View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, August 16, 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
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. (applicant requests to table case)
IV. New Business
V. Old Business
Case 2012-17 (Tabled): Request for a site plan review for the property at 2400 Lakeshore
Dr, by Melching, Inc.
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
July 12, 2012
Chairman T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Larson, J. Doyle, L. Spataro, S. Warmington, L. Mikesell, B.
Smith, T. Michalski, W. Parker, S. Gawron
MEMBERS ABSENT: B. Mazade, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: D. Melching, 16942 Woodlane, Nunica; P. Johnson, Resource
Planning & Design, Spring Lake; D. Pollock
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of June 14, 2012 be approved, was made by B.
Larson, supported by J. Doyle and unanimously approved.
B. Smith arrived at 4:03 p.m.
L. Spataro arrived at 4:06 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2012-17: Request for a site plan review for the property at 2400 Lakeshore Dr, by Melching,
Inc. M. Franzak presented the staff report. This parcel is zoned I-2, General Industrial District,
and measures roughly 120 acres. The eastern half of the property where the former paper mill was
located is currently under dismantling, demolition and/or remediation. The applicant would like to
use the western half of the property for scrap metal dismantling and processing. Scrap metal
processing is considered a principal use permitted under the zoning ordinance. However, since it
has never been used as such in the past, it is considered a change of use and therefore a site plan
review is necessary. The site plan indicates the locations of scrap steel staging and dismantling
areas, proposed loading platforms for port shipping, and existing and future vegetative screening.
The applicant has stated that the scrap metal will be moved off site via ship, rail and truck;
prioritized in that order.
P. Johnson described his background, the site in question, and the work being done there. He
stated that they want to be able to have a scrap metal processing area on the west end of the site.
L. Spataro stated that he was concerned that the section in question represented almost half of the
entire site, and it was not consistent with earlier plans presented to the Planning Commission. He
stated that it was difficult to make a decision when they haven’t received information on plans for
2
the rest of the site. His other concern was access management; the Shoreline bike trail was on-
street passing by the property, and there was no left turn lane on Lakeshore Drive any longer, so it
would be difficult to accommodate all the truck traffic. P. Johnson stated that the use being
considered was a use by right, and he didn’t think they were required to provide a site plan. The
proposed scrap metal operation would comprise less than 50 percent of the total site. L. Spataro
stated that it was important to ensure that this use didn’t interfere with the adjacent residential
neighborhood or the other uses on the site. However, since the applicant had not furnished a
master plan for the site, it was unknown what the other uses would be. P. Johnson stated that deed
restrictions narrowed the scope of what could be done there. L. Spataro stated that it was
important to consider how this use would fit in with the rest of the site. P. Johnson stated that at
this point it was not possible to provide a master plan for the site with any certainty. He stated that
permit by right uses would allow the entire property to be used as a scrap yard. T. Michalski
asked if it was Mr. Melching’s intent to continue to process scrap metal after the site was
dismantled. D. Melching that it was. T. Michalski stated that he had spoken with State
Representative Marcia Hovey-Wright, who told him that the DEQ was trying to put together a
committee to discuss this property. He was concerned about pollution on the site, and would have
a problem with a scrap metal processing facility being put on a clean site. He preferred to await
DEQ findings. P. Johnson stated that he was aware of a future meeting with the DEQ, but not a
committee. He stated that the DEQ did not play a role in the site plan process. L. Spataro was
upset that a master plan for the site was not provided as requested the last time Mr. Melching was
before the Planning Commission. He stated that it would be irresponsible to approve a site plan
today because they were not given enough information; the Planning Commission had no way to
know if this use would be compatible with the rest of the site. P. Johnson stated that circulation
patterns and buffering were shown on the site plan submitted. He stated that he would be glad to
address any deficiencies that didn’t meet site plan requirements. S. Gawron stated that the
Commission’s desire for a master plan for the site has been stressed over and over. B. Larson
stated that he intended to make a motion to table the request. Since there were so many present in
the audience, T. Michalski asked him to hold off on making the motion until audience members
had a chance to express their opinions. Nine people expressed their opposition to the request.
Reasons included environmental issues, noise, increased traffic, wear and tear on roads, lack of a
buffer between the site and adjacent residential areas, and pollution concerns. M. Hovey-Wright
stated that she had spoken with DEQ personnel about the site, and investigation into possible
contamination was ongoing. P. Johnson stated that they had not been allowed to present their
complete site plan for review, per the zoning ordinance. He stated that the site plan contained
information on screening, berms, and other issues raised. Regarding the complaint about the
perimeter fence, he stated that it was a work in progress and they had no intention of leaving it in
disrepair.
A motion to table the request for site plan approval for scrap metal processing located at 2400
Lakeshore Drive, was made by B. Larson, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
OTHER
Form-Based Codes – M. Franzak distributed information on form based codes to the board
members and asked them to review it for discussion at the next meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
3
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 16, 2012
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.
The applicant has asked that this item be tabled since he will be revising his site plan.
Case 2012-17 (Tabled): Request for a site plan review for the property at 2400 Lakeshore Dr, by
Melching, Inc.
BACKGROUND:
Applicant: Melching, Inc.
Property Address (location): 2400 Lakeshore Dr
Zoning: I-2, General Industrial District
Current Land Use: Vacant Industrial / Demolition
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. The parcel measures roughly 120 acres.
2. The eastern half of the property is currently under dismantling, demolition and/or remediation.
3. The applicant would like to use to western half of the property for scrap metal dismantling and
processing.
4. Scrap metal processing is considered a principal use permitted under the zoning ordinance.
However, since it has never been used as such in the past, it is considered a change of use, and
a site plan review is necessary.
5. The site plan indicates the locations of scrap steel staging and dismantling areas, proposed
loading platforms for port shipping and existing and future vegetative screening.
6. The applicant has stated that the scrap metal will be moved off site via ship, rail and truck;
prioritized in that order.
4
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
5
Ordinance Excerpt:
I-2 General Industrial
ARTICLE XV - I-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
PREAMBLE
The I-2 General Industrial Districts are established primarily for manufacturing, assembling, and
fabrication activities including large scale or specialized industrial operations whose external
physical effects may be felt to some degree by surrounding districts. The I-2 District is so
structured as to permit, in addition to I-1 Light Industrial District uses, the manufacturing,
processing and compounding of semi-finished or finished products from raw materials.
SECTION 1500: PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED
In an I-2 General Industrial District, buildings and land may be used for one (1) or more of the
following specified uses, unless otherwise provided in this Article.
1. Any Principal Use Permitted in the I-1 District, subject to the requirements of this District.
2. Primary metal industries, including foundries, smelting and refining of metal or alloys,
rolling and extruding plants.
3. Chemical plants whose manufacturing process produce products which are not hazardous
materials as defined in the Fire Code.
4. Paper and pulp manufacturing.
5. Power generating plants.
6. Junk yards and scrap metal processing.
7. Rubber manufacturing or the remanufacturing of rubber products.
8. Medical Marihuana caregiver facilities to the extent licensed pursuant to City Code
Sections 34-101 through 43-107 [03/11].
9. Uses similar to the above principal uses.
DELIBERATION
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.
6
c. Compatibility with surrounding land use and development: All elements shall be located,
designed and organized in relation to topography, the size and configuration of the parcel,
the character of adjoining property and the type and size of the buildings. The site shall be
developed so as not to impede the normal and orderly development or improvements of
surrounding property for uses permitted in this Zoning Ordinance.
d. Preservation of natural features: The landscape shall be preserved in its natural state,
insofar as practical, by removing only those areas of vegetation or making those alterations
to the topography which are reasonably necessary to develop the site.
e. Landscaping: Landscape buffers and greenbelts shall be provided and designed in
accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. Fences, walks, barriers and landscaping
shall be used, as appropriate, for the protection and enhancement of the property and for
the privacy of occupants and neighbors.
f. Stormwater management: Drainage design shall recognize existing natural drainage
patterns. Stormwater removal shall not adversely affect neighboring properties or the
public storm drainage system. Provisions shall be made to accommodate stormwater on-
site, using sound engineering practices.
g. Soil erosion control: Appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with state
and local soil and sedimentation control regulations.
h. Wetlands Protection: The natural retention or storage capacity of any wetland, water body,
or water course will not be substantially reduced or altered in a way which could increase
flooding or water pollution at the site or other locations.
i. Emergency Access: All site improvements and structures shall be arranged so as to permit
necessary emergency vehicle access and to comply with the locally adopted fire code.
j. Public streets and private roads: All uses must have access to a public street or a private
road. All streets and curb cuts shall be developed in accordance with City specifications,
the Michigan Department of Transportation, and/or private road regulations of the City,
whichever applies.
k. Access Management: Streets and drives on a site shall be of a width appropriate to the
traffic volume they will carry and shall have adequate paved areas for vehicles. Traffic
mitigation techniques such as on-site parallel access lanes, rear access lanes, deceleration
lanes and traffic calming measures may be required. Shared curb cuts and access ways
may also be required.
l. Site Circulation and Parking: Parking areas shall meet the requirements of this ordinance.
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
7
such facilities may be required for the development. The site circulation shall be connected
to existing or planned streets and pedestrian or bicycle pathways in the area as appropriate.
n. Site amenities: The site plan shall provide outdoor common areas and associated amenities
for employees, customers and/or residents which may include public trash receptacles, bike
racks, seating areas, recreation areas, shade trees, bus stop turn-outs, and similar facilities
where appropriate.
o. Utility Service: The development must be adequately served by necessary public services
and shall not impose an undue burden on public services and infrastructure. All utilities
for new construction shall be placed underground. Any installations which must remain
above ground shall be compatible with those on adjacent properties.
p. Lighting: Exterior lighting shall be arranged so it is deflected away from adjacent
properties and so it does not impede the vision of traffic along adjacent streets. Flashing or
intermittent lights shall not be permitted. Design of lighting fixtures shall be compatible
with those on adjacent properties. Light poles and fixtures shall be no higher than twenty-
five (25) feet.
q. Signs: The size, location, and lighting of all permanent signs shall be consistent with the
requirements of this Ordinance.
r. Accessibility: All sites shall be designed to comply with barrier-free requirements.
s. State and Federal Mandates: The site plan shall demonstrate compliance with any state or
federal statute, regulation or ruling, whether general or site specific, which is applicable to
the property. This shall include without limitation any legally enforceable restrictions on
development or improvements which have been communicated or required by a state or
federal agency. It shall include, without limitation, requirements of laws, regulations,
rulings or agency requirements concerning environmental protection, waste management,
floodplains, soil and sedimentation, protection of ground or surface water resources, soil
conditions, and the presence of hazardous materials in or contamination of soils, air and
water pollution matters and provisions which are designed for or reasonably related to the
protection of the public health, safety or welfare. The applicant shall demonstrate that all
said statutes, regulations, rulings, or requirements have been satisfied by its site plan and
that there are no State or Federal agencies which have required, or are in the process of
requiring, any additional action, restriction or compliance. In the event a property is the
subject of any governmental regulatory action or requirement, or without limitation, the
property is located in the "facility" as defined by state or federal law, the state or federal
agency responsible for the applicable regulation shall be notified in writing of the filing of
the site plan and any hearing regarding the application for approval.
DETERMINATION
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the site plan for scrap metal processing located at 2400 Lakeshore Dr, be
(approved/denied/tabled), based on the following findings and conditions (if approved):
8
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails