View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
December 14, 2006
Chairman J. Aslakson called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Turnquist, B. Mazade, L. Spataro, B. Larson, J. Aslakson,
S. Warmington
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Michalski, excused; T. Harryman, excused; B. Smith
STAFF PRESENT: L. Anguilm, C. Brubaker-Clarke, J. Fitzpatrick, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: R. Ghezzi, MHS students
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of November 16, 2006 be approved was made by
B. Turnquist, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2006-56: Staff-initiated request to dissolve the Special Land Use Permit previously
granted to Timothy Sparks for a bait and tackle shop at 2204 McCracken Street. L. Anguilm
presented the staff report. A Special Land Use Permit was granted to Timothy Sparks in July 2005
for a bait and tackle shop. The business closed earlier this year and Mr. Sparks is in the process of
selling the building. The new owner would like to convert the building to residential (see following
case). A special land use permit is granted to the owner/applicant for the specific property and runs
with the land. Mr. Sparks has granted staff permission to request that the special land use permit be
dissolved. Staff is asking Planning Commission to dissolve the special land use permit for the
property so that it will be free of encumbrances and the new owner can move forward with future
plans. Staff recommends approval of the request.
L. Spataro stated that it looked like a lot of work had been done on the property already, and asked
if that was due to an enforcement action. L. Anguilm stated that it was not.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Turnquist, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the special land use permit previously granted to Timothy Sparks for 2204
McCracken Street be dissolved, based on the fact that the property has been sold and no longer
meets of the requirements for the special land use permit to operate a bait and tackle shop, was
made by B. Turnquist, supported by B. Mazade and unanimously approved
Planning Commission Minutes – 12/14/06 1
Hearing; Case 2006-57: Request for a Special Land Use Permit, per section 2203 of Article XXII
of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow an expansion not exceeding 30% of a nonconforming structure at
2204 McCracken Street, by Richard Ghezzi. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The applicant
is in the process of purchasing this property. It currently houses a one-story, former commercial
property that the applicant wishes to convert to a single-family residence. He is requesting a special
land use permit to expand the building up to 30%. The current structure is nonconforming since it
doesn’t meet the 30 foot rear site back requirement. The zoning ordinance allows expansion of a
nonconforming structure up to 30 percent upon approval of the Planning Commission. The side
setback is 8 feet 2 inches, and does meet the minimum 8 foot side setback that would be required
for a second story to be added to the structure. The square footage of the existing building is
approximately 1,147 square feet, which would allow additional space of up to 344 square feet. The
applicant wishes to add a second story to the structure, which would add 325 square feet of living
space. Plans for the first floor aren’t complete at this time. Staff calculated the usable floor area
from what exists now on the first floor. The proposed attic shown on the site plan may be used only
as storage space, and can’t be used for additional living space. The construction of this space
wouldn’t allow for it, due to slope and height of the roof, and its use would constitute additional
space beyond the 30% allowed. The site plan provided by the applicant shows a driveway off of
McCracken Street that would accommodate two vehicles, which is required by the zoning
ordinance. The portion of concrete shown on the site plan that previously constituted a circle drive
has been removed (see photos on next page) and may not be put back in. A revised site plan would
need to be submitted to the Planning Department without that portion of concrete. Mike Bentley,
2033 Harrison called staff to say he was in favor of the request. Ellen Davis, 2057 Harrison called
staff to say she was in favor of the request, as long as it would be used as a single-family residence.
Staff recommends approval of the request since the conversion to residential would bring the
property into compliance with the zoning and the second floor addition would be compatible with
other structures in the neighborhood.
L. Anguilm stated that item #8 in the staff report regarding a deck no longer applied, as the
applicant was not going to build a deck now. B. Turnquist asked if the lot behind this property on
Miner was vacant. R. Ghezzi stated that it was. L. Spataro asked if, in the future, someone could
finish the garage area and use it as living space. L. Anguilm stated that she used the current garage
area when calculating living space, since the inside of the building is all open right now.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request for an expansion not to exceed 30% of a nonconforming structure at 2240
McCracken Street, by Richard Ghezzi be approved, based on compliance with the City of
Muskegon Zoning Ordinance, with the condition that a revised site plan be submitted and approved
by the Planning Department which shows the concrete removed from the front yard of the structure
and only the approved paved driveway for two vehicles remaining, was made by B. Larson,
supported by L. Spataro and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2006-58: Staff-initiated request to amend the Section 2501, (Creation and
Membership, paragraph 1) of Article XXV, Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding the appointment of
successor ZBA members. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. This amendment is required by
the recently enacted Michigan Zoning Enabling Act of 2006. It requires that language shall be
included in the zoning ordinance to address appointments of new ZBA members. New language
(Deletions are crossed out and additions are in bold): SECTION 2501: CREATION AND
Planning Commission Minutes – 12/14/06 2
MEMBERSHIP [amended 9/05] There is hereby established a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA),
which shall perform its duties and exercise its powers as provided in Section 5 of Act 207 of the
Public Acts of 1921, as amended, and in such a way that the objectives of this Ordinance shall be
observed, public safety secured, and substantial justice done. The ZBA shall consist of seven (7)
members appointed by the City Commission, and shall include one (1) member of the City
Commission and one (1) member of the Planning Commission. Every member shall be a legal
resident of the City. The term of the representative of the City Planning Commission and the term
of the City Commission representative shall expire with that of his/her Planning Commission or
City Commission office. The terms of all members except the representative of the City Planning
Commission and the City Commission shall be for periods of three (3) years each. A successor
member of the ZBA must be appointed not more than one month after the term of the
preceding member has expired. The ZBA shall annually elect its own Chairman and Vice-
Chairman.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by B. Mazade and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendment to Section 2501, (Creation and Membership, paragraph #1), of Article
XXV, (Zoning Board of Appeals), of the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance, be recommended to
the City Commission for approval, was made by B. Mazade, supported by L. Spataro and
unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
Lakeside Plan C. Brubaker-Clarke and J. Fitzpatrick were in attendance to present the Lakeside
Plan and answer any questions. C. Brubaker-Clarke stated that she would like to obtain Planning
Commission support of the plan. Once the plan was in place, it would be possible to apply for
grants to do the work. J. Fitzpatrick stated that parts of the narrative section were taken from the
City’s Master Plan and Waterfront Redevelopment Plan, and the Goals section was the result of
meetings with the Lakeside Business Association. B. Larson stated that he would be opposed to
disrupting the newly paved Lakeshore Drive. Other board members agreed that the traffic islands
would be too disruptive, and that a left turn lane would be needed. B. Mazade stated that the
maintenance issues outlined in B. Kuhn’s letter should be taken into consideration. L. Spataro
stated that it was a good beginning, but there needed to be a balance between the innovative designs
and the reality of limited resources.
S. Warmington arrived at 4:25 p.m.
C. Brubaker-Clarke stated that they needed the design portion in order to submit grants, but they
would work with other City departments to determine what was feasible. J. Aslakson asked if the
traffic plans would come back to this board for approval. C. Brubaker-Clarke asked that if the
board members had any problems with the plan, to please voice those concerns now. She didn’t
think the plan would come back before the Planning Commission, but it would have to be approved
by the City Commission. J. Aslakson stated that he was opposed to the traffic islands, and would
like to see a left turn lane. J. Fitzpatrick stated that an arch would be an alternative that would not
block traffic. There was discussion among staff and board members regarding the designated
Planning Commission Minutes – 12/14/06 3
beginning and end of the “business district”. J. Fitzpatrick stated that the Sidock Group had
recommended a 4-block area between Moon and Estes as the core pedestrian area. B. Larson asked
about parking. L. Spataro asked to hear from two Lakeside business owners who were present. R.
Ghezzi stated that he liked the idea of an arch to designate the business area, but thought the
commercial area should be between Ruddiman Creek and McCracken. He asked about parking at
the boat launch at Lakeshore and McCracken. B. Mazade stated that people could park there, but it
was not paved. R. Ghezzi stated that he would be interested in having a small hotel in the area also.
S. Warmington stated that parking would be an issue. Also, the Lakeside business owners were a
small group, and the improvements would take a large investment. He wasn’t sure they would be
able to support that on their own. He liked the concept, but was also concerned with the elimination
of the left turn lane during the busy summer months. L. Spataro stated that there should be
adequate access between the bike path and the sidewalks. S. Warmington listed some of the areas
in Lakeside that were access points. L. Spataro suggested that these areas be made more visible.
A motion that the Planning Commission endorse the Lakeside Business Redevelopment Plan in
principal, and concur with the comments of the Public Works director (as listed on page 53 of the
plan), was made by B. Larson, supported by L. Spataro and approved, with S. Warmington
abstaining, since he was a business owner in the affected district.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
dml
12/14/06
Planning Commission Minutes – 12/14/06 4
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails