View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, February 13, 2014
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 January 16, 2014.
III. Public Hearings
IV. New Business
a. Case 2014-04: Request for a site plan review for a 14,440 square-foot addition to
the building at 1920 Port City Blvd, by Aerofoil International.
V. Old Business
VI. Other
a. Zoning Ordinance update
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
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
January 16, 2014
Chairman T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: F. Peterson, J. Doyle, T. Michalski, L. Spataro, B. Mazade, S.
Gawron, B. Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: S. Wisneski; B. Larson
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: C. Beacham, 1144 Third St; J. Williams, 1482 Morgan
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of December 12, 2013 be approved, was made
by F. Peterson, supported by J. Doyle and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2014-01: Request for a preliminary Planned Unit Development approval to
extend the Planned Unit Development at 1144 Third Street across the street to include the parcels
at 1185 and 1201 Third Street. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The EMC Group currently
owns the property at 1144 Third Street, which is already a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
This parcel contains multiple buildings, and the PUD allows for multiple uses such as retail, auto
sales and auto repair. They are currently working with a buyer for this parcel and all of its
buildings. The EMC Group would like to continue to sell cars in the area and would like to extend
the PUD across the street and move the car sales and repair operation to 1185 Third Street
(building on site) and 1201 Third Street (vacant parking lot to the south). The parcels at 1185 &
1201 are zoned B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business, and auto sales are not allowed in this
district. However, the current auto sales lot at 1144 Third Street also has an underlying zoning of
B-2, but auto sales are allowed because it is part of the PUD. The current PUD at 1144 Third
Street will stay the same until the new owner comes to the Planning Commission to amend it once
the plans are confirmed. It is possible to extend the PUD across the street because the parcels are
considered adjacent to each other. The parcels at 1144, 1185 and 1201 would then all be
considered a part of the same PUD. It is common to have multiple property owners involved in
the same PUD. The building at 1185 Third Street has historically been used as a car sales and
repair shop; however, it has lost its legal non-conforming status because that use has not occurred
in more than two consecutive years. The Fire, Police and Engineering Departments do not have
any concerns with this project. The DPW has asked that the fencing and poles be located at least
one foot away from water service shutoffs, and that trees and shrubs be at least 10 feet away from
water service shutoffs. The Planning Department is requesting that the entrance off Third Street
into the parking lot of 1201 be closed off; a zoning requirement for all auto sales lots is that an
entrance to a car lot is not allowed within 60 feet of an intersection. A notification letter was sent
to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project area, and staff received no
comments.
2
L. Spataro arrived at 4:10 p.m.
J. Doyle asked C. Beacham if he was purchasing the properties at 1185 and 1201 Third. C.
Beacham stated that he was. L. Spataro asked if the boards would be removed from the windows
so they were opened back up. C. Beacham stated that the boards would be removed there had
been problems with vandalism there previously, which is why they were boarded up. L. Spataro
asked if the interior showroom would be used for cars. C. Beacham stated that it would.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the preliminary Planned Unit Development for an auto repair and sales lot to be
located at 1185 and 1201 Third Street be approved, pursuant to the determination of compliance
with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master Land Use Plan, with the condition
that staff concerns listed in #6 and #7 of the staff report be addressed and a new site plan be
approved by staff, was made by L. Spataro, supported by F. Peterson and unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2014-02: Request for final Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to extend
the PUD at 1144 Third Street across the street to include the parcels at 1185 and 1201 Third
Street. M. Franzak presented the staff report. These new parcels added to the PUD will host an
automobile sales and repair facility. City ordinance requires that PUDs have a preliminary and a
final approval. Many PUDs involve new buildings on vacant parcels, so the preliminary approval
gives the Planning Commission a chance to weigh in on certain site layout conditions before the
developer makes the adjustments and returns with a revised plan. However, since these parcels
are already developed, the final approval is just a formality in this case.
No other questions were asked of staff or board members. A motion to close the public hearing
was made by L. Spataro, approved by J. Doyle and unanimously approved.
A motion that the final Planned Unit Development for an auto repair and sales lot at 1185 & 1201
Third Street be recommended to the City Commission for approval, pursuant to the determination
of compliance with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master Land Use Plan, with
the conditions that items # 6 and #7 of the staff report be addressed and a new site plan be
submitted and approved by staff, was made by L. Spataro, approved by J. Doyle and unanimously
approved.
Hearing, Case 2014-03: Staff-initiated request to rezone the city-owned property at 816
Marquette Avenue from R-1, Single Family Residential to RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family
Residential. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The subject parcel measures 6.14 acres and is
a U-shaped lot. It was previously zoned RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family Residential, and the
1986 zoning map shows the RM-1 zoning designation. It was rezoned to R-1, Single Family
Residential at a later date. The parcels to the south are zoned B-1, Limited Business and RM-1,
Low Density Multiple Family Residential (townhomes). The parcels to the east are zoned RM-1,
Low Density Multiple Family Residential (Baker College townhomes). The parcel to the north is
zoned OSC, Open Space Conservation, and parcels to the west are zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential. The developer of the townhomes at 860 Marquette Avenue would like to purchase
the parcel at 816 Marquette Avenue to expand his project with more townhome units. The parcel
would need to be rezoned to RM-1 to allow this. A portion of the northern edge of the lot is on a
steep hill and is considered unbuildable, which would make it difficult to put in a new road to
allow for single family residences. A notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 300
feet of this property; at the time of this writing, staff had not received any comments.
3
M. Franzak stated that the master plan recommended improving the housing stock in this area. He
thought that the new townhomes proposed would accomplish that. L. Spataro provided
background on the area and why the zoning had been changed to R-1 previously. B. Mazade
asked if the City had a purchase agreement for this parcel. M. Franzak stated that there was not a
purchase agreement yet, but Mr. Williams had stated that he would purchase the lot if it were
rezoned. J. Williams explained the proposed layout of the new development, stating that the
buildings would be located toward the back of the property. The development would benefit the
City by putting the property back on the tax rolls. J. Doyle asked how many buildings were
planned for the lot. J. Williams stated that he was planning to build three buildings with four
apartments in each of them.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, approved by S. Gawron and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to rezone the property located at 816 Marquette Avenue from R-1,
Single Family Residential to RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family Residential as described in the
public notice, be recommended for approval to the City Commission, was made by S. Gawron,
supported by F. Peterson and unanimously approved.
B. Smith arrived at 4:30 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
Pere Marquette Park restaurant development – B. Mazade asked for an update on the Harris’s
redevelopment project at Pere Marquette Park, and if staff knew when to expect a site plan. M.
Franzak stated that City staff had met with the developer recently, and they stated that they hoped
to be open by May. M. Franzak didn’t think the site plan would require Planning Commission
approval, but stated he would provide the information to Planning Commissioners when he
received it. B. Mazade asked if the plan was to raze or reuse the existing building. M. Franzak
stated they planned to reuse part of the building and extend it.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
4
Case 2014-04: Request for a site plan review for a 14,440 square-foot addition to the building at
1920 Port City Blvd, by Aerofoil International.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and has a total area of 2.35 acres.
2. The existing building is 30,000 sqft and the addition will be 14,400 sqft of industrial space.
There will also be a 1,100 sqft canopy addition to the east of the building in the back. A
new asphalt drive will connect this area to the current parking lot.
3. The rear and side setback requirements for I-2 districts are both 10 feet. The proposed
side setback to the south is 15’6” and the proposed rear setback is 14’4”.
4. There is a proposed loading dock in front of the addition that will connect the building to
Port City Blvd.
5. There are currently 58 parking spaces on site. There are no additional parking spaces
proposed. The company does not feel the need for additional parking at this time. There is
room for future additional parking at the northwest and northeast corners of the property.
6. The plan includes stormwater calculations and proposes to maintain additional stormwater
in swales located on the southern and eastern portions of the property.
7. The Engineering, Public Works, Fire and Police departments have reviewed the plans and
do not have any comments or concerns.
8. The Planning Department recommends the following changes to the plan:
a. A landscaping plan shall be included for the front and side setbacks of the building.
All required front setbacks shall be landscaped with a minimum of one (1) canopy or
shade tree, two (2) understory or evergreen trees and (2) shrubs, for each thirty (30)
lineal feet (or major portion thereof) of frontage abutting the right-of-way. Additional
landscaping may be required adjacent to buildings to break up long building expanses
and walls void of windows. Also, all trees/shrubs that must be removed for the
addition of the swale shall be noted and replaced somewhere else on the property
where possible.
b. The proposed loading dock should include a paved turning radius so that trucks do not
have to back in from the road.
Front of building looking east from Port City Blvd
5
South side of building looking east from Port City Blvd
Back of building looking south
6
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
7
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.
l. Site Circulation and Parking: Parking areas shall meet the requirements of this ordinance.
8
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.
9
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for site plan approval for the building addition.
DETERMINATION
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the site plan for a 14,400 square foot building addition at 1920 Port City Blvd, be
(approved/denied/tabled), with the condition that staff approves a revised site plan with the
corrections listed in #8 of the staff report.
10
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails