View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, February 15, 2018
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Commission Chambers, First Floor, Muskegon City Hall
AGENDA
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes from the special meeting of December 14, 2017.
III. Public Hearings
a. Hearing, Case 2018-01: Request for a departure from Section 2003.07 of the form based code
section of the zoning ordinance to forego the rooftop mechanical equipment screening
requirements at 285 W Western Ave, by Parkland Muskegon, Inc.
b. Hearing, Case 2018-02: Request to rezone the property at 1698 Sanford St from R-2,
Medium-Density Single-Family Residential district to RM-1, Low-Density Multiple-Family
Residential district, by Step Up.
c. Hearing, Case 2018-03: Request to allow a non-profit organization that focuses on assisting
young adults that have recently aged out of the foster care system transition to independent
living in an RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family Residential district at 1698 Sanford St,
contingent upon the successful rezoning of the property, by Step Up.
d. Hearing, Case 2018-04: Staff-initiated request to vacate Market St between Western Avenue
and Terrace St.
e. Hearing, Case 2018-05: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2330 of the zoning
ordinance to create a Medical Marijuana Facilities Overlay District.
IV. New Business
V. Old Business
VI. Other
a. Please see the final draft of the Imagine Muskegon Lake Plan. Please provide any comments
to staff by February 23.
VII. Adjourn
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT POLICY FOR ACCESS TO OPEN MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION AND ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES
The City of Muskegon will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as signers for the hearing impaired and audio tapes
of printed materials being considered at the meeting, to individuals with disabilities who want to attend the meeting, upon twenty-four hour
notice to the City of Muskegon. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or services should contact the City of Muskegon by
writing or calling the following:
Ann Meisch, City Clerk
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, MI 49440
(231) 724-6705
TTY/TDD: Dial 7-1-1 and request that a representative dial 231-724-6705
1
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
December 14, 2017
Vice Chairman B. Larson called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Michalski, F. Peterson, B. Larson, B. Mazade, J. Doyle, S. Gawron, J.
Montgomery-Keast
MEMBERS ABSENT: E. Hood; M. Hovey-Wright, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: R. Blasey, Bergmann Associates (Lansing); C. Grinwis, Hooker DeJong
Engineers; R. Holmes, 297 W Clay #410; K. Kolberg, 3414 Whiskey Hollow;
L. Taunt, 2561 Maplewood Dr, Grand Rapids; C. Kufta, 3445 Keaton Ct., N.
Hulka, 3020 Country Club Dr.; E. Kaminski, Shoreline Towers, Empire MI; J.
Vorgias, 1438 Beach St.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 16, 2017 was made by
F. Peterson, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2017-31: Request to amend the final Planned Unit Development at 1740 E Sherman Blvd to
allow construction of a new out-building and to increase the size of the existing pole sign, by Pacifica
Companies. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The property at 1740 E Sherman Blvd is owned by
Pacifica Muskegon, LLC. It measures just under seven acres and is part of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) that also includes about 10.5 acres of retail development owned by RCG-Muskegon, LLC. CRC
Muskegon, LLC also owns about 0.7 acres of property, which is the Fazoli’s restaurant. These three property
owners are all under the same PUD. Pacifica Muskegon, LLC is proposing to construct a new out-building
on its property, which would be located just east of the existing Fazoli’s building. The new building will be
set up for two separate tenants. The tenant closest to Sherman Blvd would have 2,595 sq ft of space and the
back tenant would have 2,995 sq ft of space. The parking lot would be reconfigured for a drive thru window
for the new building and four new landscaping islands would be added. Parking spaces would be restriped,
with 32 spaces for the new building. A landscaping plan was recently submitted, and is acceptable.
The applicant also has two sign requests as part of this development. First, they would like to add a 10- x 10-
foot monument sign in front of the new out-building, to be shared by the two new businesses. There are
currently three existing out-buildings (Panera Bread, Fazoli’s, and a closed Chinese buffet) and none of them
have a separate monument sign; the new out-building would be the only one with a monument sign in this
development. Second, they would like to increase the size of the large existing freestanding sign facing
Sherman Blvd. There are currently two free-standing pole signs on site, one facing Sherman Blvd and one
facing the highway. The zoning ordinance allows both signs and the addition of more, since there are several
2
parcels and multiple business in this development. However, both signs are larger than what is normally
allowed by the ordinance, as an exception had been made as part of the original PUD process. They are now
requesting to increase the size of the Sherman Blvd sign from 33 feet tall and 326 square feet total to 35.5
feet tall and 356 square feet total. The purposed of the larger signs is to accommodate the three new retail
suites going in the former Target building. A site plan and sign renderings were provided. Notice was sent
to all property owners/tenants within 300 feet of this property. At the time of this writing, staff had not
received any comments from the public. Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment, but would like
to establish a plan for additional monument signs for out-buildings. M. Franzak stated that this request was
previously scheduled for the October meeting, but agreements needed to be worked out between the parties
involved in the PUD.
R. Blasey stated that they planned to renovate the former Target store into 3 separate spaces. The sign
requests were mainly for the new businesses, since there was no room to add them on the currents signs.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to amend the PUD at 1740 E Sherman Blvd for the addition of the out-building and
the two sign requests as proposed, be recommended to the City Commission for approval was made by B.
Mazade, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and unanimously approved, with T. Michalski, F. Peterson, B.
Larson, B. Mazade, J. Doyle, S. Gawron, and J. Montgomery-Keast voting aye.
Hearing, Case 2017-32: Request for a departure from Section 2009 of the Form Based Code section of the
zoning ordinance to allow a larger projecting sign than permitted at 275 W Clay Ave, by Berkshire
Muskegon. M. Franzak presented the staff report. This property is in the Form Based Code (FBC) zoning
district and is currently under development. There will be 5,000 square feet of commercial space on the first
floor and 84 apartments on the upper floors. The proposed sign is a “projecting sign” as defined by the FBC
ordinance. It meets all of the requirements of the ordinance except the maximum height of four feet; they are
requesting a departure from this requirement. The proposed sign is 21 feet tall, 2 feet 4 inches wide and will
hang four feet off of the building wall. It will be internally illuminated. An encroachment agreement with
the City will be required since the sign will project over the public sidewalk. Staff recommends approving
the departure from this requirement because of the size of the development. A building this large warrants a
unique large-scale sign in the proper location. First St is the best location for the sign because it is more of a
commercial street than Clay Ave. This request is similar in nature to the exceptions granted to the Frauenthal
and Amazon buildings. Notice was sent to all property owners/tenants within 300 feet of this property; at the
time of this writing, staff had not received any comments and recommends approval of the request.
C. Grinwis worked for the architectural firm working on this building. He stated that the sign would be
located on First St, closer to Webster Avenue than Clay. There would eventually be a smaller sign on the
Clay Ave end for a café to be added in the future.
T. Michalski arrived at 4:10 p.m. and took over as chairperson.
R. Holmes lived in the area, and was concerned about how much light the sign would give off. T. Michalski
stated that the Planning Commission was also concerned with lighting and they would have to follow the
ordinance.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by J. Doyle and unanimously
approved.
A motion that the request for a departure from Section 2009.13 (a) of the zoning ordinance to allow a larger
projecting sign than permitted at 275 W Clay Ave be approved as proposed, was made by J. Doyle,
supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and unanimously approved, with T. Michalski, F. Peterson, B. Larson, B.
Mazade, J. Doyle, S. Gawron, and J. Montgomery-Keast voting aye.
3
Hearing, Case 2017-33: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2321 of the zoning ordinance to expand
the overlay district and allow Wireless Communication Service Facilities at 1800 Peck St (Marsh Field) and
2375 Beach St (Water Filtration Plant). M. Franzak presented the staff report. Cell phone towers are
regulated by Section 2321 (Wireless Communication Service Facilities) of the zoning ordinance. An overlay
district currently allows these facilities in four different locations in the City. Staff proposes to expand the
overlay district with two new locations, one at Marsh Field and the other behind the water filtration plant on
Beach St, in order to increase cell phone coverage throughout the City. This request is solely to expand the
overlay district and allow companies to apply for a Special Land Use Permit to construct a new facility.
Staff has been working with two companies that are interested in applying to install monopoles with a
maximum height of 150 feet at these locations; however, this request is to approve the new districts only.
Both locations are located in city charter parks, which cannot be sold. The City would retain ownership of
the land and would lease the space to a private company. Although not required for an ordinance
amendment, staff sent out notice letters to everyone within 300 feet of both proposed locations. At the time
of this writing, staff had not received any comments from the Marsh Field area and one comment from the
Water Filtration area who was generally in favor of the request. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance
amendment.
B. Mazade stated that he was concerned with the type of structures that would be allowed. M. Franzak stated
that both requests were for monopoles, not towers. He provided a picture of the type of pole being
considered. J. Montgomery-Keast asked if it would block the residents’ view. M. Franzak stated that the
pole may be visible, but it was not large enough to block a view. K. Kolberg lived in the area and was
opposed to the request. He stated that the proposed location was right in his sight line from his front
window. L. Taunt owned property in the area and was also opposed to the request, as the pole would be
visible from where he planned to eventually build a house. He stated that placing it a few hundred feet to the
south would not block anyone’s view. C. Kufta lived in the area and was opposed to having a pole located
there, due to the size and obstructing the view. M. Franzak explained that this request was to allow an
overlay district and not for a specific pole installation. C. Kufta stated that there was a tower at Elks Park
that was unsightly and she did not want a similar look to spoil the natural beauty at Pere Marquette Park.
She was also concerned about electronic air pollution and the possible devaluation of nearby properties. N.
Hulka was also opposed to having a cell tower/pole in that location, as it interfered with the natural
environment in the area. D. Kaminsky worked for Shoreline Towers in Empire MI and was representing the
entity interested in erecting a pole at the water filtration plant. He stated that the beach area was in need of
additional cell coverage. B. Larson stated that he is in the area regularly and stated that the pole would
interrupt the natural beauty of the area. J. Montgomery-Keast asked if they had considered a less obtrusive
location in the vicinity. D. Kaminsky stated that they had considered the water filtration plant property, as
there were already 2 towers there as well as access to them. He and board members discussed the pole specs
and other possible locations nearby that would be less visible. M. Franzak stated that, if the pole was placed
further south of the filtration plant, a new access road would have to be built in order to access it which
would disturb the dune area. D. Kaminsky stated that the base of the pole would be located among a stand of
pine trees, which would help camouflage the base. J. Vorgias suggested placing the pole in the state park
across the channel. B. Larson stated that the city would not receive any lease revenues. D. Kaminsky stated
that that location would not provide adequate coverage that they needed. N. Hulka stated that she would like
more research done on other suitable locations in the area. T. Michalski stated that the city had to be
cognizant of the critical dune areas. F. Peterson stated that, although the proposed location may affect some
people, it would have the least amount of impact. B. Larson asked if other locations had been checked out.
M. Franzak stated that he had driven around the area and there were few possibilities. B. Mazade agreed that
better cell coverage was needed in that area, but he wanted to make sure they chose the least intrusive option.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by J. Doyle and unanimously
approved.
4
B. Larson asked if the two locations could be separated into separate motions. M. Franzak stated that they
could. Board members discussed both locations.
A motion that the request to amend Section 2321 of the zoning ordinance to expand the overlay district for
Wireless Communication Support Facilities be tabled until next month to give staff time to evaluate other
possible locations was made by B. Larson, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and unanimously approved,
with T. Michalski, F. Peterson, B. Larson, B. Mazade, J. Doyle, S. Gawron, and J. Montgomery-Keast voting
aye. M. Franzak asked what other information the board was looking for. T. Michalski stated that he would
like staff to check out other locations and recommend the best one for the pole location.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
DR
5
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
Hearing, Case 2018-01: Request for a departure from Section 2003.07 of the form based code section of the
zoning ordinance to forego the rooftop mechanical equipment screening requirements at 285 W Western
Ave, by Parkland Muskegon, Inc.
SUMMARY
1. The property is zoned Form Based Code, Neighborhood Context Area.
2. Section 2003.07 of the code states “All rooftop mechanical, communication and similar devices shall
be screened from view of adjacent properties and streets. Screening shall be so designed as to be an
integral part of the building. The screening shall match the buildings material and color or be another
material or color that is compatible with the building exterior.”
3. There is mechanical equipment on the tallest roof on the building, above the 8th floor. However, this
equipment is not required to be screened because it is not visible from the street. There is another
roof on the building, above a portion of the 3rd floor, and this area has air conditioning units on it that
are visible from Western Ave and Jefferson St. The applicant is seeking a departure to forego these
screening requirements so that the tenants in the two apartments near this equipment will have a
better view out of the building.
4. It is possible that the future development of the adjacent property to the east will create somewhat of
a screen to this equipment from the road; however, a parking lot is planned for the southern portion of
this property. Most of the equipment would still be visible from Jefferson St.
5. Notice was sent to all property owners/tenants within 300 feet of this property. At the time of this
writing, staff has not received any comments from the public.
Looking west from Jefferson St.
6
Looking southwest from Western Ave
View from Western Ave sidewalk
Screened equipment across the street at the Farmers Market
7
Views from apartments
8
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
9
Proposed Parking Lot
10
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends small individual white screens in front of each unit, or some type of painting or white
casing over each unit that will blend them in with the building. Something that would still allow views from
the apartments, but also provide a partial screening of the equipment.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the request for a departure from Section 2003.07 of the form based code section of the zoning
ordinance to forego the rooftop mechanical equipment screening requirements at 285 W Western Ave be
(approved/denied).
11
Hearing, Case 2018-02: Request to rezone the property at 1698 Sanford St from R-2, Medium-Density
Single-Family Residential district to RM-1, Low-Density Multiple-Family Residential district, by Step Up.
Hearing, Case 2018-03: Request to allow a non-profit organization that focuses on assisting young adults
that have recently aged out of the foster care system transition to independent living in an RM-1, Low
Density Multiple Family Residential district at 1698 Sanford St, contingent upon the successful rezoning of
the property, by Step Up.
SUMMARY
1. The applicant is requesting to utilize the home as a non-profit agency that provides housing and
mentoring to young adults that have aged out of foster care. It would house up to six male
participants along with a live-in mentor. Please see the enclosed letter provided by Step Up. Last
year this organization was approved for the woman’s version of this program at 1319 Peck St, in an
RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family district.
2. This request requires a rezoning to multi-family and a special use permit.
3. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Single Family Residential. The properties to the east,
along Peck St, are zoned RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family.
4. The house measure 3,146 sf and has seven bedrooms and three bathrooms. It was formerly used as a
state-licensed adult foster care home. The adjacent property to the north at 1690 Sanford was
previously as well.
5. The Rescue Mission’s Woman’s Shelter is located behind this property to the east.
6. All twelve properties on this block are conforming as single-family homes. Eleven of the twelve
homes on this block are single-family owner-occupied, which depicts strong neighborhood
characteristics, investment and involvement among the community.
7. Notice was sent to all property owners/tenants within 300 feet of this property. At the time of this
writing, staff received two calls that were against the request. Lawrence and Robyn Doctor, the next
door neighbors, at 1706 Sanford St and Ray and Jackie Hilt at 1627 Jefferson St are all opposed to the
specific use and the intrusion of multi-family to the neighborhood.
1698 Sanford St
12
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
13
Red = Single-Family Owner-Occupied
Blue= Single-Family Rental
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Master Plan calls for action to keep single-family owner-occupied neighborhoods intact. While the
property is adjacent to a multi-family district, which is often used as support of a rezoning, it is clear that this
area has been kept intact over the years as a singly family neighborhood and was able to avoid the conversion
to multi-family that was prevalent in many areas downtown in previous generations. While Step Up provides
great services and has shown to be an asset to the area at their Peck St location (no police reports since
opening), the rezoning to multi-family would permanently designate this home for multi-family use,
regardless of the owner. Staff recommends denial of the rezoning.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the request to rezone the property at 1698 Sanford St from R-2, Medium-Density Single-Family
Residential district to RM-1, Low-Density Multiple-Family Residential district, be recommended to the City
Commission for (approval/denial).
I move that the request to allow a non-profit organization that focuses on assisting young adults that have
recently aged out of the foster care system transition to independent living in an RM-1, Low Density
Multiple Family Residential district at 1698 Sanford St, be (approved/denied) contingent upon the successful
rezoning of the property.
14
Hearing, Case 2018-04: Staff-initiated request to vacate Market St between Western Avenue and Terrace
St.
SUMMARY
1. The Farmers Market currently hosts many events that utilize a temporary liquor license. The City has
to apply for a temporary liquor license with the State of Michigan every time an event is held.
2. A permanent license is available, but it cannot be utilized across a public street. Vacanting the street
would solve the problem and the liquor license could be used in the designated area, which would
include the building and the street and a small area across of the street near the stage. Please see the
map below that depicts the approximate area that the liquor license could be used.
3. The City would still maintain the street as a public street, but vacating it would allow for more
flexibility for closure during special events. There are no plans to close the street other than
temporarily for events, as it currently happens.
4. Staff sent notices to all property owners adjacent to Market St and had not received any comments at
the time of this writing.
Approximate Area Where Liquor License Would Be Granted After Street Vacation
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the street vacation.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the request to vacate Market St, between Western Avenue and Terrace St, be recommended to
the City Commission for (approval/denial).
15
Hearing, Case 2018-05: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2330 of the zoning ordinance to create a
Medical Marijuana Facilities Overlay District.
SUMMARY
1. Staff has prepared the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance for the Medical Marihuana
Facilities Licensing Act (proposed as Section 2330 of the zoning ordinance). The proposed
amendments only relate to the zoning designations related to the Medical Marihuana Facilities
Licensing Act (MMFLA) Ordinance that will eventually be proposed to the City Commission for
approval into the City Code of Ordinances at a later date. Please note that the MMFLA Ordinance
will have to be approved before the zoning designations are approved.
2. This review by the Planning Commission is intended to provide the City Commission with a
recommendation as to where these facilities should be allowed, should the new MMFLA Ordinance
be adopted by the City Commission as part of the City Code of Ordinances.
3. Please see the enclosed proposed MMFLA Ordinance that references amending Chapter 34, Article
IV of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Muskegon.
4. Please also see enclosed the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance: Section 2330 – Medical
Marihuana Facilities Overlay District.
5. Definitions for the types of MMFLA facilities are as follows:
Grower means an MMFLA licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that cultivates,
dries, trims, cures or packages marihuana for sale to a Processor or Provisioning Center.
Processor means an MMFLA licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that purchases
marihuana from a Grower and that extracts resin from the marihuana or creates a marihuana-infused
product for sale and transfer in package form to a Provisioning Center.
Provisioning Center means an MMFLA licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that
purchases marihuana from a Grower or Processor and sells, supplies, or provides marihuana to
registered qualify patients, directly or through the patients’ registered primary caregivers.
Provisioning Center includes any commercial property where marihuana is sold at retail to registered
qualifying patients or registered primary caregivers. A noncommercial location used by a primary
caregiver to assist a qualifying patient connected to the caregiver through the department’s marihuana
registration process in accordance with the MMMA is not a Provisioning Center for purposes of the
MMFLA or this section.
Secure Transporter means an MMFLA licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state that
transports marihuana, with or without storage, between Marihuana Facilities for a fee.
Safety Compliance Facility means an MMFLA licensee that is a commercial entity that receives
marihuana from a Marihuana Facility or registered primary caregiver, tests it for contaminants and for
tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids, returns the test results, and may return the marihuana to
the Marihuana Facility.
16
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
I move that the request to amend Section 2330 of the zoning ordinance, to allow for a Medical Marihuana
Facilities Overlay District, be recommended to the City Commission for (approval/denial).
17
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
ORDINANCE NO. ____
THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGON HEREBY ORDAINS:
1. Chapter 34, Article IV of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Muskegon,
Michigan, Sections 34-201 through 34-208 are adopted as follows:
Sec. 34-201 Purpose and Intent.
It is the intent of this ordinance to give effect to the intent of the Medical
Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, PA 281 of 2016, MCL 333.27101, et seq, (the
MMFLA), and not to determine and establish an altered policy with regard to medical
marihuana. It is the intent of Muskegon City Code Sections 34-101 through 34- ___
to give effect to the intent of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, Initiated Act 1 of
2008, MCL 333.26421, et seq., (the MMMA) as approved by the electors, The
purpose of this ordinance is to serve and protect the health, safety and welfare of the
general public and establish a set of rules and regulations which are fair and equitable
for those interested in establishing a Marihuana Facility pursuant to the MMFLA.
Section 34-202 Definitions.
Applicant means a person who applies for a license under this section. If an entity
applies for a license, the term includes an officer, director, managerial employee or
has a direct or indirect ownership interest in the applicant.
Grower means an MMFLA licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state
that cultivates, dries, trims, cures or packages marihuana for sale to a Processor or
Provisioning Center.
Marihuana Facility means a location at which a license holder is licensed to operate
under the MMFLA.
Marihuana-infused product means a topical formulation, tincture, beverage, edible
substance, or similar product containing any usable marihuana that is intended for
human consumption in a manner other than smoke inhalation.
MMFLA means the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, PA 281 of 2016,
MCL 333.27101, et seq.
C:\Users\mike.franzak\Desktop\Chapter 34, Article IV MMFLA City Code of Ordinances.DOC 1
MMMA means the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, Initiated act 1 of 2008, MCL
333.26421, et seq.
MMMA Caregiver Facility means any building(s) or structure(s) located on non-
residential property that is utilized by one or more than one primary caregiver
engaged in the medical use of marihuana pursuant to the MMMA.
Permit means a permit issued by the City under this section.
Primary caregiver or caregiver means a person as defined by the MMMA.
Processor means an MMFLA licensee that is a commercial entity located in this state
that purchases marihuana from a Grower and that extracts resin from the marihuana
or creates a marihuana-infused product for sale and transfer in package form to a
Provisioning Center.
Provisioning Center means an MMFLA licensee that is a commercial entity located
in this state that purchases marihuana from a Grower or Processor and sells, supplies,
or provides marihuana to registered qualify patients, directly or through the patients’
registered primary caregivers. Provisioning Center includes any commercial property
where marihuana is sold at retail to registered qualifying patients or registered
primary caregivers. A noncommercial location used by a primary caregiver to assist a
qualifying patient connected to the caregiver through the department’s marihuana
registration process in accordance with the MMMA is not a Provisioning Center for
purposes of the MMFLA or this section.
Qualifying patient or patient means a person defined by the MMMA.
Registry Identification Card means the document as defined by the MMMA.
Safety Compliance Facility means an MMFLA licensee that is a commercial entity
that receives marihuana from a Marihuana Facility or registered primary caregiver,
tests it for contaminants and for tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids, returns
the test results, and may return the marihuana to the Marihuana Facility.
Secure Transporter means an MMFLA licensee that is a commercial entity located in
this state that transports marihuana, with or without storage, between Marihuana
Facilities for a fee.
State operating license means a license that is issued under the MMFLA that allows
the licensee to operate as a Marihuana Facility.
All other terms used in this section have the same definitions ascribed to them in the
MMFLA or MMMA.
C:\Users\mike.franzak\Desktop\Chapter 34, Article IV MMFLA City Code of Ordinances.DOC 2
Sec. 34-203 MMFLA Opt-In Provision
Pursuant to Section 205(1) of the MMFLA, the City will authorize Permits for the
following types of Marihuana Facilities: Growers (Class A only); Processors;
Provisioning Centers; Safety Compliance Facilities; and Secure Transporters.
Sec. 34-204 Permit Required for MMFLA Activity.
(1) Any person or entity that wishes to operate as a Marihuana Facility in the
City shall obtain a Permit and must obtain a State Operating License prior to opening
or operating.
(2) The application and inspection fee for the Permit required by this section
shall be as set from time to time by the City by resolution.
(3) In addition to an annual reapplication and inspection fee, the City may
assess an annual fee of no more to $5,000.00 to help defray the administrative and
enforcement costs associated with the operation of the Marihuana Facilities operating
in the City.
(4) No permit issued under this section shall be transferable.
(5) All Permits issued under this section shall be renewed annually and
subject to annual inspection and renewal fees as set from time to time by the City by
resolution.
(6) The City may limit the number of Permits issued under this section, and
may revise this limit from time to time.
(7) A person or entity that receives a Permit under this section shall display its
Permit and, when issued, its State Medical Marihuana Facility License in plain view
clearly visible to City officials and State Medical Marihuana Licensing Board
authorized agents.
(8) No person or entity that opened or operated a facility doing business or
purporting to do business as a Marihuana Facility prior to the adoption of this
ordinance shall be considered a lawful use.
Sec. 34-205 MMFLA Location Requirements.
(1) Growers (Class A only), Processors, Provisioning Centers, Safety
Compliance Facilities, and Secure Transporters are permitted in those zones and
subject to requirements provided for in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
(2) The Marihuana Facility shall meet all applicable written and duly
promulgated standards of the City and, prior to opening, Applicants shall demonstrate
C:\Users\mike.franzak\Desktop\Chapter 34, Article IV MMFLA City Code of Ordinances.DOC 3
to the City that the location meets the rules and regulations promulgated by the State
Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Board.
Sec. 34-206 Application Procedure.
(1) All Applicants for Permits required by this section shall file an application
with the Clerk. This application shall be signed by the Applicant if an individual, or
by all partners if a partnership, by a managing member if a limited liability company,
or by the president of a corporation.
(2) The Applicant may be requested to provide any information required by the
MMFLA and any other information deemed by the City to be required for the
consideration of a Permit.
(3) The Permit shall be approved if the Applicant meets all City requirements
unless a due diligence investigation discloses tangible evidence that the conduct of
the Applicant’s business would pose a substantial threat to the public health, safety,
or general welfare.
Sec. 34-207 Permit Revocation and Review.
(1) A Permit granted under this section may be revoked or not renewed for
any of the following reasons:
(a) Any fraud or misrepresentations contained in the Permit
application;
(b) Any knowing violation of this ordinance;
(c) Loss of the Applicant’s State Medical Marihuana Facility License;
(d) Failure of the Applicant to obtain a State Medical Marihuana
Facility License within a reasonable time after obtaining a Permit under
this section; or
(e) Conducting business in an unlawful manner or in such a way as to
constitute a menace to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public.
(f) The violation of any of the conditions of issuance or continuation
of a certificate of registration.
(g) Fraud, misrepresentation or any false statement made in the
operation of the business.
(h) Failure to pay personal property taxes, or timely file
documentation or returns required for such taxes.
C:\Users\mike.franzak\Desktop\Chapter 34, Article IV MMFLA City Code of Ordinances.DOC 4
(i) Failure to pay city income taxes, failure to withhold city income
tax from employees, failure to remit to the City withheld city income
taxes, or timely file documentation or returns required for such taxes.
(j) Failure to pay any outstanding amounts owed the city (such as fees
for inspections or property services, water or sewer bills, municipal civil
infraction fines applicable to the business or its premises, current special
assessment, installments, etc.).
(k) Failure to pay registration fees imposed pursuant to this chapter
and resolution of the city commission.
(l) Failure or inability of an applicant to meet and satisfy any of the
requirements and provisions of this chapter.
(m) Failure to allow inspection of the business premises or hazardous
material storage records at a reasonable time..
2. This Ordinance is to become effective ten (10) days after adoption.
Ayes:
Nays:
First Reading:
Second Reading:
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned, being the duly qualified Clerk of the City of Muskegon,
Muskegon County, Michigan, does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
complete copy of an ordinance adopted by the City Commission of the City of
Muskegon, at a regular meeting of the City Commission on the ____ day of
_______________, 2018, at which meeting a quorum was present and remained
throughout, and that the meeting was conducted and public notice was given pursuant to
and in full compliance with Act No. 267, Public Acts of Michigan of 1976, as amended,
and that minutes were kept and will be or have been made available as required thereby.
Date:_______________________, 2018
________________________________
Ann Marie Meisch, MMC
C:\Users\mike.franzak\Desktop\Chapter 34, Article IV MMFLA City Code of Ordinances.DOC 5
City Clerk
Publish: Notice of Adoption to be published once within ten (10) days of final
adoption.
C:\Users\mike.franzak\Desktop\Chapter 34, Article IV MMFLA City Code of Ordinances.DOC 6
CITY OF MUSKEGON
NOTICE OF ADOPTION
TO: ALL PERSONS INTERESTED
Please take notice that on ___________________, 2018, the City Commission of
the City of Muskegon amended Chapter____________, Article ___________ of the
Muskegon City Code, summarized as follows:
1. Section __________ is amended to provide_____________.
2. Section ____________ is amended to add ______________.
Copies of the ordinance may be viewed and purchased at reasonable cost at the
Office of the City Clerk in the City Hall, 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, Michigan,
during regular business hours.
This ordinance amendment is effective ten (10) days from the date of this
publication.
Published: _________________, 2018 CITY OF MUSKEGON
By________________________
Ann Marie Meisch, MMC
City Clerk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISH ONCE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF FINAL PASSAGE
C:\Users\mike.franzak\Desktop\Chapter 34, Article IV MMFLA City Code of Ordinances.DOC 7
SEVENTH
SIXTH
PARK
B-4
SEAWAY
LAKETON
LAKETON
LAKETON
I-2 OSR
I-2 R-1 ALPHA
COMMERCE
R-1
JEFFERSON
SIXTH
FIFTH
HOLBROOK
B-2 HOLBROOK
B-4
TEMPLE
R-1
SANFORD
I-1
PARK
PECK
YOUNG
MUSKEGON HEIGHTS
MUSKEGON HEIGHTS
PROPOSED MMFLA DISTRICT 1
I-1 PROPOSED MMFLA DISTRICT 2
SEAWAY
B-4 GENERAL BUSINESS
B-2 CONVENIENCE COMPARISON BUSINESS
I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
I-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
MC MEDICAL CARE
OSR OPEN SPACE RECREATION
MUSKEGON HEIGHTS R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SECTION 2330: MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITIES OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Two Medical Marihuana Facilities Overlay Districts are hereby created as outlined in
Figure 23-2. Within said overlay districts only, certain Medical Marihuana Facilities to
the extent licensed pursuant to City Code Sections 34-201 through 34-208 are permitted.
A. Overlay Districts:
1. Location: There are two overlay districts where certain Medical Marihuana
Facilities are permitted. These overlay districts and their permitted uses are as
follows:
a. Overlay District 1: Permitted uses include Provisioning Centers,
Secure Transporters and Safety Compliance Facilities.
b. Overlay District 2: Permitted uses included Provisioning Centers,
Growers, Processors, Secure Transporters, and Safety Compliance
Facilities.
B. Growers and Processors Requirements:
1. Signage. 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.
2. Building and Site Amenities. All Grower and Processor facilities must meet
the following amenity requirements:
a. Bay doors. Buildings must have bay doors in which a secure
transport vehicle can enter for delivery.
b. Canopy. Buildings must have a canopy or decorative awning over the
main entrance to the building.
c. Lighting. There shall be ornamental lighting on the exterior of the
building at all ingress and egress doors.
d. Landscaping plan. Decorative landscaping shall be provided with
irrigation. All new construction projects shall require underground
sprinkling.
e. Carbon filtration system. The building shall be equipped with an
activated carbon filtration system for odor control and be maintained
in working order.
3. Waste Disposal Plan. A plan must be approved for the disposal of waste,
chemicals and unused plant material.
1
4. Security. There must be a security presence in place on the property at all
times, either by licensed security guard(s) and/or security cameras. A floor
plan with security details is required.
C. Provisioning Center Requirements:
1. Hours. Provisioning Centers may operate between the hours 8 am and 8 pm.
2. Signage. 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.
Windows shall remain free and clear of all advertising.
3. Building and Site Amenities. All Provisioning Centers must meet the
following amenity requirements:
a. Bay doors. Buildings must have bay doors in which a secure
transport vehicle can enter for delivery.
b. Canopy. Buildings must have a canopy or decorative awning over the
main entrance to the building.
c. Security shutters. The interior of all windows shall require security
shutters that give the appearance of shutters or window shades. Metal
bars and gates are prohibited.
d. Lighting. There shall be ornamental lighting on the exterior of the
building at all ingress and egress doors.
e. Landscaping plan. Decorative landscaping shall be provided with
irrigation. All new construction projects shall require underground
sprinkling.
f. Carbon filtration system. The building shall be equipped with an
activated carbon filtration system for odor control and be maintained
in working order.
4. Indoor Activities. All activities of a provisioning center shall be conducted
within the structure and out of public view. Walk-up and drive thru windows
are not permitted.
5. Security. There must be a security presence in place on the property at all
times, either by licensed security guard(s) and/or security cameras. A floor
plan with security details is required.
D. Safety Compliance Facility Requirements:
1. Indoor Activities. All activities of a marihuana safety compliance facility
shall be conducted within the structure and out of public view.
2. Building and Site Amenities. All Safety Compliance Facilities must meet the
following amenity requirements:
a. Canopy. Buildings must have a canopy or decorative awning over the
main entrance to the building.
2
a. Lighting. Ornamental lighting is required on the exterior of the
building at all ingress and egress doors.
b. Landscaping Plan. Decorative landscaping shall be provided and all
landscaping shall be irrigated. All new construction projects shall
require underground sprinkling.
3. Security. There must be a security presence in place on the property at all
times, either by licensed security guard(s) and/or security cameras. A floor
plan with security details is required.
4. Chemical waste and plant disposal plan. A list of all chemicals used in testing
and how they will be disposed of must be provided. The plan must also show
how marihuana plants and products will be disposed.
E. Secure Transporter Requirements:
1. Storage. Marihuana and supplies, materials or money shall not be kept in any
secure transport vehicle overnight. Outdoor storage, excluding transport
vehicles is prohibited.
2. Building and Site Amenities. All Secure Transporter buildings must meet the
following amenity requirements:
a. Canopy. Buildings must have a canopy or decorative awning over the
main entrance to the building.
b. Lighting. Ornamental lighting is required on the exterior of the
building at all ingress and egress doors.
c. Landscaping Plan. Decorative landscaping shall be provided and all
landscaping shall be irrigated. All new construction projects shall
require underground sprinkling.
3. Security. There must be a security presence in place on the property at all
times, either by licensed security guard(s) and/or security cameras. A floor
plan with security details is required.
3
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails