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was originally included as well, but was later withdrawn at the applicant’s request, as it would be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