View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
November 16, 2006
Chairman J. Aslakson called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Turnquist, B. Mazade, L. Spataro, B. Larson, T. Michalski,
J. Aslakson, T. Harryman, S. Warmington
MEMBERS ABSENT: B. Smith, excused
STAFF PRESENT: L. Anguilm, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: P. Winter, 590 Ottawa; D. Dunlap, 2534 Black Creek Rd; R. White,
2478 Winchester; A. Kohley, 2484 Winchester; K. Evans, Muskegon
Lake PAC; L. Markowski, Muskegon Lake PAC; S. Witte, Nederveld
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of October 12, 2006 be approved was made by S.
Warmington, supported by T. Harryman and unanimously approved, with the following correction:
Vice Chairman J. Aslakson T. Michalski called the meeting to order.
NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2006-50: Request to amend the Final PUD for the Terrace Lots, between Terrace
Street, Western Avenue and Shoreline Drive, by Carl Miskotten, Muskegon Downtown Believers,
LLC. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The applicant received approval for the Final PUD
from City Commission on August 22, 2006. The applicant also received final approval of the site
plan, including the landscaping plan on October 19, 2006. According to the zoning ordinance,
“Incidental or minor changes may be approved by the Planning Commission if the proposed
modifications do not alter the basic design or land uses of the plan.” The changes proposed involve
the reconfiguration of two buildings on the site. The Harley building will become more long and
narrow, and result in less parking near that building. All 38 of the proposed parking spaces along
Shoreline Drive in front of the building have been removed and 8 spaces were added on the Terrace
Street side of the building. There will also be approximately 38 less spaces surrounding the
remainder of the building. The car dealership layout contains the most noticeable changes to the
site plan. The building itself has taken on a different shape and the southerly portion of the building
has been moved more to the north. The location of the 42-inch sanitary sewer south of the proposed
building necessitated this move. An additional 68 parking spaces have been added to this area,
most noticeably along Shoreline Drive, where there is now a double row of parking. The pedestrian
walkway connecting the restaurant building site and the dealership is now less awkward. It now
leads directly to the car dealership building instead of to a landscape island and then the building.
All other elements of the site plan remain the same. Fire, DPW, Engineering and Police all
Planning Commission Minutes – 11/16/06 1
approved of the revised site plan. A revised landscaping plan would need be to be submitted and
approved by the Planning Department. Staff has received no comments on this request, and
recommends approval of the request to amend the Final PUD for the Terrace Lots, between Terrace
Street, Western Avenue, and Shoreline Drive.
L. Spataro arrived at 4:08 p.m.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Mazade and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the minor amendment to the Final PUD for 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, subject to
the condition that a revised landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department, was made by S. Warmington and supported by T. Michalski, with discussion
continuing on the motion.
L. Spataro was concerned that the footprint of the Harley building would now be further away from
the street. P. Winter, General Manager of Hot Rod Harley Davidson, explained about the grade on
the site. He stated that they would like to build on the slope and have an upper and lower entrance.
With the new plan, there would be more green space near the street. L. Spataro was concerned that
the site was getting more of a suburban feel to it. P. Winter stated that there was a downsloping
berm the length of the building. Moving the building would require a steeper grade, which would
make parking more difficult. They had also determined that the proposed location would offer
optimum visibility from Shoreline Drive and Terrace Street. T. Harryman felt that the design was
too suburban and did not fit with the downtown.
A vote was taken on the above motion and approved by majority vote, with T. Harryman voting
nay.
Hearing; Case 2006-51: Staff-initiated request to amend the Preamble to the Zoning Ordinance
regarding the reference to the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. 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. Three
amendments were recommended to City Commission for approval by Planning Commission in
October. Other changes will be coming forward at future meetings. This particular amendment is
merely a correction to the Preamble of the Zoning Ordinance so it now references the new Michigan
Zoning enabling Act. New language (Deletions are crossed out and additions are in bold):
“PREAMBLE An ordinance enacted under the provisions and authority of the Public Acts of the
State of Michigan to establish districts and zones within which the use of land and structures, the
height, area, size, and location of buildings are regulated, and within which districts, zone
regulations are established for the light and ventilation of such buildings, and within which districts,
density of population is regulated; to provide for the acquisition by purchase, condemnation, or
otherwise, of private property which does not conform to the regulations and restrictions of the
various zones or districts provided; to provide for the administering of this Ordinance; to provide
for amendments, supplements, or changes hereto; all in accordance with an adopted Land Use Plan
and Housing Plan as provided in Public Act 285 110, Public Acts of 1931 of 2006, the Municipal
Planning Act, as amended, being the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, M.C.L. 125.3101, et seq.
hereinafter referred to as the “Zoning Act”.”
Planning Commission Minutes – 11/16/06 2
A motion to close the public hearing was made by T. Harryman, supported by S. Warmington and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendment to the Preamble of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance be
recommended to the City Commission for approval, was made by T. Harryman, supported by T.
Michalski and unanimously approved.
S. Warmington asked if there were members in the audience who were present to hear cases 2006-
52, -53, and -54. There were not. A motion to amend the agenda to hear cases 2006-44 and 2006-
55 first, was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Hearing; Case 2006-44: Request for final 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 applicant received approval of the Preliminary and Final PUD for this property at the August
Planning Commission meeting. When this request was about to be heard at the City Commission
meeting, the developer asked to have time to revise the site plan and resubmit it to the Planning
Commission for further review. They realized there were concerns from the public and the MDEQ
that needed to be addressed. Therefore, the City Commission voted to send the request back to
Planning Commission. The portion of the property along Barclay Street is zoned B-4, General
Business. The remainder of the site is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. The site is
approximately 7 acres of property that is proposed to be developed as 20 residential units
constructed as duplexes and one single unit model home. The homes will have basements; some of
them along the slope to Ruddiman Creek will have walk-out basements. 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 site is rather wooded, with a clearing toward the
rear along the creek. There is presently an access road off Barclay Street that was used during the
recent clean-up of Ruddiman Creek. After staff met with the developers and architect, some
elements were changed and the site plan was revised to amend several concerns. Key elements that
were addressed are as follows: a) a landscape plan was submitted and is acceptable to the Planning
Department, b) the buildings have been reconfigured somewhat on the site for a couple of reasons;
The space between units 10 and 12 is now approximately 22 feet to accommodate the City’s
Water/Sewer Department’s equipment in maintaining the sanitary sewer drain over the edge of the
bank. Each of the buildings were also staggered somewhat to give a more residential neighborhood
feel, rather than appearing like row houses, and c) all of the previous site plan concerns have been
corrected. The Fire Department had their concerns corrected on the site plan. DPW had their
concerns addressed and approved the new site plan. Engineering’s comments are as follows: the
developers “need a permit from the DEQ for storm water outlet and permit from the County for soil
erosion control”. No comments have been received by staff at the time of this report. Staff
recommends approval of the request for a final PUD for portions of 1266, 1254, & 1228 W.
Sherman Boulevard and 2495 Barclay Street.
J. Aslakson asked if there were any other DEQ permits required besides that for stormwater runoff.
D. Dunlap, of Westshore Consulting stated that DEQ permits for water main and sewer main
extensions were needed. J. Aslakson asked if a permit was needed for the excavation. D. Dunlap
didn’t think so, at this time. They were still doing further soil testing. R. White asked if there were
Planning Commission Minutes – 11/16/06 3
any plans to control fugitive dust. D. Dunlap stated that soil erosion and sedimentation control
measures were addressed on the site plan. R. White had several other environmental concerns, and
questions about compliance with DEQ requirements. L. Spataro stated that, while he appreciated
Mr. White’s concerns, they did not fall under the authority of the Planning Commission. The DEQ
had their own regulations and the Planning Commission did not have the expertise to address those.
The issue to be determined was whether this development conformed with zoning and site plan
requirements. A. Kohley didn’t think that there was a sufficient buffer between the development
and the neighboring residential properties. He asked that a wooded buffer area be required. K.
Evans from the Muskegon Lake Public Advisory Council stated that she would like to see the site
developed in an environmentally conscious manner, and offered the Council as a resource for the
developers. She stated that even after the clean-up of Ruddiman Creek, there would still be soil
with high levels of contaminants in it. She asked if there were setbacks and buffers for the creek,
and if there were overlay zones for sensitive areas near the creek. L. Spataro stated that the PUD
would be the overlay zone, and that the developers had already moved a couple of the buildings
further back from the creek bank. L. Anguilm went over the site plan with K. Evans. K. Evans
asked if the City would retain any ownership of property along the creek. J. Aslakson stated that
the City did not own any of that property. B. Mazade stated that the City had given the developers
her name as a resource. L. Markowski was also a PAC member and wanted to see the residential
flavor of the area maintained.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by S. Warmington and
unanimously approved.
B. Larson stated that the developers had shown a willingness to accommodate the concerns that had
been raised. J. Aslakson stated that he would like a second condition of approval to require that all
DEQ permits were obtained before construction began. B. Mazade asked if A. Kohley’s request
regarding a buffer could be accommodated. D. Dunlap stated that a better idea would be to extend
the arboreta to screen it, and that it would work better for blocking headlight glare.
A motion that the final 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 recommended for approval to the City Commission pursuant to the determination of
compliance with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master Land Use Plan, with the
conditions that 1) no trees be removed from the site without Zoning Administrator permission, 2) all
DEQ permits be obtained prior to commencement of construction, and 3) the arboreta screening be
extended to screen the cul-de-sac from the abutting property, was made by L. Spataro, supported by
B. Turnquist and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
Case 2006-55: Request for Site Plan Review for an industrial building expansion at 1799 Sun
Dolphin Drive (Ameriform), by Greg Halonen, DVK Construction. L. Anguilm presented an
amended staff report. There was a revised site plan submitted, addressing the concerns of the fire
department. The property is currently the location of Ameriform, who does plastics manufacturing
in Port City Industrial Park. The zoning for this property, as well as the surrounding properties, is I-
2, General Industrial. Ameriform wishes to add a 35,000 sq. ft. addition to their current 21,267 sq.
ft. plant. They currently have 33 employees working 2 shifts. They plan to increase their employees
to 43 operating on 2 shifts. The required parking meets the zoning ordinance requirements: the
Planning Commission Minutes – 11/16/06 4
minimum parking required is 22, the maximum is 29, and there are 24 spaces provided. The
additional asphalt area would be utilized for truck maneuvering for the loading docks and outdoor
storage. The following items need to be addressed on the site plan for final approval: a) the address
for the property needs to be added to the site plan, b) include arrows showing site circulation in the
parking area, and c) show locations of fire lanes. Although a narrow gravel lane is provided on the
east side of the building, Fire Department approval would be needed for exactly what is required.
In addition, the Fire Department has the following requirements: a) fire flow calculations shall be
conducted for area, b) the extended fire lane access of 10-foot width shall be a paved surface, c) the
two exit doors at the rear of the building shall have a paved walkway that shall be kept free of snow
during winter months. The paved walkway shall serve as an emergency employee exit-way access
route to a safe meeting place on the property, and d) the suppression system shall be a full NFPA 13
system with standpipes on the inside of the building as required by the International Fire Code.
FDC for suppression system shall be located so that it is accessible to the Fire Department. The
DPW has the following condition: contact Kelly DeFrench regarding fire protection stub
connection, backflow prevention and connection fees. The Planning Department has the following
condition: the landscape shall be preserved in its natural state, insofar as practical, by removing only
those areas of vegetation or making those alternations to the topography which are reasonably
necessary to develop the site. Staff has received no other comments and recommends approval of
the site plan for an industrial building expansion at 1799 Sundolphin Drive, subject to the
conditions listed in the staff report.
S. Witte provided an overview of the new addition. He stated that they had been working with City
staff to address the concerns raised. L. Spataro asked the applicant if he had any problems with the
conditions of approval. S. Witte stated that he did not.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the site plan for an industrial building expansion located at 1799 Sundolphin Drive
for Greg Halonen, DVK Construction, be approved, based on 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 #6-8 of the staff report are met, was
made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Turnquist and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-52: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2501, (Creation and Membership,
paragraph 4) of Article XXV, Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding the removal of a ZBA member
for malfeasance. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. Once again, this is an amendment to our
zoning ordinance in order to bring it into compliance with the new Michigan Zoning Enabling Act
of 2006. In this case, it is required by the Act that language be included in the ordinance that
provides for removal of Zoning Board of Appeals members for “malfeasance”, rather than just
“misconduct”. The zoning ordinance already addressed nonperformance of duty, so this
amendment will remove “misconduct” and add “malfeasance” as a reason that a ZBA member
“shall” be removed. The removal carries the condition that written charges are made and a public
hearing held. New language (deletions are crossed out and additions are in bold): “A member
shall disqualify himself or herself from a vote in which the member has a conflict of interest.
Failure of a member to disqualify himself or herself from a vote in which the member has a
conflict of interest constitutes malfeasance in office. Misconduct Malfeasance shall include but
not be limited to failure of members to disqualify themselves from a vote in which that member has
a conflict of interest. The City Commission may shall remove a member of the ZBA for non-
Planning Commission Minutes – 11/16/06 5
performance of duty or misconduct malfeasance in office, upon written charges and after public
hearing.”
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendment to Section 2501, (Creation and Membership, paragraph #4) 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 T. Harryman, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-53: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 1201 (Special Land Uses
Permitted, #7) of Article XII (B-3, Central Business District) to allow multiple family developments
with a Special Land Use permit. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. Our downtown area is
developing very quickly and the residential element is becoming very important to the “new”
downtown. Presently, the only residential uses allowed are those that are part of a building. No
newly constructed residential buildings are allowed. Planning staff believes that multiple family
residential uses should be added to the B-3, Central Business District as a special land use, where
the design can be guided by the Planning Commission. The proposed language is very similar to
that used in the H, Heritage zoning district for multifamily residential uses. New language
(deletions are crossed out and additions are in bold): “7. Multiple family residential uses of
various types and densities. Any new multiple family construction shall be compatible and/or
complementary to the character of the surrounding area as determined by the Planning
Commission.”
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 Section 1201, (Special Land Uses Permitted, #7) of Article XII,
(B-3, Central Business District) of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance be recommended to the
City Commission for approval, was made by S. Warmington, supported by T. Michalski and
unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-54: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 1200 (Principal Uses Permitted,
Article XII (B-3, Central Business District) to eliminate the minimum lot requirements for
residential uses. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. Presently, our zoning ordinance requires a
minimum lot size of 21,780 square feet, which is half an acre, for residential uses as part of a
building in a B-3 zoning district. Considering the size of most downtown parcels, this requirement
seems way too large for a central business district. Since we have been encouraging more
residential development downtown, it seems appropriate to remove this requirement to make
residential development as part of a building easier to accomplish, as well as encourage construction
of new residential units. New language (deletions are crossed out and additions are in bold): 9.
Residential uses as part of a building in this business zone shall be allowed upon issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy from the Department of Inspections., but provided that the minimum lot
requirements of the RM-3 District are met.
B. Turnquist asked if it was necessary to remove the lot size requirement completely. L. Anguilm
stated that there would still be a 4000 square foot minimum lot size requirement in the B-3 zone.
Planning Commission Minutes – 11/16/06 6
A motion to close the public hearing was made by T. Harryman, supported by S. Warmington and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendment to Section 120, (Principal Uses Permitted, #9), of Article XII, (B-3,
Central Business District), of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance, be recommended to the City
Commission for approval was made by S. Warmington, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
OTHER
Elimination of the H, Heritage Zoning District – J. Aslakson asked if the map provided in the staff
report was what the Historic District Commission had recommended. L. Anguilm stated that it was.
She stated that the Heritage zoning district offered no protection for historic buildings, and the HDC
would still have a say regarding structures in designated historic districts. B. Mazade stated that in
an H district, almost everything required a special use permit, which was detrimental to
development. L. Spataro stated that the H district did not protect single family homes, as it allowed
them to be divided into apartments. It also allowed more intense commercial uses. J. Aslakson was
concerned about the Chronicle parking lot becoming zoned B-3 and the possibility of that
encouraging future commercial use there. L. Anguilm didn’t think that there would be a time when
that parking lot would not be needed, considering it was in the downtown area. If that area were
changed to residential, then the lot would be non-conforming. S. Warmington was concerned about
the three single family homes on 7th Street that were surrounded by B-3 uses. He thought it could
cause problems if those property owners wanted to sell their homes.
Balcom’s Cove PUD – L. Anguilm stated that she and B. Mazade had discussed the issue of people
in this development having a problem with flood insurance. It was being required for their
condominiums and was very expensive, so they were looking for another solution. They found that
if a six-inch berm is installed, the building would be taken out of the flood plain. J. Aslakson asked
if that was something that required Planning Commission approval. L. Anguilm didn’t feel that it
was a significant change to the PUD, but just wanted to make the Commissioners aware of it.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
dml
11/16/06
Planning Commission Minutes – 11/16/06 7
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails