View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, December 4, 2018
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: City Commission Chambers, City Hall
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Minutes of the regular meeting of:
October 2, 2018
November 6, 2018
III. New Business
Case 2018-42 – 240, 250, 254 Monroe – New Construction
IV. Old Business
V. Other Business
HDC Local Standards Review – Residing and Trim Cladding, Roofing (Worksession)
VI. Adjourn
“We admire that which is old not because it is old, but because it is beautiful.” Winston Churchill
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT POLICY FOR ACCESS TO OPEN MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION AND ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES
The City of Muskegon will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as signers for the hearing impaired
and audio tapes of printed materials being considered at the meeting, to individuals with disabilities who want to attend 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 representative dial 231-
724-6705
1
II. MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 2, 2018
Chairperson J. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Hilt, S. Radtke, L. Wood, K. Panozzo; D. Warren
MEMBERS ABSENT: S. Kroes; A. Riegler, excused
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: K. Zimmerman, Community enCompass;
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of September 4, 2018 was made by J. Hilt, sup-
ported by K. Panozzo and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2018-33 – 1267 Ransom – Windows. Applicant: Mark Krier. District: McLaughlin. Current
Function: Residential. The applicant is seeking approval to replace twenty-nine (29) deteriorating
windows with new vinyl windows. The rough openings will remain the same. A sketch of the
home’s layout was provided, showing the windows to be replaced.
Board members and staff discussed the many windows on the house. They concurred that they
would not require that all windows be replaced with wood; however, they did want the 9 windows
facing Ransom Street to be wood.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace twenty (20) deteriorating windows with new
vinyl windows within the same rough openings, and to replace nine (9) windows from the front-
facing façade with wood windows within the same rough openings, as long as the necessary permits
are obtained was made by S. Radtke, supported by J. Hilt and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, S.
Radtke, L. Wood, K. Panozzo; and D. Warren voting aye.
Case 2018-34 – 421 W. Webster Ave – Garage. Applicant: Kevin and Jacquelyn Huss. District:
Houston. Current Function: Residential. The applicant is seeking approval to construct a detached,
26- x 26-foot garage behind the home. The proposed garage will be located approximately 8 feet
from the easterly lot line, and a concrete apron will extend to approximately 2 feet from the rear lot
line along the alley. The proposed garage will be sided with “SmartSide” siding of a cedar shake
2
design to resemble the cedar siding on the house. Two garage doors will face the alley, and two ad-
joining entry doors will face the yard.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to construct a detached, 26- x 26-foot garage behind the
home sided with “SmartSide” siding of a cedar shake design to match the shadow lines of the
home’s siding, with two steel garage doors facing the alley, two adjoining wood entry doors facing
the yard, and vinyl windows for secondary façades, as long as the work meets all zoning require-
ments and the necessary permits are obtained, was made by S. Radtke, supported by L. Wood and
unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, S. Radtke, L. Wood, K. Panozzo; and D. Warren voting aye.
Case 2018-35 – 446 W. Webster Ave – Fence. Applicant: David and Lori Loring. District: Nation-
al Register. Current Function: Residential. The applicant is seeking approval to install 30 feet of
30” tall fencing and two gates to enclose the backyard of the property.
A motion that the HDC approve the request install 30 feet of 30-inch tall fencing and two gates to
enclose the backyard of the property as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the nec-
essary permits are obtained, was made by S. Radtke, supported by J. Hilt and unanimously ap-
proved, with J. Hilt, S. Radtke, L. Wood, K. Panozzo; and D. Warren voting aye.
Case 2018-36 – 1173 4th St – Chimney Removal. Applicant: Community enCompass. District:
Houston. Current Function: Residential. The applicant is seeking approval to remove the existing
chimney to just below the roofline, or remove and rebuild the chimney up to four feet for aesthetic
purposes only.
S. Radtke confirmed that the fireplace was no longer used and that there were safety issues to con-
sider. K. Zimmerman stated that was correct; it would cost approximately $10,000 to restore the
fireplace to working order. She stated that the chimney’s construction was compromised and they
were concerned it could fall down at any time. It was being held up by a metal rod at this time, and
was causing leaks in the house. She stated that they would enclose the fireplace inside the house so
it couldn’t be used, leaving the recently remodeled mantel.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to remove the existing chimney to just below the roof-
line, and rebuild the chimney to 4 feet for aesthetic purposes as long as the necessary permits are
obtained, was made by D. Warren, supported by L. Wood and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt,
S. Radtke, L. Wood, K. Panozzo; and D. Warren voting aye.
Case 2018-37 – 28 W. Forest Ave – Residing. Applicant: David Shedd. District: Clinton-Peck.
Current Function: Residential. The applicant is seeking approval to remove the Masonite siding on
three sides of the house (excluding the rear facade) as well as the garage, and to replace it with wood
grain, cement board siding with cedar style siding to be installed on the peaks of the three front-
facing gable ends. The applicant is also requesting to replace the exterior trim around the windows
and door with new 4-inch trim.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace siding on three sides of the house and the gar-
age (excluding the rear facade) with a smooth-surfaced, cement board siding with cedar shake- style
siding installed on the peaks of the three front-facing gable ends, and to replace the exterior trim
3
around the windows and door with new 4-inch wooden trim as long as the work meets all zoning
requirements and the necessary permits are obtained, was made by S. Radtke, supported by D. War-
ren and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, S. Radtke, L. Wood, K. Panozzo; and D. Warren voting
aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
HDC Local Standards Review – Signage – S. Radtke suggested starting with a smaller section of
the standards, as efforts to review the signage section had not worked yet. Board members con-
curred, and it was decided that the first sections to review would be the Roofing and Residing and
Trim Cladding sections. Suggested changes would be reviewed by the board after their November
meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:47 p.m.
4
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
November 6, 2018
Chairperson J. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Hilt, S. Radtke, L. Wood, K. Panozzo; D. Warren. A. Riegler
MEMBERS ABSENT: S. Kroes
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: B. Playford, 427 W Muskegon Ave; K. Hunter, 1133 6th St.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The regular meeting minutes of October 2, 2018 will be presented for approval at the December
meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
J. Pesch requested that the board hear the cases out of order, with 2018-39 and 2018-40 being pre-
sented first.
Case 2018-39 – 1641 Jefferson St – Fence. Applicant: Karen Panozzo. District: Jefferson. Current
Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to re-
place a 6-foot tall wood fence with a 4-foot tall aluminum fence on the south side of the property
and to install the same aluminum fence along the north side of the property.
K. Panozzo stated that they would keep the existing privacy fence at the rear of the property along
the alley and install the 4-foot black aluminum fence along the sides of the property.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace a 6-foot tall wood fence with a 4-foot tall
aluminum fence on the south side of the property and to install the same aluminum fence along the
north side of the property as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary per-
mits are obtained, was made by J. Hilt, supported by D. Warren and approved, with J. Hilt, S. Radt-
ke, L. Wood, D. Warren and A. Riegler voting aye. K. Panozzo abstained from voting, as she was
the applicant.
Case 2018-40 – 427 W. Muskegon Ave – Siding. Applicant: Brent Playford. District: Houston.
Current Function: Residential. The applicant is seeking approval to reside the southwest façade of
the structure using a treated engineered wood lap siding with a wood grain texture. B. Playford stat-
ed that the weather had aged the exposed southwest façade of the building and he wished to replace
the siding before its condition worsened. S. Radtke stated that the board preferred a non-textured
siding, as the original wood would have been non-textured. B. Playford stated that he had suggested
5
the textured wood as it would more closely match the rest of the wood on the house, which had been
in place for decades and no longer had a smooth texture. K. Panozzo asked B. Playford if he
planned to replace the siding on the rest of the house. He stated that he planned to replace the re-
maining siding with cedar boards as needed. On the exposed façade, he wanted a consistent look
and the engineered wood would provide that. Board members and Mr. Playford discussed textured
vs smooth siding and which would be a better match. S. Radtke asked if the reveal would match the
rest of the house. B. Playford stated that the overlap (reveal) would be the same. He also stated that
the textured boards he proposed still looked smoother than the original wood siding that was still on
the house. S. Radtke and A. Riegler stated that the standards disallowed a textured product; they
realized it would not look exactly like the current wood siding due to the age of it. B. Playford stat-
ed that he would do textured or smooth, depending on what the board decided.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to reside the southwest façade of the structure using a
treated engineered wood lap siding with a smooth texture as long as the necessary permits are ob-
tained, was made by A. Riegler, supported by K. Panozzo and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt,
S. Radtke, L. Wood, K. Panozzo; D. Warren and A. Riegler voting aye.
Case 2018-38 – 1133 6th St – Rehabilitation. Applicant: Kirk Hunter. District: Clay-Western. Cur-
rent Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to
undertake extensive renovations to the house, including the following: 1) replace the existing win-
dows with new wood windows of the same size and design, but with metal or vinyl clasps, 2) re-
place the existing wood siding with matching concrete siding, 3) eliminate five windows and the
door on the southeast side of house adjacent to the alley, 4) remove two second floor windows and
install a total of four 18”x48” transom windows, 5) remove a tree and pave a parking pad on the
north side of the home in anticipation of a garage, 6) eliminate the second door opening on the north
side of the porch and move the original wood door to replace the existing steel door that faces 6th
Street, 7) eliminate a first floor window and enlarge an existing window opening for French doors
on rear façade, 8) install a 6-foot tall, wood stockade fence along the alley and rear property line, 9)
addition of a second story, double-hung window on the north façade, 10) installation of exterior ac-
cent lights recessed in soffits, solar panels, and a small wind turbine. Extensive changes were made
to this house by a previous owner without HDC approval. None of the changes in progress were
done by the applicant.
Pictures of the house showing its previous and current state, along with drawings of the proposed
changes were reviewed and discussed by board members, staff, and the applicant. A. Riegler stated
that the front façade was more important than the other sides of the house. S. Radtke stated that he
was not opposed to changes proposed to the front of the house. The board concurred that the first
floor front window near the porch that would be replaced could be approved due to the awkward
angle at which the roofline hit the window. K. Hunter explained the reasoning behind the garage
location proposal, stating that it would be difficult to build it behind the house, as there was about a
four-foot drop-off in the rear by the alley, which would require extensive fill and a retaining wall.
He preferred to place the garage alongside the house facing Sixth St. The board moved on to dis-
cuss the 2nd floor windows and attempted to determine which were original. J. Pesch stated that
there appeared to be an offset area of the siding where a double window may have existed in the
past. Another window looked in on an indoor closet area. Board members then discussed the first
floor row of windows on the alley side of the house; they were not in favor of replacing those 8
6
windows with 3 as proposed. K. Hunter stated that several of those windows looked in to a closet
and were covered over inside the house. S. Radtke stated that records did not show whether this ar-
ea was an addition or original; it could have been added on later. A. Riegler stated that she was op-
posed to the space between the new windows as shown on the renderings provided. S. Radtke stated
that he had been in the house in the past and the windows were in poor condition. He preferred that
the replacement windows not have the gap in between either, as having the windows right next to
each other better reflected the sunroom design currently there.
A. Riegler and D. Warren left at 5:00 PM.
S. Radtke discussed the bump-out on the rear of the house and asked if that was going to be a sided
area without windows. K. Hunter stated that was correct. S. Radtke went back to the front features
of the house to confirm which changes the board members had agreed on. He stated that the board-
ed-up, second floor window was architecturally awkward and the proposed changes to that would
make the house more aesthetically pleasing. He asked if the new windows would have the same
headers and trim. K. Hunter stated that they would. S. Radtke asked about the texture of the new
siding. K. Hunter stated that it would be smooth boards and the same width as what was currently
there. Board members continued discussing the proposed changes with the applicant and deter-
mined which requests would be approved and which would be postponed until a later date.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to make the following changes to the house: 1) replace
the existing wood siding with matching concrete siding with a smooth finish retaining all architec-
tural embellishments (profiles, moldings, trim, brackets, headers, waterboards, etc), 2) eliminate the
second door opening on the north side of the front porch and move the original wood door to replace
the existing steel door that faces 6th Street, 3) eliminate the first-story rear door and replace the 8
windows on the southeast side of house adjacent to the alley with four windows with no spaces be-
tween the windows, 4) install a 6-foot tall wood stockade fence along the alley and rear property
line, 5) replace the existing first-story door and add a second-story double hung window on the
northwest façade, 6) replace existing windows with new wood windows of the same size and design,
with the exception of allowing changes to the openings as listed in items 7 – 12 as noted: 7) elimi-
nate the window partially under the porch roof on the front façade, 8) replace the second-story vinyl
double hung window on the front façade with a new wood window matching the original window
opening size, 9) eliminate the setback second-story window facing 6th Street on the north side of the
front façade, 10) remove three second-story windows and install a total of four 18”x48” transom
windows (two on the southeast, one on the rear, and one on the northwest façade), 11) eliminate the
first-story window on the rear façade and, 12) enlarge the existing window opening for French doors
on the rear façade as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are
obtained, was made by K. Panozzo, supported by J. Hilt and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, S.
Radtke, L. Wood, and K. Panozzo voting aye. Board members and the applicant concurred that the
requests to 1) remove a tree, 2) pave a parking pad on the north side of the home, 3) install solar
panels, 4) install a small wind turbine, and 5) install exterior accent lights recessed in soffits would
be suspended until a future meeting.
Case 2018-41 – 1561 Peck St – Windows. Applicant: Kurtis Fowler. District: Clinton-Peck. Cur-
rent Function: Residential. J. Pesch stated that the applicant was seeking approval to replace 21
wood windows with vinyl windows of the same size and design. Three existing windows (currently
7
boarded-up) on the north and west façades are proposed to be eliminated. The work had already
been partially completed without HDC approval; a stop-work order had been placed on the house, as
no building permit had been obtained either.
Board members were unhappy that most of the work had been done without approval, and that most
of the windows had already been replaced. They concurred that they could not deny the request to
replace the windows since the original windows were already gone. They requested that staff look
into what action could be taken by the HDC and that fines be levied if possible. They agreed that
they would not approve the removal of the boarded-up windows.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace 21 wood windows with vinyl windows of the
same size and design as long as the necessary permits are obtained, and to deny the request to elimi-
nate three existing windows currently boarded-up on the north and west façades, was made by S.
Radtke, supported by J. Hilt and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, S. Radtke, L. Wood, and K.
Panozzo voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
HDC Local Standards Review – Residing and Trim Cladding, Roofing – Commissioners agreed
that this would be postponed until a future meeting due to the late hour.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:53 p.m.
8
III. NEW BUSINESS
Case 2018-42 – 240, 250, 254 Monroe – New Construction
Applicant: City of Muskegon/Dave Dusendang Custom Homes
District: Houston
Current Function: Vacant Lot
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to construct six rowhouses on three vacant lots on the north side
of Monroe Avenue between 3rd Street and 4th Street (four additional rowhouses will be built across
the street on 235 and 239 Monroe, but those will not be located in an historic district). The units are
of modular construction, and will have attached garages accessed from the rear alley. Similar to the
Midtown Square development, the project is in partnership with the City of Muskegon, and aims to
add new and varied housing options to the near downtown Nelson neighborhood. Additional draw-
ings will be available at the meeting.
Front façade
9
Standards
The Historic District Commission strives to protect the historical fabric of Muskegon. The major
objectives of the Commission are to safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving historic dis-
tricts which reflect elements of its cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history; to
stabilize and improve property values in such districts; to foster civic beauty; to strengthen the local
economy; and to promote the use of historic districts for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the
citizens.
Although a significant amount of the Commission's work is centered on historic structures, the con-
struction of new structures on vacant lots within historic districts is permitted and encouraged.
However, those professionals designing new structures should strive for excellence in design wheth-
er small individual infill construction within the existing historic district blocks, or larger inde-
pendently sited projects. New structures should be in keeping with the existing historical character
of the neighborhood or district with a design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and
color of the surrounding buildings and landscaping. Good design which responds positively to its
surroundings can be done in several different ways; therefore, it is impossible to develop specific
interpretations which will apply in all cases. Every site has its own design opportunities.
The following design recommendations shall be used by the Historic District Commission in evalu-
ating requests for new construction within the districts. These basic criteria should be a part of any
proposed design brought before the Commission for approval.
10
Recommended Not Recommended
Height - Relating the overall height of new Height - Introducing new construction that
construction to that of adjacent structures. varies greatly in height (too high or too low)
As a general rule, construct new buildings to from older buildings in the vicinity. Ex-
a height roughly equal to the average height treme differences in building heights will
of existing buildings from the historic period have a detrimental visual effects on the ap-
on and across the street. pearance of surrounding property.
Scale - Relating the size and proportions of Scale - Creating buildings that in height,
new structures to the scale of adjacent build- width, or massing violate the existing scale
ings. Although a building may be much of the area. The new building should not
larger than its neighbors in terms of square disrupt the scale and rhythm of the
footage, it should maintain the same scale streetscape, although it might be appropriate
and rhythm as the existing buildings. in a different location.
Massing - Breaking up uninteresting box- Massing - Introducing single, monolithic
like forms into smaller, varied masses such forms that are not relieved by variations in
as are common on most buildings from the massing. Box-like facades and forms are
historic period. Variety of form and intrusive when placed in a streetscape of
massing are elements essential to the charac- older buildings that have varied massing and
ter of the streetscape in historic districts. facade articulation.
For example, if an infill site is large, the
mass of the facade can be broken into a
number of small bays.
Directional Expression - Relating the verti- Directional Expression - Creating strongly
cal, horizontal, or non-directional facade horizontal or vertical facade expressions un-
character of new buildings to the predomi- less compatible with the character of struc-
nant directional expression of nearby build- tures in the immediate area. A new building
ings. Horizontal buildings can be made to that does not relate well to its neighbors or
relate to the more vertical adjacent structures to the rhythm of the streetscape because of
by breaking the facade into smaller masses an unbroken horizontal facade should be
that conform to the primary expression of avoided.
the streetscape.
Setback - Maintaining the historic facade Setback - Violating the existing setback pat-
lines of streetscape by locating front walls of tern by placing a new building in front of or
new buildings in the same plane as the fa- behind the historic facade line. Placing
cades of adjacent buildings. If exceptions buildings at odd angles to the street, unless
are made, buildings should be set back into in an area where diverse siting already ex-
the lot rather than closer to the street. If ex- ists, even if property setback is maintained,
isting setbacks vary, new buildings should should be avoided.
conform to historic siting patterns.
11
Sense of Entry - Articulating the main en- Sense of Entry - Introducing facades with no
trances to the building with covered porches, strong sense of entry. Side entries or entries
porticos, and other pronounced architectural not defined by a porch or similar transitional
forms. Entries were historically raised a few element result in an incompatible "flat" first-
steps above the grade of the property and floor facade.
were a prominent visual feature of the street
elevation of the building.
Roof Shapes - Relating the roof forms of the Roof Shapes - Introducing roof shapes,
new buildings to those found in the area. pitches, or materials not traditionally used in
Although not entirely necessary, duplication the area.
of the existing or traditional roof shapes,
pitches, and materials on new construction is
one way of making new structures more vis-
ually compatible.
Rhythm of Openings - Respecting the recur- Rhythm of Openings - Introducing incom-
rent alteration of wall areas with door and patible facade patterns that upset the rhythm
window elements in the facade. Also con- of openings established in surrounding
sidering the width-to-height ratio of bays in structures. For example, glass walls and
the facade. The placement of openings with window and door shapes and locations
respect to the facade's overall composition, which are disrespectful to the adjoining
symmetry or balanced symmetry should be buildings.
carefully studied.
Design Expression - Composing the materi- Design Expression - Violating the existing
als, textures and colors of the new building character of the district by introducing non-
facade to compliment adjacent facades and compatible materials, textures, colors, de-
relating details and decorations of the new tails, and decoration on new buildings.
building to those of existing surrounding
buildings.
Imitations - Accurate restoration of or visu- Imitations - Replicating or imitating the
ally compatible additions to existing build- styles, motif, or details of older periods.
ings and former construction, contemporary Such attempts detract from the character of
architecture that well represents our own the district by compromising what is truly
time yet, enhances the nature and character historic.
of the historic district.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to construct six rowhouses on the vacant lots at
240, 250, and 254 Monroe Avenue as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the neces-
sary permits are obtained.
12
IV. OLD BUSINESS
None
V. OTHER BUSINESS
HDC Local Standards Review – Residing and Trim Cladding, Roofing – The November 6th
worksession to review the Residing and Trim Cladding section and Roofing section of the local
standards was postponed until the December 4th meeting.
VI. ADJOURN
13
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails