View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, November 15, 2012
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 October 11, 2012
III. Public Hearings
A. Hearing, Case 2012-18 (Tabled): Request for a Special Land Use Permit, per Section
601 of Article VI of the Zoning Ordinance, to have a private noncommercial recreation
area at 966 Washington Ave, by Brett Gilbert.
B. Hearing, Case 2012-22: Request to rezone the property at 137 E Laketon Ave from B-2,
Convenience and Comparison Business District to B-4, General Business District, by Jack
Kennedy.
IV. New Business
V. Old Business
VI. Other
A. Zoning Ordinance update discussion
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
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
October 11, 2012
Vice Chairman B. Larson called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Larson, L. Spataro, L. Mikesell, B. Mazade, J. Doyle, S. Gawron,
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Michalski; B. Smith; W. Parker, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Burns, Verplank Dock Co.; E. Garner, Muskegon Area First; B.
Moore, LSL Planning
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of September 13, 2012 be approved, was made
by B. Larson, supported by J. Doyle and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2012-20: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 1504 of the zoning ordinance to
allow manufacturing when associated with port activity as a use permitted in WI-PUD, Waterfront
Industrial Planned Unit Development Districts. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The zoning
ordinance currently does not allow for manufacturing in WI-PUD Districts. However, the
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan of 1999 states that this property is in the Port Node, which
should allow uses such as cargo warehousing, intermodal logistics, Foreign Trade Zones and
Industrial Uses. The preamble of the WI-PUD District section of the zoning ordinance states: “It
is further the intent of this district to require planned unit developments for all projects to ensure a
mix of port uses that enhances the industrial economic base of the city. The planned unit
development tool shall be applied to promote flexibility in development and to enhance
functional relationships among uses in the district. Allowing manufacturing would enhance the
industrial economic development base of the city and promote flexibility between the surrounding
districts. All developments in WI-PUD Districts are required to be Planned Unit Developments,
which require public hearings. Per City ordinance, neighboring properties within 300 feet of the
subject parcel will be notified in writing whenever there is a Planned Unit Development. The only
WI-PUD District currently in the city is located at 205 E. Western Ave. Staff has been in contact
with the owners and they are working with a manufacturing company that needs port access.
J. Doyle asked if manufacturing would be allowed only if it required shipping. M. Franzak stated
that was correct, and it could be either incoming or outgoing shipping. B. Larson asked for
clarification on the proposed language in the WI-PUD ordinance. C. Brubaker-Clarke explained
the intent at the time the language was included, as well as the negotiations over the proposed
location. L. Mikesell asked if there was any down side to making the proposed change. C.
Brubaker-Clarke stated that, given the zoning requirements and the nature of a WI-PUD zone, she
didn’t see any.
2
J. Burns of Verplank Dock Company suggested that the City allow “clean manufacturing” in the
WI-PUD zones, rather than the narrower definition of manufacturing requiring port facilities. He
also stated that their property was landlocked by Fisherman’s Landing, which he stated was a non-
conforming use. E. Garner of Muskegon Area First stated that he was in favor of the request, and
described his organization’s interest in the City’s port facilities. Consumers Energy, the largest
commercial user of the Muskegon port, also submitted a letter in support of the request.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
B. Mazade addressed the comments by J. Burns. He stated that there would have to be a definition
for “clean manufacturing” in the zoning ordinance before that term could be used. He also stated
that Fisherman’s Landing was not a non-conforming use; it was being used in accordance with the
parcel’s zoning. S. Gawron stated that progress in the expansion of activities could be made by
making small changes, and this was a good first step to opening up economic development on the
waterfront. J. Doyle stated that he liked the “clean manufacturing” concept, and wanted to keep
this area clean. He was in favor of including language that restricted the types of uses to clean or
pollution-free. L. Spataro was not sure that the zoning ordinance was the proper place to address
pollution, as there was nothing in the zoning ordinance to enforce it. He stated that the MDEQ
and OSHA had the regulatory authority over pollutants. J. Doyle stated that it was important to
keep the environment in mind, and the PUD process would allow the Planning Commission to
have a say in what was approved for the area.
A motion that the proposed amendment to Section 1504 of the City of Muskegon Zoning
Ordinance be recommended to the City Commission for approval, was made by L. Spataro,
supported by L. Mikesell and unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2012-21: Staff-initiated request to amend the preamble of the WI-PUD, Waterfront
Industrial Planned Unit Development Districts to modify dimensional requirements on new
principal buildings. M. Franzak presented the staff report. All developments in WI-PUD Districts
are required to be Planned Unit Developments. Flexibility is already allowed with dimensional
requirements in PUD’s, but staff feels it would be beneficial to state that in the preamble of the
WI-PUD District. A developer will often be granted flexibility in a PUD if it is imperative for the
project or if they can agree to other project modifications at the City’s request.
L. Mikesell asked about maximum lot coverage, and if all impervious surfaces with no green
space would be allowed. M. Franzak stated that the landscaping requirements would require green
space.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by L. Mikesell and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the proposed amendment to Section 1504 of the City of Muskegon Zoning
Ordinance be recommended to the City Commission for approval was made by L. Mikesell,
supported by L. Spataro and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
None
3
OLD BUSINESS
Form Based Codes – L. Spataro asked if any decisions had been made regarding Form Based
Codes. M. Franzak stated that many criteria in form based codes were already reflected in the
City’s B-3 zoning district. L. Mikesell requested that the Planning Commission review the B-3
zoning district at the next meeting.
OTHER
Stormwater ordinance discussion – Brenda Moore, with the Mona Lake Watershed Council, gave
a presentation to the board regarding stormwater management. She asked that City staff and
Planning Commission members be vigilant in the site plan review process when reviewing
stormwater management plans.
Transportation in I-2 General Industrial Districts At the end of the last Planning Commission
meeting, staff was asked to clarify which shipping methods are allowed in I-2, General Industrial
Districts. Staff has reviewed the zoning ordinance and has determined that there is not any
mention of allowed or restricted types of shipping methods in I-1, Light Industrial Districts or I-2,
General Industrial Districts. Staff has always interpreted this to mean that all modes of
transportation are allowed in these types of districts, since industries depend on a variety of
shipping methods such as truck, rail and ship. The zoning ordinance does not make any mention
of restricting an industrial zoned property with water frontage from utilizing port transportation
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
4
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
November 15, 2012
Hearing, Case 2012-18 (Tabled): Request for a Special Land Use Permit, per Section 601 of
Article VI of the Zoning Ordinance, to have a private noncommercial recreation area at 966
Washington Ave, by Brett Gilbert.
BACKGROUND
1. This case was tabled at the September 13, 2012 Planning Commission at the applicants
request.
2. The property at 966 Washington Ave is a vacant lot and is zoned RT, Two Family
Residential.
3. Brett Gilbert, the owner of Fatty Lumpkins Sandwich Shop across the street at 971
Washington Ave, has purchased 966 Washington Ave and would like to create a recreation
area with outdoor seating, a pergola, bike racks, art, landscaping and a parking area. The
site would be open to the general public and would also be a place where customers form
the sandwich shop can park and eat.
4. Private noncommercial recreation areas are allowed in RT Districts with a Special Land
Use Permit from the Planning Commission.
5. The sandwich shop currently does not have adequate parking. During busy hours, parking
can become a problem in the area, with many people parking illegally on the road and
using adjacent businesses for parking.
6. This project was recently awarded a $1,000 grant from a place-making competition.
7. The site plan should be more detailed showing a scale, the size and type of dumpster
screening, landscaping types and street labels. Staff recommends that if approved, a
condition should be placed that any site plan amendments should be reviewed by the
Zoning Administrator.
8. An industrial building is located to the north of this property. A house is located to the
west. The Watermark Condos are located to the east. And businesses are located to the
south.
9. A notice letter was sent to all properties within 300 feet of this property. Staff has received
three messages from the public, all in favor of the project.
5
Zoning Map
Aerial Map (Fatty Lumpkins-blue, 966 Washington-red, house has recently been demolished)
6
966 Washington Avelooking north from Washington Fatty Lumpkins Sandwich Shop (looking south
. from 966 Washington Ave)
Looking west from the Watermark Condos
966 and 970 Washington Ave in background Alley to the north of the property
No Parking signs down the street from Fatty Lumpkins No parking signs adjacent to Fatty Lumpkins
7
Ordinance Excerpt:
SECTION 601: SPECIAL LAND USES PERMITTED [amended 2/02] [amended 2/03]
The following uses, and their accessory buildings and accessory uses, shall be permitted under the
purview of Section 2332 after review and approval of the use (and a site plan, if required) by the
Planning Commission, after Public Hearing, subject to the applicable conditions and any other
reasonable conditions imposed by the Planning Commission.
1. Accredited fraternity or sorority houses, when located not less than twenty (20) feet from
any other lot in any R District.
2. Access driveway or walk connecting premises in a B or M District with one or more public
streets provided no part of such driveway shall be located at a distance greater than thirty
(30) feet from any boundary line of any said districts nor at a distance less than ten (10)
feet of the side lot line of an adjoining lot, which lot is in any residential district, and
provided that between such driveway and any such side lot line, but not within ten (10) feet
of the front lot line, there shall be maintained a solid wall or front fence, or a compact
evergreen hedge not less than five (5) feet high.
3. Tourist homes having not more than two (2) guest rooms, provided the premises front on a
street which is officially designated as a major thoroughfare or collector thoroughfare.
4. Schools and colleges for academic instruction, provided that no principal building shall be
located less than thirty (30) feet from any other lot in an R District.
5. Private noncommercial recreation areas, institutional or community recreation centers
provided that any principal building used therefor shall be located not less than thirty (30)
feet from any other lot in any R District, subject to provisions of Section 401 - 1 (a through
f).
DELIBERATION
I move that the request for a Special Land Use Permit, per Section 601 of Article VI of the Zoning
Ordinance, to have a private noncommercial recreation area at 966 Washington Ave, be
(approved/denied), as long as an amended site plan is approved by the Zoning Administrator.
8
Hearing, Case 2012-22: Request to rezone the property at 137 E Laketon Ave from B-2,
Convenience and Comparison Business District to B-4, General Business District, by Jack
Kennedy.
BACKGROUND
1. The applicant will be purchasing 109 and 137 E Laketon Ave. Both properties are zoned
B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business District. He would like to rezone the property
at 137 E Laketon Ave to B-4 General Business district so that it may be used for a funeral
home. There currently any plans for the building at 109 E Laketon Ave.
2. The property at 137 E Laketon Ave was last used as a physical therapy office. Before that,
it was used as a funeral home.
3. This case is only for the rezoning of the property to B-4, General Business District. If
approved, the property would be allowed to all of the uses in that district, which includes
funeral homes. However, because it will be a change of use from office to funeral home, it
will require a minor site plan review from staff. Parking may become an issue during the
review. Funeral homes require one parking space for every 25 sqft of usable floor area of
chapels and assembly rooms. The building measures roughly 2,900 sqft. The applicant
has stated that the two properties will share parking and will be able to have 32 parking
spaces.
4. The hospital is located to the north of the property. Residential is to the east and south.
Marsh field is located to the west of 1009 E Laketon Ave.
5. A notice letter was sent to all properties within 300 feet of this property. Staff has received
one message in opposition of the rezoning from Maria Avila, owner of 1847 Hoyt. She
would not like a funeral home that close to her house.
137 E Laketon Ave looking east
9
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
10
Ordinance Excerpt:
Please see enclosed excerpts on B-2 and B-4 districts.
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:
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 137 E Laketon Ave from B-2
Convenience and Comparison Business District to B-4, General Business District, as described in
the public notice, be recommended for (approval/denial) to the City Commission.
11
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails