View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEETING
November 4, 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 4:00 PM and roll was taken.
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Radtke, J. Huss, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin
MEMBERS ABSENT:
MEMBERS EXCUSED: C. Davis
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, W. Webster
OTHERS PRESENT: T. Lundholm and D. Melinn (1011 2nd), J. Lusk (390 W.
Muskegon), M. Moran (1187 Ransom)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Meeting minutes of the October 7, 2025 regular meeting.
Planning
A motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of October 7, 2025 was made
by G. Borgman, supported by J. Huss, and approved with S. Radtke, J. Huss, G.
Borgman, D. Gregersen, and K. Kochin voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Case 2025-26: 1378 5th Planning
Page 1 of 9
J. Pesch explained that this case was last reviewed at the October 7, 2025
regular meeting after much of the work had already been started. At that time,
the HDC approved installation of vinyl siding on the main portion of the house,
replacement of existing wood windows with vinyl windows within the same
rough openings excluding the leaded glass window which was to be put into a
new frame and reinstalled in its original location, replacement of exterior doors
with six-lite craftsman doors, and installation of vented aluminum soffit and
fascia. At that time, the HDC tabled review of the final design of the front porch.
With no applicant in attendance, J. Pesch stated that the HDC would have to
make a decision on this case in order to remain compliant with the City
Ordinance as he had not heard anything from the contractor to indicate that
they would be willing to wait until a future meeting.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to complete the work on the front
porch as presented in the November 4, 2025 HDC staff report was made by J.
Huss, supported by K. Kochin, with S. Radtke, J. Huss, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen,
and K. Kochin voting aye.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Case 2025-29: 1011 2nd Planning
The applicant was seeking approval to replace the original wood entry doors
on the south elevation facing W. Muskegon Avenue with woodgrain-look steel
surfaced doors. J. Pesch noted that additional door specifications were
included in the staff report and shared photos of the doors proposed to be
replaced. T. Lundholm specified that only the doors on the W. Muskegon
Avenue elevation would be replaced, with all other doors remaining as they
were, and that there were past attempts to restore the existing doors. J. Pesch
shared a historic photo of one of the building's exterior doors (but not the doors
being discussed) as it appeared in the building's original dedication pamphlet,
and agreed that there had been restoration efforts over time with varying
degrees of success.
The HDC asked if there were any photos of the replacement door. T. Lundholm
stated that there were not, as the proposed doors would be custom-made to
look generally like the existing doors with the window locations being replicated.
D. Melinn stated that the new doors would be solid panels with windows that
reused the hardware from the existing doors. G. Borgman asked if there would
be recessed panels like the existing doors, and T. Lundholm stated that there
would not be. D. Melinn noted that the doors being replaced were not like
other doors in the building and J. Pesch noted that the building contained a
Page 2 of 9
variety of door types, sharing photos of a few of them.
D. Gregersen asked if restoration of the existing doors had been considered
instead of replacement. D. Melinn stated that they looked into it, but the
materials behind the veneer were failing. D. Gregersen acknowledged that
these were some of the most visible doors in the building and G. Borgman asked
if the panels in the existing door were actual panels or applied moldings. S.
Radtke explained that he felt metal doors could be acceptable considering
these doors' southern exposure, but asked if it would be possible to use applied
moldings that mimicked the existing panels.
D. Gregersen stated that if duplication was not possible, an appropriate option
could be a full-light door framed by metal of the same type already being
considered, as that would highlight the stone detailing surrounding the door
and be more inviting than a solid door or one with a smaller window. T.
Lundholm asked if that would stray farther from the doors' original appearance.
D. Gregersen acknowledged that it would, but in a way that would have a
minor impact due to how plain they would be - calling attention to the
architecture of the church rather than the door.
G. Borgman asked the applicant if it would be possible to hold off on the
project to determine an appropriate replacement door style. D. Melinn
explained the other work that needed to be completed on this building entry,
and T. Lundholm asked if a solid brown color would be more appropriate than
the faux-woodgrain. S. Radtke stated that the doors' finish was less of an issue
than the fact that the proposed doors were flat; D. Gregersen added that he
was concerned that they would look very industrial. S. Radtke stated that he
had seen steel doors with applied moldings that could mimic the pattern of the
existing doors' panels so that they aligned with the vertical lines found in the
transom window above the doors. The HDC discussed an option in which the
existing doors would be repaired, but with less emphasis on the veneer and
allowing them to be painted instead, but the harsh exposure on a south
elevation was a concern. D. Gregersen suggested that renderings of a few
different door options be created for the HDC to review.
A motion that the HDC table the request to replace the original wood entry
doors on the south elevation facing W. Muskegon Avenue with woodgrain-look
steel surfaced doors was made by G. Borgman, supported by J. Huss and
approved with S. Radtke, J. Huss, D. Gregersen, G. Borgman, and K. Kochin
voting aye.
B. Case 2025-30: 390 W. Muskegon Planning
The applicant was seeking approval to replace the windows in the house
(excluding the garage windows) with single-hung vinyl windows of the same size
Page 3 of 9
and appearance including a vertical mullion within each pane, remove two
windows on the east (side) elevation and two windows on the north (rear)
elevation and side over the existing openings to match the rest of the house,
install a smaller, 30"x36" vinyl replacement window within an existing window
opening on the north elevation and side over the remaining lower portion of the
rough opening to match the rest of the house, and install gutters on the eaves
on portions of the east and north elevations. J. Lusk corrected the request to
include installation of gutters on all parts of the house, not just the east and
north elevations.
J. Pesch reviewed photos and floor plans of the house, noting the windows that
were to be removed or resized, with J. Lusk explaining the reasons for the
changes. J. Lusk stated that he planned to operate the house as a short-term
rental, reviewing the other improvements that had either begun or were
planned, and explained how those were motivating the work being reviewed
by the HDC. The HDC agreed that they did not have too many concerns with
the proposed removal and changes to the sizes of the windows since much of
that would take place on secondary elevations and improve the functionality
of the interior of the house. S. Radtke suggested that a spandrel glass window
be installed on the east elevation of the first floor to match the surrounding
three windows because the patched siding revealed that a full-sized window
had previously existed in this location. J. Pesch shared a photo from 1997 when
the house was moved to its current location and highlighted the fact that the
other windows proposed to be changed on the east elevation had been
altered at some point since then and were not original.
The HDC discussed the proposed changes to the windows on the rear
elevation, facing the alley, and the potential configurations for those windows,
ultimately settling on installing a smaller, roughly 30"x36" replacement window
within the existing window opening on the north elevation and resizing the two
windows on the right side of the north elevation to match the height of the new
window or replace that pair of windows with a single window to match the new
smaller window with the same height.
J. Pesch noted that the remaining windows on the house were proposed to be
replaced with vinyl windows that contained a false vertical mullion in both the
upper and lower sashes, to match most of the existing windows (some no longer
contained their vertical mullions, perhaps due to damage or previous
repairs/replacement). J. Lusk noted that the vinyl replacement windows being
considered could include false mullions between the glass or applied to the
outside of the glass; J. Pesch reviewed a sample motion that had been used in
other instances where the HDC had approved false mullions on replacement
windows. J. Lusk was concerned with the quality of the products that attached
Page 4 of 9
to the outside of the glass and how they might hold up to weather, but the HDC
informed him that the newest products fused the mullions to the glass, unlike the
snap-in styles used in the past. It was noted that the existing storm windows
created the illusion that a few windows had more than two panes, and J. Lusk
added that the storm windows would be removed if vinyl windows were
installed. D. Gregersen reminded the HDC that the board had previously
approved composite windows at a nearby house, and G. Borgman voiced
concern that, if approved, the requested vinyl replacement windows could
impact future requests for other houses in the historic districts. S. Ratdke
acknowledged that, while approval of vinyl windows does create awkward
conversations with other property owners requesting the same, the HDC's
decisions were not precedent-setting.
D. Gregersen asked if the porch windows would be replaced and J. Lusk stated
that they would and match the mullion pattern of the other replacement
windows. J. Huss asked what material could be approved for the replacement
windows proposed on the rear elevation and S. Radtke suggested wood or
composite.
J. Lusk explained that white, 6" gutters would be installed on the entire house
and replace very limited sections of existing gutters. J. Pesch noted the
proposed location of downspouts on the gutter plans. S. Radtke asked if the
corner boards were going to be painted the same color as the gutters, J. Lusk
stated that they would. The HDC briefly discussed the appropriate way to paint
the trim boards.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to remove two windows on the
east (side) elevation as identified in the November 4, 2025 HDC staff report and
side over the existing openings to match the rest of the house with the option to
install a spandrel glass window on the first floor matching the surrounding three
windows where there was originally a full-sized window; remove two windows on
the north (rear) elevation as identified in the November 4, 2025 HDC staff report
and side over the existing openings to match the rest of the house; install a
smaller, 30"x36" wood replacement window within an existing window opening
on the north elevation as identified in the November 4, 2025 HDC staff report
and side over the remaining lower portion of the rough opening to match the
rest of the house and resize the pair of windows on the right side of the north
elevation or replace them with a single window to match the height of the new,
shorter window and; install gutters on the eaves and downspouts around the
entire house of a color that matches the paint as long as the work meets all
zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by J.
Huss, supported by D. Gregersen, and approved with J. Huss, G. Borgman, D.
Gregersen, K. Kochin, and S. Radtke voting aye.
Page 5 of 9
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace the windows in the
house (excluding the garage windows) with single-hung vinyl windows of the
same size and appearance including grill patterns that match the existing
windows’ predominant 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 J. Huss, supported by K. Kochin, and denied with G.
Borgman, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin, S. Radtke, and J. Huss voting no.
A motion that the HDC approve replacement of the windows in the house
(excluding the garage windows) with single-hung wood or composite windows
of the same size and appearance including grill patterns that match the existing
windows’ predominant 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 D. Gregersen, supported by K. Kochin, and approved
with S. Radtke, J. Huss, D. Gregersen, G. Borgman, and K. Kochin voting aye.
J. Huss amended the first motion to include both wood and composite
replacement windows: A motion that the HDC approve the request to remove
two windows on the east (side) elevation as identified in the November 4, 2025
HDC staff report and side over the existing openings to match the rest of the
house with the option to install a spandrel glass window on the first floor
matching the surrounding three windows where there was originally a full-sized
window; remove two windows on the north (rear) elevation as identified in the
November 4, 2025 HDC staff report and side over the existing openings to
match the rest of the house; install a smaller, 30"x36" wood or composite
replacement window within an existing window opening on the north elevation
as identified in the November 4, 2025 HDC staff report and side over the
remaining lower portion of the rough opening to match the rest of the house
and resize the pair of windows on the right side of the north elevation or replace
them with a single window to match the height of the new, shorter window and;
install gutters on the eaves and downspouts around the entire house of a color
that matches the paint as long as the work meets all zoning requirements and
the necessary permits are obtained was made by J. Huss, supported by K.
Kochin, and approved with J. Huss, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin, and S.
Radtke voting aye.
C. Case 2025-31: 1187 Ransom Planning
The applicant was seeking approval to replace the rotted tongue and
groove/plywood porch floor which ran perpendicular to the front wall of the
house with 1-1/4" white oak decking boards which would run parallel with the
Page 6 of 9
front wall of the house. J. Pesch explained that the HDC allowed staff approval
of "like size tongue and groove wood planking" but changes to the
appearance of porch floors required formal review by the HDC.
M. Moran explained that the boards currently on the deck were dry-fit, not
finished, and that the reason for orienting the boards parallel with the front wall
of the house was to allow for better water drainage. S. Radtke explained that
tongue and groove porch floors ran perpendicular to the front wall of the house
on a slope to shed water away from the house. J. Huss acknowledged that,
while the floor would not be historically appropriate, a traditional tongue and
groove porch floor could still be installed in the future. J. Pesch noted that the
inclusion of replacement porch floors on the HDC Staff Approval Form spoke to
the frequency of such requests. S. Radtke explained that the old-growth wood
that was historically used on tongue and groove porch floors was far more
resistant to rot than the same floor constructed of modern wood, so he did not
have an issue with the change.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace the tongue and
groove/plywood porch floor with 1-1/4" white oak decking boards running
parallel with the front wall of the house as long as the work meets all zoning
requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by K. Kochin,
supported by G. Borgman, and approved with S. Radtke, J. Huss, G. Borgman,
D. Gregeresen, and K. Kochin voting aye.
D. Case 2025-32: 1725 Peck Planning
The applicant was seeking approval to replace the existing wood siding with
new wood siding and replace three windows on the side of the house. J. Pesch
corrected the request to include replacement of six windows, rather than the
three originally requested. He noted that these six windows - four on the south
elevation and two on the north elevation - were the smaller double-hung
windows on the second floor.
J. Pesch noted that the property owner was unable to attend the HDC's 4:00pm
regular meetings. It was requested that the contractor they planned to have
complete the work attend the meeting, but no one was in attendance so J.
Pesch attempted to answer any questions. The HDC reviewed photos of the
windows, noting that those proposed to be replaced contained horizontal
mullions; J. Pesch stated that the property owner had confirmed that the
request was for vinyl replacement windows without horizontal mullions. D.
Gregersen said that the horizontal mullions were important to the architecture
of the house, and S. Radtke agreed, noting that they were exactly the type of
windows that would be found in a streamline modern style house of this era. The
HDC asked why replacement windows were being requested and J. Pesch
reponded that it was his understanding that the existing windows were in poor
Page 7 of 9
condition; he was not sure why these six windows specifically were in worse
condition than the others since all of them appeared to be original to the
house. S. Radtke stated that he would be comfortable with wood or composite
replacement windows of the same size and appearance that retained the
horizontal mullions.
J. Pesch reviewed the recent cases at this house that had been presented to
the HDC and reminded them that the property owner was made aware of the
HDC's previous discussion on the condition of the siding. While the residing
request was the HDC's preferred option - like with like - J. Pesch stated that he
did not feel comfortable staff-approving residing of the entire house. S. Radtke
stated that any approval motion would have to specify that the new siding
have the same exposure dimensions, the same corner detailing, the same
horizontal and vertical orientations and siding types/patterns, and could not
allow for corner boards. D. Gregersen mentioned the possibility of approving
aluminum corner pieces to avoid the skill and expense of replicating the corners
and noted that the drip cap beneath the second story windows would have to
be replicated. The HDC discussed concerns with the cost of residing and the
complications that could come from residing the entire house. They
acknowledged the lesser quality of modern wood siding, and briefly discussed
what might have been the original paint scheme for the house and the
appropriate means of doing so to ensure longevity of the paint and siding.
The HDC discussed the best approach for ensuring that the work completed
would be compliant and not lead to a situation where inappropriate or
unapproved work could not be corrected. J. Pesch explained that if the HDC
approved the work and wanted it done well, the approval motion would have
to be very specific to allow staff to enforce on any work that was done outside
of the scope of the approval. D. Gregersen suggested sharing with the property
owner the significance of the unique design of the house; S. Radtke added that
he was only aware of four houses in this architectural style in the area. J. Pesch
asked if any of the board members would be comfortable meeting on-site with
the property owner (if they were willing) to discuss the house and project at a
time that they might be available to do so. S. Radtke and K. Kochin agreed to
this, and J. Pesch stated that he would contact the property owner and also
confirm what constituted a meeting of the HDC to be sure that such a meeting
would be possible.
The HDC stated that the work would be denied because it did not adhere to
the HDC local standard's Window, Door, and Exterior Woodwork Standards and
Guidelines, with no proof provided that the siding could not be repaired or
painted and that, based on the photos provided with the application, it
appeared that the siding was repairable and not deteriorated to the point
Page 8 of 9
where it needed to be replaced. Additionally, the HDC stated that no
information was provided regarding why the windows needed to be replaced,
and that the HDC generally did not approve of variations from the windows'
original mullion design.
A motion that the HDC deny the request to replace the existing wood siding
with new wood siding and replace six windows on the sides of the house as
presented at the November 4, 2025 HDC meeting was made by J. Huss,
supported by D. Gregersen, and approved with S. Radtke, J. Huss, G. Borgman,
D. Gregersen voting aye, and K. Kochin voting no.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
A. HDC Staff Approval Form Update - Temporary Ramps Planning
J. Pesch explained that, at the last regular meeting, the HDC discussed the lack
of a policy for installation of temporary accessible ramps. These were typically
aluminum, not attached to the house, and could be in use for a range of
timeframes. At that meeting, the HDC requested that a policy for review of such
features be established, and staff presented a draft version of the HDC Staff
Approval Form for additional comment and adoption.
A motion that the HDC approve the update to the Historic District Commission
Staff Approval Form to include the wording about temporary accessible ramps
presented at the November 4, 2025 HDC meeting was made by J. Huss,
supported by K. Kochin, and approved with G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, K.
Kochin, S. Radtke, and J. Huss voting aye.
PUBLIC COMMENT
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:07 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jamie Pesch, Planner
Page 9 of 9
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails