CITY OF MUSKEGON
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, December 13, 2018
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Commission Chambers, First Floor, Muskegon City Hall
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes from the regular meeting of October 11, 2018.
III. Public Hearings
A. Hearing, Case 2018-29: Staff-initiated request to vacate the alley between Nelson St and
Harbour Towne Circle north of Rodgers Ave.
A. Hearing, Case 2018-30: Staff-initiated request to rezone the property at 1021 Jefferson St
from Form Based Code, Urban Residential to Form Based Code, Neighborhood Core.
IV. New Business
A. Case 2018-31: Staff-initiated request to amend the Master Plan.
V. Old Business
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT POLICY FOR ACCESS TO OPEN MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION AND ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES
The City of Muskegon will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as signers for the hearing impaired and audio tapes
of printed materials being considered at the meeting, to individuals with disabilities who want to attend the meeting, upon twenty-four hour
notice to the City of Muskegon. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or services should contact the City of Muskegon by
writing or calling the following:
Ann Meisch, City Clerk
933 Terrace Street
CITY OF MUSKEGON
October 11, 2018
Chairperson T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Michalski, J. Montgomery-Keast, B. Mazade, B. Larson, M. Hovey-Wright,
S. Gawron, J. Doyle, F. Peterson
MEMBERS ABSENT: E. Hood, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: S. Musselman, Sand Products; J. Hibler, Hibler Design Co; R. Schneider, AE
Com; G. Roberts, 3340 Wilcox; P. Abbot, 3256 Thompson Ave; D. Gaynor,
1680 W Harbour Towne Cir; B. Lautenbach, 1616 E Harbour Towne Cir; J.
Pena, Walnut; Mrs. Wallis, 1854 Cherry; S. Gaynor, 1604 W Harbour Towne
Cir; J. Siminski, 1500 W Harbour Towne Cir; K. Moore, 1695 Edgewater; R.
Villate, 1872 Walnut; N. Hulka, Country Club Dr; B. Zulauf, 3440 Pigeon Hill
Ct; C. Willis, 2066 Knollwood; D. Vanderkolk, 3703 Watson; J. Tomczak,
3560 Woodlawn Ct.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2018 was
made by B. Larson, supported by S. Gawron and unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2018-28: Request for preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for a mixed-
use development at 3400, 3460, 3474 Wilcox Ave, 1875 Waterworks Rd and 1490 Edgewater St, by
MiCOAST Properties, LLC. M. Franzak presented the staff report. All of the subject properties are zoned
single family residential. A PUD is required to allow a mixture of residential and recreational uses, and
flexibility on lot size and setback requirements. Although setbacks are not currently defined, it is anticipated
that they will be smaller than the city’s requirements for R-1 districts and more closely aligned with the
density of R-3 districts. Some of the lot sizes may also be smaller than required in R-1 districts. Using the
density formula defined in the zoning ordinance, the density of this development would be 280 units within
40.53 net developable aces (6.9 units per acre). This is less than the 7 units per acre that has historically been
allowed in R-1 districts, the city’s least-dense zoning designation. A chart was provided in the staff report
showing the net developable acreage and how many homes could be developed using the current zoning
designations of R-1 (37.21 acres in this plan) and R-3 (3.32 acres in this plan) without a PUD; 318 units
would be allowed. The proposed PUD was only requesting 280 units.
The plan proposed three ingress/egress points to the development. The main entrance would be a new road
at the intersection of Wilcox and Plum that would traverse over the dune. This road has already received a
MDEQ Critical Dune permit. The other two access points to the development were on Harbour Towne
Circle and Edgewater St, and were proposed to be gated and only used in case of emergency. The 12-acre
boat basin would be created from excavating existing land, and would vary in width from 150 to 400 feet. It
would contain a variety of shoreline conditions from natural marsh to stone and hard seawall, allowing a
variety of uses. One mile of new waterfront would be created, of which about half would be publicly
accessible. Residents would have options of over-water decks, docks and boathouses. This basin would
require a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and the MDEQ. Common amenities in the development
included a community building, fitness center, pool, boardwalks, bike lanes, parks, trails, pickleball courts
and a kayak launch. The plan proposed a majority of the residential units to be detached; however, some
attached units would be located throughout the development and could be up to two stories in height.
Live/work homes were proposed on the former Bluffton School property, and there was a proposed condo
building that would host 25-30 units in a four-story building. All buildings would be set back at least 50 feet
from the Harbour Towne development. A traffic study and hydrology study were in process and no
structures were proposed in critical dune areas.
The City’s Master Land Use Plan calls for a multi-family residential PUD at this location. The sub-area plan
for this location also notes that, when compared to the Lake Michigan side and the area of the Muskegon
Lake channel, the opportunity for public access to the Muskegon Lake shoreline is limited. The creation of a
new mile of shoreline, half of which would be publicly accessible, creates a solution to this problem. The
Imagine Muskegon Lake Plan also recommended residential development at this location. The plan notes
that there are opportunities for new housing to maximize view corridors, supporting the City’s tax base and
enabling growth in areas with high demand. Access to both Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan offers
residents two different waterfront experiences. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary PUD because
it is consistent with the Master Land Use Plan and it meets the PUD requirements in sections 403 and 2101
of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff suggests the following recommendations be implemented in the Final PUD
submission: 1) Road connections at Edgewater and Harbour Towne Circle will not be gated; 2) Additional
road connections shall be made to the fullest extent possible. The map below shows the proposed road
connections in this plan in red and the additional staff-requested connections in yellow. Road connections at
these locations should extend to the property lines; and 3) The parking lot north of the condo building should
be more separated from the existing homes. The setback should be increased and it should be fully screened
with trees. A number of comments from residents were received by e-mail and were distributed to Planning
Commission members. Letters of concern were received from Charron Law Office on behalf of the Harbour
Towne Marina Association, S. Woodard; T. Weatherbee, 1747 Edgewater St; P. Schreur, 1642 E Harbour
Towne Cir; K. Moore, 1695 Edgewater St; B. and M. Lautenbach, 1616 E Harbour Towne Cir; G. Hall; T.
Feldt, 3423 Pigeon Hill Ct; and M. and G. Burye, 3380 Wilcox. E-mail correspondence was received from
K. Beteta, 3281 Lakeshore Dr; R. Cunningham, 3385 Plum Ave; J. Euscher; C. Grekowicz, marina slip
owner; D. Hoople, 1581 Edgewater St; P. Sartorius, 1575 Edgewater St; D. Schirmann, 3213 Windward Dr;
K. Spencer, 1456 E Harbour Towne Cir; and T. Zehner, 1653 E Harbour Towne Cir, also discussing
concerns with the development. L. Page of the Pigeon Hill Alliance wrote that they were opposed to the
proposed road going over the critical dune area and had filed an appeal on that decision with the MDEQ. He
asked that no action on the request be taken until the appeal was settled. T. and J. Voyt, 1760 Edgewater
wrote that they objected only to the additional traffic on Edgewater St, and E. Fritz, 4013 Applewood Ln,
submitted comments in favor of the project. C. & B. Broughton, 1650 Edgewater, submitted a letter to the
board thanking the property owner for decades of public access to their property, and listing their concerns
with the PUD proposal. M. Franzak reminded the audience that this request was for approval of a
preliminary plan only, and as such, would only be heard by the Planning Commission, not the City
Commission. He explained the requirements of a preliminary PUD and stated that the proposed plan
appeared to meet all necessary requirements. A preliminary traffic study from AECOM of Grand Rapids had
been received and was provided to board members.
Board members discussed the proposal with staff. B. Mazade referenced the map in the staff report showing
6 possible entrance/exit points to the development; he was concerned with the one showing Harbour Towne
Circle connecting to one of the rear lanes/alleys in the new development and asked M. Franzak to explain the
need for those. M. Franzak stated that connectivity, including access points, was important in all
developments, and the Engineering Department had made those recommendations. B. Mazade had questions
about connectivity and how the connections would be made. M. Franzak stated that the Fire Department
required a minimum of 2 ingress/egress points, and other proposed locations left the potential for future
connections if needed. B. Larson observed that, in reviewing the letters from area residents, the main
concerns seemed to be ecology, traffic, wildlife impact, density, and the ability of Edgewater St. to support
the additional traffic. M. Hovey-Wright asked why the connection point off Woodlawn Ct was not
considered in the options shown, and if extending Nelson St had been considered. M. Franzak stated that the
area off Woodlawn Ct was in a critical dune area and wasn’t something the developers had requested. He
stated that the topography at the end of Nelson St was not suitable for a road. J. Doyle asked M. Franzak to
explain the scope of the traffic study. M. Franzak stated that a representative of AECOM, the Grand Rapids
firm who conducted the study, was present and could answer those questions. T. Michalski asked who
owned Harbour Towne Marina and if the developers on this project obtained a permit to use the channel. M.
Franzak stated that water rights were riparian rights, not ownership rights.
S. Musselman represented MiCoast Development, which was the real estate arm of Sand Products Corp, the
property owner. He stated that they were given an easement across the dune to develop this property back in
1991. J. Hibler of Hibler Design Co. stated that the proposed design was rooted in traditional neighborhood
design, and their research of the City’s Master Plan showed that this type of development was encouraged.
The streets were similar in size to the existing neighborhoods in the area, and provided for parallel parking,
green space, and trees to encourage walkability. Private parking was accessible by rear lanes behind the
homes, with other parking areas available throughout the development. He explained other types of
structures in addition to single family homes, including boat houses, private docks, townhomes,
condominiums, and boat garages. There were also plans for parks, wetland areas, and neighborhood
amenities such as a playground and marina. Building design would be controlled via architectural standards,
ensuring that buildings were in keeping with the existing neighborhood and lakefront living. B. Mazade
asked what type of buildings were planning for the area near Wilcox St. J. Hibler stated that along that
critical dune area they planned to have 3-story townhouses, and explained the design. B. Mazade asked why
the connection point at Harbour Towne Circle and Edgewater St. was not shown on their renderings, and
who owned the property where the connections were proposed. J. Hibler stated that they had not yet updated
their drawings based on staff’s comments regarding connection points. He stated that they did not own all
of the property proposed as connections points; the developer would install streets up to their property lines
and city staff would work with other property owners on the connections. B. Mazade asked if other points
were considered. J. Hibler stated that there was critical dune area to the south and Harbour Towne properties
close by that affected where connection points could be. B. Mazade asked if they had considered any
alternatives to the rear travel lanes shown on the plan, as he was concerned with those facing neighboring
properties and a proposed parking lot. J. Hibler stated that they were working on one location that was very
near to the rear property line of an existing residence. He stated that, as in most neighborhoods, the rear of
one property would abut the rear of an adjacent property. J. Montgomery-Keast asked about enlarging the
green space that butted up to properties along Edgewater St. J. Hibler stated that they wouldn’t know how
much green space would be available until they knew how many parking spots were needed, but if they could
reduce the size of the parking lot, they would. He emphasized that this was a preliminary plan to obtain
feedback so they could make adjustments to the plan based on that. While some things may be possible to
do, it was up to the developer to determine if it was financially feasible. T. Michalski asked if all boat
storage would be contained to garages. J. Hibler stated that all boats may not be in garages but they would
follow city ordinance requirements on storage. T. Michalski asked about commercial uses such as a
convenience store and ice cream parlor that were originally mentioned. J. Hibler stated that, according to
current rules, commercial uses were not allowed. The only commercial component would be live/work units
for small home-based businesses in selected residences. T. Michalski expressed concerns about whether area
streets could support both this large development and the Windward Pointe project on the former paper mill
site, as both sites would funnel traffic to Lakeshore Drive and Laketon Avenue. J. Hibler stated that having
multiple connection points to and from the development would help alleviate some traffic congestion. He
stated that, based on their study, the major traffic back-ups were down by the beach and they had discussed
some options with city staff. J. Doyle asked what the scope of the traffic study was, when it was done, and
what their findings were. R. Schneider was a Transportation Planner with AE Com in Grand Rapids, who
had conducted the traffic study. He stated that they had worked closely with city staff and had made
adjustments based on their feedback; he explained how they conducted the study and reached their findings.
T. Michalski stated that, in his experience, traffic tended to back up at Beach St. and Lakeshore Dr. R.
Schneider stated that they did not include that intersection in the study. B. Mazade asked when the traffic
counts were done. R. Schneider stated that they were done on Labor Day weekend and the weekend after. J.
Montgomery-Keast voiced concerns about boat traffic in the Harbour Towne channel. She stated that it was
already a congested spot, and the new development would cause dangerous cross-traffic in the canals. S.
Musselman stated that there would be no public marina in The Docks, but there would be a boat basin and
private docks. He estimated maybe 100 boats but couldn’t be sure since this was a preliminary plan. J.
Montgomery-Keast stated that she would like to see a traffic study of the boat traffic. S. Musselman stated
that he could look into that. B. Mazade asked M. Franzak about an ordinance requirement requiring 50%
public spaces in PUD’s. M. Franzak pointed out the public areas on the map in the staff report. J. Hibler
confirmed that there was over 50% public access as required.
Area residents spoke about the proposal. G. Roberts asked where the displaced water and sand would go.
He also had concerns about the timing of the traffic study, since it wasn’t done in the area’s busiest time of
year—the summer months. He stated that he was not necessarily opposed to development there, but he felt
this project was being rushed and he was opposed to the current plan. P. Abbott stated that he was speaking
on behalf of the Pigeon Hill Alliance and read a letter from Larry Page of the PHA. Mr. Page wrote that the
PHA was opposed to the road going through the critical dune and had engaged an attorney to appeal
MDEQ’s approval of the road. He asked that the Planning Commission take no action on the PUD
application until the appeal was heard and settled. P. Abbott stated that he was also on the PHA board and
discussed the history of their organization and its focus on preservation and conservation. He stated that they
had filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the MDEQ regarding this development and asked the
Planning Commission to consider tabling the request until they received a response from MDEQ. D. Gaynor
stated that he was the President of the Harbour Towne Condominium Association (HTCA) and spoke on
their behalf. They were concerned with the proposed access points and didn’t think a new development
should be allowed to negatively affect an existing neighborhood. They also had concerns about increased
traffic flow, limited sight lines, parking, and Harbour Towne being used as a pass-through to other areas, and
they believed that these issues could negatively affect their property values. He also had concerns about the
traffic study. He stated that months of study were needed, not just two weekends that had experienced poor
weather and were both outside the typical busy season. He stated that the HTCA looked forward to working
with the city and developer on a better plan. T. Michalski reminded the audience that no one was trying to
rush approval of a plan; this was for a preliminary plan that was only the first step in the approval process.
The Planning Commission’s responsibility was to gather information and provide input to the developer, and
this was the information-gathering phase. B. Lautenbach was a Harbour Towne resident and discussed
concerns about the impact on their property lines. He stated that the proposed lanes along the rear of The
Docks property would generate increased pollution of traffic, noise, air and nighttime light, and he would
like to see the rear lanes removed from the plan. J. Pena of 1851 Walnut submitted a list of several concerns
with the proposal. He was opposed to further destruction of the sand dune and discussed other
environmental concerns. Mrs. Wallis of 1854 Cherry St. was concerned with the increased traffic and the
ability of the roads in the area to handle that traffic, in the condition they were in. She also questioned the
timing of the traffic study. C. Brady submitted a written statement to the board outlining her concerns with
the proposal. S. Gaynor stated that he was the president of the Pigeon Key Marina Association and voiced
concerns about the hazards that a new channel and the addition of more boats would create in the already-
congested area. He stated that, although this hearing was a preliminary plan, there were no assurances that
the public’s concerns would be addressed in the final plan. He too felt that the traffic study that was done
was inadequate due to the time of the year and the poor weather on the weekends the study was done. J.
Siminski was a Harbour Towne resident and expressed concerns about the lack of sidewalks in that
development. He stated that a new development that would create additional traffic was unsafe for
pedestrians. He was opposed to any access off Edgewater St. K. Moore, 1695 Edgewater, was opposed to
the proposal as presented. He voiced his concerns about a new development being placed in the middle of a
100-year-old community. He also stated that Edgewater St. didn’t meet the requirements for a 2-lane road,
and he doubted it could handle the additional traffic. T. Michalski asked if there was a provision for a bike
lane to get bicycle traffic off Lakeshore Dr. M. Franzak stated that that would be determined prior to the
final plan. R. Villate, 1872 Walnut, was opposed to the proposal due in part to the proposed access points,
additional traffic, hydrologic and geologic issues. He stated that the Planning Commission should require a
study to determine the effects of digging a large hole or channel into the dune property. He asked that the
developer consider a lower density with less impact on the environment. N. Hulka, 3020 Country Club Dr,
stated that traffic on Beach St. was increasing and it was already difficult to back out of a driveway on
Lakeshore Dr. due to the curves and hills on the stretch approaching Beach St. She also felt that the traffic
study was inadequate and urged Planning Commissioners to consider the concerns of the current residents of
the area. B. Zulauf, 3440 Pigeon Hill Ct., requested that 3 entrance/exit points be considered as the
maximum amount, as less entrances to the new development would help keep traffic down. She was
opposed to having an access point through Harbour Towne. C. Willis spoke on behalf of the
Beachwood/Bluffton Neighborhood Association. She was concerned with the lack of public spaces in the
proposed development and stated that it seemed more like a gated community within the
Beachwood/Bluffton neighborhood, which was not a good fit for that area. She also presented a letter from P.
Sartorius, who was unable to attend the meeting. He discussed his expertise in the field and shared his
concerns and suggestions. D. Vanderkolk was a neighborhood resident who was also opposed to the
proposed development. She stated that more impact studies needed to be done, especially considering there
was another large development in the works on the former paper mill property on Lakeshore Dr. She
questioned the need for another development on such a pristine parcel of land. J. Tomczak stated that
Muskegon’s lakeshore area was one of the last untouched tourist destinations in Michigan, and that was a
major reason he had chosen to live here. He stated that our water resources would draw visitors, not a new
housing development. He was concerned about the environmental impact of the additional car, boat, bike,
and pedestrian traffic. He would like to see this proposal denied until further study was done. C. Collins was
concerned with the environmental impact of another boat basin and the impact on water levels in the area.
He also didn’t think that Edgewater St. could support the additional traffic. Another gentleman stated that he
owned property in Harbour Towne and was opposed to the current plan; he stated that other options should
be explored. The public comment portion of the meeting was closed. T. Michalski reminded the audience
that the property in question was not city-owned and we could not stop development; we could only make
sure it was done properly and fit in with the area. He stated that he had heard many similar comments when
Harbour Towne was built. The city needed development for the tax base but it was also important to make
sure that development was done right.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Montgomery-Keast, supported by M. Hovey-Wright
and unanimously approved.
M. Hovey-Wright stated that she lived in Harbour Towne and agreed with some of the concerns that were
raised. She stated that there were some great ideas for the development but that the plan needed more work
and must be good for everyone. B. Mazade stated that the development could be good for the community
and the property owner had a right to develop the site. However, he stated that he wanted to see the
connection points at Harbour Towne and Edgewater St. be removed, the rear lanes removed, and more
information was needed on the natural green space between Edgewater St, Wilcox Ave, and Harbour Towne.
J. Montgomery-Keast asked B. Mazade what the rationale was for removing the 2 egress points. B. Mazade
stated that they were both located on a curve, the developer didn’t own all the property necessary to complete
the connection points so it was unknown whether or not that could happen, and Edgewater St. was in no
condition to handle the extra traffic. J. Doyle concurred with B. Mazade and stated that he would also like to
see a boat traffic study and an environmental impact study done on the property. J. Montgomery-Keast
stated that the landscape design was inappropriate for a dune area, as trees would not grow; they needed to
include plants appropriate for a dune. T. Michalski stated that he was opposed to an entrance onto
Edgewater St, and that the channel was not a workable scenario. He also wanted to see the bike path
incorporated into the design to allow public access to the water.
B. Larson made a motion to approve the preliminary Planned Unit Development for a mixed-use
development at 3400, 3460, 3474 Wilcox Ave, 1875 Waterworks Rd and 1490 Edgewater St with the
recommendations listed in the staff report for the Final PUD submission as follows: 1) Road connections at
Edgewater and Harbour Towne Circle will not be gated; 2) Additional road connections as noted in the staff
recommendation are incorporated, and 3) The parking lot north of the condo building should be more
separated from the existing homes; the setback should be increased and it should be fully screened with trees
to create a buffer.
There was additional discussion on B. Larson’s motion. B. Mazade stated that the motion did not adequately
address the comments regarding access points, nor the rear lanes on Edgewater, Harbour Towne, and Wilcox.
M. Hovey-Wright asked if it was possible to gate a public street. M. Franzak stated that it wasn’t typically
done, but it was possible. M. Hovey-Wright stated that the motion did not address waterway safety. T.
Michalski stated that Bluffton was a unique community and he did not want to see it broken up by a main
thoroughfare going through it. F. Peterson stated that there were some specific deal-breakers that were
mentioned, and the developers and Planning Commissioners had heard concerns that would guide the final
PUD plan. He stated that the developers now needed the opportunity to make the necessary changes and
come back before the Planning Commission. B. Mazade stated that he wanted to ensure that the changes
regarding road access and the rear lanes were made, by including them in the motion. He didn’t think that
the waterway/channel was under the planning commission’s purview. B. Mazade stated that he would like to
offer an amended motion to change the first two conditions of approval to state that all street connections
with the exception of the dune area at Waterworks Rd. be eliminated and that the rear lanes be moved away
from Wilcox, Harbour Towne, and Edgewater streets. B. Larson stated that he approved of the amended
motion. J. Doyle stated that he was not comfortable supporting the plan without requiring a boat traffic
study. T. Michalski stated that more information was needed before he would be comfortable approving the
plan. The details of the amended motion were discussed and the motion was read back to board members for
clarification. B. Mazade supported B. Larson’s amended motion as follows: That that the request for
preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for a mixed-use development at 3400, 3460, 3474 Wilcox
Ave, 1875 Waterworks Rd and 1490 Edgewater St. be approved with the following conditions for the final
PUD submission: 1) All access points shall be eliminated with the exception of the proposed road over the
dunes at Waterworks Rd., 2) Additional road connections as noted in the staff recommendation are
eliminated, 3) The parking lot north of the condo building should be more separated from the existing homes;
The setback should be increased and it should be fully screened with trees to create a buffer, and 4) the alleys
or rear lanes are eliminated along properties on Edgewater St., Wilcox Ave. and Harbour Towne. A vote
was taken on the amended motion which was approved, with, J. Montgomery-Keast, B. Mazade, B. Larson,
S. Gawron, and F. Peterson voting aye, and T. Michalski, M. Hovey-Wright, and J. Doyle voting nay.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
December 13, 2018
Hearing, Case 2018-29: Staff-initiated request to vacate the alley between Nelson St and Harbour Towne
Circle north of Rodgers Ave.
1. This alley was vacated on September 27, 1994. However, it was never recorded with the Register of
Deeds. Alley vacations must be recoded within 30 days of the resolution passing. The owner of the
new house being constructed at 1360 Nelson St is having trouble getting home insurance because of
this error. There is no alley in the area anymore and the lots on Nelson St now abut Harbour Towne.
Original Vacation Request Map
Current Aerial View
To approve the alley vacation and record the resolution with the Register of Deeds.
I move that the request to vacate the alley between Nelson St and Harbour Towne Circle north of Rodgers
Ave be recommended to City Commission for (approval/denial).
Hearing, Case 2018-30: Staff-initiated request to rezone the property at 1021 Jefferson St from Form Based
Code, Urban Residential to Form Based Code, Neighborhood Core.
1. The property is owned by the City and is currently being used as the employee parking lot.
2. The property is currently zoned Form Based Code, Neighborhood Residential. This zoning
designation allows for single-family homes, duplexes, rowhomes and small multi-plexes (3-6 units).
3. The City is in negotiations with a developer that would like to construct 73 units of affordable
apartments along with 5,000 sf of commercial space on the first floor. It would also include 59
spaces of underground parking. This would require a rezoning to Form Based Code, Neighborhood
4. Please see the zoning ordinance excerpt for Form Based Code, Neighborhood Core.
1021 Jefferson St
Current Zoning of Area
Proposed Development Renderings
I move that the request to rezone the property at 1021 Jefferson St from FBC, Urban Residential to FBC,
Neighborhood Core, be recommended to City Commission for (approval/denial).
Case 2018-31: Staff-initiated request to amend the Master Plan.
1. Staff is requesting to amend the Master Plan by adopting the Imagine Muskegon Lake Plan as part of
the Master Plan and also to amend the 2008 Downtown and Lakeshore Redevelopment Plan’s Future
Land Use Map to include more properties, which could lead to funding opportunities for several
projects. Please see the enclosed Future Land Use Map, which includes the proposed additions.
2. To start the process, the Planning Commission must recommend to amend the plan, then the City
Commission must do the same. Then there will be a 63 review period for surrounding municipalities,
then a public hearing to adopt the plan will be held.
I move that the request to amend the Master Plan as presented be recommended to City Commission for