Historic District Agenda 04-03-2018

View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer

                                          CITY OF MUSKEGON
                                     HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
                                          REGULAR MEETING

DATE OF MEETING:                         Tuesday, April 3, 2018
TIME OF MEETING:                         4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING:                        City Commission Chambers, City Hall


I.     Call to Order

II.    Approval of Minutes of the regular meeting of March 6, 2018

III.   New Business

       Case 2018-09 – 475 W. Webster – Fence

       Case 2018-10 – 487 W. Webster – Fence

       Case 2018-11 – 1181 Peck – Windows & Fascia/Soffit

IV.    Old Business

V.     Other Business

VI.    Adjourn

       “We admire that which is old not because it is old, but because it is beautiful.” Winston Churchill

       The City of Muskegon will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as signers for the hearing im-
       paired and audio tapes of printed materials being considered at the meeting, to individuals with disabilities who want to at-
       tend the meeting, upon twenty-four hour notice to the City of Muskegon. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary
       aids or services should contact the City of Muskegon by writing or calling the following: Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk
       at 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, MI 49440 or by calling (231) 724-6705 or TTY/TDD: Dial 7-1-1 and request that repre-
       sentative dial 231-724-6705


                                    CITY OF MUSKEGON
                              HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

                                            March 6, 2018

Chairperson J. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.

MEMBERS PRESENT:                J. Hilt, S. Kroes, L. Wood, K. Panozzo, D. Warren, S. Radtke

MEMBERS ABSENT:                 A. Riegler, excused

STAFF PRESENT:                  J. Pesch, D. Renkenberger

OTHERS PRESENT:                 B. Richards, Muskegon Rescue Mission; T. Warman for Shell Gas

A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of February 6, 2018 was made by J. Hilt, supported
by S. Kroes and unanimously approved.

Case 2018-06 – 1691 Peck Street – Signage. Applicant: Muskegon Rescue Mission. District: Clin-
ton-Peck. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is seek-
ing approval to install four new aluminum signs of varying sizes (72”x22”, 24”x15”, 20”x10”, and
20”x7”). Additionally, the applicant plans to replace the existing wood free-standing sign on Peck St
with a new free-standing sign measuring 48.8”x 33”, attached to the existing poles. The proposed
wall signs have already been installed.

D. Warren asked if they were just replacing existing signs. B. Richards stated that they were, but
they were also moving the signs to the new entrance. J. Hilt asked if the signs met City ordinance
requirements. J. Pesch stated that they did.

A motion that the HDC approve the request to install the four new aluminum walls signs and replace
the existing, free-standing sign as proposed, as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and
the necessary permits are obtained was made by D. Warren, supported by L. Wood and unanimously
approved, with J. Hilt, S. Kroes, L. Wood, K. Panozzo, and D. Warren voting aye.

S. Radtke arrived at 4:05 PM.

Case 2018-07 – 382 W. Muskegon Avenue – New Construction. Applicant: Jaime and Jerome John-
son. District: Houston. Current Function: Vacant Lot. J. Pesch stated that the applicants had re-
quested that this case be removed from the agenda.

Case 2018-08 – 275 W. Muskegon Avenue – Signage. Applicant: Muskegon Shell Station. District:
Houston. Current Function: Commercial. J. Pesch stated that he allowed this as a walk-on case, as
it was a simple request and the commercial building was not historic in nature. The Shell company
was updating its brand and was requesting to change the existing signage to match the new national
brand. J. Pesch stated that it appeared from the file that the last time the signage was changed was in
the early 2000s and that the monument sign received HDC approval in 1993. No changes to the
building were proposed.

T. Warman stated that the image on the signs would be updated but it was very similar to what was
already there. The large sign near the road would be reduced in size, fluorescent lighting would be
replaced with LED, and the mansard would be painted. D. Warren asked J. Pesch what the HDC
standards were for buildings such as this one. J. Pesch stated that the standards did not specifically
address this type of business. S. Radtke stated that his concern was whether changes to the sign
would cause it to lose its grandfathered status. J. Pesch stated that it would not lose its grandfathered
status as the overall dimensions of the sign frame were not changing and, due to the proposed smaller
sign near the road, they would be coming closer to compliance with the ordinance.

A motion to approve the new signs, the change in lighting, and the painting of the mansard as pro-
posed, with the conditions that all zoning ordinance requirements are met and any necessary permits
are obtained was made by S. Radtke, supported by K. Panozzo and unanimously approved, with J.
Hilt, S. Kroes, L. Wood, K. Panozzo, D. Warren, and S. Radtke voting aye.

Case 2018-01 – 1669 Peck – Porch Stairs. Applicant: Steven Radtke. District: Clinton-Peck. Cur-
rent Function: Residential. This case was tabled from February. The applicant is seeking approval to
temporarily cover the deteriorating concrete steps with wood. The wood is a temporary fix until full
restoration of the concrete steps can be undertaken.

J. Hilt asked if the brick structures next to the steps would be rebuilt also. S. Radtke stated that they
would; he planned to take the bricks apart and rebuild them. K. Panozzo asked how the wood would
be attached to the steps. S. Radtke stated that he planned to use deck lumber and metal ties to make a
single stairway unit, then set it atop the concrete steps and secure it with screws.

A motion that the HDC approve the request to cover the deteriorating concrete steps with wood as
proposed until full restoration of the cement steps and brickwork can be undertaken, as long as all
zoning requirements are met and the necessary permits are obtained was made by L. Wood, support-
ed by J. Hilt and approved, with J. Hilt, S. Kroes, L. Wood, K. Panozzo, and D. Warren voting aye,
and S. Radtke abstaining.

Case 2015-10 – 316 W. Webster (Hackley Library doors). Staff and board members had previously
discussed the suspected replacement of the front doors at Hackley Public Library. While the current
front doors appeared to match what existed prior to the building’s renovations, it has been deter-
mined that they were not the original doors and were installed without HDC approval. Considering

that public funds were used for the renovations, board members expected to be able to review docu-
mentation showing whether the doors were refurbished or replaced. J. Pesch stated that he had at-
tempted to contact the library director to obtain that information but he had not gotten a response. D.
Warren drafted a letter to the library director requesting an explanation for the door replacement,
which was reviewed and signed by the other HDC members. J. Pesch will send the finalized letter.

Historic District Commission Standards – J. Pesch had updated the Standards to omit references to
Class A and Class AA districts; missing illustrations were also reintroduced. Staff and board mem-
bers further discussed the HDC standards and agreed to review sections of the standards at subse-
quent meetings.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:56 PM.


                           Case 2018-09 – 475 W. Webster – Fence
                               Applicant: Matthew Dickinson
                                     District: Houston
                               Current Function: Residential


The applicant is seeking approval to reconfigure the existing fence and install new fencing in the
side yard.

Proposed relocated/new fence is higlighted.


Fences and gates are an extension of the architecture of a home. They should be compatible in
style and material. They should be appropriate to the size and scale of the structure. They, there-
fore, require review and approval by the Historic District Commission.

Sometimes it is necessary to use fencing for other than decorative purposes, such as marking
boundaries, privacy, screening unsightly areas, or security. Fencing for utilitarian purposes
sometimes requires fencing materials which are not of the period or character of the house. Non-
conforming fencing materials may be considered for use in the back of the structure.

Fence Guidelines
When building wood fencing, consideration should be given to the kind of wood best suited for
the project, adequate post foundations, weatherproofing, color, and amount of maintenance re-
quired. Simple variations of wood picket-style fencing are appropriate to many period homes.
Wood fences must be painted to complement or contrast the colors of the house. Pressure treated
wood shall be painted no later than one year after installation.

Iron fencing is an appropriate option for Victorian-era homes. Iron fencing was often modest in
proportion, seldom exceeding four feet in height. A popular standard was 36 inches.

Fencing materials such as split rails, stone, and brick may be considered if they reflect the feeling
of the home in material and character.

Chain-link and similar utilitarian fencing, such as industrial fencing, wire mesh, and barbed wire,
is not permitted in the front of a structure.

Hedges and natural fencing are possible alternatives to fences.

Fence Standards
LAYOUT REQUIREMENTS: (Please see the attached Supplementary Graphics sheets)
Conforming fences not over four feet (4') in height are permitted between the property line and
half way between the front and rear setback lines.

Corner lots will be considered to have two front yards, except that non-conforming fences higher
than 4' will be permitted immediately behind the existing side setback line (rather than half way
between the front and rear).


I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to relocate portions of the existing fence and
gate and install the new fence as proposed as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and
the necessary permits are obtained.

                           Case 2018-10 – 487 W. Webster – Fence
                             Applicant: Samantha Pulos-Porter
                                     District: Houston
                               Current Function: Residential


The applicant is seeking approval to install approximately four feet of new fencing and a gate in
the side yard. The proposed fencing and gate will match that at 475 W. Webster (presented in the
previous case).


See case 2018-09, above.


I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to install the new fence and gate as proposed as
long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.

                    Case 2018-11 – 1181 Peck – Windows & Fascia/Soffit
                                Applicant: Dennis Pintoski
                                   District: McLaughlin
                              Current Function: Residential


The applicant is seeking approval to replace 13 windows (29 ¼” x 78 ¼”) with vinyl windows of
the same size. Similar work was approved by the HDC in 1999, but was never started. Addition-
ally, the applicant is proposing to cover the existing roof eaves with a new vinyl and aluminum
fascia and soffit.

Existing 29 ¼” x 78 ¼”window        Proposed 29 ¼” x 78 ¼” window


Proposed covering


These guidelines pertain only to proposed changes to the structure and do not affect existing con-

These guidelines are primarily directed toward the front and side elevations of the structure.
Greater variances and more leniency may be extended toward proposed changes to the rear ele-
vation of the building by the Commission. All desired or proposed changes should be referred to
the Historic District Commission for consideration. Extenuating circumstances, the effect upon
the architecture of the particular structure together with the general effect upon the surrounding
structures, variables in architectural design, or the effect upon usage and viability of the structure
could dictate a variance from these guidelines.

No exterior doors, windows, or exterior woodwork shall be altered, removed, relocated, or added
without Historic District Commission approval.

Existing exterior window or door casings, sills, and caps shall not be altered from the original
design or appearance. Damaged or deteriorated wood shall be repaired as a first course of action.
When repair is not possible, elements shall be replaced with matching wood members. Damaged
or deteriorated wood elements may be replaced or covered with formed aluminum or vinyl, sub-
ject to Commission approval and provided that the original profile of the woodwork is not al-
tered or changed.

Primary Windows
Existing damaged or deteriorating window frames and sash shall be repaired as a first course of
action. When repair is not possible, elements shall be replaced with matching wood members.
Metal or vinyl replacement windows may be acceptable provided they match the original win-
dows in design and type and that they consist of or are painted an appropriate color. Bare metal
finishes generally will not be acceptable.

The size of glass lites and muntin arrangements shall not be altered without Commission approv-
al. Special glazing, such as stained or leaded art glass, shall not be removed without Commission
approval. Unusual decorative windows such as Palladian windows, oriels, bays, Gothic arch or
segment tops, etc. shall not be removed or altered.

Storm Windows
Wood storm and screen windows are the most appropriate for use in the historic district. Other
types of storm, screen, or combination windows will be approved provided that the new storm
window mullions align with the mullions of the primary windows. Blind stop storm and screen
windows (where such windows are placed inside the existing window frames rather than affixed
to the exterior of the frames) are preferable and may be required in some instances. Bare metal
storm and screen windows must be painted to match or complement the trim. Interior storm win-
dows may be acceptable as long as they do not detract from the appearance of the primary win-
dows. Care should be taken, however, when using interior storm windows because condensation

tends to form on the inside surface of the primary window and could cause damage to the wood
and paint if not properly ventilated.

Primary Doors
Every effort should be made to preserve or repair the original doors where damage has occurred.
When repair is not possible, the first choice shall be a similar salvaged door from a structure of
the approximate age and style. A new wood door may be used when a salvaged door is not avail-
able. Such new door shall match the original in detail and finish.

The Commission may approve new wood doors that may slightly differ from the original in cas-
es where replicating the original may not be feasible, as long as such doors generally conform to
the ones illustrated on the attached sheet. Under certain circumstances, the Commission may ap-
prove doors made of material other than wood provided they conform to the same design re-

Storm Doors
Wooden storm and screen doors are preferred and will generally be the required option especial-
ly on the front of the structure. Aluminum or metal storm and screen doors may be used so long
as they are not mill finished or anodized aluminum. Baked enamel or other applicable paints or
finishes will be acceptable. In general, storm and screen doors shall conform to those illustrated
on an attached sheet. The door stiles and rails should be a minimum of 4" wide and one lite
doors, where practical, are preferred in order not to detract from the existing primary door. Jalou-
sie doors are not acceptable for use as storm doors in the historic districts. Ornamental iron work
safety doors are also generally inappropriate in the historic districts.
Exterior Woodwork
Existing decorative woodwork such as railings, moldings, eave, and gable cornice trim, tracery,
columns, observatories, scrolls, bargeboards, lattice, and other carved or sawn wood ornament
shall not be removed or altered without Commission approval. Existing deteriorated ornamental
woodwork shall not be removed but shall be repaired or replaced with matching materials where

I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to replace the 13 windows and install a new vi-
nyl and aluminum fascia and soffit as proposed as long as the work meets all zoning require-
ments and the necessary permits are obtained.



Top of Page

Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails