View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, May 14, 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 April 16, 2015.
III. New Business
A. Case 2015-09: Staff-initiated request for approval of the 2014-2020 Capital Improvements Plan.
B. Form Based Code presentation/training by Mark Miller and Lynee Wells
IV. Public Hearings
A. Hearing, Case 2015-10: Staff-initiated request to make the following amendments to the zoning
ordinance:
a. Amend Article XX and create a Form Based Coder overlay district
b. Remove Article XII, B-3 Central Business district.
c. Amend Article III, Section 300 and remove B-3, Central Business district.
d. Amend Article III and add a new section, 305, to direct people to the Article XX, the new
Form Based Code section.
e. Amend the zoning map and add a new Form Based Code district. Please see the map
below that shows the parcels to be included in the zone change.
f. Amend the zoning districts table of heights and yards to remove all references to B-3;
remove minimum heights in note #4, remove reference to B-3 in note #6; add a row called
Form Based Code and an asterisk that indicates that all dimensional standards shall be per
the Form Based Code, Article XX.
g. Amend Article XXIII to add item 5 to Section 2301 to state that the scope and
applicability of the Form Based Code is contained in Sections 2001.02 and 2002.00.
h. Amend Section 2326 and remove item 12, Downtown Parking Overlay and remove
reference to overlay in item 13 and remove Figure 23-2.
i. Amend Section 2334 and remove reference to B-3 in item 7.
1
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
2
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
April 16, 2015
Board member J. Doyle called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Mazade, S. Wisneski, J. Doyle, L. Spataro, S. Gawron, F. Peterson, B.
Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: B. Larson, excused; T. Michalski, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: D. VanRiper, 2411 Barclay; E. Sloan, 2407 Barclay; J. Huizenga, 102 Eugene;
D. Bos, builder; M. Landis, Parmenter O’Toole, 601 Terrace St.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the special meeting of March 12, 2015 be approved, was made by S. Wisneski,
supported by F. Peterson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2015-06: Request for a Special Use Permit to allow a self-storage facility in a B-4, General
Business District at 0 Barclay St (property numbers 24-036-400-0007-00, 24-036-400-0014-20, 24-036-400-
0014-30), by Thaddeus Kling and Exit Your Way, LLC. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The current
lot configuration of this area is split into four parcels. The first page of the site plan shows a proposed survey
that splits the lots so that there will be three separate parcels in front, with a 66-foot ingress and egress drive
to the north of the property. This easement will provide access to the residentially zoned parcel in the back.
There are two property owners involved in this project, Exit Your Way, LLC and Thaddeus J Kling. Exit
Your Way, LLC owns the southernmost parcel and the residentially zoned parcel in the back (west). The
residentially zoned parcel was approved as a residential PUD; however, the project did not materialize and
the time frame for the PUD has expired. The owner of the PUD parcel has provided a written statement to the
Planning Department acknowledging that the PUD has expired. Mini-storage facilities are allowed as a
Special Use in B-4 districts under certain conditions. This plan does not meet the following requirements: a)
Direct access to a major thoroughfare (although it is located just off of Sherman Blvd); b) Only four parking
spaces are provided, none of them located in Phase 1; and c) Lighting is not depicted. The required 10-foot
landscaping berm is shown in front of the property. However, staff recommends that the rear of the property
be landscaped as well, with large canopy and coniferous trees to screen the property from future residential
development to the west. Notice was given to property owners within 300 feet of the property; staff had not
received any comments at the time of this writing.
L. Spataro had some concerns with the site plan, including the lack of a sidewalk, the minimal parking, and
landscaping at the rear of the property. He stated that it was important to provide a buffer between this site
and the adjacent residential area. D. VanRiper lived near the site and was opposed to the request, stating that
it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. She stated that unattended places like that tended to draw a
3
criminal element, it would increase traffic through the residential area, and displace wildlife in the wooded
area. E. Sloan also lived in the area and stated that she was opposed to the request for similar reasons. J.
Huizenga was the developer. He stated that they planned to create a nice facility with good security, and
they were willing to landscape the property to help it fit in with the neighborhood. He also stated that it
would increase the tax base for the City.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Smith, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously
approved.
B. Smith questioned the lack of parking spaces. J. Huizenga stated that this facility consisted of drive-up
units where people would park in front of their unit to load or unload, which is why they didn’t see a need to
include a separate parking area. He also did not want excess parking drawing people to loiter there. L.
Spataro believed that it was important to include a sidewalk on the property to improve walkability. S.
Wisneski disagreed, stating that no other properties on the west side of Barclay had a sidewalk. L. Spataro
pointed out that the City had been requiring sidewalks for new developments for the past several years.
A motion that the special land use permit, per Section 1301 of Article XIII of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow
a mini-storage facility at 0 Barclay St (property numbers 24-036-400-0007-00, 24-036-400-0014-20, 24-036-
400-0014-30), by Thaddeus Kling and Exit Your Way, LLC be approved based on compliance with the
City’s Master Land Use Plan and with the conditions that 1) Lighting with 100% cutoff is shown on the site
plan, 2) Landscaping with canopy and coniferous trees is added to the rear of the property, and 3) The lot is
split to reflect the proposed survey, which gives a 66-foot easement to lot #24-746-000-0000-00, was made
by B. Mazade and supported by S. Wisneski, with discussion continuing on the motion. L. Spataro brought
up the sidewalk issue and made a motion to amend the first motion to include the requirement to add a
sidewalk on the property. The amended motion was supported by F. Peterson. S. Wisneski asked if the
setback was far enough back to accommodate a sidewalk. M. Franzak stated that it was. J. Doyle asked if
the 66-foot egress area would require a sidewalk also. L. Spataro stated that his motion did not take that into
consideration, but it could be addressed at the time the property was developed.
A vote on the original motion to approve the special land use permit with the conditions listed above was
taken and approved, with B. Mazade, S. Wisneski, J. Doyle, L. Spataro, S. Gawron, F. Peterson, and B.
Smith voting aye.
A vote on the amended motion to add a condition that a sidewalk be included on the property was taken and
approved, with B. Mazade, S. Wisneski, J. Doyle, L. Spataro, S. Gawron, F. Peterson, and B. Smith voting
aye.
Hearing, Case 2015-07: Request for several amendments to the Planned Unit Development (including, but
not limited to, lot configurations, building height requirements and the removal of street lighting) at 650
Terrace Point Drive, by Terrace Point Landing, LLC. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The applicant
has requested several revisions to the plan, including lot configurations, setback definitions and maximum
building height. He had also requested the elimination of street lights, and instead proposed having porch
lights on every property. Staff recommended against the elimination of the street lights. The applicant has
since decided that he will install six street lights in 250-foot intervals throughout the property, and staff is
comfortable with that. Information on the proposed street light design was provided. Lots 12 through 17
have been reconfigured to provide more buildable lots. The plan has been revised to clarify the side yard
setback requirements with regard to eaves, uncovered steps, chimneys, etc. These minor items would be
permitted to have only a 3-foot side yard setback, compared to a 5-foot setback for all other parts of the
homes. There is a typo on #28 of the Sears Architects document: It should read that these items “may
encroach into all side yard setbacks.” The plan also clarifies rear yard setback requirements with regard to
waterfront vs. interior lots. Waterfront lines must be placed inside the 100 year floodplain, and interior lots
4
must be set back at least 15 feet from the rear property line. The plan has also been revised to reflect a
maximum building height of 45 feet with a maximum number of three stories, not including roof decks and
access to them. The plan was previously approved for a maximum of two stories and 35 feet.
L. Spataro stated that, due to the characteristics of the soil on this site, many of the homes would not be able
to have a basement. He asked if that was the reason for requesting the additional building height. D. Boss
stated that was correct. M. Franzak stated that staff had been working on a street alignment issue, and he
presented a statement that he requested be included in the motion: “the street alignment issue will be worked
out by staff and approved by City Commission which may limit or eliminate the potential to build on lot 62.”
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by S. Wisneski and unanimously
approved.
A motion that the amendments to the final PUD for a residential development at 650 Terrace Point be
approved 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) Consumers Energy must prepare the street light plans and
install as part of the City’s street light system, 2) The plan be revised to delete sections regarding the removal
of the street lights and the addition of porch lights, and 3) the street alignment issue will be worked out by
staff and approved by City Commission which may limit or eliminate the potential to build on lot 62, was
made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Mazade and unanimously approved, with B. Mazade, S. Wisneski, J.
Doyle, L. Spataro, S. Gawron, F. Peterson, and B. Smith voting aye.
Hearing, Case 2015-08: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2313 (Community Gardens) of the zoning
ordinance and replace it with an urban farming ordinance. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The
proposed ordinance has undergone additional changes since the last revision was emailed to board members
in March. The proposed ordinance would allow community gardens to sell produce commercially without
being considered a farm as long as the profits from the sales are put back into the organization that benefits
the community. Urban Commercial Farms are strictly for-profit ventures. Community Gardens are principal
uses permitted in B-1, B-5, MC, and all residential zones. Urban Commercial Farms would be allowed in the
same districts, but would be required to obtain a Special Use Permit from the Planning Commission. This
would involve a public hearing, and neighbors within 300 feet of the property would be notified. Also,
Urban Commercial Farms may only be an accessory use to a property and must be located on a property that
already has a house or a business. Urban Commercial Farms would not be allowed on vacant parcels;
community gardens are allowed on vacant parcels. On-site sales would not be allowed unless the
Community Garden or Urban Commercial Farm is located in a district that allows for commercial sales of
goods. M. Franzak provided board members with an information sheet clarifying the differences between
Community Gardens, Urban Commercial Farms, and Private Gardens.
B. Mazade observed that the ordinance would allow sales of produce, and asked about the Right To Farm
Act implications. M. Landis, City Attorney, discussed her research on that issue with board members. She
stated that it was highly unlikely that the Right To Farm Act would be invoked, since we were not dealing
with GAAMPS. F. Peterson stated that many communities were struggling with this topic, and it was
important to get an ordinance in place.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by F. Peterson, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously
approved.
M. Franzak stated that F. Peterson pointed out that the suggested motion did not address private gardens. He
asked that, when a motion was made, that it include private gardens as an allowed principal or accessory
structure. B. Mazade stated that he still had concerns with the ordinance as proposed. Although he
5
supported the notion of community gardens when they first became popular, he was concerned about
allowing the sales of produce for profit. In addition, the ordinance did not cover what type of crops would be
allowed. S. Wisneski was also concerned with allowing produce sales and Right To Farm Act implications.
L. Spataro shared those concerns but believed that the proposed ordinance sufficiently addressed those, and
was a reasonable compromise between balancing the needs of those who wanted to farm with those of the
neighbors who wanted to live in a peaceful residential neighborhood.
A motion that the proposed amendment to Section 2313 of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance, to
replace the Community Gardens ordinance with the proposed Urban Farming ordinance, and to amend the
definition of Private Garden to include them as a principal or accessory use, be recommended to the City
Commission for approval was made by L. Spataro, supported by S. Gawron and approved, with J. Doyle, L.
Spataro, S. Gawron, F. Peterson, and B. Smith voting aye, and B. Mazade and S. Wisneski voting nay.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
6
STAFF REPORT
May 14, 2015
Case 2015-09: Staff-initiated request for approval of the 2014-2020 Capital Improvements Plan.
BACKGROUND
Pleased see the enclosed Capital Improvement Plan list inside your packet. This document outlines planned
capital improvement expenditures for the City of Muskegon for Fiscal Years 2014-15 through 2019-21.
Projects included in this document are considered to be flexible and changeable depending on the status of
the City’s financials and the need for unexpected investments. This document will be updated and adopted
annually by the City of Muskegon Planning Commission.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the Capital Improvements Plan for fiscal years 2014-2021 be (approved/denied) as presented.
7
Hearing, Case 2015-10: Staff-initiated request to make the following amendments to the zoning ordinance:
B. Amend Article XX and create a Form Based Coder overlay district
C. Remove Article XII, B-3 Central Business district.
D. Amend Article III, Section 300 and remove B-3, Central Business district.
E. Amend Article III and add a new section, 305, to direct people to the Article XX, the new Form
Based Code section.
F. Amend the zoning map and add a new Form Based Code district. Please see the map below that
shows the parcels to be included in the zone change.
G. Amend the zoning districts table of heights and yards to remove all references to B-3; remove
minimum heights in note #4, remove reference to B-3 in note #6; add a row called Form Based
Code and an asterisk that indicates that all dimensional standards shall be per the Form Based
Code, Article XX.
H. Amend Article XXIII to add item 5 to Section 2301 to state that the scope and applicability of the
Form Based Code is contained in Sections 2001.02 and 2002.00.
I. Amend Section 2326 and remove item 12, Downtown Parking Overlay and remove reference to
overlay in item 13 and remove Figure 23-2.
J. Amend Section 2334 and remove reference to B-3 in item 7.
BACKGROUND
Please see the enclosed Form Based Code (FBC) document. These codes will replace the B-3 district
downtown. Some other parcels near downtown will also be rezoned to FBC from R-1, RT, RM-1, RM-3, B-
1, B-2, I-1, I-2, WM and LR.
A presentation/training session will be given by the consultants from Nederveld and Williams & Works
before a vote is taken.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, as detailed in the staff report as Case 2015-10
A through I, be recommended to the City Commission for (approval/denial).
8
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails