Mission Historic District Study Report Now Public

This story first appeared in the August 25, 2023, Mackinac Island Town Crier print edition

The updated proposed Mission Historic District study report is finally available for public review after the report was delayed in July when the Historic District Commission (HDC) asked the City Council to intervene and cancel a public hearing. At that time, some HDC commissioners raised concerns with which buildings the committee was considering to be historic, suggesting that not all buildings 50 years old are emblematic of the uniqueness of Mackinac Island’s architecture. The committee agreed to make the report publicly available at a meeting on Monday, August 21.

About 60 days after the report is filed with the state, the Historic District Study Committee will hold a public hearing to collect feedback on the proposed district. The study committee will then consider the comments and make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the district should be created. The City Council makes the ultimate decision in establishing historic districts.

At the study committee’s meeting Tuesday, August 8, the group decided to add the phrase “East End” to the title of the proposed district. It is now called the East End/Mission Historic District. It will extend roughly from the Island House Hotel (which is not included since it is already protected by state historic preservation standards) to Mission Point Resort, which is also not included, neither is the Beaver Dock.

Properties on both sides of the street will be included for that portion of Main Street, as well as Bogan Lane, Church Street, a portion of Truscott Street, Mc-Galpin Street, Mission Street, and Ferry Lane. Properties on the west side of Franks Street, the south side of Wendell Street, and a portion of the south side of Huron Road, as well as properties on both sides of alleys or courts in this area will also be included.

The committee is in the process of making the study easily available; it may be posted on the city’s website in the coming weeks.

August 8 Meeting

Study committee members deliberated the concerns HDC member Andrew Doud raised to the City Council in late July at a meeting Tuesday, July 25, and agreed to adjust the time frame buildings should be considered historic, termed the study’s “period of significance,” which begins in 1790, the approximate year the oldest standing structures on the Island were built. Rather than beginning 50 years ago, as is the state’s basic standard for what might be considered historic, the study will consider buildings built pre-1941 as historic. Shifting from 1973 to 1941 marks the nationwide halting of construction due to World War 2.

Some additional changes were made to the map at the August 8 meeting, including making the map easier to read and clearly marking vacant lots in the district since they don’t have a street address until a structure is built. Jennifer Metz of Past Perfect, the contractor working with the committee on the study, agreed to investigate how to count and document separate buildings on single lots, such as barns and condominiums.

Changes can still be made to the report based on public feedback. Study committee member Sam Barnwell said the committee got sidetracked by making adjustments to the map and reports before making them public. The committee should have been allowed to hold its hearing in July, he said, when HDC members could have brought forward their concerns then, rather than asking the City Council to intervene which forced the 60-day timeclock to restart. Committee members agreed that educating the public on their ability to suggest amendments is essential, noting the report is not finished until after feedback is taken into consideration.

The committee also discussed the density of historic buildings required to establish a new historic district, learning from the city’s historic preservation attorney Gary Rentrop that the state does not have a defined percentage or number. There must be a “sufficient number” of historic buildings, he said. In other words, there must be “enough” historic buildings for a district “to make sense.” Mr. Rentrop said the true value in the historic district study report is the history of the buildings that is compiled, and the narratives outlining the historic architecture of the district.

“Everybody gets hung up on the counts,” Mr. Barnwell said. “We waste all this time talking about the count. What we really should be focusing on is the data contained in those sheets and the history of that parcel.”

Now that the study report draft has been finalized, Mr. Rentrop will once again distribute the report to the State of Michigan, as he had done with the previous draft. Once filed, the study committee will schedule the public hearing and all property owners within the proposed district will be notified and encouraged to provide feedback before the report is finalized.