View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, December 1, 2020
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: https://www.facebook.com/CityofMuskegon
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Minutes of the regular meeting of October 6, 2020 and the special meeting of
………October 15, 2020
III. New Business
Case 2020-24 – 238 Houston – Rehabilitation
Case 2020-25 – 1261 Ransom – Rehabilitation (garage door)
Case 2020-26 – 45 Iona – Windows and Siding
IV. Old Business
V. Other Business
Work Completed Without HDC Approval
Public Comment Period
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
October 6, 2020
Chairperson S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 4:17 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Radtke, K. George, K. Panozzo, A. Riegler, L. Wood
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Emory, excused.
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, R. Cummings
OTHERS PRESENT: D. Kamps, Step Up; J. Ferrier, 1665 Jefferson
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2020-20 – 1670 Peck (windows). Applicant: Step Up. District: Clinton-Peck. Current Func-
tion: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to replace
eight (8) existing wood windows on the second floor of the house with vinyl windows of the same
size.
D. Kamps explained Step Up and the non-profit organization’s purpose and goals. A. Riegler noted
that the house is really fine example of craftsman architecture, and that replacement windows will
not get the depth and shadow lines created by the existing window muntins; S. Radtke agreed. A.
Riegler proposed that there may be an opportunity to teach the residents of the house to refurbish
and repaint the windows. She stated that a less-expensive vinyl window would not be a great re-
placement and may be difficult to replicate the 12 over 1 configuration that some of the existing
windows have. D. Kamps explained that the muntin pattern could be duplicated on vinyl windows.
D. Kamps stated that the wood is not in good shape and has some dry rot. He also noted that the
weights were no longer connected. The board emphasized that reattaching the weights would be an
easy fix. S. Radtke noted the prominent location of the house on a corner lot and stated that the win-
dows were one of the primary defining features of the house.
D. Kamps noted that the outside frames and trim would not look any different with the proposed re-
placement windows. K. George noted that while replacement windows may fit into the existing
rough openings, a vinyl grill pattern would change the overall look, and that while there may be
some rot, restoration does sound feasible. S. Radtke stated that wood windows are infinitely repaira-
ble. K. George explained that rebuilding windows is a process that involves many steps. A. Reigler
asked if the HDC could offer resources for wood window restoration to help the applicant determine
if it would be a feasible financial option, and noted that window restoration contractors could help to
determine a cost.
D. Kamps asked what the board thought the cost might be per window if they were to be rebuilt. K.
George stated that it would depend on what is done to the windows and that while minor rot would
not be a big deal, reglazing would be more expensive due to the current high cost for glass and other
2
building materials. D. Kamps stated that the current, inefficient single pane windows had large
wood storm windows that required two people on ladders to install each year, which was part of the
reason he was hoping to install new windows. K. Panozzo asked if there were storm windows for all
windows and D. Kamps estimated that three to five of them were missing.
K. Panozzo asked if the windows had water damage or dry rot. D. Kamps stated that it was difficult
to tell, but that he would take it as dry rot because the handles on two windows pulled out. A Riegler
stated that repair costs vary for many reasons. Generally speaking repairing wood windows can
double their lifetime, making it a good long-term investment. S. Radtke noted that the HDC’s local
standards explicitly do not recommend replacement of original windows.
K. Panozzo asked where the applicant could go locally for window repair specialists. A. Riegler
stated she has found that asking local Facebook groups like Muskegon Informed for help finding his-
toric preservation professionals is one of the more reliable methods.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to replace eight (8) existing wood windows on the second
floor of the house with vinyl windows of the same size was made by A. Riegler, supported by K.
Panozzo, and unanimously approved with K. George, K. Panozzo, S. Radtke, A. Riegler, and L.
Wood voting aye.
Case 2020-21 – 1665 Jefferson (Replacement Door). Walk-On Case. Applicant: Jerry and Kelly
Ferrier. District: Jefferson. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The
applicant is seeking approval to replace a wood rear entry door. Photos of the existing and replace-
ment door were provided to the HDC prior to the meeting.
S. Radtke stated that while the local standards generally do not encourage replacement of doors, this
door was located on the back of the house, under a porch, was not very visible, and did not have any
particular architectural merit. K. Panozzo asked if there was a storm door that would go over the re-
placement door. J. Ferrier stated that there was an existing storm door that would remain and
matched the storm door on the front door. J. Ferrier asked the HDC if they thought that the current
door could be restored since he was told that it could be original. A. Riegler stated that it was locat-
ed in a very utilitarian location so it could have been original. S. Radtke noted that this style of door
was very popular in the 1940s and 1950s, which made it hard to tell if it was original. He noted that
repair of the door would depend on what is wrong with it. The board discussed clues to determining
whether the door was original or not.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace the wood door on the back side of the house
with the replacement wood door that was presented at the October 6, 2020 HDC Regular Meeting as
long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by
K. Panozzo, supported by L. Wood, and unanimously approved with K. George, K. Panozzo, S.
Radtke, A. Riegler, and L. Wood voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
J. Pesch noted that he confirmed with T. Painter that he would be resigning his position on the HDC
and that Staff would work to fill that position. A. Riegler asked if the City was still looking for ap-
plicants for this opening. J. Pesch stated that interested applicants should fill out a Talent Bank Ap-
plication and submit it to the City Clerk’s Office. S. Radtke asked if there were special exemptions
for non-residents if they fulfilled a skilled position, like an architect. J. Pesch stated that the current
3
opening was for a resident of the city of Muskegon and that any openings for skilled positions were
already filled.
OTHER BUSINESS
Public Comment – Time was allotted for public comment with contact information provided. There
were no comments from the public.
Historic Preservation Contractor Database – The HDC discussed the possibility of creating a da-
tabase of local contractors with specific skills in historic preservation work and debated possible
means of funding local training sessions or certifications in historic preservation.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m.
JP
4
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
October 15, 2020
Chairperson S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Radtke, T. Emory, K. George, K. Panozzo, A. Riegler
MEMBERS ABSENT: L. Wood, excused.
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, H. Griffith
OTHERS PRESENT: T. Jacobs, President/CEO Community Foundation; T. Dorman, Frau-
enthal Center Facility Operations Manager; B. Spray, 1522 Clinton
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2020-22 – 401 W. Western Avenue (Windows). Applicant: Frauenthal Center/Community
Foundation for Muskegon County. District: Downtown Structures. Current Function: Commercial.
J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to replace 102 windows. 57
windows are on the north and west facades of the offices fronting W. Western Avenue and 3rd
Street, respectively; 6 small windows are on the 3rd Street side of the building on the upper floors
and closer to the alley; 14 windows are in the alley; 3 windows are above the main roofline of the
building on the elevator equipment room; 21 windows are in an internal courtyard not visible from
the street; 1 window is on the west façade, facing 4th Street. The work has been partially completed.
T. Jacobs gave an overview of what was needed in upgrades for the structure. Ernhardt Construction
Company (general contractor) had performed the assessment of the structure so the Community
Foundation would have an idea of the upgrades that would be needed. A. Riegler asked for more
information regarding the permit process for this work and this structure’s location in a historic dis-
trict. T. Jacobs stated that he believed the contractor had looked into whether a permit was needed,
found out it was required after most the windows had already been installed, and a permit was then
obtained. The HDC and Staff discussed how permits were obtained for the replacement windows
without HDC approval. J. Pesch clarified that building permits were applied for under the Commu-
nity Foundation’s address (425 W. Western) which is not located in a historic district; the Frauenthal
theater building has its own address (401 W. Western) and is part of the Downtown Structures His-
toric District. J. Pesch stated that a majority of building permits for work at 401 W. Western dating
back a number of years were listed under the 425 W. Western address.
A. Riegler stated that she was concerned about the tint of the new windows as they appeared to be
darker. T. Jacobs explained that there is a protective film on them that will be removed once the trim
is finished and that the windows will not be as dark as they appear with the film. There was discus-
sion of the window’s Visible Light Transmittance (VLT) and the Zoning Ordinance’s requirements
specific to the Form Based Code. J. Pesch explained that the Form Based Code allowed for glass
having a VLT of seventy (70) percent minimum, which the replacement windows’ specifications
appeared to meet. T. Jacobs noted that the existing first floor windows have a darker tint than the
new windows being installed on the upper floors. The history of the building and its window styles
was discussed. S. Radtke stated that the windows that had been replaced were not the same as what
5
had originally been installed. J. Pesch noted that, during the 1990s renovations, the Frauenthal Cen-
ter had produced a study stating that on the original plans for the building, wood double hung win-
dows with equal sized upper and lower sashes were specified, but never built. The proposed original
window configuration – while not built, for reasons unknown – would closely match what was cur-
rently being installed. The board generally agreed that the new window configuration was more in
line with the architects’ original intent than the 2/3 upper and 1/3 lower sash configuration that was
installed in the late 1970s or early 1980s (based on photographic evidence) and was in the process of
being replaced.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace 102 windows: 57 windows on the north and
west facades of the offices fronting W. Western Avenue and 3rd Street; 6 small windows on the 3rd
Street side of the building on the upper floors and closer to the alley; 14 windows in the alley; 3
windows above the main roofline of the building on the elevator equipment room; 21 windows in an
internal courtyard not visible from the street; and 1 window on the west façade, facing 4th Street as
long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by
A. Riegler, supported by K. Panozzo and unanimously approved with S. Radtke, T. Emory, K.
George, K. Panozzo, and A. Riegler voting aye.
Case 2020-23 – 1522 Clinton Street (New Construction (garage)). Applicant: Belinda Spray. Dis-
trict: Clinton-Peck. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The appli-
cant is seeking approval to construct a new 12’ x 20’, wood frame, vinyl sided garage in the rear
yard of the property accessed from the rear alley. The work has been partially completed.
The commission members discussed the garage that had been removed and what was being con-
structed there. K. Panozzo asked if the garage could be seen from the street. J. Pesch stated it could
not and that the garage is accessed from the alley. B. Spray stated that she did not know a permit
was required for construction of the garage, but had since begun the process of applying for a build-
ing permit, which led to her application to the HDC.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to construct a new 12’ x 20’, wood frame, vinyl sided
garage in the rear yard of the property accessed from the rear alley as long as the work meets all
zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by K. Panozzo, supported by
K. George and unanimously approved with S. Radtke, T. Emory, K. George, K. Panozzo, and A.
Riegler voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Resolution Ratifying and Confirming Prior Historic District Commission Approvals – A mo-
tion that the HDC approve S. Radtke to sign the resolution to ratify and confirm, nunc pro tunc, all
of the Historic District Commission’s actions approved at Historic District Commission meetings
held after April 30, 2020, which were conducted remotely via technological means in compliance
with the Executive Orders.
MHPN Historic Resources Directory – Staff distributed copies of the Michigan Historic Preserva-
tion Network’s Historic Resource Council Spring 2019 Member Directory to HDC board members.
6
A copy is available online at the following link: https://www.mhpn.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/MHPN-2019-HRC-Directory.pdf
Work Completed Without HDC Approval – The HDC discussed the process for reviewing work
that had already received building permits prior to HDC review and approval. HDC board members
requested that Staff review other work that has been completed in the historic districts after issuance
of a building permit, but before HDC review.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
HG
7
III. NEW BUSINESS
Case 2020-24 – 238 Houston – Rehabilitation
Applicant: Joe Heeren
District: Houston
Current Function: Vacant
Discussion
This property was damaged by a fire in August 2020. The applicant is seeking approval to 1) install
a new, 30”x54” vinyl egress window on the south (front) elevation, 2) replace destroyed, 24”x54”
wood windows on the second floor in the front of the building by relocating the building’s existing
wood windows of the same size and appearance, 3) replace missing/damaged 24”x54” wood win-
dows on the east and west elevations with vinyl windows (with a faux-wood textured finish) of the
same size and appearance, 4) uncover and replace the storefront windows on the first floor with
windows of the same size and style (only if restoration of the existing storefront windows is not pos-
sible), 5) install a new metal roof (after repair of fire-damaged wood structure and rafters), 6) re-
moval of the existing chimney and installation of a new vent if needed, 7) box in the eaves, and 8)
install new wood siding over the existing siding.
View of South (front) and east (right) façade from Houston Avenue
8
Similar view from Houston Avenue prior to the fire showing original windows and eaves (photo
from October 2013)
9
Proposed South Elevation
Proposed East Elevation
10
View of structure from 3rd Street prior to the fire showing the roof and location of chimneys (photo
from July 2018)
A similar view today, with fire damage visible on second floor
11
Rear of structure viewed from alley
Standards
WINDOW, DOOR, AND EXTERIOR WOODWORK STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
(Abbreviated)
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
12
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.
…
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.
ROOFING GUIDELINES (Abbreviated)
Metal Roofing for flat or low pitched decks or standing rib metal on sloping roofs, where terne,
copper, or other metal roofing has been used previously, shall be acceptable. Stamped metal roofing
where the stamped pattern resembles the original roofing material shall be acceptable. Standing-
seam metal roofing where not originally installed is not generally permissible.
RESIDING AND TRIM CLADDING GUIDELINES
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
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.
13
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.
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.
14
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 1) install a new, 30”x54” vinyl egress window
on the south elevation, 2) replace destroyed, 24”x54” wood windows on the second floor in the front
of the building by relocating the building’s existing wood windows of the same size and appearance,
3) replace missing/damaged 24”x54” wood windows on the east and west elevations with vinyl
windows (with a faux-wood textured finish) of the same size and appearance, 4) uncover and re-
place the storefront windows on the first floor with windows of the same size and appearance, 5)
install a new metal roof, 6) removal of the existing chimney and installation of a new vent if needed,
7) box in the eaves, and 8) install new wood siding over the existing siding as long as the work
meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
15
Case 2020-25 – 45 Iona – Windows and Siding
Applicant: Amy Weflen
District: McLaughlin
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to 1) replace all existing wood windows with vinyl replacement
windows including some modifications to window sizes, 2) install molding and/or flat panel, shaker-
style shutters, 3) to replace the existing siding with vinyl siding and a shaker accent near the peak of
the roof on the front façade, and 4) replace the front door with a new six-lite, two-panel wood or fi-
berglass door. The work has been partially completed.
View of house from Iona Avenue
16
View showing detached garage with vinyl siding, alterations to window opening sizes, and the exist-
ing front door.
View of house before window replacement Rendering of proposed appearance of house
17
Proposed replacement front door Existing front door and original windows
Photo showing limited view of original windows on east side of house
Standards
See Window, Door, and Exterior Woodwork Standards and Guidelines, and Residing and Trim
Cladding Guidelines in Case 2020-24, above.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to 1) replace all existing wood windows with vinyl
replacement windows including some modifications to window sizes, 2) install molding and/or flat
panel, shaker-style shutters, 3) to replace the existing siding with vinyl siding and a shaker accent
near the peak of the roof on the front façade, and 4) replace the front door with a new six-lite, two-
panel wood or fiberglass door as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary
permits are obtained.
18
IV. OLD BUSINESS
None
V. OTHER BUSINESS
Work Completed Without HDC Approval – Continuation of the discussion from the last meeting
regarding how the HDC handles work completed following issuance of a building permit, but with-
out HDC review or approval.
Public Comment Period – For public comment, please call the number that will be listed on the
screen during the broadcast of this meeting on https://www.facebook.com/CityofMuskegon
VI. ADJOURN
19