View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
August 10, 2006
Chairman J. Aslakson called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Larson, B. Turnquist, S. Warmington, J. Aslakson, L. Spataro, T.
Harryman, T. Michalski, B. Mazade
MEMBERS ABSENT: B. Smith, excused
STAFF PRESENT: L. Anguilm, M. Cameron, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: R. White, Scholten Fant, 100 N. Third St, Grand Haven; C.
Miskotten, Hot Rod Harley Davidson, 590 Ottawa; B. Frasier, Sidock
Group, 888 Terrace St; J. Thebo, 45995 E. Meadows Cir, Macomb; J.
Witt, Witt Buick, 67 W. Western Ave.; D. Dunlap, Westshore
Consulting, 2534 Black Creek; H. Churchley, Exit Your Way Realty,
975 W. Broadway; R. White, 2478 Winchester; J. Buszka, 2200
Deerfield Trl, Mattewan
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 13, 2006 was made by S.
Warmington, supported by T. Harryman and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2006-30: Request to vacate the northerly unimproved section of Wells Avenue, by
Randall White, Scholten Fant, representing Mercy General Hospital. L. Anguilm presented the staff
report. This request involves a private street within the Mercy General Oak campus. This street,
along with some others in the area, was platted and developed in the 1970’s as part of the hospital’s
office complex development. It was recently discovered that the actual property description of the
street and abutting properties doesn’t match where the street is physically located. In an attempt to
amend the plat, the hospital must vacate the undeveloped portion of the street, which is actually
located in the front yards of some of the buildings along Wells Street. No physical changes will
take place as a result of this vacation, only a replatting of the street and parcels located along the
street. DPW has no issues with the request, as along as no changes are made to the street. Staff has
received no comments regarding this request and recommends approval.
R. White of Scholten Fant provided background information on this property, describing when and
how it was originally platted. J. Aslakson asked why the Planning Commission needed to address
this if it was private property. L. Anguilm stated that the City Attorney had advised it.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
Planning Commission Minutes – 08/10/06 1
A motion that the vacation of the northerly unimproved section of Wells Avenue be recommended
to City Commission for approval based on compliance with the City’s 1997 Master Land Use Plan,
with the condition that all utility easements
be retained, was made by L. Spataro, supported by S. Warmington and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-31: Staff-initiated request to rezone the properties at 209 & 155 E. Walton
Avenue and 185 E. Muskegon Avenue from B-4, General Business, to R-1, One Family Residential
District. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The property which is the subject of this request is
owned by the City and is located across E. Walton Street from the Farmer’s Market. The request is
to rezone the property from B-4, General Business District to R-1, One Family Residential District.
The properties to the west and northwest, which includes the Farmer’s Market, are zoned B-4, and
to the northeast, east, and southeast, the zoning is R-1. The zoning to the southwest is RM-1, Low
Density Multiple Family Residential District. Walton Street has recently been redeveloped with
several single family homes through the City of Muskegon Community & Neighborhood Services
programs. The property at 181 W. Walton is currently being developed as a single family home by
J2 Properties Developers and Construction Company, LLC. The City has been approached by the
same developer to possibly purchase 209 Murphy Street for more residential development. The
Farmer’s Market site has been discussed as a possible residential building site, if the Market is
relocated to another site in the future. The City’s Future Land Use Map supports neighborhood
rehabilitation of homes and home sites in this area. Staff has received no comments regarding this
request, and recommends approval.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by T. Harryman, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to rezone the property located at 209 & 155 E. Walton Avenue and 185 E.
Muskegon Avenue from B-4, General Business to R-1, One Family Residential 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 Plan and zoning district intent, was made by S. Warmington, supported by T.
Harryman and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-32: Request for preliminary Planned Unit Development for mixed use retail
and commercial approval for Terrace Lots, between Terrace Street, Western Avenue, and Shoreline
Drive, by Carl Miskotten, Downtown Muskegon Believers, LLC. L. Anguilm presented the staff
report. This property was formerly known as the “Terrace Lots” and was recently sold to the
developer by the City of Muskegon. The property is presently zoned B-2, Convenience and
Comparison Business. All of the proposed uses can’t be accommodated under the present zoning,
therefore a PUD has been requested. The properties to the north and west, which include National
City Bank and Edison Landing, are also zoned B-2. The zoning to the east is B-4, General
Business, and to the south is B-3, Central Business. The request for the PUD is for development of
retail/commercial and small specialty food establishments. A restaurant, a Harley Davidson
dealership, and new and used car dealerships are included on the site plan. The site plan will be
discussed along with the final PUD requested in the next case. The City of Muskegon
Downtown/Lakeshore Development Plan identifies this property as being in the “Guest and
Entertainment Center”. The plan states, “The Guest and Entertainment Center provides opportunity
to concentrate a variety of entertainment, service and retail uses in close proximity to existing
facilities of local and regional significance, and to compliment the activities of the “Maritime
Planning Commission Minutes – 08/10/06 2
Center.” The “Maritime Center” encompasses the downtown lakeshore and is the location of
Edison Landing, which includes the Grand Valley Energy Research Center. The new City of
Muskegon Central Fire Station is planned for the northwest corner of Terrace Street and Western
Avenue. Staff has received no comments regarding this request and recommends approval.
L. Spataro asked if staff had received a preliminary landscaping plan yet. L. Anguilm stated that
she had not. C. Miskotten stated that they were working to get the property ready for building, but
there was extensive work to do on the site. There was a lot of concrete and other debris to be
removed, and a lot of fill to be done. T. Harryman asked if they had given any thought to facing the
buildings to the sidewalks and Western Avenue. C. Miskotten stated that the Harley dealership
would have all four sides of the building as “fronts”. The other retailers wanted to face Shoreline
Drive, since that will be the Business 31 highway. He stated that he had spoken to B. Mazade and
L. Spataro about facing Western Avenue, but he felt that having new buildings facing the older
buildings could be detrimental to the older ones when it came to attracting tenants. L. Spataro
asked about the amount of parking and the portion of the site that was indicated as being reserved
for future development. C. Miskotten pointed out these areas on the site plan. J. Aslakson was
concerned about the large paved areas and the potential for large amounts of water runoff. C.
Miskotten stated that he would be able to address those concerns in the next case, but that the large
paved areas would be used for motorcycle riders training and also for fire department exercises. J.
Aslakson asked if there was any problem with the Mart Dock lots. C. Miskotten stated that there
were no problems, but there were stretches of time during summer festivals when that lot was
unavailable. J. Thebo owned the lot at 100 W. Western Ave., located in the “Terrace Lots” area.
She stated that after speaking with C. Miskotten, she was satisfied that she would not incur any
costs from the improvements being done on her lot.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the preliminary PUD for a mixed-use recreational and commercial development on
the “Terrace Lots”, between Terrace Street, Western Avenue and Shoreline Drive be approved,
pursuant to the determination of compliance with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City
Master Land Use Plan, was made by S. Warmington and supported by T. Michalski, with discussion
continuing on the motion.
T. Harryman didn’t feel that the proposed development was suitable for downtown. He felt that it
did not meet the design standards set by Imagine Muskegon and the DMDC, and that it was better
suited for a suburban area. B. Larson was glad to see the development going downtown, and felt
that it would draw people to the area. B. Mazade stated that he had been working closely with the
developer and now had a better understanding of the need for the larger paved areas for parking and
display space. L. Spataro felt that the plan was compatible with the land, and that it was an
appropriate use for the property with the necessary scale.
A vote was taken on the above motion and the request was approved, with T. Harryman voting nay.
Hearing; Case 2006-33: Request for final Planned Unit Development approval for mixed use retail
and commercial use for Terrace Lots, between Terrace Street, Western Avenue, and Shoreline
Drive, by Carl Miskotten, Downtown Muskegon Believers, LLC. L. Anguilm presented a revised
staff report. This property was formerly known as the “Terrace Lots”, and was recently sold to the
developer by the City of Muskegon. The property is presently zoned B-2, Convenience and
Planning Commission Minutes – 08/10/06 3
Comparison Business. All of the proposed uses cannot be accommodated under the present zoning,
therefore a PUD has been requested. The properties to the north and west which include National
City Bank and the Smart Zone, is also zoned B-2. The zoning to the east is B-4, General Business
District, and to the south is B-3, Central Business District. The request for the PUD is for
development of retail/commercial and small specialty food establishments. A restaurant, a Harley
Davidson dealership, and new and used car dealerships were included on the original site plan.
Staff has met with the developer to discuss concerns with the previously submitted site plan. A new
site plan was submitted on 8/9/06. The developer addressed many of the issues that staff had with
the site plan. Those concerns included the location of the buildings and how they are oriented to the
street, as well as sidewalks, the used car dealership, and number of parking spaces. The Harley
building has been turned and pulled closer to Terrace Street from Shoreline Drive. The car
dealership has been turned and reconfigured. The restaurant building has been moved from beside
the Central Fire Station property to behind it. The used car dealership building was removed from
the site plan. The large parking area located closest to Shoreline Drive, between the Harley and car
dealerships, will be used for motorcycle testing and Fire Department training. Five motorcycle
display pads and a patio area have been added as part of the Harley dealership plan. Pedestrian
circulation has been provided by adding sidewalks on the perimeter and through the site (see #10).
The following issues still remain: a) sidewalks are provided on the Terrace and Western sides of
the site, connecting to the sidewalks on the Central Fire Station property. A pedestrian walkway is
now provided from Western Avenue past the rear of the restaurant building and connecting to the
Harley Davidson building. This is a big improvement for pedestrian access, but there needs to be
more connectivity throughout the site. For example, a sidewalk needs to be provided between the
restaurant building and the car dealership; b) indicate size of motorcycle parking spaces. This area
should have signs that indicate it is for motorcycles only, or pipe bollards preventing cars from
entering the motorcycle parking area; c) height of the proposed structures needs to be shown; d)
location, type, height and design of all outdoor lighting must be shown. All lighting must 100%
cut-off style; e) show specs for dumpster screening; f) show locations of all fire lanes, fire lock
boxes, hydrants, standpipes and security lighting; g) a landscaping plan still needs to be submitted;
h) the areas of the parking lot that are planned for “future development” should be so designated on
the site plan; and i) permits are required for all signage on the site. In addition, the Fire Department
has the following requirements: a) project shall comply with NFPA 1141 standard for fire
protection in planned building groups, and b) additional hydrants shall be installed to meet the fire
flow and water supply requirements per International Fire Code 2003, Section 508. An amended
drawing shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed fire hydrants. Planning staff has the
following concerns: a) the new plan has over 120 fewer parking spaces than the original. There are
328 parking spaces shown for cars and 93 spaces for motorcycles, for a total of 421 spaces. The
previous plan had 549 spaces. With several different businesses sharing the parking, it is difficult to
calculate the proper amount of parking. Without details of the interiors of the buildings, staff can’t
make that calculation. The ordinance requirements would be for “Open Air Business” for the car
dealership and Harley Davidson, but would also include office, retail and repair area calculations.
The restaurant parking would be determined by maximum occupancy load; b) although a
landscaping plan wasn’t submitted with the site plan, there are several open areas designated for
landscaping. Since the site has approximately 1,258 feet of street frontage, the landscaping required
for the site would be extensive. The scattered open areas designated for landscaping should be well
done, and provide a relief for the large paved parking areas. The public space, located along the
frontage on Shoreline Drive, could also be used by the developer to locate the landscaping needed
along that side of the development. Staff could work with the developer and architects to develop
an aesthetically pleasing plan that preserves the views and display areas, while also meeting the
Planning Commission Minutes – 08/10/06 4
zoning ordinance requirements. Staff has received no other comments regarding this request, and
recommends approval with the condition that a revised site plan be submitted and approved by the
Planning Department, which addresses items 10 and 11 of the staff report.
T. Harryman asked if there was any concern from Planning Department staff that the buildings on
the site would not face Terrace St. L. Anguilm stated that the Harley dealership building would
have four faces, including one on Terrace St. With this piece of property having frontage on so
many roads, it would be difficult to cover them all. C. Miskotten stated that they wanted a design
that would flow with the new fire station. They had given a lot of consideration to the look of the
buildings and thought that a fresh new look would be beneficial to Shoreline Drive. They did not
have all the details in place yet, but they were anxious to get the building started. There have been
several site plan changes made already. The changes were not done to save on costs, but to improve
the look and quality of the development. L. Spataro stated that he was glad to see that the
applicants had attempted to address the concerns raised regarding the earlier site plan. He was
somewhat concerned with the parking lot on Western Avenue that was reserved for future
development. He would rather it not be paved, since it was a critical piece of property on a main
street. He was also concerned with pedestrian access to the restaurant, and would like to see better
connection of buildings via pedestrian walkways. He stated that he would be willing to allow
Planning Department staff make that determination on a revised site plan. T. Harryman stated that
he appreciated the work that the developers were doing, but asked about bringing the buildings up
to sidewalk level for pedestrian access. B. Frasier stated that there would be a walkway next to the
bike path behind the fire department. L. Spataro stated that it was an excellent start, but it appeared
that the pathway stopped at the Harley dealership and did not extend to Market Street. B. Frasier
stated that they felt it would be better to direct pedestrians to the bike path instead of through the
parking lot. T. Harryman asked why the buildings were not closer to the roads. B. Frasier stated
that there were issues with the site that made that difficult, including the elevation drop. They
didn’t want too steep of a grade when pulling into the lot, and they also didn’t want to create a
hazardous situation with vehicles leaving the lot and making a left turn. J. Aslakson asked if they
had given any thought to having the buildings face Western Avenue. C. Miskotten stated that they
had, but the potential tenants wanted to be able to be seen from Shoreline Drive. J. Aslakson asked
about site drainage. B. Frasier stated that there would be a connection to Ryerson Creek, which was
close to the site, and there would be a storm sewer along the property. Also, the amount of fill sand
on the site would help absorb water. J. Witt stated that she was happy to have the new neighbors,
but had been concerned with water runoff and the location of the driveways.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the Final PUD and associated site plan for a mixed-use retail and commercial
development on the “Terrace Lots”, between Terrace Street, Western Avenue and Shoreline Drive
be recommended to City Commission for approval pursuant to the determination of compliance
with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master Land Use Plan, with the condition
that a revised site plan be submitted and approved by the Planning Department, which addresses
items 10 and 11 of the staff report, was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Larson and approved,
with T. Harryman voting nay.
S. Warmington wanted to clarify the issue of motorcycle parking spaces. He recalled that C.
Miskotten had stated that he would like to open those spaces to non-motorcycle parking during the
off-season. He asked if it would make a difference if those spaces were the traditional automobile
Planning Commission Minutes – 08/10/06 5
size, and if it was allowable to restrict them to motorcycle parking only during the riding season. L.
Anguilm stated that she had no problem with that. She had included it in the requirements because
the spaces appeared smaller on the site plan.
Hearing; Case 2006-34: Request for preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for a mixed
use commercial and residential development for the southerly portion of 1266 W. Sherman
Boulevard, the northerly portion of 1228 W. Sherman, a portion of 1254 W. Sherman and a portion
of 2495 Barclay Street, by Hazel Churchley, Exit Your Way, LLC. L. Anguilm presented the staff
report. The request is for a preliminary PUD for a mixed-use commercial and residential
development. The site is approximately 7 acres in size. The portion of property along Barclay
Street is zoned B-4, General Business. The remainder of the site is zoned R-1, One Family
Residential. The properties to the north and west are zoned R-1, the properties to the east are zoned
RT, Two Family Residential, and B-4. The properties to the south are also zoned B-4. The plans
include 20 duplex residential units, and a model/office to be located on the property to the west.
The property located along Barclay Street is planned for some sort of retail/commercial
development. The site is rather wooded, with a clearing toward the rear along the creek. There is
presently an access road off of Barclay that was used during the recent clean-up of Ruddiman
Creek. The Master Land Use Plan recommends the following for this area: “Maintain the character
of the sub-area as single-family residential. Limited multiple-family may be permitted provided:
residential density (units per acre) does not exceed underlying single-family standards by more than
50 percent, sufficient on-site parking exists to accommodate all units, the character of the multiple-
family complex (building and site) must be consistent with that of surrounding residential
development, all units should have on-site access to at least one (1) stall of an enclosed garage, and
all projects should be subject to rigid site design (zoning) standards including site plan review by
the Planning Commission. This is a nicely wooded area with many mature trees. If approval is
given for the preliminary PUD, staff would recommend that when the final PUD and site plan is
approved that as many mature trees as possible are retained. A review of trees to be removed could
be conducted by Planning staff, similar to how it was done in the Bluffton Bay development.
Sidewalks will need to be provided within the development and connected to Barclay Street. Staff
has received one comment regarding this request from M. Harding of 2488 Winchester, who is
opposed to the request. Staff recommends approval.
D. Dunlap gave an overview of the project and building layout. H. Churchley stated that they
intended to retain as many of the mature trees on the site as possible. Access to the property would
be off Barclay St., and some of the units would front the creek. She stated that the units would be
1250 square feet with 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, and a 2-stall garage. J. Aslakson asked if the
garages would be facing the street. H. Churchley stated that they would. L. Spataro stated that on
the final plan he would like to see a sidewalk along Barclay St., like what was required for the
social security offices. R. White wanted to know how far back the development would extend. He
was concerned about it encroaching on his property. The applicant explained where the roads and
buildings would be located.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
T. Harryman asked that a sidewalk be required. L. Spataro stated that the applicant would have to
return before the board for the final PUD request, and at that time they would need to show the bike
path and sidewalk. B. Mazade stated that the development would fit in well with the area.
Planning Commission Minutes – 08/10/06 6
A motion that the preliminary PUD for a mixed-use residential and commercial development on the
southerly portion of 1266 W. Sherman Boulevard, the northerly portion of 1228 W. Sherman
Boulevard, and a portion of 1254 W. Sherman Boulevard along with a portion of 2495 Barclay
Street be approved pursuant to the determination of compliance with the intent of the City Zoning
Ordinance and City Master Land Use Plan, was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Turnquist
and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-35: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2334 (Signs, #5, h) of Article
XXIII, to clarify window signage allotments. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The issues
with this section of the sign ordinance were discussed at the June meeting. Since several businesses
have been challenging the language as currently written, it was decided that a clarification of this
section was needed. A subcommittee made up of John Aslakson, Bill Larson, and Tim Michalski
met with Zoning staff to discuss the issues, and how to best redesign the language so the intent is
clear and enforceable. Therefore, the following language is offered for your consideration
(deletions are crossed out and additions are bold): Changes to Section 2334, Signs, #5: “5.
Window signsage covering may be up to twenty five percent (25%) of the structure’s total
window area of the commercial portion of the first floor of the front building face. This
allotment may be divided between multiple windows on the commercial portion of the
building.”
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendment to Sections 2334 (#5, h) of Article XXIII (Signs), of the Zoning
Ordinance, be recommended to the City Commission for approval was made by L. Spataro,
supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-36: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2319, Residential Design Criteria,
#2 to allow the roof pitch of additions to correspond to the principal structure. L. Anguilm
presented the staff report. Several permits for additions have been applied for recently, and
consequently this section of the ordinance has been brought to staff’s attention. As presently
written, a 5/12 pitch is required for any additions, even if the home has a low pitch. This requires
an odd angle on the roof addition to the home that isn’t necessarily aesthetically pleasing. Allowing
the pitch to match the existing principal structure seems to make more sense, and would blend much
better with the present home. NEW LANGUAGE: Deletions are crossed out and additions are
bold. Changes to Section 2319, Residential Design Criteria, #2: “Where the home design involves
a roof pitch, it shall be a minimum pitch of 5/12, that is, for every twelve inches (12”) of lateral run,
the roof shall rise five inches (5”). In the case of additions or alterations to principal structures
when a 5/12 pitch is not practical, the roof pitch may be allowed to correspond with that of the
principal structure.”
J. Aslakson asked in what instance would a 5/12 pitch not be practical. L. Anguilm stated that there
had been instances where there was more than one pitch on a structure.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendment to Sections 2319 (Residential Design Criteria, #2) of Article XXIII
(General Provisions) of the Zoning Ordinance, be recommended to the City Commission for
Planning Commission Minutes – 08/10/06 7
approval was made by S. Warmington, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Case 2006-28: Request for Site Plan Review for parking lot expansion and reconfiguration at the
Northeast corner of Laketon Avenue and Hoyt Street, by Hackley Hospital – Remains tabled.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2006-37: Request for Site Plan Review for a new naval museum building (Silversides) at
3800 Bluff and 1260 Browne Streets, by Hughes Builders. The applicants requested that this item
be tabled to give them time to revise their site plan, due to the Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of
their variance request.
A motion that this request be tabled was made by T. Harryman, supported by S. Warmington and
unanimously approved.
Case 2006-38: Request for Site Plan Review for a microbrewery and restaurant at 902 Pine Street,
by Steve and Jenna Clark-Buszka, Muskegon Brewing and Distilling Company. L. Anguilm
presented the staff report. The property is currently being used as a secondhand sales commercial
site. The Antique Mall is located in the building. The zoning is B-5, Central Governmental Service
District, and restaurants and cocktail lounges are allowed as principal uses. All of the properties
surrounding 902 Pine Street are zoned B-5. The owners plan to develop the building into a
microbrewery and restaurant on the first floor, and develop the second floor as their residence.
Parking is adequate for the site. There are 35 spaces required (2 spaces for the residential use). Of
those, 24 spaces are provided in the parking lot and the other 11 spaces can be accommodated on
the street, since this property is located in the Downtown Overlay Parking zone. The site plan is
very well done and requires only a few items to be added or amended. The dumpster must be
located 6 feet from the building. It appears that the rear of the dumpster is too close to the building.
There needs to be a fire lock box located on the building. Other than the location, signage is not
part of the site plan approval process, and the applicants would need to apply for a separate sign
permit. This site plan was added to the agenda after the deadline, since no public notice is required.
The DPW, Engineering and Police Departments had no issues with the site plan. The Fire
Department comments were that fire department access shall be maintained around the perimeter of
the building including existing alleyways. No other comments were received. Staff recommends
approval of the site plan for a microbrewery and restaurant at 902 Pine Street, subject to the
condition that all requirements addressed in item #6 of the staff report shall be provided as needed
on a revised site plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
L. Spataro asked the applicant if she had discussed possible shared parking with anyone from the
County Building. J. Buszka stated that she had tried to get ahold of someone at the County but
hadn’t been able to yet. They were on a tight timetable at this time because the seller had other
interest in the building, but she intended to pursue the possibility of shared parking. T. Harryman
asked if they had given any thought to outdoor seating. J. Buszka stated that they would like to
have it, but there were houses directly behind the building. B. Mazade asked what the procedure
was for the liquor license. J. Buszka stated that it was different than a regular liquor license because
Planning Commission Minutes – 08/10/06 8
this would be a brewery/distillery. They would sell their own beer at the brewery, but the liquor
would have to be sold out of a different establishment, and they had a willing distributor for that.
A motion that the site plan for a microbrewery and restaurant located at 902 Pine Street for Steve
and Jenna Buszka, Muskegon Brewing and Distilling Company, be approved, based on the
condition that all requirements addressed in item #6 of the staff report shall be provided as needed
on a revised site plan prior to issuance of a building permit, and the fire department requirements
were met, was made by S. Warmington, supported by T. Harryman and unanimously approved.
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
dml
8/10/06
Planning Commission Minutes – 08/10/06 9
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails