View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, July 5, 2017
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: City Commission Chambers, City Hall
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Minutes of the regular meeting of June 6, 2017
III. Old Business
IV. New Business
Case 2017-10 – 394 Houston Ave – Fence
Case 2017-11 – 511 W. Clay Ave – Garage Door
Case 2017-12 – 1335 4th St – Roof
V. Other Business
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
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, MI 49440
(231) 724-6705
TTY/TDD: Dial 7-1-1 and request that representative dial 231-724-6705
1
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 6, 2017
Chairperson J. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Hilt, S. Kroes, S. Radtke, A. Riegler, D. Warren, L. Wood, K. Panozzo
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: K. Kampenga, 1508 Clinton St; T. Kling & T. Sanocki, Muskegon Polish
Festival, H. Sherman, 1347 Peck St;
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of May 2, 2017 was made by D. Warren, supported by
S. Kroes and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
Cases were heard out of order, with case 2017-09 being heard first.
Case 2017-09 – 1508 Clinton Street. Applicant: Ken Kampenga. District: Clinton-Peck. Current Func-
tion: Residential. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to replace the
current wood garage door with a similar but more secure vinyl garage door. A picture of the proposed
door was provided. It appeared that the current door may have one window that had been painted the
same color as the door.
K. Kampenga stated that the new garage door may also have a window in it, but the look of the door
would otherwise be the same as the picture he had provided. A. Riegler asked what year the house was
built, so she could determine if the proposed garage door fit the style of the home. K. Kampenga thought
it was built in the 1920’s. He stated that the current door was falling apart and was too heavy to lift. A.
Riegler asked if the door handles shown in the picture would be included. K. Kampenga stated that they
would; however, the door would be shorter than the picture showed. A board member was able to pull up
a picture of the house online. S. Radtke noted that the garage door style matched the windows of the
house so he had no objection to the door as proposed. In addition, the garage was set back quite a dis-
tance from the road and not easily visible from the street.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace the garage door as proposed as long as all zoning
requirements are met and the necessary permits are obtained, was made by S. Kroes, supported by L.
Wood and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, S. Kroes, S. Radtke, A. Riegler, D. Warren, L. Wood, and
K. Panozzo voting aye.
2
Case 2017-08 – Hackley Park. Applicant: Muskegon Polish Festival. District: National Register. Cur-
rent Function: Park. The HDC board had discussed this case at previous meetings. The applicants are
seeking approval to install a permanent, concrete dance floor at Hackley Park for their Polish festival,
held in September. They provided renderings that show five different options they would like to offer for
consideration. A copy of the Hackley Park Master Plan was provided by staff at the April meeting. The
Parks Department and Planning Department are both opposed to the request, as it is not called for in the
park’s Master Plan.
S. Kroes stated that she preferred that the area remain grass rather than being turned into concrete, espe-
cially considering that city staff was opposed to the concrete. M. Franzak stated the city was fortunate to
have many events held in various parks, but staff had to exercise caution with historic landmarks such as
Hackley Park. The Polish Festival was very successful in its first year, and it was possible they could
outgrow Hackley Park in a short time. K. Panozzo asked if the applicants had met with Parks Department
personnel. M. Franzak stated that yes, city staff had met with the applicant at the park and he was under
the impression that they had agreed to level the dirt off so a wooden dance floor could be temporarily in-
stalled for the festival. T. Kling stated that they would use a wooden dance floor this year since it was
late in the year, but the yearly cost to install a wooden floor was about the same as putting in the concrete.
He also thought that a concrete dance floor would be beneficial to the city. S. Radtke asked why they
didn’t use Heritage Landing. He stated that the Hackley Park plan mentioned a bandshell, which is why
the current stage was allowed, but there was no mention of a dance floor. He was not in favor of adding a
permanent dance floor and changing the park’s function and aesthetics. T. Sanocki stated that the cost to
use Heritage Landing was too high for a newer festival. D. Warren pointed out that the Irish Festival fol-
lowed a similar path of starting out small at Hackley Park and then moved to Heritage Landing. T.
Sanocki stated that they preferred to use Hackley Park and may consider moving to a different city if that
were not possible. M. Franzak stated that, at the last meeting, a bracket system to hold a wooden dance
floor in place was also discussed. This was something that would remain in place but not be visible the
rest of the year. J. Hilt asked T. Kling if they had looked into that. T. Kling stated that they had. The
board and applicants discussed the different types of dance floors. D. Warren noted that a wooden dance
floor sounded like the best option for dancing, not a concrete one. T. Sanocki stated that that was correct,
but they could work with a concrete one. T. Kling stated that the most important thing was to have a flat
surface; the wooden dance floor costs were much higher and it would be an annual cost rather than a one-
time expenditure. M. Franzak stated that the HDC had to vote on the request based on the proposed use
of a historic resource. They were not supposed to base their decision on the needs of a particular group,
or cost factors. A. Riegler asked for clarification on what the board was voting on for this case. M. Fran-
zak confirmed that the original request was for the installation of a concrete dance floor.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to install a permanent concrete dance floor at Hackley Park was
made by S. Radtke, supported by D. Warren and approved, with S. Radtke, D. Warren, S. Kroes and A.
Riegler voting aye, K. Panozzo and L. Wood voting nay, and J. Hilt abstaining due to being on the board
of the Polish Festival. D. Warren stated that, although the board members supported the festival, the
HDC’s responsibility was to maintain the historical integrity of Hackley Park. M. Franzak stated that a
non-permanent option was preferable, and encouraged the applicants to continue exploring other options.
3
OLD BUSINESS
Case 2017-06 – 1347 Peck Street. Applicant: Helen Sherman. District: McLaughlin. Current Function:
Residential. Ms. Sherman updated board members on her request that was considered by the board in
May. She had obtained permits to repair the siding.
OTHER BUSINESS
M. Franzak stated that this was his last meeting at staff liaison to the HDC. J. Pesch, a new employee
with an architectural background, would be taking over. He thanked board members for their dedication
and hard work over the years.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
4
Case 2017-10 – 394 Houston Ave – Fence
Applicant: Jeffrey Potts
District: Houston
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to install a 4-foot high chain-link fence enclosing the perimeter of the
property. See attached plan for fence location. A land survey has been completed.
Standards
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
FENCE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
(Adopted December 6, 1994 - Effective January 1, 1995)
General
Fences and gates are an extension of the architecture of a home. They should be compatible in style and
material. They should be appropriate to the size and scale of the structure. They, therefore, require re-
view and approval by the Historic District Commission.
Sometimes it is necessary to use fencing for other than decorative purposes, such as marking boundaries,
privacy, screening unsightly areas, or security. Fencing for utilitarian purposes sometimes requires fenc-
ing materials which are not of the period or character of the house. Non-conforming fencing materials
may be considered for use in the back of the structure.
Fence Guidelines
When building wood fencing, consideration should be given to the kind of wood best suited for the pro-
ject, adequate post foundations, weatherproofing, color, and amount of maintenance required. Simple
5
variations of wood picket-style fencing are appropriate to many period homes. Wood fences must be
painted to complement or contrast the colors of the house. Pressure treated wood shall be painted no later
than one year after installation.
Iron fencing is an appropriate option for Victorian-era homes. Iron fencing was often modest in propor-
tion, seldom exceeding four feet in height. A popular standard was 36 inches.
Fencing materials such as split rails, stone, and brick may be considered if they reflect the feeling of the
home in material and character.
Chain-link and similar utilitarian fencing, such as industrial fencing, wire mesh, and barbed wire, is not
permitted in the front of a structure.
Hedges and natural fencing are possible alternatives to fences.
Fence Standards
LAYOUT REQUIREMENTS: (Please see the attached Supplementary Graphics sheets)
Conforming fences not over four feet (4') in height are permitted between the property line and half way
between the front and rear setback lines.
Corner lots will be considered to have two front yards, except that non-conforming fences higher than 4'
will be permitted immediately behind the existing side setback line (rather than half way between the
front and rear).
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to install the fence as proposed as long as it meets all
zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
6
Estimate Id: 51936 Page 1 of 2
6/11/2017
,_ ,..,
�Y-0'
�
I
�
�,
�
-� -�
;'\
114'-0'
l
/'
.
Estimated Price: $973.30*
'Today's estimated price, future prici.ng may go up or do•,•,n. Tax, labor, and de�ve,y not inc:uded.
This is an estimate. It is on:y for general price information. This is not an offer and there can be no tega'ly b:nd'ng contract be�1-een the parties based on this est;mate. The prices stated herein are subject to change
dependng upon the mali(et conditions. The prices stated on this estimate are not firm for any time period un:ess specifica'ly v.titten othemise on th!s form. The availab�ity or materials is sub;ect to inventory conditions.
MENARD$ ts NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR AAY LOSS INCURRED BY THE GUEST WrlO RELIES ON PRICES SET FORTH HEREIN OR ON THE AVAILABILITY OF AAY MATERIAi.$ STATED HEREIN. NI information
on this form, other than price, has been pro'lided 'rt/ the guest and Menards is not respoos•ble for any errors in the information on this estimate, inc:ud:ng but not rmited to quantity, dimens'Ofl and quality. Please examine
this estimate carefv'ly. MENARDS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL, VwRITTEN OR OTHERVl-1SE THAT THE MATERIAI.S LISTED ARE SUITABLE FOR AAY PURPOSE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE GUEST.
BECAUSE OF THE WOE VARIATIONS IN CODES, THERE ARE NO REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE l,IATERIAI.S LISTED HEREIN MEET YOUR CODE REQUIREMENTS.
Case 2017-11 – 511 W. Clay Ave – Garage Door
Applicant: Katherine Jawor/Steve Dahlstrom
District: National Register
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to install a 12-foot wide by 8-foot high garage door on the east side of
the garage. There was previously a garage door in this location as evidenced by interior framing and ga-
rage door brackets. The existing, 16’ x 8’ garage door on the south side of the building will remain.
12’
8’
8’
16’
8
Standards
WINDOW, DOOR, AND EXTERIOR WOODWORK
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
(Adopted December 6, 1994 - Effective January 1, 1995)
General
These guidelines pertain only to proposed changes to the structure and do not affect existing construction.
These guidelines are primarily directed toward the front and side elevations of the structure. Greater vari-
ances and more leniency may be extended toward proposed changes to the rear elevation of the building
in Class A districts by the Commission. All desired or proposed changes should be referred to the His-
toric District 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
theses 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 repair is
not possible, elements shall be replaced with matching wood members. In Class A districts, damaged or
deteriorated 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 action.
When repair is not possible, elements shall be replaced with matching wood members. In Class A dis-
tricts, 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 gener-
ally will not be acceptable.
The size of glass lites and muntin arrangements shall not be altered without Commission approval. Spe-
cial glazing, such as stained or leaded art glass, shall not be removed without Commission approval. Un-
usual decorative windows such as Palladian windows, oriels, bays, Gothic arch or segment 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 win-
dows are placed inside the existing window frames rather than affixed to the exterior 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 acceptable as long as they do not de-
tract from the appearance of the primary windows. Care should be taken, however, when using interior
storm windows because condensation tends to form on the inside surface of the primary window and
could cause damage to the wood and paint if not properly ventilated.
9
Greater scrutiny will be applied by the commission in reviewing storm and screen windows in Class AA
districts in order to determine the most appropriate option.
Primary Doors
Every effort should be made to preserve or repair the original doors where damage has occurred. When
repair is not possible, the first choice shall be a similar salvaged door from a structure of the approximate
age and style. A new wood door may be used when a salvaged door is not available. Such new door shall
match the original in detail and finish.
In Class A districts the Commission may approve new wood doors that may slightly differ from the origi-
nal 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 in Class A districts, the Commis-
sion may approve doors made of material other than wood provided they conform to the same design re-
quirements.
Storm Doors
Wooden storm and screen doors are preferred and will generally be the required option in Class AA dis-
tricts, 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 fin-
ishes will be acceptable. In general, storm and screen doors shall conform to those illustrated on an at-
tached sheet. The door stiles and rails should be a minimum of 4" wide and one lite doors, where practi-
cal, are preferred in order not to detract from the existing primary door. Jalousie doors are not accept-
able 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, columns,
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 re-
moved but shall be repaired or replaced with matching materials where possible.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to install the garage door as proposed as long as it meets
all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
10
Case 2017-12 – 1335 4th St – Roof
Applicant: Santiago Cabrera
District: Campus
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to re-roof the house. He is proposing to change from the current shingle
style to asphalt shingles similar in appearance to other roofs in the historic district. Additional details and
photos of the proposed shingle style will be provided by the applicant.
Standards
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
ROOFING GUIDELINES
(Adopted December 6, 1994 - Effective January 1, 1995)
The design and color of all roofing materials used on sloped roofs and structures within the historic dis-
tricts 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 fol-
lows:
INSTALLATION shall follow existing building codes and manufacturers 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 chemically
treated for fire resistance in accordance with Underwriters Laboratory requirements for a fire rated roof.
Wide exposure wood shakes are not acceptable.
11
ASBESTOS CEMENT SHINGLES shall either resemble wood shingles (generally known as American
Method asbestos shingles) or shall resemble slate or match originally installed French Method Asbestos,
Dutch Lap Asbestos, or Twin Lap Asbestos shingles.
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. Span-
ish or Barrel Mission tile may be used only if the original roof material was similar or upon special ap-
proval 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.
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, shingles (generally known as 3 in 1 type) with ap-
proximately 5" exposed 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 installed.
However, as a practical matter, asphalt shingles which closely resemble the color and design of the tradi-
tional roofing materials may be accepted.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to install the new roof as proposed as long as it meets all
zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
12