View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
April 15, 2010
Vice Chairman B. Turnquist called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: L. Spataro, B. Larson, W. Parker, T. Harryman, B. Turnquist
MEMBERS ABSENT: Excused: S. Warmington, B. Mazade, T. Michalski, B. Smith
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, M. Cameron, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: E. Pierce, EMC Group, M. Pierce, EMC Group, G. Scott, Pioneer
Resources
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of March 11, 2010 be approved, was made by
L. Spataro, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
B. Turnquist asked if the final motion on the first case of the March meeting should be clarified
to show that the original motion was approved. The March minutes were revised to show that
the original motion was included in the unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2010-10: Request to rezone the property located at 1144 Third St. from B-2,
Convenience and Comparison Business District to B-4, General Business District, by Edward
Pierce, EMC Group. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The parcel contains three separate
buildings, all of which are known as 1144 3rd Street. The section of Monroe Street which
separates two of the buildings has been vacated. The property was previously zoned B-4, but
was rezoned to the current B-2 district in 2002. The applicant is requesting to rezone the
property back to B-4 so they may open a used car lot. They are currently working with an
engineer to develop a site plan for a special use permit for a car dealership, should the rezoning
be granted. Betten Automotive used this property as a car dealership until 2007. After it was
rezoned in 2002, they continued to operate as a car dealership under grandfathered rights. The
EMC Group has grandfathered rights to operate as a heavy car repair and body shop because
they established the uses within two years after Betten ceased these operations, which is a
requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. However, cars have not been sold on the property in over
two years so that use has lost its grandfathered rights. Two of the three buildings on the parcel
are typical of those used for heavy automotive repair, B-4 type businesses. Any B-2 type
business wishing to utilize these two buildings would be required to make major renovations to
the buildings to bring them up to code. Staff received one comment regarding this request from
Planning Commissioner B. Smith, who was not able to attend the meeting due to a scheduling
conflict. She was opposed to the rezoning. Staff would have to recommend denial of the request
to rezone the subject property from B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business district to B-4,
Planning Commission Minutes – 4/15/10 1
General Business district, because the request does not conform to the goals and
recommendation of the City’s 1997 Master Plan. The 1997 Master Plan recommends to
“implement, through zoning, buffer requirements to mitigate compatibility impacts between
residential and non-residential uses.” Also, the preamble to the B-4, General Business district
states that placement of these districts along presently developed major traffic arteries prevents
conflict of traffic and pedestrian movement since the General Business District is characterized
by a minimum of pedestrian flow.
T. Harryman asked if a car lot would require a special use permit, if the property was rezoned to
a B-4 district. M. Franzak stated that it would. L. Spataro suggested the possibility of allowing
car sales in other districts than just B-4. He asked about the uses in the different buildings on the
property. M. Franzak provided background information on that and reports by the City
Inspection Department. L. Spataro stated that he was not opposed to having car sales at this
location, but he was not in favor of a B-4 zoning there due to the physical requirements of that
district, such as the setbacks, and the proximity to residential neighborhoods. L. Spataro asked if
rezoning this area would be considered a “spot zone”. M. Franzak stated that the area was large
enough that it would not be. E. Pierce was one of the owners of the property. He stated that
there are 3 buildings on the property and they would like to make better use of the building that
formerly housed the car sales. M. Pierce was one of the managing partners of EMC. He stated
that the building that used to house the car sales is a large and unique building which would be
difficult and expensive to remodel and bring up to code for other uses. He felt that a car lot
would be a good fit for the building and the area.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by T. Harryman, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved.
T. Harryman stated that the property had historically been used for car sales, but he was
concerned with a B-4 zoning in this area. He stated that the property was not currently seeing its
best use, as designed. He stated that he would like to come up with a solution to allow car sales
on the property. L. Spataro concurred. He stated that he wasn’t opposed to car sales either, but
he preferred a change to the B-3 zoning district requirements to allow car sales with a special use
permit, or possibly a PUD overlay for this area. B. Larson suggested that the board postpone a
decision until staff could look into those other possibilities.
A motion that the request to rezone the property located at 1144 3rd St from B-2, Convenience
and Comparison Business District to B-4, General Business District, as described in the public
notice, be tabled until the next meeting to allow staff to look into the possibilities mentioned
above, was made by B. Larson, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously approved.
Board members advised the applicant that they were not opposed to the car lot, but wanted to
explore other alternatives to a B-4 rezoning. L. Spataro requested that staff look into two
options: 1) an overlay district, and 2) amending B-3 zoning to allow car lots with a special use
permit.
Hearing; Case 2010-11: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 700, #9 of Article VII to allow
assisted living facilities as a principal use permitted in RM-1, Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential Districts. M. Franzak presented the staff report. “Assisted living facilities” are
defined in the Zoning Ordinance under Article II – Definitions. Although this type of use is
defined in the zoning ordinance, it is currently not allowed in any of the zoning districts. Staff is
proposing to allow assisted living facilities as a principal use permitted in RM-1, Low Density
Planning Commission Minutes – 4/15/10 2
Multiple-Family Residential districts. Proposed new language was provided in the staff report.
It would allow no more than six residents per building and require that there be no similar
facilities within 1500 feet.
M. Franzak stated that Planning staff was working with someone interested in this use, but there
is no zoning district where it is permitted. B. Turnquist asked what type of facility would be
allowed. M. Franzak gave an example of condominium units where residents were mostly
capable of living on their own, but required specialized medical care. G. Scott of Pioneer
Resources stated that they were considering a facility four single-room occupancy units. The
residents would not require direct supervision, just some physical assistance.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by T. Harryman, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendment to Section 700, #9 of Article VII of the City of Muskegon Zoning
Ordinance, be recommended to the City Commission for approval, was made by L. Spataro,
supported by T. Harryman and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2010-12: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2313 of Article XXIII to add
provisions for Community Gardens. M. Franzak stated that staff wished to table this request
until the next meeting. L. Spataro suggested that item #5 on the list in the staff report should say
“may” instead of “shall”.
A motion to table the request was made by T. Harryman, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS:
None
OLD BUSINESS
Banners – This issue was discussed at the last meeting and staff was asked to come up with
proposed regulations. M. Cameron distributed a list of current and proposed language for the
banner ordinance. Staff and board members discussed the banner ordinance and proposed
changes. T. Harryman suggested that the Frauenthal Theater be added to the sporting venue
section. M. Franzak stated that he would bring the proposed ordinance revisions to the next
Planning Commission meeting for a public hearing.
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.
dml
Planning Commission Minutes – 4/15/10 3
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails