View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
November 12, 2024
S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Radtke, J. Huss, G. Borgman, C. Davis, K. Kochin (late)
MEMBERS ABSENT: D. Gregersen, excused
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch
OTHERS PRESENT: E. Garner and G. Garner (37 E. Grand and 1519 Clinton); H. Laranja
(448 W. Muskegon); S. Mullins and K. Mullins (1502 Peck); J.
Rottier (1450 Clinton); R. Swarts (1597 Peck)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve of the regular meeting minutes of October 1, 2024 was made by G. Borgman,
supported by J. Huss and approved with S. Radtke, J. Huss, G. Borgman, and C. Davis voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
Case 2024-15 – 1148 Terrace St. – Siding
Applicant: Steven Roberts - District: McLaughlin - Current Function: Residential
This case was tabled at the September and October meetings due to lack of information. The applicant
was seeking approval to replace the siding with a double 4 vinyl siding. J. Pesch explained that he had
not heard back from the applicant since the October meeting and had no new information to share
with the HDC. Since the last meeting, the house had been listed for sale. The applicant was not in
attendance. J. Pesch recommended that the HDC render a decision based on the information that was
available to them, and revisit the case should the current or future applicant request such.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to replace the siding with a double 4 vinyl siding due to a
lack of information was made by G. Borgman, supported by C. Davis and approved with G. Borgman,
J. Huss, C. Davis, and S. Radtke voting aye.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2024-20 – 37 E. Grand Ave. – Mini-Split HVAC Units
Applicant: Edward Garner - District: Clinton-Peck - Current Function: Residential
The applicant was seeking approval to install two wall-mounted mini-split HVAC units and
accompanying conduit on the south (side) elevation of the carriage house building. J. Pesch added
that it was anticipated that the units would be screened from the street by the proposed privacy fence
at 1519 Clinton in Case 2024-21 and explained where the fence was planned to be installed.
E. Garner clarified that the main house on the corner lot fronted E. Grand Avenue, but the carriage
house building was behind it and faced Clinton Street. He added that he was trying to make the
1
carriage house occupiable again, but the structure’s current boiler was outdated and a number of
contractors he hired were unable to repair it. The mini-split units would offer cooling (as opposed to
only heating) as well as improved energy efficiency.
E. Garner explained the interior layout of the carriage house and how separate mini-splits were needed
for the bedroom on each floor. He added that the mini-split could not be ground-mounted like a
standard air conditioning unit, but it would not be permanently attached to the building and could be
removed in the future. G. Garner, the contractor for the project, explained that the location of each
mini-split unit could not be shifted to a different side of the building due to the longer distance that
the mini-splits’ conduit would need to travel and the inefficiencies associated with doing so.
S. Radtke asked whether the conduit would be configured to go around the flair on the beltline midway
up the wall of the building or go through it. G. Garner stated that the plan was to go around the flair,
not through it. G. Borgman asked how thick the conduit would be. E. Garner noted that the example
image shown in the staff report contained more lines than were planned for the carriage house’s units,
and that it would be thinner as a result.
The location of the property line in relation to the carriage house and the fence proposed in the next
case was discussed, and S. Radtke expressed concern that, should the neighboring 1519 Clinton ever
have a different owner, the fence proposed to screen the mini-splits could be removed by the neighbor.
The board agreed that a condition of approval should require vegetative screening to be installed
should the fence ever be removed.
K. Kochin arrived at 4:27 p.m.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to install two wall-mounted mini-split HVAC units and
accompanying conduit on the south (side) elevation of the carriage house building as long as screening
is in place and the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was
made by J. Huss, supported by C. Davis and approved with S. Radtke, C. Davis, J. Huss, and G.
Borgman voting aye and K. Kochin abstaining.
Case 2024-21 – 1519 Clinton St. – Fence
Applicant: Edward Garner - District: Clinton-Peck - Current Function: Residential
The applicant was seeking approval to construct a six-foot-tall wood privacy fence aligned with the
front wall of the house and in the side yard of the property between the driveway and the neighboring
carriage house building at 37 E. Grand Avenue. Because HDC local standards limited privacy fences
to no more than four-feet in height in front of the front half of the building, the proposed fence could
not be approved by staff as it would not conform with the local standards at the proposed height.
The board noted that the proposed location of the fence, while not meeting the local standards, would
not obscure views of the house. E. Garner proposed a few fence styles that he was considering other
than the wood privacy fence included in his application, and asked about the possibility of installing
a vinyl fence. S. Radtke stated that wood was the HDC’s preferred material, but that they could
consider vinyl if that was requested. G. Borgman proposed approving two possible fence materials.
The HDC and applicant briefly discussed possible fence styles.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to construct a six-foot-tall wood or vinyl fence aligned
with the front wall of the house and in the side yard of the property between the driveway and the
2
neighboring carriage house building at 37 E. Grand Avenue as long as the work meets all zoning
requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by J. Huss, supported by K. Kochin
and approved with K. Kochin, J. Huss, G. Borgman, C. Davis, and S. Radtke voting aye.
Case 2024-22 – 448 W. Muskegon Ave. – Chimney Removal
Applicant: Hugo Laranja - District: Houston - Current Function: Vacant
The applicant was seeking approval to remove the chimney in the house and to repair the opening to
match existing roofing materials. The chimney was no longer functional.
H. Laranja explained that the chimney was used for ventilation of a former furnace and was not
connected to an interior fireplace; removing it would allow for greater flexibility in the interior layout
of the house.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to remove the chimney in the house and repair the opening
to match existing roofing materials as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the
necessary permits are obtained was made by G. Borgman, supported by S. Radtke and approved with
G. Borgman, C. Davis, S. Radtke, K. Kochin, and J. Huss voting aye.
Case 2024-23 – 1502 Peck St. – Mini-Split HVAC Units
Applicant: Murphy Brown Properties, LLC (Steve Mullins) - District: Clinton-Peck - Current
Function: Residential
The applicant was seeking approval to install four wall-mounted mini-split HVAC units and
accompanying conduit on the south (side) elevation and four wall-mounted mini-split HVAC units
and accompanying conduit on the north (side) elevation. The building is located on a corner lot with
the north elevation facing E. Grand Avenue. The work was already completed without building
permits.
S. Mullins and K. Mullins apologized to the HDC for completing the work prior to their review and
explained that they were not informed during the sale process that the building was in a historic
district.
S. Mullins explained some of the interior work that had been completed and why mini-splits were
deemed the best option. K. Mullins added that the location of the mini-split units was selected to be
less visible, and a shared driveway with the neighboring property to the south limited them from
installing the units on the rear elevation. She also noted that a large amount of obsolete wiring had
been removed from the exterior of the building to clean up its appearance. The HDC proposed
vegetative screening for the mini-split units, and K. Mullins asked what the timeframe for doing so
would be. J. Pesch noted that HDC approvals were typically good for one year from the date of
issuance, so planting in the spring of 2025 would be an option.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to install four wall-mounted mini-split HVAC units and
accompanying conduit on the south (side) elevation and four wall-mounted mini-split HVAC units
and accompanying conduit on the north (side) elevation as long as vegetative screening is in place and
the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by J. Huss,
supported by C. Davis and approved with K. Kochin, J. Huss, C. Davis, S. Radtke, and G. Borgman
voting aye.
3
Case 2024-24 (Walk-on) – 1597 Peck St. – Siding, Window Trim, Soffit, and Fascia
Applicant: Robert Swarts - District: Clinton-Peck - Current Function: Residential
The HDC agreed to review a walk-on case. R. Swarts, contractor, was present to explain the proposed
work. The applicant was seeking approval to install vinyl siding, and wrap the window casings, soffit,
and fascia with aluminum. The work had already been started, but was stopped quickly after learning
of the house’s location in a historic district. J. Pesch shared a few recent photos of the property.
G. Borgman asked if the current siding contained asbestos. R. Swarts stated that he did not think that
it dated from the timeframe when such product was used, but he did not intend to remove it either
way. S. Radtke estimated that the siding was installed in the 1940s or 1950s – over the original wood
siding – and likely contained asbestos; he was concerned that adding another layer of siding would
bury the windows to a point where they would be behind the new siding. R. Swarts noted that they
planned on furring out the windows with 3/4” trim applied on top of the existing trim and wrapped in
aluminum as one piece. K. Kochin asked if the proposed vinyl siding would appear similar to the
original wood siding visible in some places and R. Swarts stated that it would.
The HDC noted that there were few original features of the house remaining, and asked if the missing
window hoods could be replicated. R. Swarts said this would be possible, but doing so would create
an awkward design where the J-channel meets with the hoods where they extend beyond the width of
the windows. He mentioned the possibility of the hoods not extending beyond the width of the window
to clean up the design, and said that he would be willing to recreate the window hoods on the front
elevation, facing the street.
G. Borgman noted that the soffit and fascia seemed relatively unaltered and asked about the effect of
vinyl siding on the molding detail in this area. R. Swarts stated that he had planned to remove the
molding between the siding and soffit because leaving it would require that it be left unfinished with
aluminum wrapped soffit on one side and J-channel on the other; he added that the J-channel would
be white to contrast with the siding and reference the former molding. The second piece of molding
on the fascia board would be wrapped with an angled piece of aluminum. S. Radtke stated that, while
not preferable, he felt this approach was acceptable considering the molding was relatively simple and
the work could be undone by a future owner wishing to restore the home. He added that maintaining
it was difficult to justify, considering very few of the house’s original features remained.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to cover over the current siding with four-inch lap vinyl
siding, bring aluminum-wrapped window casings out to protrude beyond the new siding, install
aluminum window crowns on the east (front) elevation, and wrap the soffit and fascia with aluminum
as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made
by J. Huss, supported by C. Davis and approved with C. Davis, J. Huss, S. Radtke, G. Borgman, and
K. Kochin voting aye.
OTHER BUSINESS
Staff Approval Form Update – Staff presented an updated HDC Staff Approval Form that would
permit staff to approve the construction of sheds that meet the design requirements outlined in the
Local Standards’ Design Guidelines for New Construction as well as porches or decks that follow the
Local Standards’ Porch and Deck Standards and Guidelines’ Decking, Sample Ballustrade
Construction, and Railing Detail drawings.
4
The board decided to limit the proposed change to only address porches and decks on secondary
elevations.
A motion that the HDC accept the changes to item 3 and the addition of item 14 to the staff approval
policy as presented and amended at the November 12, 2024 HDC meeting was made by J. Huss,
supported by K. Kochin and approved with C. Davis, K. Kochin, S. Radtke, J. Huss, and G. Borgman
voting aye.
S. Radtke asked about the staff approval updates that occurred throughout the year and whether those
would continue. J. Pesch stated that they would continue as they were required by the City Ordinance
that established the historic districts and the Historic District Commission.
Local Standards Update – This item was tabled to a future meeting.
1450 Clinton Window Repairs – J. Rottier, owner of 1450 Clinton Street, attended the meeting to
discuss proposed work to repair damaged windows with unique, curved glass at the house. The HDC
informally reviewed the proposed work and offered an idea to replace the damaged curved glass panes
with plexiglass panes of the same size and installed the same way that a new glass pane would be
installed within the existing frames. It was noted that this had not yet been proposed to the Building
Inspections Department as a possible fix. The HDC was willing to offer conceptual approval of the
work, but would defer to the Building Inspections Department to determine whether this would meet
the building code or if it would address the violation in question. J. Pesch stated that, if necessary, the
applicant could return to the HDC with alternatives for formal review should this approach not be
accepted by the Building Inspections Department.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
5
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails