View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEETING
February 3, 2026 @ 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 3:58 PM and roll was taken.
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: K. Kochin, S. Radtke, D. Gregersen, J. Huss, G. Borgman, C.
Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT:
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch, W. Webster
OTHERS PRESENT: D. Ruck,1604 Peck
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of the minutes of the January 6, 2026 regular meeting.
Planning
A motion to approve the minutes of the January 6, 2026 regular meeting was
made by G. Borgman, supported by K. Kochin, and approved S. Radtke, C.
Davis, K. Kochin, and D. Gregersen voting aye, and G. Borgman and J. Huss
abstaining.
OLD BUSINESS
A. 2025 CLG Annual Report Planning
This item was initially discussed at the January 6, 2026 meeting. J. Pesch
explained that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requires that all
Certified Local Government (CLG) communities submit an annual report to be
Page 1 of 6
in good standing and remain eligible for grant funding and technical assistance
activities. The board reviewed the previous year’s annual report and J. Pesch
provided a summary of comments received from Historic District Commissioners
since the last meeting to serve as a starting point for further conversation.
What are Muskegon’s top historic preservation goals for 2026?
1. Increase awareness of Muskegon's local historic districts within the
community through presentations to Neighborhood Associations on
historic districts and HDC procedures. Present or provide information on
the same to area realtors. J. Pesch explained that only the McLaughlin
and Nelson neighborhoods contained historic districts, but presentations
could be given to other Neighborhood Associations, if desired. The HDC
agreed that it was important to retain this as a goal, as such presentations
had not taken place in 2025. J. Pesch stated that he would share draft
presentation content as well as some success stories; once the
presentation content was finalized, he would request to be included on
the two neighborhoods’ meeting calendars.
2. J. Pesch stated that a previous, unachieved goal was to apply to the
SHPO Community Partnership Program to complete a survey of historic
resources for one (or more) of Muskegon’s existing historic districts, but
that it was unclear if that program was still active. It was decided that if
the program was inactive, other SHPO resources could be explored. Staff
and the board reviewed the process of creating new local historic
districts, changing the boundaries of the existing districts, or eliminating
existing districts. J. Pesch noted that a historic preservation consultant
would likely be hired to complete a historic resource survey due to staff
time limitations, but that some of the work could likely be carried out by
staff and willing Historic District Commissioners. The HDC asked about
specific goals and deadlines, and was curious about how involved the
Commission would need to be. J. Pesch shared that he would contact
SHPO to gather additional information and share that at a future meeting.
3. Remain a resource for others to understand the history of our city and
maintain relationships with other local organizations that share similar
purposes. The board discussed creating helpful documents on common
topics to provide owners with resources to complete improvements to
their homes. J. Pesch and S. Radtke explained the resources that they
had started creating for topics such as historic windows repair and
maintenance and porches/porch railings.
What is one thing you would like the new CLG coordinator to understand about
your community and local preservation activities/needs?
The HDC referenced the previous year’s answer which focused on the range
Page 2 of 6
of abilities and financial resources of property owners in the historic districts
and the difficulties that can come along with upholding their local standards.
There was an interest in how other communities dealt with similar struggles,
and the previously suggested roundtable meetings were again discussed. J.
Pesch stated that he had not heard any feedback about this topic from
SHPO staff, but would include the goal again on the 2025 annual report. The
board discussed the possibility of attending another city’s HDC meeting and
J. Pesch stated that he would review their schedules and try to reach out to
the appropriate staff liaison prior to attending.
What accomplishment/achievement/event from 2025 is your HDC most proud
of? Or is there a preservation success story from your community that you would
like to highlight?
The board discussed the house at 448 W. Muskegon – which was once on the
City’s Dangerous Buildings list but had since started renovations – and 1095
3rd which was meeting both the goals of the HDC and helping to address the
housing shortage.
Describe any problems, issues, or challenges (e.g., economic, political,
operational) encountered in the local preservation program in 2025.
The HDC discussed the increased costs of building materials and labor
making it more difficult for property owners to invest in higher quality work
and/or historically appropriate materials. They noted that a very specific issue
in recent years had been the lack of available, non-vinyl, alternate siding
materials, as was the lack of local sources for historic wood window repair
and replacement. All of this put pressure on property owners to consider less
preferred replacement materials due to cost and availability of labor.
What are the most critical preservation issues/needs facing your community?
While less of an issue in the historic districts themselves, it was cited that
vacant houses and buildings in the city frequently become too expensive for
new owners to rehab and preserve. This was noted as an ongoing problem
thanks to decades of disinvestment. As property owners were faced with the
decision to renovate or demolish/build new, demolition was too often the
outcome. The board acknowledged that the local historic districts only
encompassed a small portion of the city, leaving a concerning lack of
protections for many properties.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Case 2026-02: 1604 Peck Planning
Page 3 of 6
The applicant was seeking approval to replace the paneling on the enclosed
rear porch with cedar shake, replace the aluminum jalousie windows with
custom-built period-appropriate windows, replace the metal posts with new
porch columns, and update the trim to match the trim on the rest of the house.
The components of the proposed porch design were shown in two renderings,
and several scenarios were presented by the applicant and suggestions by the
committee for the rear three-season porch.
D. Ruck explained that he was thinking that the final design would likely be a
combination of the two renderings, but that it would definitely remain enclosed.
He planned to replace the existing wrought iron columns with columns that
more closely matched those used on the front porch and explained that the
new back porch window mullions were not finalized. D. Ruck noted the various
window designs used in the house and stated that he planned to build the
replacement windows himself to be historically appropriate. J. Pesch stated that
there were no known historic photos of the rear porch that predated installation
of the jalousie windows. D. Gregersen stated that it would make sense that the
proposed replacement windows on the back porch match the design of other
windows on the house. D. Ruck explained that many interior features and some
exterior windows - including leaded glass windows - had been removed at
some point; he also considered creating replacement windows of that style.
S. Radtke stated that he felt the current design of the porch contained too
much solid material around the door and that including sidelights and a
transom above the door on the redesigned porch would allow the door to
disappear more and bring it more in line with the original, unenclosed porch
design. D. Ruck questioned whether that might make the back door compete
with the front door which had sidelights and a transom. The HDC favored the
open porch rendering, but D. Ruck stated that he was struggling with how to
achieve that look while retaining the functionality of an enclosed porch. The
board felt that there would be a way to meet in the middle and shared an
example of the former front porch at 1378 5th Street in the Campus Historic
District that could be used for reference. D. Ruck was concerned about the
round columns and the cost of column capitals that matched those used on
the front porch. S. Radtke stated that square columns could be appropriate for
the reach porch, but D. Ruck noted that he would prefer to reuse mismatched
columns from the front porch that could match on the rear porch.
J. Huss left at 5:15 PM.
S. Radke explained that the HDC would need more details to approve a new
design for the rear porch. D. Ruck stated that he wanted to install cedar shakes
where there was white car siding on the rear porch as a test to see what he
Page 4 of 6
would like before he completed any more extensive work. The board agreed
that this work could be approved on a temporary basis with the intent being
that the final design of the rear porch would be submitted for review. G.
Borgman stated that the HDC could require that the cedar shake be removed if
the porch redesign was not completed.
A motion that the HDC approve the request to replace the car siding on the
enclosed rear porch with cedar shakes on a temporary basis, with any further
work pending approval of the final design for the rear porch was made by G.
Borgman, supported by K. Kochin, and approved with S. Radtke, C. Davis, G.
Borgman, D. Gregersen, and K. Kochin voting aye.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
A. Discussion on HDC Motions Planning
J. Pesch reviewed the process of creating final motions for cases heard at
meetings, adding that this topic was last reviewed in 2018, and only one current
HDC member was on the board at that time. He stated that, moving forward,
motions should be written with greater specificity in order for them to be legally
enforceable, if enforcement of an HDC decision ever be necessary. The board
reviewed a recent motion that could be interpreted in a number of different
ways and J. Pesch explained that the suggested motions he included in the
staff reports only had as much detail as was provided by the applicant; they
could be too vague and require more detailed language crafted by the HDC
during a meeting.
B. Froebel School National Register Nomination Form Review Planning
Staff was notified that Pinnacle Construction Group, involved with the pending
renovation of Froebel School at 417 Jackson Avenue, is pursuing National
Register of Historic Places designation for the school building. The nomination
form was to be presented to the State Historic Preservation Review Board on
March 6, 2026, 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 had an opportunity to review the
nomination form and did not have comments and was generally impressed with
what was written. The board discussed the various design changes to
Muskegon's school buildings through the years, and shared their excitement to
see that Froebel would be appropriately renovated.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
Page 5 of 6
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:11 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jamie Pesch, Planner
Page 6 of 6
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails