View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, February 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 January 10, 2013
III. Public Hearings
A. 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.
B. Hearing, Case 2013-03: Request for a preliminary Planned Unit Development approval
for a neighborhood community center in an R-1, Single Family Residential District at
2330 Barclay St, by Muskegon Family Life Center.
C. Hearing, Case 2013-04: Request for an amendment to the Final Planned Unit
Development at 650 Terrace Point to allow for a single family residential development, by
Terrace Point Landing, LLC.
D. Case 2013-05: Request for a site plan review for a new building at 1903 Marquette, by
Baker College.
IV. New Business
V. Old Business
A. Case 2013-01, a request to vacate a portion of Pine St, has been rescinded by the applicant.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
January 10, 2013
Vice Chairman B. Larson 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
W. Parker
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Michalski, B. Smith
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: B. Hammersley, Muskegon County Administrator; J. Mrak, RQAW
Consultants, Indianapolis IN; J. Escamilla, Byce & Associates,
Kalamazoo MI; B. Webster, Byce & Associates; C. Strandberg, 974
Pine; R. Dahlquist, 961 Spring; J. Eldenbrady, 1336 Spring St; T.
DePung, 990 Pine St; T. Carmichael, 860 Pine St; N. Hennard,
District Court Administrator; C. Steffens, 2218 McCracken
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of December 13, 2012 be approved, was made
by J. Doyle, supported by S. Gawron and unanimously approved.
B. Mazade arrived at 4:04 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2013-01: Request to vacate the portion of Pine St between Walton Ave and Myrtle
Ave, by the County of Muskegon. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The County of
Muskegon has applied to vacate a portion of Pine Street so that they can expand the county jail
facility. The addition would be built over the existing street and onto the parking lot to the east.
This review is only for the vacation of the portion of the street, not a site plan review for the new
facility. If approved, the County would need to amend the plat to eliminate the street. Walton and
Myrtle Avenues would remain open through Pine Street and would not be affected. Traffic
patterns would be disrupted on Pine Street north of Apple Avenue. This area is an extension of
the downtown business district and there are 24 business suites on Pine Street between Apple
Avenue and Western Avenue. These include businesses such as auto parts, hardware, flooring,
glass, uniforms, photography, gas station, tavern, fast food, insurance and other office spaces.
There are also three significant vacant buildings that are for sale: the former antiques mall, Al
Perri and Manpower. Notices were sent to adjacent property owners. Staff received letters
opposing the street vacation from B. Young, 1468 Terrace St., J. Witt from Witt Buick, W.
Sampson, 1527 6th St, and Downtown Muskegon Now. The Engineering Department has
recommended against vacating the street due to lack of information provided to address the
resulting geometric alignment of the remaining sections, as well as how the existing utilities will
be addressed. The Transportation Section (4-19) of the 1997 Master Land Use Plan recommends
that access control should be implemented on Apple, Henry, Getty and Sherman. Staff
2
recommends against the vacation of the portion of Pine Street because it will not preserve the flow
of the traffic on the surrounding road system, per Section 4-19 of the Master Land Use Plan.
B. Larson asked if there had been any dialog between the County and City over the proposed street
vacation. B. Mazade stated that there had been some discussion, but that the Planning Department
and Manager’s Office had not been intimately involved in the planning of the new jail facility. B.
Larson asked J. Schrier if the County could take the road through eminent domain. J. Schrier
stated that he didn’t think so, in this situation. J. Mrak stated that his firm began a feasibility study
for the jail last spring, and explained the process to date. He provided renderings of the proposed
new jail site, stating that the plan was for the jail to be placed over Pine Street and partially on
either side of the street. He stated that advantages of this plan were that it would provide room for
further expansion when needed, it would provide a contiguous governmental campus, it would
improve the safety and security of jail staff and inmates, and construction costs would be reduced,
compared to other options. L. Spataro asked about the possibility of placing a tunnel beneath the
street. J. Mrak stated that underground utilities would be a costly issue. L. Spataro stated they
would still be paying to move them if the street were vacated. J. Mrak stated that the work would
be more extensive and costly if they were to build a tunnel. L. Spataro questioned the importance
of a contiguous campus, noting that many County departments had already moved out of the
County Building, and out of the downtown area. He stated that, as a City Commissioner and a
Planning Commissioner, he was obligated to look out for the tax-paying businesses and residents.
He stated that the Pine Street vacation option had not come up earlier in the process, during the
public charettes. J. Mrak stated that they were originally considering using Walton Avenue, and
the Pine Street option didn’t come up until later. He stated that the Pine Street option was
discussed at other meetings that were open to the public. He stated that there would be higher
operational costs to the County if the jail were at a remote location. J. Doyle stated that he
understood the reasons stated, but preferred looking at other options. He suggested the existing
County building parking lot, or possibly an overhead walkway above the street. J. Mrak stated
that it was not good security practice to build an elevated jail and allow the public movement
underneath it. He stated that the parking lot idea would make access to the building more difficult,
and that other options would cause an increase in operational costs and staffing needs. B. Mazade
asked what the cost difference would be, between an elevated walkway and the current proposal,
including the cost of rerouting utilities. J. Mrak stated that the cost would be just under one million
dollars, but the larger concern was security. He stated that the more floors and elevators a jail
facility had, the more security concerns there would be. L. Mikesell asked what the total cost of
the jail project was. J. Mrak stated that it was around 24 million dollars. B. Mazade asked if there
had been any traffic or impact studies done regarding the proposed street closure. J. Mrak stated
there had not been. B. Larson stated that he was in favor of the jail being downtown, but was not
satisfied with this proposal. He stated that he would like more information.
C. Strandberg owned a business at Pine and Myrtle. He was opposed to the street vacation, and
stated that it would close his business, as his large delivery trailers needed to use Pine Street. B.
Mazade asked if he had any previous discussion with the County regarding the problem. He stated
that he had not; the letter he got from the City was his first contact about the plan. R. Dahlquist
owned Benson Drugs and was opposed to the request. He stated that he was in favor of a new jail,
but not the closing of Pine Street, as he felt that would hurt the downtown. He asked about court
proceedings done via video, rather than in person. J. Eldenbrady agreed that a new jail was
needed downtown, but was opposed to the closing of a portion of Pine Street. He stated there was
a lot of property available in the area, and many other viable options. He stated that closing off
that section of Pine St. would cut off neighborhoods to the south and disrupt traffic flow. T.
DePung owned a bail bond business in the affected area, and stated that he was in favor of a new
jail downtown, no matter how it was accomplished. He stated that the proposed vacation may or
may not affect his business. T. Carmichael owned Baker Auto at 860 Pine. He was opposed to the
3
request, stating that the vacation of this block would negatively affect his business. L. Spataro
stated that his building was recently renovated and asked how much was spent on the
improvements. T. Carmichael stated he was not sure, as he was a tenant of the building. N.
Hennard, District Court Administrator, addressed the comment about video court proceedings.
She stated that so far, the Supreme Court had only allowed arraignments done via video. Other
proceedings required that the defendant be in the courtroom. C. Steffens didn’t think that enough
information had been supplied about the proposal, and stated that the public should have a say.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the vacation of Pine Street from Myrtle Avenue to Walton Avenue be recommended
to City Commission for denial, was made by L. Spataro and supported by S. Gawron, with
discussion continuing on the motion.
L. Spataro stated that he was in favor of a new jail, but not at the expense of a healthy, vibrant
downtown. He stated that it was important to preserve the livelihood of the area business-owners
and taxpayers. He had heard from several residents and businesspeople opposed to vacating part
of the street, but had not heard any comments in support of the request. He stated that portions of
several downtown streets had already been closed, cutting off too much access to the downtown.
He stated that it was important to keep the street grid open. He expressed a desire to meet with
County representatives and have a discussion on how to meet the needs of the City, County,
residents, and business owners. S. Gawron stated that closing streets was bad urban planning, and
would negatively affect businesses, neighborhoods, and future economic development. He was in
favor of having the jail downtown, but was opposed to the closure of a downtown street. B.
Larson was disappointed that there had been no traffic study done, and believed there were better
options than closing a downtown street. B. Mazade stated that it was important to have the jail
remain downtown; however, he had concerns about the closure of Pine Street, especially after
hearing the comments brought forth at this meeting. He stated that he would like to look at the
issue further and engage in more dialog with County officials to achieve what was best for all
involved.
A motion to table the request to vacate Pine Street from Myrtle Avenue to Walton Avenue, to
allow City staff the opportunity to meet with County officials to come up with a mutually
acceptable plan,
with the condition that the case be brought back before the Planning Commission no later than the
March 2013 meeting, was made by B. Mazade, supported by J. Doyle and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m.
4
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 14, 2013
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.
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.
5
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
6
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):
1. 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.
2. No outdoor vehicle repairs or storage of junk cars, old tires or car parts.
3. The owner/applicant shall permit the zoning administrator or other zoning staff in the premises
at reasonable times to review compliance with this permit.
4. The Special Land Use Permit affidavit shall be recorded with the register of deeds.
5. The Special Use Permit shall be revoked if there are any violations of conditions 1 through 4.
7
Hearing, Case 2013-03: Request for a preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for a
neighborhood community center and residential development in an R-1, Single Family
Residential District at 2330 Barclay St, by Muskegon Family Life Center.
BACKGROUND
1. The parcel is approximately 6.4 acres and has two structures on it, the former Moose
Lodge (13,000 sqft) and a pavilion.
2. The plan calls for a restoration of the former Moose Lodge and utilizing it as a community
center that offers a banquet facility with kitchen, offices, exercise facility, activity rooms
and day care. There will also be 20 multi-family residential units built along the northern
and eastern boarders of the parcel. They will include specialized housing for the elderly,
handicapped and/or those with special needs.
3. The existing pavilion would be moved closer to the existing building.
4. 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 curb cuts.
This would allow for additional pavement to be added for parking near the community
center.
5. The existing building would be renovated with a new patio, carport, canopy and fenced in
play area.
6. The plan proposes a gazebo where the current fountain is located.
7. 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.
8. Notice was sent to properties within 300 feet of this property. Staff has not received any
public comments at the time of this writing.
9. 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.
The former Moose Lodge at 2330 Barclay St.
8
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
9
Ordinance Excerpt:
Planned Unit Developments
Excerpted from Section 2101: Development Options
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Purpose
The purpose of this option is to permit flexibility in the regulation of land development;
encourage innovation in land use and variety in design, layout, and type of structures
constructed; achieve economy and efficiency in the use of land, natural resources and
utilities; encourage provision of useful open space; provide adequate housing,
employment, and shopping opportunities particularly suited to the needs of the residents of
the City of Muskegon and encourage the use, reuse, and improvement of existing sites and
buildings when the uniform regulations contained in zoning districts do not provide
adequate protection and safeguards for the site or surrounding area.
This option is intended to accommodate developments with mixed or varied uses, to allow
some degree of flexibility in the application of standards and regulations in this Ordinance
to achieve innovation to development on sites with unusual topography or unique settings
within the community, or on land which exhibits difficult or costly development problems,
and shall not be allowed where this option is sought primarily to avoid the imposition of
standards and requirements of zoning classifications rather than to achieve the stated
purposes above.
a. Planned Unit Development Regulations, Standards and Requirements
1) The entire parcel for which application is made must be under one
ownership or the application must be made with the written authorization of
all property owners.
2) The application shall meet the criteria established in each specified zoning
district.
b. PUD Review Procedures
1) A petition for a PUD approval shall be submitted in accordance with
Section 2332 of this ordinance.
2) The review shall be in two phases:
3) The preliminary phase shall involve a review of a conceptual PUD plan to
determine its suitability.
4) The final phase shall require a detailed development plan for any part of the
approved conceptual PUD plan.
c. Standards for Approval of PUD Plans
10
The Planning Commission shall approve, deny or modify preliminary PUD plans,
based upon the following standards. Likewise, the City Commission shall approve,
deny, or modify final PUD plans (after review and recommendation by the
Planning Commission) based upon the following standards.
1) The uses proposed will have a beneficial effect, in terms of public health,
safety, welfare, or convenience of any combination thereof, on present and
potential surrounding land uses. The uses proposed will not adversely
affect the public utility and circulation systems, surrounding properties, or
the environment.
2) The uses proposed should be consistent with the land use plans adopted by
the City.
3) The amount of open space provided, which the Planning Commission or
City Commission may modify even though such modifications do not
conform to that required in other sections of this ordinance.
4) The amount of off-street parking areas, which the Planning Commission or
City Commission may modify even though such modifications do not
conform to that required in other sections of this ordinance.
5) The amount of landscaping and buffering areas, which the Planning
Commission or City Commission may modify even though such
modifications do not conform to that required in other sections of this
ordinance.
6) The protection or enhancement of significant natural, historical, or
architectural features within the proposed development area.
7) The uses proposed will result in safe, convenient, uncongested and well
defined vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems.
Preliminary PUD Plan Submission
The applicant shall submit together with the application for PUD preliminary phase
approval:
a. A general development plan depicting the proposed locations of streets, parking
areas, open spaces, buildings and structures, and their spatial relationships, the
relationship to off-site improvements and infrastructure and any unusual
topographic features.
1) Approval by the Planning Commission of the PUD Preliminary Plan shall
remain in effect for a period not to exceed three (3) years from the date of
approval.
Final PUD Plan Submission
11
The applicant shall submit together with the application for PUD final phase approval,
development plans in sufficient detail and in so far as possible the specific locations and
dimensions of:
a. all streets, sidewalks, public and private utilities, parking areas, truck docks and
service drives;
b. all buildings and structures, elevations and spacial relationships;
c. landscaping, buffers, fences, and protective walls;
a. open space areas and other significant environmental features;
b. existing and final topographic changes;
c. identification and directional signage:
d. a property survey prepared and certified by a licensed land surveyor;
Amendments to an Approved Final PUD Plan
a. Incidental or minor changes may be approved by the Planning Commission
if the proposed modifications do not alter the basic design or land uses of
the plan.
b. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed modifications are
significant or major, a public notice and public hearing in accordance with
Section 2332 must be conducted prior to approval or denial.
PUD Development Time Limits
a. Construction of the improvements shown on the approved final PUD plan
with all proposed buildings, parking areas, landscaping and infrastructure
must commence within one year of approval by the City Commission.
b. Construction must be continued in a reasonable, diligent manner and be
completed within five (5) years.
c. Said five (5) year period may be extended if applied for in writing by the
petitioner and granted by the City Commission following public notice and
public hearing in accordance with Section 2332 of this ordinance. Failure
to secure an extension shall result in a stoppage of all construction.
DELIBERATION
Standards for discretionary uses: (emphasis provided)
1. Give due regard to the nature of all adjacent uses and structures and the consistency with the
adjacent use and development.
2. Find that the proposed use or activity would not be offensive, or a nuisance, by reason of
increased traffic, noise, vibration, or light.
3. Adequate water and sewer infrastructure exists or will be constructed to service the activity.
4. The proposed site plan complies with section 2331of the ordinance and has:
12
a. proper ingress and egress
b. sufficient parking areas, streets, roads and alleys
c. screening walls and/or fences
d. adequate fire and police protection
e. provisions for disposal of surface water run-off, sanitary sewage
f. adequate traffic control and maintenance services
g. preserves property values to related or adjoining properties.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the preliminary PUD for a community center and multi-family residential
development at 2330 Barclay St be (approved/denied) pursuant to the determination of
(compliance/lack of compliance) with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master
Land Use Plan.
13
Hearing, Case 2013-04: Request for an amendment to the Final Planned Unit Development at
650 Terrace Point to allow for a single family residential development, by Terrace Point Landing,
LLC.
BACKGROUND
1. 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.
2. This project proposes 70 lots, most of which will be only 35’ feet wide and slightly over 5,000
sqft. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all lots in residential districts have at least 50’ feet of
road frontage and be at least 6,000 sqft. The PUD is required to give flexibility on these
standards.
3. The homes on this development can be either one or two stories and will not exceed 35’ in
height. The proposed side setbacks are only 3’, compared to the normal setback of 8’ for two
story homes in residential districts allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. However, these setbacks
measure from the closest part of the house from 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’ from the side lot line.
4. 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 include minimum living and storage spaces.
Please see the “Sears Architects” attachment for design standards.
5. The proposed ROW is only 50’ wide. This will include the standard 27’ 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.
6. Staff reviewed the originally 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 you have today. However, staff has not had sufficient time to
review these new plans and will conduct thorough reviews the week of the meeting and will
create a spreadsheet outlining any problems and have it ready for you to view at the meeting.
14
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
15
Ordinance Excerpt:
Planned Unit Developments
Excerpted from Section 2101: Development Options
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Purpose
The purpose of this option is to permit flexibility in the regulation of land development;
encourage innovation in land use and variety in design, layout, and type of structures
constructed; achieve economy and efficiency in the use of land, natural resources and
utilities; encourage provision of useful open space; provide adequate housing,
employment, and shopping opportunities particularly suited to the needs of the residents of
the City of Muskegon and encourage the use, reuse, and improvement of existing sites and
buildings when the uniform regulations contained in zoning districts do not provide
adequate protection and safeguards for the site or surrounding area.
This option is intended to accommodate developments with mixed or varied uses, to allow
some degree of flexibility in the application of standards and regulations in this Ordinance
to achieve innovation to development on sites with unusual topography or unique settings
within the community, or on land which exhibits difficult or costly development problems,
and shall not be allowed where this option is sought primarily to avoid the imposition of
standards and requirements of zoning classifications rather than to achieve the stated
purposes above.
d. Planned Unit Development Regulations, Standards and Requirements
3) The entire parcel for which application is made must be under one
ownership or the application must be made with the written authorization of
all property owners.
4) The application shall meet the criteria established in each specified zoning
district.
e. PUD Review Procedures
5) A petition for a PUD approval shall be submitted in accordance with
Section 2332 of this ordinance.
6) The review shall be in two phases:
7) The preliminary phase shall involve a review of a conceptual PUD plan to
determine its suitability.
8) The final phase shall require a detailed development plan for any part of the
approved conceptual PUD plan.
f. Standards for Approval of PUD Plans
16
The Planning Commission shall approve, deny or modify preliminary PUD plans,
based upon the following standards. Likewise, the City Commission shall approve,
deny, or modify final PUD plans (after review and recommendation by the
Planning Commission) based upon the following standards.
8) The uses proposed will have a beneficial effect, in terms of public health,
safety, welfare, or convenience of any combination thereof, on present and
potential surrounding land uses. The uses proposed will not adversely
affect the public utility and circulation systems, surrounding properties, or
the environment.
9) The uses proposed should be consistent with the land use plans adopted by
the City.
10) The amount of open space provided, which the Planning Commission or
City Commission may modify even though such modifications do not
conform to that required in other sections of this ordinance.
11) The amount of off-street parking areas, which the Planning Commission or
City Commission may modify even though such modifications do not
conform to that required in other sections of this ordinance.
12) The amount of landscaping and buffering areas, which the Planning
Commission or City Commission may modify even though such
modifications do not conform to that required in other sections of this
ordinance.
13) The protection or enhancement of significant natural, historical, or
architectural features within the proposed development area.
14) The uses proposed will result in safe, convenient, uncongested and well
defined vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems.
Preliminary PUD Plan Submission
The applicant shall submit together with the application for PUD preliminary phase
approval:
d. A general development plan depicting the proposed locations of streets, parking
areas, open spaces, buildings and structures, and their spatial relationships, the
relationship to off-site improvements and infrastructure and any unusual
topographic features.
2) Approval by the Planning Commission of the PUD Preliminary Plan shall
remain in effect for a period not to exceed three (3) years from the date of
approval.
Final PUD Plan Submission
The applicant shall submit together with the application for PUD final phase approval,
development plans in sufficient detail and in so far as possible the specific locations and
dimensions of:
17
a. all streets, sidewalks, public and private utilities, parking areas, truck docks and
service drives;
b. all buildings and structures, elevations and spacial relationships;
c. landscaping, buffers, fences, and protective walls;
e. open space areas and other significant environmental features;
f. existing and final topographic changes;
g. identification and directional signage:
h. a property survey prepared and certified by a licensed land surveyor;
Amendments to an Approved Final PUD Plan
a. Incidental or minor changes may be approved by the Planning Commission
if the proposed modifications do not alter the basic design or land uses of
the plan.
b. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed modifications are
significant or major, a public notice and public hearing in accordance with
Section 2332 must be conducted prior to approval or denial.
PUD Development Time Limits
a. Construction of the improvements shown on the approved final PUD plan
with all proposed buildings, parking areas, landscaping and infrastructure
must commence within one year of approval by the City Commission.
e. Construction must be continued in a reasonable, diligent manner and be
completed within five (5) years.
f. Said five (5) year period may be extended if applied for in writing by the
petitioner and granted by the City Commission following public notice and
public hearing in accordance with Section 2332 of this ordinance. Failure
to secure an extension shall result in a stoppage of all construction.
DELIBERATION
Standards for discretionary uses: (emphasis provided)
5. Give due regard to the nature of all adjacent uses and structures and the consistency with the
adjacent use and development.
6. Find that the proposed use or activity would not be offensive, or a nuisance, by reason of
increased traffic, noise, vibration, or light.
7. Adequate water and sewer infrastructure exists or will be constructed to service the activity.
8. The proposed site plan complies with section 2331of the ordinance and has:
a. proper ingress and egress
b. sufficient parking areas, streets, roads and alleys
c. screening walls and/or fences
18
d. adequate fire and police protection
e. provisions for disposal of surface water run-off, sanitary sewage
f. adequate traffic control and maintenance services
g. preserves property values to related or adjoining properties.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the amendment to the final PUD for a residential development at 650 Terrace Point be
recommended to the City Commission for (approved/denied) pursuant to the determination of
(compliance/lack of compliance) with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master
Land Use Plan with the following conditions (conditions will be presented at meeting).
19
Case 2013-05: Request for a site plan review for a new building at 1903 Marquette, by Baker
College.
BACKGROUND
1. This plan is for a two story, 34,500 sqft building addition to the Baker College Health Science
Center at 1903 Marquette Ave.
2. The building addition meets all of the applicable setback requirements.
3. The plan includes the addition of 143 parking spaces. There is a proposed rain garden for
storm water retention.
4. The landscaping plan is complete and will be a great addition to the campus.
5. Staff has reviewed the plan and does not have any issues with it.
Zoning Map
20
Aerial Map
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.
21
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. 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.
22
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.
DELIBERATION
I move that the site plan submitted for 1903 Marquette Ave be (approved/denied), based on
(compliance/lack of compliance) with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master
Land Use Plan.
23
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails