View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
December 10, 2020
Chairperson T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Montgomery-Keast (Muskegon MI), L. Spataro (Muskegon MI), B.
Larson (Muskegon MI), B. Mazade (Muskegon MI), T. Michalski
(Muskegon MI), J. Doyle (Muskegon MI), F. Peterson (Muskegon
MI), S. Gawron (Muskegon MI), E. Hood (Muskegon MI)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: Via Zoom: C. Roberts, 7189 W 104th, Fremont MI; M. Gross, Brooklyn
NY; K. Hallman, 296 W Webster Ave; M. Dobry, attorney for St.
Pauls’ Episcopal Church; D. Kamps, Step Up; D. Henrickson, 2325
Belmont Center Dr, Belmont MI; D. Johnson, Harbor 31; S. Achram,
Paradigm Design for Harbor 31; A. Murphy, 142 Viridian Dr; T. Vitale,
attorney with Smith Haughey Rice & Roegge, PC; M. Marcil, 670
Terrace Pt Dr
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 2020
was made by B. Larson, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Hearing, Case 2020-18: Request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to expand the
marihuana facilities overlay district to allow for microbusiness and designated consumption
establishment at 420 S Harvey St by Michigan Canna House, LLC. This case was originally heard at
the October meeting, where the public hearing occurred and was closed. The case was then tabled by
the board. The applicant has stated that he wishes to bring the case back before the board for a
decision. He also has a separate case to be heard under New Business at this meeting, which requests
different types of licenses.
M. Franzak stated that he was still working on crafting a microbusiness ordinance, but it would not
cover Mr. Roberts’s request. J. Montgomery-Keast asked if the microbusiness licenses were only
meant for caregivers. M. Franzak stated that microbusinesses were allowed in the same districts as
caregivers but they were not reserved for only caregivers.
There was no public hearing held at this meeting, as it was held at the October meeting. L. Spataro
stated that a motion should be made so the board could discuss it.
A motion that that request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to expand the marihuana
facilities overlay district to allow for microbusinesses and designated consumption establishments at
420 S Harvey St, by Michigan Canna House, LLC be approved, was made by S. Gawron and
supported by B. Larson, with discussion continuing on the motion.
C. Roberts had prepared a presentation on the request, which he presented to the board. He stated
that this request was similar to his last request but it had been edited to include a license for Processor.
B. Mazade stated that his concern with this request was that it wasn’t something that the city intended
to allow with the revised marihuana ordinance staff was working on. M. Franzak stated that Mr.
Roberts was requesting retail sales, which was not covered by the ordinance being worked on. C.
Roberts further detailed his request. He stated that this case involved his request for a microbusiness;
his other application for the different license types would be heard under New Business. L. Spataro
stated that these types of requests would be much easier for staff, the board, and applicants to navigate
once the ordinance was in place. M. Franzak pointed out that Mr. Roberts was asking to amend the
ordinance. J. Montgomery-Keast stated that she was not opposed to a microbusiness at this location,
but it was confusing since there were no parameters listed. B. Mazade stated that it was a fluid
situation and suggested that the city may want to issue a moratorium on these requests until the
ordinance was in place.
A vote was taken on the motion to approve the request. The motion failed, with T. Michalski and B.
Larson voting aye, and J. Montgomery-Keast, L. Spataro, B. Mazade, J. Doyle, F. Peterson, S.
Gawron, and E. Hood voting nay.
Hearing, Case 2020-20: Request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to expand the
marihuana facilities overlay district to allow for MMFLA and MRMTA Growing, Processing and
Provisioning/Retail license types at 965 W Western Ave, 920 Washington Ave and 1330 Division St
by P & G Holdings, LLC. This case was originally heard at the November meeting; The public
hearing was closed and the case was tabled by the Planning Commission. It is now being brought
back to the board for a vote.
A motion to remove the case from the table so it could be voted on by the board, was made by B.
Mazade, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
The property at 920 Washington was recently approved as part of the marihuana facilities overlay
district for retail-provisioning license types. The property owner would now like to expand the types
of marihuana licenses allowed on site, which also includes buildings 965 W Western Ave and 1330
Division St. This request would allow all growing license types, processing licenses and
provisioning/retail licenses at 965 W Western Ave, 920 Washington Ave and 1330 Division St. Staff
recommends approval of the request at 965 W Western Ave and 920 Washington Ave in an effort to
redevelop the properties. Notices were sent to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the
subject properties; staff received communication from some of the neighbors who were opposed to
the request.
A motion that that request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to expand the marihuana
facilities overlay district to allow for MMFLA and MRMTA Growing, Processing and
Provisioning/Retail license types at 965 W Western Ave, 920 Washington Ave and 1330 Division St
by P & G Holdings, LLC be recommended to the City Commission for approval was made by F.
Peterson and supported by E. Hood, with discussion continuing on the motion.
L. Spataro asked if staff had a recommendation and if the request was consistent with the new
marihuana ordinance being crafted by staff. M. Franzak stated that it was not consistent with what
staff was proposing for the microbusiness ordinance; however, this property was approved earlier in
the year for provisioning and retail uses. This latest request was an opportunity to spur redevelopment
of the building. J. Doyle asked why it had been previously mentioned that time was running out on
this project. M. Franzak stated that the building was deteriorating. T. Michalski asked if this request
was for a special use permit. M. Franzak stated that it was not; it was similar to the previous request.
F. Peterson stated that he saw this case differently from the previous one. He discussed the property’s
history and stated that this building was one that the city had been trying to get the owners to develop
for some time. In addition, the City Commission had previously approved the property for selected
marihuana-related uses. He stated that resources were now available to help further develop the
property and it was important to leverage those. M. Gross stated that the marihuana business would
create cash flow needed for redevelopment of the condos. J. Doyle asked if the Planning Commission
could put a deadline on the condo development to ensure that it was completed. F. Peterson stated
that he would have to check with the city’s attorney on that. T. Michalski asked if it could be included
as a recommendation in the motion. M. Franzak stated that he didn’t think a development agreement
could be tied in with the zoning ordinance but if the condo development didn’t happen, staff could
propose that the Planning Commission remove the property from the marijuana district. J. Doyle
stated he would be comfortable with that and he would like it added to the motion. M. Franzak stated
that it could be added as a suggestion, but it wouldn’t be binding. B. Mazade stated that he was not
in favor of the request, but asked if J. Doyle’s suggestion could be incorporated through contract
zoning. M. Franzak stated that he would have to look into that. T. Michalski stated that a marihuana
facility was not the highest and best use of lakefront property. He also stated that he wanted to see
some type of contract or development agreement to ensure that the condo development was done. F.
Peterson stated that he would amend the motion to include a 2-year limit for the condo development.
He also pointed out that the marihuana overlay district had several requirements regarding exterior
improvements, which would benefit this property. M. Franzak confirmed that a blight elimination
plan was part of marihuana overlay district requirements.
F. Peterson amended his motion recommending approval of the request, to include a recommendation
that the approval be reviewed in 24 months to allow staff or the Planning Commission to consider
revocation of the zoning approval if the condo development had not proceeded as stated. E. Hood
supported the amended motion. The amended motion was approved, with T. Michalski, B. Larson,
L. Spataro, J. Doyle, F. Peterson, and E. Hood voting aye, and J. Montgomery-Keast, B. Mazade, and
S. Gawron voting nay.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2020-26: Request to vacate a portion of the alley between Clay St and Webster Ave
between 2nd St and 3rd St, by the Muskegon Museum of Art. M. Franzak presented the staff report.
The Muskegon Museum of Art is planning an expansion of their building that will extend over the
alley and onto their lot on Clay Ave. They are requesting to vacate a portion of the alley in order to
build over it. The other buildings on the block will not have access to the rear of their properties
restricted, as the alley will remain open directly behind all of them. Staff recommends approval of
the vacation request.
L. Spataro asked if there had been any input from the neighboring businesses. M. Franzak stated that
the applicant had submitted documentation indicating that they were agreeable to the request. K.
Hallman, Executive Director of the Muskegon Museum of Art, stated that they did not want to close
the entire portion of the alley as shown in red in the staff report; they would only close it up to where
St. Paul’s parking lot began, which was the darker gray parking lot shown in the report. The museum
would control only the center section behind their building, not the area behind St. Paul’s or the
Women’s Club. M. Dobry phoned in on behalf of St. Paul’s Church, to confirm that the section of
the alley abutting the church’s parking lot would not be closed. K. Hallberg confirmed that was
correct.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by T. Michalski and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to vacate the portion of the alley between Clay St and Webster Ave, and
between 2nd St and 3rd St, that is adjacent to the Muskegon Museum of Art property as discussed
above, be recommended to the City Commission for approval, was made by B. Larson, supported by
J. Montgomery-Keast and unanimously approved, with T. Michalski, B. Larson, L. Spataro, J. Doyle,
F. Peterson, E. Hood, J. Montgomery-Keast, B. Mazade, and S. Gawron voting aye.
Hearing, Case 2020-27: Request for a special use permit to operate group living/mentoring home
for young adults at 1129 Peck St, by Step Up. M. Franzak presented the staff report. Step Up is a
non-profit organization that assists young people (ages 18-24) that have graduated out of the foster
care system. They currently have an operation at 1670 Peck St. The homes will have a mentor on site
as well as a few young adults. The zoning ordinance defines a family as anyone related by blood or
marriage and up to two other people. Under this definition, a use like this would not be in
conformance of a single family in the one-unit home. Although the property is zoned RM-1, and
multifamily homes are allowed, there would still be more than one family living in the single unit.
Adult Foster Care Large Group Homes are allowed in this zoning district with a special use permit.
While this use would be much smaller in terms of occupants, staff feels that this is similar in nature
and should also require a special use permit. Staff recommends approval.
D. Kamps stated that Step Up currently operated 2 such homes in the area and this one would be
similarly run. Their intent was to assist foster kids who aged out of the foster system when they
turned 18.
No public comments were received. A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro,
supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and unanimously approved.
A motion that the request for a special use permit to operate a group living/mentoring home for young
adults at 1129 Peck St be approved, was made by B. Larson, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and
unanimously approved, with T. Michalski, B. Larson, L. Spataro, J. Doyle, F. Peterson, E. Hood, J.
Montgomery-Keast, B. Mazade, and S. Gawron voting aye.
Hearing, Case 2020-28: Request to amend the final Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 600
Shoreline Dr (Harbor 31), by Harbor 31, LLC. M. Franzak presented the staff report. In the year
2000, Lakefront Development LLC was approved for a mixed-use PUD at this site. Only a couple of
the developments from the plan were built and the remaining developable lots were sold to a new
developer. While the original site plan cannot be located, a City Commission resolution approving
the plan spells out the PUD’s conditions of approval. The original PUD also described the publicly
accessible boardwalk; however, staff cannot locate any actual recording of said publicly accessible
land. This proposed development project meets most of the standards of the underlying zoning (FBC,
Mainstreet Waterfront), however, the original PUD should still be honored because of the publicly
accessible boardwalk agreement. A project narrative and site plan were provided. The plan calls for
two public access points to the water: One to the boardwalk, located north of the traffic circle, and
the other to a seating area west of the traffic circle, between buildings G and H. The plan assumes
the successful vacation of a portion of Viridian Dr, which is the topic of the following case. Staff
recommends approval of the special use permit with the following conditions: 1) Public easements
for access to the existing boardwalk and new waterfront gathering space shall be recorded with the
Register of Deeds before any building permits are issued, and 2) Each separate use/building needs to
individually obtain site plan approval. Any variation from the PUD, in terms of use or building
placement, is acceptable as long as it meets the underlying zoning (FBC, Mainstreet Waterfront)
requirements.
M. Franzak stated that the issue of riparian rights had been brought up since the staff report was
written. K. Even, an attorney representing the adjacent condominium owners, submitted a letter
outlining the condo-owners objection to the request, as they stated that the marina trespassed on their
riparian rights. M. Franzak stated that the applicants had submitted a great plan, except for that issue.
L. Spataro stated that the boardwalk and seawall had originally been built using Clean Michigan
Initiative grant funds, and public waterfront access was a requirement. B. Mazade stated that,
generally speaking, the property outside the buildings was considered common area, and it seemed
like the condo owners would have riparian rights. He informed staff that the city’s attorney on the
project in the past had been Rhodes McKee. L. Spataro stated that, per attorney Even’s letter,
Planning Commission purview did not include the water side of the boardwalk and therefore did not
include riparian rights.
D. Henrickson was the developer. He stated that he had been involved with this property since 2007,
and explained its history. They had originally sought a casino for the property but they now wished
to proceed with the current development proposal. S. Achram described the proposed plan, which
included a mixture of uses, including about 400 residential units plus senior living. He displayed a
rendering of the development and stated they would also like to alter Viridian Dr at the east end of
the development. A request to vacate that portion was included in the next case. D. Johnson stated
that they planned to start development with the waterfront units in June of 2021, and work inward.
D. Henrickson stated that he would work with the neighbors on their concerns; he had intended for
the marina to be a benefit to them and had only recently been made aware of their opposition to its
location. J. Montgomery-Keast asked about any environmental issues. D. Henrickson stated that
they had been working with EGLE and several consultants. L. Spataro asked if the streets in the
development would be public. D. Henrickson believed they would be, and stated that they would
work with staff to ensure that the form-based code requirements were met. L. Spataro asked if the
sidewalk would continue past the Boardwalk Flats building shown on the rendering. D. Henrickson
stated that it would, and would be accessible to the public. L. Spataro stated that he would like to see
pedestrian access to the waterfront from the hotel to make it more walkable. B. Mazade questioned
the compatibility of the different facets of the project, as a boat storage building would be located
between two residential units. D. Henrickson stated that the development would be a boating anchor,
and having the nearby boat storage would be an amenity. They planned to minimize the industrial
look of the storage building.
Public comments were heard. A. Murphy was a resident of the adjacent condominiums and was
concerned with her riparian rights. She objected to the location of the proposed boat slips and the
additional traffic. T. Vitale was an attorney representing the condo owners and followed up on K.
Even’s comments regarding riparian rights. He wanted the Planning Commission to require a riparian
survey. L. Spataro reiterated that it sounded like the Planning Commission’s purview ended at the
waters edge and as such, they had no jurisdiction over riparian rights. B. Mazade was concerned that
the Planning Commission was being asked to approve a plan that included a marina. D. Henrickson
stated that he understood the neighbor’s concerns; he thought he was providing a solution for them,
as he had previously heard that they had wanted boat access. He stated that he would have no problem
moving the marina. M. Marcil stated that her back yard overlooked the area of proposed single-
family homes, and she would like to see some kind of buffer between their properties. D. Henrickson
stated that the plan called for 10-15 feet of green space there, but he had no problem creating a buffer.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to amend the final Planned Unit Development at 600 Shoreline Dr be
recommended for approval to the City Commission, with the following conditions as listed in the
staff recommendation: 1) that public easements for access to the existing boardwalk and new
waterfront gathering space shall be recorded with the Register of Deeds before any building permits
are issued, and 2) each separate use/building needs to individually obtain site plan approval. Any
variation from the PUD, in terms of use or building placement, is acceptable as long as it meets the
underlying zoning (FBC, Mainstreet Waterfront) requirements, was made by J. Montgomery-Keast,
supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved, with T. Michalski, B. Larson, L. Spataro, J.
Doyle, F. Peterson, E. Hood, J. Montgomery-Keast, B. Mazade, and S. Gawron voting aye.
B. Mazade asked if the marina was included in the approval. D. Henrickson stated that he was
working with a marina consultant and they had several technical issues to consider. S. Achram stated
the staff recommendation regarding each separate use/building requiring individual site plan approval
should address any concerns. T. Michalski stated that he was satisfied with that. F. Peterson stated
that Planning Commission approval was based on zoning; if there were problems between the
developer and property owners, it would have to be worked out between them.
Hearing, Case 2020-29: Request to vacate a portion of Viridian Dr, east of Terrace St, by Harbor 31,
LLC. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The applicant has requested to vacate a portion of the
east end of Viridian Dr. in an effort to develop the property. Access to the proposed developments
would be through a new private drive. Staff recommends approval of the vacation request.
D. Henrickson described the area of Viridian Dr to be vacated, and stated that the current road lead
to nowhere, so the vacation would not affect any residents or businesses. They planned to use the
area as part of the new development.
There were no questions from board members or the public. A motion to close the public hearing
was made by J. Montgomery-Keast, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to vacate a portion of Viridian Dr, east of Terrace St, be recommended to
the City Commission for approval was made by L. Spataro, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and
unanimously approved, with T. Michalski, B. Larson, L. Spataro, J. Doyle, F. Peterson, E. Hood, J.
Montgomery-Keast, B. Mazade, and S. Gawron voting aye.
Hearing, Case 2020-30: Request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to include 420
Harvey St in the marihuana facilities overlay district and allow class B grower, processor, retailer,
designated consumption establishment and marihuana special events license types, by Michigan
Canna House, LLC. M. Franzak presented the staff report. In September, the applicant applied to
amend the zoning to allow for microbusiness, designated consumption establishment and special
event license types. The case was eventually tabled at that meeting. It was taken off the table and
denied earlier in this meeting. Staff had started to work on an ordinance amendment that would allow
for these three license types, among others, in B-2, B-4, MC, I-1 and I-2 Districts. This building is
zoned B-2. The Planning Commission made a recommendation (3-3) to the City Commission on
staff’s suggested ordinance amendment; however, the City Commission tabled the case because of
too many recommended conditions of approval. The applicant is no longer in favor of staff’s
recommended ordinance amendment because he is now seeking additional license types that staff is
not recommending. In addition to bringing back the tabled item, the applicant is now seeking
approval of additional license types (Class B grower, processor, retailer) at this location. Notice was
sent to properties within 300 feet of this property. At the time of this writing, staff had not received
any comments.
B. Larson asked if staff had a recommendation. M. Franzak stated that he did not. L. Spataro asked
if this request was consistent with the proposed ordinance going through the City Commission
process. M. Franzak stated that it was not.
C. Roberts stated that he was unhappy with the Planning Commission’s rulings on previous cases,
and didn’t think he had been treated fairly. He had no further comment.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to include 420 Harvey St
in the marihuana facilities overlay district and allow class B grower, processor, retailer, designated
consumption establishment and marihuana special events license types be recommended to the City
Commission for approval, was made by B. Larson and supported by F. Peterson, with discussion
continuing on the motion.
M. Franzak clarified the difference between this request and the previous one. A vote was taken on
the above motion to approve. The motion failed, with E. Hood and T. Michalski voting aye, and J.
Doyle, S. Gawron, F. Peterson, L. Spataro, J. Montgomery-Keast, B. Larson and B. Mazade voting
nay.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
T. Michalski asked that staff notify Planning Commissioners via a memo in the staff report when the
City Commission overturned any of their decisions.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:32 PM.
DR