View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, January 5, 2021
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 December 1, 2020
III. New Business
Case 2021-01 – 1261 Ransom – Rehabilitation (garage door)
Case 2021-02 – 325 Houston – Windows
Case 2021-03 – 1181 Peck – Windows
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
December 1, 2020
Vice Chairperson S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Emory, Muskegon, Michigan; K. George, Muskegon, Michigan; A.
Riegler, Muskegon, Michigan; L. Wood, Muskegon, Michigan
MEMBERS ABSENT: S. Radtke, K. Panozzo
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, R. Cummins
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Heeren, 238 Houston Ave.; M. Belt, 238 Houston Ave.; A. Weflen,
45 Iona Ave.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of October 6, 2020 with a correction to add that
the minutes of the September 1, 2020 meeting were approved by the HDC, and the special meeting
minutes of October 15, 2020 was made by K. George, supported by L. Wood and approved with T.
Emory, A. Riegler, K. George and L. Wood voting aye.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2020-24 – 238 Houston Avenue (Rehabilitation). Applicant: Joe Heeren. District: Houston.
Current Function: Vacant. J. Pesch presented the staff report. 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 ap-
pearance, 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
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 possible), 5) install a new metal roof (after re-
pair of fire-damaged wood structure and rafters), 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.
A. Riegler asked if there was any history of the building that could be reviewed. J. Pesch stated that
the building was constructed pre-1920, based on documentation available, and that not many chang-
es had been made to the building based on photographs kept by the HDC. Photographs also showed
that the building had historically contained a commercial storefront with a residence on the second
story. A. Riegler asked if the plan was to maintain the mixed-use configuration. J. Heeren confirmed
that the building would contain a storefront with a loft residence. A. Riegler asked if there were
plans to have a bedroom in the attic based on the request to install an egress window. J. Heeren con-
firmed that this was also part of the plan. A. Riegler stated that the building did not appear to be of
any particular architectural style, and that it was a simple vernacular building.
2
K. George asked about the request to replace the remaining wood windows with vinyl windows and
noted that the elevation drawings showed double-hung replacement windows that do not match the
style of the existing wood windows. J. Heeren stated that he planned to use all the wood windows
that survived the fire on the front elevation of the building as they will be most visible; any missing
windows on the side elevations would be replaced with new vinyl, double-hung windows. K.
George stated that the elevation drawing was not accurate. J. Pesch stated that the drawings were
submitted before he was able to discuss the details of the project, which is why the drawings were
inaccurate. A. Riegler asked if the egress window’s lower sash would have to be 5.7 square feet in
area. M. Belt, architect for the project, stated that the egress window’s lower sash would have to
meet code and that he had planned for that. A. Riegler stated that adding a new window to the attic
would not be something that the HDC generally approves, but considering the folk, vernacular style
of the building, she did not see an issue with permitting the window. K. George stated that the alter-
nate to the plans presented would be razing the building.
A. Riegler asked if the windows near the rear of the building would be retained. J. Heeren confirmed
that they would. There was some confusion as to which windows at the rear of the building were
existing and which may be proposed, and M. Belt clarified that the request was to raise the height of
the lower section of roof at the rear of the building, over the garage, to match the height and pitch of
the main roof of the building. L. Wood stated that the higher roof would look better. K. George
asked if the rear porch and garage were constructed later. M. Belt stated that he figures that the
porch was once open, but was enclosed later; he noted that the kite-shaped detail on the gable end of
the rear porch would be replicated on the building’s front elevation. K. George stated that the rear
porch was very visible from the surrounding streets and changing the height of the roof would
change the appearance of the building significantly. M. Belt noted that the higher roof would permit
the headroom clearance needed for a new staircase to access the loft area; he stated that they consid-
ered a spiral stair as a space-saver, but that it was not historically accurate nor was it as functional as
a straight-run stair. K. George noted that the HDC did not review interior work. A. Riegler stated
that the higher roof changes the proportions of the entire building and how it relates to the surround-
ing structures. M. Belt stated that he thought a switchback stair with a landing could be accommo-
dated without changing the roofline. T. Emory asked if the enclosed rear porch would remain en-
closed with new windows or be opened back up. M. Belt stated that windows that were not damaged
would be retained. The board agreed that keeping the existing windows enclosing the rear porch in
their current locations was preferred.
The board moved on to discuss the proposed metal roof. The board reviewed the local standards for
roofing. J. Heeren stated that the metal roof was not a make-or-break feature of the project and that
he would be willing to use architectural shingles. A. Riegler stated that, given the building’s location
in a residential area, a standing seam metal roof would not be appropriate, but shingles would be.
K. George asked if the applicant was requesting to eliminate the chimney and replace it with a vent.
J. Heeren explained that the chimney was no longer functional. K. George asked if the vent could be
run through the existing chimney. M. Belt explained that the height of the chimney would need to be
raised three to four feet to accommodate the height of the vent. A. Riegler advised that the chimney
be left at its current height and that the vent extend beyond that to its code-required height; K.
George agreed. J. Heeren stated that the chimney was in good condition, but served no current pur-
pose. The board preferred to see the chimney retained as an architectural feature of the building. M.
Belt proposed to enclose the vent with a decorative cladding material to match the rest of the build-
ing rather than to leave exposed vent. M. Heeren stated that he had some original brick from the
building that he could reuse to clad the length of vent that would be exposed. A. Riegler stated that
as long as the matched the brick used on the existing chimney, that would be permissible. J. Heeren
3
noted that there was once a second chimney, but that it had been gone for some time and only the
rear chimney remained.
K. George asked the board for their thoughts on the request to box in the eaves. A. Riegler stated
that she would not recommend boxing in the eaves as they were a notable architectural feature on
the relatively simple building. M. Belt explained that ventilation would be greatly improved if the
eaves were boxed in and soffit vents were added.
The board discussed the proposed siding. M. Belt stated that cement board siding was planned. K.
George asked what profile was planned for the siding and that a profile narrower than six inches
would be preferred, possibly four inches. J. Pesch pointed out that some of the original siding was
visible on the east elevation toward the rear of the structure. A. Riegler requested that whoever made
the motion should note that the new siding should match the profile of the existing siding, which
appeared to be four inches. K. George noted that board and batten siding was proposed for the gable
end of the roof on the front elevation.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to install a new egress window on the south elevation
using an existing wood window, 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, 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, uncover and re-
place the storefront windows on the first floor with windows of the same size and appearance, ex-
tend the height of the chimney using reclaimed brick from the building to meet code for venting, and
install new engineered wood siding over the existing siding with a profile that matches the existing
4” profile as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained,
was made by K. George, supported by T. Emory and unanimously approved, with L. Wood, T.
Emory, A. Riegler, and K. George voting aye.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to install a metal roof, to box in the eaves, and to extend
the height of the roof above the existing porch at the rear of the building (as shown in the east eleva-
tion drawing dated 11/09/2020) was made by K. George, supported by T. Emory and unanimously
approved, with L. Wood, T. Emory, A. Riegler, and K. George voting aye.
Case 2020-25 – 45 Iona Avenue (Windows and Siding). Applicant: Amy Weflen. District:
McLaughlin. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch noted that the meeting agenda listed the incor-
rect address for Case 2020-25, and should instead be at 45 Iona Avenue.
J. Pesch presented the staff report. 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 fiberglass door. The work has been partially completed.
A. Riegler asked which part of the work had been completed. A. Weflen stated that the windows had
been removed and replaced, and that they were not informed that the property was located in a his-
toric district when the house was purchased; they were told a permit would not be needed for the
windows. A. Riegler noted that the second-floor windows on the front of the house appeared to be
about four to six inches shorter. A. Weflen confirmed that the windows were about four inches
shorter.
4
A. Riegler noted that this house was also of a similar folk, vernacular to the last case and asked if
windows other than the four in the front of the house had been replaced. A. Weflen stated that 19
windows were replaced. A. Riegler noted that because the work had already been completed, there
was not much the HDC could do with regard to that part of the request.
The board discussed the shutters and noted that each shutter should be half the width of the window
it was meant to cover and that, as shown, the shutter design should not be approved. A. Riegler not-
ed that even if the shutters were appropriately sized, they may not be right for this house considering
the size of the windows on the house. A. Riegler asked if the size of the transom window above the
front porch had been changed. A. Weflen said that it may be less than one inch smaller on each side,
if anything.
K. George asked what type of siding was currently on the house. A. Weflen stated that it is believed
to be a fiber cement siding, with other siding visible underneath it in some places. A. Riegler asked
if they would be willing to retain the existing siding and paint it. K. George stated that the siding
appeared to have a 7” profile and was very wide. A. Weflen noted that they hoped to replace the ex-
isting siding due to its condition. The board and applicant discussed the siding materials used on
neighboring houses. A. Riegler recommended using an engineered wood siding product instead of
vinyl siding if the original wood siding beneath the existing fiber cement siding could not be sal-
vaged; the original siding profile would preserve the proportions of the house and the relationship of
the wall to the roof and to the porch. L. Wood asked if the existing siding was peeling. A. Weflen
noted that there were a number of areas where the siding was missing or damaged. T. Emory said
that the siding appeared to be the same as what was installed on her house which was a very difficult
material to work with, but that the old 3” profile clapboards were still installed beneath it on her
house; she noted that there may be some asbestos in the current siding material that would have to
be handled appropriately.
K. George asked how the reduced sizes of window openings would be handled in terms of finish
materials. A. Weflen stated that the intention was to cover it with the new siding which would abut
the bottom of the new window. A. Riegler noted that there appeared to be exterior trim that would
have to be removed in order to install new siding. A. Weflen explained that what may appear to be
trim was actually just dark-brown painted plywood in most places. K. George advised against butt-
ing up any potential new siding to the bottom of the altered windows as a small window sill detail
still existed on some windows that should be preserved where possible.
The board discussed the proposed replacement of the front door. The existing front door was not
original and had a small 6”x6” window at the top. A. Riegler noted that the proposed replacement
door was of the craftsman style which did not match the simple folk-Victorian style of the house;
she noted that a more appropriate configuration would be a half-lite door, but that a solid door may
help with security while keeping with the style of architecture.
J. Pesch stated that the meeting had to end at 5:30pm in order to accommodate another scheduled
City meeting at that time.
A. Weflen stated that there was no remaining wood siding under the existing siding that could be
salvaged. The board and applicant discussed options for replacement siding, or repair and painting
of existing siding. A. Weflen stated that they would likely paint the existing siding.
5
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace all existing wood windows with vinyl re-
placement windows including the modifications to window sizes with the requirement that the sills
and trim be reinstalled where it has been removed, to replace the existing siding with wood compo-
site siding, and to replace the front door with a new half-lite or solid wood door as long as the work
meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained., was made by K. George,
supported by T. Emory and unanimously approved, with L. Wood, T. Emory, A. Riegler, and K.
George voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Work Completed Without HDC Approval – J. Pesch stated that this item would need to be
moved to the next meeting agenda due to time constraints. J. Pesch noted that he was tracking
changes to resources in the historic districts that were not properly approved in order to keep a rec-
ord of the work.
Public Comment Period – Time was allotted for public comment with contact information provid-
ed. There were no comments from the public.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:28 p.m.
JP
6
III. NEW BUSINESS
Case 2021-01 – 1261 Ransom – Rehabilitation (garage door)
Applicant: Jeremy Garcia
District: McLaughlin
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to 1) convert an existing house addition to a garage with a new
garage door, 2) remove and close off a second-floor exterior door, and 3) remove a second-floor ex-
terior deck/walkway that fell off.
View of house from Ransom Street; existing house addition (built between 1911 and 1950)
proposed to be converted to garage visible at left
7
View of proposed garage
8
View of former second floor deck (photo from November 2019)
View of former location of second floor deck, and second floor exterior door to be removed
9
Rear of house and proposed garage as viewed from Iona Avenue
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
10
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.
…
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.
…
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) convert an existing house addition to a garage
with a new garage door, 2) remove and close off a second-floor exterior door, and 3) remove a sec-
ond-floor exterior deck/walkway as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the neces-
sary permits are obtained.
11
Case 2021-02 – 325 Houston – Windows
Applicant: Fredricks Construction Co. Inc./Dollie Hippchen
District: Houston
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
The applicant is seeking approval to remove and replace three wood windows with vinyl replace-
ment windows to match the other replacement windows on the house and to install aluminum trim
around the three replacement windows to match the others. The work has already been completed.
View of house from Houston Avenue. Two new windows visible top left corner of front elevation
and top right corner of left elevation.
View of front elevation showing two remaining wood windows prior to replacement (photo from
October 2019)
12
Rear of house viewed from Monroe Avenue. Third replacement window circled.
Rear window prior to replacement (photo from June 2017)
13
Standards
See Window, Door, and Exterior Woodwork Standards and Guidelines in Case 2021-01, above.
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.
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
14
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.
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 remove and replace three wood windows with
vinyl replacement windows to match the other replacement windows on the house and to install
aluminum trim around the windows to match the others as long as the work meets all zoning re-
quirements and the necessary permits are obtained.
15
Case 2021-03 – 1181 Peck – Windows
Applicant: Dennis Pintoski
District: McLaughlin
Current Function: Residential
Discussion
This work was reviewed and approved in April 2018 and the applicant would like to renew this ap-
proval as it expired one year following the date of approval. The applicant is seeking approval to
replace 13 windows (29 ¼” x 78 ¼”) with vinyl windows of the same size.
View of house from Peck Street
16
View of front and north elevation of the house from Peck Street
17
Existing 29 ¼” x 78 ¼”window Proposed 29 ¼” x 78 ¼” vinyl replacement window
Excerpt from April 3, 2018 minutes:
“Case 2018-11 – 1181 Peck Street – Windows & Fascia/Soffit. Applicant: Dennis Pintoski. Dis-
trict: McLaughlin. Current Function: Residential. J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant
is seeking ap- proval to replace 13 windows (29 ¼” x 78 ¼”) with vinyl windows of the same size.
Similar work was ap- proved by the HDC in 1999, but the work was never started. Additionally,
the applicant is proposing to cover the existing roof eaves with a new vinyl and aluminum fascia
and soffit.
D. Pintoski explained that the new windows would be the same size as the existing ones but rather
than having 4 panes, they would be a double hung-style. A photo of the proposed window style
was provided. K. Panozzo asked if he was replacing the larger window on the side of the house. D.
Pintoski stated that he was not replacing that one at this time; the windows being replaced were all
the same size. A photo of a damaged eave and the proposed vinyl and aluminum replacement cov-
erings were provided in the staff report.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace 13 windows and install a new vinyl and alu-
minum fascia and soffit as proposed as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the
necessary permits are obtained, was made by L. Wood, supported by K. Panozzo and unanimously
approved with J. Hilt, S. Kroes, L. Wood, and K. Panozzo voting aye.”
18
Standards
See Window, Door, and Exterior Woodwork Standards and Guidelines in Case 2021-01, above.
Deliberation
I move that the HDC (approve/deny) the request to replace 13 windows (29 ¼” x 78 ¼”) with vinyl
windows of the same size as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary per-
mits are obtained.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
None
V. OTHER BUSINESS
Work Completed Without HDC Approval – Continuation of the discussion from the October 15,
2020 special meeting regarding how the HDC handles work completed following issuance of a
building permit, but without HDC review or approval. This item was included on the December 1,
2020 HDC meeting agenda, but was not discussed due to time constraints.
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