View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
August 13, 2015
Chairman T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Mazade, J. Doyle, L. Spataro, S. Gawron, B. Smith, B. Larson,
F. Peterson
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Michalski, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger, C. Brubaker-Clarke, H. Mitchell
OTHERS PRESENT: G. Borgman; W. Krick, 1762 Jefferson; R. Khatri, 1478 E. Ellis
Rd; C. Willis, 3366 Knollwood Ct.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the special meeting of June 11, 2015 be approved, was made by B.
Mazade, supported by F. Peterson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2015-13: Staff-initiated request to amend the Muskegon Parks & Recreation
Master Plan. H. Mitchell stated that she had been making some updates to the plan and was
seeking Planning Commission input and approval. J. Keast asked what the significant
differences were between the updated plan and the old plan. H. Mitchell described some of the
updates. J. Doyle observed that the action plan and goals needed to be updated to address
marketing and social media, among other things. C. Brubaker-Clarke explained that this was not
a complete revision of the plan. The State required that the plan be updated every five years in
order for the City to be eligible for grant funding, and the goal at this time was to make sure that
projects were listed in the plan so they would be eligible for funding. The City would also
remove references to Fisherman’s Landing, since that was not a charter park. J. Keast asked
when the next major plan update would be. C. Brubaker-Clarke stated that there was not one in
the works at this time, as a total update was quite costly and there were no funds available.
Board members discussed different parks and issues with the current plan. H. Mitchell asked
that board members e-mail their comments to her, and she would incorporate them into the plan
update. C. Willis was a community member and supported of the dog beach at Kruse Park. She
stated that the dog beach was a great asset to the community and asked that maintenance of the
beach continue to be included in future plans.
1
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by F. Peterson and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the amendments to the Muskegon Parks & Recreation Master Plan be
recommended for to the City Commission for approval was made by L. Spataro, supported by J.
Doyle and unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2015-14: Staff-initiated request to amend section 400 of the zoning ordinance to
allow multiple family dwellings under certain circumstances in R-1, Single Family Residential
districts. M. Franzak summarized the staff report, reviewing the reasons for this request. A
zoning ordinance excerpt from Section 2319 was provided, which gave the guidelines for multi-
family homes with more than two units: “Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum living area
(excluding all basement area) of six hundred and fifty (650) square feet for a one (1) bedroom
unit, of eight hundred and seventy-five (875) square feet for a two (2) bedroom unit, and of
twelve hundred (1200) square feet for a three (3) bedroom unit. For each bedroom thereafter, an
additional 100 square feet of living space shall be provided.” The following new language was
proposed to be added under the R-1 zoning district criteria, Section 400: Principal uses
permitted: “Multiple family dwellings (allowed) under the following conditions: a. The home
has already been altered with prior approval to allow for multiple dwellings. One family
dwellings may not be altered to allow for multiple dwellings, nor may new homes be built for
multiple dwellings, and b. Homes that have already been altered for multiple dwellings may add
additional dwellings as long they meet the living area standards listed in Section 2319.”
L. Spataro stated that he understood the concept but disagreed with some statements in the write-
up. He preferred that the number of units allowed be based on the square footage requirements
for single family dwellings in Section 2319 (also listed above). B. Mazade was concerned that
the proposed amendment would allow current multi-family homes to expand, which he was not
in favor of. He stated that the smaller lot sizes of many city lots could cause crowding and
parking issues if more units were added. B. Smith asked about this request being staff-initiated.
M. Franzak stated that it was, but he had heard complaints from several landlords on this issue.
F. Peterson stated that there was once case recently that the city would like to accommodate. B.
Larson stated that there needed to be a way to allow property owners to comply with the
ordinance while still making ownership of these homes viable. F. Peterson suggested changing
the wording to allow additional units only up to the number of units the house was originally
grandfathered in at. S. Gawron stated that he was more comfortable moving in that direction,
and mentioned that there had been substantial time and effort expended over the years to
downzone certain areas to relieve stress on crowded neighborhoods.
R. Khatri spoke during the public hearing. He stated that he had encountered a similar situation
after purchasing a larger older duplex home in the City. He discovered during the purchase that
the house had reverted to single family zoning after being vacant over 2 years, even though it had
originally been constructed as a two-unit. He suggested that, as long as a home required no
modification, that it be allowed to continue as a multi-unit residence. W. Krick owned the home
that prompted this case coming to the Planning Commission. He stated that he owned a very
large house, and taxes and maintenance were expensive. He needed the additional income from
2
a third unit to pay for these things. The property had available parking, separate entrances for
the units, and a fire escape, yet he was only allowed to have two units. He stated that the City
needed more quality housing near the downtown. G. Borgman stated that, although he was
generally in favor of retaining single family homes, he had walked through this house and
understands the need for funds to maintain it. Due to the houses’ size, he did not see another
alternative to providing adequate upkeep. M. Holt stated that she was also in a similar situation
where she had a three-unit house that can now only be used as a single family due to it being
vacant for a period of time and losing its grandfathered rights. She stated that more affordable
housing was needed; this property was on the dangerous building list and she would like to
return it to an inhabitable home. However, she could not afford it if there was only one unit
allowed.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Smith and
unanimously approved.
L. Spataro suggested that the board table the case until the next meeting to allow staff to come up
with alternate language, following the suggestion by F. Peterson about allowing expansion up to
what was originally grandfathered in. B. Mazade concurred.
A motion to table this case until the next meeting and refer it back to staff to come up with
revised language based on today’s discussion was made by L. Spataro, supported by B. Mazade
and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
Parking Strategy – M. Franzak advised board members that the City’s revised Parking Strategy
document was currently being reviewed by other local municipalities as required, and there
would be a public hearing held in October.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
3
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails