View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, July 7, 2020
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: https://www.facebook.com/CityofMuskegon
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
III. Approval of Minutes of the regular meeting of June 2, 2020
IV. New Business
Case 2020-11 – 1218 Ransom – Sign
Case 2020-12 – 123 W. Larch – Fence
Case 2020-13 – 100 Diana – Windows and New Construction
Case 2020-14 – 511 W. Clay – New Construction (Porch Roof)
V. Old Business
VI. Other Business
Mechanical Equipment Local Standards Draft
HDC Staff Approval Fencing Materials
VII. Adjourn
“We admire that which is old not because it is old, but because it is beautiful.” Winston Churchill
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT POLICY FOR ACCESS TO OPEN MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION AND ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES
OR SUBCOMMITTEES
The City of Muskegon will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as signers for the hearing impaired and audio
tapes of printed materials being considered at the meeting, to individuals with disabilities who want to attend the meeting, upon twenty-four
hour notice to the City of Muskegon. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or services should contact the City of Muskegon
by writing or calling the following: Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk at 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, MI 49440 or by calling (231) 724-
6705 or TTY/TDD: Dial 7-1-1 and request that representative dial 231-724-6705
1
III. MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 2, 2020
S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: A. Riegler, S. Radtke, K. George, K. Panozzo
MEMBERS ABSENT: L. Wood, T. Painter, T. Emory excused
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, R. Cummins
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Hoff, 1122 Terrace; J. Weaver and J. Miller, 579 W. Clay; L. King,
1305 Jefferson
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
This was postponed until the next meeting due to the absence of three board members.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of May 5, 2020 was made by K. George, support-
ed by A. Riegler and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2020-08 – 1122 Terrace Street (Siding and Windows). Applicant: Josh and Jen Hoff. District:
McLaughlin. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is
seeking approval to replace the cedar shake covering the exterior of the third floor with a polymer
shingle of a similar appearance and to replace six (6) windows – three on the north side and three on
the south side of the house – on the third floor with wood windows of a similar size and appearance.
J. Hoff was in attendance to represent the case.
J. Hoff explained that the windows he was requesting to install would be very similar to the win-
dows on the front of the house. He described the type of siding proposed for the house and noted
that it comes in varying widths which allows it to better follow the contours of the wall much like
the original cedar shake, allowing for preservation of the flares and bends going into the windows.
The proposed siding has a blend of three shades to create a more natural appearance when installed.
S. Radtke stated that the board would discuss the request in two parts – the shingles, and the win-
dows – starting with the shingles. A. Riegler stated that it would help to have a sample of the siding
material but that, considering the circumstances, she thought the material looked good. K. George
2
stated that she had been impressed with past work that has been done on the house and did not have
an issue with the choice of replacement materials. K. Panozzo asked if the proposed shingles were
the same material as the new roof on the house that was previously approved. J. Hoff stated that the
roof is made up of aluminum panels and paint made specifically for weather. He stated that the ma-
terials chosen were selected to retain the details and represent the original materials of the house.
The board moved on to discuss the replacement windows. J. Pesch stated that, based on a review of
the HDC’s documents, the windows on the upper floors that are covered in the photos included in
the Staff Report were plain, double hung windows. J. Hoff stated that those not already replaced
with plexiglass were single-pane windows, and that he was looking to replace them to save on ener-
gy costs. The replacement windows used elsewhere on the house are solid oak with aluminum clad-
ding on the exterior. A. Riegler stated that as long as the existing windows were being replaced with
like materials and within a very close dimension to the original they could be approved.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace the cedar shake covering the exterior of the
third floor with a polymer shingle of a similar appearance and to replace six (6) windows (three on
the north side and three on the south side) on the third floor of the house with wood windows of a
similar size and appearance as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary
permits are obtained was made by A Riegler and supported by K. George. The motion was unani-
mously approved.
Case 2020-09 – 579 W. Clay Avenue (Shed). Applicant: Jennifer Weaver/J&J Corner Properties,
LLC. District: Clay-Western. Current Function: Vacant Lot. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The
applicant is seeking approval to construct a 10’ x 20’, wood frame shed. Drawings of the shed were
provided. J. Pesch stated that Staff recently approved a 6’-tall, wood privacy fence at this property
that would screen he proposed shed from the street. J. Weaver and J. Miller were in attendance to
represent the case.
A. Riegler asked about any potential zoning issues with building a shed on a vacant lot. J. Pesch
stated that there was an option to combine the lots. A. Riegler stated that the shed alone would be
out of scale with the surrounding buildings, but that it would work in the neighborhood as an acces-
sory structure. K. George stated that she was less concerned about the design and size of the shed
because it was not prefabricated and because of the varying scale of the structures in the immediate
area and larger district. K. Panozzo stated that the shed would add to the neighborhood, and A. Rieg-
ler concurred, stating that the shed would stand out by not mimicking a historic structure. S. Radtke
noted that the shed would not be a permanent structure and could be replaced with a larger structure
in the future.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to construct a 10’ x 20’, wood frame shed as presented
in the June 2nd, 2020 HDC Staff Report as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the
necessary permits are obtained was made by K. Panozzo and supported by K. George. The motion
was unanimously approved.
Case 2020-10 – 1305 Jefferson Street (Siding). Applicant: Lateesha King. District: Campus. Current
Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to install
vinyl siding on the exterior of the house. L. King was in attendance to represent the case.
3
L. King explained that the wood siding currently installed on the house was chipping and was ex-
pensive to upkeep. She stated that the vinyl siding would be the same color as the existing painted
wood siding.
A. Riegler asked if the existing accent siding in the gable would be retained. L. King stated that the
all the brick would remain and that only the siding that is currently painted grey would be covered
with new vinyl siding. K. Panozzo asked what material would be installed near the peaks of the roof.
L. King stated that it would remain the same, as the siding is in good condition in that area. A. Rieg-
ler stated that she was hesitant to approve vinyl siding on a house with as much detail as this one
because it would be difficult to keep the existing trim without impacting the appearance of layering
vinyl siding over the existing siding. She mentioned the possibility of looking into other siding op-
tions. K. Panozzo stated that she understood the maintenance problems with wood siding, but agreed
that the appearance of the siding and trim would be negatively affected with the proposed change.
A. Riegler expressed concern about the long term condition of the wood siding if it were to be cov-
ered with vinyl siding and encouraged looking into alternative materials or getting an estimate for
painting the existing wood siding. L. King stated that previous owners never installed gutters on the
house, which has led to issues with dry rotting; she noted that painting would likely cost less than
residing, but would require repainting every few years. A. Riegler stated that the board occasionally
approves vinyl siding on houses without as much detail or corners, but that there is also an unfortu-
nate misconception that vinyl siding is maintenance-free.
S. Radtke noted that the HDC had to follow their local standards. The board reviewed the relevant
sections of the local standards for vinyl siding that were included in the Staff Report.
A motion to deny the request to install vinyl siding on the exterior of the house was made by K.
Panozzo and supported by S. Radtke. The motion was unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
J. Pesch provided ordinance sections from other Michigan cities’ historic district commissions’ local
standards dealing with installation of mechanical equipment as well as a proposed amendment to the
City of Muskegon HDC local standards from around 2003 that dealt with the issue. Staff will draft
an addition to the HDC local standards that addresses outdoor mechanical equipment for review by
the board at the next meeting.
Time was allotted for public comment with contact information provided. There were no comments
from the public.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:49 p.m.
JP
4
IV. NEW BUSINESS
Case 2020-11 – 1218 Ransom – Sign
Applicant: All Signs LLC (representing Bethel New Life Ministry)
District: McLaughlin
Current Function: Institutional
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to install a new, 4’x5’ aluminum panel sign supported by 4”x4”
steel posts along the Ransom Street side of the property.
View of structure looking north from Ransom Street
5
Proposed sign design
View of proposed sign location from Ransom and Delaware
6
Standards (Abbreviated)
A. Letters
1. Style. Uniform lettering style shall be used throughout the sign to avoid incoherence and
otherwise incompatible letter form combinations which may be determined as inappropriate
by the Historic District Commission. The use of serifed (footed) letter styles is preferred for
certain historical buildings; however, Gothic letter forms (those without serifs) and script let-
ter forms may be acceptable to the Historic District Commission dependent upon the style
and period of architecture represented by the building involved.
2. Size. “Letters should be subordinate to the background area”. The maximum allowable
height of capital letter forms shall not exceed two-thirds the height of the background area on
which it appears (the background area is, in turn governed by the sign size and location re-
strictions which follow) or shall be reduced to the size declared appropriate by the Historic
District Commission, dependent upon the actual signable wall area or sign size, location and
viewing distance.
…
E. Number of Signs: The maximum allowable number of business identification signs per street
frontage per establishment shall be limited to one (1). Whereas additional directory or directional
signs which point out parking lots and other specific services are requested, the Historic District
Commission shall determine the appropriateness and building/site compatibility of such exceptions.
F. Shape and Form: The physical form of a sign shall be proportioned in massiveness and scale to
the building for which it is meant. All shapes shall be simple (square, rectangle…) and relate direct-
ly to the architectural features of the immediate and surrounding historic structures.
G. Location and Size: Sign use, sign type and location may be dictated by established district zoning
ordinances. Whether those ordinance requirements are established or nonexistent, the following
standards shall apply and prevail for all signs used within the City’s designated historic districts.
1. General:
a. No sign may be erected upon or within any dedicated public easement or right-of-
way without the expressed permission of the Muskegon City Commission.
b. No sign shall be placed so as to conceal, disfigure, or otherwise violate any archi-
tectural features of a building.
7
c. Sign size shall be visually compatible with the scale of the building for which it is
meant. No sign shall be located in such a manner or position as to affect adversely
the use and enjoyment of neighboring historic district properties.
Ground signs. These shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet per sign face. No such sign shall ex-
ceed four (4) feet in height from ground level. To maintain consistency with the objectives and
standards of this Policy, the Historic District Commission may require a smaller sign face and spe-
cific location.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to install a new, 4’x5’ aluminum panel sign sup-
ported by 4”x4” steel posts along the Ransom Street side of the property as long as the work meets
all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
8
Case 2020-12 – 123 W. Larch – Fence
Applicant: Debra Warren
District: Jefferson
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to replace an existing chain link fence with a six-foot tall cedar
stockade fence, which will extend to the sidewalk. The applicant also plans to add a four-foot tall
cedar picket fence around the remainder of the yard (see below site plan for the fence layout).
View of house from W. Larch Avenue
9
View of house from Jefferson Street. Proposed 6’ fence extends 36’ to edge of sidewalk from house
10
Proposed stockade fence layout (picket fence not depicted)
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.
11
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 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 be-
tween the front and rear).
12
13
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to replace an existing chain link fence with a six-
foot tall cedar stockade fence and add a four-foot tall cedar picket fence around the remainder of the
yard as presented in the July 7th, 2020 HDC Staff Report as long as the work meets all zoning re-
quirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
14
Case 2020-13 – 100 Diana – Windows and New Construction
Applicant: Antonio Figueroa
District: McLaughlin
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to 1) demolish and rebuild the 8’x18’ room on the back of the
house, 2) remove the existing wood windows and replace them with new windows, and 3) remove
and rebuild the front steps to be 8’-wide. More information will be provided at the meeting.
View of the house looking east from Diana Street
15
View of the house and garage looking west from Diana Street
16
View of existing front steps
17
Rear view of 8’x18’ room to be demolished and rebuilt
18
Side view of 8’x18’ room to be demolished and rebuilt
19
Examples of existing windows proposed to be replaced with new windows
20
Standards
GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
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
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-
21
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.
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.
22
WINDOW, DOOR, AND EXTERIOR WOODWORK
General
These guidelines pertain only to proposed changes to the structure and do not affect existing con-
struction.
These guidelines are primarily directed toward the front and side elevations of the structure. Greater
variances and more leniency may be extended toward proposed changes to the rear elevation of the
building by the Commission. All desired or proposed changes should be referred to the Historic Dis-
trict Commission for consideration. Extenuating circumstances, the effect upon the architecture of
the particular structure together with the general effect upon the surrounding structures, variables in
architectural design, or the effect upon usage and viability of the structure could dictate a variance
from these guidelines.
No exterior doors, windows, or exterior woodwork shall be altered, removed, relocated, or added
without Historic District Commission approval.
Existing exterior window or door casings, sills, and caps shall not be altered from the original design
or appearance. Damaged or deteriorated wood shall be repaired as a first course of action. When 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-
23
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, a new wood door may be used. Such new door shall match the original
in detail and finish.
The Commission may approve new wood doors that may slightly differ from the original in cases
where replicating the original may not be feasible, as long as such doors generally conform to the
ones illustrated on the attached sheet. Under certain circumstances, the Commission may approve
doors made of material other than wood provided they conform to the same design requirements.
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 the 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 1) demolish and rebuild the 8’x18’ room on the
back of the house, 2) remove the existing wood windows and replace them with new windows, and
3) remove and rebuild the front steps to be 8’-wide as long as the work meets all zoning require-
ments and the necessary permits are obtained.
24
Case 2020-14 – 511 W. Clay – New Construction (Porch Roof)
Applicant: Katherine Jawor
District: Clay-Western
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to add a small roof over the existing side porch as well as a small
roof over the door into the garage; both will match the existing, decorative porch roof on the east
side of the house.
View of house from W. Clay Avenue. Garage door visible at right; side porch not visible from street
25
Proposed locations for new roof at side porch (left) and garage door (right)
26
Design of existing porch roof on east side of house to be reflected in new construction
Standards
See Guidelines for New Construction in Case 2020-13, above.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to add a small roof over the existing side porch as
well as a small roof over the door into the garage to match the existing, decorative porch roof on the
east side of the house as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits
are obtained.
27
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
Mechanical Equipment Local Standards – Staff has drafted the following local standards for me-
chanical equipment:
---
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
General Utility/Outdoor Appliances
(Adopted July 7, 2020 - Effective July 7, 2020)
General
Many historic resources have survived over the years with minimal alterations to the fabric of the
building. Recent inventions and conveniences have placed a toll on the historic nature of our re-
sources. These conveniences should not be prohibited, but regulated in a fashion that allows for the
enjoyment of the resource while keeping the integrity of the district intact.
Guidelines
Air conditioning – Like many other modern day conveniences, A/C units can have a potential detri-
mental impact on the look of an historic resource. Large ‘whole house units’ should be place incon-
spicuously – such as on the roof, in the rear, or on the side of structures not facing streets. Roof
mounted equipment is to be screened by architectural features from the view of abutting streets and
parcels. Equipment at grade is to be screened by landscaping, a solid wall or fencing from the view
of the street or surrounding property. Tubing and connections must not be readily visible.
Window air conditioning units – Units that do not change window structure are permitted on the
sides and rear of resources not facing streets. All other placements must be approved by the HDC.
Other air conditioning units – Units that must be placed in walls are discouraged because they may
degrade the structural integrity of the resource. However, if properly installed, they may be placed in
areas of the resource not facing the street. The HDC may approve other installations if screened
from street view.
Satellite Dish Antennae – Over the years this type of equipment has drastically decreased in size to
roughly 18”. However, they are still a visual, exterior change on a historic structure, and a generally
negative influence in historic districts. Older satellite dishes that are greater than several feet in size
are not permitted in the front yard of a resource. The smaller dish may be permitted in the front yard
when proper screening (such as landscaping, solid wall, or fencing) obscures it from the street. An-
tennae should not be placed on the front half of the resource, including the roof, unless it can be ob-
scured from street view. The HDC recommends that if an antennae needs to be installed, it should be
28
placed in the rear yard of the resource. If it must be attached to the resource, then great care must be
taken to secure it properly to the rear half of the resource, and route the cables so as to not damage
the physical materials of the house.
Electrical, gas, water, and other utilities – As a first course of action, these services must be in good
repair and be located out of view from the street. However, the appropriate code must be followed
for health and safety issues. When impossible to locate utility out of sight, the HDC may require it
to be screened from view with landscaping, a solid wall, or fencing.
Solar Panels – All solar panels and associated mechanical or service equipment should not be locat-
ed on a primary or character-defining elevation or roof, nor damage or obscure character-defining
features of the resource. New solar panels mounted at grade level should be located in an area not
visible from the street. New solar panels located on a sloped roof surface should be installed parallel
to the roof, should match or be similar in color to the roof surface, should not extend more than
eight (8) inches above the roof surface, and should be installed on the rear half of resources (typical-
ly a side- or rear-facing roof surface) out of view from the street. New solar panels located on flat
roof surfaces should be located and positioned to reduce visibility from the street and should utilize
existing architectural features (parapets, chimneys, dormers, etc.) to further limit their visibility.
---
HDC Staff Approval Fencing Materials – In October 2019, staff approval powers were granted
for new fences that meet the HDC local standards. Although not mentioned in the local standards,
due to their popularity and frequent approval, Staff is requesting that aluminum fences resembling
iron fences be included as a fence type that can be approved by Staff (local standards for fences can
be found in Case 2020-12, above).
VII. ADJOURN
29