View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, December 10, 2020
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Zoom / City of Muskegon Government Facebook Page
AGENDA
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes from the regular meeting of November 12, 2020.
III. Unfinished Business
A. Hearing, Case 2020-20: Request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to expand the
marihuana facilities overlay district to allow for MMFLA and MRMTA Growing, Processing and
Provisioning/Retail license types at 965 W Western Ave, 920 Washington Ave and 1330 Division St by
P & G Holdings, LLC.
IV. Public Hearings
A. Hearing, Case 2020-26: Request to vacate a portion of the alley between Clay St and Webster Ave
between 2nd St and 3rd St, by the Muskegon Museum of Art.
B. Hearing, Case 2020-27: Request for a special use permit to operate group living/mentoring home
for young adults at 1129 Peck St, by Step Up.
C. Hearing, Case 2020-28: Request to amend the final Planned Unit Development at 600 Shoreline Dr
(Harbor 31), by Harbor 31, LLC.
D. Hearing, Case 2020-29: Request to vacate a portion of Viridian Dr, east of Terrace St, by Harbor
31, LLC.
E. Hearing, Case 2020-30: Request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to include 420
Harvey St in the marihuana facilities overlay district and allow class B grower, processor, retailer,
designated consumption establishment and marihuana special events license types, by Michigan
CannaHouse, LLC.
V. New Business
VI. Adjourn
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 24- 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
Muskegon MI 49440
1
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
November 12, 2020
Chairperson T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Montgomery-Keast, L. Spataro, B. Larson, B. Mazade, T. Michalski, J.
Doyle
MEMBERS ABSENT: F. Peterson, excused; S. Gawron, excused; E. Hood, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: M. Gross, Brooklyn, NY; B. Farkas, Pomona, NY; C. Roberts, 7189 W 104th,
Fremont MI; D. Foster, 135 Ottawa St; M. McGuffey, 876 Allen Ave; T.
Harper, 993 Michigan Ave; J. Belka, 150 Ottawa, Grand Rapids; N. Douglas,
904 Amity Ave.; E. Spann, 253 E Walton Ave.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of October 15, 2020 was
made by J. Montgomery-Keast, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2020-20: Request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to expand the marihuana
facilities overlay district to allow for MMFLA and MRMTA Growing, Processing and Provisioning/Retail
license types at 965 W Western Ave, 920 Washington Ave and 1330 Division St by P & G Holdings, LLC.
M. Franzak presented the staff report. The property at 920 Washington Ave was recently approved as part of
the marihuana facilities overlay district for retail/provisioning license types. The property owner would now
like to expand the types of marihuana licenses allowed on site, which also includes the property at 965 W
Western Ave. The address of 1330 Division St was originally included as well, but was later withdrawn at
the applicant’s request, as it would be used for parking only. This request would allow all growing licenses
types, processing licenses and provisioning/retail licenses at 965 and 920 W Western Ave. Notice was
mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property. At the time of this writing staff had
received any comments via e-mail: B. and C. Perry of 930 Washington Ave were opposed to the request, as
was R. and N. Cramblit. Both couples were residents of the WaterMark. Staff recommends approval of the
request at 965 W Western and 920 Washington Ave in an effort to redevelop the properties.
M. Franzak explained that 920 Washington had previously been approved for retail and provisional types of
marihuana businesses, and the applicant now wished to expand the allowed license types and include the
adjacent property at 965 Washington. L. Spataro asked why this request was being presented to the board at
this time, as staff had indicated at the last meeting that a revision to the marihuana ordinance was
forthcoming. M. Franzak stated that the revised ordinance would still not cover this request, and because the
application was submitted, staff was obligated to present it to the board. B. Mazade asked what these parcels
were zoned. M. Franzak stated that they were covered under a PUD with an underlying zoning of I-1, Light
Industrial. B. Mazade asked if the PUD would need to be amended to allow the uses being requested. M.
Franzak stated that a PUD amendment was not necessary for an overlay district.
M. Gross was the property owner and described the property and its uses. He stated that Covid-19 had
2
delayed their development plans for the next phase of the project, which was to construct 180 additional
residential units. This opportunity had then come up with B. Farkas, an interested developer/investor, but his
participation was contingent on approval of the marihuana licenses. B. Farkas stated that he was M. Gross’s
partner and was very familiar with the marihuana industry, having worked in the field in other stated and
countries. He was looking for large-scale processing and manufacturing. He discussed his background in
the industry and stated that they had mainly been involved on the medical side of cannabis matters. T.
Michalski asked what the plans for Phase III currently were, what the timeline was, and who would be
responsible for ensuring that Phase III was completed. M. Gross stated that there were extensive plans,
including office and work space, but those plans were contingent on obtaining the marihuana licenses. He
stated that there were tax issues to be worked out, but estimated an 18- to 24-month timeline. It would be a
joint project with both parties interested in seeing the project through to completion. J. Doyle asked about
the status of the Knoll factory on the property. M. Gross stated that their lease was short-term now and as the
WaterMark developed, Knoll would completely move out, possibly in 2 years. There were only a small
number of employees left there, now. J. Montgomery-Keast asked for clarification on where marihuana was
currently allowed on the property. M. Franzak stated that units in the 3rd floor and above were approved for
retail and provisioning.
Public comments were heard. C. Roberts stated that he wanted the Planning Commission to be inclusive to
all forms of marihuana licensing and to include smaller, local organizations. He stated that his company
presented a proposal last month that had been tabled, and thought theirs was similar to this one. D. Foster
echoed the desire for inclusivity and wanted to make sure caregivers were considered, since they had been in
the business since the beginning. M. McGuffey stated that he represented the Muskegon County Marihuana
Coalition and their concern was social equity. He stated that the Planning Commission needed to be
transparent and ensure that social equity issues were addressed. R. Cramblit lived in the WaterMark building
and had expressed his objection by e-mail. He had since spoken to M. Gross about his concerns regarding
the odor issues that could be a problem with a grow operation. He stated that there was not enough clarity in
the standards and enforcement regarding odors. He was also concerned about the additional traffic in the
residential building, especially if sales were allowed until midnight. T. Michalski stated that having
marihuana operations in a residential building was also a new issue for the Planning Commission that they
had not dealt with in the past. T. Harper lived in the immediate area and was opposed to the request. She
stated that the marihuana industry was not a family-friendly type of business and she was concerned that
marihuana operations could attract a criminal element, in addition to additional noise and traffic to the
residential area. B. Farkas stated that he had been successful in dealing with odor issues in his other
marihuana businesses and didn’t expect it to be a problem. He also expected that they would be hiring plenty
of local people to help run all facets of the organization. J. Belka was the attorney representing the
applicants. He stated that projects had been difficult to finance in the Muskegon market and this was an
opportunity to allow Mr. Gross to continue to develop the site.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously
approved.
A motion that the request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to expand the marihuana facilities
overlay district to allow for MMFLA and MRMTA Growing, Processing and Provisioning/Retail license
types at 965 W Western Ave, 920 Washington Ave and 1330 Division St by P & G Holdings, LLC be
recommended to the City Commission for approval, was made by B. Larson. Motion died due to lack of
support.
L. Spataro stated that he was still not comfortable considering these requests without a comprehensive
ordinance in place. T. Michalski concurred, and stated that he would have preferred to hear the ordinance
amendment case first, followed by the tabled cases, then this case.
3
A motion to table this case was made by B. Larson, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously approved, with
J. Montgomery-Keast, L. Spataro, B. Larson, B. Mazade, T. Michalski, and J. Doyle voting aye.
L. Spataro explained to the applicants that the City Commission needed to pass a comprehensive ordinance
before the Planning Commission was comfortable voting on whether to approve these types of requests.
Hearing, Case 2020-21: Staff-initiated request to amend the zoning ordinance to allow Microbusinesses,
Designated Consumption Establishments, Class A Recreational Grows, Class B Recreational Grows, Class A
Medical Grows and temporary marihuana events as a special use permitted as part of the Michigan
Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act in I-1, I-2, MC, B-2 and B-4 zoning districts. M. Franzak
presented the staff report. The City Commission had asked staff to look for a way to help local caregivers
gain access into the MMFLA and MRMTA marihuana businesses. Staff has developed the following
proposal: Amendments to the special use permit sections of B-2, B-4, MC, I-1 and I-2 zoning districts:
Special Use Permitted - Microbusinesses, designated consumption establishments, class A
recreational grows (up to 100 plants), class B recreational grows (up to 500 plants), class A
medical grows (up to 500 plants) and temporary marihuana events, under the following
conditions:
1. The property must not be located within 500 feet of a school.
2. The site plan must demonstrate the removal of blight from the property; including
dilapidated fences, signs, light poles, etc.
3. Signage shall be limited to one sign, no larger than 25 square feet and shall not use the
word marihuana/marijuana, cannabis or any other word or phrase which would depict
marihuana/marijuana; nor may pictures of a leaf or leaves, green cross or any other
rendering which would depict marihuana/marijuana be displayed on a sign or any part of
the building.
4. Microbusinesses and designated consumption establishments may only operate between
8am and 12am.
5. Designated consumption establishments licenses may be stacked with the other license
types. However, no other license type may be stacked with each other.
6. The special use permit may be revoked by the Planning Commission if odor nuisances
persist.
M. Franzak pointed out that the requirement for a Special Use Permit would protect the applicant, as it was
applicant-specific and could not be sold or transferred. T. Michalski noted that parking was not addressed.
M. Franzak stated that it was subject to the rules of the existing parking ordinance, with a consumption
establishment being similar to a bar, for parking purposes. B. Mazade asked if this language was meant to be
inserted in to the Special Use section of the above-mentioned ordinances. M. Franzak confirmed that was
correct. J. Montgomery-Keast stated that terms such as “school” needed further definition to clarify whether
it referred to home-schooling, colleges, K-12 schools and other types of non-traditional schools. She also
asked where the 500-foot distance came from. M. Franzak stated that it was a standard distance from schools
used in other ordinances. J. Montgomery-Keast stated that further restrictions were needed to address
organizations such as youth centers, rehab centers, playgrounds, parks, and churches. She suggested that the
cutoff date of 12:00AM be changed to 11:00PM, to match the city’s established quiet hours. L. Spataro
stated that he would like to see the Planning Commission be able to further regulate hours of operation in
certain circumstances, such as in residential areas.
Public comments were heard. C. Roberts stated that he was not in favor of this ordinance, as it was too
restrictive. He wanted to see an ordinance that was inclusive of all license types. M. Franzak stated that this
ordinance was meant to help caregivers to become involved in the industry. C. Roberts stated that he was
4
familiar with the industry and different license types, and urged the Planning Commission not to allow large
companies to come in and do something that the smaller players were not allowed to do. T. Michalski stated
that this was a growing and constantly-changing industry, and Planning Commissioners were doing their
best. C. Roberts stated that the State of Michigan would assist staff, and they had a social equity team that
could put on a presentation. L. Spataro explained that, as a Planning Commission whose focus was on
zoning and land use, they were not heavily involved in the social equity aspects of the ordinance; that would
be a matter for staff and the City Commission. The Planning Commission’s focus was to determine whether
the proposed use was compatible with the zoning. N. Douglas stated that he was also opposed to the
ordinance, because it would severely limit the growth potential of caregivers getting in to the industry and
keep them at the bottom. L. Spataro asked for clarification on what would cause those limitations. C.
Roberts stated that it was the state licensing regulations; they needed to add wording to allow businesses to
apply for other licenses. B. Mazade stated that many of the comments being made seemed to be business-
specific; the Planning Commission needed to consider this proposal, and not negotiate for a specific business.
J. Doyle liked the idea of allowing certain activities under a special use, which would enable the Planning
Commission to fine-tune the guidelines based on special circumstances. M. Franzak explained that there
were different marihuana license types and this ordinance was not intended to include them all; that is what
the overlay districts were for. M. McGuffey was upset that there were no social equity provisions included
in the ordinance. T. Harper asked what happened to the “green zones”. M. Franzak stated that those
marihuana overlay zones still existed and all license types were allowed there; this proposal would allow
limited licenses in certain other zoning districts, not including residential.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Doyle, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to amend the zoning ordinance to allow for Microbusinesses, Designated
Consumption Establishments, Class A Recreational Grows, Class B Recreational Grows, Class A Medical
Grows and temporary marihuana events as a special use permitted as part of the Michigan Regulation and
Taxation of Marihuana Act in I-1, I-2, MC, B-2 and B-4 zoning districts be recommended to the City
Commission for approval , with the following amendments: Any adult-use marihuana business shall not be
located within a 500-foot radius of any property occupied by: (1) a public playground, (2) a public park, (3)
public housing, (4) a religious institution, (5) a public or private, vocational school, college, junior college, or
university, (6) a state-licensed child care center or pre-school, (7) any public swimming pool, public or
private youth activity facility, public outdoor recreation area (except trails), or public recreation facility, (8) a
youth center, (9) a juvenile or adult halfway house, (10) correctional facility or rehab center; and that
microbusinesses and designated consumption establishments may only operate from 11:00 PM, not 12:00
AM, was made by J. Montgomery-Keast, supported by L. Spataro and approved, with J. Montgomery-Keast,
L. Spataro, B. Mazade, J. Doyle voting aye, and B. Larson and T. Michalski voting nay.
Hearing, Case 2020-22: Staff initiated request to rezone the properties at 731 Yuba St, 205 E Muskegon, 225
Eastern Ave, 287 E Muskegon Ave, 185 E Muskegon Ave and 209 E Walton Ave to Form Based Code,
Urban Residential. M. Franzak presented the staff report. Staff has been working with Allen Edwin Home
Builders on a potential housing development at the former Farmers Market site on Yuba St. The properties
at 731 Yuba St, 205 E Muskegon Ave, 255 Eastern Ave and 287 E Muskegon Ave are currently zoned I-1,
Light Industrial, and 85 E Muskegon Ave and 209 E Walton Ave are currently zoned R-3, High Density
Single-Family Residential. Staff is seeking a rezoning to FBC, UR to allow the housing development, which
includes a majority of single-family homes, with some duplexes mixed in. Notice was mailed to everyone
within 300 feet of the property. At the time of this writing staff had not received any comments.
M. Franzak explained that these parcels had previously been zoned as single family residential, but had been
rezoned to industrial several years ago in anticipation of a food incubator being built. However, the residents
opposed that use and it was never built. There were now residential homes proposed. L. Spataro had
concerns about garages facing the front if there were no alleys, which he didn’t think was allowed in FBC-
5
UR districts. M. Franzak stated that the alleys proposed to be vacated only existed on paper, they were not
functional alleys. L. Spataro stated that there were no streets either, so those would have to be built. M.
Franzak stated that an alley was not a requirement. J. Montgomery-Keast asked what would be required to
remediate the site, considering its past history of environmental contamination. M. Franzak stated that
whoever developed the site would do what was needed to protect their interests. E. Spann stated that he was
a long-time resident of the area and was in favor of residential homes being built there; however, he wanted
to see environmental testing required.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to rezone the properties at 731 Yuba St, 205 E Muskegon, 225 Eastern Ave, 287 E
Muskegon Ave, 185 E Muskegon Ave and 209 E Walton Ave to Form Based Code, Urban Residential be
recommended to the City Commission for approval, was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Mazade and
unanimously approved, with J. Montgomery-Keast, L. Spataro, B. Larson, B. Mazade, T. Michalski, and J.
Doyle voting aye.
Hearing, Case 2020-23: Staff initiated request to vacate E Muskegon Ave between Cedar St and Emerald St.
The details of this request were the same as case 2020-22. The streets in question existed on paper only.
Board members had no questions.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and
unanimously approved.
A motion that request to vacate E Muskegon Ave between Cedar St and Emerald St. be recommended to the
City Commission for approval, was made by J. Montgomery-Keast, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved, with J. Montgomery-Keast, L. Spataro, B. Larson, B. Mazade, T. Michalski, and J.
Doyle voting aye.
Hearing, Case 2020-24: Staff-initiated request to vacate Rathborne St between Walton Ave and Eastern Ave.
The details of this request were the same as case 2020-22. The streets in question existed on paper only.
Board members had no questions.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Montgomery-Keast, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
A motion that request to vacate Rathborne St between Walton Ave and Eastern Ave. be recommended to the
City Commission for approval, was made by J. Doyle, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved,
with J. Montgomery-Keast, L. Spataro, B. Larson, B. Mazade, T. Michalski, and J. Doyle voting aye.
Hearing, Case 2020-25: Staff initiated request to vacate the alley east of Cedar St and west of Eastern Ave.
The details of this request were the same as case 2020-22. The alleys in question existed on paper only.
Board members had no questions.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and
unanimously approved.
A motion that request to vacate the alley east of Cedar St and west of Eastern Ave be recommended to the
City Commission for approval, was made by J. Montgomery-Keast, supported by J. Doyle and unanimously
approved, with J. Montgomery-Keast, L. Spataro, B. Larson, B. Mazade, T. Michalski, and J. Doyle voting
aye.
NEW BUSINESS
None
6
OLD BUSINESS
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:53 PM.
DR
7
STAFF REPORT
December 10, 2020
Case 2020-20: Request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to expand the marihuana facilities
overlay district to allow for MMFLA and MRMTA Growing, Processing and Provisioning/Retail license
types at 965 W Western Ave, 920 Washington Ave and 1330 Division St by P & G Holdings, LLC.
SUMMARY
1. This case was tabled in November. The public hearing was closed.
2. The property at 920 Washington Ave was recently approved as part of the marihuana facilities
overlay district for retail/provisioning license types.
3. The property owner would now like to expand the types of marihuana licenses allowed on site, which
also includes 965 W Western Ave and 1330 Division St.
4. This request would allow all growing licenses types, processing licenses and provisioning/retail
licenses at 965 W Western, 920 Washington Ave and 1330 Division St.
8
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request at 965 W Western and 920 Washington Ave in an effort to
redevelop the properties.
DELIBERATION
I move that the request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to expand the marihuana facilities
overlay district to allow for MMFLA and MRMTA Growing, Processing and Provisioning/Retail license
types at 965 W Western Ave, 920 Washington Ave and 1330 Division St by P & G Holdings, LLC be
recommended to the City Commission for (approval/denial).
10
Hearing, Case 2020-26: Request to vacate a portion of the alley between Clay St and Webster Ave between
2nd St and 3rd St, by the Muskegon Museum of Art.
SUMMARY
1. The Muskegon Museum of Art is planning an expansion of their building that will extend over the
alley and onto their lot on Clay Ave. They are requesting to vacate a portion of the alley in order to
build over it. The other buildings on the block will not have access restricted to the rear of their
properties as the alley will remain open directly behind all of them.
Portion of alley to be vacated in red
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the vacation request.
DELIBERATION
I move that the request to vacate a portion of the alley between Clay St and Webster Ave between 2 nd St and
3rd St be recommended to the City Commission for (approval/denial).
11
Hearing, Case 2020-27: Request for a special use permit to operate group living/mentoring home for young
adults at 1129 Peck St, by Step Up.
SUMMARY
1. Step Up is a non-profit organization that assists young people (18-24) that have graduated out of the
foster care system. They currently have an operation at 1670 Peck St.
2. The homes will have a mentor on site as well as a few young adults. The zoning ordinance defines a
family as anyone related by blood or marriage and up to two other people. Under this definition, a
use like this would not be in conformance of a single family in the one-unit home. Although the
property is zoned RM-1, and multifamily homes are allowed, there would still be more than one
family living in the single unit.
3. Adult Foster Care Large Group Homes are allowed in this zoning district with a special use permit.
While this use would be much smaller in terms of occupants, staff feels that this is similar in nature
and should also require a special use permit.
12
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
13
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit.
DELIBERATION
I move that the request for a special use permit to operate group living/mentoring home for young adults at
1129 Peck St be (approved/denied).
14
Hearing, Case 2020-28: Request to amend the final Planned Unit Development at 600 Shoreline Dr (Harbor
31), by Harbor 31, LLC.
SUMMARY
1. In the year 2000, Lakefront Development LLC was approved for a mixed-use PUD at this site. Only a
couple of the developments from the plan were built and the remaining developable lots were sold to
a new developer.
2. While the original site plan cannot be located, the enclosed resolution states the conditions put on the
PUD for approval.
3. The original PUD also described the publicly accessible boardwalk, however, staff cannot located any
actual recording of the said publicly accessible land. This proposed development project meets most
of the standards of the underlying zoning (FBC, Mainstreet Waterfront), however, the original PUD
should still be honored because of the publicly accessible boardwalk agreement.
4. Please see the enclosed Project Narrative and Site Plans.
5. The plan calls for two public access points to the water. One to the boardwalk, located north of the
traffic circle. The other to a seating area west of the traffic circle, between buildings G and H.
6. The plan assumes the successful vacation of a portion of Viridian Dr, which is the topic of the
following case.
7. Additional staff comments will be presented at the meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following conditions:
1. Public easements for access to the existing boardwalk and new waterfront gathering space shall be
recorded with the Register of Deeds before any building permits are issued.
2. Each separate use/building needs to individually obtain site plan approval. Any variation from the
PUD, in terms of use or building placement, is acceptable as long as it meets the underlying zoning
(FBC, Mainstreet Waterfront) requirements.
DELIBERATION
I move that the request to amend the final Planned Unit Development at 600 Shoreline Dr be recommended
for (approval/denial) to the City Commission, with the conditions listed in the staff recommendation.
15
Hearing, Case 2020-29: Request to vacate a portion of Viridian Dr, east of Terrace St, by Harbor 31, LLC.
SUMMARY
1. The applicant has requested to vacate a portion of Viridian Dr, depicted below, in an effort to develop
the property.
2. Access to the proposed developments would be through a new private drive.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the vacation request.
DELIBERATION
I move that the request to vacate a portion of Viridian Dr, east of Terrace St, be recommended to the City
Commission for (approval/denial).
16
Hearing, Case 2020-30: Request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to include 420 Harvey St in
the marihuana facilities overlay district and allow class B grower, processor, retailer, designated
consumption establishment and marihuana special events license types, by Michigan CannaHouse, LLC.
SUMMARY
1. In September, the applicant applied to amend the zoning to allow for microbusiness, designated
consumption establishment and special event license types. The case was eventually tabled, but has
not been back to the Planning Commission at this point. Staff had started to work on an ordinance
amendment that would allow for these three license types, among others, in B-2, B-4, MC, I-1 and I-2
Districts. This building is zoned B-2. The Planning Commission made a recommendation (3-3) to
the City Commission on staffs suggested ordinance amendment, however, the City Commission
tabled the case because of too many recommended conditions on approval. The applicant is no
longer in favor of staffs recommended ordinance amendment because he is now seeking additional
license types that staff is not recommending.
2. Instead of bringing back the tabled item, the applicant is now seeking approval of additional license
types (Class B grower, processor, retailer) at this location.
3. Notice was sent to properties within 300 feet of this property. At the time of this writing, staff had
not received any comments.
420 Harvey St
17
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
18
DELIBERATION
I move that the request to amend Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to include 420 Harvey St in the
marihuana facilities overlay district and allow class B grower, processor, retailer, designated consumption
establishment and marihuana special events license types be recommended to the City Commission for
(approved/denied).
19