View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, August 4, 2020
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: https://www.facebook.com/CityofMuskegon
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Minutes of the regular meeting of July 7, 2020
III. New Business
Case 2020-15 – 1326 Ransom – Demolition (Garage)
Case 2020-16 – 413 W. Webster – Doors
IV. Old Business
V. Other Business
Public Comment Period
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
III. MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 7, 2020
S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Radtke, T. Emory, K. George, L. Wood, A. Riegler
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Painter, K. Panozzo excused
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, R. Cummins
OTHERS PRESENT: D. J. Warren, 1218 Ransom; D. Warren, 123 W. Larch; Ant. Figueroa
and Ana. Figueroa, 100 Diana; D. Black, K. Jawor, and S. Dahlstrom,
511 W. Clay
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Postponed until in-person meetings resume.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of June 2, 2020 was made by K. George, support-
ed by L. Wood and approved with S. Radtke, T. Emory, K. George, L. Wood, and A. Riegler voting
aye.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2020-11 – 1218 Ransom Street (Sign). Applicant: All Signs LLC (representing Bethel New
Life Ministry. District: McLaughlin. Current Function: Institutional. J. Pesch presented the staff re-
port. The applicant is seeking approval to install a new, 4’x5’ aluminum panel sign supported by
4”x4” steel posts along the Ransom Street side of the property. D. J. Warren was in attendance to
represent the case.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to install a new, 4’x5’ aluminum panel sign supported
by 4”x4” steel posts along the Ransom Street side of the property as long as the work meets all zon-
ing requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by L. Wood, supported by S.
Radtke and approved with S. Radtke, T. Emory, K. George, L. Wood, and A. Riegler voting aye.
Case 2020-12 – 123 W. Larch Avenue (Fence). Applicant: Debra Warren. District: Jefferson. Cur-
rent Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to
replace an existing chain link fence with a six-foot tall cedar stockade fence, which will extend to
the sidewalk. The applicant also plans to add a four-foot tall cedar picket fence around the remainder
of the yard. A drawing showing the site plan for the stockade fence layout was provided. D. Warren
was in attendance to represent the case.
2
A. Riegler asked where the existing chain link fence was located. J. Pesch stated that it was located
in the back yard, directly behind the house. D. Warren stated that the proposed fence did not follow
the HDC local standards, but she hoped to create additional enclosed, private space for her family in
the side yard; she was willing to alter the proposed layout of the fence and/or the proposed style of
the fence to be more open near the top, if requested.
A. Riegler noted that the board would need to find a balance because of the location of the proposed
fence and the applicant’s goals. D. Warren stated that other fences in the historic district were six-
feet tall, but the top two feet were lattice instead of solid privacy fence, and that she thought that
may be a good middle ground for the proposed layout. A. Riegler stated that the local standards
mention using landscaping to soften the appearance of the six-foot fence, in addition to keeping the
upper portion of the fence more open and transparent.
A motion to approve the request to replace an existing chain link fence with a six-foot tall cedar
stockade fence, with two feet of transparent fence from 4’ to 6’ and landscaping on the street side of
the fence, and to add a four-foot tall cedar picket fence around the remainder of the yard as present-
ed in the July 7th, 2020 HDC Staff Report as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the
necessary permits are obtained was made by A. Riegler, supported by S. Radtke and approved with
S. Radtke, T. Emory, K. George, L. Wood, and A. Riegler voting aye.
Case 2020-13 – 100 Diana Avenue (Windows and New Construction). Applicant: Antonio
Figueroa. District: McLaughlin. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report.
The applicant is seeking approval to 1) demolish and rebuild the 8’x18’ room on the back of the
house, 2) remove the existing wood windows and replace them with new windows, and 3) remove
and rebuild the front steps to be 8’-wide. Ant. Figueroa and Ana. Figueroa were in attendance to
represent the case.
S. Radtke requested that the discussion be separated into the three parts of the request, beginning
with the request to demolish the 8’x18’ room on the back of the house. Ant. Figueroa explained that
the portion of the house he was requesting to demolish was in such bad condition that demolition
and new construction was the best option to make that area safe.
J. Pesch explained the annotated drawing of the new construction included in the HDC Staff Re-
port’s Case 2020-13 – 100 Diana – Supplemental Application Info (attached below), and that it
would be sided on the exterior to match the rest of the house on the upper portion while the lower
portion would be finished with paneling similar to what surrounds the picture window on the west
side of the house. Ana. Figueroa stated that there would only be two windows in that space on the
back of the house, one on each side of the new door, once the room was rebuilt, and that the new
construction would have the same shed roof as the existing room.
K. George noted that the existing room that was planned to be demolished was probably not origi-
nally enclosed because it lacked a foundation. T. Emory stated that it was likely an open porch that
was closed in at some point. Ant. Figueroa stated that he planned to pour ten total footings to sup-
port the new, 10’x18’ room planned to be constructed. K. George noted that the new construction
would likely need a full foundation rather than footings because it would be a room, A. Riegler
agreed. K. George noted that the rest of the house had a brick foundation, and Ant. Figueroa stated
that there was a mix of brick and block making up the foundation of the house, as a result of past
repairs. K. George stated that the material used for a new foundation in the back of the house was
less of a concern since it would not be very visible from the street, A. Riegler agreed.
3
The board moved on to discuss the window replacement. A. Riegler asked if the windows were op-
erable. Ant. Figueroa stated that most of the glass on the windows were broken and that the re-
placement windows he was proposing would not affect any existing window trim. K. George noted
that the replacement windows would be evenly divided like the existing windows, but that the grills
on the new windows would not match the two-over-two configuration of the existing windows. S.
Radtke stated that he would rather see one-over-one replacement windows because of the architec-
ture of the house, K. George and A. Riegler agreed. S. Radtke noted that the applicant was request-
ing to shorten the upper windows by 11” and J. Pesch stated that the bases of five 66”x29” windows
on the second story were proposed to be raised 11” higher. Ant. Figueroa stated that they were cur-
rently 8” above the floor. K. George noted that code would require tempered glass in new windows
less than 18” from the floor for safety reasons and asked what the exterior would look like if the
base of the window was raised up. Ant. Figueroa stated that he would match the existing paneling
surrounding the window on the side of the house at the bases of the new windows. K. George stated
that adding the raised panels below the windows would significantly change the appearance of the
house. A. Riegler noted that changing the size of the window openings is strongly discouraged by
the HDC local standards, and that such requests are rarely, if ever, approved in a situation like this.
She suggested that window guards or special locks could be installed on the interior to provide a
level of safety without affecting the exterior appearance. S. Radtke agreed that the proposed change
would drastically alter the appearance of the house and was concerned about losing the tall windows
that are common to the Italianate style. K. George noted that the tempered glass would raise the cost
of the windows, but would be easier with a single pane in the bottom of the window. S. Radtke stat-
ed that, while he did not prefer replacing original windows, if the board approved replacement win-
dows due to the age of the windows, apparent poor maintenance in past years, and the cost of cus-
tom made windows with a two-over-two configuration, he would be willing to allow a one-over-one
configuration for the replacement windows in the interest of maintaining some semblance of the
original intent of the architecture.
A. Riegler requested that the HDC provide documents on restoring old wood windows to the appli-
cant because they planned to complete the work on the house. Both A. Riegler and S. Radtke noted
that restoration of wood windows was not especially difficult, but that it was tedious. The board dis-
cussed the cost benefits, energy efficiency (especially with well-fitted storm windows), and general
simplicity of restoring wood windows. J. Pesch stated that Staff would send information to the ap-
plicant about restoring wood windows.
The board moved on to discuss the request to rebuild the front porch steps. Ant. Figueroa stated that
the existing stairs were five feet wide but that he was requesting to rebuild them to be eight feet
wide in the same location. K. George asked if a portion of the knee wall next to the column would
need to be removed. Ant. Figueroa stated that he planned to cut back the wall and shift the left col-
umn three feet to the left. K. George and A. Riegler stated that they were not in favor of shifting the
column to accommodate the wider stair as it would affect the proportion and scale of many other
parts of the house. S. Radtke stated that he would be ok with the request if it only involved cutting
the knee wall back to the column, but not with changing the location of the column. T. Emory noted
that changing the location of the column would cause the peak of the porch roof above the front
door to be off-center. K. George suggested that the steps could flair out to be wider at the bottom.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to 1) demolish and rebuild the 8'x18' room on the back
of the house in the layout provided in the July 7th, 2020 HDC Staff Report’s Case 2020-13 – 100
Diana – Supplemental Application Info, 2) remove the existing wood windows and replace them
with new windows in a one-over-one configuration in the same size and dimensions as the original
openings with the recommendation that, where possible, the existing wood windows be restored in-
4
stead of replaced, and 3) remove and rebuild the front steps to match the current 5’ width as long as
the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by A.
Riegler, supported by S. Radtke and approved with S. Radtke, T. Emory, K. George, L. Wood, and
A. Riegler voting aye.
Case 2020-13 – 100 Diana – Supplemental Application Info
The steps up to the front porch will be rebuilt to resemble exactly what is there now, but are pro-
posed to be eight feet wide (photo in Staff Report).
Replace a total of 15 wood windows with vinyl windows of the same size. Those windows are of the
following dimensions (those to be changed are in bold):
- Living room 78”x29” = 3 windows
- Master bedroom 78”x29” = 1 window
- Master bathroom 66”x29” = 1 window
- Kitchen 44”x36” = 1 window
- Laundry room 55”x28” = 2 windows Does not match existing window configuration
- Stairs 53”x20” = 1 window
- Stairs 55”x29” = 1 window
- Bedroom #1 actual size 66”x29” = 3 windows Possible change to 55”x29”
- Bedroom #2 actual size 66”x29” = 1 window Possible change to 55”x29”
- Bedroom #3 actual size 66”x29” = 1 window Possible change to 55”x29”
5
As noted in the list above, five of the windows in the second floor bedrooms are proposed to be re-
placed with windows that are shortened by 11” at the base, as shown in the below photos:
6
7
8
9
The 8’x18’ room proposed to be demolished will be rebuilt to be 10’x18’ with fewer total windows
than exist currently as shown in the below drawing:
The rebuilt room on the back of the house will match the existing siding on the upper portion, with
panels (similar to what is shown in the photo below) on the lower portion, on the rear facade. The
right side will also match the existing siding on the upper portion with panels on the lower portion.
The left side next to the garage will match the existing siding.
10
11
Case 2020-14 – 511 W. Clay Avenue (New Construction - Porch Roof). Applicant: Jennifer Weav-
er/J&J Corner Properties, LLC. District: McLaughlin. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch pre-
sented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to add a small roof over the existing side
porch as well as a small roof over the door into the garage; both will match the existing, decorative
porch roof on the east side of the house. D. Black, K. Jawor, and S. Dahlstrom were in attendance to
represent the case.
D. Black explained that the house had four exterior doors, and that three are covered with porch
roofs; he stated that the door and porch that are not covered are experiencing considerable damage
from being exposed to the weather. S. Radtke asked if stairs would be added to the uncovered porch.
D. Black stated that stairs would not be added at this time, but it is anticipated that it will serve as
the handicap accessible entry to the house sometime in the future. K. Jawor stated that the porch will
need steps and S. Dahlstrom added that the building code would require steps to use that door and
porch as an exit. D. Black stated that the stairs and/or ramp would likely face the back side of the
property.
A. Riegler noted that the detailing on the new porch roof should be a simplified version of the more
ornate porch roof on the east side of the house rather than replicating it exactly to discourage histori-
cal conjecture as outlined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. She contin-
ued to acknowledge that the new porch roof should respect the scale and configuration of the origi-
nal porch, but with a simplified column and cornice.
S. Radtke asked if there was any evidence that there was a covering over the porch originally. D.
Black stated that before they acquired the house, there was a full wing in this area of the house con-
taining a separate apartment. J. Pesch stated that the HDC files contained photos of a substantial ad-
dition on that side of the house, but that it was removed during a prior restoration to return the house
to its original design.
S. Radtke asked if the porch was tall enough to require a railing. S. Dahlstrom stated that the porch
is right around 30” high and would likely require a railing. A. Riegler stated that if no changes were
made to the porch it would not require a railing, but filing a building permit would likely lead to a
railing being required, but not necessarily stairs. S. Radtke stated that the existing railing on the
porch on the east side would not meet today’s building codes, making it more difficult to replicate
that porch’s proportions on the proposed porch roof. S. Dahlstrom stated that he did not anticipate
needing to install a handrail since steps were not planned at this time.
D. Black stated that they had not finalized plans for the garage door roof at this time, and that the
HDC would not need to review that part of the request at this time.
K. George asked if the applicant understood what was requested with regard to simplifying the ap-
pearance of the original porch on the east side of the house when designing the new porch roof. A.
Riegler explained that the original porch’s proportions seen in the levels of the existing cornice and
the hierarchy of the existing trim should be used to inform the design of the new porch, but that the
dentils and top railing should be left out. She noted that the column was likely simple enough to du-
plicate in the new porch roof.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to add a small roof over the existing side porch to match
the existing proportions of the decorative porch roof on the east side of the house without adding
dentils or the additional top railing as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the neces-
12
sary permits are obtained was made by A. Riegler, supported by S. Radtke and approved with S.
Radtke, T. Emory, K. George, L. Wood, and A. Riegler voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Local Standards – J. Pesch provided a draft version of new lo-
cal standards for outdoor mechanical equipment. The board did not have any further changes to the
draft. A motion that the HDC approve a change to the Muskegon Historic District Commission local
standards in adopting the Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Guidelines presented at the July 7, 2020
HDC meeting was made by L. Wood, supported by T. Emory and approved with S. Radtke, T.
Emory, K. George, L. Wood, and A. Riegler voting aye.
HDC Staff Approval Fencing Materials – J. Pesch explained the common requests for and ap-
proval of black aluminum fences resembling iron fences in the historic districts. Staff has the ability
to approve new fences that meet the HDC local standards, but the local standards do not list a specif-
ic reference to this style of fence. Staff and the board discussed the needed changes to the local
standards to allow black aluminum fences to be approved by Staff. A motion that the HDC approve
updating the Muskegon Historic District Commission local standards to include a reference to black
aluminum fencing under the “Iron” fence drawing in the Type “A” Conforming Walls & Fences
graphic was made by K. George, supported by T. Emory and approved with S. Radtke, T. Emory, K.
George, L. Wood, and A. Riegler voting aye.
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 5:23 p.m.
JP
13
IV. NEW BUSINESS
Case 2020-15 – 1326 Ransom – Demolition (Garage)
Applicant: Jack Sischo
District: McLaughlin
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the attached, one-stall garage on the northeast side of
the house and to reside the exposed wall with vinyl siding to match the rest of the house, following
demolition.
View of structure from Ransom Street, garage visible at left.
14
View of garage from driveway and vinyl siding to be matched if garage is demolished
Connection to house on exterior of garage
15
Interior condition of garage and connection to house
16
Standards
As established by Chapter 38 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Muskegon, the Historic Dis-
trict Commission is empowered with the authority to review and approve plans for Building Permit
applications for exterior work to construct, alter, repair, move or demolish any structure in a historic
district.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to demolish the attached, one-stall garage on the
northeast side of the house and to reside the exposed wall with vinyl siding to match the rest of the
house as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
17
Case 2020-16 – 413 W. Webster – Doors
Applicant: Mildred Richardson
District: Houston
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to replace the rear side entry door with a six-lite, craftsman style
door and to replace the garage entry door with a solid, six panel door (see below photos).
View of house from W. Webster Avenue, rear side entry door visible at right
18
View of rear side entry door and garage from W. Webster
View of garage from alley, garage entry door to be replaced is visible at left
19
Rear side entry door Proposed replacement door
20
Garage entry door Proposed replacement door
21
Standards (Abbreviated)
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-
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 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.
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.
22
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to replace the rear side entry door with a six-lite,
craftsman style door and to replace the garage entry door with a solid, six panel door as long as the
work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
23
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
Public Comment Period – For public comment, please call the number that will be listed on the
screen during the broadcast of this meeting on https://www.facebook.com/CityofMuskegon
VII. ADJOURN
24
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails