View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
March 15, 2007
Chairman T. Michalski called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Mazade, L. Spataro, B. Larson, S. Warmington, T. Michalski,
B. Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Aslakson, excused; T. Harryman, excused; B. Turnquist, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, C. Brubaker-Clarke, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: R. Pulaski, Nederveld, for J-2, 4079 Park East Ct, Gr Rapids; D.
Rinsema-Sybenga for Downtown Muskegon Development Corp
(DMDC); T. Bosma, Bosma Architects, 557 W. Western Ave.; D.
Dunlap, Westshore Consulting, 2534 Black Creek Rd.; K. Sharp and
other MHS students
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of February 15, 2007 be approved, was made by S.
Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2007-06: Request to amend the Final PUD for 100 Muskegon Mall, for the property
located at 781 Terrace Street, by James Anthony, J2 Development and Construction Company,
LLC. M. Cameron presented the staff report. This is a vacant parcel, zoned B-3, Central Business
with a PUD overlay. The applicant received approval for the Final PUD from City Commission on
February 22, 2005. At that time, the site plan only included the proposed street grid, location of
five existing buildings, and “buildings and structures as proposed and the spatial relationship to
each other and existing downtown structures”. Uses within existing or newly developed buildings
had not yet been determined, but the approval was for “mixed use, residential and commercial”.
The PUD was amended in June 2005 to revise the street design. The changes included eliminating
two traffic circles, and adding one at the corner of Third and Western. Also changed was the
configuration of Jefferson Street, eliminating two intersections. This request is for 13 town homes,
a 4,817 sq. ft., two-story office/retail building on the corner of Terrace and Western, and a 3-story,
10,500 sq. ft. mixed-use building fronting Western Avenue, which will house office/retail on the
first floor, and residential above. The town home units would include two-stall garages for each
unit. Parking for the units located in the mixed-use building along Western Ave. would be
accommodated on the site on an interior parking lot. That leaves only 5 spaces available on the site
for the retail/office portion of the development. Assuming that the buildings will be 50% retail and
50% office space, a total of 30 additional spaces would be needed, once the 30% on-street parking
is accounted for. A parking agreement needs to be obtained by the property owner for these
additional spaces somewhere within 1,000 feet of the development. The site plan is very complete,
Planning Commission Minutes – 3/15/07 1
with no amendments required by the Planning Department. DPW and Police have no concerns with
the site plan. The Fire Department has the following condition: Hydrant distribution and locations
shall comply with International Fire Code Appendix C. Please send drawing with all hydrants
displayed. Engineering has the following comments: On sheet #4 of 6 there is no need to core
manhole. The service will be established during construction of sewer/streets; placement of water
services & locations off of proposed roads (Market and Jefferson) must be determined at time of
construction to avoid digging upon streets construction; and, the exact locations of utilities within
proposed streets (main lines) may change from what is shown on the plans at time of construction.
Staff has received no other comments on this request and recommends approval, with the conditions
listed in the staff report.
B. Mazade asked if the term “time of construction” in staff report item #10(b) referred to the time of
construction of the streets. M. Cameron stated that was correct. S. Warmington asked about the 30
additional parking spaces required, and what would be acceptable to the City. He asked if a 2-year
agreement would be approved. M. Cameron stated that L. Anguilm had been working on the
parking issues, but he didn’t think there had been a time limit assigned. B. Mazade stated that if the
site designated in the parking agreement ended up being developed at a later time, another site
would have to be chosen. He thought it had to be within 1000 feet of the affected property. L.
Spataro believed that the 1000 feet would encompass the Post Office and Terrace Plaza properties,
and asked if the applicant had spoken to anyone from those places. M. Cameron stated that he
wasn’t aware of any conversations that might have taken place. B. Larson asked if there had been
any design criteria provided to the developers, or if each one was just doing it their own way. B.
Mazade stated that the DMDC, as the property owner, did have some design standards.
R. Pulaski handed out color conceptual drawings to board members and explained the project in
more detail. He stated that it would be an integrated project with different uses, and it was
important to them that the development be aesthetically pleasing. The DMDC did have some basic
design guidelines in the original PUD, and they did have a formal parking agreement with them for
Lot 7. There was discussion on where the parking specifically was, and the nature of the parking
agreement. S. Warmington asked if J-2 Development had closed on the property yet. R. Pulaski
believed that they were waiting on Planning Commission approval. S. Warmington stated that this
was a great project, but he had serious concerns about parking. He asked if the Lot 7 designated in
the parking agreement was still for sale. D. Rinsema-Sybenga stated that it was, and if it was sold
and/or developed, there would have to be changes to the parking agreement. S. Warmington did not
like the practice of assigning a lot for parking, but still having that lot for sale for development. T.
Michalski stated that if Lot 7 was developed, it would have to come before the Planning
Commission. He asked if they could require that alternative parking be arranged. M. Cameron
stated that they could. B. Smith asked how many parking spaces there were in Lot 7. D. Rinsema-
Sybenga stated there were over 100. L. Spataro liked the development and appreciated the
thoroughness of the plans submitted, but shared the Mayor’s concerns about parking. He stated that
a long-term plan was needed to figure out how parking for the entire development could be
accomplished. T. Michalski asked if any of these units would be handicap-accessible. R. Pulaski
stated that they were working on getting handicap access from the rear of some units. S.
Warmington had a problem approving any more developments until the parking issues were
addressed. B. Larson didn’t want to punish this developer for the parking issue, since they had
obtained a parking agreement and met the necessary requirements. B. Mazade stated that an option
for the Planning Commission would be to support the approval of this project subject to the
developer satisfactorily meeting parking requirements. He stated that staff had been meeting with
representatives of the DMDC to try and resolve the parking issues. K. Sharp asked what the cost of
the parking agreement was. R. Pulaski stated that he wasn’t sure, or if he would be at liberty to say.
Planning Commission Minutes – 3/15/07 2
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the minor amendment to the Final PUD for 100 Muskegon Mall, 781 Terrace Street
be approved, pursuant to the determination of compliance with the intent of the City Zoning
Ordinance and City Master Land Use Plan, subject to the conditions that 1) a parking agreement be
obtained and approved by the Planning Department for 30 additional parking spaces off site, and 2)
the condition listed by the Fire Department in #9 of the staff report is met, was made by B. Larson
and supported by L. Spataro, with discussion continuing.
L. Spataro stated that this was exactly the type of development the City would like to see, and it was
a local, minority-owned company. He was still concerned about parking, and mentioned that
parking issues have caused business to fail in other cities. S. Warmington stated that he would vote
in favor of this request, and would take up the parking issue with the DMDC.
A vote was taken on the above motion and was unanimously approved.
Case 2007-07: Request for Site Plan Review for a new student center for Baker College
Townhouses at 919 Marquette Avenue, by Tim Bosma, Bosma Architects. M. Cameron presented
the staff report. The property is a vacant, wooded section of the property occupied by Baker
Townhouses. It’s location fronts on Marquette Avenue. The property is zoned RM-1, Low Density
Multiple-Family Residential, as is the property to the south, across Marquette Avenue. The
properties to the east and west are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and zoning to the north is
OSC, Open Space Conservation. The request is for a 13,900 sq. ft. community building/student
union to be used by the residents of Baker Townhouses. No drives or pedestrian access is provided
from Marquette to the building. The only access is from within the townhouse complex. The
building will house laundry facilities, computer and study areas, a snack bar, gathering area, game
room, and fitness center that will be used exclusively by Baker students. The plans show 18
parking spaces for the building. Since the use will be exclusively by Baker students, most of whom
will be arriving on foot, staff believes the allotted parking is sufficient. The landscaping plan is
adequate and the only trees removed will be those necessary for construction of the building. The
Planning Department requires the following to be added to the site plan as a condition of approval:
a) parcel number, and b) proper zoning of subject parcel and adjacent properties (zoned RM-1, not
R2). The Engineering Department has following condition: Please have them check with the
County (724-6411) for need of soil erosion permit. The Fire Department has the following
condition: Key box shall be installed for Fire Department access (is indicated on the site plan). The
DPW has no issues with this site plan. Staff has received no comments regarding this request and
recommends approval.
T. Bosma was the architect representing Baker College. He stated that he had checked with
personnel from the State of Michigan regarding a soil erosion permit and was informed that one is
not needed. There is already a fire box indicated on the site plan, and the zoning designation for
neighboring properties will be corrected.
A motion that the site plan for a community building/student union, located at 919 Marquette
Avenue for Tim Bosma, Bosma Architects, be approved, based on the conditions that 1) all
requirements addressed in item #7 of the staff report shall be provided as needed on a revised site
plan prior to issuance of a building permit, and 2) all conditions of the Fire Department listed in
item #8 and Engineering Department in item #9 of the staff report are met, was made by S.
Warmington, supported by L. Spataro and unanimously approved.
Planning Commission Minutes – 3/15/07 3
Case 2007-08: Request for Site Plan Review for a truck garage for Dan Hoe Excavating, Inc., at
Young Street (former Smith Packing site) by Richard Maike, DDBP, LLC. M. Cameron presented
the staff report. The present Land Use is a vacant parcel, zoned I-1, Light Industrial. The property
is located on Young Street on a parcel that is included in Seaway Industrial Park. It was the former
Smith Packing property. The zoning to the north, is I-2, General Industrial, and to the east, south,
and west is I-1, Light Industrial. The request is for site plan approval for a truck garage. Although
the City allowed the new owner to use this property last construction season for some concrete
recycling in conjunction with a public works project, that use is not allowed in an I-1 zone. There
are several large piles of what appears to be aggregate, as well as some large equipment presently
stored on the property. The storage of aggregate is only allowed in an I-2 zone with a special use
permit. Staff’s initial understanding of the use for this site was that it would be a storage garage for
construction equipment. If these other uses are going to continue on the site, staff would
recommend that the applicant apply for a rezoning. Since the Brunswick building to the north is
zoned I-2, it would be a continuation of that zoning, and a reasonable request. The site plan has one
amendment that needs to be made as a condition of approval from the Planning Department:
Remove “Existing Concrete Recycling Area” from site plan. Fire and Police have no issues with
this site plan. DPW had the following comment: Contact Kelly DeFrench at 724-4184 regarding
water and sewer service. Engineering has the following condition of approval: Details be provided
on the site plan regarding paving and other work to be done in the right-of-way for unimproved
Temple Street. Any work in the street right-of-way requires an Engineering Department permit.
Staff has received no comments regarding this request, and recommends approval, subject to the
conditions listed in the staff report.
D. Dunlap of Westshore Consulting stated that the proposal was to build a single story truck garage
with office space. The remainder of the property would support the construction business of his
client. He expected that they would like to do concrete crushing and equipment storage, and would
be willing to seek a rezoning for that.
A motion that the site plan for a truck garage located at Young Avenue & Temple Street for Richard
Maike, DDBP, LLC, be approved, based on the conditions that 1) all requirements of the Planning
Department addressed in item #4 of the staff report be met, 2) all requirements of the Engineering
Department addressed in item #7 of the staff report be met, and 3) any uses that require a zoning
change shall not be performed until the zone change is approved, was made by L. Spataro,
supported by B. Smith and unanimously approved.
OTHER
Downtown Parking B. Mazade stated that there was some discussion about parking last month
while considering the Post development on Western Ave., and board members had requested a
dialogue with the DMDC. He stated that parking, like the rest of the development, is pretty fluid,
since no one knows what type of developments will be there yet. D. Rinsema-Sybenga read a letter
from C. Larson of the Chamber, who was unable to attend the meeting. The letter indicated her
willingness to work with the City regarding parking issues. D. Rinsema-Sybenga stated that he
thought it was premature to have a firm parking plan at this point, because no one was sure what
type of projects would be developed on the rest of the site yet. He stated that side street
development was not as important as Western Avenue so that was a possibility for parking, but it
was too early to say which lots. S. Warmington wanted to ensure that the site had adequate parking.
The County parking ramp would only provide about 200 spots, and he didn’t want to get farther into
development and end up without enough parking later. He believed it was the responsibility of the
Planning Commission Minutes – 3/15/07 4
DMDC, as the developer, to ensure that parking needs were met. D. Rinsema-Sybenga disagreed
that the DMDC was the developer, and stated that those who purchased sites from the DMDC had
the option to buy other lots for parking as well. B. Mazade stated that the DMDC had obtained a
PUD for the area as the developer, and parking was required as a part of the PUD. The Planning
and City Commissions had allowed the PUD to move ahead even though it was incomplete because
no one knew what type of developments would be on the site, but it was now at a point where the
parking issue had to be addressed. L. Spataro believed that a master plan for parking was
necessary. He stated that there should be suitable sites within the PUD set aside for parking. He
agreed with S. Warmington that the DMDC was the developer, and suggested other ways to
accommodate parking, including adding space to the County’s proposed ramp, or including parking
in the condo association fees. B. Mazade provided information on what D. Rinsema-Sybenga and
the DMDC had done regarding the parking situation up to this point. B. Larson stated that he didn’t
want the Planning Commission to be in the position of denying a future development request based
on lack of parking. D. Rinsema-Sybenga stated that there had been discussions with the other
developers in the PUD of having parking fees included in the condo association, but those
developers did not wish to have that included. He stated that the DMDC had informed all
developers that there were other sources of parking available, and to contact City staff regarding
their plans. C. Brubaker-Clarke stated that City staff had been working with D. Rinsema-Sybenga
regarding the parking issues. She agreed with the idea of a master plan for parking, but stated that it
should be fluid. B. Mazade was not comfortable with the practice of the DMDC providing parking
agreements for lots that they are trying to sell for development. S. Warmington stated that he would
like to come out of this meeting with something to show that they are serious about resolving the
parking issue. There are likely to be more restaurants in the development, which require more
parking. He didn’t feel that he could approve any further requests until this issue was resolved. M.
Cameron stated that some of the parking requirements for restaurants were estimated at the high end
because actual requirements were determined by floor space, which was not known yet. B. Smith
asked if City staff was working with the DMDC on this. B. Mazade stated that they were, and
although it had been a priority, they hadn’t reached a solution yet. S. Warmington asked what the
next projects were. D. Rinsema-Sybenga stated that it would be the Chamber and Sidock Group
buildings. S. Warmington asked that D. Rinsema-Sybenga let Cindy know the importance of
getting the parking issue resolved soon. Off-site parking and other possibilities were discussed. B.
Larson asked if there was any legal encumbrance on the property because of the parking
agreements. C. Brubaker-Clarke stated that it was possible. S. Warmington stated that enforcement
of that would put the City in the position of being the bad guy. B. Mazade didn’t believe that the
City’s parking requirements were the problem. He stated that many developers put in more spaces
than required, for the good of the development. C. Brubaker-Clarke stated that she, B. Mazade, and
D. Rinsema-Sybenga were members of a group working with the DMDC. They heard what the
Planning Commission was saying, and would relay those concerns at their next meeting. L. Spataro
stated that he would like to see a guaranteed number of parking spaces on a site, even if it was a
floating site.
Terrace & Western Intersection L. Spataro stated that there were some vision issues at this
intersection, and suggested that a traffic signal be installed. B. Mazade stated that the City could
look at that as further development occurred. Staff was asked to refer the issue to the City’s Traffic
Committee. M. Cameron stated that he would do that.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
dml
Planning Commission Minutes – 3/15/07 5
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails