View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, April 12, 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
III. Public Hearings
IV. New Business
A. Case 2012-009: Request for a site plan review for the property at 2325 Sheridan
Rd, by Port City Group.
V. Old Business
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 23, 2012
Chairman T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Michalski, B. Larson, J. Doyle, B. Mazade, L. Spataro, B. Smith,
S. Warmington, W. Parker
MEMBERS ABSENT: L. Mikesell, excused.
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, H. Mitchell
OTHERS PRESENT: C. Datema, Triangle Assoc,; R. Matthews, Verplank; C. Datema,
3769 Three Mile Rd, Grand Rapids; L. Page, 3328 Wilcox; D. Mills,
1817 Mills; E. Douglas, 2471 Lakeshore; M. Murphy, 1833 Scenic;
R. Harkin, 2190 Sharon; D. Hock, 2019 Harrison; R. Nye, 1495
Westwood Cr; M. Boden, 118 Ruddiman; S. Davie, 4380 Happy
Point, T. Hull, 2224 Sherin; B. Matthews, 3357 Wilson; and many
others.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2012-008: Request for a Special Use Permit, per Section 1500 of Article XV, to
allow for outdoor storage of aggregate at 2400 Lakeshore Dr, by Melching Demolition. M.
Franzak presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting to import, store and export bulk
aggregate on the western portion of the site (see enclosed site plan). Since this property is located
in an I-2, General Industrial District, a Special Use Permit is required for any use that involves
outdoor storage of aggregate. This site has historically used its port to ship in materials that were
used in the process of making paper and to supply the coal-based power generating facility on site.
However, the site has never been used to export aggregate, other than selling off a small surplus of
coal. The applicant has stated that the export of aggregate materials has occurred at this site as
recently as September 19, 2011 (see enclosed letter from Melching dated 2/1/12). However, staff
has since informed the applicant that this is not a conforming use since it has not been approved
under the Special Use Permit process, and the use must cease immediately. The proposed area that
will be used for the aggregate storage is defined on the site plan as “Unit 1.” The size of the entire
parcel at 2400 Lakeshore Dr is about 120 acres. Unit 1 measures about 26.5 acres. The applicant
plans on attending the Lakeside Neighborhood Association meeting in February to discuss the
plans with the community. The City of Muskegon’s “Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan of
1999” recommends relocating and clustering commercial port operations at the east end of
Muskegon Lake. This area is defined as a node located east of Edison Landing (see Waterfront
Redevelopment Sub-Plan excerpt). The Zoning Ordinance was amended in April of 2000 to
include an additional zoning district, WI-PUD, Waterfront Industrial Planned Unit Development
District. The only WI-PUD District in Muskegon is located at the east end of Muskegon Lake, just
east of Fisherman’s Landing. This zoning district was established primarily to consolidate
commercial port activities at the eastern terminus of Muskegon Lake because of its proximity to
the interstate, established industrial uses and isolation from residential zones. The intent was to
localize the district to promote symbiotic relationships among industrial port activities and to
2
discourage the expansion of such activities elsewhere along Muskegon Lake frontage. The
Planning, Engineering, Public Works and Police Departments have reviewed the site plan and do
not have any outstanding issues. Notices were sent to adjacent properties within a 300 foot radius
of the site. Staff had not received any comments at the time of the staff report. Based on the lack
of compliance with the Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan of the City of Muskegon Master
Land Use Plan, staff does not recommend approval of the Special Use Permit to import, store and
export bulk aggregate on this site.
C. Datema gave an overview of the plans. He brought up the numerous deed restrictions regarding
the property use and environmental issues, and stated that they were forced to look at industrial
uses for this property. He went over the uses that they are looking at and how they would be
allowed under the current zoning. The development will take 5 to 10 years to develop this
property. At this time they are trying to stay within the current zoning as opposed to going through
a PUD. They have met with staff and the Beachwood and Lakeside Neighborhood Associations.
He read a portion of a letter that was provided by Elouise Heiftje of the Lakeside Neighborhood
Association. He went over the buffer for the proposed area, stating that they were looking at a
100-foot buffer. There are limitations set by the Army Corp when it comes to dredging. If there’s
less than a million tons, they may not have Federal funding. The 1999 Sub- plan did not discuss an
adaptive re-use for the Sappi property. The applicant is asking to have it reviewed based on what
is happening now and to consider the deed restrictions. B. Mazade asked about addressing some of
the environmental issues on the property, given the deed restrictions. C. Datema stated that there
were limits on what could be disclosed due to the deed restrictions. S. Warmington asked how
many jobs were proposed for this portion of the site. C. Datema stated that it would be less than 12
for the aggregate site. S. Warmington stated that it was estimated to 400,000 to 700,000 tons and
with today’s market, wasn’t that high in regards to the aggregate. He found it to be under 500,000
tons. J. Doyle had asked if there had been studies in regards to the truck traffic and the routes that
the trucks would take, specifically with the aggregate. C. Datema stated that he had asked staff
what their recommendations for traffic would be and had not heard anything more. He added that
there were some roads that had been redone and they could require the traffic to take certain
routes. L. Page stated he was not asking the commission to make any exceptions to what is
happening, but was asking them to basically do nothing. He referenced the City Master Plan Sub
Area #9 regarding the S.D. Warren property. The deeds were carefully crafted with restrictions.
He quoted from the City’s Master Plan regarding this property when it was S. D. Warren. It also
included a stipulation should S. D. Warren relocate that the property be developed for non-
industrial use. D. Mills had concerns with what the aggregate materials were going to be. He also
was concerned about the restrictions placed on the property with the deed. E. Douglas had
concerns with traffic and heavy trucks using the residential roads for a dozen employees. Ships
could carry invasive species going from one lake to another. She had concerns with the fact that
Sappi had tax incentives and they ended up letting workers go. She was also concerned with future
contamination and how it would affect the neighboring properties. R. Nye felt that since it was a
demolition company, the aggregate would probably be materials from demolitions. Deed
restrictions were problems for the purchaser. It was his understanding that the contract could be
voided if it went against policy. S. Davie would like this looked at thoroughly and not pushed
through quickly. She was concerned with the situation worsening. T. Hull had traffic concerns and
there had been changes done on Lakeshore Drive to include a bike trail on the street. He also
stated that there were enough aggregate sites already. M. Murphy stated that this was private
property and a copy of the deed could be obtained from the Register of Deeds Office, so the deed
restrictions could be seen. People could FOIA any information from the DEQ in reference to this
site. R. Harkin stated that when Sappi was there, wood chips and coal dust went on the
neighboring properties and ended up on the houses and other items. He liked the way his property
looked now since these pollutants were no longer in the air, ending up all over everything he
3
owned. D. Hock asked why there wasn’t a comprehensive list of what aggregate is. D. Nye stated
that Occupy Muskegon had obtained and loaded to their website the deed and other information
that they had found regarding this property.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by J. Doyle and
unanimously approved.
B. Larson stated that he could understand the issue regarding the odor, and he could not support
this application. L. Spataro stated that the commission should let the owner know what the
commission expected. There was a need to look at the property and how it affected the community
for the next 100 years. He stated there was no rush if this development would take 5 to 10 years.
He stated that there was a need for a master plan for the site and all the specifications on the
property, as well as what would be needed for Lakeshore Drive to accommodate the development,
and what utility work may be required. S. Warmington stated to the audience that Mr. Melching
was a nice guy and he was trying to take a piece of property and turn it around. Mr. Melching had
given tours of the site and had asked for suggestions. There are things that can go on the property
without Planning Commission or City Commission approval. He concurred with the commission
in regards to aggregate storage. He was concerned with this being proposed for about 25% of the
property for a couple of employees. The commission members discussed and agreed with the
many issues that have been brought up regarding this site, especially the traffic issues. B. Mazade
stated that he agreed with L. Spataro and that there needed to be a master plan for the entire site to
see how individual pieces fit into the big puzzle. He stated that a PUD would be appropriate for
the property. T. Michalski was concerned with the fact that Sappi could walk away from this
property and could sell it with the stipulations that were placed on it. He stated that the City
needed to look at this and determine what was right for the City.
A motion that the special land use permit, per Section 1500 of Article XV of the Zoning
Ordinance, to the allow the import, outdoor storage and export of bulk aggregate in an I-2, General
Industrial District at 2400 Lakeshore Drive, by Melching Demolition be denied, based on 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, was made by B. Larson, supported by B. Smith and
unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
OTHER
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m.
4
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
April 12, 2012
Case 2012-009: Request for a site plan review for the property at 2325 Sheridan Rd, by Port City
Group.
Applicant: Port City Group
Property Address/Location: 2325 Sheridan Rd
Request: Site Plan Review
Zoning: I-2, General Industrial District
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. The subject property is located in the Port City Industrial Park and is surrounded by
industrial properties on all sides.
2. The parcel measures 9.93 acres.
3. The are currently two separate facilities on this property. The northernmost facility is
35,300 sqft and the southernmost facility is 12,500 sqft. The addition will measure 13,849
sqft and will connect the two existing facilities.
4. The addition will be used for warehousing.
5. There is adequate parking for this addition. The southernmost parking lot is rarely used
under the current conditions.
6. The Fire Department has the following conditions for approval:
a. Fire hydrants shall meet city specs.
b. Fire flow calculations shall be conducted to determine pipe size for water main.
c. Hydrant spacing and placement shall comply with IFC 2009 edition appendix C Table
C 105.1.
7. The Planning Department has the following conditions for approval.
a. A revised site plan must be submitted showing the western property line and the
setback.
b. A landscaping plan must be submitted.
c. The height of the building must be listed on the plan.
8. The DPW has no outstanding issues with this plan.
9. The Engineering Department has no outstanding issues with this plan.
5
Both facilities on site, viewed from the southern entrance
Both facilities on site, viewed from the northern parking lot
Zoning Map
6
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.
8
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
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
9
the site plan and any hearing regarding the application for approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for site plan approval for the building addition subject
to the conditions listed below.
DETERMINATION
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the site plan for a building addition located at 2325 Sheridan Rd for Port City group,
be (approved/denied/tabled), based on the following findings and conditions (if approved):
1. All requirements listed in item #5 and #6 of the staff report shall be provided as needed on
a revised site plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
10
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails