View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, September 10, 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 August 13, 2015.
III. Public Hearings
A. Hearing, Case 2015-15: Request to allow a non-profit organization that focuses on assisting
young adults that have recently aged out of the foster care system transition to independent living
in an RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family Residential district at 1319 Peck St. The building
would house up to four young women and a mentor.
B. Hearing, Case 2015-16: Staff initiated request to amend the Master Land Use Plan to remove all
references to Fisherman’s Landing.
IV. New Business
V. Old Business
A. Hearing, Case 2015-14: Staff initiated request to amend section 400 of the zoning ordinance to
allow multiple family dwellings under certain circumstances in R-1, Single Family Residential
districts.
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
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
August 13, 2015
Vice Chairman B. Larson called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Mazade, J. Doyle, L. Spataro, S. Gawron, B. Smith, B. Larson, F. Peterson
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Michalski, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger, C. Brubaker-Clarke, H. Mitchell
OTHERS PRESENT: G. Borgman; W. Krick, 1762 Jefferson; R. Khatri, 1478 E. Ellis
Rd; C. Willis, 3366 Knollwood Ct.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the special meeting of June 11, 2015 be approved, was made by B. Mazade,
supported by F. Peterson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2015-13: Staff-initiated request to amend the Muskegon Parks & Recreation Master Plan.
H. Mitchell stated that she had been making some updates to the plan and was seeking Planning Commission
input and approval. J. Keast asked what the significant differences were between the updated plan and the
old plan. H. Mitchell described some of the updates. J. Doyle observed that the action plan and goals
needed to be updated to address marketing and social media, among other things. C. Brubaker-Clarke
explained that this was not a complete revision of the plan. The State required that the plan be updated every
five years in order for the City to be eligible for grant funding, and the goal at this time was to make sure that
projects were listed in the plan so they would be eligible for funding. The City would also remove references
to Fisherman’s Landing, since that was not a charter park. J. Keast asked when the next major plan update
would be. C. Brubaker-Clarke stated that there was not one in the works at this time, as a total update was
quite costly and there were no funds available. Board members discussed different parks and issues with the
current plan. H. Mitchell asked that board members e-mail their comments to her, and she would incorporate
them into the plan update. C. Willis was a community member and supported of the dog beach at Kruse
Park. She stated that the dog beach was a great asset to the community and asked that maintenance of the
beach continue to be included in future plans.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by F. Peterson and unanimously
approved.
A motion that the amendments to the Muskegon Parks & Recreation Master Plan be recommended for to the
City Commission for approval was made by L. Spataro, supported by J. Doyle and unanimously approved.
2
Hearing, Case 2015-14: Staff-initiated request to amend section 400 of the zoning ordinance to allow
multiple family dwellings under certain circumstances in R-1, Single Family Residential districts. M.
Franzak summarized the staff report, reviewing the reasons for this request. A zoning ordinance excerpt
from Section 2319 was provided, which gave the guidelines for multi-family homes with more than two
units: “Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum living area (excluding all basement area) of six hundred
and fifty (650) square feet for a one (1) bedroom unit, of eight hundred and seventy-five (875) square feet for
a two (2) bedroom unit, and of twelve hundred (1200) square feet for a three (3) bedroom unit. For each
bedroom thereafter, an additional 100 square feet of living space shall be provided.” The following new
language was proposed to be added under the R-1 zoning district criteria, Section 400: Principal uses
permitted: “Multiple family dwellings (allowed) under the following conditions: a. The home has already
been altered with prior approval to allow for multiple dwellings. One family dwellings may not be altered to
allow for multiple dwellings, nor may new homes be built for multiple dwellings, and b. Homes that have
already been altered for multiple dwellings may add additional dwellings as long they meet the living area
standards listed in Section 2319.”
L. Spataro stated that he understood the concept but disagreed with some statements in the write-up. He
preferred that the number of units allowed be based on the square footage requirements for single family
dwellings in Section 2319 (also listed above). B. Mazade was concerned that the proposed amendment
would allow current multi-family homes to expand, which he was not in favor of. He stated that the smaller
lot sizes of many city lots could cause crowding and parking issues if more units were added. B. Smith
asked about this request being staff-initiated. M. Franzak stated that it was, but he had heard complaints
from several landlords on this issue. F. Peterson stated that there was once case recently that the city would
like to accommodate. B. Larson stated that there needed to be a way to allow property owners to comply
with the ordinance while still making ownership of these homes viable. F. Peterson suggested changing the
wording to allow additional units only up to the number of units the house was originally grandfathered in at.
S. Gawron stated that he was more comfortable moving in that direction, and mentioned that there had been
substantial time and effort expended over the years to downzone certain areas to relieve stress on crowded
neighborhoods.
R. Khatri spoke during the public hearing. He stated that he had encountered a similar situation after
purchasing a larger older duplex home in the City. He discovered during the purchase that the house had
reverted to single family zoning after being vacant over 2 years, even though it had originally been
constructed as a two-unit. He suggested that, as long as a home required no modification, that it be allowed
to continue as a multi-unit residence. W. Krick owned the home that prompted this case coming to the
Planning Commission. He stated that he owned a very large house, and taxes and maintenance were
expensive. He needed the additional income from a third unit to pay for these things. The property had
available parking, separate entrances for the units, and a fire escape, yet he was only allowed to have two
units. He stated that the City needed more quality housing near the downtown. G. Borgman stated that,
although he was generally in favor of retaining single family homes, he had walked through this house and
understands the need for funds to maintain it. Due to the houses’ size, he did not see another alternative to
providing adequate upkeep. M. Holt stated that she was also in a similar situation where she had a three-unit
house that can now only be used as a single family due to it being vacant for a period of time and losing its
grandfathered rights. She stated that more affordable housing was needed; this property was on the
dangerous building list and she would like to return it to an inhabitable home. However, she could not afford
it if there was only one unit allowed.
3
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Smith and unanimously
approved.
L. Spataro suggested that the board table the case until the next meeting to allow staff to come up with
alternate language, following the suggestion by F. Peterson about allowing expansion up to what was
originally grandfathered in. B. Mazade concurred.
A motion to table this case until the next meeting and refer it back to staff to come up with revised language
based on today’s discussion was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Mazade and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
Parking Strategy – M. Franzak advised board members that the City’s revised Parking Strategy document
was currently being reviewed by other local municipalities as required, and there would be a public hearing
held in October.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
4
STAFF REPORT
September 10, 2015
Hearing, Case 2015-15: Request to allow a non-profit organization that focuses on assisting young adults
that have recently aged out of the foster care system transition to independent living in an RM-1, Low
Density Multiple Family Residential district at 1319 Peck St. The building would house up to four young
women and a mentor.
5
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
6
BACKGROUND
1. The property is located in an RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family Residential District.
2. Please see the enclosed “Step Up Executive Summary” for a description of the proposed use.
3. A special use permit is needed because although this is a multi-family zoning district, this house will
be one contiguous unit and the tenants do not meet the zoning ordinances definition of family.
4. A family is defined in the zoning ordinance as: One or more persons living together and related by
the bonds of blood, marriage, guardianship, foster relation, or adoption, and not more than two
additional unrelated persons, with all such individuals being domiciled together as a single, domestic,
housekeeping unit in the dwelling.
5. The zoning ordinance allows “Adult Foster Care Large Group Homes” as a special use permitted in
this district. This use is not the same, but is similar enough to warrant a public hearing for the use.
6. Property owners and tenants within 300 feet were notified of the proposed use. Richard Rischar, who
rents at 1302 Peck St, is supportive of the proposed use. Manuel Celestin, who owns 1316 Sanford
St, is also in support.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the special land use permit, per Section 701 of Article XII of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow the
use proposed in the “Step Up Executive Summary,” be (approved/denied/tabled), based on (compliance/lack
of compliance) with the City’s Master Land Use Plan and conditions set forth in Section 701 of the City of
Muskegon Zoning Ordinance (based on the following conditions [if any]--only if approved):
7
Hearing, Case 2015-16: Staff initiated request to amend the Master Land Use Plan to remove all references
to Fisherman’s Landing.
BACKGROUND
Staff is recommending to take out all references of Fisherman’s Landing in the Master Plan so that we may
keep our options open in the event we swap land in the future. Not having any mention of it in the Master
Plan will make it an easier transition.
Fisherman’s Landing is mentioned in the following areas:
Page 5.4
7. Large field and marsh, Northeast of Fisherman's Landing
Page 5.20
Other specific areas where habitat improvement with native species are recommended include public launch
sites, especially the Grand Trunk, Fisherman's Landing, and Hartshorn Marina sites. In areas such as
Fisherman's Landing, planting areas with trees and other cover will serve as aesthetic breaks from railroad
or industrial properties.
Woodlands and Trees
Develop and implement a plan to increase habitat and native vegetation for disturbed areas which have been
filled or impacted. The plan should include tree planting recommendations for areas along Muskegon Lake,
such as Fisherman's Landing and the public launch site near the Grand Trunk Railroad dock.
Muskegon Lake and Lakeshore
Several parcels of land along the lake, especially these eight Natural Areas identified by Day & Associates,
Inc., should be preserved. Preservation can be accomplished through zoning, and/or actual acquisition of the
land. Preservation and enhancement can be in concert with development when done correctly, so one does
not preclude the other. However, some areas such as the former Pigeon Hill area, Cottage Grove shoreline
area, and Old Field Community northeast of Fisherman's Landing are areas where conservation and passive
recreational usage is recommended.
Page 7.3
Fisherman’s Landing (paving, landscaping)
Page 7.4
Major Parks
Major parks serve the City, region, and outlying areas. Major parks include Fisherman's Landing
(sportfishing/ tourism industry), McGraft Park (large improved and natural areas), Pere Marquette Park
(northernmost point along a 2.5 mile long City owned segment of Lake Michigan shoreline), Bronson Park
(dune system,sandy beach, picnic facilities).
Page 7.6
Special Facilities
The City provides a limited number of facilities geared toward the handicapped or elderly. Senior citizens
use the community buildings at McGraft and Smith-Ryerson parks, and the shuffleboard complex at McGraft
8
Park. Barrier free facilities are provided at Fisherman's Landing (wheelchair lift at boat launch), Bronson
Park (Lake Michigan access), and Heritage Landing (pathways, play structure, Muskegon Lake overlook,
fishing area, and paved parking). Additional and augmented barrier free facilities will be included in future
recreational and park development and redevelopment efforts.
Page 11.38
The southern one-half of the sub-area is comprised of strip commercial, industrial, undeveloped sites (due in
large part to their wetland character), and Fisherman’s Landing (a public boat launching site).
Page 12.2
Fisherman's Landing Marine/ Recreational Area
Page 12.5
The site occupied by the waterfront aggregate operation could, if located elsewhere along the waterfront (see
Fisherman's Landing Marine/Recreational Area), be developed for mixed use residential, recreational or
marina uses.
Fisherman's Landing Marine/Recreation Area
This area presents opportunities for additional public and private boat launching facilities; private marina and
boat storage facilities consistent with nearby public uses; and public recreational facilities such as
boardwalks and a nature interpretive center. Commercial properties along Western Avenue can provide for
marine oriented convenience retail and service uses. Such uses might include bait and tackle shops, boat sales
and service facilities, general sporting goods sales, and a party store. Because of the area's proximity to the
Consumers Power power plant, its northern most portion might accommodate a maritime use dependent upon
location on the waterfront, such as a tug/barge facility, aggregate facility, or other similar use.
Fisherman’s Landing is also mentioned in the 2008 Downtown & Waterfront Redevelopment Plan, which
was adopted as part of the Master Plan. It is mentioned in the following places:
Page 15
Objective 1: Achieve within the downtown core a strong central focus concentrating efforts first in the area
bounded by 5th, Webster, Terrace and the lakeshore, expanding to eventually include Hartshorn Center on
the west to Fisherman’s Landing on the east.
Page 17
Remove fences at Fisherman’s Landing.
Community Charrette notes
Children go up bike trail & swim in river by power plant. Make Fisherman’s Landing more welcoming to
area residents. Take down fences along bike path.
Take down fences @ Fisherman’s Landing
Crossing @ shoreline from Fisherman’s Landing to City Hall
Improve Fisherman’s Landing
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the proposed amendments to the City of Muskegon’s Comprehensive Master Land Use Plan be
recommended to City Commission for (approval/denial).
9
Hearing, Case 2015-14 (TABLED): Staff initiated request to amend section 400 of the zoning ordinance to
allow multiple family dwellings under circumstances in R-1, Single Family Residential districts.
BACKGROUND
1. The R-1, Single Family Residential district is the most prominent zoning district in the city. Only
single family residential units are allowed in these districts. However, many of these homes were
previously approved to allow for more than one dwelling unit. These homes with additional dwelling
units are considered “grandfathered” and are allowed to be utilized as multiple-family homes as long
as the additional dwelling units do not remain vacant for more than two years. Currently, the zoning
ordinance does not allow these “grandfathered” homes to add additional dwelling units, even if there
is enough space to create one. This amendment would make it possible to create additional dwelling
units in underutilized homes.
2. Many of the homes that would be able to take advantage of this amendment are located near
downtown. There are many former lumber baron homes that were built in the late 1800’s and early
1900’s as mansions for affluent single-family home owners. However, as time has progressed, many
of these homes were split into duplexes and turned into rental units, as the price of maintaining the
homes increased. Turning these homes into profitable income-generating sources has helped keep
these homes from falling into disrepair. As these homes continue to age, they become increasingly
difficult to maintain, as well as heat in the winter. Allowing landlords to create additional dwelling
units can increase the profitability of these homes, which would likely encourage investments into the
homes.
3. The current ordinance makes it difficult to maintain some of these older homes. If a large 3,000+ sf
home has two units and one becomes vacant for more than two years, the ordinance states that it must
revert back to single family. However, it is not likely that this home would generate much interest as
a single-family home, as it would be much larger than most people living downtown would need and
it wouldn’t be feasible for one family to heat a home of this size, especially one that is over 100 years
old and not insulated very well. Having a landlord with a vested interest in maintaining the home
may help preserve the home.
4. Allowing additional units to be built in these downtown homes will give more housing options to
those that want to live near downtown. Many people are forced to live away from downtown, as
there are not enough market-rate rental options in the area.
5. This amendment would only allow previously split-up homes to continue to add additional dwelling
units, when there is enough space. Homes that have never been split-up would not have the option of
adding another dwelling unit. Also, new homes would not be allowed to be constructed as multi-
family homes.
Below is an excerpt from Section 2319, which gives the guidelines for multi-family homes
with more than two units. These guidelines would have to be followed if a home was to add a
10
third (or more) unit: Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum living area (excluding all
basement area) of six hundred and fifty (650) square feet for a one (1) bedroom unit, of eight
hundred and seventy-five (875) square feet for a two (2) bedroom unit, and of twelve hundred
(1200) square feet for a three (3) bedroom unit. For each bedroom thereafter, an additional
100 square feet of living space shall be provided.
6. The proposed ordinance amendment has been modified since it was last presented in August.
7. Please see the enclosed print out of rentals that historically have had more than two units
available. Note that most, but not all, are located in R-1 districts.
NEW LANGUAGE
Deletions are crossed out and additions are in bold:
SECTION 400: PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED
In R, One Family Residential, Districts no building or land shall be used and no building shall be erected,
structurally altered, or occupied except for one or more of the following specified uses, unless otherwise
provided in this Ordinance;
1. One Family detached dwellings.
2. Multiple family dwellings under the following conditions:
a. The home has already been altered with prior approval to allow for multiple
dwellings. One family dwellings may not be altered to allow for multiple dwellings,
nor may new homes be built for multiple dwellings.
b. Homes that have already been altered for multiple dwellings may add additional
dwellings as long the total number of dwellings does not exceed the number of
dwellings that historically existed in the structure (for example, if a three-unit
building was converted to a two-unit building, that building could legally be
converted back to a three-unit building, but not a four+ unit building), and that all
dwellings meet the living area standards listed in Section 2319.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the proposed amendment to Section 400 of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance, to allow
multiple family dwellings in R-1, Single Family Residential districts under the conditions mentioned in the
staff report, be recommended to the City Commission for (approval/denial).
11
House at 71 W Southern Ave (approved for 2 dwelling units)
Unoccupied 3rd floor of 71 W Southern Ave
12
13
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails