View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
November 14, 2023
S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Huss, T. Emory, K. George, G. Borgman, S. Radtke
MEMBERS ABSENT: D. Gregersen, excused
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, W. Webster, S. Kiaunis
OTHERS PRESENT: W. Walker and B. Housh (69 Irwin); D. Fowler, R. Jackson, and W. Barnhard
(621 W. Western)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of October 3, 2023 and the special meeting minutes of October
25, 2023 was made by G. Borgman, supported by T. Emory and approved with J. Huss, T. Emory and K. George,
G. Borgman, and S. Radtke voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
Because there was no representative present for Case 2023-23 under New Business, the board chose to first
discuss any Old Business.
Case 2023-22 – 69 Irwin Ave. – Siding
Applicant: William Walker - District: Clinton-Peck - Current Function: Residential
W. Walker and B. Housh attended the meeting to present alternative siding materials they had found after running
into difficulties with available materials specified in the HDC’s approval motion. The following work had been
approved at the October 25, 2023 special meeting:
“Install composite siding with a smooth finish and a four-inch reveal on the front porch, the north (front) elevation
of the house, and the front two-thirds of the east elevation of the house; install vinyl siding with a smooth finish
and a four-inch reveal on the south (rear) elevation, the west elevation, and the back one-third of the east elevation
of the house; retain the wood trim boards where they currently exist and install composite or wood replacement
trim with a smooth finish for the corner boards and composite replacement trim with a faux wood grain finish for
the watercourse matching the dimensions of the previously-existing trim; retain the decorative crown molding
above the windows where it currently exists and replicate it where damaged or rotted; and remove the small,
unoriginal bathroom window on the west elevation of the house as long as the work meets all zoning requirements
and the necessary permits are obtained.”
B. Housh explained that production of composite siding with a smooth finish had stopped and the product was
unavailable and J. Pesch confirmed that one of the major manufacturers no longer listed the product on their
website. B. Housh further explained that the siding was only available with a four-and-one-half inch reveal, not
the four-inch reveal that was specified at the previous meeting. S. Radtke asked what the reveal of the original
siding had been. B. Housh stated that it was three inches. J. Pesch noted that the board had approved a four-inch
reveal because the change would be relatively indistinguishable in terms of the architectural character of the
house.
B. Housh added that all replacement composite trim would have a faux wood grain finish due to material
availability. G. Borgman acknowledged that there were not many other options other than going from supplier to
supplier and buying up the remaining stock. B. Housh noted that
A motion that the HDC modify its approved motion from Case 2023-22 to approve the request to install composite
siding with a smooth or faux wood grain finish and a four-and-one-half-inch reveal on the front porch, the north
(front) elevation of the house, and the front two-thirds of the east elevation of the house; install vinyl siding with
a smooth finish and a four-and-one-half-inch reveal on the south (rear) elevation, the west elevation, and the back
one-third of the east elevation of the house; retain the wood trim boards where they currently exist and install
composite or wood replacement trim with a smooth or faux wood grain finish for the corner boards and composite
replacement trim with a faux wood grain finish for the watercourse matching the dimensions of the previously-
existing trim; retain the decorative crown molding above the windows where it currently exists and replicate it
where damaged or rotted; and remove the small, unoriginal bathroom window on the west elevation of the house
as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by J. Huss,
supported by K. George, and approved with K. George, J. Huss, G. Borgman, S. Radtke, and T. Emory voting
aye.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2023-23 – 74 Delaware Ave. – Porch
Applicant: Tony and Amy Mueller - District: McLaughlin - Current Function: Residential
The applicant was seeking approval to remove the damaged front porch and rebuild it. J. Pesch explained that he
had only briefly spoken with the applicant, that the application had been received after the deadline, and that there
was no additional information provided with the application. S. Kiaunis, Dangerous Buildings Inspector for the
City, explained that, in October, the City’s Housing Board of Appeals (HBA) determined the house a Dangerous
Building due to the damaged front porch. The damage was reported as being the result of animals digging beneath
the porch.
K. George stated that there were no footings under the damaged porch column and that the roof would need to be
supported at that corner, and the base of the column would need to be hand-dug out to add a footing beneath it. J.
Huss stated that it would be very expensive to remove the porch and rebuild it in a way that resembles what was
existing. The board members discussed the generally stable appearance of the porch despite the failing column,
and S. Kiaunis speculated that the interior of the brick column could contain a support structure.
The board discussed assistance that may be available to the property owner through the City’s Community and
Neighborhood Services Department (CNS). K. George noted that projects funded by CNS often required approval
from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) which could complicate things, but that SHPO would likely
not have an issue with the work if it did not change the appearance of the house.
A motion that the HDC table the request until more information was provided by the applicant was made by J.
Huss, supported by K. George, and approved with S. Radtke, K. George, G. Borgman, and T. Emory voting aye.
OTHER BUSINESS
621 W. Western – D. Fowler, R. Jackson, and W. Barnhard were present to discuss exterior work that was coming
due on the Muskegon Eagles building. J. Pesch explained that D. Fowler had met with him a few weeks prior and
he encouraged them to attend an upcoming HDC meeting to discuss their options when it came to addressing
longstanding issues on the exterior of their building.
D. Fowler explained that the outside of the building was brick and had been painted multiple times and needed to
be repainted every four to five years, but they were looking for more permanent options to address this issue. J.
Pesch explained that the sides and rear of the building appeared to be painted brick, but the front elevation was
not painted. He added that the front elevation was reconstructed in 1949, but the building itself dated back into
the late 1800s. Based on historic photos of the building, it appeared as though some of the window sizes and
locations may have changed, but the brick on the sides of the building was likely to be original.
R. Jackson noted that the north side of the building had been recently treated with a bonding agent then sealed
with a thin-set mortar or stucco material, but was still having issues with water penetration since parts of the wall
were not treated with the bonding agent.
K. George asked what options they had considered for addressing the water and moisture issues. R. Jackson said
that they looked into putting treated 2x4s on the outside of the building and attaching metal pole barn siding, vinyl
siding, or cement siding to those. This was proposed to wrap all sides of the building, but the most urgent issues
were on the south side of the building along 7th Street. The board was not in favor of this approach and K. George
explained that they were very unlikely to approve such work and further explained how it may exacerbate the
noted moisture issues with the brick. S. Radtke stated that the board tended to be more lenient with the side and
rear elevations of structures, but that for the sake of the building’s longevity, siding the building would still not
be favored. G. Borgman noted that painting brick typically caused spalling, and W. Barnhard noted that that was
an issue already. K. George stated that it may be best to remove the existing paint from the brick using and then
to tuck point the wall. S. Radtke stated that the brick appeared to be exterior-grade brick, and he recommended
that the owner look into having the brick media-blasted – not sand-blasted because that would cause further
damage – to take the paint off and lessen the need for ongoing maintenance. K. George added that if the brick
was poorly tuck pointed moisture issues would persist, regardless of the type of brick. S. Radtke added that the
side elevations, due to their age, likely used lime mortar which was also more vulnerable to water. K. George
agreed and noted that addressing these issues would not be cheap, but doing so would limit the need for frequent
maintenance in the long run.
G. Borgman asked if there were any programs that the building owner could look to for assistance with funding
the needed repairs to the building. J. Pesch noted that the City of Muskegon had a facade improvement program
and share contact information for the City staff that oversaw the program. He also noted that the building may be
eligible for State Historic Preservation Tax Credits for which he could share information, but that those credits
were in very high demand and had likely already been used up for the current year.
W. Barnhard explained that the entire building needed to be tuck pointed. D. Fowler and the board members
discussed the difficulty of finding masonry contractors. S. Radtke encouraged D. Fowler to look into some of the
options discussed and return to a future HDC meeting once they had a better idea of the direction they would like
to go.
Update on Dangerous Buildings in the Historic Districts – S. Kiaunis from the Building Inspections
Department attended to review the status of properties currently listed by that department as Dangerous
Buildings and to discuss the Housing Board of Appeals’ process for reviewing Dangerous Buildings as it
pertained to the responsibilities of the HDC.
The board chose to table the other items under new business until a future meeting since J. Pesch had to leave to
attend another meeting.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:26 p.m.
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails