View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 16, 2006
Chairman J. Aslakson called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Aslakson, T. Harryman, L. Spataro, B. Larson, B. Turnquist,
T. Michalski, S. Warmington
MEMBERS ABSENT: B. Smith, excused; B. Mazade
STAFF PRESENT: L. Anguilm, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: R. VanRiper, 1617 Palmer; N. McCarthy, 888 Terrace; D. Rinsema-
Sybenga, 154 Campus; J. Masvero, 287 Boulder Dr; D. Amstutz,
3763 Highgate; J. Lottie, 1710 Jefferson; P. Matthews, 805 Petrie; Dr.
W. Brenneman, 1715 Peck; L. Romanelli, 3921 Molly Blvd; M.
Hovey Wright, 452 W. Webster; G. Borgman, 234 Houston; H. Hume
Sherman, 1347 Peck; D. Bossenbroek, 900 Third St; K. Davis, 3162
Boltwood; R. Hilt, 1627 Jefferson; L. Matthews, 805 Petrie; S.
Gawron, 1362 Palmer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 12, 2006 was made by S.
Warmington, supported by T. Michalski and unanimously approved.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A motion to nominate J. Aslakson as Chairman was made by S. Warmington, supported by T.
Michalski and unanimously approved.
A motion to nominate T. Michalski for Vice-Chair was made by S. Warmington, supported by T.
Harryman and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2006-02: Request to vacate the undeveloped portion of Frisbie Street south of
Palmer and west of McGraft Church, by Ralph VanRiper, Head Deacon of McGraft Church. L.
Anguilm presented the staff report. The applicant is McGraft Church. Their property abuts the
platted but undeveloped portion of Frisbie Street. The church has preliminary plans to build a
“Family Life Center Building”, however their present property isn’t large enough to accommodate
the size building they would like. They initially approached the City through the Leisure Services
Department to obtain a lease for a portion of McGraft Park property adjacent to theirs for
Planning Commission Minutes – 02/16/06 1
construction of their building. However, since McGraft Park is a “Charter Park” this is not a
possibility. This is not an ordinary street vacation request. Streets that are located within
approximately 80 feet of a body of water may only be vacated by the circuit court. Since the church
needs the additional 33 feet of this street for their addition, which would become church property if
Frisbie Street were vacated, they are willing to pursue the final vacation in circuit court. In order
for them to move forward with this action, the City Commission must grant approval of the
vacation. The City’s Engineering, Fire and Public Works departments have no issues with the
proposed vacation. The church has requested that no utility rights be retained, since they need to
locate a portion of their building on the additional property. There are no city utilities located in the
platted street right-of-way, and staff has had no response from other utilities that were notified of
this request. The church accesses their utilities from the developed portion of Frisbie and Roilson
Streets. Staff recommends approval of the request.
R. VanRiper stated that the building was in the very preliminary stages of planning, but that they
wanted to build it in the southwest corner of their property. There currently is not enough room for
the size building they would like and the required parking. T. Harryman asked if the new building
would be attached to the current one. R. VanRiper stated that it would be attached by a small
walkway. T. Harryman asked if the new building would block the sight line for the people on
Frisbee St. R. VanRiper stated it would not. The new building would be no taller than the current
one.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the vacation of the undeveloped portion of Frisbie Street south of Palmer and west of
McGraft Church be recommended to the City Commission for approval based on compliance with
the City’s Master Land Use Plan, was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-03: Request to vacate the southwest 132 feet of the alley located in Block 187
bounded by Terrace Street, E. Muskegon Avenue, Pine Street, and W. Webster Avenue, by Nancy
McCarthy, Hackley Visiting Nurse Services & Hospice. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The
applicant is the new owner of the property at 908 Terrace Street, formerly Beerman’s Music. They
also own the property at 888 Terrace Street, which is the site of Hackley Visiting Nurse Services &
Hospice. Parking on their current site is very tight, and they have been utilizing parking at 908
Terrace Street through an agreement with the former owner. They would like to join the two
properties and further develop the parking area with some green space that would provide a park-
like setting for their patients and staff. Presently, the alley has become somewhat of a pedestrian
hazard, as employees or patient’s families crossing it to get to the parking area have nearly been hit
by cars using the alley as a through-way between Pine and Terrace Streets. Access from Pine Street
would be kept open for those property owners on that end of the alley as access. Engineering, Fire,
and DPW have all been requested to inspect this alley to determine if any problems would be
created if it were vacated. Fire has no issues with this request. DPW does have sanitary sewer in
the alley, but staff recommends that utility rights be retained. Staff recommends approval of the
request.
T. Michalski asked if this would impede access to other businesses. N. McCarthy stated that it
would not. T. Harryman asked if neighboring businesses were notified and if any responded. L.
Planning Commission Minutes – 02/16/06 2
Anguilm stated that those whose properties boarding on the alley were noticed, and no responses
were received.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by T. Michalski, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the vacation of the southwest 132 feet of the alley located in Block 187 bounded by
Terrace Street, E. Muskegon Avenue, Pine Street, and W. Webster Avenue, be recommended to the
City Commission for approval with the condition that all utility easements be retained, was made by
B. Larson, supported by T. Michalski and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-04: Request to rezone the property at 908 Terrace Street, formerly Beerman’s
Music, from B-3, Central Business, to B-5, Central Governmental Service District, by Nancy
McCarthy, Hackley Visiting Nurse Services & Hospice. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The
subject property at 908 Terrace Street was the location of the former Beerman’s Music. The
building has been purchased by Hackley Visiting Nurse Services & Hospice and the Beerman’s
building has been demolished. Hackley Visiting Nurse Services & Hospice is located adjacent to
the subject property at 888 Terrace. They wish to develop the now mostly vacant property for
parking and green space. The property at 888 Terrace was rezoned from B-3 to B-5 in 2003 when
Visiting Nurses purchased the former Hage’s Christian Supply building. Properties to the northeast
and southwest are zoned B-3, Central Business. Properties to the northwest and southeast, are zoned
B-5, Central Governmental Service. The Downtown/Lakeshore Redevelopment Plan shows this
property located in the “Service Center” which “gives a home for community, even religion-wide
services and functions”. Staff has received no comments regarding the request. Staff recommends
approval of the request to rezone the subject property from B-3 to B-5 because the request conforms
to the goals and recommendation of the City’s 1997 Master Plan/Downtown Lakeshore
Redevelopment Plan.
B. Turnquist asked why they would need to change from a B-3 to a B-5 zoning. L. Anguilm stated
that a B-5 zoning includes medical services and a B-3 does not. Also, the rest of the parcel is B-5.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by T. Harryman, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved.
T. Harryman asked L. Anguilm if she had received any comments from neighboring property
owners. L. Anguilm stated that she had not.
A motion that the request to rezone the property located at 908 Terrace Street from B-3, Central
Business to B-5, Central Governmental Service be recommended for approval to the City
Commission pursuant to the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance and the determination of
compliance with the intent of the City Master Land Use/Downtown Lakeshore Redevelopment Plan
and zoning district intent, was made by T. Harryman, supported by S. Warmington and
unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-05: Staff-initiated request to amend 2000 & 2001 (H, Heritage Districts) of
Article XX to include additional principal uses for properties fronting on W. Western Avenue
between 4th and 9th Streets and additional special uses for the entire H, Heritage district. L.
Anguilm presented the staff report. Our H, Heritage zoning district is presently primarily geared
toward residential uses, and for the majority of the district this is appropriate. However, the West
Western Avenue corridor is, and always has been, a business district. Now that more development
Planning Commission Minutes – 02/16/06 3
is taking place on Western Avenue, it makes it necessary for every commercial/office use to operate
under a special use permit. Therefore, staff reviewed this section and is proposing the addition of
certain commercial, service, and office uses in the H district as principal uses on Western Avenue
only. Also proposed are a few additional special uses for anywhere in the district, where they
would be regulated through the special use permit process.
L. Anguilm reviewed the uses that would be allowed under the proposed changes. T. Harryman
asked if there should be any wording to limit drive-throughs for restaurants. L. Anguilm didn’t
think it would be necessary. B. Larson asked if outdoor seating should be included or if it was a
separate issue. L. Anguilm thought that it was a separate issue. D. Rinsema-Sybenga from
Muskegon Area First was in favor of the changes and felt it would be helpful to new businesses in
the area.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
A motion to approve the request to amend Sections 2000 & 2001 (H, Heritage Districts) of Article
XX to include additional principal uses for properties fronting on W. Western Avenue between 4th
and 9th Streets, and additional special uses for the entire H, Heritage district, was made by S.
Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
L. Spataro stated that he reluctantly supported the request, but he would like to see the entire H
zoning designation re-evaluated and possibly changed to R-1.
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. This case was re-
noticed as required by law, and the applicant was notified that the Planning Commission was
removing this item from the table in order to take action at the February meeting. L. Anguilm
presented the staff report. The subject property is the site of a large residential home located
adjacent to the present Muskegon Rescue Mission building at 1691 Peck Street. The property is
located in a strip of RM-1 zoning along Peck Street that extends to the north. Directly to the east is
Hackley Hospital, zoned MC, Medical Care. To the south of Larch Street is zoned B-4, General
Business, and to the west is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. Parking could be continued on the
present Muskegon Rescue Mission site, with some parking available in the driveway of the
proposed new office building. The proposed use is for administrative offices only, and no other
uses would be permitted as part of the building, except those allowed in a RM-1 zoning district.
The Muskegon Rescue Mission’s purpose in moving their administrative offices to this building is
to free up space within their present building for additional living space and programs in association
with their mission. The 1997 Master Plan Future Land Use Map identified Peck Street as “Mixed
Residential and Service Area”. Based on compliance with the 1997 Master Plan, staff recommends
approval of the request, subject to the conditions that 1) all parking must be on the present
Muskegon Rescue Mission site or in the driveway of 1705 Peck Street, 2) only uses permitted in the
RM-1 zoning district will be allowed as additional uses, 3) signs must comply with those set forth
for the residential zoning district, 4) the owner shall permit the zoning administrator or other zoning
staff in the premises at reasonable times to review compliance with this permit, 5) the special land
use permit shall become null and void within one year of the public hearing if the use has not been
established or there is a violation of conditions 1-4, and 6) the Special Land Use permit document
shall be recorded with the register of deeds prior to occupying the building. A call was received
Planning Commission Minutes – 02/16/06 4
from Lowell Kirksey, 1329 Fourth Street. He is opposed to losing any family housing units on Peck
Street.
J. Masvero stated that the Mission director, C. Skoglund, was unavailable so he was speaking on her
behalf. He stated that the Mission needed the additional space in their building for classrooms and
play areas for the children they house. He felt that the request was suitable, given the adjacent
properties and its conformance to the City’s Master Plan and ordinances. He stated that the Mission
had been a good neighbor and a good steward of its properties. D. Amstutz, a Mission board
member, stated that the house in question would only be used for administrative offices. Also, the
Mission had guidelines and rules that residents must follow regarding their conduct, in order to
minimize disturbance to neighbors. He stated that the Mission’s building at 1691 Peck was well
maintained and they would maintain 1705 Peck in a like manner. T. Michalski asked if any of the
Mission’s board members lived in close proximity to the Mission. J. Masvero and D. Amstutz did
not know. B. Turnquist asked how people came to stay at the Mission. D. Amstutz stated that some
people came on their own and others were referred by other organizations. B. Turnquist asked how
long residents were likely to stay. J. Masvero stated that time varied, but it could be several
months. B. Turnquist asked if there was a limit on how many residents could be housed at one
time. J. Masvero and D. Amstutz stated that the capacity was 55 – 62 total and last night they had
41. B. Turnquist asked if approval of this request would increase that number. J. Masvero stated
that it would not. T. Harryman asked how the home at 1705 Peck would comply with handicap
access codes. D. Amstutz stated that they have had architects and City inspectors out to look at the
house. A ramp would be required. T. Michalski asked if residents could come from any area of the
City. J. Masvero stated that they had an open door policy and would accept anyone with a need. T.
Michalski asked how many current residents were from the City of Muskegon. J. Masvero and D.
Amstutz stated that they weren’t sure, but thought that it was close to 90 percent City residents. L.
Spataro stated that he was aware, through his involvement in an area homeless project, that City
residents did not make up 90 percent of the Mission’s residents. He also stated that the Mission’s
director had told the local newspaper that they housed up to 70 people, but the fire department had it
rated for 51. J. Masvero stated that the fire marshal had recently inspected it and the inspection was
favorable. He didn’t think that the amount of residents was relevant to the issue. L. Spataro agreed
that the issue was the conversion of a single-family home to a commercial use, but since this was
the gist of the argument brought forward, it opened the floor to discussion.
J. Lottie was opposed to expanding the Mission’s administrative services in this area. He had past
problems with residents wandering the area and knocking on his door. He didn’t feel that expansion
in this area would be good for the neighborhood. P. Matthews lived in Norton Shores but had an
office on Peck St. and had invested money in the neighborhood. He stated that the Rescue Mission
was a good neighbor and felt that if the house in question were left as a residence, it would not be
maintained as well as it would be if the Mission were to use it. Dr. Brenneman stated that this area
had been a commercial district for many years, and this was the only house in the stretch north of
Laketon Ave. that had been a residence in the last 25 years. He would rather see this home be used
as offices rather than having renters in and out. L. Romanelli used to live at 1705 Peck, and was
also a licensed builder who had worked on several historic homes. He was not opposed to the
Rescue Mission, but was opposed to the request to have this home turned in to offices. It would
affect the structural integrity of the home. He stated that there were many vacant commercial
buildings in the area that could be used. He had offered to buy this home before, and would again.
He stated that the home was not in disrepair. Also, although the Mission had rules of conduct for its
residents, those rules were sometimes broken. M. Hovey Wright was on the board of the Nelson
Planning Commission Minutes – 02/16/06 5
Neighborhood Association. She stated that this was a historic home that needed to be maintained as
such. She fully supported the Mission but was opposed to this request. She stated that there were
other buildings they could use for their administrative services. G. Borgman also felt that the issue
was retaining the home. He stated that many residents have invested their time and money trying to
clean up the inner city. He stated that there were many people in the area that would have
purchased this home, but they didn’t get the chance. D. Rinsema-Sybenga lived in a City historic
district and felt that there was a demand for people who wanted to live in historic homes. He was
opposed to the request. H. Hume Sherman also lived in a historic home and was delighted with the
work that had been done to revitalize the inner city. She stated that the area was a blend of
residential and commercial. This was a historic home that hadn’t been tampered with, and it needed
to be preserved. D. Bossenbroek was the attorney for the Rescue Mission. He stated that the
proposed use was supported by the City’s Master Plan. The house was zoned RM-1, Low Density
Multi-family Residential, not single family. He stated that it could be divided into apartments, and
there were other uses that would not require Planning Commission approval. He stated that the
ordinance stated that this use shall be permitted, not may be permitted. The ordinance also allowed
for conditions. He stated that the issue was not whether to grant the special use, but what conditions
would be attached. K. Davis was opposed to taking another historic home and converting it. He
disagreed with the statement that if this house wasn’t converted to offices that it would not be well
maintained. He stated that previous tenants had obviously taken good care of the home. R. Hilt
was opposed to the request. He stated that this was a property that was currently generating tax
revenue. If the Mission took over, it would be taken off the tax rolls. He had lived in this area for
16 years and had invested considerable labor and money into improving his property. He had great
interest in the neighborhood. He stated that those in favor of this request did not live near the
Mission and did not experience the problems that occur later. L. Matthews stated that she had
invested in the Peck St. area and was in favor of the request.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by T. Harryman, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
B. Larson stated that, although he was not on this board during the previous hearing on this issue, he
had kept abreast of the case. He had seen the effects of the City’s neighborhood associations and
what they’ve been able to accomplish. He felt that it was important to look out for the residents
who were trying to improve their neighborhood. L. Spataro stated that the main issue was taking an
architecturally significant home and turning it into an office. He had spoken to the previous
owner’s brother who stated that the “For Sale” sign on the home was up for one day, but people
could not reach the owner because she was in Florida. The home was not included in any of the real
estate listings either. This was not an issue of no one being willing to buy this as a single family
home, but people did not have the opportunity. He stated that one could not assume that the house
wouldn’t be maintained if it stayed as a single family home. He also stated that there were many
other places in the City that were available for office space, including several on Peck St. T.
Harryman stated that the neighbors had a petition with over 50 signatures opposing this request. He
felt that, and the loss of tax revenue made a good argument for denying the special use permit. He
was concerned about the message that approval would send to the residents living in the City who
spent their money improving their properties. He also stated that changes to zoning and the Master
Plan were in the works. B. Turnquist was comfortable with assurances from the Rescue Mission
that this would not increase their occupancy and that the space would be used for children’s
ministries. He felt that the request was not out of line with the City’s Master Plan, and supported
staff’s recommendation to approve the request. T. Michalski lived in the area and stated that his
home assessment had decreased in value three times over the last five years. He felt that he would
Planning Commission Minutes – 02/16/06 6
never recoup the money he had invested in the home, but he lived there because it was unique, and
stated that that quality needed to be preserved.
A motion to deny the request by the Muskegon Rescue Mission 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, 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 L. Spataro and
approved, with B. Turnquist voting nay.
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. This section of the ordinance has been a bone of contention in the past regarding some
of its restrictions. The Nonconforming Uses language as it presently exists in the Zoning Ordinance
is somewhat confusing and hard to interpret. Staff has spent several months reviewing other
ordinances and consulting with the City Attorney and other planners regarding a makeover of the
section. It has been “a work in progress” since I have had input from so many sources, including
Commissioners Davis and Gawron, who at the Mayor’s request, met with staff on several occasions
to discuss concerns with the present ordinance language. Much of the original language from our
ordinance has been incorporated into the new language. I have attempted to put the proposed
section in the usual format with strike-throughs for deleted language and bold for new language. I
have also included a copy of the current ordinance language. The revisions discussed at the January
meeting were incorporated into the new language. Staff didn’t remove Section 2202 #6, as former
Commissioner Johnson had suggested, because there was no clear direction from the remaining
Planning Commissioners to do so. I still believe that leaving it in makes sense and allows some
latitude, as long as the use is moving closer to conformity.
J. Aslakson had some questions regarding the language, which he discussed with L. Anguilm. He
asked if there was some way to word the criteria to differentiate between commercial and residential
buildings. He suggested requiring the same footprint or position on the lot. L. Anguilm felt that the
revisions accurately reflected the previous month’s discussion. J. Aslakson stated that if a non-
conforming use burned down, he did not want it to be allowed to rebuild.
K. Davis stated that his major issue was that a residential home that was destroyed should be able to
be rebuilt. There are some homes that are non-conforming because of the age of our community,
and he didn’t feel that all houses should look alike. L. Spataro generally agreed that the City
needed to protect the rights of homeowners to rebuild their homes, but not a commercial developer.
He was concerned with loosening restrictions too much. J. Aslakson asked that his suggestion be
reviewed by the City Attorney. S. Gawron also suggested that we tread lightly when making
changes to the ordinance. His concern was owner-occupied property rights, and allowing those who
have lost their home to rebuild. L. Anguilm stated that she did ask the City Attorney if the zoning
ordinance could have different regulations for owner-occupied and rental properties and he said it
could not. J. Aslakson suggested commercial versus residential. L. Anguilm stated that the Zoning
Board of Appeals provided a mechanism for non-conforming properties.
A motion to refer this issue back to staff and table it until next month was made by L. Spataro,
supported by T. Harryman and unanimously approved.
Planning Commission Minutes – 02/16/06 7
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2006-01: Request for Site Plan Review for outdoor storage on an industrial property at 2360
S. Getty Street, by Steve Franklin, Franklin Contractors. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The
site is a vacant parcel that totals a little over seven acres. An application was submitted in June
2005 for approval at the staff level for the southern two acres of the site for outdoor industrial
storage. The applicant has been clearing the remainder of the site to prepare it for a storage yard for
industrial materials. The applicant wishes to store landscaping materials on the site. There is no
building proposed for the site at this time, and if the applicant wishes to build in the future, he will
need to amend his site plan and come before the Planning Commission at that time for a new site
plan review. The parcel was heavily wooded, and the applicant did leave several large trees on the
site, wherever practical. The roadway will remain an asphalt cinder drive at this time. Since there
will be no building on the property, staff didn’t require an extensive site plan at this time; however a
landscaping plan would need to be provided. Staff received the following comments: Fire
Department - the owner shall provide access to lock and cable obstructing road in case of fire, and a
key will be provided to the Fire Department; Engineering Department - surface water will be
retained on site, and proposed limits of any structures will not encroach on City and/or State owned
properties; Department of Public Works had no issues with this site plan; Planning Department – a
landscaping plan has been provided to Planning staff for approval, and no building shall be placed
on the property until an amended site plan is brought before the Planning Commission for approval.
Staff recommends approval of the request for site plan approval for outdoor storage on an industrial
property at 2360 S. Getty Street, subject to the condition that all requirements addressed in item #7
of the staff report shall be provided as needed on a revised site plan prior to issuance of a building
permit. Staff feels the site plan satisfied the standards for site plan review.
A motion to accept staff’s recommendation was made by B. Turnquist, supported by T. Harryman
and unanimously approved.
OTHER
Blight Fight – L. Anguilm provided commission members with a map of Area 13, where the City is
currently concentrating its blight fight efforts.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
02/16/06
dml
Planning Commission Minutes – 02/16/06 8
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails