View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, March 14, 2013
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 February 14, 2013
III. Public Hearings
A. Hearing, Case 2013-06: Request for a Special Use Permit to allow for a church in a B-3
Central Business District at 1065 4th St by First Church of Christ.
B. Hearing, Case 2013-07: Staff request to amend Section 2326, Off-Street Parking and
Loading, of the Zoning Ordinance to lessen the off-street parking requirements for
existing buildings.
IV. New Business
V. Old Business
A. Case 2013-02: Request for a Special Use Permit to operate an auto sales dealership in a
B-4, General Business District at 1308 S Getty St, by Juan Urbina.
B. Case 2013-03: Request for a preliminary PUD at 2330 Barclay St has been rescinded by
the applicant.
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
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 14, 2013
Chairman T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Larson, L. Spataro, L. Mikesell, B. Mazade, J. Doyle, S. Gawron
T. Michalski, B. Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: W. Parker, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Urbina, 1308 S. Getty; D. Morse, 2321 Duck Lake Rd; J. Rooks,
Grand Rapids; Driesenga & Associates; D. Mayville, BMA
Architects; D. Sturgeon, Baker College
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of January 10, 2013 be approved, was made by
B. Mazade, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2013-02: Request for a Special Use Permit to operate an auto sales dealership in a
B-4, General Business District at 1308 S Getty St, by Juan Urbina. D. Renkenberger presented the
staff report. The owner of this property was previously issued a Special Use Permit (SUP) to
operate an auto sales dealership after a public hearing on June 14, 2007, However, the SUP was
revoked on August 5, 2008 after repeated violations, including outdoor vehicle repairs and storage
of junk cars, old tires and car parts. The owner has applied for another SUP so that he may once
again operate a car dealership. The site plan he has submitted was the same one that was approved
in 2007. The only concern that staff has is that the parking near the corner of Evanston Ave. and
Getty St. should be eliminated. There should be at least 25 feet of clear vision at the corner. The
car lot would be located at 1308 S. Getty Street and the office would be located next door at 1272
S. Getty Street. Notices were sent to properties within 300 feet of this property. Staff has
received two comments from the public at the time of this writing. D. Marchido lives behind this
property and said that she is not opposed to having the car lot there if he keeps the property clean.
However, it has been such a mess in the past and is still in such disarray that she is concerned
about the effect on neighboring property values if it continues to be a mess. T. Leutscher of 1337
Kingsley stated that right now the cars are parked so close to the edge of the road, it is blocking
the view of traffic at Evanston & Getty when making a turn. If a car lot is allowed, please make
sure they keep the cars back far enough from the road so it doesn’t block traffic view when
turning, or block the sidewalk for pedestrians.
J. Urbina stated that he had been off work for a year and a half, and the person running the
business in his absence did not comply with the requirements of the previous SUP. He assured
board members that he would comply with all conditions of the SUP and keep the property up. T.
2
Michalski stated that he and J. Doyle had gone by the site today and noted the same issues with
tires and vehicles parked all over, blocking clear vision at the intersection.
B. Smith arrived at 4:05 p.m.
L. Spataro arrived at 4:06 p.m.
J. Urbina stated that they had made progress on the clean-up but still had things to do. J. Doyle
asked what guarantee there was that the problem issues would be resolved, if the SUP was issued.
J. Urbina suggested that the City could revoke the SUP in 30 days if the work hadn’t been done.
B. Mazade had the same concerns with the condition of the property. L. Spataro stated that there
was a history of non-compliance and was disappointed that the property had not been cleaned up
prior to the Planning Commission meeting. He suggested tabling the case for 30 days to give the
owner time to clean the property before a decision on the SUP was made.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved.
A motion to table the request for a Special Land Use Permit to allow the sale of used cars in a B-4
zoning district at 1308 Getty Street until the March Planning Commission meeting, was made by
L. Spataro, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
L. Spataro asked Mr. Urbina if he understood that the reason for tabling the case was to give him
30 days to get the property cleaned up. Mr. Urbina stated that he did.
Hearing, Case 2013-03: Request for preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for a
neighborhood community center and residential development in an R-1, Single Family Residential
District at 2330 Barclay Street, by Daniel Morse of the Muskegon Family Life Center. M.
Franzak presented the staff report. The parcel is approximately 6.4 acres and has two structures on
it, the former Moose Lodge (13,000 square feet) and an open-sided pavilion. The plan calls for
restoration of the former Moose Lodge for use as a community center offering a banquet facility
with kitchen, offices, an exercise facility, activity rooms and a day care. The existing pavilion
would be moved closer to the existing building. There will also be 20 multi-family residential
units built along the northern and eastern borders of the parcel. They will include specialized
housing for the elderly, handicapped and/or those with special needs. There are currently two curb
cuts on this property. The northern cub cut would be turned into a private road. A third curb cut
would be added in between the two existing cuts, which would allow for additional pavement to
be added for parking near the community center. The existing building would be renovated with a
new patio, carport, canopy and fenced-in play area. The plan proposes a gazebo where the current
fountain is located. There are 113 parking spaces proposed for this development, not including the
parking spaces available at the residential units. Staff feels that this is too many spaces and that
the plan should incorporate more green space. The parking lot should also include landscape
islands. This review is for a preliminary PUD approval. If approved, the applicant must come
back to Planning Commission and then to City Commission for final PUD approval. A more
detailed plan including a scale, landscaping, topography, dumpster enclosures, etc. is needed.
Notice was sent to properties within 300 feet of this property.
Consensus among board members was that more information was needed before they could make
an informed decision. Several neighbors spoke out against the housing development, especially
the rental aspect of it. Most were in favor of a community center.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by J. Doyle and
unanimously approved.
3
D. Morse stated that nothing was set in stone at this point, and he was open to reconsidering the
plans for the housing. Board members discussed the possibility of a special use permit for the
community center, versus a PUD. B. Larson stated that the plan was much more likely to get
approved without the housing development being included. D. Morse stated that he understood
that, after hearing from neighbors and board members. L. Spataro felt that it would be more
appropriate to submit a request for a SUP for a community center using the existing building on
site. It would also give the applicant time to re-work the housing portion of the development. He
suggested that the board table the request, and that the applicant return next month with the SUP
request.
A motion that the preliminary PUD for a community center and multi-family residential
development at 2330 Barclay St be tabled until the March meeting was made by L. Spataro,
supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2013-04: Request for an amendment to the Final Planned Unit Development
(PUD) at 650 Terrace Point to allow for a single family residential development, by Jon Rooks of
Terrace Point Landing, LLC. M. Franzak presented the staff report. Terrace Point is already a
PUD and includes the Shoreline Inn & Suites, marina, restaurant, former SPX building and the
land proposed for this development. The final PUD was approved in 1987 and included a condo
development on the site at 650 Terrace Point. This request is to amend that plan for a different
residential development. This project proposes 70 lots, most of which will be only 35 feet wide
and slightly over 5,000 square feet in total. The zoning ordinance requires that all lots in
residential districts have at least 50 feet of road frontage with at least 6,000 square feet total. The
PUD is required to give flexibility on these standards. The homes on this development can be
either one or two stories and will not exceed 35 feet in height. The proposed side setbacks are
only 3 feet, compared to the normal setback of 8 feet for two-story homes in residential districts
allowed by the zoning ordinance. However, these setbacks measure from the closest part of the
house to the lot line, which includes eaves, chimneys, egress wells and uncovered steps. These are
the only parts of the homes that will be allowed to be closer than 5 feet from the side lot line.
Since the lots will be smaller than normally allowed, the homes will not be able to meet the design
standards of the zoning ordinance, which includes minimum living and storage spaces. Please see
the “Sears Architects” attachment for design standards. The proposed right-of-way (ROW) is only
50 feet wide. This will include the standard 27-foot road, but there will be less room to fit in all
utilities. The City Engineer has brought this to the applicants attention and has agreed on approval
of the ROW as long as the applicant understands that the City will not be liable for any problems
resulting from a smaller ROW. The new road will be public. Staff reviewed the original
submitted plans and had several issues regarding the ROW, driveways, lot lines, design standards,
etc. and called a meeting with the applicant and his consultants to go over the issues. The meeting
was very productive and the consultants were able to revise the plan that was presented today.
M. Franzak presented board members with a revised staff report and a new plan for the
development, resulting from meetings with City staff and the developer. J. Rooks explained the
changes from the original plan submitted and answered board members questions. There were no
public comments.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by S. Gawron and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendment to the final Planned Unit Development for a residential
development at 650 Terrace Point be recommended to the City Commission for approval pursuant
4
to the determination of compliance with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master
Land Use Plan with the conditions that 1) the applicant will make required changes to the site plan
if there are any, and 2) the applicant must obtain all necessary State permits, was made by B.
Smith, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
Case 2013-05: Request for Site Plan Review for a new building at 1903 Marquette, by Baker
College. M. Franzak presented the staff report. This plan is for a two-story, 34,500 square-foot
building addition to the Baker College Health Science Center at 1903 Marquette Ave. The
building addition meets all of the applicable setback requirements. The plan includes the addition
of 143 parking spaces. There is a proposed rain garden for storm water retention. The landscaping
plan is complete and will be a great addition to the campus. Staff has reviewed the plan and does
not have any issues with it.
D. Mayville discussed the new building project and answered board members questions.
A motion that the site plan submitted for 1903 Marquette Avenue be approved, based on
compliance with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master Land Use Plan, was
made by J. Doyle, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
5
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 14, 2013
Hearing, Case 2013-06: Request for a Special Use Permit to allow for a church in a B-3 Central
Business District at 1065 4th St by First Church of Christ.
BACKGROUND
1. The First Church of Christ was recently located in the Noble Building at 500 W Western
Ave, but they were asked to vacate so that a new business could use the space.
2. The church would like to relocate to the building at 1065 4th St.
3. The property is zoned B-3, Central Business District. This district allows the operation of
a church in a B-3, Central Business District with a Special Use Permit under certain
conditions. This building meets those conditions. The conditions are as follows:
a. The site shall be so located as to provide for ingress and egress from said site
directly onto a major or secondary thoroughfare.
b. The principal buildings on the site shall be set back from abutting properties zoned
for residential use not less than thirty (30) feet.
c. Buildings of greater than the maximum height allowed in Section 2100 may be
allowed provided front, side, and rear yards are increased above the minimum
requirements by one (1) foot of building that exceeds the maximum height allowed.
4. There is adequate parking on site, with 22 stripped spaces. This building is located in the
Downtown Parking Overlay District.
5. Notices were sent to properties within 300 feet of this building. Staff has not received any
comments at the time of this writing.
6
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
7
Ordinance Excerpt:
B-3 Central Business
ARTICLE XII - B-3 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
SECTION 1201: SPECIAL LAND USES PERMITTED [amended 6/07]
The following uses, and their accessory buildings and accessory uses, shall be permitted under the
purview of Section 2332 after review and approval of the use (and a site plan, if required) by the
Planning Commission, after Public Hearing, subject to the applicable conditions and any other
reasonable conditions imposed by the Planning Commission.
4. Churches and other facilities normally incidental thereto subject to the following
conditions:
a. The site shall be so located as to provide for ingress and egress from said site
directly onto a major or secondary thoroughfare.
b. The principal buildings on the site shall be set back from abutting properties zoned
for residential use not less than thirty (30) feet.
c. Buildings of greater than the maximum height allowed in Section 2100 may be
allowed provided front, side, and rear yards are increased above the minimum
requirements by one (1) foot of building that exceeds the maximum height allowed.
DELIBERATION
I move that the request for Special Land Use Permit, per section 1201 (#4) of Article XII of the
Zoning Ordinance, to allow for a church in a B-3, Central Business District at 1065 4th St, be
(approved/denied/tabled, based on compliance/lack of compliance with the City’s Master Land
Use Plan and conditions set forth in Section 2332 of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance
(based on the following conditions—only if approved):
1. The owner/applicant shall permit the zoning administrator or other zoning staff in the premises
at reasonable times to review compliance with this permit.
2. The Special Land Use Permit affidavit shall be recorded with the register of deeds.
3. The Special Use Permit shall be revoked if there are any violations of conditions 1 and 2.
8
Hearing, Case 2013-07: Staff request to amend Section 2326, Off-Street Parking and Loading, of
the Zoning Ordinance to lessen the off-street parking requirements for existing buildings.
BACKGROUND
1. The Downtown Parking Overlay District allows for lesser parking requirements for
businesses located within its boundaries. This is because of the availability of on-street
spaces and public parking lots.
2. Many of the businesses that are located in older buildings downtown have grandfathered
parking rights and do not have to account for today’s parking standards unless there is a
change of use (i.e. office to retail). However, it would be impossible for some buildings to
change use and account for additional parking requirements, because the buildings are
located on parcels that do not have room for additional parking. The ordinance allows for
businesses to get a shared parking agreement with another parcel with extra parking
spaces, as long as it is within 1,000 feet of the new business. However, this approach is
often pointless, because shared parking agreements are often obtained with parking spaces
that are not realistically going to be used by the new business. Also, with the continued
development of downtown, parcels with extra parking spaces are becoming rarer.
3. The zoning ordinance was amended 2010 to include part 12.D, which states “In the
downtown parking overlay district only, new businesses that are required to provide 15
parking spaces or less may forgo the parking requirements if they are locating into a
previously existing building. On-street parking and city-owned parking lots will be used to
accommodate the parking requirements. However, any previously existing parking spaces
included with the building space must remain in place and be used by that business.”
This addition has worked great, as it has allowed numerous retail businesses to locate
downtown without the need to find a shared parking agreement. Also, staff has not heard
of any complaints from the surrounding neighborhoods as a result of this amendment.
Staff feels that it would be beneficial to allow all businesses to follow this guideline, rather
than just the smaller businesses. New buildings would still be required to provide for their
parking requirements.
Examples of downtown parking options, including on-street and public and private lots.
9
10
Downtown Parking Overlay District
NEW LANGUAGE
Deletions are crossed out and additions are in bold:
12. Downtown Parking Overlay District: A downtown parking overlay district is hereby
created as outlined in Figure 23-2. Within said overlay area is permitted the following:
[amended 2/03] [amended 6/07]
a. In the downtown parking overlay district only, all land uses, except residential, may
use on-street parking for up to thirty percent (30%) of their required parking area.
b. In the downtown parking overlay district, shared parking agreements are
encouraged. Parking areas for other than single or two-family residential uses may
be located up to 1,000 feet from the building they are intended to serve and may be
provided in any zoning district except the R-1 district.
11
c. In the downtown parking overlay district only, the required number of residential
parking spaces shall be 1.5 per dwelling unit.
d. In the downtown parking overlay district only, new businesses that are required to
provide 15 parking spaces or less may forgo the parking requirements if they are
locating into a previously existing building. On-street parking and city-owned
parking lots will be used to accommodate the parking requirements. However, any
previously existing parking spaces included with the building space must remain in
place and be used by that business. a change of use in an existing building will
not result in additional parking requirements, unless an addition is involved.
DELIBERATION
I move that the proposed amendment to Section 2326, Off-Street Parking and Loading, of the City
of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance be recommended to the City Commission for (approval/denial).
12
Case 2013-02 (tabled): Request for a Special Use Permit to operate an auto sales dealership in a
B-4, General Business District at 1308 S Getty St, by Juan Urbina.
BACKGROUND
1. After a public hearing on June 14, 2007, the owner of this property was issued a Special
Use Permit (SUP) to operate an auto sales dealership. However, the SUP was revoked on
August 5, 2008 after repeated violations including outdoor vehicle repairs and storage of
junk cars, old tires and car parts.
2. The owner has applied for another SUP so that he may once again operate a car dealership.
The site plan he has submitted was the same one that was approved in 2007. The only
concern that staff has is that the parking near the corner of Evanston Ave and Getty St
should be eliminated. There should be at least 25 feet of clear vision at the corner.
3. The car lot would be located at 1308 S Getty St and the office would be located next door
at 1272 S Getty St.
4. Notices were sent to properties within 300 feet of this property. Staff has received two
comments from the public at the time of this writing. Delores Marchido, who lives behind
this property, said that she is not opposed to him having the car lot there if he keeps the
property clean. However, it has been such a mess in the past and is still in such disarray
that she is concerned about the effect on neighboring property values if it continues to be a
mess. Todd Leutscher of 1337 Kingsley said that right now the cars are parked so close to
the edge of the road, it is blocking the view of traffic at Evanston & Getty when making a
turn. If a car lot is allowed, please make sure they keep the cars back far enough from the
road so it doesn’t block traffic view when turning, or block the sidewalk for pedestrians.
1308 S Getty looking east from Getty St.
13
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
14
Ordinance Excerpt:
B-4 General Business
ARTICLE XIII - B-4 GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS
SECTION 1301: SPECIAL LAND USES PERMITTED
The following uses, and their accessory buildings and accessory uses, shall be permitted under the
purview of Section 2332 after review and approval of the use (and a site plan, if required) by the
Planning Commission, after Public Hearing, subject to the applicable conditions, and any other
reasonable conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. A site plan shall not be required
when there is no change to buildings or existing facilities.
1. Sales space for the sale of new and used automobiles, house trailers, travel trailers, and
recreational vehicles, subject to the following.
a. Ingress and egress to the outdoor sales area shall be at least sixty (60) feet from the
intersection of any two (2) streets:
b. No major repair or major refinishing shall be done on the lot, such use of land
being only permitted in the I-1 or I-2 Industrial Districts.
DELIBERATION
I move that the request for Special Land Use Permit, per section 1301 (#1) of Article XIII of the
Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the sale of used cars in a B-4 zoning district at 1308 Getty Street,
by Juan Urbina, JV Autos , be (approved/denied/tabled, based on compliance/lack of compliance
with the City’s Master Land Use Plan and conditions set forth in Section 2332 of the City of
Muskegon Zoning Ordinance (based on the following conditions—only if approved):
4. Autos displayed for sale to be located on the property at 1308 S. Getty Street only, and not on
the owner’s adjacent property at 1272 S. Getty.
5. No outdoor vehicle repairs or storage of junk cars, old tires or car parts.
6. The owner/applicant shall permit the zoning administrator or other zoning staff in the premises
at reasonable times to review compliance with this permit.
7. The Special Land Use Permit affidavit shall be recorded with the register of deeds.
8. The Special Use Permit shall be revoked if there are any violations of conditions 1 through 4.
15
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails