View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, February 25, 2015
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Commission Chambers, First Floor, Muskegon City Hall
AGENDA
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes from the regular meeting of January 15, 2015.
III. Public Hearings
A. Hearing, Case 2015-02: Request for preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for a
multi-family housing development at 30 E Clay Ave, 4 W Clay Ave and 48 E Western Ave, by
General Capital Group.
B. Hearing, Case 2015-03: Request for final Planned Unit Development approval for a multi-
family housing development at 30 E Clay Ave, 4 W Clay Ave and 48 E Western Ave, by General
Capital Group.
C. Hearing, Case 2014-04: Staff initiated request to amend the zoning ordinance to allow
amusement and recreational facilities, including indoor and outdoor sports fields in B-2,
Convenience and Comparison Business districts.
IV. New Business
V. Old Business
VI. Other
VII. 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 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 Marie Cummings, City Clerk
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, MI 49440
(231) 724-6705
TTY/TDD: Dial 7-1-1 and request that a representative dial 231-724-6705
1
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
January 15, 2015
Chairman T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Michalski, B. Larson, B. Mazade, S. Wisneski, J. Doyle,
L. Spataro, B. Smith, S. Gawron
MEMBERS ABSENT: Excused: F. Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, K. Cummins
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Sytsema, 737 E. Apple Ave.; D. Bossenbroek, 900 Third St.,
Muskegon; Derek Wilce, Facultatieve Technologies, 940 Lake Road, Medina,
OH 44256
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of December 11, 2014 be approved, was made by S.
Wisneski, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2015-1: Request to amend the zoning ordinance to allow crematories as a special land use
permitted in B-4, General Business districts, by Sytsema Properties, LLC. M. Franzak presented the staff
report. Crematories are currently only allowed in I-1, Light Industrial and I-2, General Industrial districts as
a use by right. The Sytsema Funeral Home would like to utilize a crematory at their location at 737 E. Apple
Avenue, which is zoned B-4, General Business District. If the ordinance is amended to allow crematories as
a special land use, then all crematory applicants would need to apply for a special land use permit and a
public hearing would be required. Staff has researched crematories and found that it has been a somewhat
controversial subject in many areas around the county. Cremations are much more common than in the past,
and the growing demand is causing the need for more crematories. Some cities have allowed them to be
located in residential areas and others have denied these types of requests. The main concerns most people
have are the potential for pollutants and odors. The applicant has provided several aerial maps of
crematories that are located in various neighborhoods across the country and they have also included a
manual from Facultatieve Technologies, which is the brand of crematory they are interested in using (please
note that this amendment wouldn’t require all crematories to use this type of model, but it can be used as an
example of environmental effects). There are currently two crematories in the Muskegon area: One is at
Ever Rest Funeral Home at 1783 E. Keating in Muskegon, and one is at Phoenix Crematory Services, 525 W.
Hume Ave in Muskegon Heights. All crematories in Michigan are required to be licensed from the Michigan
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.
2
T. Michalski asked if the proposed technology was the best and least polluting. M Franzak stated that the
type of unit that Sytsema was proposing seemed to be top-of-the-line, and the type of equipment to
encourage if the ordinance amendment was allowed. B. Larson asked if the funeral home was required to get
a license from the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, and if so, if they were required to inform
the City. M. Franzak confirmed that they had to get a state license, but the City was not involved in that
process. L. Spataro thought the key issue was whether this ordinance amendment could create a nuisance to
the neighbors, and was concerned that some units may create more of a nuisance than others. He said he was
unclear as to who had regulatory authority over certifying the equipment that could be used. J. Sytsema
stated that they fell under the guidelines of the EPA. L. Spataro stated that he would not be opposed to the
request if there was no real nuisance concern with the neighbors. B. Smith asked if existing funeral homes
would have to apply for a special use permit if approved. M. Franzak explained that the ordinance applied
only to those facilities located in B-4 zoning districts. B. Mazade asked if the Planning Commission would
be able to approve the type of technology once the ordinance amendment and special use permit were
approved. M. Franzak stated that the proposed ordinance did not contain specific equipment standards, and
that specifications would be given to the Planning Commissioners so they could make a decision on a case
by case basis. J. Doyle inquired whether notices were sent to the surrounding property owners, and if there
was any response. M. Franzak replied that notices were not mailed to individual property owners because the
issue was a general ordinance amendment, and did not apply to only one specific business; however, there
was a Public Hearing Notice published in the newspaper. M. Franzak stated that he had not received any
comments. He pointed out that this was just a proposed amendment, and the board could put restrictions on
it if they thought it was necessary, such as requiring as a certain distance from houses or neighborhoods.
D. Bossenbroek, attorney for Sytsema Funeral Home, presented brochures to help answer questions and
provide state standards. He stated that the special use permit would allow the City to retain control on
location, parking, type of equipment, whether it complied with EPA standards, state licensing and the like.
D. Bossenbroek stated that the popularity of cremations was on the rise, and he voiced Sytsema’s desire to
provide a complete service at their facility without having to send families out to an industrial park. J.
Sytsema stated that the Sytsema Funeral Home had been a part of the City of Muskegon since 1929, and they
had opted to remain in the City because Apple Avenue was where their main office was. All services went
through that office and they had staff and space there. He stated that they desired to invest more in the City
of Muskegon without doing anything that might be a detriment to the neighborhood. He stated that, while
there are homes in the area, there are no residents living within 100 feet of the facility. Discussing odors, J.
Sytsema said the only time there might be an incident is if there were a power failure. While the equipment
was run on natural gas, it also required electricity, and they would install a back-up generator to function in
the case of a power failure. He stated that maintenance check-ups would be performed every 15 months by
Facultatieve, and that if adverse conditions were present, the computer would shut the equipment down. He
stated there were eight different chemicals that could go up in exhaust, and that six of the eight registered 0%
emission, and the two remaining were less than 1%. Sytsema stated that the machine would be installed in a
climate-controlled garage on the premises. S. Wisneski stated that his concern was not with the organization,
but with state licensing and allowing this particular type of facility within the City limits. He wanted to
know who the regulating authority was and who set the standards. He wasn’t convinced that the state alone
should be the threshold for quality, and felt there ought to be a higher standard. J. Sytsema stated that by
making this a Special Land Use, the Planning Commission would have the authority to govern what was
allowed. He stated that they are inspected by the State Department of Licensing and that Facultatieve
Technologies came highly recommended. S. Wisneski asked J. Sytsema if he was aware of any DNR or
EPA regulations that required a specific level of quality. J. Sytsema stated that the information was in the
paperwork presented. D. Wilce of Facultatieve Technologies spoke to the environmental concerns, stating
that the Michigan DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) monitored what was emitted out of the stack
3
during the cremation process. S. Wisneski asked who monitored facilities providing substandard conditions.
D. Wilce responded that all faults were supposed to be reported, and that the machine’s computer ran 24/7
logging and recording information. D. Wilce said that their machine monitored the temperature in the
primary chamber and the secondary chamber where all the gasses are burned off. They measure the
temperature in the stack that is exiting the machine, and they have the capability of remotely accessing the
machine at any time.
The board discussed Michigan DEQ restrictions and decided that the Planning Commission would review
requests on a case-by-case basis, rather than including specific equipment specifications in the ordinance.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by S. Wisneski and unanimously
approved.
A motion that the proposed amendment to Section 1301 of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance, to allow
crematories as a special land use permitted in B-4, General Business districts, be recommended to the City
Commission for approval was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
L. Spataro informed Mr. Sytsema that the City Commission would also have to approve the request.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
OTHER
L. Spataro requested an update on the Form Base Zone changes. M. Franzak stated that the code is being
wrapped up and should be finalized by spring.
ELECTIONS
Chairperson A motion to retain Tim Michalski as Chairperson was made by L. Spataro, supported by S.
Wisneski and unanimously approved.
Vice-Chairperson A motion to retain Bill Larson as Vice-Chairperson was made by L. Spataro, supported by
J. Doyle and unanimously approved.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
4
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
STAFF REPORT
February 25, 2015
Hearing, Case 2015-02: Request for preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for a multi-family
housing development at 30 E Clay Ave, 4 W Clay Ave and 48 E Western Ave, by General Capital Group.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. The proposed development will consist of 87 residential units for low income senior living.
2. The project will be located on three separate parcels (30 E Clay, 4 W Clay and 48 E Western Ave).
Staff is requesting that if approved, the parcels be combined. The total size of all three parcels
combined is 2.03 acres.
3. There is currently a vacant building (which is on the city’s dangerous building list) on 30 E Clay Ave
and a garage/storage building on 4 W Clay Ave. They would both be demolished as part of this plan.
4. The parcels are all zoned B-4, General Business district. A PUD is necessary for this project to allow
flexibility on the following standards
a. Building height: This district only allows buildings a maximum of two stories or 35 feet. The
proposed building is 4 stories and 46 feet.
b. Side setback: This district requires buildings of two stories to be setback a minimum of 10
feet. This proposed four story building has a side yard setback of only 5 feet on the east side
of the property.
c. Front setback: This district requires front setbacks to be a minimum of 10 feet. This proposed
development would have a front yard setback of only 5 feet.
d. Parking: Multi-family housing complexes require at least two spaces per unit. There are 87
proposed units in this development and only 92 total parking spaces.
5. The following items are missing from the site plan:
a. A landscaping plan, including landscaping islands in the parking lot.
b. Parking lot lighting.
c. A stormwater management plan.
d. Fire hydrants.
e. A north arrow.
f. Topography elevations at 5-foot intervals.
g. Arrows showing direction of existing overland flow of stormwater runoff.
h. A grading plan.
i. Soil erosion and sediment control measures.
j. Location of snow storage areas.
5
k. Utility plans including water and sewer.
6. The following items need to be corrected or added to the site plan:
a. A description of the type of pathway lighting to be used.
b. The maneuvering lane in the small parking lot in the front of the building is not large enough.
There must be at least 22 feet of maneuvering space for two-way traffic.
c. The type of parking lot pavement is not defined.
d. Construction type needs to be listed to aid in determining water supply and hydrant
requirements and locations.
e. The Fire Department will need a fire access road around the building that shall support a
76,000 lb fire apparatus.
7. The Fire Department also noted that water supply fire flow calculations shall be conducted and
submitted to the Fire Marshall and Fire Suppression Contractor. Also, the project must comply and
conform to NFPA 1141 standard for fire protection in planned building groups.
8. In addition to the missing utility plans and stormwater management plan, the Engineering Department
is also requesting that the developer evaluate the sewer/water needs versus what is available to
determine if upgrades are necessary.
9. There is not a sidewalk along the Spring St side of the property and Planning Commission may
request the addition of one as part of the PUD process.
10. The proposed development is located in Flood Zone A (Special flood hazard areas inundated by 100
year flood, no base flood elevations determined). This requires that Section 2323 (Flood Hazard
Areas) of the zoning ordinance to be met (please see attachment of Section 2323). Without a
topography map and elevations it is not possible to determine the risk associated with developing
within this flood zone. Furthermore, staff is also requesting from the developer the submittal of
Section 2323-6-d-2, which states that “the Zoning Administrator shall obtain from a Registered
Professional Engineer or Architect, certification that the flood-proofing methods are adequate to
withstand the flood depths, pressures, velocities, impact and uplift forces and other factors associated
with the base flood so that the structure is watertight to the base flood level.” Staff is also requesting
that all other requirements of Section 2323 are submitted to insure compliance with all flood hazard
area planning.
11. Notice was sent to properties within 300 feet of the property. Jan Witt from Witt Buick across the
street at 67 W Western Ave said that she is against the project if it is like Harford Terrace, but would
be for the project if it were like Nelson Place.
6
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
7
View looking north from W Western Ave View looking west at cul-de-sac on W Western Ave
View looking east from Pine St View of garage looking east from Pine St
8
Zoning Ordinance excerpt:
Planned Unit Developments
Excerpted from Section 2101: Development Options
1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Purpose
The purpose of this option is to permit flexibility in the regulation of land development; encourage
innovation in land use and variety in design, layout, and type of structures constructed; achieve
economy and efficiency in the use of land, natural resources and utilities; encourage provision of
useful open space; provide adequate housing, employment, and shopping opportunities particularly
suited to the needs of the residents of the City of Muskegon and encourage the use, reuse, and
improvement of existing sites and buildings when the uniform regulations contained in zoning
districts do not provide adequate protection and safeguards for the site or surrounding area.
This option is intended to accommodate developments with mixed or varied uses, to allow some
degree of flexibility in the application of standards and regulations in this Ordinance to achieve
innovation to development on sites with unusual topography or unique settings within the
community, or on land which exhibits difficult or costly development problems, and shall not be
allowed where this option is sought primarily to avoid the imposition of standards and requirements
of zoning classifications rather than to achieve the stated purposes above.
a. Planned Unit Development Regulations, Standards and Requirements
1) The entire parcel for which application is made must be under one ownership or the
application must be made with the written authorization of all property owners.
2) The application shall meet the criteria established in each specified zoning district.
b. PUD Review Procedures
1) A petition for a PUD approval shall be submitted in accordance with Section 2332 of
this ordinance.
2) The review shall be in two phases:
3) The preliminary phase shall involve a review of a conceptual PUD plan to determine
its suitability.
4) The final phase shall require a detailed development plan for any part of the approved
conceptual PUD plan.
9
c. Standards for Approval of PUD Plans
The Planning Commission shall approve, deny or modify preliminary PUD plans, based upon
the following standards. Likewise, the City Commission shall approve, deny, or modify final
PUD plans (after review and recommendation by the Planning Commission) based upon the
following standards.
1) The uses proposed will have a beneficial effect, in terms of public health, safety,
welfare, or convenience of any combination thereof, on present and potential
surrounding land uses. The uses proposed will not adversely affect the public utility
and circulation systems, surrounding properties, or the environment.
2) The uses proposed should be consistent with the land use plans adopted by the City.
3) The amount of open space provided, which the Planning Commission or City
Commission may modify even though such modifications do not conform to that
required in other sections of this ordinance.
4) The amount of off-street parking areas, which the Planning Commission or City
Commission may modify even though such modifications do not conform to that
required in other sections of this ordinance.
5) The amount of landscaping and buffering areas, which the Planning Commission or
City Commission may modify even though such modifications do not conform to that
required in other sections of this ordinance.
6) The protection or enhancement of significant natural, historical, or architectural
features within the proposed development area.
7) The uses proposed will result in safe, convenient, uncongested and well defined
vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems.
2. Preliminary PUD Plan Submission
The applicant shall submit together with the application for PUD preliminary phase approval:
a. A general development plan depicting the proposed locations of streets, parking areas, open
spaces, buildings and structures, and their spatial relationships, the relationship to off-site
improvements and infrastructure and any unusual topographic features.
1) Approval by the Planning Commission of the PUD Preliminary Plan shall remain in
effect for a period not to exceed three (3) years from the date of approval.
10
3. Final PUD Plan Submission
The applicant shall submit together with the application for PUD final phase approval, development
plans in sufficient detail and in so far as possible the specific locations and dimensions of:
a. all streets, sidewalks, public and private utilities, parking areas, truck docks and service
drives;
b. all buildings and structures, elevations and spacial relationships;
c. landscaping, buffers, fences, and protective walls;
d. open space areas and other significant environmental features;
e. existing and final topographic changes;
f. identification and directional signage:
g. a property survey prepared and certified by a licensed land surveyor;
4. Amendments to an Approved Final PUD Plan
a. 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.
b. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed modifications are significant or
major, a public notice and public hearing in accordance with Section 2332 must be conducted
prior to approval or denial.
5. PUD Development Time Limits
a. Construction of the improvements shown on the approved final PUD plan with all proposed
buildings, parking areas, landscaping and infrastructure must commence within one year of
approval by the City Commission.
b. Construction must be continued in a reasonable, diligent manner and be completed within five
(5) years.
c. Said five (5) year period may be extended if applied for in writing by the petitioner and
granted by the City Commission following public notice and public hearing in accordance
with Section 2332 of this ordinance. Failure to secure an extension shall result in a stoppage
of all construction.
11
ZONING ORDINANCE EXCERPT
ARTICLE XXIII - GENERAL PROVISIONS [article amended 3/23/98]
SECTION 2323: FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
The intent of the regulations in this Section is to promote public health, safety, and general
welfare and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions.
1. Flood hazard areas shall be treated as overlay districts, which shall:
a) Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to
water or erosion, or in flood heights or velocities.
b) Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be
protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction.
c) Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective
barriers, which are involved in the accommodation of flood waters.
d) Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase
erosion or flood damage.
e) Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert
flood waters or which may increase flood hazards to other lands.
2. This Section shall apply to all land which is depicted on the Flood Hazard Boundary Map/ Flood
Insurance Rate Map 260161B dated June 1, 1977 as determined by the Federal Insurance
Administration. Any map amendments are hereby adopted by reference, and Flood Hazard Districts
are overlay Districts.
3. All new construction and substantial improvement to structures shall be constructed so that the
lowest floor, including basements, for residential structures shall comply with the flood-resistant
construction requirements of the Michigan Residential Code or for non-residential buildings shall
comply with the flood-resistant construction requirements of the Michigan Building Code.
[amended 7/02] [amended 4/06]. Any new and replacement water systems and sanitary sewage
systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system and
discharge from the system into flood waters. On-site waste disposal systems are to be located to
avoid impairment to them, or contamination from them during flooding.
4. The degree of flood protection required by this Section is considered reasonable for regulatory
purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur
on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes. This Section shall
not create liability on the part of the City of Muskegon or by any officer or employee thereof for
any flood damages that result from reliance of this Section or any administrative decision lawfully
made thereunder.
12
5. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Item 3, above, then the
Zoning Administrator, shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation date
available from a Federal, State, or other source.
6. Responsibilities of the Zoning Administrator shall be as follows:
a) Notify adjacent communities and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
prior to any alteration or relocation of watercourse, and submit evidence of such
notification to the Federal Insurance Administration.
b) Obtain necessary engineering analysis to assure that the flood-carrying capacity
with the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse is maintained.
c) The Zoning Administrator shall review the proposed development to assure that
all necessary permits have been received from those governmental agencies from
which approval is required by Federal or State Law, including Section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1334.
d) For the purpose of the determination of applicable flood insurance risk premium
rate, the Zoning Administrator shall:
1) Obtain the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest habitable
floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures,
and determine whether or not such structures contain a basement.
2) Obtain from a Registered Professional Engineer or Architect, certification
that the flood-proofing methods are adequate to withstand the flood
depths, pressures, velocities, impact and uplift forces and other factors
associated with the base flood so that the structure is watertight to the
base flood level.
3) Maintain a record of all such information.
7. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special
flood hazards (for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and
actual field conditions) the Zoning Administrator shall make the necessary interpretation. The person
contesting the location of the boundary shall be given reasonable opportunity to appeal the
interpretation as provided in this Ordinance. No new construction, substantial improvements or other
development (including fill) shall be permitted within the zones A1-30 of the City's Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM), unless it is demonstrated to the City Commission and/or Zoning Administrator
that the cumulative effect of the proposed development will not increase the water surface elevation
of the base flood more than one (1) foot at any point within the City.
DELIBERATION
Standards for discretionary uses: (emphasis provided)
1. Give due regard to the nature of all adjacent uses and structures and the consistency with the adjacent
use and development.
13
2. Find that the proposed use or activity would not be offensive, or a nuisance, by reason of increased
traffic, noise, vibration, or light.
3. Adequate water and sewer infrastructure exists or will be constructed to service the activity.
4. The proposed site plan complies with section 2331of the ordinance and has:
a. proper ingress and egress
b. sufficient parking areas, streets, roads and alleys
c. screening walls and/or fences
d. adequate fire and police protection
e. provisions for disposal of surface water run-off, sanitary sewage
f. adequate traffic control and maintenance services
g. preserves property values to related or adjoining properties.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the preliminary PUD for a multi-family housing development at 30 E Clay Ave, 4 W Clay Ave
and 48 E Western Ave be (approved/denied) pursuant to the determination of (compliance/lack of
compliance) with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master Land Use Plan.
Hearing, Case 2015-03: Request for final Planned Unit Development approval for a multi-family housing
development at 30 E Clay Ave, 4 W Clay Ave and 48 E Western Ave, by General Capital Group.
If the Planning Commission feels the site plan meets all of the standards of the zoning ordinance, they may
make a motion to approve the final PUD proposal.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the final PUD for a multi-family housing development at 30 E Clay Ave, 4 W Clay Ave and 48 E
Western Ave (be/not be) recommended to City Commission for final approval pursuant to the determination
of (compliance/lack of compliance) with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master Land Use
Plan.
14
Hearing, Case 2014-04: Staff initiated request to amend the zoning ordinance to allow amusement and
recreational facilities, including indoor and outdoor sports fields in B-2, Convenience and Comparison
Business districts.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. Staff has received requests for these types of businesses in the past for certain locations in different
business districts throughout the city. These include sports fields, indoor skate parks and bounce
houses.
2. Currently, the only business districts these types of uses would be allowed in would be in B-3 and B-
4 districts, under a Special Use Permit.
3. Staff feels that these types of uses are compatible with the intent of the B-2 district and should be
allowed as a use by right. Many of the B-2 district within the city are located within and around
residential neighborhoods and would provide easy access for customers.
4. Please see the enclosed map depicting B-2 districts in the city.
NEW LANGUAGE
Deletions are crossed out and additions are in bold:
SECTION 1100: PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED
10. Recording studios. [amended 8/02]
11. Stores selling second hand merchandise. [amended 3/12]
12. Brewpubs. [amended 3/12]
13. Micro Breweries, Small Wineries and Small Distilleries as long as the brewing area is less than 2,500
square feet. [amended 3/12]
14. Recreational facilities, including indoor and outdoor sports fields
DELIBERATION
I move that the proposed amendment to Section 1100 of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance, to allow
recreational facilities, including indoor and outdoor sports fields, be recommended to the City Commission
for (approval/denial).
15
B-2 districts noted in orange
16
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails