View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 1, 2025
S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 3:58 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Radtke, J. Huss, D. Gregersen, C. Davis, K. Kochin (late)
MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Borgman (excused)
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, W. Webster
OTHERS PRESENT: Pastor J. Rogers (1194 Terrace), D. Snyder (238 Houston), J. Schrier
and K. Potts (Parmenter Law)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to table approval of the regular meeting minutes of May 6, 2025 and June 3, 2025 was made
by J. Huss supported by C. Davis and unanimously approved with J. Huss, C. Davis, D. Gregersen,
and S. Radtke voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
The cases were heard out of order as applicants were only present for some cases.
Case 2025-16 – 1194 Terrace St. – Mini-Split HVAC Units
Applicant: Jackson Cervantes - District: McLaughlin - Current Function: Institutional
This case was reviewed at the June 3, 2025 HDC meeting, but the total number of units and their
locations had changed from the original request. The applicant was seeking approval to install two
wall-mounted mini-split HVAC units and accompanying conduit on the north (side) elevation, one
wall-mounted mini-split HVAC unit, disconnect box, and accompanying conduit on the south (side)
elevation, and one wall-mounted mini-split HVAC unit, disconnect box, and accompanying conduit
on the east (rear) elevation about four-feet above grade, remove the existing, in-wall air conditioning
units, and fill in the former openings to match the existing building material.
K. Kochin arrived at 4:03.
The HDC discussed the locations of the additional units and determined that the changes were
relatively inconsequential in terms of how visible they would be from the street as long as the
conditions of the previous approval remained in place.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to install two wall-mounted mini-split HVAC units and
accompanying conduit on the north elevation of the building and one wall-mounted mini-split HVAC
unit and accompanying conduit on both the south elevation and northeast corner of the rear elevation,
about four-feet above grade, with a vinyl or painted application to camouflage the units as well as to
remove the existing, in-wall air conditioning units, and fill in the former openings to match the existing
1
building material 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, D. Gregersen, K.
Kochin, and S. Radtke voting aye.
Case 2022-11 – 238 Houston Ave. – Rehabilitation
Applicant: Joseph Heeren - District: Houston - Current Function: Vacant
J. Pesch explained that this case was last discussed in March and April of 2022 and recapped the
approved work from those two meetings. He noted that, at that time, the property was being repaired
following significant fire damage, and referenced photos from 2022 to compare the proposed work
that had been approved by the HDC with the work that had been completed at the property since.
The HDC also reviewed a set of drawings submitted in July 2022. J. Pesch explained that the drawing
set was approved with conditions by HDC staff and reviewed those conditions of approval. He added
that the conditions of approval were shared with the applicant when the building permit for the work
was issued in 2022.
D. Snyder made additional comments on the changes from the HDC’s approved motion that were
being proposed, explaining that their intent was to keep things as they were built instead of changing
them to match what was in the drawing set. He added that no other diversions were anticipated at this
time and apologized for not having updated drawings as the project’s architect was not able to provide
them due to ongoing health issues.
J. Pesch stated that, since 2022, some work had been completed at the property and that work largely
matched the drawing set, but not all of the work aligned with what was approved by the HDC and
what was conveyed through staff’s conditions of approval. He reviewed the more apparent changes,
and reviewed those with the HDC using the current photos of the building, photos from 2022 captured
before any changes had been undertaken, and the July 2022 drawing set.
The HDC reviewed changes to the east (side) elevation and J. Pesch shared before and after photos of
the work. K. Kochin asked why one of the windows was made smaller and D. Snyder stated that his
understanding was that it did not meet the building code. S. Radtke noted that he could not recall a
situation where the building code prevented the HDC from requiring that a window be replaced in its
original size and location. The HDC decided that, as this elevation was minimally-visible from the
street, the change to the window size from what was originally approved was acceptable.
The HDC reviewed changes to the west (side) elevation and J. Pesch noted that these windows were
more visible and that one had been reduced in size and another had been eliminated. The HDC
determined that this was a relatively minor facade and the changes were not drastic.
The HDC reviewed changes to the south (front) elevation; J. Pesch noted that the changes included
the attic window being shifted higher and elimination of a decorative feature at the peak of the gable
end that would have mimicked one previously found on the rear gable end. The drawings showed
retaining the faux-columns on the storefront and a different storefront glass configuration than what
had been constructed. S. Radtke asked whether there had been a change to the building code
preventing the new storefront from being returned to its original configuration. J. Pesch stated that he
was not aware of such a change and asked if there had been glass beneath the boards that had covered
the storefront. D. Snyder stated that there was glass but it had been removed. J. Huss asked if there
would be storefront glass on the angled walls on either side of the front door and D. Snyder stated that
there would not be. S. Radtke stated that the building’s storefront had been modified a number of
2
times throughout its life and that it was difficult to determine its original appearance, as no photos of
the original Italianate storefront existed. He added that he would like to see glass on the two angled
walls, but what was being proposed was acceptable in terms of its proportions and window position.
The HDC reviewed changes to the north (rear) elevation and discussed why the building code would
have prevented the windows on the rear porch from being replaced in their original configuration. J.
Huss stated that the HDC would likely have to think of the building almost as new construction,
considering that a significant portion of the building had to be fully reconstructed. The HDC settled
on the slider windows and slider door being the main issue with the rear elevation, noting that it was
not something that would typically be approved in the historic districts, but also acknowledging that
it was unclear when the rear porch had been constructed and what would be an appropriate design. K.
Kochin asked if there were other enclosed rear porches in the immediate area, and J. Pesch stated that
he was not aware of any nearby. J. Huss stated that the type of windows and door would not have
been dictated by the building code, only the location and size of them. The HDC discussed whether a
railing would be needed on the roof of the garage at the rear of the building as the slider door offered
roof access, but D. Snyder stated that they would not be taking on that work until later and could
return to a later meeting for review. S. Radtke stated that his preference was that all the windows that
were removed from the rear porch be added back in as double hung or casement windows minus any
that would need to be removed to leave space for a door. Due to concerns about the viability of such
a design to meet the building code, the HDC considered alternatives. D. Gregersen proposed a
compromise in which fewer windows were installed, with two pairs of double hung or casement
windows on either side of the door and another pair of double hung or casement windows installed on
the rear section of the west elevation to match those on the rear elevation; he added that the door
should also be replaced with a double french door. K. Kochin asked what the HDC’s stance would be
if this did not meet building code requirements, and J. Huss stated that staff could approve simply
replacing the slider door and slider windows with a double french door and pairs of double hung or
casement windows in the same locations without additional windows.
A motion that the HDC approve the work that has been completed on the south, east, and west
elevations of the building, installation of composite siding with a 4” reveal on the south elevation with
board and batten siding used on the gable end from the sill of the attic window up to the roof peak,
installation of composite siding with a 4” reveal on the west elevation back to start of the rear addition,
and installation of vinyl siding with a 4” reveal on the east elevation and rear addition of the west
elevation 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 S. Radtke, J. Huss, C. Davis, D. Gregersen,
and K. Kochin voting aye.
A motion that the HDC approve replacing the sliding windows on the north elevation with pairs of
casement or double hung windows, installing two additional double hung or casement windows
matching the others on the rear elevation, installing a pair of double hung or casement windows on
the rear section of the west elevation, and replacing the sliding glass door with a double french door
as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made
by D. Gregersen, supported by C. Davis with J. Huss, C. Davis, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin, and S.
Radtke voting aye.
3
Case 2025-14 – 1725 Peck St. – Siding
Applicant: Anita Morales and Ana Zuniga - District: Clinton-Peck - Current Function: Residential
This case was tabled at the June 3, 2025 HDC meeting. The applicant was seeking approval to replace
the existing wood siding with vinyl siding. J. Pesch explained that the applicant’s work schedule
conflicted with the HDC’s meeting time and they were again unable to attend the meeting.
J. Pesch shared three photos that he received from the applicant since the June meeting and explained
that he was told the paint was peeling, the boards were cracking and starting to pull apart in some
places where they met at the corners. The applicant planned to install vinyl siding of a narrower width
than the existing wood siding, and did not intend to mimic any of the different siding patterns found
on the house currently. The porch would not be resided and its trim would be retained, but the trim
around the rest of the windows on the house would be replaced with new trim.
S. Radtke noted that he felt that the exterior of the building was completely original and of an unusual
era that was not a common architectural style in the historic districts. J. Huss noted that it appeared
that the siding could be scraped and painted, with some wood replaced in more damaged areas. D.
Gregersen stated that part of the reason for the deterioration was that where the boards were mitered
at the corners and there was no aluminum capping on them to protect them. HDC members offered to
share resources explaining best practices for repainting wood siding with J. Pesch to provide to the
applicant.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to replace the existing wood siding with vinyl siding was
made by J. Huss, supported by K. Kochin with S. Radtke, J. Huss, C. Davis, D. Gregersen, and K.
Kochin voting aye.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:31 p.m.
4
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails