View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, May 7, 2019
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Conference Room 203, City Hall
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Minutes of the regular meeting of April 2, 2019
III. New Business
Case 2019-7 – 280 W. Webster – Roof
IV. Old Business
V. Other Business
HDC Local Standards Review
Holland Regional HDC Training
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
April 2, 2019
Chairperson J. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Hilt, S. Radtke, D. Warren, A. Riegler, K. George
MEMBERS ABSENT: L. Wood, excused; K. Panozzo, excused
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: J. and L. McKenna, 18080 Hidden Trail, Spring Lake MI; D. Villa-
fuerte for 1294 Ransom St.; M. Mastenbrook, 1649 Peck St.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of March 5, 2019 was made by S. Radtke, sup-
ported by A. Riegler and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2019-04 – 487 W. Clay Avenue (New Construction). Applicant: Joseph and Laura McKenna.
District: National Register. Current Function: Vacant Lot. The applicant is seeking approval to
construct a new house on the vacant lot. Architectural drawings for the proposed new house were
provided.
S. Radtke asked how many square feet the house would be. J. McKenna stated that it would be
2,200 square feet. D. Warren observed that the entrance seemed to meet the recently reviewed
porch and entry guidelines. L. McKenna asked if they could side the house with wood-look vinyl.
S. Radtke stated that wood was the preferred material. J. Pesch pointed out that vinyl had previous-
ly been approved for new homes, citing the Midtown Square houses. K. Zimmerman suggested a
product called SmartSide, which was a wood composite material that would not fade. A. Riegler
stated that vinyl would change the look of the outside of the home, and urged them to consider an
alternate material. K. Zimmerman agreed and stated that the neighborhood had many beautiful old
homes with wood siding. S. Radtke wondered about the scale and massing compared to other
homes in the area. A. Riegler stated that, realistically, people no longer built single-family homes
that were as large as some found in the area. K. Zimmerman stated that the architectural style of the
new house should fit in nicely in that neighborhood.
2
A motion that the HDC approve the request to construct a new house on the vacant lot as depicted in
the architectural drawings provided at the April 2nd, 2019 HDC meeting as long as the work meets
all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained, was made by D. Warren, supported
by K. George and unanimously approved.
Case 2019-05 – 1274 Ransom Street (Siding, Porch Repairs). Applicant: Vanessa Lezama Villa-
fuerte. District: McLaughlin. Current Function: Residential. The applicant is seeking approval to
reside the house with vinyl and to repair the damaged porch roof. The applicant also wishes to dis-
cuss the window trim in regard to the proposed residing work, as well as trim wrapping the corners
of the house. J. Pesch stated that he had spoken to a City housing inspector about this case and it
was his understanding that the unpainted woodwork was what brought about the enforcement issue.
The other defects that needed attention were repairing the beam over the porch and the dam-
aged/missing eave boards.
D. Villafuerte had questions about requirements for trim at the corners and around the windows. D.
Warren asked if he would be keeping the trim. He stated that he wanted to install vinyl siding but
keep the wood trim. J. Hilt asked what condition the wood siding was in. D. Villafuerte stated that
he could paint it, but due to the large size of the house, he preferred to install lower-maintenance
vinyl siding. K. Zimmerman asked if he planned to remove the wood or side over it. D. Villafuerte
said he would side over it. S. Radtke stated that HDC standards discouraged vinyl siding. A. Rieg-
ler, K. Zimmerman, and J. Hilt concurred that wood siding was preferable, and that installing vinyl
over the wood would cover a lot of architectural features. J. Pesch confirmed that HDC standards
encouraged replacement and repair of existing material, rather than replacement. D. Villafuerte
stated that he would paint the house rather than reside with vinyl if that was what was required. J.
Hilt stated that it appeared that some repairs had already been made to the porch roof. D. Villafuerte
stated that he had to replace the two horizontal beams with one solid beam. J. Pesch stated that it
was a structural beam and not trim, so the HDC would only need to approve the appearance of the
new repair work.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to reside the house with vinyl siding and to approve the
needed repairs to the porch roof with the conditions that 1) the finish work and trim must match the
existing, 2) the porch roof profile must match as closely as possible what is existing, and 3) the work
meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained, was made by A. Riegler, sup-
ported by D. Warren and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, S. Radtke, D. Warren, A. Riegler, and
K. George voting aye.
Case 2019-06 – 1649 Peck Street (Shed, Porch). Applicant: Michael Mastenbrook. District: Clin-
ton-Peck. Current Function: Residential. The applicant is seeking approval to construct a new, 12-
x16-foot shed at the rear of the property. The applicant is also seeking approval to replace the ce-
ment steps on the north side of the house with a small wood deck due to damage from an adjacent
tree.
J. Hilt asked if the shed would be visible from the road. M. Mastenbrook stated that part of it may
be visible, but most of it would not be. A. Riegler stated that the shed style did not match the archi-
tecture of the house, and asked if he would consider something with a simple gable roof. M.
Mastenbrook stated that he needed the overhead storage space that the barn-style shed provided. D.
Warren asked if there was a different style that looked less like a barn. M. Mastenbrook stated that
3
they would paint the shed to match the house and install a brown roof that also matched the house.
S. Radtke stated that, since a shed was not a permanent structure like a house or garage, he was in-
clined to be less strict on the standards. He stated that the property next door had a new shed that
had been previously approved by the HDC. J. Pesch pointed out that there was a large tree that
would block much of the view of the shed. J. Hilt asked about the plans for replacing the concrete
porch that had been damaged by an encroaching tree. M. Mastenbrook stated that he would need to
remove about 8 feet of the porch, as the tree roots had pushed it into the house siding. He would
like to enlarge the remainder of the porch by adding a small deck which would be about 1 foot off
the ground. S. Radtke stated that the porch was not original to the house.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to construct a new 12- x 16-foot shed at the rear of the
property and to replace the cement steps on the north side of the house with a small wooden deck as
proposed, as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained,
was made by S. Radtke, supported by J. Hilt and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, S. Radtke, D.
Warren, A. Riegler, and K. George voting aye.
OTHER
HDC Local Standards Review – Window, Door, and Exterior Woodwork, Fence – Commissioners
and staff discussed the standards for Window, Door, & Exterior Woodwork, and Fences. J. Pesch
stated that he had made some changes to the fence regulations due to the City amending the ordi-
nance regulating fences on corner lots. S. Radtke suggested that composite material for use on decks
be addressed. He stated that he would prefer to approve that type of request on a case-by-case basis.
A. Riegler concurred, and asked if that was allowed. J. Pesch stated that he would look into the le-
gality of it. Regarding decks, S. Radtke asked J. Pesch if they would have to raise the railing height
allowance to meet building codes. J. Pesch stated he would check with the building inspection de-
partment about that.
D. Warren left at 5:00 PM.
Recap of March HDC Training Workshops – J. Pesch discussed the National Alliance of Preserva-
tion Commissions training that he had attended. S. Radtke stated that it would be helpful to have
some training geared toward realtors, in the hope that they would pass on that knowledge to their
clients considering purchasing property in a historic district.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
4
III. NEW BUSINESS
Case 2019-7 – 280 W. Webster – Roof
Applicant: The Greater Muskegon Woman’s Club
District: Downtown Structures
Current Function: Club
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to remove the clay tile roof, repair and replace roof boards, rein-
force joists as needed, place sheathing over roof surface, install new ice and water shield on all
eaves and valleys, and install new metal shingles in clay profile. The applicant has prepared a
presentation for the meeting.
5
Standards
The design of all roofing materials used on sloped roofs and structures within the historic districts
shall maintain the appearance of the original roofing materials and be appropriate to the style and
period of the structure. Materials shall be selected and installed in accordance with the guidelines as
follows:
Installation shall follow existing building codes and manufacturer’s recommendations.
Metal Drip/Rake Edge Starter shall be of a color to match the existing fascia, trim, or the new roof
material.
Wood Shingles shall be square or edged (diamond, fishscale, hexagonal) with approximately 5” to
6” exposed to the weather. If wood shingles are to be used, it is recommended that they be chemical-
ly treated for fi re resistance in accordance with Underwriters Laboratory requirements for a fire rat-
ed roof. Wide exposure wood shakes are not acceptable.
Tile Roofing shall be either clay or cement tiles in patterns and colors appropriate to the period. Ap-
propriate patterns include French, Gothic, Norman, Williamsburg, Georgian Colonial, Slate design,
or Flat shingle tile. Interlocking tiles may be used so long as they are of traditional designs or colors.
Spanish or Barrel Mission tile may be used only if the original roof material was similar or upon
special approval of the Historic District Commission.
Slate Roofing shall be acceptable.
Metal Roofing for flat or low pitched decks or standing rib metal on sloping roofs, where terne,
copper, or other metal roofing has been used previously, shall be acceptable. Stamped metal roofing
where the stamped pattern resembles the original roofing material shall be acceptable. Standing-
seam metal roofing where not originally installed is not generally permissible.
Rolled Asphalt Roofing, built-up roofing, or single ply roofing may be used where required by roof
pitch of 3 in 12 or less or where previously installed.
Asphalt Shingles shall be square butt, strip type, architectural shingles with approximately 5” ex-
posed to the weather. French method hexagonal asphalt shingles may be used if they were used on
the original roof. If used, they must match the color of original French Method Asbestos. Generally,
T-Lock or other irregular lock type designs are not in keeping with the architectural character of the
homes and will not be approved for use in the historic districts.
In most instances, it is preferred that new roofing be the same type and style as was originally in-
stalled. However, as a practical matter, asphalt shingles which closely resemble the color and design
of the traditional roofing materials may be accepted.
6
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to remove the clay tile roof, repair and replace roof
boards, reinforce joists as needed, place sheathing over roof surface, install new ice and water shield
on all eaves and valleys, and install new metal shingles in clay profile as long as the work meets all
zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
None.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
HDC Local Standards Review – The revised local standards for Window, Door, & Exterior
Woodwork and Fence incorporating comments from the April meeting are included with the Staff
Report.
Holland Regional HDC Training – A free regional HDC training will take place on Wednesday,
May 22nd from 6:00 – 8:30pm in Holland, MI. Register for the training at the following link by
Monday, May 20th: https://southwestmichiganhdctraining2019.eventbrite.com
VI. ADJOURN
7