View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, June 2, 2020
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: https://www.facebook.com/CityofMuskegon
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
III. Approval of Minutes of the regular meeting of May 5, 2020
IV. New Business
Case 2020-8 – 1122 Terrace – Siding and Windows
Case 2020-9 – 579 W. Clay – Shed
Case 2020-10 – 1305 Jefferson Street – Siding
V. Old Business
VI. Other Business
Mechanical Equipment Local Standards
VII. 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
III. MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 5, 2020
S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: A. Riegler, S. Radtke, K. George, L. Wood, T. Emory, K. Panozzo
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Painter, excused
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, R. Cummins
OTHERS PRESENT: None
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
This was postponed until the next meeting due to the need to adjust to the new format of remote
electronic meetings. A motion to delay this agenda item was made by S. Radtke, supported by L.
Wood and unanimously approved.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of March 3, 2020 was made by L. Wood, support-
ed by K. Panozzo and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2020-06 – 1140 Terrace St (Garage Door). Applicant: Tim Sikkenga (Sikkenga Construction).
District: McLaughlin. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The appli-
cant is seeking approval to replace the wood garage door with a new, 8’ x 7’ insulated, steel garage
door.
T. Emory arrived at 4:10 pm.
A. Riegler asked if the existing garage door could be better replicated with a new door that is closer
in design than the proposed replacement door, and noted that the existing garage door appears to be
original. K. Panozzo asked if the existing door was a wood door and J. Pesch stated that it was, and
has been in place since at least 1984, based on documentation.
K. Panozzo stated that the orientation of the panels on the proposed door would cause it to appear as
a taller door than the existing one. L. Wood stated that she did not have a problem with the proposed
2
door. S. Radtke asked if it would be difficult to find a replacement door with asymmetrical panels
similar to the existing three panel door instead of the proposed 4x4-panel replacement door. A.
Riegler stated that in order to follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation the
garage door would need to be replaced with a garage door very similar to what is existing, or with
something completely different, and that she considered the garage door a secondary architectural
component due to its location. S. Radtke noted that, around the city, there were several similar gar-
ages with clerestory windows on the sides of them and that they were an architectural oddity in
Muskegon. He asked if it might be worthwhile to see if there were other examples that might have
the existing garage door to verify if this one was original. The board discussed other properties they
knew of with similar garages.
A. Riegler stated that the proposed door resembled a Victorian stable door and did not fit with the
style and era of the house and K. Panozzo concurred. A. Riegler stated that using a door of a differ-
ent style, like the proposed door, would create historical conjecture, which is in violation of the Sec-
retary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. J. Pesch stated that documentation dated con-
struction of the house to 1909, and fire insurance maps showed that the house was built between
1911 and 1950, noting that there was a large gap in the years the maps were available. A. Rielger
asked if both the house and the garage appeared in the maps. J. Pesch stated that the nothing ap-
peared on the 1911 map but both were shown on the 1950 map, and that he did not have documenta-
tion proving that the house and the garage were constructed at different times.
S. Radtke stated that the photo showed a hinged door which dated the door to the late 1930s or early
1940s; earlier doors were often solid and were opened in one piece or folded back along the sides.
Not knowing when the garage was built made it more difficult to determine if the door was original
or a replacement. A. Riegler stated that the proposed garage door would not have matched any of the
styles discussed. T. Emory stated that she thought the doors would have only had two panels, differ-
ing from the proposed door.
L. Wood asked if the proposed door would be stained to look like wood. K. George stated that the
door would be white to match the house. A. Riegler stated that she would rather see a simpler door
with raised panels and simple details. Radtke stated that, in order to approve a garage door that was
simpler in style, the board would need to decline the current motion, then make a new motion, or the
board could deny the request and ask that the applicant return with an alternate option. J. Pesch stat-
ed that, due to the date the application was received and City of Muskegon Historical Preservation
Ordinance, May 5th, 2020 was the end of the 60 days allotted to the HDC to make a ruling before the
case was automatically approved. K. George agreed that the proposed door was not an appropriate
style, but that she could have the contractor send an alternative style to Staff for approval if the
board were to grant Staff that ability for this case.
A. Riegler presented one option for a simpler replacement door that she thought would be more ap-
propriate and mentioned that it could have lites or be a solid door. L. Wood stated that she did not
have a problem with the door the applicant initially requested to install. A motion that the HDC ap-
prove the request to replace the wood garage door with a new, 8’ x 7’ insulated, steel garage door in
the style presented in the May 5th, 2020 HDC Staff Report as long as the work meets all zoning re-
quirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by L. Wood, supported by K. Panozzo
3
and denied with L. Wood voting aye, and K. Panozzo, S. Radtke, A. Riegler, and T. Emory voting
nay. K. George abstained from voting due to her connection to the project.
A motion that the HDC approve replacement of the existing, wood garage door with a new steel in-
sulated garage door of the same size with either simple, raised panels or plain shaker panels in a
3x4, 12-panel or 4x4 16-panel configuration, with or without windows, as long as the work meets all
zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by A Riegler and supported
by K. Panozzo. An amendment to the motion to allow Staff to approve a similar design to what is
recommended in the motion was made by S. Radtke and supported by T. Emory. The motion and
amendment were approved with T. Emory, K. Panozzo, S. Radtke, A. Riegler voting aye, and L.
Wood voting nay. K. George abstained from voting due to her connection to the project.
Case 2020-07 – 170 Washington Avenue (Solar Panels). Applicant: Peter Denicola (Power Home
Solar). District: Campus. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The ap-
plicant is seeking approval to install nine (9) roof-mounted solar modules on the roof of the house.
Two (2) panels will be installed on the west-facing roof surface, and seven (7) panels will be in-
stalled on the east-facing roof surface. Drawings showing the specific locations of the solar panels
and the installation method were provided.
S. Radtke stated that while he admired the goal of installing solar panels, he was concerned that
most of the panels were on the most visible corner of the façade. A. Riegler stated that, while a flat
roof with a parapet would allow the modules to be mostly screened from view, the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation explicitly recommend against the type of installation pro-
posed. S. Radtke noted that the request was one of the first times the HDC has had this issue, and
the board should be careful about setting a precedent; he recommended possibly installing the mod-
ules in a less visible location like on the back of the house or the garage.
K. George stated that the south facing roof surface is where the solar panels would be most effec-
tive, but that would be the front of the house. S. Radtke asked if the south-facing façade was the side
of the house facing the neighbor’s house or the front. J. Pesch stated that solar panels are proposed
for the south side of the east-facing roof surface, which faces the neighbor’s house. S. Radtke asked
if the solar panels could instead be installed on the north side of the east-facing roof surface, behind
the dormer, so they would be less visible from Washington Avenue. J. Pesch stated that he thought
the dormer may cast a shadow on the panels if they were moved to the north half of the east-facing
roof surface. K. George stated that the roof is very unique, and the panels would be visually inter-
ruptive in nearly any location due to the property’s location at the convergence of three streets.
J. Pesch stated that no local standards applied to solar panels or mechanical equipment and that the
closest local regulation was in the Staff Approval form which contained information about the loca-
tion of air conditioning units. S. Radtke asked to plan for a discussion at a future meeting to discuss
mechanical equipment and asked Staff to research other communities’ local standards on mechani-
cal equipment installation. J. Pesch stated that it would be possible.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to install nine (9) roof-mounted solar modules on the roof
of the house with two (2) panels on the west-facing roof surface, and seven (7) panels on the east-
4
facing roof surface to the location and installation specifications provided in the May 5th, 2020 HDC
Staff Report was made by A. Riegler and supported by L. Wood – discussion followed.
A. Riegler cited #1 on page four of the HDC’s local standards: “Contemporary design for alterations
and additions to existing buildings or structures shall not be discouraged when such alterations
and/or additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural material or features,
and so long as such new design is compatible with the size, scale, material, and character of the
property, site, district, or environment” as the reason for denial. She also stated that the work was in
violation of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
The motion was unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
J. Pesch stated that he was still working on the State Historic Preservation Office’s application for
the City of Muskegon to become a Certified Local Government.
OTHER BUSINESS
K. George pointed out that the garage in Case 2020-7 was very similar to the garage in Case 2020-6.
Time was allotted for public comment with contact information provided. There were no comments
from the public.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:56 p.m.
JP
5
IV. NEW BUSINESS
Case 2020-8 – 1122 Terrace – Siding and Windows
Applicant: Josh and Jen Hoff
District: McLaughlin
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to replace the cedar shake covering the exterior of the third floor
with a polymer shingle of a similar appearance and to replace six (6) windows – three on the north
side and three on the south side of the house – on the third floor with wood windows of a similar
size and appearance.
View of house from Terrace Street. Three of the six windows to be replaced are visible at top left
6
View of south façade from Terrace Street showing existing shingles and three of the six total
windows (covered by tan panels in this photo) to be replaced on the third floor.
7
Proposed replacement shingles for the exterior of the third floor.
Standards
WINDOW, DOOR, AND EXTERIOR WOODWORK
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.
8
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-
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
9
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.
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.
RESDING AND TRIM CLADDING
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.
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.
10
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.
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.
11
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to replace the cedar shake covering the exterior of
the third floor with a polymer shingle of a similar appearance and to replace six (6) windows (three
on the north side and three on the south side) on the third floor of the house with wood windows of a
similar size and appearance as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary
permits are obtained.
12
Case 2020-9 – 579 W. Clay – Shed
Applicant: Jennifer Weaver/J&J Corner Properties, LLC
District: Clay-Western
Current Function: Vacant Lot
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to construct a 10’ x 20’, wood frame shed. Drawings of the shed
are provided below.
View from W. Clay Avenue. Privacy fence visible in photo is already existing (photo taken October
2019).
13
Proposed shed design. The shed will be 12’-tall at its peak.
North Elevation (faces street) South Elevation (faces alley) with dutch door
East Elevation West Elevation with metal roll-up door
14
Proposed location and orientation of new 10’ x 20’ shed at 579 W. Clay (building at 585 W. Clay
would be to the right).
Standards
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.
15
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.
of the existing or traditional roof shapes,
pitches, and materials on new construction is
one way of making new structures more vis-
ually compatible.
16
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 10’ x 20’, wood frame shed as pre-
sented in the June 2nd, 2020 HDC Staff Report as long as the work meets all zoning requirements
and the necessary permits are obtained.
17
Case 2020-10 – 1305 Jefferson – Siding
Applicant: Lateesha King
District: Campus
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to install vinyl siding on the exterior of the house.
View of the house from Jefferson Street (photo taken October 2019).
18
View of north and east elevation from Jefferson Street (photo taken October 2019).
Standards
See Residing and Trim Cladding Guidelines in Case 2020-8, above.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to install vinyl siding on the exterior of the house
as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
19
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
Mechanical Equipment Local Standards – Staff researched HDC local standards in other com-
munities for installation of mechanical equipment in preparation for a discussion on the topic at this
meeting. The following are used in each city:
Detroit, MI: https://detroitmi.gov/sites/detroitmi.localhost/files/2018-
12/Antenna%20%26%20Satellite%20Dish%20Guidelines.pdf
Ann Arbor, MI (links directly to section on solar panels, but document also contains standards for
satellite dishes, antennas, and mechanical equipment):
https://www.a2gov.org/departments/planning/historic-
preserva-
tion/Documents/Historic%20District%20Commission/Historic%20District%20Program/Ann%20Ar
bor%20Design%20Guidelines%2012-13-12%20small.pdf#page=65
Kalamazoo, MI: https://www.kalamazoocity.org/hdcstandards/107-historic-preservation-standards-
guidelines-satellite-dishes-and-antennas/file
Staff also found a proposed amendment to the City of Muskegon HDC local standards from around
2003 that dealt with the issue. The following section appears to not have been adopted:
20
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
General Utility/Outdoor Appliances
(Adopted Month day, 2003 - Effective Month day, 2003)
General
Many historic resources have survived over the years with minimal alterations to the fabric of the
building. Recent inventions and conveniences have placed a toll on the historic nature of our re-
sources. These conveniences should not be prohibited, but regulated in a fashion that allows for the
enjoyment of the resource while keeping the integrity of the district intact.
Guidelines
Air conditioning – Like many other modern day conveniences, A/C units can have a potential detri-
mental impact on the look of an historic resource. Large ‘whole house units’ should be place incon-
spicuously – such as on the roof, in the rear, or on the side of structures not facing streets. Roof
mounted equipment is to be screened by architectural features from the view of abutting streets and
parcels. Equipment at grade is to be screened by landscaping, a solid wall or fencing from the view
of the street or surrounding property. Tubing and connections must not be readily visible.
Window air conditioning units – Units that do not change window structure are permitted on the
sides and rear of resources not facing streets. All other placements must be approved by the HDC.
Other air conditioning units – Units that must be placed in walls are discouraged because they may
degrade the structural integrity of the resource. However, if properly installed, they may be placed in
areas of the resource not facing the street. The HDC may approve other installations if screened
from street view.
Satellite Dish Antennae – Over the years this type of equipment has drastically decreased in size to
roughly 18”. However, they are still a blighting influence on a historic corridor. Older satellite dish-
es that are greater than several feet in size are not permitted in the front yard of a resource. The
smaller dish may be permitted in the front yard when proper screening (such as landscaping, solid
wall, or fencing) obscures it from the street. Antennae should not be placed on the front half of the
resource, including the roof, unless it can be obscured from street view. The HDC recommends that
if an antennae needs to be installed, it should be placed in the rear yard of the resource. If it must be
attached to the resource, then great care must be taken to secure it properly to the rear half of the re-
source, and route the cables so as to not damage the physical materials of the house.
Electrical, gas, water, and other utilities – As a first course of action, these services must be in good
repair and be located out of view from the street. However, the appropriate code must be followed
for health and safety issues. When impossible to locate utility out of sight, the HDC may require it
to be screened from view with landscaping, a solid wall, or fencing.
VII. ADJOURN
21
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails