HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

Transcription

1 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS AGENDA Chair Vice-Chair Chuck Roboski Aron Sousa Diane Wing Jessica Flores Amanda Harrell-Seyburn 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) January 12, :00 p.m. 54-B District Court, Courtroom #2 101 Linden Street 1) CALL TO ORDER A) Roll Call B) Election of Officers C) Approval of Annual Calendar D) Approval of Agenda E) Approval of Minutes September 8, ) COMMUNICATIONS 3) COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS A) A request from Matt Hagan, for the property at 211 North Harrison Road, to replace wood siding. B) A request from Dr. Gary Bente, for the property at 303 Chesterfield Parkway, to construct an addition of a front porch to the home. 5) OLD BUSINESS A) Policy Review Siding only 6) NEW BUSINESS 7) COMMISSIONER REPORTS 8) STAFF REPORTS 9) ASSIGNMENTS 10) ADJOURNMENT Future Meeting: February 9, 2017 Historic District Commission Meeting, 7:00 PM City of East Lansing Historic District Commission Agenda January 12, 2017 Page 1 of 1

2 Historic District Commission Amanda Harrell-Seyburn James Robertson Charles Roboski, Aron Sousa, Diane Wing and Jessica Flores 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 James Robertson Chuck Roboski Aron Sousa Karessa Wheeler Diane Wing VACANCY MINUTES September 8, :00 p.m. 54-B District Court, Courtroom #2 101 Linden Street Ruth Beier City Council Liaison Staff Liaison Pablo Majano (517) Present: Absent: Staff Present: Harrell-Seyburn, Robertson, Roboski, Sousa, and Wing Wheeler Majano City of East Lansing DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING & 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, Commissioner Wheeler was 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 5 to 0. C) Approval of Minutes Motion: Wing moved to approve the minutes of March 10, 2016, May 12, 2016, June 9, 2016 as presented and the minutes of July 14, 2016 as changed. Motion was seconded by Sousa. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5 to 0. 2) COMMUNICATIONS None 3) COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS City of East Lansing Historic District Commission September 8, 2016 Page 1 of 4

4 A) A request from M&M Schechter, for the property at 928 Cresenwood Road, to install a guard and handrail to the front porch. Majano described the property, its location, and the proposed application as indicated in the Staff Report. He stated the guard and handrail chosen is one that would fit within the area and based on the Secretary of Interior Standards 9 and 10, the guard and handrails could be removed and maintain the integrity of the home. Ilene Schechter, 928 Cresenwood, the owner, addressed the Commission and stated she wants to install guardrails and handrails for safety reasons. Motion: Sousa moved to approve a request from M&M Schecter, for the property at 928 Cresenwood, to install a guard and handrial to the front porch as it is in keeping with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards Nos. 9 and 10. Motion was seconded by Wing. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5 to 0. B) A request from Mark Terry, for the property at 343 M.A.C. Avenue, to install a guard and handrail to the front porch steps facing M.A.C. Avenue. Majano stated Harrell-Seyburn brought it to Staff s attention the owner was in the process of installing a guard and handrail. He further stated a violation letter was sent to Mr. Terry who said it should have been sent to the contractor, Mr. Wayne Hiner of Community Resource Management Company (CRMC). Majano continued the garage doors have been removed, as the Building Official, Glen Dempsey, deemed them unsafe; however, the contractor (CRMC) should have known to contact him but they did not. Majano reminded the Commission the property received Council approval for a special use permit to allow it to be licensed for seven unrelated persons conditioned upon approval from the Housing Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mark Terry, 343 M.A.C. Avenue, the owner, addressed the Commission and stated he hired CRMC as the agent as they have own over 400 houses in East Lansing and many of them are in historic districts. He stated, as part of the rental licensing process the property must meet all codes; the City required removal of the garage doors and guard/hand rails were required. Majano stated he issued a stop work order and took a Certificate of Appropriateness to the contractor working onsite. Terry replied the garage is at the back of the house off the alley and cannot be seen from the street. Majano replied the property fronts on two streets, as it is a corner lot. Terry stated the structure does not front on Linden Street, as it is an interior structure that can be seen from the alley. Sousa stated the side of the garage could be seen from the street. Terry replied the garage doors are on the back of the garage, not the side of the garage. Harrell-Seyburn stated CRMC should be coming to the Commission for a lot of the work they are doing as they are making changes that are in violation of the Historic Preservation Code. She suggested Terry talk to Majano, as he is the gateway to the Commission. Terry replied he was not City of East Lansing Historic District Commission Minutes September 8, 2016 Page 2 of 4

5 even aware of the changes were in violation. Harrell-Seyburn stated for future information they are there to help and Majano is a great resource. Harrell-Seyburn confirmed the Commission was only reviewing the railing. Majano replied affirmatively. She asked if the original railing had been removed. Terry replied there was not an original railing. Robertson stated the 1957 Assessor s photo looks like the original railing was against the house. Robertson asked if the railing would be painted white. Harrell-Seyburn asked if the railing is pressure treated. Terry replied he was uncertain. Harrell-Seyburn stated it is best for the railing to weather one season before painting it white. Majano stated painting the railing white can be added as a condition of approval. Terry stated he was unaware of the requirement to wait a season before painting. Wing asked if they are to approve or suggest something else. Motion: Sousa moved to approve a request from Mark Terry, for the property at 343 M.A.C. Avenue, to install guard and handrails as it is in keeping with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards Nos. 9 and 10. Motion was seconded by Wing Robertson stated he would find it more aesthetically pleasing if the end rail was all the way to the ground and anchored. Harrell-Seyburn agreed and stated it looks like the railing is tacked on and not integral to the house. Majano stated the spindles are not on the exterior. Harrell-Seyburm agreed and stated it should be applauded the spindles are between the two rails and really well done. Wing stated she liked the condition of approval that the railings is required to be painted and the railings meets building code. Harrell-Seyburn stated she agreed Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5 to 0. C) A request from Community Resource Management Company, for the property at 125 Fern Street, to add handrail spindles located on the front steps. (Withdrawn) Majano stated the owner has withdrawn the application as the spindles was not required. He further stated the owner was being preemptive due to being written up for a code violation at a previous house for not having a handrail. He continued that he, the Housing Administrator, Building Inspector, and the owner met and agreed the spindles were not and the simplest solution was to have the owner take them off and be done with the issue. The Commission discussed the need for education with some of the bigger property owners that do their own construction and maintenance as to what is required and when are they required to come before the Historic District Commission and what can be approved administatively. City of East Lansing Historic District Commission Minutes September 8, 2016 Page 3 of 4

6 The Commission discussed the building code and the requirement for a guard and hand railings. The Commission discussed the Historic District pamphlets. The Commission discussed the proposed changes to the Bailey Community Center, it was determined the Commission wants the owners to come back to the HDC to explain the changes in materials being proposed to the façade. 5) OLD BUSINESS None 6) NEW BUSINESS None 7) COMMISSIONER REPORTS Wing stated CRMC is proposing to remove four buildings at the southeast corner of Harrison and Grand River to build a sorority. She stated it was presented to the neighborhood association with renderings. Majano stated he does not think with a Notice to Proceed the Commission could issue the demolition of four houses. 8) STAFF REPORTS The Commission discussed making an administrative policy for handrails/guard rails. Harrell- Seyburn talked about a book that includes good graphics of do s and don t s that would be beneficial. Robertson asked if a variance for handrails would be possible for mobility issues. Majano stated the policy is not public information but a guide between the Historic Preservation Officer and the Commission. Sousa asked what the difference is between a guard rail and a handrail. Harrell-Seyburn stated a guardrail is along a balcony 9) ASSIGNMENTS None 10) ADJOURNMENT Motion: Wing moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Wheeler. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 4 to 0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Amanda Harrell-Seyburn Chair Pablo Majano Secretary City of East Lansing Historic District Commission Minutes September 8, 2016 Page 4 of 4

7 Department of Planning, Building and Development Staff Contact: Pablo Majano Phone No: (517) HDC Agenda: December 8, 2016 STAFF REPORT HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION December 2, N. Harrison HDC WILL DETERMINE IF APPLICATION IS COMPLETE Staff Photo 2007 Existing Conditions: The house currently has no existing violations with the City of East Lansing. From the pictures provided by the applicant, upon their next rental inspection they would be cited for the paint on the north end of the building. In 2011 an administrative approval was granted to box in a porch on the west side of the house in which fiber cement siding was installed. Historic District: Chesterfield Hills Property Status: Use District: Residential RM-32, City Center Multiple-Family Residential

8 Staff Report 211 N. Harrison Road Page 2 December 2, 2016 Assessors Photo 1957 Historical Description: This house can be characterized as colonial revival with a gambrel roof. Indentifying features are: Accentuated front door, normally with decorative crown (pediment) supported by pilasters, or extended forward and supported by slender columns to form entry porch; doors commonly have overhead fanlights or sidelights; façade normally shows symmetrically balanced windows and center door (less commonly with door-off center); windows with double-hung sashes, usually with multi-pane glazing in one or both sashes; windows frequently in adjacent pairs. (Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984, 2013) Historical Ownership: Larry Kestenbaum's book on Significant Figures in the History of East Lansing has no listing for this address. Historic District Significance:

9 Staff Report 211 N. Harrison Road Page 3 December 2, 2016 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. Proposal: The applicant has requested to replace the wood siding on north side of the house with a HardiPlank Lap Siding (fiber cement board). If the commission would allow more siding the applicant would like to replace more of the existing wood siding. REVIEW PROCESS Staff comments and points of observation are highlighted in gray. 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:

10 Staff Report 211 N. Harrison Road Page 4 December 2, 2016 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 Powers and Duties of Historic District Commission IV. 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 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) The Commission shall establish preservation guidelines in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. The preservation guidelines shall govern the Historic

11 Staff Report 211 N. Harrison Road Page 5 December 2, 2016 Preservation Officer and Commission's decisions with regard to Certificates of Appropriateness. (b) 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 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,

12 Staff Report 211 N. Harrison Road Page 6 December 2, 2016 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 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. IV. Section Notice to Proceed Not applicable An application for a certificate of appropriateness for work, determined by the commission to be in noncompliance with the preservation guidelines, may be allowed upon issuance of a notice to proceed. The commission shall issue a notice to proceed instead of a certificate of appropriateness if any of the following conditions are found to prevail and the commission finds that, upon the recommendation of the building department and the historic preservation officer, the proposed work is necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions: STAFF REVIEW: The sample provided by the applicant shows a piece of the existing siding that is in bad shape. Looking at the quotes for James Hardi Siding and Cedar Siding, both would work as replacements for the existing siding of the house. FINDINGS: Applicable Code areas referenced as follows: Sec Secretary of interior Standards Preservation Guidelines 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. RECOMMENDATION:

13 Staff Report 211 N. Harrison Road Page 7 December 2, 2016 At this time staff cannot make a recommendation. It would be up the commission to decide if the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation item number 6 is applicable on this application. The applicant has provided quotes for both products and both types of siding are similar in price. If the commission were to take action, staff would recommend that not just one side of the house be replaced. 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. 2) A final inspection will be done by the Historic Preservation Officer 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. Attachments: Zoning Map Aerial Map Certificate of Appropriateness Applicant Photos Quotes

14 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH HARRISON ROAD ELM STREET

15 ZONING MAP tington n d sterfield University Oak N Harrison Road Elm Center Beal 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 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

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 Department of Planning, Building and Development Staff Contact: Pablo Majano Phone No: (517) HDC Agenda: December 8, 2016 STAFF REPORT HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION December 2, Chesterfield Parkway HDC WILL DETERMINE IF APPLICATION IS COMPLETE Staff Photo Existing Conditions: 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: Use District: Residential R-2, Medium Density Single-Family Residential

26 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 2 December 2, 2016 Assessors Photo 1957 Historical 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. Indentifying 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 nonfabled 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: Larry Kestenbaum's book on Significant Figures in the History of East Lansing has no listing for this address.

27 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 3 December 2, 2016 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. Proposal: 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 the front porch for safety and security purposes REVIEW PROCESS Staff comments and points of observation are highlighted in gray. Note: In order to assist in reviewing applications as required under this Code, Staff has included

28 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 4 December 2, 2016 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 Powers and Duties of Historic District Commission IV. 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 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

29 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 5 December 2, 2016 (a) 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. (b) 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 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.

30 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 6 December 2, 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 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. IV. Section Notice to Proceed Not applicable An application for a certificate of appropriateness for work, determined by the commission to be in noncompliance with the preservation guidelines, may be allowed upon issuance of a notice to proceed. The commission shall issue a notice to proceed instead of a certificate of appropriateness if any of the following conditions are found to prevail and the commission finds that, upon the recommendation of the building department and the historic preservation officer, the proposed work is necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions: STAFF REVIEW: FINDINGS: Applicable Code areas referenced as follows: Sec Secretary of interior Standards Preservation Guidelines 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. New addition will be differentiated from the old with the addition of wood material to the front.

31 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 7 December 2, 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. New addition will not affect the integrity of the historic property if removed in the future. RECOMMENDATION: Staff needs clarification before recommending approval. While the design fits with the house, the materials stated on the applicant s applications are mixed from wood to vinyl. If the commission should chose to approve this application, the motion for recommendation should clarify the materials to be used for the front porch. 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. 2) A final inspection shall be done by the Historic Preservation Officer 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

32 Staff Report 303 Chesterfield Pkwy Page 8 December 2, 2016 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: Zoning Map Aerial Map Certificate of Appropriateness Elevations and Materials Foot Print Narrative and Pictures

33 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH CHESTERFIELD PARKWAY GROVE STREET

34 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

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45 PLANNING, BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT Quality Services for a Quality Community MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: East Lansing Historic District Commission Pablo Majano Historic Preservation Officer DATE: December 2, 2016 City of East Lansing PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 410 Abbot Road East Lansing, MI (517) SUBJECT: Historic District Commission Meeting Dates for 2017 January 12 February 9 March 9 April 13 May 11 June 8 July 13 August 10 September 14 October 12 November 9 December 14