View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
October 12, 2006
Vice Chairman T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Turnquist, B. Mazade, B. Smith, L. Spataro, B. Larson, T.
Michalski
MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Aslakson, excused; T. Harryman, excused; S. Warmington
STAFF PRESENT: L. Anguilm, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: K. Chew, Brookstone Capital, 6857 Eastman Ave, Midland; T.
Tubergen, 511 W Clay; P. Chadborne, Tri-State Aluminum; J.
Hughes, 3279 E. Laketon; B. Morin, 3800 Bluff; D. Barns, 3509
Channel Dr.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 14, 2006 was made by L.
Spataro, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Smith arrived at 4:05 p.m.
Hearing; Case 2006-45: Request for a Special Land Use Permit, per Section 2001 (#10) of Article
XX of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow multi-family residential uses in an H, Heritage District, at
552 W. Clay Avenue, by Karl Chew, Brookstone Capital, LLC. L. Anguilm presented the staff
report. The applicant has turned in a site plan that includes two parcels, those being 552 and 570
W. Clay Avenue. The building at the corner of 7th Street and Clay Avenue is not a part of this
request. Multiple family residential uses are allowed with a special use permit according to Section
2001, #10: “Any new multiple family construction shall be compatible and/or complementary to
the character of the surrounding area as determined by the Historic District Commission (HDC) and
the Planning Commission”. HDC approved the request to demolish the warehouse building, and to
allow a multi-family structure to be built in a historic district at their October 3rd meeting. They did
not approve the proposed design, but instead offered suggestions to the developer, who was willing
to amend his plans. HDC will address the compatibility of the buildings when the final plans are
submitted to them. The proposed request would consist of 12 residential town homes and 11
additional apartment units on the third floor. The entire development would be an age-restricted
senior complex for those 55 years old and older. The site plan presented with this application is
preliminary and would need to undergo final site plan approval before the Planning Commission
because the development contains a building with over 10,000 square feet of space. It appears that
there will be additional parking spaces needed, as 2 spaces for each residential unit are required by
Planning Commission Minutes – 10/12/06 1
the zoning ordinance. Presently there are 38 spaces proposed. Perhaps additional property can be
purchased or a shared parking agreement can be obtained to accommodate the required 46 spaces.
The Downtown/Lakeshore Redevelopment Plan states: “Senior housing, both market rate and non-
market rate, should be incorporated into other sites in the Service Center area and elsewhere.” Staff
has received no comments on this request, and recommends approval with the conditions listed in
the staff report.
The applicant, K. Chew, provided an amended site plan. B. Mazade asked if the new plan
incorporated the suggestions made by the HDC. L. Anguilm stated that the HDC had wanted to see
some type of street presence, with a transition space between the sidewalk and the building, and the
drawings now seemed to show that. B. Turnquist asked which buildings in the area would remain,
and how much of a buffer there would be between them. K. Chew stated that there would be about
six feet between buildings. The zoning there allowed for zero lot line development. B. Larson
asked about the funding for the project, and if HUD would be involved. K. Chew stated that there
would be no HUD involvement. They planned to apply for low income tax credits, but there would
be no subsidies. He pointed out changes made to the drawings, per Planning staff and HDC input.
He stated that they wished to blend in with the neighborhood, and for the building to have the
appearance of individual units rather than one large building. They had checked out the
neighborhood and incorporated similar design elements into their building. B. Turnquist asked
where access to the third floor would be. K. Chew stated that there would be a lobby with an
elevator. T. Tubergen owned a house in the area and was concerned with whether these would be
subsidized or market rate units. K. Chew stated that they were looking into a mixed income
development, but it would not be subsidized. L. Spataro stated that the City Commission would
have to take action on the financing part of the plan. This meeting was for consideration of the
design elements and site plan.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by B. Smith and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the Special Land Use Permit, per section 2001 (#10) of Article XX of the Zoning
Ordinance, to allow multi family uses in an H, Heritage zoning district at 552 W. Clay Avenue, by
Karl Chew, Brookstone Capital LLC, be approved based on compliance with the City’s Master
Land Use Plan and conditions set forth in Section 2332 of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance
with the conditions that: 1) the applicant shall submit the final site plan to the Planning
Commission for review, 2) the HDC shall give its final approval to the building design, 3) the
owner/applicant shall permit the zoning administrator or other zoning staff in the premises at
reasonable times to review compliance with this permit, 4) the amended Special Land Use Permit
document shall be recorded with the register of deeds prior to occupying the building, and 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, was made by B. Turnquist,
supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-46: Request to vacate the alley in Block 12 of the Continental Addition
bounded by E. Keating Avenue, Brunswick Street, E. Holbrook Avenue, and Huizenga Street, by
Tri-State Aluminum. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The alley splits the two parcels that are
owned by Tri-State Aluminum. Conducting business would be much easier for the applicant if this
alley was vacated. No homes bordering the alley need access from it for either a garage or
driveway. They all have access off either Brunswick or Huizenga. The alley appears to be used
very little, if at all, on the residential end. The Fire, Public Works, and Engineering Departments
Planning Commission Minutes – 10/12/06 2
have no issues with this vacation. Staff has received no comments regarding this request and
recommends approval subject to the conditions offered in the staff report.
P. Chadborne, General Manager of Tri State Aluminum, stated that they use this alley for unloading
and deliveries and it would be easier if it was their property rather than a public alley. They have
gotten several parking tickets there.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the vacation of the alley located in Block 12 of the Continental Addition, bounded by
E. Keating Avenue, Brunswick Street, E. Holbrook Avenue, and Huizenga Street, be recommended
to the City Commission for approval based on compliance with the City’s 1997 Master Land Use
Plan, with the condition that all utility easements will be retained was made by B. Smith, supported
by B. Mazade and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-47: Staff-initiated request to amend the Section 2405 (Petitions, Fees,
paragraph #2) of Article XXIV, Administration and Enforcement, to meet the requirements of the
Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Act 110 of 2006 regarding Planning Commission public notice
mailings. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. Earlier this year the Michigan Zoning Enabling
Act of 2006 was passed. In order to bring our zoning ordinance into compliance with this Act,
some amendments must be made. This case and the two that follow are a result of this Act. Other
changes will be forthcoming at future meetings. This particular amendment requires notification of
requests to be sent to residents as well as owners of property within 300 feet of the property in
question. Although our present ordinance only requires a 200 foot notice area, zoning staff has
been notifying all those properties within 300 feet for several years. This is just a correction of our
ordinance language to bring the zoning ordinance into compliance with the Act. NEW
LANGUAGE: (Deletions are crossed out and additions are in bold), “The Planning Commission
shall hold a public hearing after notice, published in a newspaper of general circulation, and by mail
or personal service to all owners and residents of property within two three hundred (200) (300)
feet of the property. Such notice shall be served as required fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing.”
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Turnquist, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendment to Section 2405, paragraph #2, of Article XXIV, (Administration and
Enforcement), of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance, be recommended to the City
Commission for approval, was made by B. Larson, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously
approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-48: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2503 (Appeals, Applications,
Filing Procedure and Fees, paragraph #1) of Article XXV (Zoning Board of Appeals) to meet the
requirements of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Act 110 of 2006 regarding “aggrieved parties”
language. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. Once again, this is an amendment to our zoning
ordinance to meet the requirements of the new Michigan Zoning Enabling Act of 2006. It was
reworded somewhat so the sentence makes sense. We must clarify the language to address
“aggrieved parties” rather than “affected” parties. NEW LANGUAGE: (Deletions are crossed out
and additions are in bold), “An application or appeal to the ZBA in cases in which it has original
jurisdiction under the provisions of this ordinance or state law, may be taken by any aggrieved
Planning Commission Minutes – 10/12/06 3
parties, including property owner or tenant, or by a governmental office, department, board or
bureau affected. Such application or appeal shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator, who shall
transmit the same, together with all the plans, specifications and other papers pertaining to the
application, to the ZBA.”
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 Section 2503, paragraph #1, of Article XXV, (Zoning Board of
Appeals) of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance be recommended to the City Commission for
approval, was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Turnquist and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-49: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2504 (Hearings Notices, and
Adjournments, #1) of Article XXV (Zoning Board of Appeals) to meet the requirements of the
Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Act 110 of 2006, regarding Zoning Board of Appeals newspaper
public notice. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. As with the prior two cases, this amendment
is necessary due to the change in the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act of 2006. The Act now requires
that all Zoning Board of Appeals cases be notified in the same manner as Planning Commission
cases. That means we must now not only mail notifications to all residents and property owners
within 300 feet of the subject property, but also shall “publish notice of the request in a newspaper
of general circulation in the local unit of government”. All notices must be served at least 15 days
prior to the day of the hearing. The old requirement was 10 days, but the zoning staff has been
using the 15 day standard for several years. NEW LANGUAGE: (Deletions are crossed out and
additions are in bold), “When an application or appeal has been filed in proper form and with the
required date, the Zoning Administrator shall immediately place said application or appeal upon the
calendar for hearing and cause notices stating the time, place, and purposes of the hearing being
served. Such notices shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation and served
personally or by mail at least ten (10) fifteen (15) days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
holidays) prior to the day of such hearing, upon the applicant or appellant, the Building Inspector,
the owners of property and the occupants of single and two-family dwellings within three hundred
(300) feet of the property in question. If the tenant's name is not known, the notice may be
addressed to the occupant. Any party may appear at such hearings in person or be represented by
agents, attorneys, or both.”
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Smith, supported by B. Mazade and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendment to Section 2504, #1, of Article XXV, (Zoning Board of Appeals), of
the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance, be recommended to the City Commission for approval,
was made by B. Larson, supported by B. Turnquist and unanimously approved.
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 property is currently the site of the
USS Silversides and associated museum. The buildings currently on the site are temporary in
nature, and were never meant to be permanent. The zoning was changed in 2005 to OSR, Open
Space Recreation, which allows for museums with a special use permit. A special use permit for
the museum was also approved at that time. The museum has applied for a variance to the front set-
back. The zoning ordinance requires 75 feet from the high water mark. The original variance
request was for 30 feet, which was denied by the ZBA. A new request for a 43 foot setback from
Planning Commission Minutes – 10/12/06 4
the high water mark was submitted to the ZBA and approved on October 10. The minimum number
of parking spaces required is 35, the maximum is 46, and there are 44 spaces provided. The
following items need to be addressed on the site plan for final approval: a) The proper addresses for
the properties need to be added to the site plan, b) Soil erosion and sedimentation control measures
need to be shown, c) Include arrows showing site circulation in the parking area, d) The dumpster
must be located at least 6 feet from the building and the type of screening to be used needs to be
shown on the site plan, e) A 10-foot wide dedicated pedestrian walkway shall be established
between the front of the building and the channel wall, and f) The landscaping plan needs revisions
to include the following: i) Descriptions for each plant type used, ii) The site needs 16 canopy trees,
and none are provided, iii) The site needs an additional 23 under story or canopy trees, iv) The site
needs an additional 17 shrubs, v) Two more canopy trees are required for the parking lot bump outs,
vi) Since the site abuts residential areas on two sides, screening needs to be provided. Since there
will be a hill on the east side, screening isn’t logical. However, the southerly boundary toward
Fulton Avenue needs to be screened, vii) Rolled curbing or curb stops must be provided for the
parking spaces abutting green areas, viii) Fire Department key box is required on the building,
viv) Crash protection required for utility (gas meter). The following issues should also be
conditions of the approval: Fire Department conditions a) the building’s Fire Department
connections for fire suppression shall be accessible to the Fire Department on the building front or
street side, b) a post indicating valve shall be installed for the suppression system, and c) a key box
shall be installed on building; DPW condition a) contact Kelly DeFrench regarding relocating water
meter from pit to a location inside the building; Engineering condition a) a soil erosion permit from
Muskegon County is required; and Planning Department conditions a) no temporary structures may
be erected on the site, b) no outdoor storage is allowed, and c) a sign permit is needed for any type
of signage on the site. Staff has received no comments on the site plan and recommends approval,
subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
L. Spataro asked what would be considered the front of the building. L. Anguilm stated that it
would be the side facing the channel wall. L. Spataro asked where the first house closest to the site
was. J. Hughes stated that it was on “Lot 7” on the site plan. B. Mazade asked if there was an
elevation difference between the museum site and the house on Lot 7. J. Hughes stated that Lot 7
was on top of a large hill and Lots 8, 9, and 10 continue uphill. The house is approximately 42 feet
up, and the proposed building will only be 28 feet high. L. Spataro asked about pedestrian
connections on the site. J. Hughes stated that the parking area would be moved, which would open
up the area for pedestrian traffic. They would also shorten the gangplank as much as possible and
wanted to bury the wires underground, if allowed by the Corp of Engineers. L. Spataro suggested a
sidewalk throughout the site, connected to the entrance. J. Hughes stated that they would like to
make it easily accessible and would work with Planning staff on that. B. Mazade asked if they had
a timetable for construction. J. Hughes stated that they had done well raising funds so far, but still
had more to go before they could start building. He thought that the ZBA and Planning
Commission approvals would help move things along. D. Barns was opposed to the request and
was concerned with keeping the public access areas open. He had looked at a preliminary drawing
and felt that the building looked too industrial for the residential area. He also stated that the site
plan did not show the fire pit and utility meter that were on the site. B. Larson stated that the meter
was addressed in item 7 of the staff report. L. Spataro asked staff what the requirements were for
building finishes. L. Anguilm stated that she believed the Building Inspection department handled
those requirements. L. Spataro asked the applicants if they had a fairly firm building design. J.
Hughes stated that they had some preliminary renderings and the architects would be working with
the Building Inspection department on those. J. Hughes stated that they had put a lot of
Planning Commission Minutes – 10/12/06 5
consideration into the look of the building, and they believed it would be a nice fit with the area.
Also, two sides of the building would be mostly covered by the hill. L. Spataro asked about the fire
pit that was mentioned, and if there would be one on the new site. B. Morin stated that they may
have one at the far east end of the property. He stated that they had brought in another architect that
specialized in residential buildings in order to ensure that the design fits in with the neighborhood.
A motion that the site plan for a new museum building, located at 3800 Bluff and 1260 Browne
Streets for Hughes Builders be approved, with the conditions that 1) all requirements addressed in
item #5 of the staff report shall be provided as needed on a revised site plan prior to issuance of a
building permit, and 2) all conditions of items #6-9 of the staff report are met, including pedestrian
access and the fire pit, was made by L. Spataro and supported by B. Larson, with discussion
continuing on the motion.
B. Turnquist asked if the board could require a drawing of the building. L. Anguilm stated that it
was not a requirement the site plan review process. L. Spataro stated that it may be something the
board would want to look into. B. Larson asked if staff could look into what other communities
require.
A vote was taken on the above motion, and was 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. L.
Anguilm stated that she did contact LSL Planning to ask about the status of this request, but she has
not received a return call. She will check again, in an effort to get this case off the table.
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
dml
10/12/06
Planning Commission Minutes – 10/12/06 6
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails