View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
September 14, 2006
Chairman J. Aslakson called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Turnquist, S. Warmington, J. Aslakson, T. Harryman, B. Mazade,
B. Smith, L. Spataro
MEMBERS ABSENT: B. Larson, excused; T. Michalski, excused
STAFF PRESENT: L. Anguilm, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: J. DePoy Jr., Lakeshore Church, 1937 Lakeshore Dr; S. Andrews,
New Par, 4531 Pointview, West Bloomfield; T. Kitchen, 2055
Marquette; A. Tidswell, 950 W. Norton Ave; D. Thornley, 16012
Baird Dr.; W. Clark, 3835 Ellis; K. Lemke, 1137 3rd; D. Dunlap,
Westshore Consulting; M. Forton, Exit Your Way LLC, 975 W.
Broadway; B. White, 2478 Winchester; A. Kohley, 2484 Winchester;
T. Bernhardt, 2259 Hilltop
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 10, 2006 was made by T.
Harryman, supported by B. Turnquist and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2006-39: Request for an amendment to a Special Land Use Permit, per Section
1101 (#4) of Article XI of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a church in addition to a
theater, at 1937 Lakeshore Drive, by Great Lakes Marina. L. Anguilm presented the staff report.
Great Lakes Marina was granted a Special Land Use Permit in May 2004 for the operation of a
theater. The Harbor Theater continued to operate in the building until a month or two ago, at which
time the theater closed for lack of sustainable business. It came to the attention of City zoning staff
in July 2006 that a church was operating on the premises, at which time a letter was sent to the
owner advising them to either cease operation of the church or seek an amendment to the Special
Land Use Permit. Great Lakes Marina hopes to engage another party to again open the theater in
the future, so would like to retain that use, as well as the church which is currently operating on the
site. Staff would like the original conditions of the Special Land Use Permit to be retained as part
of the amendment. The motion from the May 2004 meeting, with conditions, was provided. The
church should operate on Sundays only, so as not to exacerbate the already difficult parking
situation in Lakeside. An irrevocable parking agreement is in place for 60 spaces in the restaurant
parking lot and another 151 spaces at 1920 Lakeshore Drive, Great Lakes Marina. The request
complies with the Master Land Use Plan Future Land Use Map. Chris Jensen, from Crackers
Planning Commission Minutes – 09/14/06 1
restaurant at 1965 Lakeshore Drive called staff to say she has no problems with the church
operating in the theater building. Carolyn Marcus, 1935 Harrison, called to say she would prefer no
church in the building, but if they operate on Sundays only, she was OK with it. Staff recommends
approval of the request with certain conditions, as listed in the staff report.
B. Mazade arrived at 4:05 p.m.
B. Turnquist asked if the church was renting the building. J. DePoy stated they were. B. Smith
asked if they were using the building before the theater closed. J. DePoy stated they were. T.
Harryman asked if Sundays would be the only time there would be people at the church. J. DePoy
stated that Sundays would be the only services, but there may be cleaning people there at other
times. They also have a youth group that might use it on Wednesdays, but that would only be a
handful of people. S. Warmington asked about the two locations that had been mentioned for
parking. L. Anguilm stated that one was Great Lakes Marina and one was an area restaurant. S.
Warmington asked that J. DePoy please make sure his parishioners were familiar with which areas
were the designated parking areas.
L. Spataro arrived at 4:10 p.m.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendment to the Special Land Use Permit, per section 1101 (#4) of Article XI of
the Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a church, in addition to a theater in a B-2 zoning
district at 1937 Lakeshore Drive, by Great Lakes Marina, be approved, based on compliance with
the City’s Master Land Use Plan and conditions set forth in Section 2332 of the City of Muskegon
Zoning Ordinance, with the conditions that 1) Church activities shall take place on Sundays only, 2)
the conditions of the original Special Use Permit will remain in effect, 3) the owner/applicant shall
permit the zoning administrator or other zoning staff in the premises at reasonable times to review
compliance with this permit, 4) the special land use permit shall become null and void within one
year of the public hearing if the use has not been established or there is a violation of conditions 1-
3, and 5) the amended Special Land Use Permit document shall be recorded with the register of
deeds prior to occupying the building, was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Smith and
unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-40: Request for a Special Land Use Permit, per Section 2321 of Article XXIII
(General Provisions) of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow the location of a wireless communication
support facility at 2301 S. Harvey Street, by Sheri Andrews, on behalf of New Par, d/b/a Verizon
Wireless. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The property which is the subject of this request is
owned by the City and was recently designated as one of the City’s four established overlay districts
for wireless communication support facilities. This property replaced the Department of Public
Works site at 1350 E. Keating. Wireless communication support facilities are permitted as special
land uses in overlay zones per Section 2321 of Article XXIII. Verizon wishes to construct a 180 ft.
monopole and an associated unmanned equipment shelter for wireless communication. Verizon has
entered into a lease agreement with the City of Muskegon for use of the property for the support
facility. The site plan needs the following revisions: a) No barbed wire is allowed on fences in the
City. Remove the indicated barbed wire from the fence description; b) Indicate the dimensions,
including height of the equipment shelter on the site plan; and c) The zoning of the property is
incorrectly labeled as I-2, General Industrial. The actual zoning is MC, Medical Care District. The
Planning Commission Minutes – 09/14/06 2
Fire Marshall has the following conditions of approval: a) A key box shall be installed on the
equipment shelter for Fire Department access, and b) A fire extinguisher shall be installed in the
equipment shelter. The DPW had no issues with this site plan. The Engineering Department had no
comments regarding this site plan. Section 2321 of the ordinance requires that the following
information be provided to the Planning Department before approval can be given: a) Information
must be provided showing the geographic search area within which the proposed WCSF must be
located and shall also provide locations of all structures of similar height within and adjacent to the
search area, and b) Proof of responsibilities in the case of abandonment. Staff has received no
comments regarding this request. The 1997 Master Plan Future Land Use Map identified this
property as “Industrial”. The use proposed could be considered industrial in nature. Based on
compliance with the 1997 Master Plan, staff recommends approval of the request, subject to the
conditions offered in the staff report.
B. Turnquist asked if there was already a tower in the area. L. Anguilm stated that there was, but
the construction of it was such that the applicant could not use it.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by S. Warmington and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the special land use permit and associated site plan, per section 2321 of Article XXIII
of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow the location of a wireless communication support facility in an
MC, Medical Care zoning district at 2301 S. Harvey Street, by Sheri Andrews, on behalf of New
Par, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, be approved based on compliance with the City’s Master Land Use
Plan and conditions set forth in Section 2332 of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance with the
following conditions: 1) All conditions for wireless communication support facilities listed under
Section 2321 shall be met, 2) The site plan revisions as listed in #5 of the staff report to be
submitted and approved by the Planning Department, 3) The Fire Department conditions listed in #6
of the staff report are to be met. The lock box needs to be indicated on the revised site plan, 4) The
owner/applicant shall permit the zoning administrator or other zoning staff in the premises at
reasonable times to review compliance with this permit, 5) The special land use permit shall
become null and void within one year of the public hearing if the use has not been established or
there is a violation of conditions 1 - 4 listed above, and 6) The special land use permit document
shall be recorded with the register of deeds prior to constructing the wireless communication
support facility, was made by L. Spataro, supported by S. Warmington and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-41: Request to rezone the property at 1745 Madison Street from I-1, Light
Industrial District, to R-1, One Family Residential District, by Ross Alsobrooks. L. Anguilm
presented the staff report. The property is currently owned by Federal National Mortgage
Associates, and Mr. Alsobrooks is in the process of purchasing it. Presently the nonconforming
zoning is causing him some issues with his financing. Although the property is zoned I-1, Light
Industrial, the property has a home and garage located on it and is on the edge of a residential
neighborhood. Both the home and garage are in very good shape, and industrial uses would not be
logical. The properties to the south and west, are zoned I-1. The zoning to the east and north are
zoned R-1. There are vacant industrial buildings located to the south and west of the subject
property that formerly housed the Spartan Oil Company. The 1997 Master Plan’s Future Land Use
Map shows this property as residential. The 1997 Master Land Use Plan, in reference to this sub-
area states “Restrict further expansion of industrial development”. Staff has received no comments
regarding this request. Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the subject properties
Planning Commission Minutes – 09/14/06 3
from I-1 to R-1 because the request conforms to the goals and recommendation of the City’s 1997
Master Plan.
S. Warmington asked if the applicant’s intent was to tear down the building. Realtor T. Kitchen
spoke on behalf of the applicant, who was unable to attend the meeting. She stated that he planned
to occupy the house as his primary residence. He was having problems with the bank and insurance
company because of the industrial zoning.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Turnquist, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to rezone the property located at 1745 Madison Street from I-1, Light
Industrial district to R-1, One Family Residential district, as described in the public notice, be
recommended for approval to the City Commission pursuant to the City of Muskegon Zoning
Ordinance, and the determination of compliance with the intent of the City Master Land Use and
zoning district intent, was made by B. Turnquist, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously
approved. J. Aslakson reminded T. Kitchen that the request would also have to be approved by the
City Commission at their next meeting.
Hearing; Case 2006-42: Request to rezone the property at 699 Pulaski Avenue from I-1, Light
Industrial District, to B-4, General Business District, by Anthony Tidswell, Instrio, LLC. L.
Anguilm presented the staff report. This property was recently occupied by Allquest, a business
that did insurance restoration work. Several other commercial uses were in the building in previous
years. The building has been empty for several years, and lost its legal nonconforming status. The
current owner wishes to operate a spray-on truck bed liner business, which requires a B-4 zoning,
rather than I-1. The property to the south and west is B-4, while the zoning to the north is I-1. To
the east is the City limit at Seaway Drive. The 1997 Master Plan’s Future Land Use Map indicates
that this property should be commercial. The 1997 Mast Land Use Plan, in reference to this sub-
area states: “Complete the full commercial development of that area lying between Henry Street,
Laketon Avenue, Seaway Drive, and Sherman Boulevard”. Staff has received no comments
regarding this request. Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the subject properties
from I-1 to B-4 because the request conforms to the goals and recommendation of the City’s 1997
Master Plan.
B. Turnquist asked if there would be any storage tanks for materials, and if the work would be done
inside or outside. A. Tidswell stated that it was his understanding that work would be done inside,
but he was the current building owner, not the new owner, so he wasn’t sure.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Turnquist, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to rezone the property located at 699 Pulaski Avenue from I-1, Light
Industrial district to B-4, General Business district, as described in the public notice, be
recommended for approval to the City Commission pursuant to the City of Muskegon Zoning
Ordinance, and the determination of compliance with the intent of the City Master Land Use and
zoning district intent, was made by S. Warmington, supported by T. Harryman and unanimously
approved.
Planning Commission Minutes – 09/14/06 4
Hearing; Case 2006-43: Request to rezone the property at 236 Monroe Avenue from R-1, One
Family Residential District to B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business District, by Dennis
Thornley. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The property in question is an unbuildable lot
measuring 33 feet wide by 132 feet deep. The house previously located on this property was torn
down a few years ago. Since then the property has been used as a cut-through from Monroe
Avenue to the alley. DAT Holding has purchased this property with plans to develop it into a
parking lot to accommodate the residential units on the second floor of 1133 Third Street. At the
present time, the residents of 1133 Third Street have no parking available to them except on
neighboring property or on the street. The property owner has future plans for the main floor of the
building, which includes commercial uses. Since the building is located in the Downtown Overlay
Parking Zone, parking for these uses will need parking agreements within 1,000 feet of the
property. The properties to the south and west are zoned R-1, and the properties to the north and
east are zoned B-2. This area is identified in the 1997 Master Land Use Plan/Downtown
Redevelopment Plan as “Neighborhood Retail”. Residential uses are allowed as part of a building
in B-2 zones. Staff has received no comments regarding this request. Staff recommends approval
of the rezoning request.
J. Aslakson asked if the property contained enough parking. L. Anguilm stated that she would
guess that it would not if there were a commercial use included, but it was sufficient for residential.
B. Mazade asked if the owner would be able to construct a commercial building there at some point,
if the rezoning was approved. L. Anguilm stated that the lot would be too small, and it was not
contiguous with his other property so it could not be combined. B. Mazade asked if the zoning
could be left as it was, with parking accommodated through a special use permit. L. Anguilm stated
that she could check into it. B. Turnquist asked if there would be access from Monroe to Third St.,
and if there would be access off Monroe. L. Anguilm stated that screening would be required, and
there would be access off Monroe. L. Spataro asked if access to the lot could be off the alley, to
remove the traffic from the residential area. L. Anguilm stated that it was possible.
D. Thornley provided information on his building and tenants. In the winter, the only parking they
had was the old Betten lot across the street. His intent was to have the parking accessed through the
alley. B. Turnquist asked what kind of improvements he intended to make. D. Thornley stated that
he hoped to pave and fence it. J. Aslakson asked what the City required. L. Anguilm stated that the
City would require that it be paved. A minor site plan review would be needed. W. Clark owned
240 Monroe, and asked how close the fence could be to the property line. L. Anguilm stated that it
could be on the property line. W. Clark asked if his tenants would still be able to park in the lot. D.
Thornley stated that he had no problem with that, until the commercial use is established. He
expected that it would be about a year before that happened. K. Lemke owned a neighboring
business and was in favor of the request. L. Spataro asked if this lot was included in the downtown
parking overlay district. L. Anguilm didn’t think it was. The district would need to be expanded,
which would require a separate hearing.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, supported by T. Harryman and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to rezone the property located at 236 Monroe Avenue from R-1, One
Family Residential district, to B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business district as described in
the public notice, be recommended for approval to the City Commission pursuant to the City of
Muskegon Zoning Ordinance, and the determination of compliance with the intent of the City
Master Land Use and zoning district intent, was made by T. Harryman, supported by S.
Planning Commission Minutes – 09/14/06 5
Warmington and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-44: Request for final Planned Unit Development approval for a mixed use
commercial and residential development for the southerly portion of 1266 W. Sherman Boulevard,
the Northerly portion of 1228 W. Sherman, a portion of 1254 W. Sherman, and a portion of 2495
Barclay Street, by Hazel Churchley, Exit Your Way, LLC. J. Aslakson pointed out the two
communications from T. Berdinski, Senior Environmental Quality Analyst from the DEQ, and Dr.
Richard Rediske of Grand Valley’s Annis Water Resources Institute (AWRI). Both had concerns
with this project and its effect on Ruddiman Creek. The DEQ had requested an extension of the
public comment period to give them time to do an assessment of the property. Board members
discussed whether to table the case. L. Spataro suggested that instead of tabling it, any
recommendation made could be contingent on DEQ review. This would keep the applicants from
having to return at a later time. B. Mazade agreed that the public hearing should be held, since it
had already been noticed. He was unsure what the DEQ’s role was in this case. B. Smith asked if
the DEQ was the only concern, or if the AWRI people had requested any action. L. Anguilm stated
that AWRI hadn’t requested a delay, and some of the issues they had were addressed in a revised
site plan. She stated that the DEQ hadn’t been aware of the project until very recently, and they
would like to look at the site. There were concerns with it being a former barrel dump. The
developers had done some due diligence already, and she suggested that the board hear from them.
L. Anguilm presented the staff report. This applicant received approval of the Preliminary PUD for
this property at the August Planning Commission meeting. The portion of the property along
Barclay Street is zoned B-4, General Business. The remainder of the site is zoned R-1, One Family
Residential. The site is approximately 7 acres of property that is proposed to be developed at 20
residential units constructed as duplexes and one single unit model home. The homes will have
basements, and some along the slope to Ruddiman Creek will have walk-out basements. Properties
to the north and west are zoned R-1, and properties to the east are zoned RT, Two Family
Residential, and B-4. The properties to the south are also zoned B-4. The site is rather wooded,
with a clearing toward the rear along the creek. There is presently an access road off of Barclay
Street that was used during the recent clean-up of Ruddiman Creek. The following items need to be
addressed on the site plan: a) A landscape plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department. No trees are to be removed without Zoning Administrator approval. Existing trees are
to be marked on the site plan as either being retained or removed; b) The height dimensions of the
units needs to be provided; c) If outdoor lighting is to be installed, it must be indicated on the site
plan. All outdoor lighting must be 100% cut-off style; d) Soil erosion and sedimentation control
measures must be shown on the site plan; e) It is uncertain where the north property line is. If it is
Ruddiman Creek, so indicate and provide property dimension; f) The north/south parcel dimensions
need to be provided; g) Indicate the zoning of the property to the west of the site; h) Realign unit #8
so as to have at least a 30 ft. rear setback; and i) A landscape buffer shall be provided between the
development and the residential properties to the west. It shall consist of closely planted evergreens
or fencing approved by the Planning Department as part of the landscape plan. The Fire
Department has the following conditions as part of their approval: a) Project shall comply with
International Fired Code 2003 edition, Chapter 5 for fire service features and appendix D; b) access
road shall be a minimum 26 ft. in width, IFC D 103.1; c) cul-de-sac shall be 96 feet in diameter.
IFC D 103.1; d) access road shall be capable of supporting 79,000 lb. fire apparatus load. D 102.1;
and e) fire flow and hydrant distribution shall comply with IFC Appendix C and table B 105.1.
DPW approved the site plan, but had the following comment: Provide water and sewer service
detail plans. Contact Kelly DeFrench at 724-4100 with questions. Engineering had no comments
Planning Commission Minutes – 09/14/06 6
regarding this site plan. Bob White, 2470 Woodcreek, had concerns with Unit 10 and it’s proximity
to his property, how the units are being built along the top of the bank of Ruddiman Creek, and
proper screening of the development from adjacent residential properties.
L. Anguilm stated that most of the items in #6 of the staff report had now been addressed on a
revised site plan. The issue of road width still needed to be cleared up with the fire marshal.
Although she had initially recommended approval of the final PUD, she was now hesitant due to the
DEQ concerns. D. Dunlap of Westshore Consulting stated that he had been helping prepare the site
plan and PUD. He had contacted the DEQ project manager regarding remediation of this site. They
had done a clean-up there, but were still concerned that there may be underlying problems, as this
property had been the site of much illegal dumping. M. Forton of Exit Your Way LLC stated that
they had had a Phase I environmental assessment done. Their attorney had reviewed it and advised
them to get a baseline assessment done, and that is what they had started to do. They were very
concerned with not disturbing the creek, hillside, or other natural features of the property. They
would like to do a Phase II assessment but were concerned about the costs involved. She stated that
they may need the City’s help to get State funding for that. They would like to keep prices down in
order to keep the units affordable, but they also wanted to have a safe development. She preferred
that the request be contingent upon DEQ approval rather than being tabled. L. Spataro stated that if
the project went forward, there would be some impact on the creek and he wanted to make sure
there were no adverse effects. He was concerned with phosphorous runoff and asked what the plans
were for the area nearest the creek, and what would be done to minimize the impact of the
development on the creek. M. Forton stated that there would not be a lot of manicured lawn space.
Judging from the response so far, she felt that the development would appeal to retirees, and that
they would not want to have a lot of yard maintenance. There were no plans to landscape down to
the creek. They may want to put in steps down to the creek in the future, but at this point they
would not develop any of the hillside. T. Harryman stated that it didn’t appear by the drawings that
there would be a connection between the bike path and the sidewalk. D. Dunlap stated that the
pavement widens there, and the bike path would be separated from the traffic lanes by a white line
on the pavement. T. Harryman was concerned about people having to cross the driveways and
riding or walking in the street. M. Forton stated that they could put striping across the driveways to
designate the pedestrian/bicycle area. B. Mazade asked about curbing and drainage, and if they had
considered an elevated walkway. That would provide additional drainage and separate pedestrians
from the traffic. D. Dunlap stated that they were using the path to accomplish the road width
required by the fire department. T. Harryman was concerned with the one driveway being the only
means of ingress and egress. B. Mazade pointed out that the plans called for a four-foot sidewalk,
but the City standard was five feet. J. Aslakson asked about the basements and what would be done
with the soil. M. Forton stated that they could use the soil for berms or remove it from the site. J.
Aslakson asked about wetland issues. L. Anguilm stated that it appeared that the site plan
conformed to the requirements for wetlands. J. Aslakson asked how the area in front of the
buildings would be landscaped. L. Anguilm stated that she had recently received a landscape plan
but hadn’t had time to review it yet. J. Aslakson stated that the front yards appeared to be very
large. D. Dunlap stated that there would be “green space areas” where mature trees were retained,
and that would possibly include a rain garden. The common areas would be maintained by the
condo association. J. Aslakson stated that his concern was the northern units along the creek bank.
He asked if there was any reason that those units couldn’t be moved back, if necessary. M. Forton
stated that she had no problem adjusting the location if it were necessary. She had a deadline to get
the site plan done, but would be willing to make some adjustments. B. Mazade stated that he was in
favor of the project, but also needed to be concerned about what happened along the creek.
Planning Commission Minutes – 09/14/06 7
B. White stated that he was told that nothing would be built on the bank, but the site plan now
showed three units on the ravine edge. He was also concerned with the excavation required for the
basements, and what it might uncover on the site. He was concerned about the wetland areas, and
the close proximity of the development to his property. He asked if there would be on-street
parking allowed. M. Forton stated that there would not, as each unit would have a 2-stall garage
and space in the driveway. B. White asked if any soil analysis had been done by the DEQ, as he
had heard that the creek slope had not been remediated. M. Forton stated that they would do what
was best for the environment, and if a walkout basement was not possible they could put in daylight
windows. J. Aslakson stated that the builders could attend to the building details. A. Kohley had
concerns about walkout basements on such a steep bank, and the close proximity to his residence.
He would like to see an adequate buffer zone between the properties so he doesn’t get car headlights
shining in his windows. T. Bernhardt was involved with the Ruddiman Creek Task Force and was
very familiar with this property. She stated that they were still struggling with site restoration and
felt that it was not stable enough to build on, as the ground cover was not yet retaining soil. She
stated that there also was still a bacterial issue with Ruddiman Creek. S. Warmington stated that he
understood what she was saying, but it sounded like the developers were being environmentally
responsible, and if the site clean-up costs become prohibitive, they may have second thoughts about
proceeding. Also, the site plan was done before the DEQ concerns were brought up, so there were
no issues with the basements and walk-outs until recently. He believed that it would be up to the
DEQ to make an assessment regarding the feasibility of the basements. T. Bernhardt stated that she
would rather see the site set aside for wildlife and public use. There were many sites in the City that
were suitable for condos, but very few for wildlife. She was concerned about the flood plain, the
stability of the slope, and what might be buried on the site. She stated that she would be willing to
work with the City and the developer to ensure an environmentally healthy project. B. White stated
that when wind blows out of the south, there is a large amount of traffic noise from adjacent streets.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by S. Warmington and
unanimously approved.
J. Aslakson asked if the developers were given a copy of the letter from R. Rediske regarding the e.
coli concerns. L. Anguilm stated that they were. L. Spataro stated that the City had many parks and
areas of public domain, and this was more of an old dump site than a pristine wildlife habitat. He
supported the project, contingent on DEQ review and conditions.
A motion that the final PUD for a mixed-use residential and commercial development on the
southerly portion of 1266 W. Sherman Boulevard, the northerly portion of 1228 W. Sherman
Boulevard, and a portion of 1254 W. Sherman Boulevard along with a portion of 2495 Barclay
Street be recommended for approval to the City Commission pursuant to the determination of
compliance with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and City Master Land Use Plan, subject to
review and approval of the DEQ, and with the condition that the developers submit an approved
landscape plan, was made by S. Warmington, supported by L. Spataro and approved, with J.
Aslakson voting nay. J. Aslakson stated that he was uncomfortable voting for the plan as currently
laid out, with only those two conditions.
OLD BUSINESS
Case 2006-28: Request for Site Plan Review for parking lot expansion and reconfiguration at the
Northeast corner of Laketon Avenue and Hoyt Street, by Hackley Hospital – Remains tabled.
Planning Commission Minutes – 09/14/06 8
OTHER
Landscaping issues S. Warmington brought up a landscaping issue, where trees were now blocking
a business sign. Board members and staff discussed landscaping requirements regarding trees. J.
Aslakson suggested that L. Anguilm take a look at the ordinance to make sure there’s enough
flexibility, in light of the comments that were made. S. Warmington stated that it was important to
relay landscaping requirements to architects and developers, and to remind them about types of
trees and the possibility that they could eventually block signage.
B. Smith left at 6:00 p.m.
Main Street expansion L. Spataro stated that the Main Street boundaries were being expanded
from Spring St. to Eighth St. This could provide design assistance and façade grants to businesses
in this area.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
dml
9/14/06
Planning Commission Minutes – 09/14/06 9
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails