View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, June 11, 2015
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Commission Chambers, First Floor, Muskegon City Hall
AGENDA
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes from the regular meeting of May 14, 2015.
III. Public Hearings
A. Hearing, Case 2015-11: Request for an outdoor wedding ceremony venue in a B-3, Central
Business District at 1104 6th St and 520 W Clay Ave, by Kait Irey.
IV. New Business
A. Case 2015-12: Request for a site plan review for an addition to the surgery center at 1365 & 1400
Mercy Dr.
B. Planning Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals Training
V. Old Business
VI. Other
VII. Adjourn
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT POLICY FOR ACCESS TO OPEN MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION AND ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES
The City of Muskegon will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as signers for the hearing impaired and audio tapes
of printed materials being considered at the meeting, to individuals with disabilities who want to attend the meeting, upon twenty-four hour
notice to the City of Muskegon. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or services should contact the City of Muskegon by
writing or calling the following:
Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, MI 49440
(231) 724-6705
TTY/TDD: Dial 7-1-1 and request that a representative dial 231-724-6705
1
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
April 16, 2015
Board member J. Doyle called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Mazade, S. Wisneski, J. Doyle, L. Spataro, S. Gawron, F. Peterson, B.
Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: B. Larson, excused; T. Michalski, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: D. VanRiper, 2411 Barclay; E. Sloan, 2407 Barclay; J. Huizenga, 102 Eugene;
D. Boss, M. Landis, Parmenter O’Toole
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the special meeting of March 12, 2015 be approved, was made by S. Wisneski,
supported by F. Peterson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2015-06: Request for a Special Use Permit to allow a self-storage facility in a B-4, General
Business District at 0 Barclay St (property numbers 24-036-400-0007-00, 24-036-400-0014-20, 24-036-400-
0014-30), by Thaddeus Kling and Exit Your Way, LLC. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The current
lot configuration of this area is split into four parcels. The first page of the site plan shows a proposed survey
that splits the lots so that there will be three separate parcels in front, with a 66-foot ingress and egress drive
to the north of the property. This easement will provide access to the residentially zoned parcel in the back.
There are two property owners involved in this project, Exit Your Way, LLC and Thaddeus J Kling. Exit
Your Way, LLC owns the southernmost parcel and the residentially zoned parcel in the back (west). The
residentially zoned parcel was approved as a residential PUD; however, the project did not materialize and
the time frame for the PUD has expired. The owner of the PUD parcel has provided a written statement to the
Planning Department acknowledging that the PUD has expired. Mini-storage facilities are allowed as a
Special Use in B-4 districts under certain conditions. This plan does not meet the following requirements: a)
Direct access to a major thoroughfare (although it is located just off of Sherman Blvd); b) Only four parking
spaces are provided, none of them located in Phase 1; and c) Lighting is not depicted. The required 10-foot
landscaping berm is shown in front of the property. However, staff recommends that the rear of the property
be landscaped as well, with large canopy and coniferous trees to screen the property from future residential
development to the west. Notice was given to property owners within 300 feet of the property; staff had not
received any comments at the time of this writing.
L. Spataro had some concerns with the site plan, including the lack of a sidewalk, the minimal parking, and
2
landscaping at the rear of the property. He stated that it was important to provide a buffer between this site
and the adjacent residential area. D. VanRiper lived near the site and was opposed to the request, stating that
it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. She stated that unattended places like that tended to draw a
criminal element, it would increase traffic through the residential area, and displace wildlife in the wooded
area. E. Sloan also lived in the area and stated that she was opposed to the request for similar reasons. J.
Huizenga was the developer. He stated that they planned to create a nice facility with good security, and
they were willing to landscape the property to help it fit in with the neighborhood. He also stated that it
would increase the tax base for the City.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Smith, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously
approved.
B. Smith questioned the lack of parking spaces. J. Huizenga stated that this facility consisted of drive-up
units where people would park in front of their unit to load or unload, which is why they didn’t see a need to
include a separate parking area. He also did not want excess parking drawing people to loiter there. L.
Spataro believed that it was important to include a sidewalk on the property to improve walkability. S.
Wisneski disagreed, stating that no other properties on the west side of Barclay had a sidewalk. L. Spataro
pointed out that the City had been requiring sidewalks for new developments for the past several years.
A motion that the special land use permit, per Section 1301 of Article XIII of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow
a mini-storage facility at 0 Barclay St (property numbers 24-036-400-0007-00, 24-036-400-0014-20, 24-036-
400-0014-30), by Thaddeus Kling and Exit Your Way, LLC be approved based on compliance with the
City’s Master Land Use Plan and with the conditions that 1) Lighting with 100% cutoff is shown on the site
plan, 2) Landscaping with canopy and coniferous trees is added to the rear of the property, and 3) The lot is
split to reflect the proposed survey, which gives a 66-foot easement to lot #24-746-000-0000-00, was made
by B. Mazade and supported by S. Wisneski, with discussion continuing on the motion. L. Spataro brought
up the sidewalk issue and made a motion to amend the first motion to include the requirement to add a
sidewalk on the property. The amended motion was supported by F. Peterson. S. Wisneski asked if the
setback was far enough back to accommodate a sidewalk. M. Franzak stated that it was. J. Doyle asked if
the 66-foot egress area would require a sidewalk also. L. Spataro stated that his motion did not take that into
consideration, but it could be addressed at the time the property was developed.
A vote on the original motion to approve the special land use permit with the conditions listed above was
taken and approved, with B. Mazade, S. Wisneski, J. Doyle, L. Spataro, S. Gawron, F. Peterson, and B.
Smith voting aye.
A vote on the amended motion to add a condition that a sidewalk be included on the property was taken and
approved, with B. Mazade, S. Wisneski, J. Doyle, L. Spataro, S. Gawron, F. Peterson, and B. Smith voting
aye.
Hearing, Case 2015-07: Request for several amendments to the Planned Unit Development (including, but
not limited to, lot configurations, building height requirements and the removal of street lighting) at 650
3
Terrace Point Drive, by Terrace Point Landing, LLC. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The applicant
has requested several revisions to the plan, including lot configurations, setback definitions and maximum
building height. He had also requested the elimination of street lights, and instead proposed having porch
lights on every property. Staff recommended against the elimination of the street lights. The applicant has
since decided that he will install six street lights in 250-foot intervals throughout the property, and staff is
comfortable with that. Information on the proposed street light design was provided. Lots 12 through 17
have been reconfigured to provide more buildable lots. The plan has been revised to clarify the side yard
setback requirements with regard to eaves, uncovered steps, chimneys, etc. These minor items would be
permitted to have only a 3-foot side yard setback, compared to a 5-foot setback for all other parts of the
homes. There is a typo on #28 of the Sears Architects document: It should read that these items “may
encroach into all side yard setbacks.” The plan also clarifies rear yard setback requirements with regard to
waterfront vs. interior lots. Waterfront lines must be placed inside the 100 year floodplain, and interior lots
must be set back at least 15 feet from the rear property line. The plan has also been revised to reflect a
maximum building height of 45 feet with a maximum number of three stories, not including roof decks and
access to them. The plan was previously approved for a maximum of two stories and 35 feet.
L. Spataro stated that, due to the characteristics of the soil on this site, many of the homes would not be able
to have a basement. He asked if that was the reason for requesting the additional building height. D. Boss
stated that was correct. M. Franzak stated that staff had been working on a street alignment issue, and he
presented a statement that he requested be included in the motion: “the street alignment issue will be worked
out by staff and approved by City Commission which may limit or eliminate the potential to build on lot 62.”
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by S. Wisneski and unanimously
approved.
A motion that the amendments to the final PUD for a residential development at 650 Terrace Point be
approved pursuant to the determination of compliance with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City
Master Land Use Plan with the conditions that 1) Consumers Energy must prepare the street light plans and
install as part of the City’s street light system, 2) The plan be revised to delete sections regarding the removal
of the street lights and the addition of porch lights, and 3) the street alignment issue will be worked out by
staff and approved by City Commission which may limit or eliminate the potential to build on lot 62, was
made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Mazade and unanimously approved, with B. Mazade, S. Wisneski, J.
Doyle, L. Spataro, S. Gawron, F. Peterson, and B. Smith voting aye.
Hearing, Case 2015-08: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2313 (Community Gardens) of the zoning
ordinance and replace it with an urban farming ordinance. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The
proposed ordinance has undergone additional changes since the last revision was emailed to board members
in March. The proposed ordinance would allow community gardens to sell produce commercially without
being considered a farm as long as the profits from the sales are put back into the organization that benefits
the community. Urban Commercial Farms are strictly for-profit ventures. Community Gardens are principal
uses permitted in B-1, B-5, MC, and all residential zones. Urban Commercial Farms would be allowed in the
same districts, but would be required to obtain a Special Use Permit from the Planning Commission. This
would involve a public hearing, and neighbors within 300 feet of the property would be notified. Also,
Urban Commercial Farms may only be an accessory use to a property and must be located on a property that
4
already has a house or a business. Urban Commercial Farms would not be allowed on vacant parcels;
community gardens are allowed on vacant parcels. On-site sales would not be allowed unless the
Community Garden or Urban Commercial Farm is located in a district that allows for commercial sales of
goods. M. Franzak provided board members with an information sheet clarifying the differences between
Community Gardens, Urban Commercial Farms, and Private Gardens.
B. Mazade observed that the ordinance would allow sales of produce, and asked about the Right To Farm
Act implications. M. Landis, City Attorney, discussed her research on that issue with board members. She
stated that it was highly unlikely that the Right To Farm Act would be invoked, since we were not dealing
with GAAMPS. F. Peterson stated that many communities were struggling with this topic, and it was
important to get an ordinance in place.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by F. Peterson, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously
approved.
M. Franzak stated that F. Peterson pointed out that the suggested motion did not address private gardens. He
asked that, when a motion was made, that it include private gardens as an allowed principal or accessory
structure. B. Mazade stated that he still had concerns with the ordinance as proposed. Although he
supported the notion of community gardens when they first became popular, he was concerned about
allowing the sales of produce for profit. In addition, the ordinance did not cover what type of crops would be
allowed. S. Wisneski was also concerned with allowing produce sales and Right To Farm Act implications.
L. Spataro shared those concerns but believed that the proposed ordinance sufficiently addressed those, and
was a reasonable compromise between balancing the needs of those who wanted to farm with those of the
neighbors who wanted to live in a peaceful residential neighborhood.
A motion that the proposed amendment to Section 2313 of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance, to
replace the Community Gardens ordinance with the proposed Urban Farming ordinance, and to amend the
definition of Private Garden to include them as a principal or accessory use, be recommended to the City
Commission for approval was made by L. Spataro, supported by S. Gawron and approved, with J. Doyle, L.
Spataro, S. Gawron, F. Peterson, and B. Smith voting aye, and B. Mazade and S. Wisneski voting nay.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
5
STAFF REPORT
June 11, 2015
Hearing, Case 2015-11: Request for an outdoor wedding ceremony venue in a B-3, Central Business
District at 1104 6th St and 520 W Clay Ave, by Kait Irey.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. The property is located in a B-3, Central Business District. This district allows similar uses, such as
assembly/rental halls and outdoor music concert halls, as a special use permitted.
2. This special use permit would allow wedding services and similar uses, but would not allow
receptions. There are several reception halls near this location. The Planning Commission may
restrict the hours of usage at the site.
3. The parcels combined measure about 135’ x 140’, which is about .42 acres.
4. The venue would hold seating for about 200 people.
5. Bathrooms are not proposed at this time; however, staff is currently researching the building codes to
see if they are required, even though a principal structure is not being built.
6. A small parking area, about 2,850 sf in size, will be constructed off of the alley.
7. Notice was sent to all properties within 300 feet of the property. At the time of this writing, staff had
not received any comments.
1104 6th St and 520 W Clay Ave looking south from the alley
Zoning Map
6
Aerial Photo
7
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the special land use permit to allow an outdoor wedding venue at 1104 6th St and 520 W Clay, by
Kait Irey, be (approved/denied/tabled), based on (compliance/lack of compliance) with the City’s Master
Land Use Plan and conditions set forth in Section 2203 of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance (based on
the following conditions--only if approved):
8
Case 2015-12: Request for a site plan review for an addition to the surgery center at 1365 & 1400 Mercy Dr.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. The Muskegon Surgery Center is located at 1400 Mercy Dr. The applicant is seeking approval for a
major addition to the front and back of the building, totaling 118,145 sf between three levels. Please
see the first page of the site plans for the breakdown of additions to each floor.
2. Both properties are zone MC, Medical Care.
3. The vacant doctor’s office building across the street at 1365 Mercy Dr will be demolished and a
parking lot serving the surgery center will be installed. Heated sidewalks will be installed at 1365
Mercy Dr and they are already installed at 1400 Mercy Dr. The new parking lot will add 130 parking
spaces, however; 56 spaces will be eliminated at 1400 Mercy Dr due to additions. There will be a
total of 363 spaces for the surgery center, only 343 are required.
4. The layout of the building meets all setback and other zoning requirements.
5. A Stormwater Management plan and calculations must still be submitted.
6. Water supply fire flow information must be approved by the Fire Marshall and the number of
hydrants shall comply with the International Fire Code of 2012 appendix C.
7. The new canopy must meet the minimum requirements for height and clearance of 14 feet.
Front of 1400 Mercy Dr looking north. Location of Phase I.
9
Back of 1400 Mercy Dr looking south. Location of Phase II.
1365 Mercy Dr looking south. Location of additional parking and building to be demolished.
10
Zoning Map
Aerial Photo
11
Standards for Site Plan approval:
Prior to approving a site plan, the City shall require that the following standards be satisfied:
a. Schedule of Regulations: The site plan shall comply with the requirements for height, lot size, yard
space, density and all other requirements as set forth in the district regulations.
b. Other codes and standards: To the extent necessarily shown in the site plan, it shall comply with
other applicable City codes and standards.
c. Compatibility with surrounding land use and development: All elements shall be located, designed
and organized in relation to topography, the size and configuration of the parcel, the character of
adjoining property and the type and size of the buildings. The site shall be developed so as not to
impede the normal and orderly development or improvements of surrounding property for uses
permitted in this Zoning Ordinance.
d. Preservation of natural features: The landscape shall be preserved in its natural state, insofar as
practical, by removing only those areas of vegetation or making those alterations to the topography
which are reasonably necessary to develop the site.
e. Landscaping: Landscape buffers and greenbelts shall be provided and designed in accordance with
the provisions of this Ordinance. Fences, walks, barriers and landscaping shall be used, as
appropriate, for the protection and enhancement of the property and for the privacy of occupants and
neighbors.
f. Stormwater management: Drainage design shall recognize existing natural drainage patterns.
Stormwater removal shall not adversely affect neighboring properties or the public storm drainage
system. Provisions shall be made to accommodate stormwater on-site, using sound engineering
practices.
g. Soil erosion control: Appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with state and local
soil and sedimentation control regulations.
h. Wetlands Protection: The natural retention or storage capacity of any wetland, water body, or water
course will not be substantially reduced or altered in a way which could increase flooding or water
pollution at the site or other locations.
i. Emergency Access: All site improvements and structures shall be arranged so as to permit necessary
emergency vehicle access and to comply with the locally adopted fire code.
j. Public streets and private roads: All uses must have access to a public street or a private road. All
streets and curb cuts shall be developed in accordance with City specifications, the Michigan
Department of Transportation, and/or private road regulations of the City, whichever applies.
k. Access Management: Streets and drives on a site shall be of a width appropriate to the traffic volume
they will carry and shall have adequate paved areas for vehicles. Traffic mitigation techniques such
as on-site parallel access lanes, rear access lanes, deceleration lanes and traffic calming measures may
be required. Shared curb cuts and access ways may also be required.
12
l. Site Circulation and Parking: Parking areas shall meet the requirements of this ordinance. All
parking spaces and circulation patterns shall be marked. Curb stops or curbing may be required to
prevent encroachment on required setbacks and screening. Provisions for on-site maneuvering of
vehicles shall be made so as to discourage backing and movements of trucks on abutting public
streets. On site traffic control signs shall be visible and understandable.
m. Pedestrian safety: The on-site pedestrian circulation system shall be separated as completely and
reasonably as possible from the vehicular circulation system. In order to ensure public safety, special
pedestrian measures such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and other such facilities may be required for the
development. The site circulation shall be connected to existing or planned streets and pedestrian or
bicycle pathways in the area as appropriate.
n. Site amenities: The site plan shall provide outdoor common areas and associated amenities for
employees, customers and/or residents which may include public trash receptacles, bike racks, seating
areas, recreation areas, shade trees, bus stop turn-outs, and similar facilities where appropriate.
o. Utility Service: The development must be adequately served by necessary public services and shall
not impose an undue burden on public services and infrastructure. All utilities for new construction
shall be placed underground. Any installations which must remain above ground shall be compatible
with those on adjacent properties.
p. Lighting: Exterior lighting shall be arranged so it is deflected away from adjacent properties and so it
does not impede the vision of traffic along adjacent streets. Flashing or intermittent lights shall not
be permitted. Design of lighting fixtures shall be compatible with those on adjacent properties. Light
poles and fixtures shall be no higher than twenty-five (25) feet.
q. Signs: The size, location, and lighting of all permanent signs shall be consistent with the
requirements of this Ordinance.
r. Accessibility: All sites shall be designed to comply with barrier-free requirements.
s. State and Federal Mandates: The site plan shall demonstrate compliance with any state or federal
statute, regulation or ruling, whether general or site specific, which is applicable to the property. This
shall include without limitation any legally enforceable restrictions on development or improvements
which have been communicated or required by a state or federal agency. It shall include, without
limitation, requirements of laws, regulations, rulings or agency requirements concerning
environmental protection, waste management, floodplains, soil and sedimentation, protection of
ground or surface water resources, soil conditions, and the presence of hazardous materials in or
contamination of soils, air and water pollution matters and provisions which are designed for or
reasonably related to the protection of the public health, safety or welfare. The applicant shall
demonstrate that all said statutes, regulations, rulings, or requirements have been satisfied by its site
plan and that there are no State or Federal agencies which have required, or are in the process of
requiring, any additional action, restriction or compliance. In the event a property is the subject of
any governmental regulatory action or requirement, or without limitation, the property is located in
the "facility" as defined by state or federal law, the state or federal agency responsible for the
applicable regulation shall be notified in writing of the filing of the site plan and any hearing
regarding the application for approval.
13
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for site plan approval for the building additions.
DETERMINATION
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the site plan for the parking lot and building additions at 1365 & 1400 Mercy Dr, as presented, be
(approved/denied/tabled), with the following conditions:
1. A Stormwater Management plan and calculations must still be approved by the Engineering
Department.
2. Water supply fire flow information must be approved by the Fire Marshall and the number of
hydrants shall comply with the International Fire Code of 2012 appendix C.
3. The new canopy must meet the minimum requirements for height and clearance of 14 feet.
14
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails