View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, October 6, 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 September 1, 2020
III. New Business
Case 2020-20 – 1670 Peck – Windows
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
II. MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
September 1, 2020
Vice Chairperson S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Radtke, T. Emory, K. George, K. Panozzo, A. Riegler, L. Wood
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Painter
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, D. Renkenberger, R. Cummins
OTHERS PRESENT: I. Collins, 320 Monroe Ave.; R. Briggs, 380 Houston Ave.; D.
Kendrick, 314 Monroe Ave.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of August 4, 2020 was made by K. George, sup-
ported by A. Riegler and approved with T. Emory, A. Riegler, S. Radtke, K. Panozzo, K. George
and L. Wood voting aye.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2020-17 – 320 Monroe Avenue (Shed). Applicant: Iesha Collins. District: Houston. Current
Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to con-
struct a new 10’ x 12’, wood frame, vinyl-sided shed in the back yard of the property. Pictures of the
shed and its proposed placement location were provided. Staff had previously approved a patio seat-
ing area and driveway addition for this property.
Board members reviewed the photo of the proposed shed and concurred that it was appropriate for
this area (Midtown Square), as the nine homes in this development were all new and vinyl-sided.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to construct a 10’ x 12’, wood frame, vinyl sided shed
as presented in the September 1st, 2020 HDC Staff Report as long as the work meets all zoning re-
quirements and the necessary permits are obtained, was made by A. Riegler, supported by S. Radtke
and unanimously approved, with S. Radtke, T. Emory, K. George, K. Panozzo, and A. Riegler vot-
ing aye.
Case 2020-18 – 380 Houston Avenue (Ramp and Paved Parking Pad). Applicant: Community en-
compass. District: Houston. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The
applicant is seeking approval to construct a wood/composite ADA ramp on the front, lower porch
and an ADA parking pad along the east side of the property, accessed from the rear alley. Detailed
drawings of the proposed ramp were provided in the staff report.
K. George represented developer R. Briggs and disclosed that she worked for Community encom-
pass and would therefore abstain from voting on this case. She described the construction of the
house and stated that they would use appropriate materials and ensure that the ramp matched the
2
porch and fit in with the rest of the house. A. Riegler stated that the switchback style of the ramp
would detract from the aesthetics of the house itself, as it would be located right in the front. K.
George stated that they planned to put a skirt on the ramp and make it appear as part of the porch as
much as they were able. The grade on the property was challenging and made it very difficult to in-
stall a ramp alongside the house, and the driveway configuration was changed to shorten the dis-
tance between the parking space and the ramp.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to construct a wood/composite ADA ramp on the front,
lower porch and an ADA parking pad along the east side of the property, accessed from the rear al-
ley as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained, was
made by K. Panozzo, supported by S. Radtke and approved, with S. Radtke, T. Emory, K. Panozzo,
and A. Riegler voting aye, and K. George abstaining.
Case 2020-19 – 314 Monroe Avenue (Shed). Applicant: David Kendrick. District: Nelson. Current
Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to con-
struct a new 10’ x 12’, wood frame shed in the back yard of the property. The shed will be sided
with engineered wood siding.
D. Kendrick was the property owner. He explained that the shed would be placed in the right rear
corner of the back yard, which was enclosed by a 6-foot privacy fence. The shed would be made of
wood, painted brown with white trim, and placed on galvanized joists. It would be located about 55
feet from the home’s rear deck. A. Riegler asked if the siding would be vertical or horizontal, and
what the roof pitch was. D. Kendrick stated that the siding would be vertical; he was unsure about
the roof pitch. A. Riegler was concerned that the roof slope and the door were out of proportion. K.
George stated that it appeared that the roof had a 4/12 pitch, which was not common in historic dis-
tricts. She also stated that a double door would be preferable to the proposed barn-style door. A.
Riegler asked if the roof could be raised to make it better proportioned, since that part of the shed
would be visible. D. Kendrick stated that, although some items on the shed such as the skylight and
flooring were options and could be changed, the roof pitch was not. A. Riegler stated that most fea-
tures of the shed fit the criteria of “not recommended” in the HDC Guidelines for New Construction.
Because it did not meet HDC standards, a motion that the HDC deny the request to construct the
proposed 10’ x 12’, wood frame shed sided with engineered wood siding as presented in the Sep-
tember 1st, 2020 HDC Staff Report was made by A. Riegler and supported by T. Emory and unani-
mously approved, with S. Radtke, T. Emory, K. George, K. Panozzo, A. Riegler, and L. Wood vot-
ing aye.
D. Kendrick stated that he understood the HDC’s ruling but would have liked to have been made
aware of the pitch requirements ahead of time. He asked for board input so he could return to a fu-
ture meeting with a revised shed proposal. Staff and board members discussed the HDC standards.
A. Riegler added that the shed should also fit in with the flavor of the neighborhood, and this area
had a lot of Victorian-style homes with the steeper roof pitches. S. Radtke suggested that the board
make their recommendations and allow staff to approve a revised proposal, so that Mr. Kendrick
could continue with construction without waiting another month for the next HDC meeting. A.
Riegler and K. George discussed measurements that should be taken into consideration such as roof
pitch, wall height and door size. S. Radtke stated that he would be comfortable allowing A. Riegler
and J. Pesch to review and approve a revised shed, since they were both familiar with the require-
ments and understood what the board was looking for. S. Radtke suggested that a motion specify 7-
foot walls, a minimum 6/12 roof pitch, and double doors, and allow the design to be approved by J.
Pesch and A. Riegler. Board members concurred.
3
A motion that the HDC approve a 10’ x 12’ wooden shed with vertical engineered wood siding as
long as the side walls are at least 7 feet tall, the roof pitch is at least 6/12, and the door is 3’6” wide
divided into two leaves, and to allow Staff to approve a revised proposal within those parameters,
was made by A. Riegler, supported by K. George and unanimously approved, with S. Radtke, T.
Emory, K. George, K. Panozzo, A. Riegler, and L. Wood voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
CLG Application – J. Pesch reviewed the goals and associated tasks to be included as part of the
Certified Local Government (CLG) application. Board members concurred with staff’s comments.
Staff also presented a cover letter to be signed by the Mayor requesting certification, which would
be brought to the City Commission for approval at their September 8th meeting.
A motion that the HDC approve the goals and tasks, and the cover letter as presented by staff as part
of the Certified Local Government application was made by A. Riegler, supported by S. Radtke and
unanimously approved, with S. Radtke, T. Emory, K. George, K. Panozzo, A. Riegler, and L. Wood
voting aye.
HDC File System – Staff has been reviewing the Historic District Commission’s files, both physi-
cal and digital, dating back to the creation of the HDC in the 1970s. An organizational system has
been developed that should allow for easier access to information on past cases, with the long-term
goal of making information on Muskegon’s historic districts – and the historic resources within
them – more accessible to the general public. As a first step, all HDC meeting minutes on file will
be added to the City website over the coming months.
Public Comment Period – Time was allotted for public comment with contact information provid-
ed. There were no comments from the public.
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
K. Panozzo nominated S. Radtke for Chairperson supported by L. Wood; S. Radtke accepted the
nomination. S. Radtke nominated A. Riegler as Vice Chairperson supported by K. Panozzo; A.
Riegler accepted the nomination. A vote was taken and unanimously approved, with S. Radtke, T.
Emory, K. George, K. Panozzo, A. Riegler, and L. Wood voting aye.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:14 p.m.
DR
4
III. NEW BUSINESS
Case 2020-20 – 1670 Peck – Windows
Applicant: Step Up
District: Clinton-Peck
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to replace eight (8) existing wood windows on the second floor of
the house with vinyl windows of the same size.
View of house from Peck Street, second floor windows visible would be replaced
5
North facade viewed from Peck Street, second floor windows visible would be replaced
Windows on the west façade (facing Peck) with large storm windows installed
6
Second floor plan with the eight windows to be replaced circled
7
Examples of windows proposed to be replaced on south and north side of house
8
Proposed vinyl replacement windows (custom size and applied muntin options are available)
9
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 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.
…
Exterior Woodwork
10
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 eight (8) existing wood windows on the
second floor of the house with vinyl windows of the same size as long as the work meets all zoning
requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
11
IV. OLD BUSINESS
None
V. 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
VI. ADJOURN
12
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails