View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 7, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by J. Hilt.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Hilt, S. Thompson, A. Brown, T. Russo, T. Bosma, S. Kroes,
L. Spataro
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: J. Fitzpatrick, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: B. Stanton, 207 Fulton; E. Pizunski, 16149 Baird Cr; B. Maracek,
1516 Clinton; J. LaLonde, 559 W Western; T. McAllister, 561 W
Western; C. Vanderwier, Neighborhood Investment Corp, 1115 Third
St.; V. Sieradzki, 487 W. Clay; R. Hilt, 1627 Jefferson; G. Borgman,
234 Houston; F. Rozycki, 487 W. Clay; M. DeWitt, 361 Rosengren; J.
Thompson, 1693 Jefferson; D. Cotter, 8 W Walton; B. Kibbey, 460 W
Clay
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A motion to nominate J. Hilt for Chairman was made by S. Thompson, supported by T. Bosma and
unanimously approved.
S. Kroes arrived at 4:04 p.m.
L. Spataro arrived at 4:04 p.m.
A motion to nominate T. Russo for Vice-Chair was made by S. Kroes, supported by A. Brown and
unanimously approved.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of January 3, 2006 was made by T. Bosma,
supported by T. Russo and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case 2006-08 520 W. Webster Ave - Request for change of use in H District from two units to
four units. Applicant: Bruce Stanton. District: Clay-Western. Applicant is requesting approval to
change the use of the building located at 520 W. Webster Ave. from a 2-unit to a 4-unit house.
HDC Minutes 02/07/06 1
Because the house is located in the Heritage zoning district, the request needs to be reviewed by the
HDC. Zoning guidelines, section 2201: Special Land Uses Permitted, allows “Multiple family
residential uses of various types and densities provided, however, that any existing structure
originally constructed for one or two family use shall not be further divided into additional dwelling
units unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Historic District Commission and the
Planning Commission that the essential form and integrity of the structure and its site and
surroundings can be maintained.” Staff recommends denial of the request based on the above
zoning ordinance and in light of the City’s blight fight and rezoning efforts to move away from this
type of situation.
B. Stanton stated that the house was pre-plumbed and pre-wired for a four-unit. He would need to
add two interior walls and replace some concrete in back.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to convert the house located at 520 W. Webster from a two
unit to a four unit, was made by L. Spataro, supported by T. Russo and unanimously approved.
B. Stanton asked what the reasons for the denial were. L. Spataro stated that the core city
neighborhoods have lost too much of their architectural heritage by having too many of the large
older homes cut up into multiple units. It created density issues for the neighborhood, as well as
noise and parking problems.
Case 2006-09 1322 Fourth Street - Request to enclose entryway and realign stairs. Applicant:
Sharon Sprowls. District: Campus. J. Fitzpatrick presented the staff report. Applicant is requesting
approval to enclose the rear entryway of the home at 1322 Fourth Street and realign the stairs.
Previously, the entryway was partially enclosed and the stairs faced the street. Work was begun on
the project without approval from HDC but was stopped by the Inspections Department. City
guidelines exist for porches but appear to be more appropriate for front porches, not necessarily rear
entryways. The applicant purchased the house a year ago and wasn’t aware that it was in a historic
district. The city’s historic district brochure contains an error and doesn’t show this address as being
in a historic district, but it is. Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the
siding be of the same style as already exists on the entryway.
A. Brown asked if the work was already done. J. Fitzpatrick stated that it was half done. L. Spataro
stated that the homeowners had done a first rate job renovating the rest of the home.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to enclose the rear entryway of the home at 1322 Fourth
Street and realign the stairs, with the condition that the siding be of the same style as already exists
on the entryway, was made by T. Bosma, supported by J. Hilt and unanimously approved.
Case 2006-10 609 W. Western Ave. – Request for approval of front building façade. Applicant:
Edward Pizunski. District: Clay-Western. Applicant is requesting approval of the attached façade
plans for the tavern to be located at 609 W. Western Ave. The City’s records indicate that the
structure is not historically significant. The proposed work consists of new windows, door, and trim
as shown in the attached plan. The raised wood panels above and below the windows are hickory, as
is the rest of the proposed wood trim and columns. The proposed glass is tinted but staff has not
seen a sample. Staff does have a sample of the wood. Staff recommends approval of the request to
construct the front façade as proposed, on the condition that a sample of the proposed windows be
shown to and approved by the HDC. Staff would like to make sure that the level of tint is not too
dark, or mirrored.
HDC Minutes 02/07/06 2
E. Pizunski had been unable to get a sample of the proposed glass to bring to the meeting, but he
stated that it would not be mirrored. It would be just dark enough to break the heat for people in the
restaurant sitting by the front window.
A motion that the HDC approve the request for the front facade design as proposed for the building
at 609 W. Western Ave. pending staff review of the type of glass to be used, was made by L.
Spataro, supported by A. Brown and unanimously approved.
Case 2006-11 1516 Clinton – Request to side garage with vinyl siding to match house. Applicant:
Brian Maracek. District: McLaughlin. J. Fitzpatrick presented the staff report. Applicant is
requesting approval to side the garage to match the house located at 1516 Clinton. Applicant is also
requesting to install two new doors and to re-roof the garage. Staff recommends approval of the
request with the conditions that 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,
trim boards, skirt boards, or any other characteristic moldings or architectural features, and that the
eaves not be boxed.
B. Maracek stated that he would like the garage to match the house. He also planned to add a
service door. He couldn’t recall if the house eaves were boxed, but if they were, he would want to
box the garage eaves also. Members reviewed the pictures of the house and concurred that the
house eaves did appear to be boxed. They agreed that they would allow the garage eaves to be
boxed so it would match the house.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to allow new garage doors, a new roof and vinyl siding
on the garage at 1516 Clinton as proposed, with the conditions that 1) the wall siding material shall
not extend over the existing trim members such as window and door trim, sills, fascias, soffits,
frieze members and boards, brackets, trim boards, skirt boards, or any other characteristic moldings
or architectural features, and 2) the eaves be boxed, was made by A. Brown, supported by T. Bosma
and unanimously approved.
Case 2006-12 1633 Peck Street – Request to construct a wheelchair ramp. Applicant: Nancy
Merritt. District: Clinton-Peck. J. Fitzpatrick presented the staff report. Applicant is requesting
approval to construct a wheelchair ramp on the rear of the house located at 1633 Peck St. HDC
guidelines do not mention wheelchair ramps specifically. A sketch of the location of the ramp was
provided. Staff recommends approval of the request.
L. Spataro stated that he had been by the house and didn’t think that the ramp would be visible from
the street.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to allow the construction of a wheelchair ramp as
proposed at 1633 Peck Street was made by S. Thompson, supported by S. Kroes and unanimously
approved.
Case 2006–13 8th Street Condos, Building A behind Boilerworks – Request for changes to the
exterior including new window openings, new stairs, & bricking in an existing opening. Applicant:
HDC Construction. District: Boilerworks. J. Fitzpatrick presented the staff report. Applicant is
requesting approval of various changes to the exterior of the building located behind the
HDC Minutes 02/07/06 3
Boilerworks building. Changes as shown in the submitted plans are 1) replacement of all windows,
2) new concrete entry stairs on the north and south sides, 3) new window opening on the north
elevation, 4) infill lower window opening on west elevation, and 5) gutter and downspout. Staff
recommends approval of the request to replace all windows but not with the style depicted in the
plans. Staff recommends a style to match the existing windows on the north elevation. This style is
a double hung with no muntins. Staff recommends approval of the new concrete stairs and the new
window opening on the west elevation. Staff recommends denial of the infill of the lower window
opening on the west elevation. A better option may be a spandrel window. More information is
needed on the type of gutter and downspout proposed.
J. Fitzpatrick stated that he had changed his original recommendation regarding the window style
after talking with L. Spataro and reviewing old pictures of the building. There was photographic
evidence that the type of window being requested had been in the building at one time. Members
reviewed the plans that had been submitted by the applicant. J. Fitzpatrick stated that a new
window would be cut into the north elevation to match the other windows.
A motion to approve the replacement of the existing windows as proposed with the condition that
they match the original window opening sizes, to allow the new window on the north elevation as
proposed, to deny the request to fill in the window on the west elevation and use spandrel instead,
and to allow staff approval for the gutters and downspouts, was made by L. Spataro, supported by
T. Bosma and approved, with S. Thompson voting nay.
Case 2006-14 559 W. Western Ave – Request for approval of signs. Applicant: Joe LaLonde
District: Clay-Western. J. Fitzpatrick presented the staff report. Applicant is requesting approval of
signs for his business which will be located at 559 W. Western Ave. Signs will consist of vinyl
window lettering and a small neon sign in the doorway. A drawing was provided, and HDC sign
guidelines were reviewed. Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that it meets
the City’s sign ordinance.
J. Fitzpatrick stated that he had shown the sign drawings to the City’s code coordinator, and he had
no problem with it. L. Spataro was concerned with the neon sign because the building was a
Victorian-era structure and he stated that neon would not be appropriate. J. LaLonde stated that the
business two doors down from his had a neon “Open” sign similar to the one he is requesting. He
wanted the sign to be visible from Shoreline Drive. L. Spataro stated that a sign could be lighted
without using neon. J. LaLonde stated that the front of the building had a lot of molding and
architectural features which made it difficult to put anything on the outside of the building. T.
McAllister of the Heritage Association stated that they owned the building and wanted to encourage
retail growth. They had no problem with the proposed signs. T. Bosma felt that an 18 x 40 inch
sign was too large. J. LaLonde stated that that was the size of the window, but he could make the
sign smaller.
A motion that the HDC approve the request for the vinyl window sign and the neon sign for 559 W.
Western with the conditions that the neon “Open” sign be no larger than 12 x 24 inches, and all
signage meets the City’s sign ordinance requirements, was made by T. Bosma, supported by S.
Kroes and approved, with A. Brown voting nay.
HDC Minutes 02/07/06 4
OLD BUSINESS
Case 2006-04 Former St. Joseph’s Property Lot D – Request to construct garage. Applicant:
Neighborhood Investment Corporation. District: Houston. Applicant is requesting approval to
construct a garage. This garage will be located on the same lot as the house that was recently
moved. A sketch of the proposed garage was provided. Staff recommends approval of the request
to construct the garage, pending further information on height, etc. C. Vanderwier from
Neighborhood Investment Corporation was present and provided further information on material
selection and other items. L. Spataro asked if the garage door would face Fourth St. C. Vanderwier
stated that it would.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to construct a garage on Lot D of the former St.
Joseph’s church property as proposed in the submitted plans, was made by L. Spataro, supported by
T. Russo and unanimously approved.
Rehearing of Case 2006-03 487 W. Clay – Request to demolish all buildings on site. Applicant:
City of Muskegon Inspections Department. District: National Register. J. Fitzpatrick presented the
staff report. Because the property owner did not receive sufficient notice when the case came before
the HDC in January, the City Attorney had suggested that the HDC rehear the case. The City
Inspections Department is requesting approval to demolish all buildings on the site. Although the
building does have historic value, because it has been deemed a hazard to public safety and because
retention of the structure would not be in the interest of the community as a whole, staff
recommends approval of the request to demolish the structure located at 478 W. Clay, with the
condition that the certificate not go into effect for 6 months.
V. Sieradzki stated that he had expected his attorney to be present. Since he wasn’t, Mr. Sieradzki
requested that the matter be delayed or tabled again. He wanted it postponed for at least 60 days.
He felt that the roof was the most important item on the list of defects that needed to be corrected.
He stated that he had a declaration from a certified roofer that the roof was good for three to five
more years, and felt that the rest of the building would weather a few more months until he could
make the required repairs. V. Sieradzki approached Commission member L. Spataro so that he was
able to hear what was said. L. Spataro asked him if he would be satisfied if he was given six
months to do the work, as was granted at last month’s HDC meeting. V. Sieradzki stated he would
be. L. Spataro explained last month’s motion to clarify that the HDC had granted him six months to
do the required repairs. V. Sieradzki stated that he thought that would be fair. J. Fitzpatrick stated
that he had received a call from Mr. Sieradzki’s attorney yesterday, who stated that he had planned
to attend the meeting. He received a voice mail message this afternoon stating that he was ill and
couldn’t make it. The reason for this second hearing was based on the advice of the city attorney
and was done as a courtesy, since Mr. Sieradzki stated last month that he had not received adequate
notice of the meeting. Notices for this meeting were sent via certified mail approximately two
weeks ago and a notice was also posted on the property.
R. Hilt stated that this issue had been going in the same direction for the last 30 years. He stated
that there were other options that should be considered before deciding to tear down a historic
property. He pointed out the copy of the HDC’s mission statement that had been passed out to the
members and felt that a vote to demolish the house directly opposed that mission. He stated that
there were three houses on Peck St. that had once been condemned but which were now beautifully
restored. T. Bosma stated that the HDC had voted to tear them down because they were dangerous
HDC Minutes 02/07/06 5
buildings. L. Spataro stated that the reason those nice homes were there was because the owner
finally took the city seriously after the vote to demolish. G. Borgman hoped that this home could be
saved, but he didn’t think that anything would change under the current owner, since this has been
an ongoing issue for many years. He felt that if the owner was unable to keep the house in
respectable condition, he should sell it. F. Rozycki was opposed to the demolition of the home. M.
DeWitt felt that the City should work with Mr. Sieradzki to bring the house up to code. J.
Thompson understood the City’s frustration after dealing with this property for so many years, but
he didn’t feel that postponing any action for 6 months made sense. He stated that someone had to
fix the place up, and the city needed to find out now if the owner intended to repair the house, and if
he could afford to. He had invited staff from the Westshore Dispute Resolution Center to the
meeting and suggested that City staff and Mr. Sieradzki utilize the mediation process, which he
stated had been successful in the past in a similar situation in Grand Haven. He stated that the City
needed to post the property as unsafe. L. Spataro stated that the City had already posted a notice &
order on the property. J. Thompson felt that the mediation process was the best way to get results in
getting the repairs done. D. Cotter from the Westshore Dispute Resolution Center explained what
the Center does. He stated that they served as a neutral party to work with both sides to resolve
issues and provide solutions without getting the courts involved. If mediation failed, the courts
were still an option. There would be no charge for this service. B. Kibbey stated that she had been
working with Mr. Sieradzki to help him get the repairs done. She stated that they had people to start
work when the weather was suitable. L. Spataro stated that he believed Mr. Sieradzki was a man of
his word and if he stated that he could have the required repairs done in six months, he would get
them done.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to demolish the building located at 487 W. Clay with
the condition that the certificate not go into effect for 6 months from today’s date was made by L.
Spataro, supported by T. Russo and approved, with J. Hilt and S. Thompson voting nay.
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
dml
02/07/06
HDC Minutes 02/07/06 6
HDC Minutes 02/07/06 7
HDC Minutes 02/07/06 8
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails