View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
October 10, 2024
Mazade called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. and the roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: K. Johnson, S. Gawron, J. Seyferth, B. Mazade, S. Blake, D. Keener, L.
Willett-LeRoi, and L. Simmons II
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
MEMBERS EXCUSED: J. Montgomery-Keast
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, S. Romine, J. Pesch, and J. Eckholm
OTHERS PRESENT: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the Minutes of the Special Planning Commission meeting on September 26, 2024,
was made by J. Seyferth, supported by S. Gawron, and unanimously approved.
APPROVAL OF AMENDED MINUTES
A motion to approve the amended Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on August 15, 2024,
was made by L. Willet-LeRoi, supported by S. Blake, and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2024-25: Request to vacate the remaining portion of the alley between 2nd St and 3rd St,
north of Webster Ave and south of Clay Ave, by West Haven 280 LLC.
SUMMARY
1. The applicant owns the former “Corner” building at the corner of Muskegon/3rd. They have
requested to vacate the remaining portion of the alley that dead ends at the eastern edge of their
property.
2. The applicant does not intend on building over the alley, however they would like to limit car
access through the area with landscaping planters and/or art pieces. They are also considering a
decorative walkway that would lead pedestrians towards the Muskegon Museum of Art.
3. Vacating an alley relinquishes the City’s interest in the alley. However, a utility easement would
still remain in effect. After vacating the alley, the land would be owned by everyone in the block.
No permanent structures would be allowed over the former alley until it has been re-platted.
4. There are sanitary and storm sewers located in the alley. The City must maintain an easement to
this infrastructure once the alley is vacated. An approval of the vacation should be contingent
upon the City retaining a utility easement.
5. Notification was sent to everyone in the block. At the time of this writing, staff had not received
any public comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
V. Stokes, City of Muskegon resident: Questioned whether the alley is currently public and asked why
this was not up for a public vote.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING – MOTION
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Seyferth, supported by S. Gawron, and unanimously
approved.
MOTION
J. Seyferth moved, seconded by K. Johnson, that the request to vacate the remaining portion of the alley
between 2nd St and 3rd St, north of Webster Ave and south of Clay Ave be recommended for approval to
the City Commission with the following condition:
1. The City retains a utility easement with the same boundaries as the alley being vacated.
ROLL CALL VOTE
S. Gawron: Yes B. Mazade: Yes D. Keener: Yes
J. Seyferth: Yes K. Johnson: Yes L. Willet-LeRoi: Yes
S. Blake: Yes L. Simmons II: Yes
MOTION PASSES
Hearing, Case 2024-26: Request to amend the planned unit development (PUD) at Harbour Towne to
allow for the construction of 28 new condo units.
SUMMARY
1. The original PUD plans were approved on June 12, 1990. The approved plans included a maximum
of 250 residential units. There appears to be 190 units developed as of today. However, the
timeline to develop these units has expired and the proposed units are in slightly different areas
than originally approved.
2. The PUD was amended in 2002 to add three additional duplexes along Fulton St. That amendment
noted that the original agreement for sidewalks for the PUD is retained. During the July 11, 2002
Planning Commission meeting it was noted: “In previous amendments the issue of pedestrian
walkways has come up. The original PUD required that walkways (sidewalks) be provided when
the PUD became more fully developed. This issue needs to be resolved. Cement sidewalks may
not be practical in the development. A boardwalk may be cost prohibitive. An option may be that
a pedestrian/bike lane be painted on the existing street demarking a pedestrian area that will
prompt motorists to be mindful of pedestrians and cyclists. The existing swath of pavement is
fairly wide and open, which can actually promote speeding in the development.”
3. This amendment proposes eight new structures (six fourplexes, two duplexes) for a total of 28
new units.
4. The fire department has noted that some sort of turnaround must be added at the end of Channel
View Point. The current length exceeds the limit of 150 ft to a dead end without an approved
turnaround. Additionally, another hydrant must be added along Channel View Point.
5. A stormwater permit from the Engineering Department will be required.
6. No landscaping plan has been provided.
7. Notice was sent to all parcels within 300 feet of this property. At the time of this writing, staff had
not received any comments from the public.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
D. Gainer, Harbour Towne property owner: Questioned if current property owners have to pay for a
sidewalk that was originally included in the original PUD.
D. Calkins, 1675 E. Harbour Towne Cir.: Is concerned with increased traffic within the development,
which is already present due to Docker’s restaurant traffic.
B. Matakas, 1682 Nelson St.: Supports the addition of sidewalks throughout the development.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING – MOTION
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Gawron, supported by L. Willet-LeRoi, and
unanimously approved.
MOTION
S. Gawron moved, seconded by D. Keener, that the request to amend the planned unit development (PUD)
at Harbour Towne to allow for the construction of 28 new condo units be recommend for approval to the
City Commission with the following condition:
1. A turnaround must be incorporated at the end of Channel View Point.
2. An additional fire hydrant must be added along Channel View Point.
3. A stormwater permit must be obtained from the Engineering Department before construction
commences.
4. A landscaping plan is provided.
5. Sidewalks be provided in the new development on Fulton Ave to Indiana Ave on W. Harbour
Towne Circle.
ROLL CALL VOTE
S. Gawron: Yes B. Mazade: Yes D. Keener: Yes
J. Seyferth: Yes K. Johnson: Yes L. Willet-LeRoi: Yes
S. Blake: Yes L. Simmons II: Yes
MOTION PASSES
AMENDED MOTION
K. Johnson moved, seconded by L. Willet-LeRoi, to amend the underlying motion to replace condition 5
with the requirement that sidewalks through Harbour Towne Circle East and West are installed within 2
years from the commencement of construction.
ROLL CALL VOTE
S. Gawron: No B. Mazade: No D. Keener: Yes
J. Seyferth: No K. Johnson: Yes L. Willet-LeRoi: Yes
S. Blake: Yes L. Simmons II: Yes
MOTION PASSES
Hearing, Case 2024-27: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 404 of the zoning ordinance to remove
R-2 and R-3 districts and to adjust the area and bulk requirements for R-1 districts.
SUMMARY
1. There are currently three separate single-family residential districts in the zoning ordinance; R-1,
R-2, and R-3; which all allow the same uses. The main difference between these districts is how
much lot width is required to be considered a buildable lot. This proposal would eliminate R-2 and
R-3 districts and change the bulk and area requirements to the current R-3 standards, which
requires a minimum 30-foot lot width.
2. The chart in Section 404 would be removed and the Area and Bulk Requirements would be
represented as they previously were in the zoning ordinance (without a chart).
Proposed amendments (redline version)
Section 404: Area and Bulk Requirements
New Language Proposed:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
R. Ritter, 1472 Jiroch Street: Had questions regarding lot coverage and the percentage of the property
that can be covered, and whether a detached garage would also be included in the lot coverage
percentage.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING – MOTION
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Willet-LeRoi, supported by J. Seyferth, and
unanimously approved.
MOTION
L. Willet-LeRoi moved, seconded by D. Keener, that the request to amend Section 404 of the zoning
ordinance to remove R-2 and R-3 districts and to adjust the area and bulk requirements for R-1 districts
be recommended for approval as presented to the City Commission.
ROLL CALL VOTE
S. Gawron: Yes B. Mazade: Yes D. Keener: Abstain
J. Seyferth: Yes K. Johnson: Abstain L. Willet-LeRoi: Yes
S. Blake: Yes L. Simmons II: Yes
MOTION PASSES
Hearing, Case 2024-28: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 400 of the zoning ordinance to
allow duplexes, triplexes, and accessory dwelling units as principal uses permitted in the Single-
Family Residential Districts.
SUMMARY
1. Currently, single-family is the only housing option in R districts. This proposal recommends
allowing duplexes, triplexes and accessory dwelling units (under certain conditions) in these
districts.
Proposed amendments (redline version)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
NONE
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING – MOTION
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Willet-LeRoi, supported by J. Seyferth, and
unanimously approved.
MOTION
L. Willet-LeRoi moved, seconded by S. Gawron, that the request to amend Section 404 of the zoning
ordinance to remove R-2 and R-3 districts and to adjust the area and bulk requirements for R-1 districts
be recommended for approval as presented to the City Commission.
ROLL CALL VOTE
S. Gawron: Yes B. Mazade: Yes D. Keener: Abstain
J. Seyferth: Yes K. Johnson: Abstain L. Willet-LeRoi: Yes
S. Blake: Yes L. Simmons II: Yes
MOTION PASSES
Hearing, Case 2024-29: Staff-initiated request to amend Article II of the zoning ordinance to
create a definition for accessory dwelling unit.
SUMMARY
1. A definition for accessory dwelling unit must be created.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
R. Vanderwiet: Does not support anything over a duplex nor additional dwelling units.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING – MOTION
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Willet-LeRoi, supported by J. Seyferth, and
unanimously approved.
MOTION
J. Seyferth moved, seconded by L. Willet-LeRoi, that the request to amend Article II of the zoning
ordinance to create a definition for accessory dwelling unit be recommended for approval as presented
to the City Commission.
ROLL CALL VOTE
S. Gawron: Yes B. Mazade: Yes D. Keener: Abstain
J. Seyferth: Yes K. Johnson: Abstain L. Willet-LeRoi: Yes
S. Blake: Yes L. Simmons II: Yes
MOTION PASSES
Hearing, Case 2024-30: Staff-initiated request to amend Article IV of the zoning ordinance to
remove R-2 and R-3 districts and rename single-family residential districts.
SUMMARY
1. If the request to allow duplexes, triplexes and accessory dwelling units is approved, the name of
the zoning designation should be changed to reflect the types of houses allowed. Staff proposes
changing the name from “Single-Family Residential” to “Neighborhood Residential.”
Proposed amendments (redline version)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
R. Vanderwiet: Stated that there have been improvements on communication with the public, but didn’t
feel there was enough notice before the items were placed on the Planning Commission meeting
agenda.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING – MOTION
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Willet-LeRoi, supported by D. Keener, and
unanimously approved.
MOTION
L. Willet-LeRoi moved, seconded by J. Seyferth, that the request to amend Article IV of the zoning
ordinance to remove R-2 and R-3 districts and rename single-family residential districts be
recommended for approval as presented to the City Commission.
ROLL CALL VOTE
S. Gawron: Yes B. Mazade: Yes D. Keener: Abstain
J. Seyferth: Yes K. Johnson: Abstain L. Willet-LeRoi: Yes
S. Blake: Yes L. Simmons II: Yes
MOTION PASSES
Hearing, Case 2024-31: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2326 of the zoning ordinance to
reduce the minimum number of parking spaces for single-family and multi-family dwelling units.
SUMMARY
1. Only one parking space per dwelling unit was required for residential uses prior to an ordinance
amendment in 2002. Large apartment complexes continue to overdevelop parking lots based on
the zoning ordinance’s requirements. Staff had considered proposing to eliminate parking
minimums altogether, as is the case in form-based code districts, but based on public feedback a
reduction to one parking space per dwelling unit is being proposed instead.
Proposed amendments (redline version)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
B. Ritter, 1472 Jiroch Street: Asked for clarification on the required number of parking spaces and what
would happen if a duplex or larger was built. Spoke regarding parking in the winter and the difficulties
that already exist.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING – MOTION
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Gawron, supported by J. Seyferth, and unanimously
approved.
MOTION
L. Willet-LeRoi moved, seconded by J. Seyferth, that the request amend Section 2326 of the zoning
ordinance to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces for single-family and multi-family dwelling
units be recommended for approval as presented to the City Commission.
ROLL CALL VOTE
S. Gawron: Yes B. Mazade: Yes D. Keener: Abstain
J. Seyferth: Yes K. Johnson: Abstain L. Willet-LeRoi: Yes
S. Blake: Yes L. Simmons II: Yes
MOTION PASSES
Hearing, Case 2024-32: Staff-initiated request to amend Article XX of the zoning ordinance to
allow the conversion of single-family houses into duplexes and small multiplexes.
SUMMARY
1. Within the form-based code districts, a few minor design requirements could prevent converting
a single-family house into a duplex or triplex.
2. These requirements for Duplex Buildings include (requirements written in black. Suggested
amendments written in red):
a. Duplexes require “Entrances to upper floor unit(s) to be located at the front and/or side
street and shall be directly accessed from and face the street (2006.16, 4.0, B.). Add
language stating that existing Detached House Buildings may add an additional unit
without meeting this requirement.
b. Stoop Frontage Option for a Detached House allows for entry doors to be uncovered
with no canopy or supported roof (2006.17, B., 2.) while duplexes require that entry
doors be covered with a roof supported with columns. Add uncovered porches as an
option for Duplex Buildings.
c. Engaged Porch Frontage Option for a Duplex requires that a minimum of 50% of the
building facade projects either beyond the line of the porch columns or flush with the
porch columns (2006.16, H.), while a Detached House requires a minimum of 33%
(2006.17, H.). Reduce the 50% requirement for Duplex Buildings to 33%.
3. These requirements for Small Multiplex Buildings include (requirements written in black.
Suggested amendments written in red):
a. Small Multiplexes shall have an 18” to 32” pilaster or wall surface every 18 to 30 feet
along building facades facing streets. Pilasters shall extend vertically from grade to
cornice expression line (this is not a requirement for the Detached House Building Type).
Remove this requirement.
b. 10’ minimum ground floor ceiling height (9’ for Detached House Building Type). Reduce
this requirement from 10’ to 9’ for Small Multiplexes.
c. Different types of entry door treatments are required for Small Multiplexes and Detached
Houses (2006.14, 9.01, A.2.). Add uncovered porches as an option for Small Multiplexes.
d. 18” minimum stoop height for a Small Multiplex is higher than the 12” minimum for a
Detached House. Reduce the minimum stoop height for Small Multiplex Buildings from
18” to 12”.
e. A Small Multiplex Building requires that 10% to 50% of the façade between the adjacent
grade and the finish floor line of the second story be windows, but Detached House
Buildings require 40% to 60% be windows. Increase the maximum percentage for Small
Multiplex Buildings from 50% to 60%.
f. Engaged Porch Frontage Option for a Small Multiplex requires that a minimum of 50% of
the building facade projects either beyond the line of the porch columns or flush with the
porch columns while a Detached House requires a minimum of 33%. Reduce the 50%
requirement for Small Multiplex Buildings to 33%.
4. Please see the proposed amendments on the following pages. A redlined version is not compatible
with the document type that is used for the form-based code. Instead, proposed amendments
have been highlighted.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
NONE
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING – MOTION
A motion to close the public hearing was made by L. Willet-LeRoi, supported by J. Seyferth, and
unanimously approved.
MOTION
J. Seyferth moved, seconded by L. Willet-LeRoi, that the request to amend Article IV of the zoning
ordinance to remove R-2 and R-3 districts and rename single-family residential districts be
recommended for approval as presented to the City Commission.
ROLL CALL VOTE
S. Gawron: Yes B. Mazade: Yes D. Keener: Abstain
J. Seyferth: Yes K. Johnson: Abstain L. Willet-LeRoi: Yes
S. Blake: Yes L. Simmons II: Yes
MOTION PASSES
OLD BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:07 pm.
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails