View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 6, 2025
S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 3:58 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Radtke, C. Davis, G. Borgman, J. Huss, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin
(late)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, W. Webster
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Puffer and J. Samlow (427 W. Muskegon), B. Walters (540 W.
Webster), O. Crawford (1428 Clinton)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of April 1, 2025 was made by G. Borgman supported
by D. Gregersen and approved with J. Huss, G. Borgman, C. Davis, D. Gregersen, and S. Radtke
voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
Case 2025-05 – 427 W. Muskegon Ave. – Doors
Applicant: Laketon Forest Properties – Terry Puffer - District: Houston - Current Function:
Residential
The applicant was seeking approval to replace two wood front doors with doors of a similar style.
This case was reviewed at the February 4, 2025 meeting, and J. Pesch reviewed the reasons the HDC
did not rule on the request at that meeting noting that, since then, the applicant had shared that there
were further issues with the condition of the doors and requested to replace both with the door style
presented previously.
J. Samlow explained that the doors were deteriorated to a point where his ongoing repairs were not
holding up and that his next step was to install a kick plate to hold the separating parts of the door
together. G. Borgman asked whether the trim around the doors would be retained if the doors were
replaced. J. Samlow stated that he was not sure whether the proposed new door would fit within the
existing door frame, noting that he could shim the door to make it fit the opening, if necessary.
K. Kochin arrived at 4:08.
J. Puffer added that the doors had been repaired twice – replacing broken glass each time – since they
had purchased the building, and stated that the request to replace the doors was an issue of security.
She explained that the doors could not lock due to the damage. S. Radtke noted that the doors were
likely original to the house, had survived over a century, and could be rebuilt to correct the issues and
last another century. He added that any new door would likely only last 30 years.
1
D. Gregersen stated that the black mullion in the new style door was not appropriate and that the
molding around the glass should match, rather than contrast with, the color of the door. S. Radtke
asked what material the proposed replacement door would be, J. Samlow responded that it would be
fiberglass, and S. Radtke added that he would prefer a wood replacement door. The HDC discussed
the differing appearances of the two doors, noting that the glass size appeared different due to the two
types of molding surrounding the windows. D. Gregersen stated that the size of the glass on the right-
side door appeared to be the original size and noted that the replacement door should match the size
of its light to that door.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace the two wooden front doors with fiberglass
doors of the style presented in the May 6, 2025 HDC staff report without mullions and retaining as
much trim as possible as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits
are obtained was made by J. Huss, supported by K. Kochin with J. Huss, C. Davis, G. Borgman, D.
Gregersen, and K. Kochin voting aye, and S. Radtke voting no.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2025-11 – 540 W. Webster Ave. – Pergola/Garden Trellis and Windows
Applicant: Jerald Clausen and Bruce Walters - District: Clay-Western - Current Function: Residential
The applicant was seeking approval to retain a non-permanent garden trellis/pergola constructed of
driftwood on the rear porch of the house and replace eight wood windows on the front and sides of
the house with replacement windows to match those used on the second floor.
J. Pesch explained which windows in the house had been replaced, noting that some of that work had
been completed without HDC approval sometime after 2019. The HDC discussed whether or not the
mullions were applied to the interior and exterior of the glass and B. Walters noted that they were
between the glass. S. Radtke said that over half of the windows had already been replaced with
windows that the HDC would not have approved. J. Pesch noted that a few of the windows had been
approved as part of a past HDC approval for the rear addition on the house. The HDC determined that
it would be more important that any future replacement windows match those which were already
replaced, so the mullions would not have to be affixed to both sides of the glass.
D. Gregersen asked if the pergola/garden trellis was attached to the house or attached to a deck that
was attached to the house. J. Huss noted that it was more permanent than a standalone or pop-up
canopy or umbrella, and B. Walters mentioned that the wind on that side of the house would damage
any sort of temporary sun shade or umbrella. D. Gregersen noted that the style of the pergola was not
appropriate for the house and added that a heavy-duty lattice would be more appropriate. B. Walters
added that the driftwood was meant to be an art piece as well, but that art has different interpretations.
J. Pesch noted that while the HDC typically does not review art pieces, this was brought before the
HDC because it was attached to the house. S. Radtke stated that he felt the larger issue was that neither
project received prior HDC approval.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to retain a non-permanent garden trellis/pergola
constructed of driftwood on the rear porch of the house as identified in the May 6, 2025 HDC staff
report as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was
made by K. Kochin, supported by D. Gregersen with J. Huss, C. Davis, G. Borgman, and D. Gregersen
voting no, and K. Kochin and S. Radtke voting aye.
2
J. Pesch explained that the garden trellis/pergola would need to be removed from the house and that
alternative options to replace it could be considered by the HDC at a later date. Further discussion
confirmed that the porch structure was installed previously and had received HDC approval.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace eight wood windows on the front and sides of
the house as identified in the May 6, 2025 HDC staff report with 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 as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits
are obtained was made by G. Borgman, supported by J. Huss. K. Kochin suggested an amendment to
the motion to specify that the assembly of the grills of the new replacement windows match the
existing replacement windows. G. Borgman accepted the amendment. An amended motion that the
HDC approve the request to replace eight wood windows on the front and sides of the house as
identified in the May 6, 2025 HDC staff report with vinyl replacement windows of the same size,
design, proportions and profile, and with the assembly of the grills of the new replacement windows
to match the existing replacement windows as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the
necessary permits are obtained was made by G. Borgman, supported by D. Gregersen with J. Huss,
C. Davis, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin, and S. Radtke voting aye.
Case 2025-12 – 1428 Clinton St. – Porch Railing
Applicant: Ollie Crawford - District: Clinton-Peck - Current Function: Residential
The applicant was seeking approval to install a railing on the front porch. J. Pesch shared a photo of
the house from the 1980s which showed that the existing concrete pad had been in place at that time.
O. Crawford explained that the posts were installed recently in anticipation of a railing needed due to
the height of the porch from the ground. The HDC discussed the building code requirements for
handrails and when they were a requirement.
The HDC discussed the construction details of the railing and recommended that the posts that were
installed in the ground could instead be installed directly on the concrete pad using brackets bolted to
the concrete so as not to change the footprint of the existing porch. O. Crawford stated that he could
remove the posts for the time being, and reinstall them in the approved configuration if a railing was
deemed necessary. S. Radtke noted that the house had been heavily modified, so the HDC’s motion
was more to enable construction of a railing that complimented the house and met code requirements.
D. Gregersen noted that the handrails could essentially disappear if a thin, dark metal railing was used
and the HDC agreed that this was a good option.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to install an upper railing on the front porch that matches
the railing design presented in the HDC local standards and two simple metal handrails on the front
porch steps; if a railing is required to be installed around the entire front porch, attach the posts to the
top of the concrete flooring surface and match the railing design presented in the HDC local standards
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, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin, S.
Radtke and J. Huss voting aye.
OTHER BUSINESS
C. W. Marsh Company Building National Register Nomination Form Review – Staff was
notified that the C. W. Marsh Company was pursuing National Register of Historic Places
3
designation for their building at 1385 Hudson Street. The nomination form was to be presented to
the State Historic Preservation Review Board on May 30th, and as a Certified Local Government, the
HDC was tasked with reviewing the nomination form and providing any comments to the State
Historic Preservation Office. The HDC members were pleased to hear this news and reviewed the
interior photos included in the nomination form. G. Borgman stated that their staff had been known
to offer tours of the building, in case anyone was interested.
J. Pesch reviewed the form that the HDC was to complete and collected input from the HDC
members. J. Huss asked if a copy of the nomination form could be sent to the Lakeshore Museum
Center and J. Pesch noted that such documents were kept online and that he would send her a link to
access them.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:26 p.m.
4
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails