View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
April 1, 2025
S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Radtke, C. Davis, G. Borgman, J. Huss, D. Gregersen (late)
MEMBERS ABSENT: K. Kochin, excused
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch
OTHERS PRESENT: F. Peterson (349 W. Webster and 1095 3rd), A. Sturm and B. Nulf
(1314 Peck), J. Van Hook (1184 7th)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the special meeting minutes of February 27, 2025 and the regular meeting
minutes of March 4, 2025 was made by G. Borgman supported by J. Huss and approved with J. Huss,
G. Borgman, C. Davis, and S. Radtke voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2025-07 – 349 W. Webster Ave. – New Dormers, Skylights, Gable Roof, and Chimney Removal
Applicant: 349 West Webster LLC - District: National Register - Current Function: Vacant
The applicant was seeking approval to construct two new dormers on the east and west sides of the
building’s roof, four new 5’x4’ skylights, and a new gable roof between the existing roof and the clock
tower. The applicant was also requesting approval to demolish two small chimneys near the clock
tower, if necessary. The dormers would be used to vent HVAC items, and the new gable roof would
provide additional headroom in the interior space leading to the clock tower. Staff approved
replacement of the roof shingles in October 2024, but construction/demolition of the items included
in this request were proposed to be completed concurrently with the roofing work to avoid any future
penetrations in the new roof. Drawings depicting the proposed changes were reviewed by the HDC,
and J. Pesch noted that while the drawings contained more changes, the applicant was only seeking
approval for the items listed in the staff report.
F. Peterson explained that the new dormers would be utilitarian and contain mechanicals such as return
air chases; they were located to be minimally visible from the surrounding streets. Each dormer would
contain a louver on the front face and be sided with 8” composite trim painted to match the roof
shingles. It was noted that the existing elevator mechanical room was added at some point and was
another roof protrusion that was not original to the building. F. Peterson explained that the elevator
1
mechanical room was a less appealing example of what they needed to do to accommodate modern
amenities in the building, but that the overall height of that could decrease as the elevator’s
mechanicals were to be relocated as part of this project. S. Radtke said that the proposed dormers
would not disturb the massing of the building as they would nestle between the building’s existing
gable ends and generally blend in with the roof and the HDC agreed.
J. Pesch explained the proposed location of the skylights. The HDC did not have concerns with their
location, but was somewhat concerned with, and briefly discussed, the quality of skylights in general.
F. Peterson stated that the new gable roof would allow for additional headroom, improving the
connection to an interior space planned for the clock tower. The HDC reviewed photos showing the
view of the building from the surrounding streets and determined that the new gable roof would only
be visible from very limited locations.
The HDC discussed removal of the two small chimneys near the clock tower noting that they were
likely utilitarian, while the larger chimneys near the sides of the building were more decorative and
part of the building’s overall design.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to construct two new dormers on the east and west sides
of the building’s roof, four new 5’x4’ skylights, and a new gable roof between the existing roof and
the clock tower as depicted in the drawings included in the April 1, 2025 HDC staff report and to
demolish two small chimneys near the clock tower if necessary as long as the work meets all zoning
requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by J. Huss, supported by G. Borgman
with C. Davis, G. Borgman, J. Huss, and S. Radtke voting aye.
Case 2025-08 – 1095 3rd St. – Remodel and Building Addition
Applicant: Muskegon Midtown Center - District: Houston - Current Function: Vacant
The applicant was seeking approval to remodel the exterior of the existing building and construct a
new two-story building addition along Houston Avenue. J. Pesch reminded the HDC that in late 2024,
they had approved exploratory demolition on the exterior of the building, and that they had informally
discussed preliminary design concepts for this project at the January 7, 2025 regular meeting where
they also approved removal of the existing building’s chimney.
The HDC reviewed the drawings provided. G. Borgman noted that the new building would be larger
than the existing building, and J. Pesch explained that the two buildings would connect in the location
of the former fire escape stair that had since been removed.
S. Radtke asked what material would be used on the darker infill sections of the new building’s facade.
F. Peterson explained that those areas would likely be brick, but that he was worried about the cost of
cladding the entire new building with the same material and asked about the possibility of having
alternative exterior finishes on the less-visible sides of the building like the sides facing the alley. J.
Huss asked how much of the back side of the building would be visible from Webster Avenue and J.
Pesch explained that it was currently visible from the corner of 3rd Street and Webster Avenue with
houses along Webster obscuring the view moving west from there. The possibility of using a darker
brick that matched the darker accent bands near the top of the existing building was discussed. F.
Peterson added that, on some of the less finished walls of the existing building, they were considering
having a local artist complete a mural that covered the existing, mismatched and patched brick.
2
F. Peterson explained that the front elevation of the new building along Houston Avenue was to also
feature a band of differently-colored brick near the top to reflect the pattern used on the existing
building. The HDC discussed possibly having a variety of materials on the new building rather than
having it all one type of brick to introduce some variation and better define each unit within the
building.
S. Radtke suggested that the windows instead contain horizontal dividing bars splitting the window
into four sections in a way that would better reflect the horizontal architecture of the building. F.
Peterson asked if the doors should also reflect that design and S. Radtke suggested that they could
either have horizontal dividing bars or a single piece of glass. The drawings noted that black-painted
aluminum windows that were mostly sliders with a few fixed windows were to be installed. The HDC
shared some concerns with the type of window being installed, noting that sliders can create strange
shadow lines and casements would open onto the sidewalk on the first floor.
The HDC decided to craft a motion that included the footprint of the new building, location and size
of windows, and proposed changes to the original building. To be reviewed at a later date would be
the exterior cladding and the specific replacement windows that were to be installed.
D. Gregersen arrived at 4:48pm.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to remodel the exterior of the existing building retaining
the original brick, and construct a new two-story building addition along Houston Avenue as depicted
in the drawings included in the April 1, 2025 HDC staff report with exterior cladding and windows
being brought to a future meeting for approval as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and
the necessary permits are obtained was made by J. Huss, supported by C. Davis with D. Gregersen,
G. Borgman, J. Huss, C. Davis, and S. Radtke voting aye.
Case 2025-09 – 1314 Peck St. – Window Replacement and Copper Roof
Applicant: April Sturm - District: McLaughlin - Current Function: Residential
The applicant was seeking approval to reconstruct the bay window on the north side of the house,
replacing the center window with a new window of the same dimensions with a single glass pane, and
replacing the bay’s existing painted aluminum roof with a copper roof.
A. Sturm explained that all three windows in the bay were proposed to be replaced with vinyl windows
in a color that would match the trim; the center window would be replaced with a fixed, single-pane
window and the two windows on the outside replaced with matching double-hung windows. B. Nulf
stated that a check rail could be installed in the replacement window to mimic the divide in the current,
operable window. J. Huss explained that it would be preferred that the replacement window match the
divide of the existing window, but that it would not have to remain operable.
B. Nulf added that the flat trim boards between the windows would be cedar and that the full bay –
aside from the top and bottom where the decorative trim existed – would be reconstructed, while
retaining all decorative trim.
G. Borgman mentioned that replacement windows were preferred to be the same material as the
original windows, which was frequently wood. J. Huss stated that in some cases aluminum-clad wood
windows had been approved on less-visible elevations. J. Pesch explained that vinyl replacement
windows could be approved at the discretion of the HDC, noting that the local standards did not outlaw
their use, but also did not guarantee their approval. S. Radtke stated that vinyl windows had
3
occasionally been approved in the past on non-dominant elevations or non-dominant architectural
features, noting that these windows met this criteria, but added that repair would be preferable. If
repair was not possible, replacement with wood windows or aluminum-clad wood windows was
appropriate. D. Gregersen stated that with the large commercial addition to the front of the house, he
was inclined to approve vinyl windows in the bay since the original design of the house was no longer
represented.
The HDC discussed potential alternative materials for the roof above the bay noting that a copper roof
would be expensive. B. Nulf stated that a quote was already obtained for a copper roof, but
acknowledged that having options would be appreciated. D. Gregersen suggested an anodized
aluminum roof that mimicked the look of copper. S. Radtke stated that metal roofs, historically, had
been painted in some instances or were constructed of terne metal or galvanized metal.
B. Nulf asked about replacing a double hung window on the north side of the house that was recently
determined to have issues with water leaking; the HDC agreed to also discuss that proposed change.
J. Pesch identified the window in photos of the house, noting that it was located on an angled wall on
the first floor of the south elevation.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to reconstruct the bay window on the north side of the
house, replacing the center window with a new window of the same dimensions with two glass panes,
and replacing the bay’s existing painted aluminum roof with a copper roof as long as the work meets
all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by G. Borgman, and
supported by C. Davis. S. Radtke requested a modification to the motion to clarify that the replacement
center window would contain a single, fixed pane with a dividing bar in the location of the dividing
bar of the existing window, that an alternative to copper for the material of the roof be included, and
that there was an additional request to replace the damaged double hung window on the south
elevation of the house. J. Huss requested a modification to specify that exterior trim that is replaced
will be replaced with cedar and that the decorative moldings and brackets will be retained. G. Borgman
accepted the modifications to the motion. A motion that the HDC approve the request to reconstruct
the bay window on the north side of the house replacing the center window with a new color-matched
vinyl window of the same dimensions with a single fixed glass pane with a dividing bar in the existing
location with the conditions that any replacement exterior trim is cedar and that the decorative
moldings and brackets are retained, replace the bay’s existing painted aluminum roof with a copper
or metal roof, and replace the double hung window on the angled wall on the first floor of the south
elevation using the same specifications and materials as the bay window as long as the work meets all
zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained with G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, C. Davis,
J. Huss, and S. Radtke voting aye.
Case 2025-10 – 1184 7th St. – Installation of Cornice
Applicant: Justin Van Hook - District: Clay-Western - Current Function: Residential
The applicant was seeking approval to remove the existing clay coping on the parapet wall on the 7th
Street elevation and install black metal flashing and a new cornice. The remaining clay coping on the
other three elevations will be replaced following repairs to the flat roof.
J. Pesch stated that reroofing of a flat roof obscured by the parapet wall had recently been staff
approved, and in that process, the applicant proposed to also remove the clay tile coping that capped
the parapet wall. The proposal to install a new decorative cornice was outside of the scope of what
staff could approve, and replacement of the clay coping was also typically something that required
formal review by the HDC. The cornice on the neighboring building at 585 W. Clay Avenue was
4
referenced as an example of what was proposed, and the HDC discussed the two styles of cornice
existing on that neighboring building. J. Pesch shared historic photos of 1184 7th noting that it
appeared that there may have once been a cornice created with decorative brickwork that “stepped-
out” near the top of the building. The photos reflected that this brickwork had been repaired or
reconstructed a number of times in the past, so it was not entirely clear what the original design had
been. HDC documents noted that the building was constructed in 1940, and S. Radtke explained that
the original design was likely very plain in its decoration and reflected a neo-colonial or Georgian
architectural style.
S. Radtke stated that he thought the proposed decorative cornice would be too wide for the narrow
space between the windows and the parapet wall, and would throw off the proportions of the building.
J. Huss suggested that a simpler cornice design than the examples shared in the staff report could be
used. D. Gregersen agreed that the examples shared were more Victorian in their styling and
something simpler would be more appropriate to the architecture of the building. J. Van Hook stated
that he was open to a simpler cornice design, and was looking to add variety to the otherwise flat
building facade. J. Huss stated that the cornice should not obscure the soldier course of brick above
the windows, and S. Radtke suggested that the proposed cornice be no wider than half the distance
between the soldier course and the top of the parapet wall. J. Van Hook asked of a simple cornice
similar to that used on the 7th Street elevation of the neighboring building at 585 W. Clay would be
acceptable and the HDC agreed that it would.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to remove the existing clay coping on the parapet wall on
the 7th Street elevation and install black metal flashing and a new cornice that is of the flat, step, or
cove style (similar to that which is used on 7th Street elevation of the neighboring building to the
northwest) with the condition that the new cornice does not cover more than half the height of the area
above the soldier course of brick as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary
permits are obtained was made by J. Huss, supported by D. Gregersen with C. Davis, J. Huss, G.
Borgman, S. Radtke, and D. Gregersen voting aye.
J. Van Hook asked if the HDC had any issues with removal of the modern shutters on the building,
and the HDC agreed that removal was preferred.
OTHER BUSINESS
Historic Preservation Tax Credit Workshop – On Tuesday, April 22, 2025 the City of Grand
Rapids would be hosting a free Historic Preservation Tax Credit Workshop with Mara Lancaster,
Historical Architect with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The workshop was
scheduled from 6:00pm – 7:30pm at Cornerstone Church at 48 Lafayette Avenue SE in Grand
Rapids.
Staff Approval of Clay Coping – S. Radtke suggested that the HDC allow staff to approve
replacement of clay coping with modern aluminum caps. J. Pesch noted that this was recently
approved at the Eagles building at 621 W. Western Avenue and that, generally, the clay coping was
functional and not meant to be decorative. The HDC agreed and asked that staff draft an updated Staff
Approval Form and provide it for review at a future meeting.
280 W. Muskegon Avenue – J. Pesch explained that he was recently contacted by staff from the State
Historic Preservation Office regarding an application for State Historic Tax Credits that was received
from the owners of the former First Church of Christ Scientist at 280 W. Muskegon Avenue. In 1972,
5
when the City’s National Register Historic District was added to the National Register of Historic
Places, this building was only 42 years old – eight years short of being eligible as a contributing
resource to the district’s listing. SHPO staff were updating the listing to include this building – which
had since become eligible – as a contributing resource, and would be handling public noticing tied to
that change.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
6
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails