View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEETING
December 2, 2025 @ 4:00 PM
MUSKEGON CITY HALL, ROOM 204
933 TERRACE STREET, MUSKEGON, MI 49440
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
J. Huss called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM and roll was taken.
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Huss, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin, C. Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT:
MEMBERS EXCUSED: S. Radtke
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch
OTHERS PRESENT: AJ Ademovic (74 Delaware), M. Moran (1187 Ransom)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of minutes of the October 22, 2025 special meeting and
November 4, 2025 regular meeting. Planning
J. Pesch stated that the draft meeting minutes for November 4, 2025 were not
yet complete. A motion to approve the special meeting minutes of October 22,
2025 was made by K. Kochin, supported by D. Gregersen, and approved with J.
Huss, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, K. Kochin, and C. Davis voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Case 2025-28: 74 Delaware Planning
Page 1 of 5
J. Pesch reviewed the approval motion from the HDC’s October 22nd meeting,
and explained that the main change to the request was for replacement
windows that did not match what was approved previously. AJ Ademovic
provided dimensioned drawings of the existing conditions at the house and the
window configuration he was proposing (it was determined that the drawing of
the east elevation was mirrored) and explained that he was unable to find
windows that matched the original windows’ mullion patterns that were not
significantly more expensive. AJ Ademovic reminded the HDC that many of the
windows had already been removed by the time he owned the house, and J.
Pesch referenced photos to show that many of the windows that had been
removed were still in place after AJ Ademovic took ownership.
Regarding the second floor windows on the front elevation, AJ Ademovic
explained that the previous windows could not be opened and would not meet
the building code requirements for egress – replacing the windows on the
second floor would allow at least one means of code-compliant egress, but the
overall rough opening was likely not wide enough to fit three windows in the
way that they previously appeared while still meeting code. K. Kochin
confirmed with the Building Inspections Department that a window had to be a
minimum of 5.2 square feet in area and a minimum of 24 inches wide to be
used for egress. D. Gregersen suggested that if three double-hung windows
could not fit within the existing opening, the two side windows could be
narrower casement windows with a false meeting rail to appear as double-
hung windows.
J. Pesch asked if the window on the second floor of the front elevation was
temporary and AJ Ademovic stated that it was and would be replaced with
windows that the HDC approved. J. Huss stated that the two most visible
elevations – the front and west side – were important to replicate the window
configuration that was previously used; the proposal to install three windows on
the side elevation where there were previously seven was far from replicating
that appearance. The HDC decided that the windows above the front porch,
the windows on the front porch, and the windows in the bump-out on the west
side elevation (the window to the left of the bump-out may not have been
original), and the three on the dormer on the west elevation were important to
replicate. D. Gregersen suggested that the two largest center windows on the
front and west side elevations could contain a false meeting rail and otherwise
be fixed. K. Kochin stated that there were products available that would mimic
the appearance of mullions that could be installed fairly easily and possibly
avoid the need for custom windows.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace the wood siding with
vinyl siding with a 4" reveal, retain or replicate the original window and door trim
Page 2 of 5
including the crown moldings above the windows and doors as well as rafter
details, replace damaged or missing windows on the south (front) and west
(side) elevations within the same rough openings with vinyl windows of the same
number, configuration, design, and size within 1”-2” of the dimensions of the
windows depicted in the November 2022 photos included in the December 2,
2025 HDC staff report and including applied mullions affixed to the exterior of
the glass to match the original windows; on the north (rear) and east (side)
elevations the replacement vinyl windows shall match the drawings presented
at the December 2, 2025 HDC meeting, reconstruct the damaged portion of
the brick front porch with new brick to match the remaining portion of the
porch, and replace the exterior doors with a craftsman or foursquare-style door
as illustrated in the HDC door style guide 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 C. Davis, D. Gregersen, G.
Borgman, K. Kochin, and J. Huss voting aye.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Case 2025-33: 1187 Ransom Planning
The applicant was seeking approval to replace the second floor windows with
vinyl windows of the same size and appearance.
M. Moran stated that all of the second floor windows would be replaced, but
the windows on the first floor would be retained. G. Borgman noted that there
appeared to be a number of original storm windows still in use, and M. Moran
said that there were about six functional storm windows, but many others had
rotted wood. K. Kochin was concerned that a future owner could request to
replace the first floor windows with vinyl windows. J. Pesch stated that the first
floor windows – especially the porch windows and a few of the larger windows
on the side of the house – differed significantly from the plain double-hung
windows used on the second floor and should be evaluated differently by the
HDC as a result.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace the second floor
windows with vinyl windows of the same size and appearance 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, K. Kochin, D.
Gregersen, C. Davis, and G. Borgman voting aye.
B. Case 2025-34: 1586 Jefferson Planning
The applicant was seeking approval to replace two side entry doors on the
south side of the house with replacement wood doors with windows. J. Pesch
Page 3 of 5
noted that the property owner was completing a number of repairs and
improvements to the house that could be approved by staff, but replacement
doors required formal review by the HDC.
J. Huss noted that the addition that contained the doors in question appeared
to be far more modern than the majority of the house. J. Pesch noted that there
were only photos available of one of the doors and the other was obscured by
a storm door, but likely matched; both doors were minimally visible from the
street and may have dated from the time that the addition was built if they
were not replaced more recently. J. Pesch explained that the photo of the
proposed replacement door may not contain the exact stained glass window
that was being proposed, but that those windows were to match the glass in
the stair (of which there was no photo). D. Gregersen stated that the door
looked very nice but noted that it was an Arts and Crafts-style door that did not
match the Tudor-style house – he suggested a change that would make the
proposed door into a more appropriate nine-panel door containing the same
three lights that were proposed. J. Huss suggested that the door D. Gregersen
described could be approved as an alternate in addition to the proposed door.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace two side entry doors on
the south side of the house with replacement wood doors with windows as
depicted in the December 2, 2025 HDC staff report or the alternative door
suggested as a more appropriate, Tudor-style design 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 C. Davis, G. Borgman,
D. Gregersen, J. Huss, and K. Kochin voting aye.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
A. 2026 HDC Meeting Schedule Planning
J. Pesch shared the draft meeting schedule for 2026. The HDC reviewed the
schedule and found no necessary changes.
A motion to accept the 2026 HDC monthly meeting dates as presented was
made by G. Borgman, supported by K. Kochin, and approved with C. Davis, G.
Borgman, D. Gregersen, J. Huss, and K. Kochin voting aye.
PUBLIC COMMENT
ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 of 5
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jamie Pesch, Planner
Page 5 of 5
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails