View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, January 16, 2014
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 December 12, 2013.
III. Public Hearings
a. Hearing, Case 2014-01: Request for a preliminary Planned Unit Development
approval to extend the Planned Unit Development at 1144 3rd Street across the
street to include the parcels at 1185 and 1201 3rd St. These new parcels will hold
an automobile sales and repair facility.
b. Hearing, Case 2014-02: Request for a final Planned Unit Development approval
to extend the Planned Unit Development at 1144 3rd Street across the street to
include the parcels at 1185 and 1201 3rd Street. These new parcels will hold an
automobile sales and repair facility.
c. Hearing, Case 2014-03: Staff-initiated request to rezone the city-owned property
at 816 Marquette Avenue from R-1, Single-Family Residential district to RM-1,
Low Density Multiple Family Residential district.
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
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
December 12, 2013
Chairman T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: F. Peterson, J. Doyle, B. Larson, T. Michalski, L. Spataro, B. Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: B. Mazade, excused; S. Gawron, excused; S. Wisneski, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: E. Wildenberg, CFO Newkirk Electric, 1875 Roberts; T. Blais, 1920
Brunswick
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of November 14, 2013 be approved, was made
by J. Doyle, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2013-14: Request to vacate the portion of Nims Street between Brunswick and
Vulcan Streets by Newkirk Electric Associates, Inc. M. Franzak presented the staff report. Nims
Street has already been vacated from Madison to Brunswick, and from Vulcan to Keating Avenue.
This request would vacate the remainder of the street between these two areas. The street is an
unimproved dirt road with no utilities in the vicinity. Newkirk Electric owns the parcels at 1875
Roberts Street, 1035 E. Laketon Avenue and 1975 Vulcan Street. They would like to combine all
of these properties and fence them in for storage expansion. In order to do that, the street must be
vacated and re-platted. Once the City vacates the street, they will give up all interest in it, and it
becomes common property to everyone in the block, until it is re-platted and individual owners are
given portions of the land. Notice was sent to property owners within 300 feet of this property.
M. Franzak stated that, once the street was vacated, it would need to go to Circuit Court to get re-
platted and divided among the property owners. M. Franzak provided board members with a
written response from DTE Energy/MichCon. They requested an easement on behalf of Michigan
Consolidated Gas Company for their gas main on Vulcan, but had no facilities along Nims. M.
Franzak recommended that, if the request were approved, a condition be that public utility
easements are retained. MichCon and the property owner could work out the easement details.
L. Spataro arrived at 4:10 p.m.
E. Wildenberg, Newkirk Electric, described their plans for the site. L. Spataro asked if Newkirk’s
intention was to close Nims Street off, or use it as a driveway. E. Wildenberg stated that they
intended to close and fence off the Nims portion to use as part of their storage yard. They would
use a portion of Vulcan Street off Keating as a driveway to their property, and install a gate to
close off the site to the public. T. Blais owned a business at 1920 Brunswick. He stated that the
main access to his building was along Nims Street, as his building on the Brunswick side butted
right up to the street. He needed room for his equipment and dumpster along the Nims Street side,
and didn’t think there would be enough room if Nims were vacated. Mr. Wildenberg stated that
2
he had spoken to Mr. Blais about his adjoining property but they had not worked out an agreement
yet. He stated that he was willing to work with Mr. Blais to ensure that access to his property
would be maintained. E. Wildenberg stated that if Newkirk was unable to reach an agreement
with Mr. Blais on the purchase of his property, they would work with him on placement of the
fence to ensure that it did not block Mr. Blais’ business. B. Larson stated that he would like to
ensure that Mr. Blais would still be able to access his property. L. Spataro stated that it would not
be appropriate to include that in a motion, since it involved two private parties.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by B. Smith and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the vacation of Nims Street between Brunswick and Vulcan Streets be
recommended to City Commission for approval based on compliance with the City’s 1997 Master
Land Use Plan, with the condition that public utility easements will be retained upon re-platting,
was made by B. Smith, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2013-15: Request to vacate the portion of Vulcan St south of Nims St and north of
Keating Ave, by Newkirk Electric Associates, Inc. M. Franzak presented the staff report. Vulcan
Street has already been vacated between Laketon Avenue and Nims Street. This request is to
continue the vacation of Vulcan down to Keating Avenue. The street is an unimproved dirt road
with no utilities in the vicinity. Newkirk Electric owns nearby parcels at 1875 Roberts, 1035 E
Laketon, and 1975 Vulcan. They would like to combine all of these properties and fence them in
for storage expansion. In order to do that, the street must be vacated and re-platted. Once the City
vacates the street, they will give up all interest it. It becomes common property to everyone in the
block, until it is re-platted and individual owners are given portions of the land. Notice was sent
to property owners within 300 feet of this property. Staff has not received any comments from the
public.
This request was also addressed in the previous case, and there were no additional questions. M.
Franzak stated that, if approved, a condition should be added that public utility easements be
retained.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Doyle, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the vacation of Vulcan Street between Nims Street and Keating Avenue be
recommended to City Commission for approval based on compliance with the City’s 1997 Master
Land Use Plan, with the condition that all utility easements be retained upon re-platting, was made
by L. Spataro supported by J. Doyle and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:27 p.m.
3
Hearing, Case 2014-01: Request for a preliminary Planned Unit Development approval to
extend the Planned Unit Development at 1144 3rd St across the street to include the parcels at
1185 and 1201 3rd St. These new parcels will host an automobile sales and repair facility.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. The EMC Group currently owns the property at 1144 3rd St which is already a Planned
Unit Development (PUD). This parcel contains multiple buildings and the PUD allows for
multiple uses; such as retail, auto sales and auto repair. They are currently working with a
buyer for this parcel and all of the buildings. The EMC Group would like to continue to
sell cars in the area and would like to move the car sales operation across the street to 1185
(building on site) & 1201 3rd St (vacant parking lot to the south).
2. The parcels at 1185 & 1201 3rd St are zoned B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business
District and auto sales are not allowed in this district. However, the current auto sales lot
at 1144 3rd St is also has an underlying zoning district of B-2 and is allowed to have auto
sales because it is allowed as part of the PUD.
3. The EMC Group would like to extend the PUD across the street to 1185 & 1201 3rd St and
allow for auto sales and auto repair as part of the PUD. The current PUD at 1144 3rd St
will stay the same until the new owner comes to Planning Commission to amend the PUD
once the plans are confirmed. It is possible to extend the PUD across the street because the
parcels are considered adjacent to each other. The parcels at 1144, 1185 and 1201 would
all be considered a part of the same PUD. It is common to have multiple property owners
involved in the same PUD.
4. The building at 1185 3rd St has historically been used as a car sales and repair shop;
however, it has lost its legal non-conforming status because that use has not occurred in
more than two consecutive years.
5. The Fire, Police and Engineering Departments do not have any concerns over this project.
6. The DPW has asked that the fencing and poles at least one foot away from water service
shutoffs and to keep trees and shrubs at least 10 feet away from water service shutoffs.
7. The Planning Department is requesting that the entrance into the parking lot of 1201 3rd St
off of 3rd street be closed. A requirement for all auto sales lots is that there is not an
entrance to the car lot within 60 feet of an intersection.
8. A notification letter was sent to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the
project area and staff had not received any comments at the time of this writing.
Current auto sales lot at 1144 3rd St
4
Proposed auto sales building across the street at 1185 3rd St
Proposed auto sales lot at 1201 3rd St.
(Note the house to the back and also another to the left which isn’t shown. A six foot wooden
privacy fence will be installed to screen from residential uses)
5
Zoning Map (current PUD outlined in red. New PUD parcels located to the west)
Aerial Map (red line indicates street to be vacated)
6
Ordinance Excerpt:
Planned Unit Developments
Excerpted from Section 2101: Development Options
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.
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,
7
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.
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.
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;
8
b. all buildings and structures, elevations and spacial relationships;
c. landscaping, buffers, fences, and protective walls;
a. open space areas and other significant environmental features;
b. existing and final topographic changes;
c. identification and directional signage:
d. a property survey prepared and certified by a licensed land surveyor;
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.
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.
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.
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
9
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 an auto repair and sales lot at 1185 & 1201 Third Street 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 with the condition that staff
concerns listed in #6 and #7 of the staff report be addressed and a new site plan be approved by
staff.
Hearing, Case 2014-02: Request for a final Planned Unit Development approval to extend the
Planned Unit Development at 1144 3rd St across the street to include the parcels at 1185 and 1201
3rd St. These new parcels will host an automobile sales and repair facility.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. PUDs require preliminary a final approval. Many PUDs involve building new on vacant
parcels, so the preliminary approval gives the Planning Commission a chance to weigh in
on certain site layout conditions, then the developer makes the adjustments and returns
with a revised plan. However, these parcels are already developed, so it is just a formality
to have preliminary and final approval in this case.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the final PUD for an auto repair and sales lot at 1185 & 1201 3rd St be recommended
to the City Commission for (approval/denial) pursuant to the determination of (compliance/lack of
compliance) with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master Land Use Plan with the
following conditions (conditions will be presented at meeting) - Items # 6 and #7 of the staff
report be addressed and a new site plan be approved by staff.
10
Hearing, Case 2014-03: Staff-initiated request to rezone the city-owned property at 816
Marquette Avenue from R-1, Single Family Residential district to RM-1, Low Density Multiple
Family Residential district.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. The parcel measures 6.14 acres and is a U shaped lot
2. The parcel was previously zoned RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family Residential District.
The 1986 zoning map shows that it was zoned RM-1 at that time and it was rezoned to R-
1, Single Family Residential at a later date (staff is still researching that date, as the parcels
and addresses have changed since then).
3. The parcels to the south are zoned B-1, Limited Business and RM-1, Low Density
Multiple Family Residential (Townhomes). The parcels to the east are zoned RM-1, Low
Density Multiple Family Residential (Baker College Townhomes). The parcel to the north
is zoned OSC, Open Space Conservation. The parcels to the west are zoned R-1, Single
Family Residential.
4. The developer of the townhomes at 860 Marquette Ave would like to purchase 816
Marquette Ave and expand his project with more townhome units. The parcel must be
rezoned to allow for townhomes.
5. A portion of the northern edge of the lot is on a steep hill and is considered unbuildable,
which would make it difficult to put in a new road to allow for single family residences.
6. A notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of this property and at the
time of this writing staff had not received any comments.
Looking north from the current townhomes. Looking east the corner of Leonard St/Getty St.
11
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
Zoning Ordinance Excerpt:
12
ARTICLE VII - RM-1 LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
PREAMBLE
The RM-1 Low Density Multiple Family Residential Districts are designed to provide sites for
multiple family dwelling structures, and related uses, which will generally serve as zones of
transition between the nonresidential districts and the lower density One Family and Two Family
Residential Districts, and MHP Mobile Home Park Districts.
SECTION 700: PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED
In an RM-1 Low Density Multiple Family Residential District no building or land shall be used
and no building shall be erected, structurally altered, or occupied except for one (1) or more of the
following specified uses, unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance:
1. All Principal Uses Permitted in the R One Family and RT Two Family Residential
Districts with the lot area, yard, and floor area requirements for one (1) and two (2) family
dwellings equal to at least the requirements of the immediately abutting residential district.
2. Multiple dwellings and row houses for any number of families.
3. Accredited fraternity and sorority houses when located not less than twenty (20) feet from
any other lot in any residential district.
4. Bed & Breakfast facilities, under the following conditions: [amended 7/03]
a. The owner or operator of the tourist home shall live full-time on the premises.
b. No structural additions or enlargements shall be made to accommodate the tourist
home use and no exterior alterations to the structure shall be made which will
change the residential appearance of the structure.
c. Breakfast may be served on the premises, only for guests of the facility, and no
other meals shall be provided to guests.
d. No long-term rental of rooms for more than fourteen (14) consecutive days shall
be permitted. No guest may stay for more than twenty-eight (28) nights in any
given year.
e. There shall be a maximum of five (5) guestrooms. No more than two (2) adults
are permitted to stay in any guestroom.
f. Signage shall conform to that which is permitted for home occupation businesses
only.
g. Rental of the tourist home for special gatherings such as wedding receptions and
parties shall be prohibited.
h. The property shall meet all local and state code requirements regarding bed and
breakfast facilities.
13
5. Rooming houses with a capacity of not more than three (3) roomers.
6. Churches and other facilities normally incidental hereto subject to the following
conditions:
a. The site shall be so located as to provide for ingress and egress from said site
directly onto a major or secondary thoroughfare.
b. The principal buildings on the site shall be set back from abutting properties zoned
for residential use not less than thirty (30) feet.
c. Buildings of greater than the maximum height allowed in Section 2100 may be
allowed provided front, side, and rear yards are increased above the minimum
requirements by one (1) foot for each foot of building that exceeds the maximum
height allowed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The 1997 Master Land Use Plan Sub Area Plan for this area describes this area as mostly single-
family homes, supplemented by pockets of industrial, commercial and multiple-family residential
units. The area is noted to have a great number of homes in need of improvement and
recommends the encouragement of rehabilitating current homes and the construction of new
housing units. Staff recommends the rezoning of this property to allow for the development of
new townhomes, as this parcel is located close to Muskegon Community College and Baker
College campuses and student housing.
DELIBERATION
Criteria-based questions typically asked during a rezoning include:
1. What, if any, identifiable conditions related to the petition have changed which justify
the petitioned change in zoning.
2. What are the precedents and the possible effects of precedent that might result from the
approval or denial of the petition?
3. What is the impact of the amendment on the ability of the city to provide adequate public
services and facilities and/or programs that might reasonably be required in the future if
the petition is approved?
4. Does the petitioned zoning change adversely affect the environmental conditions or value
of the surrounding property?
5. Does the petitioned zoning change generally comply with the adopted Future Land Use
Plan of the City?
6. Are there any significant negative environmental impacts which would reasonably occur
if the petitioned zoning change and resulting allowed structures were built such as:
14
a. Surface water drainage problems
b. Waste water disposal problems
c. Adverse effect on surface or subsurface water quality
d. The loss of valuable natural resources such as forest, wetland, historic sites, or
wildlife areas.
7. Is the proposed zoning change a “Spot Zone”?
a. Is the parcel small in size relative to its surroundings?
b. Would the zoning change allow uses that are inconsistent with those allowed in
the vicinity?
c. Would the zoning change confer a benefit to the property owner that is not
generally available to other properties in the area?
d. A spot zone is appropriate if it complies with the Master Plan.
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the request to rezone the property located at 816 Marquette Avenue from R-1, Single
Family Residential to RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family Residential, as described in the public
notice, be recommended for (approval/denial) to the City Commission.
15
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails