Historic District Agenda 10-02-2018

View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer

                                            CITY OF MUSKEGON
                                       HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
                                            REGULAR MEETING

DATE OF MEETING:                        Tuesday, October 2, 2018
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 September 11, 2018

III.   New Business

       Case 2018-33 – 1267 Ransom – Windows

       Case 2018-34 – 421 W. Webster – Garage

       Case 2018-35 – 446 W. Webster – Fence

       Case 2018-36 – 1173 4th – Chimney Removal

       Case 2018-37 – 28 W. Forest – Residing

IV.    Old Business

V.     Other Business

       HDC Local Standards Review – Signage (3:30pm Work Session)

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 4, 2018

Chairperson J. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and roll was taken.

MEMBERS PRESENT:              J. Hilt, A. Riegler, S. Radtke, L. Wood

MEMBERS ABSENT:               K. Panozzo, excused; D. Warren, excused; S. Kroes

STAFF PRESENT:                J. Pesch, D. Renkenberger

OTHERS PRESENT:               C. Cribley, Purcell Home Improvement, Spring Lake; N. Wobma,
                              Voss Lighting; K. Knight, 406 Houston Ave; J. Gress & K. Gress, 458
                              W Webster; M. Tisch, Tischco Signs

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of August 7, 2018 was made by J. Hilt, supported
by S. Radtke and unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS

Case 2018-30 – 406 Houston Residing. Applicant: Louise Knight. District: Houston. Current Func-
tion: Residential. The applicant is seeking approval to install vinyl siding on the exterior of the
house with the following details: 1) the siding will be 3-inch vinyl siding, 2) there will be custom-
formed aluminum trim on doors and fascia boards on all gables and gable brackets, 3) there will be
color-matched J-blocks for all exterior lights, exhaust vents, hose spigots, and electrical outlets, and
4) install wire mesh around the gable brackets to stop birds from nesting.

A. Riegler asked if the existing siding was 3 inches and if they would be wrapping the rafter tails.
C. Cribley stated that that the siding was 3 inches, and they would be leaving the rafter tails open.
S. Radtke asked what would be done with the windows. C. Cribley stated that they were already
clad in aluminum. A. Riegler stated that one of the concerns with vinyl siding is that all shadow
lines would be lost, thus the board was reluctant to approve it on a house like this. C. Cribley stated
that most of the homes in that area already had vinyl siding. K. Knight stated that this house had
been in his family for decades. It had to be repainted about every 10 years and it was expensive. He
wished to have something easier to maintain, as he was getting older and it was getting harder to
paint such a large home. S. Radtke asked if they would be installing the vinyl over the existing
wood siding, or removing the wood. C. Cribley stated that they were going to install coreboard and
vinyl over the existing wood siding. A. Riegler asked what would be done with the windows. C.
Cribley stated that there was a 1-inch channel around the windows. L. Wood stated that the win-

                                                 2
dows would appear recessed if the outer siding was built up. Board members discussed the other
homes in the neighborhood. They also suggested a less unsightly option than wire mesh for keeping
out the birds, such as spike strips. C. Cribley stated that they were called “hot feet” and he would
look into that.

A motion that the HDC approve the request to install vinyl siding on the house with the following
specifications: 1) 3-inch vinyl siding, 2) custom-formed aluminum trim on doors and fascia boards
on all gables and gable brackets, 3) color-matched J-blocks for all exterior lights, exhaust vents,
hose spigots, and electrical outlets, and 4) wire spike strips (“hot feet”) attached to the gable brack-
ets to stop birds from nesting, as long as the necessary permits are obtained, was made by S. Radtke,
supported by L. Wood and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, A. Riegler, S. Radtke, and L. Wood
voting aye.

Case 2018-31 – 1762 Jefferson Garage Doors. Applicant: William Krick. District: Jefferson. Current
Function: Residential. The applicant is seeking approval to replace two damaged wood garage doors
with two new, insulated garage doors of the same style and dimensions.

Photos of the proposed style of garage doors were provided. J. Hilt asked if the doors would be with
or without windows. W. Krick stated that the new doors would have windows. A. Riegler pointed
out that the current configuration had 6 windows. W. Krick stated that that style was no longer
available so his new door would have 5 windows.

A motion that the HDC approve the request to remove the damaged wood garage doors and install
two new insulated garage doors of a similar style and dimensions with the exception that the new
doors will have 5 windows instead 6, 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 ap-
proved, with J. Hilt, A. Riegler, S. Radtke, and L. Wood voting aye.

Case 2018-33 – 550 W. Western Accent Lighting. Applicant: Nathan Wobma (Voss Lighting). Dis-
trict: Clay-Western. Current Function: Residential. The applicant is seeking approval to install exte-
rior accent lighting around the top of the building. Twenty-four (24) fixtures would be installed with
lights shining downward against the building.

N. Wobma explained that the light fixtures would be placed on the roof of the building and anchored
there with sandbags. J. Pesch provided a picture of the proposed fixtures. A. Riegler asked what
color they were. N. Wobma stated that they ordered them in black. J. Pesch asked if the lights
would be one color, not flashing or changing colors. N. Wobma confirmed that they would be one
color. S. Radtke asked if the lights would be angled to wash down the walls. N. Wobma stated that
they would.

A motion that the HDC approve the request to install twenty-four (24) exterior accent light fixtures
around the top of the building with lights directed downward against the building as long as the
work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained, was made by L. Wood,
supported by J. Hilt and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, A. Riegler, S. Radtke, and L. Wood
voting aye.


                                                 3
OLD BUSINESS

Case 2018-25 – 458 W. Webster Garage Rehabilitation. Applicant: Jonathan and Katelyn Gress.
District: National Register. Current Function: Residential. This case was tabled at the August meet-
ing as more information was requested regarding the materials to be used and a drawing of the cur-
rent configuration of the garage windows, doors, and other openings. The applicant is seeking ap-
proval to 1) completely remove and rebuild the rear garage wall (facing alley) with reinforced CMU
block finished with a stucco cement product to match the rest of the structure. The proposed work
will also include 2) new windows of a similar size, configuration, and mullion design to replace the
deteriorated or missing windows, 3) new “carriage house style” garage doors to replace existing
deteriorating and non-functioning doors, 4) addition of an entry door to allow for better egress as
well as an additional upstairs window, and 5) new veneer stone lintels over windows. The existing
wall is constructed of unreinforced clay masrony block covered with a stucco cement finish, and
sustained extensive damage from falling snow and subsequent freeze/thaw last winter. The awning
that had been attached above the garage doors was ripped off, damaging several courses of the block
it was attached to; full wall replacement was determined to be safer than shoring and replacing
individual blocks.

J. Gress stated that in addition to rehabbing the structure, they wanted to add one more window. A.
Riegler stated that one of the more important considerations of historic preservation was maintain-
ing window openings, but considering that this was a secondary structure and the new window
stayed within the scale of the building, she was comfortable with approving it. S. Radtke asked
what kind of window trim would be used. J. Gress stated that most of the window trim was missing.
They were looking at wooden Jeld Wen windows, as shown in the informational packet they provid-
ed. S. Radtke asked if the new garage doors would be steel and what would be done about the cor-
nice. J. Gress affirmed that they were getting steel doors and said there really wasn’t a cornice
there; the roof was sloped. A. Riegler asked if they were going to put up gutters and replace the
canopy. K. Gress stated that they would put up gutters but the canopy was not an original feature.

A motion that the HDC approve the request to 1) completely remove and rebuild the rear garage
wall (facing alley) with reinforced CMU block finished with a stucco cement product to match the
rest of the structure, 2) install new windows of a similar size, configuration, and mullion design to
replace the deteriorated or missing windows, 3) install new “carriage house style” garage doors to
replace existing deteriorating and non-functioning doors, 4) reconfigure the door and window
openings to add an entry door as well as an additional upstairs window, and 5) install new veneer
stone lintels over windows as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary
permits are obtained, was made by A. Riegler, supported by S. Radtke and unanimously approved,
with J. Hilt, A. Riegler, S. Radtke, and L. Wood voting aye.

Case 2018-29 – 1100 3rd Sign. Applicant: Phyllis Watson-Loudermill. District: Houston. Current
Function: Commercial. This case was denied at the August meeting, but the applicant has revised
their proposed design. The applicant is requesting approval to install one (1) refurbished, non-lit
aluminum ground sign at the property. The sign would be located along the 3rd Street frontage. The
proposed sign is approximately 4’ tall x 8’ wide, which is smaller than the one previously requested.




                                                4
J. Pesch stated that the building was in a Form Based Code zoning district and those requirements
did not match the HDC standards. Staff and board members discussed the sign, the base, and the
size calculations. A. Riegler stated that the sign still appeared to be out of scale with the building.
L. Wood observed that Third St. had an eclectic group of businesses and signage. A. Riegler asked
if the sign was lit from the inside, as HDC standards mandated that it be externally lit. M. Tisch
stated that it was internally lit. J. Pesch stated that, for comparison purposes, the Eagles and Frauen-
thal each had internally lit signs that had been approved in the recent past. A. Riegler concurred that
this was an eclectic area but she still stated that the sign looked too large for the building. M. Tisch
discussed the size allowances listed in the city’s sign ordinance and stated that the calculations did
not add up. J. Pesch stated that he would look into that.

A motion that the HDC deny the request to install one (1) 4’ tall by 8’ wide refurbished, non-lit
aluminum ground sign along the property’s 3rd Street frontage was made by A. Riegler, supported
by S. Radtke and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, A. Riegler, S. Radtke, and L. Wood voting
aye.

A. Riegler stated that that she would be willing to consider approving a smaller sign if the property
owner was willing to reduce the size. M. Tisch stated that he wasn’t sure what the property owner
would want to do at this point. The board discussed and it agreed that they would approve a smaller
sign so the applicant wouldn’t have to come back before the board again, if they were satisfied with
the smaller sign.

A motion that the HDC approve the request to install a 4-foot tall by 5-foot wide internally lit alu-
minum ground sign along the property’s 3rd Street frontage with the condition that all zoning re-
quirements are met and the necessary permits are obtained, was made by A. Riegler, supported by S.
Radtke and unanimously approved, with J. Hilt, A. Riegler, S. Radtke, and L. Wood voting aye.

OTHER

HDC Local Standards Review – Signage. J. Pesch asked board members if they would like to dis-
cuss the sign standards. If so, the board could meet 30 minutes prior to the October 2 regular meet-
ing. A work session was scheduled for 3:30pm on Tuesday, October 2nd, prior to the scheduled HDC
meeting.


There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.




                                                 5
III. NEW BUSINESS

                            Case 2018-33 – 1267 Ransom – Windows
                                    Applicant: Mark Krier
                                     District: McLaughlin
                                 Current Function: Residential


Discussion

The applicant is seeking approval to replace twenty-nine (29) deteriorating windows with new vinyl
windows. The rough openings will remain the same.




                                               6
First floor windows to be replaced




                                     7
Second floor windows to be replaced


Standards

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


                                                 8
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.

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.

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.

                                                 9
Storm Doors
Wooden storm and screen doors are preferred and will generally be the required option 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 finishes will
be acceptable. In general, storm and screen doors shall conform to those illustrated on an attached
sheet. The door stiles and rails should be a minimum of 4” wide and one lite doors, where practical,
are preferred in order not to detract from the existing primary door. Jalousie doors are not acceptable
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, 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 twenty-nine (29) deteriorating windows
with new vinyl windows within the same rough openings as long as the necessary permits are ob-
tained.




                                                10
                            Case 2018-34 – 421 W. Webster – Garage
                             Applicant: Kevin and Jacquelyn Huss
                                       District: Houston
                                 Current Function: Residential


Discussion

The applicant is seeking approval to construct a detached, 26’ x 26’ garage behind the home. The
proposed garage will be located approximately 8’ from the easterly lot line, and a concrete apron
will extend to approximately 2’ from the rear lot line along the alley. The proposed garage will be
sided with “SmartSide” siding of a cedar shake design to resemble the cedar siding on the house.
Two garage doors will face the alley, and two adjoining entry doors will face the yard.




View from W. Webster Avenue (above) and 5th Street (below)




                                                11
12
Proposed siding style




                        13
Proposed garage door style




Proposed yard entry door style




                                 14
Standards

The Historic District Commission strives to protect the historical fabric of Muskegon. The major
objectives of the Commission are to safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving historic dis-
tricts which reflect elements of its cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history; to
stabilize and improve property values in such districts; to foster civic beauty; to strengthen the local
economy; and to promote the use of historic districts for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the
citizens.

Although a significant amount of the Commission's work is centered on historic structures, the con-
struction of new structures on vacant lots within historic districts is permitted and encouraged.
However, those professionals designing new structures should strive for excellence in design wheth-
er small individual infill construction within the existing historic district blocks, or larger inde-
pendently sited projects. New structures should be in keeping with the existing historical character
of the neighborhood or district with a design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and
color of the surrounding buildings and landscaping. Good design which responds positively to its
surroundings can be done in several different ways; therefore, it is impossible to develop specific
interpretations which will apply in all cases. Every site has its own design opportunities.

The following design recommendations shall be used by the Historic District Commission in evalu-
ating requests for new construction within the districts. These basic criteria should be a part of any
proposed design brought before the Commission for approval.

Recommended                                           Not Recommended

Height - Relating the overall height of new           Height - Introducing new construction that
construction to that of adjacent structures.          varies greatly in height (too high or too low)
As a general rule, construct new buildings to         from older buildings in the vicinity. Ex-
a height roughly equal to the average height          treme differences in building heights will
of existing buildings from the historic period        have a detrimental visual effects on the ap-
on and across the street.                             pearance of surrounding property.

Scale - Relating the size and proportions of          Scale - Creating buildings that in height,
new structures to the scale of adjacent build-        width, or massing violate the existing scale
ings. Although a building may be much                 of the area. The new building should not
larger than its neighbors in terms of square          disrupt the scale and rhythm of the
footage, it should maintain the same scale            streetscape, although it might be appropriate
and rhythm as the existing buildings.                 in a different location.

Massing - Breaking up uninteresting box-              Massing - Introducing single, monolithic
like forms into smaller, varied masses such           forms that are not relieved by variations in
as are common on most buildings from the              massing. Box-like facades and forms are
historic period.    Variety of form and               intrusive when placed in a streetscape of
massing are elements essential to the charac-         older buildings that have varied massing and
ter of the streetscape in historic districts.         facade articulation.
For example, if an infill site is large, the

                                                 15
mass of the facade can be broken into a
number of small bays.

Directional Expression - Relating the verti-            Directional Expression - Creating strongly
cal, horizontal, or non-directional facade              horizontal or vertical facade expressions un-
character of new buildings to the predomi-              less compatible with the character of struc-
nant directional expression of nearby build-            tures in the immediate area. A new building
ings. Horizontal buildings can be made to               that does not relate well to its neighbors or
relate to the more vertical adjacent structures         to the rhythm of the streetscape because of
by breaking the facade into smaller masses              an unbroken horizontal facade should be
that conform to the primary expression of               avoided.
the streetscape.

Setback - Maintaining the historic facade               Setback - Violating the existing setback pat-
lines of streetscape by locating front walls of         tern by placing a new building in front of or
new buildings in the same plane as the fa-              behind the historic facade line. Placing
cades of adjacent buildings. If exceptions              buildings at odd angles to the street, unless
are made, buildings should be set back into             in an area where diverse siting already ex-
the lot rather than closer to the street. If ex-        ists, even if property setback is maintained,
isting setbacks vary, new buildings should              should be avoided.
conform to historic siting patterns.

Sense of Entry - Articulating the main en-              Sense of Entry - Introducing facades with no
trances to the building with covered porches,           strong sense of entry. Side entries or entries
porticos, and other pronounced architectural            not defined by a porch or similar transitional
forms. Entries were historically raised a few           element result in an incompatible "flat" first-
steps above the grade of the property and               floor facade.
were a prominent visual feature of the street
elevation of the building.

Roof Shapes - Relating the roof forms of the            Roof Shapes - Introducing roof shapes,
new buildings to those found in the area.               pitches, or materials not traditionally used in
Although not entirely necessary, duplication            the area.
of the existing or traditional roof shapes,
pitches, and materials on new construction is
one way of making new structures more vis-
ually compatible.

Rhythm of Openings - Respecting the recur-              Rhythm of Openings - Introducing incom-
rent alteration of wall areas with door and             patible facade patterns that upset the rhythm
window elements in the facade. Also con-                of openings established in surrounding
sidering the width-to-height ratio of bays in           structures. For example, glass walls and
the facade. The placement of openings with              window and door shapes and locations
respect to the facade's overall composition,            which are disrespectful to the adjoining
symmetry or balanced symmetry should be                 buildings.
carefully studied.

                                                   16
Design Expression - Composing the materi-            Design Expression - Violating the existing
als, textures and colors of the new building         character of the district by introducing non-
facade to compliment adjacent facades and            compatible materials, textures, colors, de-
relating details and decorations of the new          tails, and decoration on new buildings.
building to those of existing surrounding
buildings.

Imitations - Accurate restoration of or visu-        Imitations - Replicating or imitating the
ally compatible additions to existing build-         styles, motif, or details of older periods.
ings and former construction, contemporary           Such attempts detract from the character of
architecture that well represents our own            the district by compromising what is truly
time yet, enhances the nature and character          historic.
of the historic district.


Deliberation

I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to construct a detached, 26’ x 26’ garage behind the
home sided with “SmartSide” siding of a cedar shake design with two garage doors facing the alley,
and two adjoining entry doors facing the yard as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and
the necessary permits are obtained.




                                                17
                              Case 2018-35 – 446 W. Webster – Fence
                                Applicant: David and Lori Loring
                                    District: National Register
                                  Current Function: Residential

Discussion

The applicant is seeking approval to install 30 feet of 30” tall fencing and two gates to enclose the
backyard of the property.




                                                18
Standards

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, re-
quire review and approval by the Historic District Commission.

Sometimes it is necessary to use fencing for other than decorative purposes, such as marking bound-
aries, privacy, screening unsightly areas, or security. Fencing for utilitarian purposes sometimes re-
quires fencing materials which are not of the period or character of the house. Nonconforming fenc-
ing 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
project, adequate post foundations, weatherproofing, color, and amount of maintenance required.
Simple 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 pro-
portion, 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) Conform-
ing fences not over four feet (4’) in height are permitted between the property line and half way be-
tween 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 be-
tween the front and rear).


Deliberation

I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request install 30 feet of 30” tall fencing and two gates to
enclose the backyard of the property as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the nec-
essary permits are obtained.

                                                 19
                          Case 2018-36 – 1173 4th – Chimney Removal
                              Applicant: Community EnCompass
                                       District: Houston
                                 Current Function: Residential

Discussion

The applicant is seeking approval to remove the existing chimney to just below the roofline, or re-
move and rebuild the chimney up to four feet for aesthetics only.




                                               20
Support post bending under weight of leaning chimney

Standards

Sec. 11-31. Approval of demolition or moving of structures of historic or architectural
worth.

   1. The demolition or moving of structures of historic or architectural worth shall be discour-
      aged. The commission shall not issue a certificate of approval for demolition of such a struc-
      ture, except when the structure is deemed a hazard to public health or safety by a responsible

                                              21
       public agency. The commission may, at its own discretion, issue a certificate of approval for
       the demolition or moving of such structure, but shall be guided by the following conditions
       in exercising its judgment in granting such a certificate:
           a. The director of building inspection deems such structure to be a hazard to public
               safety or health and repairs are impossible.
           b. Such structure is a deterrent to a major improvement program which will be of sub-
               stantial benefit to the community.
           c. Retention of such structure would cause undue financial hardship to the owner,
               which would be defined as a situation where more funds than is reasonable would be
               required to retain the structure.
           d. The retention of such structure would not be in the interest of the community as a
               whole.

   2. In cases where approval for demolition is granted, for reasons other than public health or
      safety, such certificate shall not become effective until six (6) months after the date of such
      issuance, in order to provide a period of time within which it may be possible to relieve a
      hardship or to cause the property to be transferred to another owner who will retain the struc-
      ture. (Ord. No. 737, § 9, 9-25-73)


Deliberation

I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to remove the existing chimney to just below the
roofline as long as the necessary permits are obtained.




                                               22
                              Case 2018-37 – 28 W. Forest – Residing
                                     Applicant: David Shedd
                                      District: Clinton-Peck
                                  Current Function: Residential

Discussion

The applicant is seeking approval to remove the Masonite siding on three sides of the house (exclud-
ing the rear facade) as well as the garage, and to replace it with wood grain, cement board siding
with cedar style siding to be installed on the peaks of the three front-facing gable ends. The appli-
cant is also requesting to replace the exterior trim around the windows and door with new 4-inch
trim.




Standards

General
The Muskegon Historic District Commission does not endorse the residing of structures within the
Historic districts. It is the policy of this Commission that the original fabric of the building should
be repaired or replaced where necessary with the original building material.

In cases where the repair or replacement with like materials is impractical or where it can be demon-
strated that the original materials will no longer hold paint or that the original materials are so badly
deteriorated that they can no longer be reasonably repaired, the residing standards below shall strict-
ly be adhered to.

Definitions
                                                 23
For the purpose of this statement, the terms “residing materials” and “trim cladding” shall be under-
stood to encompass the use of any residing materials such as aluminum, vinyl, steel, hardboard,
wood, masonry, or molded urethane which is designed to replace or cover all, or any part, of an ex-
terior wall, trim work or other building element or a structure within a designated historic district.

Purpose
The Commission shall review all applications for Certificates of Appropriateness proposing the in-
stallation of residing materials or trim cladding as individual cases. Each application shall be decid-
ed on its own merit. No person should interpret any Commission approval for residing or trim clad-
ding as being precedent setting. Unrestricted use of residing materials or trim cladding will not be
allowed.

In any case where residing materials or trim cladding are proposed for use by a property owner or
siding contractor, the property owner shall be required to submit a signed letter stating in detail the
intent and scope of the proposed residing or trim cladding installation. Such a letter is to also include
the identification of any deterioration or problems occurring relative to the existing siding or exteri-
or building fabric. If known, the cause and extent of this deterioration must be clearly stated.

The following conditions of installation shall be met by all proposals for residing or trim cladding:

1. All existing deterioration shall be made structurally sound and its causes, insofar as possible,
   shall be corrected prior to the installation of residing materials or trim cladding.

2. Any installation of residing materials shall simulate the appearance of the original building ma-
   terial that it is intended to cover. This simulation shall take into account the size, shape or pro-
   file, texture, and linear direction of the original building material.

        a. The residing material shall be similar in appearance and dimension to the original sid-
           ing. The exposure to the weather of the new siding shall range within one inch of the
           nominal dimension of the original siding. The Historic District Commission shall have
           the authority to waive this requirement in the event that they believe a different design
           or dimension siding would be more appropriate to the architectural character of the His-
           toric District.

        b. A proposed color shall be appropriate as determined by the Commission.

        c. Generally, wood grain textures are not approved by the Commission. However, the ap-
           propriateness of a specific siding texture shall be determined on an individual case basis.

3. Any installation of trim cladding shall adhere to the following guidelines for the treatment for
   architectural trim elements.

   a. Existing cornice or building trim elements shall not be covered or replaced without Commis-
      sion approval. Commission approval will depend upon how closely the trim cladding or new
      trim elements duplicate the appearance of the existing building trim elements.


                                                 24
   b. 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, aprons, corner
      boards, trim boards, skirt boards, or any other characteristic moldings or architectural fea-
      tures.

   c. If the above mentioned trim members are to be clad, they shall be covered with custom
      formed cladding which shall closely approximate the shapes and contours of the existing
      moldings or trim. Distinctive or unusual trim or architectural elements shall not be clad
      without prior consideration and Commission approval.

   d. No building trim elements or architectural features are to be removed or altered to facilitate
      the installation of the new siding or trim cladding without approval of the Historic District
      Commission.

   e. In most cases the soffit cladding material shall run parallel and not perpendicular to the plane
      of the wall.


Deliberation

I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to replace siding on three sides of the house (ex-
cluding the rear facade) as well as the garage with wood grain, cement board siding with cedar style
siding installed on the peaks of the three front-facing gable ends and to replace the exterior trim
around the windows and door with new 4-inch trim as long as the work meets all zoning require-
ments and the necessary permits are obtained.




                                               25
IV. OLD BUSINESS

None

V. OTHER BUSINESS

HDC Local Standards Review – Signage – Commissioners agreed to individually review the
Signage Policy section of our local standards in preparation for the September 4th meeting. As that
meeting was cancelled and rescheduled, the HDC work session was moved to Tuesday, October 2nd
at 3:30pm, a half hour prior to the scheduled HDC meeting.

VI. ADJOURN




                                               26

Top of Page