View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
March 16, 2006
S. Warmington called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Harryman, L. Spataro, B. Larson, B. Turnquist, S. Warmington,
B. Smith, B. Mazade
MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Aslakson, excused; T. Michalski
STAFF PRESENT: L. Anguilm, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Bultema, 625 Seminole Rd; V. Makary, 1148 W. Western; D.
Medendorp, 115 Maple Leaf Ln; J. Kibbey, 5527 Scenic Dr.; D.
Kirksey, 1204 W. Western; R. Nielsen, 420 Carmen, Spring Lake; G.
Sherwood, 871 Fleming; P. Nulf, 3739 Powell; B. Young, 1468
Terrace; B. Buthker, 1458 Terrace; K. Davis, 3162 Boltwood
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
L. Spataro arrived at 4:06 p.m.
A motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 16, 2006 was made by T.
Harryman, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2006-06: Request for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for a mixed
use recreational and commercial development at 1050 W. Western Avenue (Hartshorn Center) by,
John Bultema, GLM Properties, LLC. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The subject property
is located at 1050 W. Western Avenue, includes the Hartshorn Building, and is 10.6 acres in size.
To the east of the property is the City-owned Hartshorn Marina, which is zoned LR. To the west is
Michigan Steel, which is zoned I-2, and to the south is the parking lot for the Watermark Building
zoned I-1, and another area of I-2 zoning, which includes the former Anaconda building and Cole’s
Bakery. The property in question presently has 3 different zoning designations, including B-2,
Convenience and Comparison Business, which encompasses the largest portion of the property and
includes the Hartshorn building. The strip of land located at the rear, or northerly, portion of the
property is zoned LR, Lakefront Recreation, and the portion to the west is zoned I-2, General
Industrial. There are presently several commercial and office spaces located inside the Hartshorn
Building, including Fricano’s Pizza, Bob’s Bait, the Waterfront Galley, and Hospice administrative
offices. The applicant wishes to develop a portion of the property for an RV park for approximately
62 units, and an additional 10 camping sites for tents. The complex would include a swimming
pool and playground to be located on the eastern side of the building, and a small toilet building
Planning Commission Minutes – 03/16/06 1
which would be constructed near the camping area. There would also be a clubhouse and bath
house added to the interior of the Hartshorn Building near the pool. The applicant also indicates
that there will be an effort made to connect to the Lakeshore Pathway once construction of that
section of it takes place. This would afford additional recreational opportunities for visitors using
the RV park. Because of the age of our 1997 Master Land Use Plan, what was then the “Waterfront
Center” was identified on the Future Land Use Map as an office use. However, this building
previously housed “a variety of specialty, antique and craft shops, and a restaurant” during the
1980s. It has returned to these uses after being developed as the Hartshorn Center a few years ago.
Other comments from the Master Plan include: “Restrict industrial expansion to infill locations,
internal to existing industrial development.” The City has been working for several years to
relocate industrial uses away from the shoreline and open the lake to access by the public, as is
demonstrated by the Hartshorn Marina. City departments had the following comments: Engineering
had no issues with this site plan; DPW – Provide detailed utility plans to Kelly DeFrench along with
a water and sewer meter plan; Fire – The Fire Marshall has no problems with the concept, but has
several issues that would need to be addressed on the final site plan including hydrant placement
shown on prints and complying with International Fire Code, burn pits and grills must be shown on
final site plan, paved areas shall support weight of Fire Department heaviest apparatus, all gates and
barriers must be shown on final plan, and adequate turning radius required at end of access
driveways. Staff recommends approval of the request for a preliminary PUD with the understanding
that a more detailed site plan will be provided to the Planning Commission for review at the time of
submissions of the Final PUD plan. Staff received a letter from M. Firos of 267 E. Summit in favor
of the request.
V. Makary of Michigan Steel had concerns about the proposed RV park being right next door to his
foundry. He stated that the foundry did its melting at night, which created noise and vibration.
There was also a lot of employee activity at night. He stated that Michigan Steel provided money
and jobs for the local economy and he intended to continue growing the business. He didn’t feel that
the foundry would be a good neighbor for this type of development. S. Warmington asked if he was
against the proposal or if he was just indicating that it was a high-noise area for neighbors during
the night hours. V. Makary stated that he hadn’t had enough time to explore all the issues, but he
didn’t recommend that people sleep right next door to the foundry. B. Larson asked if what Mr.
Makary was saying was “buyer beware”. V. Makary thought that there would be a lot of complaints
from campers. L. Spataro stated that he thought he heard not only buyer beware, but as a property
owner, Mr. Makary was concerned about the possible problems with neighbors. He stated that he
would like to hear from the applicant. J. Bultema stated that he wasn’t aware of how much noise
was generated during the night hours. He stated that there would be a berm between the foundry
and park, and that large trees would be planted on top of it. He stated that the City still had noise
ordinances that had to be complied with, regardless of how long the business had been there. He
stated that Lakeshore Yacht Harbor was on the other side of the foundry. He stated that they
wanted to be good neighbors and didn’t want to disrupt the campers, but he didn’t know what else
they could do, unless the City had any ideas on reducing the noise. S. Warmington suggested that J.
Bultema check the area at night to see how much noise there was. J. Bultema stated that it would be
hard to tell how much noise there would be since the berms were not in place. B. Turnquist
suggested that an engineering study be done, with recommendations about blocking the noise. D.
Medendorp owned a home close to the site. He asked his tenant about the noise from Michigan
Steel and was told that he didn’t hear much. J. Kibbey worked with Michigan Steel on
environmental issues and formerly worked for the DEQ. She felt it would be difficult to have a
residential-type facility in such close proximity to an industrial use. She concurred that more study
Planning Commission Minutes – 03/16/06 2
was needed. Based on her experience working with foundries, she stated that the foundry noise
would be bothersome but not a violation of city ordinance. D. Kirksey is a close neighbor and
supports the project. However, he stated that V. Makary had a good point about the noise, and if
there were a problem it shouldn’t be the foundry’s problem. He stated that the dissimilar zoning
was a problem.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Smith, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
L. Spataro stated that there were some legitimate concerns raised. The city did have some
experience with camping facilities adjacent to industry, like Fisherman’s Landing. He felt that
people who camped in urban settings would be more tolerant of noise, and if there were complaints
made it would be the responsibility of the RV park operator. He thought the proposed use was
compatible with that area, since there was another marina close by, as well as restaurants and a
park. He didn’t think it would harm the foundry property. T. Harryman stated that he had seen
industrial and recreational uses integrated in other urban areas. He stated that this request was just
for a preliminary PUD and the issues that were raised could be addressed as plans are finalized. B.
Mazade stated that there was no question that Michigan Steel had seen a resurgence under V.
Makary, and felt that the concerns raised were not insurmountable. S. Warmington concurred.
A motion that the Preliminary PUD for a mixed-use recreational and commercial development at
1050 W. Western Avenue be approved pursuant to the determination of compliance with the intent
of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master Land Use Plan based on the condition that the
applicant must apply to Planning Commission and City Commission for final PUD approval
including review of a complete site plan and landscaping plan for the entire site, was made by L.
Spataro, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-07: Staff-initiated request to rezone the properties at 1438, 1446, 1458, 1468
and 1478 Terrace Street, from B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business, to R-1, One Family
Residential. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The properties in question are located on
Terrace Street in an area that is presently the focus of the latest Blight Fight effort by the City of
Muskegon. The area is referred to as “Area 13”. The four houses all appear to be single family
homes. The property at 1446 Terrace is a vacant lot owned by the Vineyard Christian Fellowship
Church located at 1428 Terrace, at the corner of Terrace and Irwin. Properties directly across
Terrace Street are zoned R-1, as are properties directly to the south along Terrace. To the east,
behind these homes is Muskegon Floral, which is zoned B-2 and should remain as it is. The 1997
Master Land Use Plan, in reference to this sub-area, states “Maintain the sub-area’s residential
focus”. The Master Plan’s Future Land Use Map shows this area as residential. Other areas in Area
13 may be brought to Planning Commission for rezoning in the future, particularly some sections of
Peck Street. Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the subject properties from B-2 to
R-1 because the request conforms to the goals and recommendation of the City’s 1997 Master Plan.
Staff has received a letter from K. Carlson of 491 Houston, stating that he was opposed to the
rezoning. In addition, a letter with nine signatures of people opposed to the request was presented
to Commissioners.
L. Spataro stated that the homes in question appeared to be single family residential structures. R.
Nielsen stated that two of the houses were two-family homes, at 1438 and 1478 Terrace. He owned
two of the properties. One was being sold to the neighboring church, and they had an option to buy
the other. He was opposed to the rezoning, and felt that it would be detrimental to the growth of
Planning Commission Minutes – 03/16/06 3
business. B. Larson asked R. Nielsen what the church might use the other lot for. R. Nielsen stated
that they were considering using it for parking. L. Anguilm stated that churches were still allowed
in R-1 zoning. R. Nielsen asked if a special use permit would be required. L. Anguilm stated that it
would. G. Sherwood was the pastor of the church at 1428 Terrace. He was opposed to the zone
change and stated that it would make it very hard to tear down the house at 1438 that the church has
an option on. It would also make it harder for any type of expansion for the church. B. Turnquist
asked if 1438 was next to the church. G. Sherwood stated that it was between the church and the
vacant lot. B. Turnquist asked if 1438 was being used by the church. G. Sherwood stated that it
was not being used at all at this time. B. Mazade stated that a special use permit would be required
in an R-1 or the current B-2 zoning, so that requirement would not change. He added that the
request for the rezoning was initiated by city staff as part of the blight fight effort, and not by any of
the residents. P. Nulf owned 1478 Terrace and was opposed to the rezoning, as no businesses
would be allowed there in the future. B. Young owned 1468 Terrace and was in favor of the
rezoning. She lived there and wanted to see the area remain a residential neighborhood. B. Buthker
agreed with B. Young and stated that the stability of the inner city depended on homeowners. He
was against further business expansion in this area. R. Nielsen asked what the zoning of the
neighboring properties was, and L. Anguilm showed him the zoning map for that area. K. Davis
stated that the landlords of these rental properties were good landlords who took care of their
houses, and that blight fight was aimed at substandard properties. He felt that the rezoning would
be a hardship to those property owners. L. Spataro stated that the properties were currently non-
conforming. They were built as and are occupied as residences. B. Turnquist asked if the church
could still use the lot for parking if it were rezoned to R-1. L. Anguilm stated that they could
request a special use permit. P. Nulf asked if her property would be grandfathered as a two-unit if
she were to sell it. L. Anguilm stated it would. P. Nulf asked about it being damaged by a fire. L.
Anguilm stated that if it were damaged over 50%, a variance would be required to rebuild a two-
unit. S. Warmington stated that it was the same situation under the current zoning. G. Sherwood
asked if a change from B-2 zoning would affect paving of the lot. L. Anguilm stated it would be the
same under either zoning.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
L. Spataro stated that this was spot-zoned at B-2 to accommodate a business that is no longer there.
He didn’t think that the uses allowed in a B-2 fit in this neighborhood. Since the church would
require a special use permit under either zoning, it created no additional hardship for them, and the
two-units could continue that use. He stated that the R-1 zoning would help preserve the property
values. T. Harryman had walked through the area and felt that this was a win/win situation, and that
the R-1 zoning would increase the property values. B. Mazade asked what date this would go
before the City Commission. L. Anguilm stated that it would be on March 28.
A motion that the request to rezone the property located at 1438, 1446, 1458, 1468, and 1478
Terrace Street from B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business district to R-1, One Family
Residential district, as described in the public notice, 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 L. Spataro, supported by B. Larson and unanimously
approved.
Planning Commission Minutes – 03/16/06 4
Hearing; Case 2006-08: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2334 (#5, a) (Signs) of Article
XXIII of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a building wrap for a building undergoing construction or
major renovation. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. There are many construction projects
taking place, particularly in Muskegon’s downtown area. Since there are often questions that arise
from the public regarding what the nature of the construction is or who to contact if someone is
interested in leasing space, a suggestion was made to staff regarding some sort of signage for the
sites. The large banner hanging on the Watermark is an example of what could possibly be used.
Also perhaps a “Coming Soon” type of sign with a picture of the future building. By making a
minor change to the sign ordinance, it would be possible to have some larger banner-type signs,
known as “building wraps”. These types of signs would need to be securely fastened so they aren’t
blowing around and causing a safety hazard. A sign of this type would also need to be removed
once the project is completed or a certificate of occupancy is issued. The City Attorney has
reviewed and approved the proposed language, which was provided to board members for their
review.
B. Larson asked how the city would determine that a building was complete. L. Anguilm stated that
it would be upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy. B. Larson asked about a phased-in project.
L. Anguilm stated that she could keep an eye on the progress to determine when the banner should
be removed. B. Turnquist stated that he would like to see a time limit. He stated that the
Watermark banner was starting to look shabby. L. Anguilm stated that maintenance of the banners
could be addressed in the ordinance, which already required that they be “taut and secure”. B.
Turnquist suggested adding the word “presentable” to the definition, and the board members
concurred.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by B. Smith and
unanimously approved.
T. Harryman left at 5:27 p.m.
A motion that the amendment to Section 2334 (#5,a), of Article XXIII (Signs), of the Zoning
Ordinance, be recommended to the City Commission for approval with the word “presentable”
added, was made by B. Turnquist, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006 09: Staff-initiated request to amend Article II (Definitions) of the Zoning
Ordinance to add a definition for “building wrap”. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. In order
to differentiate between an intended use of the typical banner-type sign and a “building wrap”, we
need to include a definition for such in the zoning ordinance. This definition was acquired from
Commissioner Carter, who works in the trade and was able to supply this for us. It has been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The proposed new language is “Building Wrap – A
large “banner-type” display typically composed of pictorial and text elements which is constructed
of reinforced vinyl or porous mesh-like material and is temporarily attached to one or more exterior
walls of a building.”
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Turnquist and
unanimously approved.
Planning Commission Minutes – 03/16/06 5
A motion that the amendment to Article II (Definitions), of the Zoning Ordinance to add a
definition for “building wrap”, be recommended to the City Commission for approval, was made by
B. Smith, supported by B. Turnquist and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-10: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2323 (#3) (Flood Hazard Areas) of
Article XXIII of the Zoning Ordinance regarding reference numbers for the Michigan Residential
Code and Michigan Building Code. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. This is basically a
clean-up item in the Flood Hazard area of the ordinance. This section makes reference to two
section numbers, one in the Michigan Residential Building code and one in the Michigan Building
Code. These section numbers have changed since the ordinance was last updated, and may change
again whenever the two building codes are amended by the State of Michigan. Rather than refer to
specific sections, the proposed language merely refers to the “flood-resistant construction
requirements” of the two sections. By making this change, we won’t need to continually amend the
zoning ordinance in the future. Proposed changes to Section 2323, (#3) Flood Hazard Areas are as
follows, with additions in bold and deletions crossed out: “3. All new construction and substantial
improvement to structures shall be constructed so that the lowest floor, including basements, for
residential structures shall comply with Section 327 the flood-resistant construction
requirements of the Michigan Residential Code or for non-residential buildings shall comply with
Section 1612 the flood-resistant construction requirements of the Michigan Building Code.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by B. Smith an
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendment to Sections 2323 (#3) of Article XXIII (Flood Hazard Areas), of the
Zoning Ordinance, be recommended to the City Commission for approval, was made by B. Smith,
supported by B. Mazade and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
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. This issue was first brought
before the Commission in October 2005, and staff has incorporated suggestions from Planning and
City Commissioners, with input from the City Attorney. The revisions discussed at the January
meeting were incorporated into the language. Staff didn’t remove Section 2202 #6, as former
Commissioner Johnson suggested, because there was no clear direction from the remaining
Planning Commissioners to do so. I still believe leaving it in makes sense and allows some latitude,
as long as the use is moving closer to conformity. J. Aslakson had requested staff to inquire if it
would be possible for residential structures only to be rebuilt in the former footprint if the home was
destroyed. Staff asked for an opinion from the City Attorney’s office, and the e-mail response from
Adam Zuwerink of Parmenter O’Toole was included with the meeting packet. The City Attorney’s
opinion was that the Commission could not differentiate between residential and commercial
structures. Although J. Aslakson was not at the meeting, L. Anguilm had spoken to him about it.
No other changes were requested, so staff left the proposed ordinance as it was. Another copy with
the new language was included.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Turnquist and
unanimously approved.
Planning Commission Minutes – 03/16/06 6
B. Turnquist stated that, regarding page 3, he would like to see the time limit be 12 months rather
than 2 years. B. Mazade stated that there had been instances where it has taken longer than 12
months, and preferred to stay with the 2-year time frame. Board members discussed the 50% figure
mentioned in section 2203, #5. K. Davis stated that the 50% limit was a primary concern for him.
He felt that people should be allowed to rebuild if their house is destroyed through no fault of their
own. Any time someone was not allowed to rebuild, it reduced the tax base. L. Spataro asked if it
would make a significant difference if the figure was changed to 65% or 70% to allow more latitude
for rising construction costs. L. Anguilm stated that it sounded from the City Attorney’s
recommendation that the Planning Commission could decide. B. Mazade suggested a 75% figure,
and board members concurred.
A motion that the amendments to Sections 2200, 2201, 2202, 2203, and 2204, Article XXII
(Nonconforming Uses), of the Zoning Ordinance be recommended to the City Commission for
approval, with #5 of section 2203 changed to 75% of replacement cost, was made by L. Spataro,
supported by B. Turnquist and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OTHER
Muskegon Area Plan (MAP) – L. Anguilm stated that the MAP committee would like the Planning
Commission to appoint a member to be involved in their county-wide quarterly meetings.
A motion to appoint J. Aslakson as the Planning Commission representative to the MAP committee
with T. Michalski as the back-up representative was made by B. Smith, supported by B. Mazade
and unanimously approved.
Peck Street Corridor – L. Anguilm presented members with a map of the Peck St. corridor showing
the zoning. She asked for comments from the board, which they agreed to provide at next month’s
meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
03/16/06
dml
Planning Commission Minutes – 03/16/06 7
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails