View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, September 13, 2012
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 16, 2012
III. Public Hearings
None
IV. New Business
Hearing, Case 2012-19: Request for a site plan review for the property at 1920 Lakeshore
Drive, by GL&V, LLC.
V. Old Business
VI. Other
Form Based Codes
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
DRAFT REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
August 16, 2012
Chairman T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Larson, L. Spataro, L. Mikesell, T. Michalski, W. Parker, B.
Mazade
MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Doyle, excused; B. Smith, excused; S. Gawron
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: R. Bultje, Scholten Fant, Grand Haven; P. Johnson, Resource
Planning & Design, Spring Lake; J. Schrier, City Attorney, 601
Terrace Street
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of July 12, 2012 be approved, was made by B.
Larson, supported by W. Parker and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2012-18: Request for a Special Land Use Permit, per Section 601 of Article VI of
the Zoning Ordinance, to have a private noncommercial recreation area at 966 Washington Ave,
by Brett Gilbert. M. Franzak stated that the applicant had decided to change his site plan, and
requested that this item be tabled.
A motion to table this case per the applicant’s request was made by L. Spataro, supported by B.
Larson and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
Case 2012-17 (Tabled): Request for a site plan review for the property at 2400 Lakeshore Dr, by
Melching, Inc. T. Michalski asked if staff had met with Melching since last month’s meeting. B.
Mazade stated that City staff had participated in a meeting with the DEQ and Melching, but there
was limited discussion relative to the site plan. He stated that they had discussed what was going
on at the site currently, what would occur in the future, and how the DEQ could assist. T.
Michalski asked if additional meetings were planned. B. Mazade stated that it was a productive
meeting, and they were currently working on setting up a future meeting. B. Larson stated that the
site plan was incomplete, and pointed out what he said were inconsistent statements in Melching’s
2
letter. He thought the County drain commissioner should be involved also. M. Franzak stated that
the City’s Engineer looked at those issues. B. Larson was concerned with the lack of an
acceleration lane in front of the site, the lack of compatibility with surrounding uses, and noise,
air, and ground pollution. L. Spataro was concerned with the lack of a deceleration lane, and
whether the current street configuration could handle the additional truck traffic. He stated there
were issues with ingress and egress, drainage, and again, how this use fit in with the rest of the
site. He also didn’t see access points to the site shown on the plan. He had hoped to have
additional information provided by the applicant. B. Mazade agreed that it would be nice to have
a plan for the entire site, but didn’t think it was a requirement. He stated that the property was
zoned I-2, and as such, scrap metal processing was allowed by City ordinance. He stated that Mr.
Melching was asked to submit a site plan for that use, which he did. He stated that if the site plan
was denied or tabled, the Planning Commissioners needed to point out the site plan defects on
which that decision was based. L. Spataro asked if what they had was sufficient for them to act
on, or if they could request additional information. M. Franzak explained site plan requirements
and stated that all pertinent City departments had reviewed the plan and noted no deficiencies.
The site plan review process was not about use, as much as it was about things such as
landscaping, grading, etc. He stated that in the past, the City had accepted a partial site plan where
a large parcel was concerned. B. Larson asked if the pending ballot issue had any effect on this
decision, and if the case could be postponed until November. J. Schrier stated that it was still
undecided whether the ballot issue was a valid way to promote a zone change; regardless, as a
legal non-conforming use, the use would have a right to continue. Therefore, the use being
requested would still be allowed, even if the property were rezoned. L. Spataro was opposed to
tabling the request over the zoning issue. B. Larson asked if Melching Inc. was allowed to use the
spit of land going out into Muskegon Lake. M. Franzak stated that it had historically been used as
a shipping port and was allowed to continue that use. B. Larson asked if that inlet was part of the
site plan. M. Franzak stated that it was. T. Michalski believed that the Planning Commission had
a couple of options: to leave the case tabled and express specific concerns regarding the site plan,
or to take the case off the table and vote. J. Schrier stated that the Planning Commission could
either approve the site plan, reject it and state the reasons, or approve it with conditions. The
Zoning Ordinance listed specific site plan review criteria, so any denial must be based on that.
A motion to take this case off the table was made by B. Mazade, supported by L. Spataro and
approved, with T. Michalski and B. Larson voting nay.
R. Bultje and P. Johnson stated that Mr. Melching had heard the message about the desire for a
master plan or PUD, but it was premature at this point in the project. R. Bultje stated that the
zoning ordinance did not state that they were not allowed to use their property because all 119
acres were not mapped out. He stated that they were asking for a use by right in an Industrial
district, which included the shipping port. They were also aware of the ballot petition and their
position was that citizens could not initiate a zone change. He stated that use of their land could
not be denied them without due process. He stated that the site plan presented met zoning
ordinance requirements and was approved by City staff, and they requested an answer. B. Mazade
asked if they knew what kind of time frame they were looking at before they were at the point of
being able to provide a PUD or full site plan. R. Bultje stated that there were many issues at stake
with this property and it could take a couple of years. T. Michalski asked if the scrap dismantling
area was to be located on an already polluted portion of the site, or a clean area. P. Johnson stated
that the area of the site in question here was not the focus of their discussions with the DEQ
regarding remediation. T. Michalski asked what precautions would be taken to avoid polluting the
boat basin and stormwater pond. P. Johnson explained procedures to safeguard the water supply,
stating that all stormwater would be contained on-site, then discharged into the municipal system.
They would also add another retention pond.
3
Several audience members spoke in opposition to the request. Concerns included noise, air, and
ground pollution, the negative impact on neighbors, the health of Muskegon Lake and all the
money that has been spent on restoration so far, and the lack of information on plans for the entire
site. Some audience members also expressed a desire for more public involvement and input.
Board members and the City Attorney discussed options for approving or denying the request, and
the possible consequences. L. Spataro stated that there seemed to be no technical objections from
City staff, and now there was a deadline set due to the upcoming ballot issue regarding the zoning.
A motion to approve the site plan for scrap metal processing located at 2400 Lakeshore Drive, was
made by L. Spataro and supported by B. Mazade, with discussion continuing on the motion.
L. Spataro stated that no one disputed the importance of this site. Unfortunately, the citizen
initiative to put the zoning issue on the November ballot has forced all parties to rush into a
decision on something that should have been allowed to take time, considering the magnitude of
the project. The City had no say over who Sappi sold the property to. L. Spataro stated that it was
unfortunate that instead of approaching dialogue in a positive way, some were trying to force the
property owners into acting. It was reasonable to expect Mr. Melching to protect his property
rights. L. Spataro stated that he had an obligation to do what was legally defensible for the City,
and to continue positive meetings and interaction with the property owner, Mr. Melching.
A vote was taken on the above motion which was approved, with T. Michalski and B. Larson
voting nay.
Form-Based Codes – Board members and staff concurred that this would be discussed at the next
meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:27 p.m.
4
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
September 13, 2012
Hearing, Case 2012-19: Request for a site plan review for the property at 1920 Lakeshore Dr, by
GL&V, LLC.
Applicant: GL&V, LLC
Property Address/Location: 1920 Lakeshore Dr
Request: Site Plan Review
Zoning: WM-Waterfront Marine
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. The subject property is 55.3 acres and hosts an active shipping port and the Lake Express
Car Ferry.
2. The new building will be placed near the shipping port, just east of the Lake Express Car
Ferry, and will be used for marine contracting operations.
3. The building is currently located at the Grand Valley State University Annis Water
Resources Institute. It is being dismantled and will be shipped to the new location at 1920
Lakeshore Dr.
4. The building measures roughly 10,625 sqft. About 8,750 sqft will be used as a shop and
1,875 will be used for office.
5. The plan calls for eight paved parking spaces, which is sufficient for this size building.
6. The landscaping plan is incomplete; however, there is enough on-site vegetation to
compensate for the difference.
7. The Fire Department has the following conditions for approval:
a. Owner shall contact Fire Marshall in reference to materials and contents for shop
building.
b. Owner must submit construction type and building dimensions. This info will be
required to determine fire flow and amount of hydrants needed for project.
c. Fire flow test shall be conducted for water supply.
8. The DPW has no outstanding issues with this plan.
9. The Engineering Department has no outstanding issues with this plan.
5
The subject building, which is currently being dismantled at 740 Shoreline Dr.
Entrance to 1920 Lakeshore Dr.
6
Looking North from the entrance of 1920 Lakeshore Dr.
Looking west on site, where the building will be constructed. The Lake Express Car Ferry
terminal is pictured in the background.
7
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
8
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
9
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.
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
10
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.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for site plan approval subject to the conditions listed
below.
DETERMINATION
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the site plan for a building located at 1920 Lakeshore Dr for GL&V, LLC, be
(approved/denied/tabled), based on the following findings and conditions (if approved):
1. All requirements listed in item #7 of the staff report shall be provided prior to issuance of a
building permit.
11
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails