View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, March 2, 2021
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 February 2, 2021
III. New Business
Case 2021-04 – 471 W. Western – Door
Case 2021-05 – 600 W. Clay – Rehabilitation
Case 2021-06 – 372 W. Muskegon – Garage Conversion to ADU
IV. Old Business
Work Completed Without HDC Approval
V. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
VI. Other Business
2020 Staff Approval Review
Public Comment Period
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
II. MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
February 2, 2021
Chairperson S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Radtke, Muskegon, Michigan; K. George, Muskegon, Michigan; T.
Emory, Muskegon, Michigan; K. Panozzo, Muskegon, Michigan; D.
Gregersen, Muskegon, Michigan
MEMBERS ABSENT: A. Riegler, excused
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, L. Mikesell
OTHERS PRESENT: D. Black, 511 W. Clay Ave.; K. Jawor, 511 W. Clay Ave.; S. Dahl-
strom, 511 W. Clay Ave. (contractor); J. Samuels, 511 W. Clay Ave.
(contractor)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of January 5, 2021 was made by K. George, sup-
ported by T. Emory and approved with S. Radtke, K. George, T. Emory, K. Panozzo, and D. Gregersen
voting aye.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2021-03 – 511 W. Clay Avenue (Siding and Windows). 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 front of
the house with a treated engineered wood lap siding of the same size and spacing with a smooth fin-
ish. J. Pesch explained that the same siding product was approved in 2019 and installed on the rear
of the house.
T. Emory asked if siding would only be replaced where deterioration is occurring. D. Black stated
that all of the siding would be replaced with the same siding material that was used as a replacement
on the back side of the house. J. Pesch noted that the staff report included photos of the back side of
the house both before and after the replacement siding was installed. S. Radtke asked what issues
existed with the siding currently on the front of the house. D. Black stated that the existing siding was
over 100 years old in some areas and most of the siding would no longer hold paint. K. Panozzo asked
what types of paint had been used on the siding more recently and what types of treatment had been
tried when painting the house. D. Black stated that the entire house was painted two and a half years
ago and within one year the paint was peeling. K. George asked if there was deterioration or if the
house only required repainting too frequently. D. Black noted that there was deterioration of the wood
siding and that it was getting punky which led to its inability to hold paint. S. Dahlstrom stated that
there was deterioration of the wood in non-consistent places and that some of the wood was replaced
in the early 2000s with cedar lap siding which is deteriorating at a different rate. He noted that the
2
existing wood was not holding up well to any kind of paint and that the replacement siding installed
on the rear of the house looked identical to the existing siding and would likely last for another 100
years.
D. Gregersen stated that the replacement siding installed on the rear of the house did not detract from
the age, detail, or respect for the structure and that he understood the difficulties with maintaining old
wood. S. Radtke noted that the HDC’s local standards do not endorse residing structures with materi-
als other than the original material, but that with the issue of the siding not holding paint, the board
would adhere to standards which allow for replacement materials. Those materials must simulate the
appearance of the original building material and take into account the size, shape, profile, texture, and
linear direction of the original material. The exposure to the weather of the replacement siding must
range within one inch of the nominal dimensions and could not cover over existing trim. As the pro-
posed product met those standards, the work would fall within the guidelines of what the HDC typi-
cally allows.
K. George asked if the replacement siding would be installed only on the front façade of the house, or
if it would also replace the siding on the sides of the house. D. Black said that the siding would be
replaced on the front and about halfway back on each side, replacing what remains of the original
wood siding. S. Dahlstrom reminded the board that residing the rear of the house was approved in
2019, so that area would not be part of this work.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace areas of deteriorated wood siding on the front
and sides of the house with a treated engineered wood lap siding of the same size and spacing with a
smooth finish as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are ob-
tained, was made by D. Gregersen, supported by T. Emory and unanimously approved, with S. Radtke,
K. George, K. Panozzo, T. Emory, and D. Gregersen voting aye.
S. Radtke noted that the HDC was informed by Staff that this request also originally included replace-
ment windows, but that it was determined that this work could be approved by Staff. J. Pesch stated
that he had approved replacement of some windows already, and noted that the photos in the staff
report showed that the new windows matched the old ones almost exactly. The new windows would
be replacing 15-20-year-old replacement windows that were in poor condition due to their being con-
structed with a combination of interior- and exterior-grade products. S. Dahlstrom verified that this
information was correct. J. Pesch said that Staff could approve future requests for replacement win-
dows in this house as long as they met the standards for Staff approval as well as those of the board;
the board members agreed to allow this.
OLD BUSINESS
None
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Although the HDC last held elections in September 2020, they typically take place at the February
meeting once open positions on the HDC have been filled. J. Pesch noted that S. Radtke was the
current Chairperson and A. Riegler was the current Vice Chairperson. Some board members infor-
mally stated a preference to retain the current Chair and Vice Chair, but it was determined that, without
A. Riegler in attendance, she could not accept a nomination for Vice Chair. A motion that the HDC
table the vote to retain S. Radtke as Chairperson and A. Riegler as Vice Chairperson for the upcoming
3
year was made by K. George, supported by T. Emory and unanimously approved, with S. Radtke, K.
George, K. Panozzo, T. Emory, and D. Gregersen voting aye.
OTHER BUSINESS
Work Completed Without HDC Approval – S. Radtke noted that there were two issues at the pre-
vious month’s HDC meeting where work had either started or had been approved prior to HDC re-
view, and asked Director of Development Services, L. Mikesell, to provide an update on the meeting
between her and City Manager, F. Peterson. L. Mikesell stated that F. Peterson was supportive of
setting up a meeting with SAFEbuilt leadership and the appropriate staff from that department as well
as the Division Heads for both Public Safety, and Development Services. She stated that Director of
Public Safety, J. Lewis, was also in favor of meeting to improve the process of reviewing building
permit applications for buildings in the historic districts, and that the meeting would be scheduled in
the coming weeks. J. Pesch noted that he had also met with L. Mikesell to review past HDC and Staff
efforts to improve how this issue was handled, and they also discussed the steps involved with
properly reviewing work proposed for buildings in historic districts.
S. Radtke stated that the board would anticipate further discussion of this topic at the next meeting,
following a meeting among Staff from the departments involved.
2021 Meeting Schedule – Staff shared the HDC meeting schedule for 2021. J. Pesch noted that the
only potential conflict could come in November if the HDC was meeting in-person again at that time
and if the City Commission Chambers was reserved for an election. The most recent in-person meet-
ing was held in a new conference room on the second floor of City Hall, but staff stated that accessi-
bility to that room was not as convenient as the Chambers. He also noted that the City Commission
Chambers recently underwent upgrades that could improve presenting information to both the board
members and those in attendance at future meetings.
New Board Member – Board members welcomed their newest member, D. Gregersen, to the HDC.
Development Survey – K. George discussed a survey that addressed new development in the down-
town neighborhoods and a committee that was being formed to help guide contextually appropriate
new construction in these areas. While not a project initiated by the HDC, the area of focus included
some of the historic districts and aligned with the HDC’s work in preserving those districts. The board
discussed the survey and the ongoing development in downtown Muskegon.
Public Comment Period – Time was allotted for public comment with contact information provided.
No comments were received.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
JP
4
III. NEW BUSINESS
Case 2021-04 – 471 W. Western – Door
Applicant: Lakeshore Museum Center
District: Clay-Western
Current Function: Commercial
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to replace the existing, wood door with a new door of a similar
appearance. The existing door has been removed due to significant rotting wood, and to evaluate its
condition.
November 2018 photo of the building showing the existing door (just right of the flag). Neighboring
door was not yet replaced.
5
Existing wood door (presently removed from building)
6
The proposed replacement door would match exactly what was used on neighboring building (which
is the door shown in these photos)
Standards
WINDOW, DOOR, AND EXTERIOR WOODWORK STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
(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
7
repair is not possible, elements shall be replaced with matching wood members. Damaged or deteri-
orated 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.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to replace the existing, wood door with a new door
of a similar appearance as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits
are obtained.
8
Case 2021-05 – 600 W. Clay – Rehabilitation
Applicant: Terry Puffer/Nick Schippers – NSTP, LLC
District: Boilerworks
Current Function: Commercial/Vacant
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to 1) lower the rear entry door to ground level to allow head room
to access the garden level, 2) remove and replace all existing 1960s-vintage aluminum windows
with new black vinyl windows replicating the original window style as closely as possible (all win-
dows will fit the original rough openings, pending pricing; if the replacement windows cannot fit the
original openings, they will match the existing windows’ dimensions; all windows will contain clear
glass), 3) replace all existing doors (also likely from the 1960s) with either new doors to match the
windows or refurbished salvaged doors, and 4) add three egress windows for the new garden level
bedrooms that will align with the locations of the existing windows into the garden level along the
walkway on the north elevation and on the west (8th Street) elevation. Additional drawings will be
provided prior to the meeting.
View of building from W. Clay Avenue, looking northwest
9
View of building from 8th Street, looking east
Undated photograph of building (likely taken shortly after its construction in 1905) showing original
window style
10
Undated photograph of building showing original door and window appearance
Standards
See Window, Door, and Exterior Woodwork Standards and Guidelines in Case 2021-04, above
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to 1) lower rear entrance to ground level, 2) remove
and replace all existing aluminum windows with new black vinyl windows replicating the original
window style as closely as possible, fitting the original rough openings, and containing clear glass,
3) replace all existing doors with either new doors to match the windows, and 4) add three egress
windows for the new garden level bedrooms that will align with the locations of the existing win-
dows into the garden level along the walkway on the north elevation and on the west elevation as
long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
11
Case 2021-06 – 372 W. Muskegon – Garage Conversion to ADU
Applicant: Jonathan and Morgan Witmer
District: National Register
Current Function: Garage/Storage
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to add a new fiberglass entry door and construct a 12’x8’ compo-
site deck as part of a larger project to convert loft space in an existing, detached garage into a studio
apartment – also known as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), or Carriage House Apartment.
Detached garage viewed from W. Muskegon Avenue, looking northwest. Main house visible at right
12
Garage viewed from rear alley, looking south. Proposed new entry door will replicate existing door
13
Proposed northeast elevation (top) and plan for new deck and entry door
14
Existing entry door on garage. Proposed new door will be trimmed and stained to match
Standards
See Window, Door, and Exterior Woodwork Standards and Guidelines in Case 2021-04, above
PORCH AND DECK STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (ABBREVIATED)
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
15
detail 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 ap-
propriate method to accomplish this requirement. In cases where handrails or guardrails are new (in-
cluding those for new decks), the design shall generally conform to the railing and balustrade detail
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” 36”
Porch Enclosure
New guardrails on commercial buildings shall conform to the minimum guardrail height for com-
mercial buildings as defined in the most recent edition of the building code.
In all cases, if an original guardrail was higher than the minimum height as listed above, then the
original height applies.
…
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.
16
17
18
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to add a new fiberglass entry door and construct a
12’x8’ composite deck to the existing, detached garage as long as the work meets all zoning require-
ments and the necessary permits are obtained.
19
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Work Completed Without HDC Approval – Continuation of the discussion regarding how the
HDC handles work completed following issuance of a building permit, but without HDC review or
approval. Staff will report on the recent meeting with SAFEbuilt as well as new strategies planned
and in place to eliminate ongoing issues with improperly approved work.
V. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
At the February meeting, the HDC tabled a motion to retain S. Radtke as Chairperson and A. Riegler
as Vice Chairperson for the upcoming year due to A. Riegler’s absence at the meeting and resulting
inability to accept or reject the nomination. The vote can take place at this meeting.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
2020 Staff Approval Review – Staff will provide an overview of the work that was approved over
the past year. In the future, more frequent updates will be provided to the board to keep everyone
informed of Staff approved work happening in the historic districts.
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
20
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails