View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
February 4, 2025
S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Radtke, G. Borgman, C. Davis, K. Kochin, D. Gregersen
MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Huss, excused
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, W. Webster, A. Petty (CNS), R. Kleyn (CNS)
OTHERS PRESENT: S. Dahlstrom and D. Black (511 W. Clay); J. Puffer (427 W.
Muskegon)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of January 7, 2025 was made by G. Borgman,
supported by D. Gregersen and approved with C. Davis, D. Gregersen, G. Borgman, K. Kochin, and
S. Radtke voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2025-03 – 115 E. Isabella Ave. – Siding, Windows, Doors, Trim Wrapping
Applicant: City of Muskegon CNS - District: McLaughlin - Current Function: Residential
J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to 1) install vinyl siding over
backer board on the exterior of the house, 2) replace seven existing wood basement windows with
glass block windows containing vents, 3a) replace 30 existing wood double-hung windows on the
house and one fixed wood window on the second story of the east elevation with vinyl double-hung
replacement windows of the same size using obscured glass where necessary, 3b) replace one fixed
wood window on the second story of the west elevation with a fixed vinyl window of the same size,
4) wrap all rafter tails, posts, beams, brackets, fascia, soffit, porch ceiling, and window and door trim
with aluminum, and 5) replace the wood exterior door on the west (side) elevation with a steel or
fiberglass, half-light door.
J. Pesch explained that this was a lead remediation project being handled by the City of Muskegon
Community and Neighborhood Services Department (CNS). A. Petty and R. Kleyn from CNS were
present to answer questions, and R. Kleyn explained that all proposed work was to address lead
hazards at the house which were negatively impacting the residents of the house.
The board chose to break the motion into parts as related to the numbers above:
1
1) The HDC noted that the existing wood siding appeared to be in good condition, and G.
Borgman asked why residing with vinyl siding was being proposed instead of scraping and
painting the existing siding. R. Kleyn noted that painting was considered an interim control
for lead and is expected to last up to five years while abatement is more permanent. She
explained that with a lack of maintenance, CNS has been having to return to projects in shorter
timeframes to address issues again. J. Pesch explained that, following review, the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) called for retaining the original wood siding and stated
that if the siding was beyond repair, then the replacement siding must match the size, design,
proportions, profile, and where possible, materials of the existing original siding. It was noted
that the SHPO review aligned with the HDC’s local standards.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to install vinyl siding over backer board on the
exterior of the house with a reveal to match that of the original wood siding was made by K.
Kochin, supported by G. Borgman and approved with S. Radtke, C. Davis, G. Borgman, D.
Gregersen, and K. Kochin voting aye.
2) J. Pesch explained that the SHPO specified replacing basement windows with glass block was
acceptable but vents should not be used in windows facing the street. He added that the existing
basement windows were in poor condition if they were existing at all. The HDC discussed the
reasons they would be comfortable allowing glass block, noting that they were commonly at
grade, typically utilitarian, and were often not defining architectural features of the house.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace seven existing wood basement windows
with glass block windows containing vents with the exception of the window on the front
elevation which should not have a vent as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and
the necessary permits are obtained was made by D. Gregersen, supported by K. Kochin and
approved with S. Radtke, C. Davis, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, and K. Kochin voting aye.
3) R. Kleyn explained that CNS often proposed vinyl windows for lead abatement projects as a
means of reducing costs, but acknowledged that previous lead abatement projects in the
historic districts have used wood windows when the HDC specified that in their approval. K.
Kochin stated that replacement windows seemed to be a priority as they were a lead risk more
within reach of children. J. Pesch explained the specifications listed in the SHPO review.
a) A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace 30 existing wood double-hung windows
on the house and one fixed wood window on the second story of the east elevation with wood
double-hung replacement windows of the same size, design, proportions, and profile including
grill patterns that match the existing windows’ grill patterns and with the condition that grills
must be permanently affixed to both the interior and the exterior of the windows was made by
G. Borgman, supported by K. Kochin. D. Gregersen proposed and amendment to the motion
on the table to also allow for fiberglass-clad wood windows. S. Radtke proposed an
amendment to the motion to allow the second floor bathroom window on the west elevation
to be fully composite or fiberglass and have frosted glass. G. Borgman accepted the proposed
amendments. R. Kleyn asked about the differences for the bathroom window and the HDC
discussed options to address specific issues with windows in bathrooms, ultimately deciding
that staff could handle any proposed deviations from the approval, if necessary. The amended
motion to approve the request to replace 30 existing wood double-hung windows on the house
and one fixed wood window on the second story of the east elevation with fiberglass-clad
wood double-hung replacement windows, with the exception of the second floor bathroom
2
window on the west elevation which may be fully composite or fiberglass and have frosted
glass as long as the replacement windows are of the same size, design, proportions, and profile
including grill patterns that match the existing windows’ grill patterns and with the condition
that grills must be permanently affixed to both the interior and the exterior of the windows as
long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was
approved with C. Davis, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin, and S. Radtke voting aye.
b) A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace one fixed wood window on the second
story of the west elevation with a fixed fiberglass-clad replacement window of the same size,
design, proportions, and profile including grill patterns that match the existing window’s grill
patterns and with the condition that grills must be permanently affixed to both the interior and
the exterior of the window as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary
permits are obtained was made by K. Kochin, supported by D. Gregersen and approved with
C. Davis, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin, and S. Radtke voting aye.
4) There was discussion among HDC members on what qualified as a “beam” and it was decided
that these were the wood members spanning between columns in some areas. S. Radtke asked
how the wood members were being wrapped, noting that it would be preferred that each
individual member be wrapped independently retaining as much detail as possible. R. Kleyn
explained that the rafter tails and brackets would be boxed-in. The HDC stated that this was
not clear in the application nor the work specification documents. K. Kochin asked if it would
be possible to require that all wood members be individually wrapped; further discussion
settled on that proposal being more difficult than scraping and repainting. K. Kochin stated
that she would prefer that the door trim be wrapped as it was more accessible than the other
items discussed.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to wrap all rafter tails, posts, beams, brackets, fascia,
soffit, porch ceiling, and window and door trim with aluminum was made by G. Borgman,
supported by C. Davis and approved with G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, S. Radtke, and C. Davis
voting aye and K. Kochin voting no.
5) J. Pesch explained which door was proposed to be replaced, noting that it was minimally
visible from the street and likely a replacement itself. The board discussed basic design
features that were preferred for the replacement and decided that one of the half-light doors in
the HDC guidelines would be acceptable.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace the wood exterior door on the west
elevation with a steel or fiberglass, half-light door as long as the work meets all zoning
requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by K. Kochin, supported by G.
Borgman. S. Radtke proposed an amendment to the motion on the table to require that the
replacement door match the design specifications in the HDC guidelines. K. Kochin accepted
the proposed amendment. The amended motion to approve the request to replace the wood
exterior door on the west elevation with a steel or fiberglass, half-light door matching the
design specifications in the HDC guidelines as long as the work meets all zoning requirements
and the necessary permits are obtained was approved with S. Radtke, C. Davis, K. Kochin, D.
Gregersen, and G. Borgman voting aye.
G. Borgman left at 5:05p.m.
Case 2025-04 – 511 W. Clay Ave. – Gazebo
Applicant: Katherine Jawor - District: National Register - Current Function: Residential
J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant was seeking approval to place a 12’-6” (hexagonal),
20’ tall cast iron gazebo in the rear yard of the property.
3
S. Dahlstrom clarified that the gazebo would be sited in the side yard toward the rear of the property.
After discussion, it was also determined that the height of the gazebo was incorrect and likely not to
be 20’.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to place a 12’-6” (hexagonal), roughly 20’-0” tall cast
iron gazebo in the rear yard of the property as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the
necessary permits are obtained was made by K. Kochin, supported by D. Gregersen and approved
with K. Kochin, D. Gregersen, C. Davis, and S. Radtke voting aye.
Case 2025-05 – 427 W. Muskegon Ave. – Doors
Applicant: Laketon Forest Properties – Terry Puffer - District: Houston - Current Function:
Residential
J. Pesch presented the staff report. The applicant was seeking approval to replace two wood front
doors with doors of a similar style.
J. Puffer explained the issues with glass being repeatedly broken in the doors, and that they had
considered a replacement door that did not contain a window. Instead, they settled on the option
included in the staff report. D. Gregersen noted that the false mullions within the glass were not
appropriate for the building and stated that he preferred a door style with a single pane of glass without
mullions.
The HDC discussed alternative options for addressing the repeated issue of broken glass in the doors
and recommended installing tempered glass. It was thought that this would be more appropriate than
full replacement of the doors, which appeared to be original based on photos on file with the HDC
and the detailing on the doors which was noted as being typical of the era and the building’s
architecture.
S. Radtke stated that the option of installing tempered glass should be explored, and if infeasible, the
case could be revisited at a future meeting. D. Gregersen noted that the molding around the window
on the left side door made that window smaller, and that when looking into replacement glass, the
company completing the work could reduce the width of that molding so that the doors matched.
J. Puffer stated that this would be possible, and the HDC decided that the work required to address
the issue was basic maintenance and therefore did not require formal approval from the HDC.
OTHER BUSINESS
2025 Historic Preservation Goals – J. Pesch explained that the State Historic Preservation Office
requires that all Certified Local Government (CLG) communities submit an annual report to be in
good standing and remain eligible for grant funding and technical assistance activities. SHPO had
created a template for CLG communities to follow when completing their annual report, and the HDC
briefly reviewed the report template as well as the previous year’s annual report.
Some board members had shared their thoughts and responses to these questions with staff prior to
this meeting, and J. Pesch created a summary using their comments as a starting point for further
conversation. The HDC decided to schedule a special meeting to discuss the items contained in the
report in more detail.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:44 p.m.
4
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails