View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
January 12, 2006
Chairman J. Aslakson called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Aslakson, T. Harryman, L. Spataro, T. Johnson, B. Turnquist,
B. Smith, T. Michalski,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Warmington, excused; Mazade
STAFF PRESENT: L. Anguilm, M. Cameron, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Schrier, Parmenter O’Toole; K. Davis, 3162 Boltwood; L. Page,
3328 Wilcox; MHS students
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 15, 2005 was made by T.
Johnson, supported by B. Turnquist and unanimously approved.
T. Michalski arrived at 4:04 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2005-41: Staff-initiated request to amend Sections 2200, 2201, 2202, 2203, and
2204 (Nonconforming Uses) of Article XXII of the Zoning Ordinance. L. Anguilm presented the
staff report. Staff was attempting to make the ordinance language easier to understand. There were
also issues in the past that staff had decided based on policy, but that were not actually addressed in
the ordinance. Staff had also checked with other municipalities to see how their ordinance language
compared. L. Anguilm found that, regarding the 2-year period after which a non-conforming use
would cease, most jurisdictions had a range of 6 months to a year. She stated that while she kept
the two-year requirement the same, it is up for discussion if Planning Commission would like it to
be shorter. She also stated that she had received suggestions from T. Johnson regarding some
changes.
T. Johnson presented his suggestions for changes: Section 2201, subparagraph 2 should be a
separate paragraph, and then subparagraph 3 should be changed to subparagraph 2; regarding
ownership of contiguous lots, “or control” should be added after the sentence “In any zoning
district, where two or more adjoining nonconforming lots are under common ownership…”, to help
avoid situations of people trying to get around the requirement of combining non-conforming lots.
J. Aslakson asked how the board would determine who was in control. T. Johnson stated that it
would be up to the applicant to prove. Other changes he suggested were that the word “certain” in
conjunction with “certain limitations” in section 2201 should be removed; in Section 2202
Planning Commission Minutes – 01/13/06 1
paragraph 3, and Section 2203 paragraph 1, “and site plans” should be added after the phrase ending
“…as required for Special Uses.”; the phrase “more conforming” should be removed from section
2202 paragraph 6 because he didn’t think it was workable language; and in Section 2203 paragraph
5, the last sentence seemed contradictory.
J. Aslakson stated that in Section 2203, paragraph 5 after “sixty percent of”, the word “its” should
be changed to “the”. B. Turnquist asked about Section 2202 paragraph 5, regarding the stated 24-
month period. He would prefer that it be changed to one year. T. Harryman asked if that would
have an impact on how long an abandoned building could remain on a lot. He also thought that the
word “disconnected” in paragraph 5(a) needed to be clarified. He asked about the change from
50% to 60% in Section 2203 paragraph 5. L. Anguilm stated that it was a suggestion for the board
to consider. Other municipalities were about equally split between 50% and 60%. L. Spataro stated
that his main concern was the use of the property, and whether it fit in with the rest of the
neighborhood. He would like to see some flexibility with setbacks and lot size, with more attention
to use. He also thought that when it came to rebuilding older homes, the replacement costs could
easily exceed the 50 or 60% threshold. T. Michalski asked T. Johnson if he could clarify his
comments on Section 2202 paragraph 6, and if he thought that it should be eliminated. T. Johnson
did think that it should be eliminated, as it seemed to give non-conforming uses that are increased or
enlarged a kind of super-status. L. Anguilm used an example of a residence that was non-
conforming due to low square footage. If they were to add on but still not meet the minimum
requirements, they would at least be closer to conforming. J. Aslakson thought that that gave the
impression that there would be no further obligation to become conforming. T. Johnson thought
that the only way it would make sense was to allow expansion greater than 25 percent. B. Smith
asked L. Anguilm if that would matter to her. L. Anguilm stated that the idea was to let people
operate who are in a non-conforming situation and who are unable to make the necessary changes
to become conforming. T. Harryman thought that it should be conforming or non-conforming, and
didn’t understand the “more conforming”. L. Anguilm gave an example of a 4-unit building in a 2-
unit zoning. If they made changes to become a 3-unit, they would be closer to conforming.
K. Davis stated that his objections were to the parts of the ordinance that dealt with residential
properties. If a non-conforming residence were destroyed through no fault of the owner, the person
would have to jump through hoops in order to be able to rebuild. He didn’t think that fit with the
Master Plan’s objective of promoting single family homeownership. He thought that there should
be an exception for single family homes. He stated that he was the City Commissioner for the
Bluffton area, and 95% of that neighborhood was non-conforming, but the homes have been that
way since they were built. He believed that the non-conforming ordinance was eliminating single
family housing by not allowing homeowners to rebuild. L. Page stated that he had been doing some
research on this ordinance since a neighbor’s project went before the ZBA last year. He felt
particularly threatened by the language that stated that the ordinance intent was to gradually
eliminate non-conforming buildings, because his house is non-conforming due to the setbacks. He
stated that 95% of the homes in Bluffton were endangered by that language. He felt that if a
building was acceptable when it was built, it should remain that way. He also felt that if
Commission members couldn’t figure out the “more conforming” language, then the section dealing
with that should be taken out. He also felt that paragraph 6 of Section 2203 should be removed.
L. Spataro asked if the public hearing should be continued until the next meeting, since there were
several changes discussed. J. Aslakson agreed that it should.
Planning Commission Minutes – 01/13/06 2
A motion to continue the public hearing until the amendments to the ordinance are completed and
brought back to the board for review, was made by B. Smith, supported by T. Johnson and
unanimously approved, with discussion continuing.
L. Spataro stated that it was important that the board avoid the law of unintended consequences
when revising the ordinance. He stated that there could be good reasons for some of the regulations,
such as fire safety for homes that are built close together. He also stated that when considering
residential vs. commercial properties, it was important to clearly define what was meant by
“residential” and “commercial”. J. Aslakson was also concerned about the danger of fire spreading
between houses are built close together. He asked if it was possible to do some kind of overlay for
unique parts of town, such as the Bluffton area. T. Johnson stated that there could be different
zoning districts that reflected the unique areas. B. Smith stated that the board needed to be careful
about setting different requirements for different areas. T. Harryman asked about other models
from similar communities that may be available to draw ideas from. He also stated that cities
needed to take care not to create cookie cutter-type communities through their zoning laws. L.
Spataro was not aware of many structures over the years that the city had not allowed to rebuild.
There were exceptions for legal lots of record that would apply to much of the Bluffton area. He
also mentioned the possibility of a historic district designation. L. Anguilm reminded members that,
in relation to front setbacks, homes were required to line up with other houses on the same street.
T. Michalski suggested the possibility of checking Grand Haven’s ordinance, since they had several
waterfront cottages that were now year-round homes. K. Davis stated that other shoreline
communities had a zone called “shoreline residential”, due to their unique geographic features. L.
Anguilm stated that many of the members seemed to concur with T. Johnson’s comments, and she
could implement those changes. However, she was not sure what the Commission wanted her to do
in addition to that. She clarified with members that the change from 50% 60% threshold was
acceptable, so that change to the language would remain as proposed. She stated that the zoning
ordinance afforded property owners the opportunity to rebuild. The variance process is in place to
protect homeowner’s rights to rebuild, but also afford some control to the city if the request isn’t in
the best interest of the neighborhood. T. Johnson suggested that the Commission concentrate on the
changes proposed for the non-conforming section of the ordinance and not the overlays at this time.
J. Aslakson stated that the revised language was an improvement, but that there were additional
concerns that were brought up. L. Spataro suggested considering those additional issues at a work
session. L. Anguilm stated that if some of the other zoning options discussed were to be
considered, other neighborhoods need to be offered the opportunity to be heard. Staff will make
the changes suggested and bring the revised draft back to Planning Commission in February for
further discussion.
OLD BUSINESS
Hearing; Case 2005-39: Request for a special land use permit, per Section 701 (2.) of Article VII,
of the zoning ordinance, to allow administrative offices in an RM-1 Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential zoning district at 1705 Peck Street, by the Muskegon Rescue Mission – Remains tabled
from the October meeting. L. Anguilm stated that she was hoping to revisit this issue at next
month’s meeting. L. Spataro stated that one thing holding it up was that Rescue Mission personnel
wanted to meet with the Nelson Neighborhood Association, but could not get on their agenda until
late January. J. Aslakson was concerned that the applicant could show up at a meeting and request
to take this off the table without neighbors being notified. L. Spataro stated that the motion made at
the October meeting required that neighbors be re-noticed.
Planning Commission Minutes – 01/13/06 3
A motion to bring this case off the table at the February meeting was made by T. Michalski and
supported by T. Harryman. J. Aslakson suggested that rather than a formal motion, staff notify the
applicant that their case will be heard at the February meeting.
OTHER
Discussion of sign ordinance – Banners L. Anguilm stated that this was something that City
Commissioner Carter wished to discuss regarding building wraps.
T. Harryman left at 5:15 p.m.
J. Aslakson asked what the current sign ordinance allowed. M. Cameron stated that the use of
banners was currently limited to special events and sales, but there was no specific time period
given. Since Commission Carter was not able to attend the meeting, further discussion was
postponed until next month. Staff will bring the proposed language to Planning Commission for
consideration at that time.
Training session – L. Anguilm reminded members that there would be a training session for
Planning Commissioners and Zoning Board of Appeals members on February 1 at 5:30 p.m. in the
Commission Chambers, and asked them to RSVP to the Planning Department.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:17 p.m.
01/13/06
dml
Planning Commission Minutes – 01/13/06 4
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails