View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEETING
September 2, 2025 @ 4:00 PM
MUSKEGON CITY HALL, ROOM 204
933 TERRACE STREET, MUSKEGON, MI 49440
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
S. Radtke called the meeting to order at 04:00 PM and roll was taken.
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: K. Kochin, S. Radtke, D. Gregersen, J. Huss, G. Borgman
MEMBERS ABSENT:
MEMBERS EXCUSED: C. Davis
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, W. Webster
OTHERS PRESENT: A. Riegler (1095 3rd), F. Peterson (1095 3rd and 349 W.
Webster), J. Salowitz (349 W. Webster), M. Miller (557 W. Western)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Minutes of the July 17, 2025 special meeting and the August
5, 2025 regular meeting Planning
A motion to table approval of the special meeting minutes of July 17, 2025 and
regular meeting minutes of August 5, 2025 was unanimously approved with S.
Radtke, J. Huss, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin, and G. Borgman voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
Page 1 of 8
A. Case 2025-08: 1095 3rd Planning
J. Pesch explained that this case was last reviewed at the July 17th special
meeting at which time the applicant was requesting approval for the exterior
cladding materials and windows. Prior to that, at the April 1st meeting, the
applicant received approval to remodel the exterior of the existing building and
construct a new two-story building addition along Houston Avenue. The
applicant was facing issues with an existing access easement on the property
requiring that the design of the new building addition be revised to be three-
stories in height. F. Peterson explained the efforts made to address the
limitations created by the easement, noting that the parties involved were not
able to reach an agreeable solution.
The board decided that the proposed third story would not have a major effect
on the overall project and would not disrupt the scale of the neighboring
structures. J. Pesch asked if the building to the southwest of the proposed
building addition was of a similar height to what was being proposed and A.
Riegler confirmed that it would roughly align with the peak of the neighboring
building’s roof. S. Radtke asked if the new building addition would be set back
farther than the original building and F. Peterson confirmed that it would be very
slightly setback from the old building.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to construct a new three-story
building addition along Houston Avenue as depicted in the drawings included
in the September 2, 2025 HDC staff report as long as the work meets all zoning
requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by G.
Borgman, supported by K. Kochin with D. Gregersen, K. Kochin, S. Radtke, and
G. Borgman voting aye.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Case 2025-22: 540 W. Webster Planning
This case was withdrawn from the agenda. The applicant was seeking approval
to replace the existing metal front porch railing with a composite railing that
matches the brick red trim color of the house.
B. Case 2025-23: 557 W. Western Planning
The applicant was seeking approval to install vinyl window signs and one wall
sign in the former transom above the door. The sign band sign installed on the
Page 2 of 8
parapet wall above the storefront replaced a previous sign and was staff
approved in February 2025. All the signs had already been installed.
J. Pesch noted that the wall sign above the door covered a transom window
that had been boarded for many years. He added that some of the window
signs were also in violation of the zoning ordinance which required transparent
glass on storefronts, only allowed signs to be installed on the inside face of the
storefront, and only permitted signs to cover up to 12% of the window surface.
Further, the HDC local standards limited window signs to no more than 20% of
the storefront window area. The transom windows were not considered to be a
part of the storefront glass area, so the windows signs installed in the transoms
were compliant with the zoning ordinance.
M. Miller stated that he understood that some of the signs were noncompliant,
but was proposing to keep all signs and request a variance from the regulations.
He also noted that he was actively looking into alternative signage options that
would be compliant with all regulations to avoid the need for a variance. G.
Borgman suggested a sidewalk sign to draw attention to the business and
mentioned that an awning had previously received HDC approval. M. Miller
said that an awning was being considered.
M. Miller asked why the bar in the neighboring building was able to install signs
that covered their windows and J. Pesch responded that those signs had been
approved and installed under past regulations and grandfathered. M. Miller
requested that, if the signs were denied, a longer timeframe for compliance be
granted as the business’s soft opening was scheduled for the following day. J.
Pesch explained that the HDC could approve a timeline, but the Zoning
Administrator would also have to set a timeline because the signs were not
compliant with the zoning ordinance.
The HDC discussed various design options for window signs that could be used
instead of what was installed, but ultimately decided that the applicant would
have to have the work reviewed at a future meeting when a new design was
finalized. The board agreed with a recommendation from S. Radtke that a six-
month timeframe be established for compliance with the HDC motion, and
discussed whether neighboring properties should also be notified of this timeline
to deter others from installing noncompliant signs. J. Pesch noted that this was a
valid concern, but the Planning Department did not have an established
process for such noticing.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to install vinyl window signs on the
inside or outside of the transom windows and the side-facing window near the
front door as well as the wall sign in the former transom above the front door as
Page 3 of 8
presented in the September 2, 2025 HDC staff report 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 J. Huss, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, K.
Kochin and S. Radtke voting aye.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to install two front vinyl window signs
on the building’s storefront windows as presented in the September 2, 2025 HDC
staff report with six months to complete removal of the signs was made by J.
Huss, supported by K. Kochin with G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin, S.
Radtke and J. Huss voting aye.
C. Case 2025-24: 349 W. Webster Planning
The applicant was seeking approval for grading/site work, replacement
windows, replacement doors, and a new dumpster enclosure.
J. Salowitz presented the proposed work in greater detail, noting that there
would be three levels to the property once grading of the site was complete.
The existing grade on the site would be maintained on the southwest side of the
property, the grade at the entrance on the rear of the building would be
lowered by about three feet, and the area along 3rd Street would be lowered
to about street level. A sunken bistro area near the building’s northeast corner
would allow access to the outdoors from the basement level, essentially making
the existing half-height basement the building’s first floor, which would alleviate
a number of existing accessibility issues. The parking lot would be reduced in size
to be located only along the W. Muskegon Avenue side of the building, and the
number of paved pathways would be reduced at the front of the building to
consist of a single, eight-foot-wide pathway.
J. Salowitz explained that the building had four “front-facing” elevations, but
the surrounding buildings led them to locate the dumpster enclosure on the
southeast corner of the property. He added that the mechanical units would
also be located in this structure to avoid having to significantly change the
existing building’s rooflines. The dumpster/mechanical enclosure would be
partially below grade, with its perimeter wall doubling as a backdrop to the
lawn facing the Abraham Lincoln Monument across W. Webster Avenue in
Hackley Park. F. Peterson added that the enclosure would cap the view of
someone looking out from Hackley Park with a more attractive view than the
current one. The trellis and “green wall” built into the enclosure would include
plantings that would allow the structure to further blend into the landscape.
S. Radtke stated that making the building inobtrusive and blend into the
surroundings would be preferred. J. Salowitz stated that their goal was to not
make the enclosure a focal point of the property. K. Kochin was concerned
Page 4 of 8
with the enclosure’s modern appearance, relative to the existing building on
the site. D. Gregersen agreed but explained that because the enclosure would
not be attached to the building it should differentiate itself – it would be
impractical to make the enclosure look like the existing building. S. Radtke
added that doing so would call more attention to the enclosure and could
create a false sense of history at the site. J. Salowitz explained that the quarry
from which the existing building’s stone was sourced was no longer in existence,
though they had tried to find a close match, but none were perfect; he added
that their architects had done a study of historically appropriate carriage
houses, but recreating such a structure would make it far larger, taller, and more
conspicuous. K. Kochin stated that more greenery surrounding the enclosure
would help in making it less noticeable. J. Salowitz stated that they were
considering planting ivy on part of the enclosure, growing vines on the trellis,
and planting more trees.
The HDC agreed that the location of the enclosure was acceptable, as few
alternatives existed, and it would minimally distract from the main building; its
modern design would prevent it from being confused with a structure original to
the site. J. Pesch explained that, from a zoning perspective, locating the
enclosure was difficult because every part of the site was considered a front
yard, and short of burying everything, there was no less-obtrusive location. He
added that the need for dumpsters and mechanicals highlighted the significant
changes in technology from when the building was originally built.
S. Radtke asked about the exterior cladding proposed for the enclosure and J.
Salowitz stated that they were considering a few different types of masonry with
a colored brick or block on the lower third of the building and a more natural
sandstone color on the upper two-thirds. The HDC discussed the proposed sign
on the wall of the enclosure facing 3rd Street. J. Salowitz explained that the goal
was to make the driveway off 3rd Street feel like an entrance drive and distract
somewhat from the fact that the sign doubled as the dumpster/mechanical
enclosure. K. Kochin asked whether the sign itself would highlight the enclosure
in a way that ran counter to the desire to keep the structure inobtrusive. D.
Gregersen explained that the sign could provide a function to the otherwise
utilitarian enclosure by announcing that part of the site as the grand entrance.
J. Salowitz said that the sign was a want and not a need, and that the design
team had not yet looked too far into its design. S. Radtke suggested that
approval of the sign be handled at a future meeting once a more finalized
design could be presented.
J. Salowitz explained the features planned for the lawn on the opposite side of
the building, along 4th Street. D. Gregersen stated that the main focal point of
Page 5 of 8
the property was the building, and the plan did a good job of not drawing the
eye away from that.
The HDC moved on to discuss proposed changes to the existing building on the
site. J. Huss noted that the grade along the base of the building would be
lowered in some areas and asked what material would be visible below the
existing grade. J. Salowitz explained the limited parts of the foundation around
the proposed bistro area that would be exposed, adding that retaining walls
would be used rather than exposing the foundation in some places. They had
mostly found a gray, rough-quarried fieldstone – much like what had been
exposed at the Hackley Public Library across the street – but admitted that the
condition of the foundation material was a bit of an unknown, and that they
were still considering options to improve its appearance if that proved to be an
issue. The HDC reviewed a few photos of the exposed foundation wall to better
understand what was currently below grade. J. Salowitz explained that,
because the existing grade would be maintained on much of the lawn, the
exposed areas of the foundation would be minimally visible from the street and
landscaping would further obscure that view. S. Radtke stated that he would be
more comfortable if the HDC could reserve the right to review any alternative
materials that may ultimately be used on the foundation and the board agreed
that, if necessary, a special meeting could be held to ensure the project stays
on schedule.
S. Radtke asked what material was being proposed for the retaining wall and J.
Salowitz responded that they were favoring concrete. K. Kochin stated
concerns with smooth-faced concrete and D. Gregersen asked if they had
considered exposed aggregate for the retaining walls. F. Peterson explained
that retaining walls would only be used where necessary, otherwise landscaping
was planned for the less significant grade changes. J. Salowitz estimated that
they had reduce the length of retaining walls by 50% since the initial designs
were created.
The HDC moved on to review the proposed replacement windows. J. Salowitz
stated that the existing windows were 1990s replacements and had no historic
precedent with many of the arched windows having been boxed-in. He
described the aluminum frame windows that they planned to install, noting that
each overall opening would contain a fixed piece of a storefront system to
simulate the appearance of the double hung windows that had historically
been used in the building. He noted that glass would be used anywhere there
had historically been glass and that the covered windows would be reopened
to allow for light and views. The finish on the window frames would be a matte
black finish.
Page 6 of 8
The existing doors in the building were all replacement doors and would be
replaced with new aluminum frame doors with a standard design aside from
the main door at the base of the clock tower. J. Salowitz explained that the
main door would be custom-built using salvaged wood from the project and
would be of a castle-like design, open to an artist’s interpretation.
A motion that the HDC approve the mechanical and dumpster enclosure with
inobtrusive neutral masonry, brick, or stone cladding as proposed in the
September 2, 2025 HDC staff report excluding the proposed sign 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 D. Gregersen, G. Borgman, J.
Huss, S. Radtke, and K. Kochin voting aye.
A motion that the HDC approve the grading of the property as proposed in the
September 2, 2025 HDC staff report including the retaining walls of a poured
cement material with final approval of front facade materials that are exposed
once they are known 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 G. Borgman, K. Kochin, D. Gregersen, S. Radtke, and J. Huss, voting aye.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace the windows and doors
with fixed aluminum frame windows with a matte black finish as proposed in the
window schedule in the September 2, 2025 HDC staff report 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 K. Kochin, J. Huss, D. Gregersen, S.
Radtke, and G. Borgman voting aye.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
A. New HDC Agenda/Packet Format Planning
J. Pesch explained that the City of Muskegon was utilizing a new meeting
management platform for all of its boards and commissions. The new platform
would result in some changes to the appearance of HDC meeting agendas
and minutes. Staff was making adjustments to the way in which information was
presented in HDC packets, and stated that those changes would likely continue
over the next few meetings as staff adjusted to the new format.
B. 2025 Staff Approval Update #3 Planning
Since the last update in June 2025, staff had approved 12 projects:
• 1204 8th - Reroof flat roof
• 1319 Jefferson - Reroof house and replacement gutters
Page 7 of 8
• 382 W Muskegon - Reroof rear section of house
• 1569 Clinton - Reroof garage and shed
• 406 Houston - Reroof house and garage
• 1423 Clinton - Construct 16x10 storage shed
• 1102 Terrace - Reroof house
• 1187 Ransom - Reroof house
• 408 W. Muskegon - Repave and extend driveway
• 1593 Peck - Replace one second-story vinyl window on rear of house
• 150 Catherine - Reroof house
• 408 W Muskegon - Replace cellar door with matching door
S. Radtke asked about the HDC's ability to require replacement of non-original
materials with historically appropriate materials (e.g. replacing a vinyl
replacement window with a wood window). J. Pesch reminded the board that
replacement with like materials was something that staff could usually approve,
but if the HDC preferred to review such cases, the topic could be discussed
further. J. Pesch stated that he would review this with the City's legal counsel
and potentially look into how other Historic District Commissions in the state
handled such issues.
PUBLIC COMMENT
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jamie Pesch, Planner
Page 8 of 8
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails