of life and livability of our older residential areas. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS LANDMARK STRUCTURES (Excerpt) "In addition to the six geographically defined districts, the Study Committee is recommending a Landmark District as a seventh area of protection. The Landmark District is a noncontiguous district comprised of 27 individual structures which the Committee felt had outstanding historical and/or architectural merit. In determining which properties would be put forth as recommended local landmarks, the Study Committee visually surveyed and reviewed the history of close to 60 individual properties within the City. Each property was evaluated for its age, architectural merit, and historical association. Each property was scored for its attributes in the three aforementioned categories. The properties with the highest composite scores were selected for local landmark designation. Of the 27 properties recommended for landmark status, seventeen lie within the six geographically defined historic districts. Landmark properties will have the same protection and regulation as those properties within the geographically defined districts. A photograph and brief description of the properties recommended for landmark designation follows. J.H. Cowley Residence, 120 Cowley Avenue (1907) This farmhouse was originally located at the corner of Michigan and Cowley and was the residence of John H. Cowley. Cowley served as the City s first Justice of

10 Staff Report 120 Cowley Page 4 of 9 June 2, 2017 the Peace in 1907 and is the namesake of Cowley Avenue. PROPOSED PROJECT The Applicant is seeking to modify the existing front porch REVIEW PROCESS Note: In order to assist in reviewing applications as required under this Code, Staff has included those portions of the Historic Preservation Code that it feels could be used in making a decision. These are intended to be a guide in assisting the Commission and are not intended to be all inclusive. These sections include: I. Section (c) (e) Review Process for Certificate of appropriateness - (c) Standards for decisions - (e) Special Considerations II. Section Preservation Guidelines, which includes: - Section (b) 1 The Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation (Revised 1990) and guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as set forth in 36 CFR 67 III. Section (b) 2-19 Historic District Commission Preservation Guidelines IV. Section Powers and Duties of Historic District Commission V. Section Notice to proceed I. Sec Review Process for Certificate of Appropriateness Standards for Decisions (c) (e) In reviewing applications for a certificate of appropriateness, the commission shall base its decision only on the preservation guidelines stated in section , and on any additional preservation guidelines adopted by the historic district commission and approved by the city council and 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 resources to the rest of the resource of the resource and to 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 commissions finds relevant. 5. Recommendations from the historic preservation office, the building official, the design assistance team, and any affected neighborhood association Special considerations. - New resources in historic districts shall be compatible with the surrounding resources and shall not intrude upon the overall historic character of the

11 Staff Report 120 Cowley Page 5 of 9 June 2, 2017 streetscape and the historic district. Contemporary architectural styles, materials and methods of construction may be introduced into the district through new resources when they serve to develop the district as a vital, attractive neighborhood and are sensitive to the historic context. The historic district commission shall evaluate new resources for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards. The historic district commission's review of new resources shall also evaluate the compatibility of the proposal in the areas of height, scale, massing, directional expression, setback, platforms, sense of entry, shapes, rhythm of openings and historic imitations. II. Sec Preservation Guidelines (a) (b) The Commission shall establish preservation guidelines in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. The preservation guidelines shall govern the Historic Preservation Officer and Commission's decisions with regard to Certificates of Appropriateness. The preservation guidelines shall include the following: (1) The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as set forth in 36 CFR part A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; and that provide that those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.

12 Staff Report 120 Cowley Page 6 of 9 June 2, Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. III. Section (b) and 1, 2, 8 Historic District Commission Preservation Guidelines (1) The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as set forth in 36 CFR 67. (2) Protected architectural features include, but are not limited to, a building's general shape; gables, dormers and other roof features; cornices, brackets and eaves; size, shape, arrangement, number and size of window panes and muntins; beveled, leaded and stained glass; door and window trim; ornamental moldings; distinctive siding, such as stone, stucco, brick or patterned shingling; distinctive roofing, such as false thatch, slate and Spanish tile. (8) Exposed wood surfaces on new work such as porches, railings and fences shall be painted or stained to coordinate with the existing building.

13 Staff Report 120 Cowley Page 7 of 9 June 2, 2017 IV. Section 20.32(7) Powers and Duties of Historic District Commission To review and approve or deny applications for certificates of appropriateness in accordance with preservation guidelines, and where appropriate, advise and refer applicants to appropriate persons, agencies and organizations for technical and financial assistance to meet the requirements of this chapter. In reviewing plans, the commission shall follow the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, as set forth in 36 CFR 67. V. Section Notice to Proceed Not applicable STAFF REVIEW APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS Chapter 20 Section (1) The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as set forth in 36 CFR 67. (2) Protected architectural features include, but are not limited to, a building's general shape; gables, dormers and other roof features; cornices, brackets and eaves; size, shape, arrangement, number and size of window panes and muntins; beveled, leaded and stained glass; door and window trim; ornamental moldings; distinctive siding, such as stone, stucco, brick or patterned shingling; distinctive roofing, such as false thatch, slate and Spanish tile. (8) Exposed wood surfaces on new work such as porches, railings and fences shall be painted or stained to coordinate with the existing building. Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. (9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

14 Staff Report 120 Cowley Page 8 of 9 June 2, 2017 RECOMMENDATION Staff believes the design and intent of the project is to replicate the front porch s old design. The design will also increase the safety of the existing porch. Based on the fact that the applicant will be using the same materials and the project would meet the Secretary of Interior Standards 6 and 9, staff can recommend approval. ACTION NEEDED: Motion to approve or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted based on above information and the code language in Findings or as determined by the Commission. Should the Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, Staff would recommend that the following conditions be included: 1) Only materials approved by the Historic District Commission shall be used. Sec Resubmission and Appeals (b) An applicant aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may make modifications to the application and shall have the right to resubmit the application within 60 days of the Commission decision without the payment of any additional fee. (c) An applicant aggrieved by a decision of the Commission concerning a permit application may file an appeal with the state historic preservation review board of the Michigan historical Commission of the Department of State, in accordance with the provisions of PA 169 as amended. The appeal shall be filed within 60 days after the decision to deny is furnished to the applicant. (d) If an application is for work that will adversely affect the exterior of a resource the Commission considers valuable to the City, and the Commission determines that the alteration or loss of that resource will adversely affect the public purpose of the City, the Commission shall attempt to establish with the owner of the resource an economically feasible plan for preservation of the resource. (e) Any citizen or duly organized local historic preservation organization, as well as resource owners, jointly or severally aggrieved by a decision of the Historic District Commission may appeal the decision to the Circuit Court, except that a permit applicant aggrieved by a decision rendered by the Commission may not appeal to the court without first exhausting the right to appeal to the State Historic Preservation Review Board.

15 Staff Report 120 Cowley Page 9 of 9 June 2, 2017 Attachments: Location Map Applicant Drawings Certificate of Appropriateness Applicant Photos

16 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Cowley Avenue Michigan Avenue

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 City of East Lansing Staff Contact: Pablo Majano Historic District Commission Phone No: (517) HDC Agenda: June 8, 2017 STAFF REPORT June 2, Chesterfield Pkwy Gary Bente HDC will make a motion to determine if application is complete EXISTING CONDITIONS STAFF PHOTO The house is in good condition with no outstanding violations. An approval was granted on January 15, 1999 to install a new picture window on the north side of the building. Historic District: Chesterfield Hills Property Status: Residential Zoning District: R-2, Medium Density Single-Family Residential District

28 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 2 of 9 June 2, 2017 HISTORIC DESCRIPTION ASSESSORS PHOTO 1957 Property Description: This property can be characterized as a contemporary style home, built in 1950 per City records. The type of house has a very prominent roof structure that can be classified as a saltbox gable or front-gabled roof. Identifying features on a contemporary style home are: Low-pitched gabled roof (sometimes flat) with widely overhanging eaves: roof beams commonly exposed; windows generally present in gable ends (or just below roof line in non-fabled faces); built with natural materials (wood, stone, brick or occasionally concrete block); broad expanse of uninterrupted wall surface typically on front faced; entry door may be recessed or obscured; asymmetrical. (Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984, 2013) Historical Ownership:

29 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 3 of 9 June 2, 2017 The building was built as a single-family detached home. There are multiple listings in Larry Kestenbaum's book, Significant Figures in the History of East Lansing, regarding historically significant past residents of the home: Ernest K. Bremer, an Assistant Professor; Basil Brewer, the publisher and owner of the Lansing Capital News; William R. Davis, the Director of Oral Hygiene for the Michigan Department of Health; and Frederik Marin, a banking commissioner. Additionally, as described below, the house was built for John H. Cowley, the City s first justice of the peace. HISTORIC DISTRICT SIGNIFICANCE Historic District Significance: There are 220 properties in the Chesterfield Hills Historic District. 176 of these (80%) were constructed between 1900 and 1929 according to city records. At least 195 (89%) are 50 years or older in age. The City of East Lansing Historic District Study Committee, Final Report of March 1988, states the following: OVERVIEW OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROPOSAL The Committee s proposal has a very strong neighborhood preservation emphasis and is designed to maintain the early 20 th Century streetscapes of East Lansing s older neighborhoods; increase private investment in the older housing stock; foster a greater awareness and appreciation of our City s architectural heritage and diversity; and to enhance the quality of life and livability of our older residential areas. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS CHESTERFIELD HILLS This district is composed of primarily of the Chesterfield Hills I and II Subdivisions, platted in 1916 and 1923, respectively by Ehinger Realty. The winding streets and irregular lots are a perfect adaptation to the rolling terrain; the streetscape is dominated by hundreds of mature maples. Most of the houses were built in the 1920 s and 1930 s, and contain a splendid collection of architectural styles popular during this period. Dutch Colonial, Bungalow, Tudor and Prairie styles are found here, along with a few post WWII Cape Cod and ranch houses. Exterior colors and materials are equally diverse; brick, stucco, clapboard, aluminum and shingles. Asphalt, wood and tile roofs are all present. Despite, or perhaps because of the architecturally diversity, Chesterfield Hills has a unified character. Different styles, materials, and building volumes sit next to each other comfortably and without discord, producing a unified character, much as a mosaic is formed by disparate elements.

30 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 4 of 9 June 2, 2017 PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant would like to add an approximate 19 width by 6 depth front porch to the existing house that mimics the style and materials of the house. The applicant would also like to add the front porch for safety and security purposes REVIEW PROCESS Note: In order to assist in reviewing applications as required under this Code, Staff has included those portions of the Historic Preservation Code that it feels could be used in making a decision. These are intended to be a guide in assisting the Commission and are not intended to be all inclusive. These sections include: I. Section (c) (e) Review Process for Certificate of appropriateness - (c) Standards for decisions - (e) Special Considerations II. Section Preservation Guidelines, which includes: - Section (b) 1 The Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation (Revised 1990) and guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as set forth in 36 CFR 67 III. Section (b) 2-19 Historic District Commission Preservation Guidelines IV. Section Powers and Duties of Historic District Commission V. Section Notice to proceed I. Sec Review Process for Certificate of Appropriateness Standards for Decisions (c) (e) In reviewing applications for a certificate of appropriateness, the commission shall base its decision only on the preservation guidelines stated in section , and on any additional preservation guidelines adopted by the historic district commission and approved by the city council and 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 resources to the rest of the resource of the resource and to 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 commissions finds relevant. 5. Recommendations from the historic preservation office, the building official, the design assistance team, and any affected neighborhood association Special considerations. - New resources in historic districts shall be compatible with the surrounding resources and shall not intrude upon the overall historic character of the

31 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 5 of 9 June 2, 2017 streetscape and the historic district. Contemporary architectural styles, materials and methods of construction may be introduced into the district through new resources when they serve to develop the district as a vital, attractive neighborhood and are sensitive to the historic context. The historic district commission shall evaluate new resources for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards. The historic district commission's review of new resources shall also evaluate the compatibility of the proposal in the areas of height, scale, massing, directional expression, setback, platforms, sense of entry, shapes, rhythm of openings and historic imitations. II. Sec Preservation Guidelines (a) (b) The Commission shall establish preservation guidelines in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. The preservation guidelines shall govern the Historic Preservation Officer and Commission's decisions with regard to Certificates of Appropriateness. The preservation guidelines shall include the following: (1) The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as set forth in 36 CFR part A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; and that provide that those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive

32 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 6 of 9 June 2, 2017 feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. III. Section (b) 2 and 17 Historic District Commission Preservation Guidelines (2) Protected architectural features include, but are not limited to, a building's general shape; gables, dormers and other roof features; cornices, brackets and eaves; size, shape, arrangement, number and size of window panes and muntins; beveled, leaded and stained glass; door and window trim; ornamental moldings; distinctive siding, such as stone, stucco, brick or patterned shingling; distinctive roofing, such as false thatch, slate and Spanish tile. (17) New construction in a historic district shall be compatible with the surrounding structures; and shall not intrude upon the overall historic character of the streetscape and the historic district; contemporary architectural styles, materials and methods of construction may be introduced into the district through new structures when they serve to develop the district as a vital, attractive neighborhood and are sensitive to the historic context. The historic district commission's review of new structures shall evaluate the compatibility of the proposal in the areas of

33 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 7 of 9 June 2, 2017 height, scale, massing, directional expression, setback, platforms, sense of entry, shapes, rhythm of openings and historic imitations. IV. Section 20.32(7) Powers and Duties of Historic District Commission To review and approve or deny applications for certificates of appropriateness in accordance with preservation guidelines, and where appropriate, advise and refer applicants to appropriate persons, agencies and organizations for technical and financial assistance to meet the requirements of this chapter. In reviewing plans, the commission shall follow the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, as set forth in 36 CFR 67. V. Section Notice to Proceed Not applicable STAFF REVIEW APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS Chapter 20 Section (2) Protected architectural features include, but are not limited to, a building's general shape; gables, dormers and other roof features; cornices, brackets and eaves; size, shape, arrangement, number and size of window panes and muntins; beveled, leaded and stained glass; door and window trim; ornamental moldings; distinctive siding, such as stone, stucco, brick or patterned shingling; distinctive roofing, such as false thatch, slate and Spanish tile. (17) New construction in a historic district shall be compatible with the surrounding structures; and shall not intrude upon the overall historic character of the streetscape and the historic district; contemporary architectural styles, materials and methods of construction may be introduced into the district through new structures when they serve to develop the district as a vital, attractive neighborhood and are sensitive to the historic context. The historic district commission's review of new structures shall evaluate the compatibility of the proposal in the areas of height, scale, massing, directional expression, setback, platforms, sense of entry, shapes, rhythm of openings and historic imitations. Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale,

34 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 8 of 9 June 2, 2017 and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes the design is more improved than originally submitted. The material would be wood and would be in keeping with the house. Based on Secretary of Interior Standards 9 and 10 Staff can recommend approval of this project. ACTION NEEDED: Motion to approve or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted based on above information and the code language in Findings or as determined by the Commission. Should the Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, Staff would recommend that the following conditions be included: 1) Only materials approved by the Historic District Commission shall be used. Sec Resubmission and Appeals (b) An applicant aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may make modifications to the application and shall have the right to resubmit the application within 60 days of the Commission decision without the payment of any additional fee. (c) An applicant aggrieved by a decision of the Commission concerning a permit application may file an appeal with the state historic preservation review board of the Michigan historical Commission of the Department of State, in accordance with the provisions of PA 169 as amended. The appeal shall be filed within 60 days after the decision to deny is furnished to the applicant. (d) If an application is for work that will adversely affect the exterior of a resource the Commission considers valuable to the City, and the Commission determines that the alteration or loss of that resource will adversely affect the public purpose of the City, the Commission shall attempt to establish with the owner of the resource an economically feasible plan for preservation of the resource.

35 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 9 of 9 June 2, 2017 (e) Any citizen or duly organized local historic preservation organization, as well as resource owners, jointly or severally aggrieved by a decision of the Historic District Commission may appeal the decision to the Circuit Court, except that a permit applicant aggrieved by a decision rendered by the Commission may not appeal to the court without first exhausting the right to appeal to the State Historic Preservation Review Board. Attachments: Location Map Applicant Drawings Certificate of Appropriateness

36 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH CHESTERFIELD PARKWAY GROVE STREET

37 y ZONING MAP Huntington Cresenwood Chesterfield Oak B1-General Office Business B2-Retail Sales Business B3-City Center Commercial B4-Restricted Office Business B5-Community Retail Sales Business BC*-Dewitt Township - Business C-Community Facilities iversity RM14-Low Density Multiple Family RM22-Medium Density Multiple Family RM32-City Center Multiple Family Res RM54-University Oriented Multiple Family R1-Low Density Single-Family Residential R2-Medium Density Single-Family Residential R3-Single & Two Family Residential

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54