View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEETING
April 7, 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 4:00pm and roll was taken.
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Radtke, D. Gregersen, J. Huss, G. Borgman, C. Davis, K.
Kochin
MEMBERS ABSENT:
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
STAFF PRESENT: J. Pesch
OTHERS PRESENT: D. Melinn, 1011 2nd; A. Fairfield (Advanced Signs), 477 W.
Western; J. Zappacosta (Hackley Public Library) and K. Nyht (Fishbeck), 315 W.
Webster; P. Stone, 1752 Jefferson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of minutes of the March 3, 2026 regular meeting. Planning
A motion to approve the minutes of the March 3, 2026 regular meeting was made by G. Borgman,
supported by J. Huss, and approved S. Radtke, C. Davis, K. Kochin, D. Gregersen, G. Borgman,
and J. Huss voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Case 2026-04: 1011 2nd Planning
J. Pesch reminded the HDC that this case was tabled at the March 3rd meeting,
but stated that more information was shared since then. The applicant was
Page 1 of 7
seeking approval to relocate two existing, formerly roof-mounted air
conditioning units (one from each side of the sanctuary) to the ground, install
the necessary conduit within a copper drain pipe to match the existing copper
downspouts, and conceal the new ground units in a stone wall-appearing wrap
and a vegetative screen.
D. Melinn explained that the roof-mounted units were expensive to maintain as
they had to be removed from the roof for servicing. S. Radtke noted that the
relocation of the units seemed to be a necessary change, that the units would
not be especially visible from the ground with the proposed screening, and that
the plan to run the conduit through a copper drain pipe that resembled the
building's downspouts would further hide their presence.
A motion to approve the request to relocate two existing, roof-mounted air
conditioning units to the ground, install the necessary conduit within a copper
drain pipe to match the existing copper downspouts, and conceal the units in a
stone wall-appearing wrap and a vegetative screen as presented in the April 7,
2026 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 J.
Huss, and approved with J. Huss, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, S. Radtke, K.
Kochin, and C. Davis voting aye.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Case 2026-05: 315 W. Webster Planning
The applicant was seeking approval to construct a new one-story entry
vestibule addition on the building's west (W. Webster Avenue) elevation,
construct a new three-story stair tower vestibule addition on the north (side) and
east (rear) elevations, infill one first-story window with cast stone block on the
west elevation, install a new second-story window matching the existing
windows in appearance, proportion, and detailing in the location of a former
window on the west elevation, replace damaged stone window sills with cast
stone replacement sills and replace missing stone units with new cast stone
pieces on the west and north elevations where necessary, install a cast stone
medallion on the building corner where the former building addition was
attached, remove the non-original brick covering the existing stained-glass
window on the north elevation, and install a decorative wall panel over the
affected section of the north elevation where the former building was attached
that incorporated architectural elements from the new entry and stair tower.
K. Nyht presented the project to the HDC, explaining that Fishbeck was working
Page 2 of 7
with the Hackley Public Library to adapt the Torrent House for modern use while
still being respectful of the building’s existing fabric. The new one-story addition
on the west elevation would move the front porch out about four feet and
cover a new chair lift and entry vestibule; that entry would offer an alternative
to the only existing accessible entrance on the rear of the building, which was
an exterior elevator door exposed to the elements.
K. Nyht described the existing circulation which consisted of two stairways for
part of the building, but only a single stairway from the third floor which was
rather narrow and steep. The third floor contained the former ballroom, which
was the largest space in the building; with only one means of access, the space
was currently limited in its capacity and less useful to the programming the
library hoped to provide. The three-story stair tower vestibule proposed at the
rear of the building would both create a new stair to connect all floors as well as
provide an indoor space from which one could access the elevator from
ground level. This addition would be of a modest size due to the property line
being so close to the existing building.
G. Borgman asked if there was a rendering depicting the two additions. K. Nyht
stated that they were still in a very conceptual stage of the design – this
information was being presented as a proof of concept – so no rendering was
available, and that they were still open to discussion of the additions’
appearance, materials, etc. The HDC reviewed the proposed drawings and
existing condition photos that were included in the staff report.
S. Radtke asked about the choice to use cast stone rather than reusing stone
salvaged from the existing building where demolition, new connections, doors,
or windows, were planned. K. Nyht explained that the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards called for differentiation between old and new materials unless
sufficient documentation existed for reconstructing the historic parts of the
building that were lost or damaged in the 1950s. The proposed use of cast stone
came out of this approach as it was felt that it would blend well with the existing
stone while not attempting to replicate it. S. Radtke asked what type of cast
stone was being considered and K. Nyht stated that a rough-faced stone with a
similar, but perhaps darker or lighter, tone. S. Radtke suggested using a smooth-
face cast stone particularly on the new addition’s columns, and that if enough
of the original stone could be repurposed to clad the front addition at least
below the watercourse, it would go a long way in blending the new with the
old. G. Borgman asked if the library had any success in tracking down the
original limestone quarry and J. Zappacosta stated that they had not, but even
if they had, it would not match perfectly with the stone which is used on the
building because it had not weathered in the same way. He added that
sourcing the stone was also likely to be cost-prohibitive.
Page 3 of 7
J. Huss asked if any of the provided drawings specified where cast stone was
proposed to be installed and noted that the cast stone medallion and
decorative wall panels mentioned were not actually shown; she stated that she
would not be willing to approve them without seeing them. K. Nyht explained
that the drawings were conceptual and further detail would be provided once
they know they are heading in the right direction.
K. Nyht described the challenge of keeping the building’s historic, residential
feeling while still meeting commercial building codes with the additions. The
additions, as proposed, would use a lot of glass so as to keep the original
building visible rather than block it. The HDC discussed the proposed muntin
patterns on the new additions and S. Radtke stated that he could see simply
using a single pane of glass as an option that would reference the Victorian
era’s use of large panes of glass as opposed to the proposed prairie-style
muntin patterns which were commonly associated with the arts and crafts style.
J. Pesch asked if the original building’s differing floor heights were the reason
each of the windows on the three-story addition was shorter than the one
below it and K. Nyht stated that it was.
J. Pesch asked whether there had been any consideration for building the front
addition out to the edge of the building to where the historic porch once
extended. K. Nyht stated that doing so could help mask some of the damage
from the former addition. D. Gregersen asked if the existing front porch would
be moved out and K. Nyht confirmed that it would be moved out about four
feet closer to the front property line. D. Gregersen asked whether the roof of the
proposed front porch would align with where the roof of the original front porch
connected to the house just below the second-story windowsills. K. Nyht stated
that they thought this was the same connection point but did not have great
documentation of how this once appeared. J. Pesch and J. Zappacosta stated
that there were better photographs than what had been made available to
Fishbeck to date, and offered to share them.
J. Pesch noted that the possibility of reviewing this project in multiple phases was
an approach the HDC had utilized in the past, including a few, recent, nearby
projects. J. Zappacosta and the HDC members discussed the process of final
review and approval of the project and agreed that, at this meeting, approving
the project in concept would provide a foothold that both guaranteed the
HDC a more detailed review at a future meeting and also offered the library
assurance that the project was on the right track and could continue to move
forward from the HDC’s conceptual approval.
J. Pesch asked the board if there were any “must haves” that they would like to
see the next time this project was reviewed. J. Huss noted that more detail on
what the cast stone and medallions would look like along with the proposed
Page 4 of 7
decorative wall panel. S. Radtke asked to see more detail on the proposed final
appearance of the two additions based on the discussion at the meeting; if the
footprint of that addition was extended to match that of the historic porch, he
suggested changing a pair of columns on the front addition near the steps to a
single column. G. Borgman requested renderings that showed the front
addition, but noted that renderings of both additions would be helpful.
A motion that the HDC approve the request, in concept, to construct a new
one-story entry vestibule addition on the west (W. Webster Avenue) elevation
and a new three-story stair tower vestibule addition on the north (side) and east
(rear) elevations was made by J. Huss, supported by K. Kochin, and approved
with K. Kochin, C. Davis, G. Borgman, D. Gregersen, J. Huss, and S. Radtke voting
aye.
B. Case 2026-06: 477 W. Western Planning
The applicant was seeking approval to install a 49 square foot internally-lit wall
sign on the south elevation of the building. J. Pesch noted that the 49 square
foot measurement was determined by drawing a rectangle around the full
extent of the sign, but the sign itself was composed of standalone letters and a
logo with no background.
S. Radtke asked if the connection points into the building could be limited to the
mortar joints rather than the face of the bricks and A. Fairfield stated that they
could limit them to the mortar. J. Pesch reviewed the wall sign requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the size of the sign would fall within the size
limitations. S. Radtke asked if the area of the sign face was calculated by
drawing a rectangle around the sign or by measuring the area of each
individual letter, as he had heard of both methods used in different
municipalities. J. Pesch said the area of each letter or logo was measured,
though the information provided in this application calculated the area by
using a rectangle containing the sign’s content, so in reality, it was smaller than
49 square feet.
J. Pesch also reviewed the HDC’s Local Standards’ Sign Policy which noted that
illuminated signs should be externally illuminated; he noted that the HDC could
approve signs that did not comply with their Local Standards as the HDC had
previously approved a projecting sign for this same property that did not
comply with the Sign Policy. J. Huss stated that the internally-lit sign would be
less obtrusive than one with separate, external light fixtures.
A motion to approve the request to install a 49 square foot internally-lit wall sign
on the south elevation of the building with attachment points in the mortar as
depicted in the April 7, 2026 HDC staff report as long as the work meets all
Page 5 of 7
zoning requirements and the necessary permits are obtained was made by J.
Huss, supported by C. Davis, and approved with S. Radtke, J. Huss, D.
Gregersen, G. Borgman, C. Davis, and K. Kochin voting aye.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
A. Historic Resource Survey Work Planning
The HDC discussed completing a historic resource survey for a few existing
historic districts and adjacent areas. J. Pesch summarized his recent meeting
with staff from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to review the HDC's
options for carrying out such work. A Certified Local Government (CLG) grant
was deemed to be the HDC’s best option for hiring a historic preservation
consultant to complete survey work. J. Pesch noted that the possibility of having
HDC members and City staff handle much of the on-the-ground survey work
had been tried in other communities, but according the SHPO, was not typically
a helpful approach; each consultant tends to have their own process, and that
can be complicated with too many people involved in a project. J. Pesch
noted that this did not eliminate the potential for HDC members and staff to
participate in the survey work, as SHPO staff noted that such
involvement/training was common, as long as it was planned for in advance
and specified in the contract for the work.
The HDC asked staff to provide a summary of the locations that had been
considered for survey based on their discussions that had taken place to date.
Such a list would help to narrow the scope of the work included in a future grant
application.
PUBLIC COMMENT
P. Stone from the Jefferson Historic District attended the meeting to keep up-to-
date on things that were happening in the community. She asked about the
CLG grant program, and J. Pesch offered a summary of the City’s certification
and what types of projects were eligible for grant funds.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:22pm.
Page 6 of 7
Respectfully Submitted,
Jamie Pesch, Planner
Page 7 of 7
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails