View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, October 1, 2019
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 August 6, 2019
III. New Business
Case 2019-20 – 1575-79 Peck – Doors
Case 2019-21 – 1275 Ransom – Porch
Case 2019-22 – 1502 Peck – Balcony
Case 2019-23 – 1188 4th – New Construction (Garage)
IV. Old Business
Case 2019-18 – 511 W. Clay – Siding
Case 2019-19 – 1593 Jefferson – Rehabilitation/New Construction
V. Other Business
Adoption of Updated HDC Local Standards
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
August 6, 2019
Chairperson J. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Hilt, K. George, A. Riegler, D. Warren, S. Radtke
MEMBERS ABSENT: K. Panozzo, excused; L. Wood, excused
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: M. Tisch, Tischco Signs; E. Decker, 416 W. Webster; F. Peterson,
1593 Jefferson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of July 2, 2019, was made by D. Warren, support-
ed by S. Radtke and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2019-16 – 1275 Peck St (Signs). Applicant: Anchor Insurance Group Inc. District: McLaugh-
lin. Current Function: Commercial. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking
approval to remove the existing channel letters reading “INSURANCE” from the east façade of the
building and replace with new channel letters. The applicant is also requesting to replace one 3’x7’
sign face on the south façade. Drawings for the proposed sign were provided.
J. Hilt asked if the new letters would be the same size as the old ones. M. Tisch stated that they may
not be exactly the same size, but they would fit within the sign allotment. S. Radtke pointed out that
this was not a historic building and it was not a contributing resource to the district.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to remove the existing channel letters from the east fa-
çade and replace them with new channel letters in the design shown in the application and to replace
one 3’x7’ sign face on the south façade with the design shown in the application as long as the work
meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained, was made by D. Warren, sup-
ported by S. Radtke and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, K. George, A. Riegler, D. Warren, and
S. Radtke voting aye.
Case 2019-17 – 416 W. Webster Ave (Fence). Applicant: Eric Decker. District: National Regis-
ter. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking ap-
2
proval to construct a six-foot tall wood privacy fence and a three-foot tall privacy fence around the
backyard of the property. The work has already been completed.
J. Pesch had contacted the property owners to let them know that the fence required HDC approval.
The fence was not in violation of any HDC standards.
A motion that the HDC approve the six-foot tall wood privacy fence and three-foot tall privacy
fence around the backyard of the property as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the
necessary permits are obtained, was made by S. Radtke, supported by D. Warren and unanimously
approved, with J. Hilt, K. George, A. Riegler, D. Warren, and S. Radtke voting aye.
Case 2019-18 – 511 W. Clay Ave (Siding). Applicant: Katherine Jawor/Steve Dahlstrom. District:
National Register. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant
is seeking approval to replace areas of deteriorated wood siding on the rear of the house with a treat-
ed engineered wood lap siding (SmartSide) of the same size, color, and spacing.
Board members had questions about the locations of the deteriorated wood and how much of it was
going to be replaced. They concurred that they would table the meeting until the applicant or a rep-
resentative could be present to provide that information.
A motion that the HDC table the request to replace areas of deteriorated wood siding on the rear of
the house until additional information was provided, was made by S. Radtke, supported by K.
George and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, K. George, A. Riegler, D. Warren, and S. Radtke
voting aye.
Case 2019-19 – 1593 Jefferson St (Rehabilitation/New Construction). Applicant: Frank Peter-
son. District: Jefferson. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The ap-
plicant is seeking approval to 1) add aluminum seamless gutters and downspouts, 2) add new shut-
ters to all windows on the front façade, 3) reinstall the storm windows, 4) replace a window on the
south side of the house with a new door (to access proposed patio), 5) remove the existing garage
doors and reside the existing three-stall garage with a treated engineered wood lap siding, converting
the space to a den, 6) build a new, 28’x24’ detached garage at the rear of the property, and 7) con-
struct new, 6’-tall cedar privacy fencing to enclose the back yard.
J. Hilt asked if the house previously had shutters. F. Peterson stated that it did, and he still had two
original shutters in the basement. The shutter hardware was also still affixed to the house. He
planned to replicate the original shutter when getting others made for the rest of the windows. J.
Pesch provided an old photo of the house showing the shutters. A. Riegler asked if the gutters
would be white. F. Peterson stated that was correct, and the shutters would be green. J. Hilt asked
if there were any storm windows. F. Peterson stated that he had some of the storm windows, and
they had “T-style” trim, which he would look into getting replicated. A. Riegler stated that it was
important to keep scale in mind when building the new garage. F. Peterson said the garage would
sit back by the alley, adjacent to the neighbor’s garage. A. Riegler suggested that the garage win-
dows be changed to add divided lites to them to match the house windows. K. George asked if the
garage would be sided. F. Peterson stated that it would be sided to match the garage-turned-den on
the back of the house. K. George stated that she thought the roof pitch would be sufficient to match
3
the house but something was needed to break up the street-facing elevation, such as trim or a frieze
board. A. Riegler asked if the brick on the rear of the house, currently the garage, would be covered
with siding. F. Peterson stated that it would be sided, as there had been a fire there in the past and
the brick used to repair the damaged areas did not match the rest of the house. A. Riegler suggested
a different type of utility door on the garage, other than flat panel. F. Peterson stated that the door
would be facing the alley and not visible. S. Radtke stated that he would like to see the garage roof
pitch more closely match the house. F. Peterson stated that his builder recommended against match-
ing the house roof, as it would add substantial cost (Staff has since approved the applicants revised
application which includes a hip roof more closely matching that of the house, this affected some of
the requirements outlined in the motion – see below). K. George discussed different possibilities to
break up the front elevation of the garage to help better match the house; she stated that some simple
trim work should be sufficient. Board members discussed how to dress up the garage and concurred
that only the elevation facing Jefferson St. needed additional details. K. George asked about the
proposed patio door mentioned in item #4 of the staff report. F. Peterson stated that he withdrew
that request as they no longer planned to convert that window to a door. He also stated that the low-
er window sashes were getting very wet and some of the bottom sashes would need to be rebuilt.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to 1) add aluminum seamless gutters and downspouts,
2) add new shutters to all windows on the front façade, 3) reinstall the storm windows, 4) remove
the existing garage doors and reside the existing three-stall garage with a treated engineered wood
lap siding, 5) build a new, 28’x24’ detached garage at the rear of the property as shown in the draw-
ings included in the application (updated to include a hip roof), and 6) construct a new, 6’-tall cedar
privacy fence to enclose the back yard, as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the
necessary permits are obtained was made by A. Riegler. K. George suggested that wording about
the additional garage details be included in the motion. A. Riegler amended the motion to add that a
frieze board or additional decorative trim would be required on the side of the garage facing Jeffer-
son St. (after the change in roof style, this is no longer relevant to the motion). K. George supported
the motion which was approved, with K. George, A. Riegler, D. Warren, and S. Radtke voting aye,
and J. Hilt voting nay.
Old Business
None
Other
HDC Local Standards Draft – Staff had assembled a draft of the local standards incorporating the
various changes discussed over past meetings. A future workshop will be held to review the updat-
ed local standards in more detail before final adoption.
41 Irwin Ave (Siding) – The new owner has contacted Staff about vinyl siding previously installed
on the house that covers an existing door on the garage and existing windows on the house and
breezeway. The residing work was approved by the HDC in December 1996 with the conditions that
all trim work, including window and door frames, boards, and architectural features be retained or
covered with materials of the same size and shape, as consistent with the residing and trim cladding
4
standards and guidelines. As this work was not permitted to cover any existing doors or windows.
Staff gave the current owner permission to correct this work by removing the siding in these areas.
HDC Staff Approval (Fences) – Staff is requesting that Staff Approval powers be granted for pro-
posed new fencing in historic districts as long as the work complies with the Fence Standards and
Guidelines. This type of work would be added to the Staff Approval Form, allowing applicants to
bypass full HDC review when installing a new fence. A draft of the Staff Approval Form was pro-
vided to board members with additions denoted in bold.
Hackley Library – J. Pesch notified board members that the city’s Fire Marshal had stated that ad-
dress numbers were required on the front of the Hackley Public Library and the Torrent House. The
library would like to put address numbers on transom windows above the front door of each build-
ing. Board members concurred that that would be acceptable as long as HDC standards were fol-
lowed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
5
III. NEW BUSINESS
Case 2019-20 – 1575-79 Peck – Doors
Applicant: VEL Properties LLC (Vicki Lanting)
District: Clinton-Peck
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to replace the two front doors with new front doors of a different
style. The work has already been completed.
1575-79 Peck with new style of doors
6
1575-79 Peck with previous style of doors with glass lites
Standards
General
These guidelines pertain only to proposed changes to the structure and do not affect existing con-
struction.
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 elevation of the
building by the Commission. All desired or proposed changes should be referred to the Historic Dis-
trict 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 re-
pair is not possible, elements shall be replaced with matching wood members. Damaged or deterio-
7
rated wood elements may be replaced or covered with formed aluminum or vinyl, subject to Com-
mission approval and provided that the original profile of the woodwork is not altered or changed.
Primary Windows
Existing damaged or deteriorating window frames and sash shall be repaired as a first course of ac-
tion. 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 windows 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 approval.
Special glazing, such as stained or leaded art glass, shall not be removed without Commission ap-
proval. Unusual decorative windows such as Palladian windows, oriels, bays, Gothic arch or seg-
ment 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 exteri-
or 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 windows may be ac-
ceptable as long as they do not detract from the appearance of the primary windows. Care should be
taken, however, when using interior storm windows because condensation tends to form on the in-
side 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, a new wood door may be used. 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 cases
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 approve
doors made of material other than wood provided they conform to the same design requirements.
Storm Doors
Wooden storm and screen doors are preferred and will generally be the required option especially 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 the 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. Jalousie 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.
8
Exterior Woodwork
Existing decorative woodwork such as railings, moldings, eave, and gable cornice trim, tracery, col-
umns, 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 possible.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to replace the two front doors with new front doors
of a different style as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are
obtained.
9
Case 2019-21 – 1275 Ransom – Porch
Applicant: City of Muskegon CNS (on behalf of Jim Jim)
District: McLaughlin
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to remove the rear porch and install a new, 6’x12’ porch with
stairs, 2”x6” hand rail, and 2”x2” spindles. The porch was heavily damaged in a storm in 2014, but
the HDC-approved rebuild/repair of the porch (to match the original) was never completed.
View of 1275 Ransom from street
10
Current view of rear porch from driveway (above), and 2014 photos of tree damage to porch (below)
11
Rear porch stairs
View of rear porch from back yard, farther from driveway
12
Standards
Covered Porches
Newly constructed covered porches shall be decked with tongue and groove decking and painted to
complement or contrast the house (unless the construction involves the rebuilding of a missing orig-
inal porch where documentable evidence shows a different method of decking). Ventilation under
the porch deck is necessary to prevent excessive moisture from causing deterioration to the porch
members. Therefore, the porch skirt shall be detailed in a similar manner to that shown on the at-
tached decking detail illustration. In some cases, composite decking materials may be permitted for
use on covered porches.
Freestanding or Attached Decks (Uncovered Porches)
Placement and design of all decks shall be approved by the Commission. Decks should be located in
unobtrusive locations and shall feature one of the edge details featured on the attached decking de-
tail illustration. Decking boards shall consist of 5/4” thick pressure treated decking or square edged
fir decking and appropriately finished. In some cases, composite decking materials may be permitted
for use on uncovered porches.
Handrails and Guardrails
Existing original handrails and guardrails shall not be removed without the approval of the Commis-
sion. Deteriorated rails shall be repaired as a first course of action. When replacement is necessary,
the original details shall be replicated. In cases where height or spacing is required to be modified to
meet code requirements, the Commission will carefully review the options to determine the most
appropriate method to accomplish this requirement. In cases where handrails or guardrails are new
(including those for new decks), the design shall generally conform to the railing and balustrade de-
tail illustrated on the attached sketches.
In all cases, if an original guardrail was higher than the minimum height as listed above, then the
original height applies. In general, in order to meet building code requirements, the minimum guard-
rail height in the historic districts shall conform to the following standards:
PORCH OR DECK FLOOR HEIGHT
FROM FINISHED GROUND GRADE MINIMUM GUARDRAIL HEIGHT
0” - 30” 0”
30” - 60” 24”
60” and higher 30”
Porch Enclosure
Existing screen or open porches shall not be enclosed with framing or windows without approval by
the Commission. Generally, when an open or screened porch is enclosed, the enclosure materials or
windows should preserve the appearance of a porch in order to maintain the original design and to
avoid the visual effect of a boxed-in appendage. This can often be accomplished with full length
windows and exterior screens which would extend from within a few inches off the floor or base of
the existing porch opening thus maintaining the effect of a screened in porch or solarium. On most
full length porches, building up a half-wall at the base and enclosing it with short windows would
not be in keeping with the original design of the house and would detract from the overall appear-
13
ance. Each request for a porch enclosure will be carefully analyzed by the Commission, taking into
consideration the practical and intended usage of the area and the overall visual effect upon the
house.
Paint
All exposed deck or porch wood shall be painted to complement or contrast the existing structure.
Pressure treated wood shall be painted no later than one year after installation.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to remove the rear porch and install a new, 6’x12’
porch with stairs, 2”x6” hand rail, and 2”x2” spindles as long as the work meets all zoning require-
ments and the necessary permits are obtained.
14
Case 2019-22 – 1502 Peck – Balcony
Applicant: Koal Development, LLC
District: Clinton-Peck
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to add two jack posts wrapped with wood and painted to match
the existing materials to repair and secure the common area balcony on the east side (rear) of the
structure.
View of structure from Peck Street
15
View of rear balcony from E. Grand Avenue
Rear balcony higlighting proposed location of jack posts
16
Standards
See Case 2019-21 above for Porch and Deck Standards
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to add two jack posts wrapped with wood and
painted to match the existing materials to repair and secure the common area balcony on the east
side (rear) of the structure as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary per-
mits are obtained.
17
Case 2019-23 – 1188 4th – New Construction (Garage)
Applicant: City of Muskegon
District: Houston
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to construct a new 26’x24’ detached, two-stall garage at the rear
of the house. The garage doors will face the house.
Elevations of proposed garage
18
Site plan for propsed garage at 1188 4th Street
Standards
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.
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,
19
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.
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.
20
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 a new 26’x24’ detached, two-stall gar-
age at the rear of the house as depicted in the drawings provided for the October 1, 2019 HDC meet-
ing as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
21
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Case 2019-18 – 511 W. Clay – Siding
Applicant: Katherine Jawor/Steve Dahlstrom
District: National Register
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
This case was tabled at the August meeting. The applicant is seeking approval to replace areas of
deteriorated wood siding on the rear of the house with a treated engineered wood lap siding (Smart-
Side) of the same size, color, and spacing.
View of house and garage from alley
Standards
General
The Muskegon Historic District Commission does not endorse the residing of structures within the
Historic districts. It is the policy of this Commission that the original fabric of the building should
be repaired or replaced where necessary with the original building material.
In cases where the repair or replacement with like materials is impractical or where it can be demon-
strated that the original materials will no longer hold paint or that the original materials are so badly
deteriorated that they can no longer be reasonably repaired, the residing standards below shall strict-
ly be adhered to.
22
Definitions
For the purpose of this statement, the terms “residing materials” and “trim cladding” shall be under-
stood to encompass the use of any residing materials such as aluminum, vinyl, steel, hardboard,
wood, masonry, or molded urethane which is designed to replace or cover all, or any part, of an ex-
terior wall, trim work or other building element or a structure within a designated historic district.
Purpose
The Commission shall review all applications for Certificates of Appropriateness proposing the in-
stallation of residing materials or trim cladding as individual cases. Each application shall be decid-
ed on its own merit. No person should interpret any Commission approval for residing or trim clad-
ding as being precedent setting. Unrestricted use of residing materials or trim cladding will not be
allowed.
In any case where residing materials or trim cladding are proposed for use by a property owner or
siding contractor, the property owner shall be required to submit a signed letter stating in detail the
intent and scope of the proposed residing or trim cladding installation. Such a letter is to also include
the identification of any deterioration or problems occurring relative to the existing siding or exteri-
or building fabric. If known, the cause and extent of this deterioration must be clearly stated.
The following conditions of installation shall be met by all proposals for residing or trim cladding:
1. All existing deterioration shall be made structurally sound and its causes, insofar as possible,
shall be corrected prior to the installation of residing materials or trim cladding.
2. Any installation of residing materials shall simulate the appearance of the original building ma-
terial that it is intended to cover. This simulation shall take into account the size, shape or pro-
file, texture, and linear direction of the original building material.
a. The residing material shall be similar in appearance and dimension to the original sid-
ing. The exposure to the weather of the new siding shall range within one inch of the
nominal dimension of the original siding. The Historic District Commission shall have
the authority to waive this requirement in the event that they believe a different design
or dimension siding would be more appropriate to the architectural character of the His-
toric District.
b. A proposed color shall be appropriate as determined by the Commission.
c. Generally, wood grain textures are not approved by the Commission. However, the ap-
propriateness of a specific siding texture shall be determined on an individual case basis.
3. Any installation of trim cladding shall adhere to the following guidelines for the treatment for
architectural trim elements.
a. Existing cornice or building trim elements shall not be covered or replaced without Commis-
sion approval. Commission approval will depend upon how closely the trim cladding or new
trim elements duplicate the appearance of the existing building trim elements.
23
b. The wall siding material shall not extend over the existing trim members such as window
and door trim, sills, facias, soffits, frieze members and boards, brackets, aprons, corner
boards, trim boards, skirt boards, or any other characteristic moldings or architectural fea-
tures.
c. If the above mentioned trim members are to be clad, they shall be covered with custom
formed cladding which shall closely approximate the shapes and contours of the existing
moldings or trim. Distinctive or unusual trim or architectural elements shall not be clad
without prior consideration and Commission approval.
d. No building trim elements or architectural features are to be removed or altered to facilitate
the installation of the new siding or trim cladding without approval of the Historic District
Commission.
e. In most cases the soffit cladding material shall run parallel and not perpendicular to the plane
of the wall.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to replace areas of deteriorated wood siding on the
rear of the house with a treated engineered wood lap siding of the same size and spacing as long as
the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
24
Case 2019-19 – 1593 Jefferson – Rehabilitation/New Construction
Applicant: Frank Peterson
District: Jefferson
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant has revised his application (which was reviewed at the August meeting) to request to
remove the existing garage doors and install 72” sliding patio doors on the two outside openings ra-
ther than adding walls/windows in these locations. The applicant still plans to reside the existing
three-stall garage with a treated engineered wood lap siding, and convert the space to a den. Render-
ings of what was previously approved and what is now being requested are provided below.
Existing three-stall garage viewed from alley
Revised rendering (current proposal) Previously approved rendering
25
Standards
Various local standards apply.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to 1) add aluminum seamless gutters and down-
spouts, 2) add new shutters to all windows on the front façade, 3) reinstall the storm windows, 4)
replace the noted window on the south side of the house with a new door, 5) remove the existing
garage doors and reside the existing three-stall garage with a treated engineered wood lap siding, 6)
build a new, 28’x24’ detached garage at the rear of the property as shown in the drawings included
in the application, and 7) construct new, 6’-tall cedar privacy fencing to enclose the backyard as
long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
HDC Local Standards Draft – Staff and HDC members have finalized changes to the local stand-
ards over past meetings and workshops. The HDC must vote to approve final adoption of the updat-
ed local standards.
VI. ADJOURN
26
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails