View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 8, 2018 @ 5:30 P.M.
MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
933 TERRACE STREET, MUSKEGON, MI 49440
AGENDA
□ CALL TO ORDER:
□ PRAYER:
□ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
□ ROLL CALL:
□ HONORS AND AWARDS:
□ INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATION:
Pollinator Plan Presentation LeighAnn Mikesell - DPW
□ CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
□ CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of Minutes City Clerk
B. Request to Fly the Norwegian Flag City Clerk
C. Approval of Building Contract for 1015 E. Forest Avenue Community &
Neighborhood Services
D. Toro Groundsmaster Mower DPW/Equipment
E. 2018-19 Healthcare and Wellness Program Finance Director
F. Set Public Hearing for Amendment to Brownfield Plan – Pigeon Hill
Planning & Economic Development
G. Remembrance Road Preliminary and Construction Engineering
Department of Public Works
H. LC Walker Arena Improvements City Manager
I. Amity Bridge – Resolution of Support for Bridge Funding Application and
Commitment for Matching Funds Department of Public Works
J. Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act Application Planning &
Economic Development
□ PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Page 1 of 2
□ COMMUNICATIONS:
□ UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
□ NEW BUSINESS:
A. DDA On-Premise Liquor License for Nipotes Planning & Economic
Development
B. Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act Planning & Economic
Development SECOND READING
C. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance – Medical Marihuana Facilities
Licensing Act Overlay District Planning & Economic Development
D. Demolition of 1713 and 1747 7th Street AKA Park Street Storage
Public Safety
□ ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
□ PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
► Reminder: Individuals who would like to address the City Commission shall do the following:
► Fill out a request to speak form attached to the agenda or located in the back of the room.
► Submit the form to the City Clerk.
► Be recognized by the Chair.
► Step forward to the microphone.
► State name and address.
► Limit of 3 minutes to address the Commission.
► (Speaker representing a group may be allowed 10 minutes if previously registered with City Clerk.)
□ CLOSED SESSION:
□ ADJOURNMENT:
ADA POLICY: THE CITY OF MUSKEGON WILL PROVIDE NECESSARY AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS
WHO WANT TO ATTEND THE MEETING UPON TWENTY-FOUR HOUR NOTICE TO THE CITY OF MUSKEGON. PLEASE
CONTACT ANN MARIE MEISCH, CITY CLERK, 933 TERRACE STREET, MUSKEGON, MI 49440 OR BY CALLING (231) 724-
6705 OR TTY/TDD DIAL 7-1-1- TO REQUEST A REPRESENTATIVE TO DIAL (231) 724-6705.
Page 2 of 2
Memorandum
To: Mayor and Commissioners
From: Frank Peterson
Re: City Commission Meeting
Date: May 3, 2018
Here is a quick outline of the items on our agenda(s):
WORK SESSION
At the work session, we will discuss a number of ongoing projects:
1. We will be discussing a staff request to enter into an agreement with an engineering firm
to provide design and construction engineering services related to upgrades to
Remembrance Road. The project will include public roadway improvements to support a
large industrial project planned for the property, which the City is acquiring from the
current property owner. The development will be in front of the Planning Commission
seeking site plan approval in the coming weeks.
2. We would like to continue our discussion on the MMFLA application document. Staff
would like to have that document finalized in the coming days to best prepare our
planning staff for the processing of applications.
3. We would like to finish our discussion on the MMFLA Overlay District. If you recall, staff
is recommending that the two districts be approved as one district with the same zoning
requirements.
4. We would like to discuss some time-sensitive improvements/repairs to the LC Walker
Arena. Each year, we have a short period to make major changes to the facility (while
there are not any scheduled events). The improvements/repairs that we are requesting
are as follows:
a. ADA seating improvements. This work is expected to cost approximately $20,000
and will be completed by the Department of Public Works.
b. Demolition of upper-level seating to make additional space for more popular
seating/viewing options. Over the past 3+ years, we have experienced a shift in
seating preferences. The fans at the arena (especially at the sporting events)
desire areas where they can stand/mingle while watching the game. We would
like to provide that. The Party Deck, Fan Cave, and the Beer Garden, as well as the
corporate suites are our most popular seating options. This move will allow us to
expand that seating/viewing option and create some more unique/desirable
viewing areas – likely improving ticket sales. We expect this to be not more than
a $30,000 cost.
c. Removal of non-functioning HVAC units to improve arena aesthetics. These large
units are visible along the ceiling throughout the arena. The system was
abandoned as part of the Quality of Life upgrades a number of years ago, but the
equipment was never removed – likely because of cost. Paint is peeling and it’s
really time to get them out of the arena. We expect this to be not more than a
$30,000 cost.
d. We need to complete the painting in the arena. We have tried to piecemeal the
painting this season by doing small portions at a time. The costs are adding up,
and in my opinion, we should seek approval for the entire area. Interior and
exterior painting has not happened in decades. Our goal is to replace all of the
green areas with a grey/black. Additionally, we intend to paint the white rafters
with a black paint, and paint all interior cinderblock surfaces with washable paint
in various shades of grey and black. We expect the ceiling paint to be
approximately $50,000 and exterior trim paint to cost approximately $21,000. We
expect the remaining cinderblock walls to cost no more than $50,000.
e. We need to replace the reflective ceiling insulation. This a heating/cooling issue,
as the reflective insulation helps efficiently keep the ice cold/frozen. There are
cheaper options, but we want the higher R value that comes with this material.
We expect this to be not more than a $60,000 cost.
We are expecting the total cost to reach $230,000. In the grand scheme of things, the arena
has millions in deferred maintenance needs. We are going to try and take a few bites at that
each year. In the meantime, we do intend to make a request from the DDA to fund an
additional round of improvements that could happen simultaneously with these
improvements: glass, ice controls, restrooms, concessions, suites, and more activation of
Western Ave would be the focus of the DDA request. Other improvements likely needed in
the next few years include the roof(s) and HVAC.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Under presentation, we will present the pollinator plan from last month.
2. Under the Consent Agenda, we are asking the Commission to consider the following:
a. Approval of meeting minutes from the most-recent City Commission meeting.
b. Approval to fly the Norwegian Flag (annual approval for Sons of Norway).
c. Approval of a building contract for 1015 E Forest. This is a CNS housing
rehabilitation project.
d. Approval to purchase of a Toro Groundsmaster. This multi-use equipment will
function as a lawn mower and a sidewalk snow removal device.
e. Approval of the 2018-19 Healthcare and Wellness Program. This is essentially our
employee health insurance program. We made some changes to better-conform
with state law (including increases to employee cost-sharing). The net cost
increase to the city is minimal.
f. Set a public hearing to consider the brownfield redevelopment plan for the Pigeon
Hill Brewing expansion.
g. Approval of the remembrance road engineering agreement. This is a carryover
from the work session.
h. Authorization of the expenditures at the LC Walker Arena. This is a carryover from
the work session.
i. Approval of a resolution that will authorize staff to seek grants to remove the
Amity Street Bridge and build a new roadway on fill. Local cost share is estimated
at $90,000 plus engineering costs. Funding is available starting in 2021.
3. Under the New Business, we are asking the Commission to consider the following:
a. Approval of an on premise liquor license for a new restaurant under construction
on Clay Avenue.
b. Second reading of the medical marihuana opt-in ordinance.
c. First reading of the Medical Marihuana Overlay District ordinance.
d. Approval of the demolition of Park Street Storage.
Let me know if you have any questions/comments/concerns
Date: May 2, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Ann Marie Meisch, City Clerk
RE: Approval of Minutes
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve minutes of the April 24, 2018 Regular
Meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the minutes.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 24, 2018 @ 5:30 P.M.
MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
933 TERRACE STREET, MUSKEGON, MI 49440
MINUTES
The Regular Commission Meeting of the City of Muskegon was held at City Hall,
933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, MI at 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 24, 2018. Pastor
Darrin Longmire, Forest Park Covenant Church, opened the meeting with
prayer, after which the Commission and public recited the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ROLL CALL FOR THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING:
Present: Mayor Stephen J. Gawron, Vice Mayor Eric Hood, Commissioners
Ken Johnson, Byron Turnquist, Willie German, Jr., Debra Warren, and Dan
Rinsema-Sybenga, City Manager Frank Peterson, City Attorney John Schrier, and
City Clerk Ann Meisch.
2018-26 CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of Minutes City Clerk
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve minutes of the April 9, 2018 Worksession
Meeting and the April 10, 2018 Regular Meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the minutes.
B. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Planning & Economic
Development
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2005.10 (Urban
Residential Context Area) of the Form Based Code to allow non-profit supportive
housing as a special use permitted in certain building types and to allow home-
based businesses as a principal use permitted in certain building types.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the zoning ordinance amendment.
Page 1 of 5
C. Procurement of Turbidimeters DPW/WFP
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize staff to procure new turbidimeters from Hach
to replace old and obsolete turbidimeters at the Water Filtration Plant.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Existing turbidimeters are old, obsolete, failing and
replacement parts are not available. These turbidimeters in bulk would be more
economical to procure them with controllers as kits. Currently, there are three
newer Hach controllers in stock and procuring the new Hach turbidimeters kits
will allow the existing controllers to be utilized. This is a more economical
approach for replacement of all turbidimeters at the cost of $57,118.88
(including shipping).
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff be authorized to procure turbidimeters from
Hach at the Water Filtration Plant at a cost of $57,118.88.
D. Ottawa Bridge – Resolution of Support for Bridge Funding Application and
Commitment for Matching Funds DPW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Engineering Department would like to apply for
critical bridge funding through the Michigan Department of Transportation.
These funds would be used to replace the Ottawa Bridge which was
constructed in 1929 and is currently in very poor condition.
Construction is estimated at $1,374,000, and the city would be required to
provide matching funds of approximately $300,000 plus engineering costs.
Funding is available starting in 2021.
The MDOT application requires a resolution of support and commitment for the
matching funds.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: $600,000 split over fiscal year 20/21 and 21/22.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution of support for the critical
bridge fund applications and commit to funding the required match and
engineering costs.
Motion by Commissioner Warren, second by Commissioner German, to approve
the consent agenda as presented.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Gawron, Hood, Warren, German, Rinsema-Sybenga,
Turnquist, and Johnson
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
Page 2 of 5
2018-27 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Public Hearing for the 2018 Action Plan Community & Neighborhood
Services
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To conduct a public hearing on April 24, 2018 to
receive comments from the public concerning the 2018 Action Plan developed
by the Community and Neighborhood Services Department.
After the public hearing, all comments received during the 30 day comment
period (April 15-May 14) will be documented and included in the plan as
required.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City is required to submit the Annual Action Plan to
receive 2018 allocations of CDBG and HOME Investment Partnership Programs.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To direct staff to gather comments from the
public and to submit the 2018 Action Plan to HUD after the public comment
period.
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENCED: No public comments were received.
Motion by Vice Mayor Hood, second by Commissioner Johnson, to close the
public hearing and direct staff to gather comments from the public and submit
the 2018 Action Plan to HUD after the public comment period.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Hood, Warren, German, Rinsema-Sybenga, Turnquist,
Johnson, and Gawron
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
2018-28 NEW BUSINESS:
A. Concurrence with the Housing Board of Appeals Notice and Order to
Demolish the Following: Public Safety
577 Amity Avenue
1330 5th Street
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: This is to request that the City Commission Concur with
the findings of the Housing Board of Appeals that the structures are unsafe,
substandard, a public nuisance and that they be demolished within 30 days. It is
further requested that administration be directed to obtain bids for the
demolition of the structures and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized
and directed to execute a contract for demolition with the lowest responsible
bidder or staff may issue infraction tickets to the owner, agent or responsible
party if they do not demolish the structure.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Fire Escrow Funds of $9,918.75 and $30,739.08 have
Page 3 of 5
been received.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To concur with the Housing Board of Appeals
decision to demolish.
Motion by Commissioner German, second by Commissioner Johnson, to concur
with the Housing Board of Appeals notice and order to demolish 577 Amity
Avenue and 1330 5th Street.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Warren, German, Rinsema-Sybenga, Turnquist, Johnson,
Gawron, and Hood
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
2018-29 ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act – Opt In/Out Discussion – No
Action Requested Planning & Economic Development
Frank Peterson, City Manager, presented information to the City Commission
regarding consideration of opting in or opting out of the Michigan Medical
Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act. Mike Franzak, Planning Manager, presented
information regarding amending the general code of ordinances if the
commission chooses to opt in. Mike also gave information regarding proposed
zoning changes and an application for a MMFLA license.
Discussion took place amongst the commission.
Motion by Commissioner Johnson, second by Commissioner Warren, to adopt
an amendment to the code of ordinances, Chapter 34, Article IV, Sections 201-
208.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Rinsema-Sybenga, Johnson, Gawron, and Warren
Nays: German, Turnquist, and Hood
MOTION PASSES
Page 4 of 5
INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATION:
Proclamation – Women’s Veteran’s Day Mayor Stephen J. Gawron,
presented a Resolution proclaiming April 26, 2018 as Women’s Veterans Day in
Muskegon and encourages all City of Muskegon citizens to recognize the
courage and contributions of generations of American servicewomen and their
families who have proudly served our great state and nation, doing their part to
protect our land, people, freedoms and legacy.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Public comments were received.
ADJOURNMENT: The City Commission meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ann Marie Meisch, MMC, City Clerk
Page 5 of 5
Date: May 2, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Ann Marie Meisch, City Clerk
RE: Request to Fly the Norwegian Flag
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Sons of Norway are requesting permission
to fly the Norwegian Flag at City Hall on Thursday, May 17th in honor of
Norway’s Constitution Day (Independence Day).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the request.
Commission Meeting Date: May 8, 2018
Date: April 30, 2018
To : Honorable Mayor and City Commission
From: Community and Neighborhood Services Department
RE : Approval of Building Contract for 1015 E Forest Ave
____________________________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To award the Building Contract for the rehabilitation of
1015 E Forest Ave to Holden Construction, for the City of Muskegon’s Homebuyers
Program through CNS.
CNS received 3 bids as listed on the attached sheet; the cost estimate from our
spec writer was $98,100.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The funding for this project has been secured with 2017
HOME Funds.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To award Holden Construction the rehabilitation
contract for 1015 E Forest; in the amount of $ 73,250.00 for the Community and
Neighborhood Services Office.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None required.
Community and
Neighborhood Services
MEMO City of Muskegon
933 Terrace
Second Floor
Muskegon, MI 49442
Ph: 231-724-6717
Fax: 231-726-2501
Date: April 27, 2018
To: Bidders regarding 1015 E Forest Ave
From: Oneata Bailey, Director
Community and Neighborhood Services
City of Muskegon
Re: Bid Results
Community and Neighborhood Services received the following bid proposals:
CONTRACTOR Total Bid Price
Holden Construction $73,250
Nassau Construction LLC $94,497
TK Construction $101,097
The City of Muskegon reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids. The City
of Muskegon is also not restricted to accept the lowest bid.
We appreciate everyone’s interest in being a part of the City of Muskegon’s
neighborhood revitalization efforts. The selected bidder will be contacted in the next
few days.
OB
Date: 5/8/2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: DPW/Equipment
RE: Toro Groundsmaster Mower
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The Equipment Division is requesting permission to purchase one (1) Toro
Groundsmaster Mower coming from Spartan Distributers the lowest qualified bidder.
Cost for this Mower is $31,737.32 coming from the Equipment Division fund.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$31,737.32
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None. Amount is what was budgeted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize staff to purchase one (1) Toro Groundsmaster Mower from Spartan Distributers
the lowest qualified bidder.
O:\CLERK\Common\Word\Agenda Items for Next Meeting\2018\050818\06a_2018toro4x4snowthrower-
mower.doc
QUOTATION Date 12/11/17
For: Muskegon/Equipment From: Cleveland Office located at:
1350 Keating 2266 E Aurora Road
Twinsburg, OH 44087
Muskegon MI 49442 800-346-0066
Attn: Mr. Kevin Santos SalesRep:
Qty Model# Description Sell Price Extension
GM3280
1 30345 Groundsmaster 3280-D 4WD (Kubota® liquid-cooled, diesel, 3- 33,969.66 33,969.66
cylinder, 24.8 hp)
1 24-5790-01 Rear Weight (1-35 lb. weight)
1 30313 Air Ride Seat Suspension
1 30398 Milsco Seat
1 30707 Armrests
1 108-9687 Armrest Adaptor Kit
1 30298 Cab-GM3280, Heat Only
1 30701 Universal Sunshade (Red)
1 31509 Beacon Kit (F15 and newer models) (Available May 2015)
1 120-6640 Auixiliary Valve Kit
1 900450 T1600 X 52"Front Mounted Snow Blower for Toro
Sub-Total:
Merchandise Total 33,969.66
(No Trades Quoted) Trade-In Credit 0.00
Destination Charge 509.54
6.00% * Sales Tax 2,068.75
Terms: Net 15 Days (Upon Credit Approval) 36,547.96
This Quote Is Good for 30 Days
* Sales Tax is subject to change based on the current rules and regulations in effect at the time of delivery
Accepted By: Date:
True Lease Financing Base = $36,547.96 Rate Factor Payment Residual%
Conditional Sale Financing Base = $36,547.96 Rate Factor Payment
Toro Protection Plus Options and Price Quote
12/11/2017
For: Muskegon/Equipment From: Cleveland Office located at:
1350 Keating 2266 E Aurora Road
Twinsburg, OH 44087
Muskegon MI 49442 800-346-0066
Attn: Mr. Kevin Santos SalesRep:
Plus 1 Year Plus 2 Years Plus 3 Years
Comprehensive Coverage 1000 1800 2700 3600 2400 3600 3500 5000
Model Desciption Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours
30345 Groundsmaster 3280-D 4WD (Kubota® liquid-cooled, diesel, 3 646.00 768.00 768.00 1,229.00 1,048.00 1,366.00 1,536.00 1,792.00
9153 Comprehensive Package Totals: $ 646.00 $ 768.00 $ 768.00 $ 1,229.00 $ 1,048.00 $ 1,366.00 $ 1,536.00 $ 1,792.00
Plus 1 Year Plus 2 Years Plus 3 Years
Drive Train Only Coverage 1000 1800 2700 3600 2400 3600 3500 5000
Model Desciption Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours
30345 Groundsmaster 3280-D 4WD (Kubota® liquid-cooled, diesel, 3 430.00 512.00 640.00 819.00 768.00 1,024.00 1,195.00 1,433.00
6821 Drive Train Only Package Totals: $ 430.00 $ 512.00 $ 640.00 $ 819.00 $ 768.00 $ 1,024.00 $ 1,195.00 $ 1,433.00
Steve Stewart, SCPS
ORDER
Operation Manager
911 Tower Road
Mundelein, IL 60060
Cell (630) 284-8496
Fax (847) 678-5511
sstewart@reinders.com
Acct #:
Muskegon/Equipment Quote ID Quotes Good
1350 Keating 2261747 for 30 Days
Muskegon, MI 49442 Quote Date Tax Not Included
12/11/17 In Quote
Attn: Kevin Santos
PRICE QUOTATION
Qty Model # Description Total
1 30345 GM 3280-D 4WD $35,759.89
1 30313 Air Ride Seat Suspension
1 30398 Milsco Seat
1 30707 Armrests
1 108-9687 Armrest Adaptor Kit
7 24-5790-01 Rear Weight 35 lb.
14 325-8 Screw
14 3253-7 Washer Lock
1 30298 Cab-GM3280, Winter, Heat Only
1 30701 Cab Road Light Kit (Mounts to GM360 model 31202
1 120-6640 Auixiliary Valve Kit
1 31509 Rotating Beacon
1 117-0800 RH Life Arm ASM
1 117-0806 LH Lift Arm ASM
$30,565.09
1 ES1600-GM328 Erskine 53" Snowthrower 328-D $5,194.80
Total $35,759.89
Proposal Summary and Agreement
I am pleased to submit the attached proposal for your consideration
This is a proposal on the goods named, subject to the following conditions: The prices and terms on this proposal are not
subject to verbal changes or other agreements unless approved in writing by the seller. All proposals and agreements are
contingent on availability of product from the manufacturer. Typographical errors are subject to correction.
All prices quoted include delivery to your facility unless otherwise stated. The preceding pricing is valid for 30 days unless
otherwise stated. Prices include assembly where applicable and accessibility to parts and service manuals. Timing at delivery
may vary and is subject to manufacturer's availability. Purchaser is responsible for applicable taxes. All financed items will
require lease documentation be returned to the finance company and approved for shipment by the lessor before delivery can
be completed.
ORDER ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT
By signing below, I am authorizing Reinders, Inc. to proceed with fulfilling the product order based on the quote I.D.#
noted and that I have reviewed the quote in its entirety. Unless otherwise indicated I agree to accept delivery on the
earliest date that this product can be shipped to our location(s). Any and all trades associated with this order will be
ready for pick up at time of delivery of this order. A 2.5% service fee will apply for all credit card transactions.
Quote I.D. # ____________________________ Accepted Equipment Delivery Date________________________
Authorized Signature:________________________________________________________
Print Name:____________________________________________
Date:__________________________
Steve Stewart, SCPS
Operation Manager
Reinders, Inc.
Commission Meeting Date: May 8, 2018
Date: May 2, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
From: Planning & Economic Development Department
RE: Set Public Hearing for Amendment to Brownfield
Plan- Pigeon Hill
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve the attached resolution setting a public
hearing for an amendment for the Brownfield Plan, and notifying taxing jurisdictions of
the Brownfield Plan Amendment including the opportunity to express their views and
recommendations regarding the proposed amendment at the public hearing. The
amendment is for the inclusion of property owned by Pigeon Hill Brewing Company,
LLC, located at 895 4th Street, in the Brownfield Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Brownfield Tax increment Financing will be used to reimburse
the developer for “eligible expenses” incurred in association with development of the
Pigeon Hill project, which is approximately $434,507.28. Pigeon Hill Brewing
Company, LLC cost for the development of the property is approximately $1,313,187
in private investment, resulting in a substantial increase in the local and school taxes
generated by the property.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the attached resolution and authorize the
Mayor and Clerk to sign the resolution.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Brownfield Redevelopment Authority met
on May 8, 2018 and approved the Brownfield Plan Amendment and recommends the
approval of the Brownfield Plan Amendment to the Muskegon City Commission.
RESOLUTION NOTIFYING TAXING UNITS,
MICHIGAN STRATEGIC FUND;
AND CALLING PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE BROWNFIELD PLAN OF THE
CITY OF MUSKEGON BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Muskegon
County of Muskegon, Michigan
___________________________________
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Muskegon, County of
Muskegon, Michigan (the "City"), held in the City offices, on the 8th day of May, 2018 at 5:30 o'clock
p.m., prevailing Eastern Time.
PRESENT: Members__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
ABSENT: Members
__________________________________________________________________
The following preamble and resolution were offered by Member _________________ and
supported by Member _________________:
WHEREAS, the City of Muskegon, County of Muskegon, Michigan (the "City") is authorized
by the provisions of Act 381, Public Acts of Michigan, 1996, as amended ("Act 381"), to create a
brownfield redevelopment authority; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Act 381, the City Commission of the City duly established the City of
Muskegon Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority"); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Act 381, the Authority has prepared and
approved Brownfield Plan Amendments to include the Pigeon Hill 4th Street Expansion Project, and
WHEREAS, the Authority has forwarded the Brownfield Plan Amendments to the City
Commission requesting its approval of the Brownfield Plan Amendments and
WHEREAS, prior to approval of the Brownfield Plan Amendments, the Muskegon City
Commission desires to hold a public hearing in connection with consideration of the Brownfield Plan
Amendments as required by Act 381; and
WHEREAS, prior to approval of the Brownfield Plan Amendments, the City Commission is
required to provide notice and a reasonable opportunity to the taxing jurisdictions levying taxes subject
to capture and the Michigan Strategic Fund (MSF) to express their views and recommendations
regarding the Brownfield Plan Amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The City Commission hereby acknowledges receipt of the Brownfield Plan
Amendments from the Authority and directs the City Clerk to send notice of the proposed Brownfield
Plan Amendments to the governing body of each taxing jurisdiction in the City and the MSF notifying
them of the City Commission's intention to consider approval of the Brownfield Plan Amendments [after
the public hearing described below]; and that a copy of the Plan is available for public inspection at the
Muskegon City Clerk’s Office.
2. A public hearing is hereby called on the 22nd of May, 2018 at 5:30 p.m., prevailing
Eastern Time, in the City Hall Commission Chambers to consider adoption by the City Commission of a
resolution approving the Brownfield Plan Amendments.
3. The City Clerk shall notice said public hearing. The notice shall be not less than 10
days before the date set for the public hearing
4. The notice of the hearing shall be in substantially the following form:
CITY OF MUSKEGON
COUNTY OF MUSKEGON, STATE OF MICHIGAN
PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUSKEGON BROWNFIELD PLAN, AS
APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MUSKEGON BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS IN THE CITY OF MUSKEGON:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Muskegon City Commission of the City of Muskegon,
Michigan, will hold a public hearing on May 22, 2018, at 5:30 p.m., prevailing Eastern Time in the City
Hall Commission Chambers located at 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, Michigan, to consider the
adoption of a resolution approving a Brownfield Plan Amendment for the City of Muskegon Brownfield
Redevelopment Authority pursuant to Act 381 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1996, as amended.
The property to which the proposed Brownfield Plan Amendment applies is:
Pigeon Hill 4th Street Expansion Project
895 4th Street
Muskegon, Michigan 49440
Copies of the proposed Brownfield Plan Amendment are on file at the office of the City Clerk for
inspection during regular business hours.
At the public hearing, all interested persons desiring to address the City Commission shall be
afforded an opportunity to be heard in regard to the approval of the Brownfield Plan Amendments for
the City of Muskegon Brownfield Redevelopment Authority. All aspects of the Brownfield Plan
Amendments will be open for discussion at the public hearing.
FURTHER INFORMATION may be obtained from the City Clerk.
This notice is given by order of the City Commission of the City of Muskegon, Michigan.
_____________________________
Ann Marie Meisch, City Clerk
5. All resolutions and parts of resolutions insofar as they conflict with the provisions of this
resolution be and the same hereby are rescinded.
AYES: Members
_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
NAYS: Members
__________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION DECLARED ADOPTED.
_____________________________
Ann Marie Meisch, City Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the
City Commission of the City of Muskegon, County of Muskegon, State of Michigan, at a regular meeting
held on May 22, 2018, and that said meeting was conducted and public notice of said meeting was
given pursuant to and in full compliance with the Open Meetings Act, being Act 267, Public Acts of
Michigan, 1976, as amended, and that the minutes of said meeting were kept and will be or have been
made available as required by said Act.
_____________________________
City Clerk
Date: 5/8/2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Department of Public Works
RE: Remembrance Road Preliminary and Construction Engineering
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Moore & Bruggink for preliminary and
construction engineering services related to the reconstruction and widening of
Remembrance Road from Keating south to new project site in the Port City Industrial
Park.
The requested consultant is currently working on the site development, has familiarity
with the needs for the project site and has submitted a reasonable cost estimate for the
work.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$107,000 for engineering services to be covered by the Major Street fund
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
Adjust Major Street fund in third quarter reforecast
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Moore & Bruggink for engineering services
related to the reconstruction and widening of Remembrance Road.
O:\CLERK\Common\Word\Agenda Items for Next Meeting\2018\050818\09_Commission Request Remembrance
Road Consultant.doc
AGENDA ITEM NO. _______________
CITY COMMISSION MEETING __________________________
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: Frank Peterson, City Manager
DATE: May 8, 2018
RE: LC Walker Arena Improvements
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Staff is seeking approval to make a number of investments at the LC Walker Arena during the 2018
off-season. The improvements include updated ADA seating, demolition and removal of old/unused
HVAC equipment, painting, and ceiling repairs. In addition to these improvements, staff will be
requesting funds from the Downtown Development Authority to replace the glass around the playing
surface, replace ice controllers, upgrade restrooms, reconfigure a portion of the arena’s seating, and
improve food and beverage offerings. Collectively, these items are expected to help improve the
fan/visitor experience and move the arena closer to self-sustainability.
ADA Improvements: $20,000
Paint: $120,000
Selective Demolition: $30,000
Ceiling Repairs: $60,000
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$20,000 was previously budgeted in the General Fund for ADA Compliance. The remaining funds will be
expensed from the Public Improvement Fund.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
This will be accounted for in the 3rd Quarter Reforecast.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To authorize the city manager to expend up to $230,000 for ADA seating upgrades, miscellaneous
demolition, painting, and ceiling repairs at the LC walker Arena.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
LC WALKER
ARENA
11/01/16 LC WALKER ARENA |
WHAT IS THE LONG TERM VISION FOR THE PROJECT?
“LC WALKER SHOULD BECOME AN ASSET TO WESTERN AVENUE. THE ARENA COULD BRING FRANK PETERSON
HUB
MORE PEOPLE TO GAMES ALMOST BY ACCIDENT; IT WILL BE A DOWNTOWN “HUB”, JUST AS BUSY MUSKEGON CITY MANAGER
WHETHER AN EVENT IS HAPPENING OR NOT; OUR EVENT CENTER IS FULL ALL THE TIME AND
COULD CONTAIN AMENITIES FOR HOCKEY FAMILIES.”
ACTIVATE
“LC WALKER SHOULD BE AN ARENA FOR A MIX OF DIFFERENT EVENTS; AN ASSET TO ALL BOB LUKENS
STREETS; PROVIDE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESSES AND EVENTS; BECOME A SHOW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
PLACE FOR INVESTORS AND SPONSORSHIP.” MUSKEGON COUNTY
EXPERIENCE
“MAXIMIZE ICE UTILIZATION FOR THE ARENA, PROVIDE GUARANTEED REVENUE; MAKE IT MORE TIM TAYLOR
THAN A HOCKEY ARENA, IT SHOULD BE A STAPLE OF DOWNTOWN FAN EXPERIENCE FOR EVERY CEO LC WALKER ARENA
EVENT; A TRUE MULTIUSE FACILITY.”
ASSET
“HAVE THE ARENA BE THE #1 PLACE IN DOWNTOWN AREA; RESTAURANT; A PLACE WHERE NEIL HAWRYLIW
GUESTS GET TREATED WELL; SHOWCASE HOSPITALITY.” MANAGER LC WALKER ARENA
“LC WALKER TO BECOME BEST IN CLASS GUEST EXPERIENCE INSIDE THE ARENA; PERCEIVE ROBERT WILLI
SUSTAINABLE
BUILDING FULL WITH USE OF PAID PARKING, CURRENTLY PERCEIVED AS EMPTY.” LC WALKER CONCESSIONS MANAGER
“THE ARENA SHOULD BE A SUSTAINABLE MODEL, NOT RELYING ON ICE TIME ALONE; ANCILLARY CAITLIN WARD
REVENUE, RESTAURANTS, PARKING, FOOD; EXPERIENCED / TRAINED STAFF; BRAND GOES HAND SPORTS AND NICHE MARKET
IN HAND WITH ARCHITECTURAL FACE LIFT.” EXECUTIVE MUSKEGON COUNTY
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 2
WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE ADDITION?
EXPERIENCE HUB
OPENESS / MODERNIZATION (FRESH)
CONVENIENCE, FRONT/BACK OF HOUSE
ACTIVATE
INTERMINGLING, INSIDE/OUT EXPERIENCE
CUSTOMER SERVICE
VARIETY
ASSET
SUSTAINABLE
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 3
IN WHAT WAYS CAN THE ARENA BECOME FULLY INTEGRATED
HUB
INTO MUSKEGON’S DOWNTOWN?
ACTIVATE STREET FRONT
BECOME A LEADER OF CHANGE, EXPAND FOOTPRINT OF IDENTITY,
PUBLIC FOR MUSKEGON HALL OF FAME, BURGER BAR, ALCOHOLIC
ACTIVATE
MILKSHAKES
PHYSICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DOWNTOWN DESTINATIONS
EXPERIENCE
OUTSIDE RENOVATION, BRING BUILDING UP TO DATE ASSET
TIE IN TO EVENT PROGRAMMING FOR THE CITY, DRINK AT THE RINK
SHUT DOWN FOURTH STREET, EXPAND PROGRAMMING, TIE IT ALL
SUSTAINABLE
TOGETHER
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 4
PURPOSE:
1. FULLY INTEGRATE ARENA WITH THE CITY OF MUSKEGON
2. CREATE NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR TENANTS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL REVENUE
3. IMPROVE FAN EXPERIENCE RELEVANT TO COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE
PASSION:
HUB
LC WALKER ARENA WILL BE THE NEW MODEL FOR HOW A SMALL ARENA CAN
BECOME AN URBAN HUB. OVERLAPPING USES AND FLEXIBILITY BETWEEN PUBLIC
ACTIVATE
AND TICKETED CUSTOMERS WILL IGNITE THE STREETSCAPE WITH ACTIVITY
THROUGH TRANSPARENCY AND OUTDOOR PROGRAMMING. FAN EXPERIENCE WILL
BE IMPROVED BY RIGHT SIZING THE SEATING CAPACITY AND UPGRADING AMENITIES
EXPERIENCE
TO MEET GUESTS EXPECTATIONS FOR A MODERN ARENA.
ASSET
SUSTAINABLE
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 5
LC WALKER
UPGRADES
1.
RETAIL WITH STOREFRONT GLASS 9.
CONCESSION WITH EXTERIOR POINT OF SALE 18.
TEAM MERCHANDISE
ADDITIONAL OR RENOVATED BUILDING AREA FOR RELOCATION OF CONCESSION STAND TO ALLOW FOR CONSIDER SMALL COUNTER FOR TEAM STORE OR
LEASABLE RETAIL SPACES THAT FIT COHESIVELY WITH AN EXTERIOR WINDOW ALLOWING FOR WALK UP INCLUSION OF TEAM STORE WITHIN A SKATE SHOP
THE DOWNTOWN AND THE ARENA. USE OF GLASS SALES FROM STREET.
ALLOWING ACTIVATION OF SIDEWALK 19.
FRONT ROW TABLES
10. CONCESSION SEATING/STANDING AREA UNIQUE PREMIUM SEATING OPTION AT GLASS
2.
RESTAURANT WITH STOREFRONT GLASS AREA OUTSIDE OF CONCESSION STAND THAT ALLOWS CONSISTING OF HALF ROUND TABLES AND MOVEABLE
ADDITIONAL OR RENOVATED BUILDING AREA FOR GUESTS TO EITHER SIT OR STAND AT OPEN TABLES. SEATS
LEASABLE RETAIL SPACES THAT FIT COHESIVELY WITH CONSIDER VIEWS TO ICE AND VIEWS TO OUTSIDE
THE DOWNTOWN AND THE ARENA. USE OF GLASS 20.
HIGH TOP TABLES
AND OR OPERABLE DOORS ALLOWING ACTIVATION OF 11.
TOILET RENOVATION TICKETED ROUND OR HALF ROUND TABLES THAT
SIDEWALK. RESTAURANTS WITH ACCESS TO ARENA CONSIDER REPLACING FINISHES, FIXTURES, AND ALLOW GREAT VIEWS TO ICE WHILE ALLOWING A MORE
CONCOURSE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AMENITY TO LIGHTING TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF FAN EXPERIENCE. SOCIAL EXPERIENCE AT CONCOURSE LEVEL FOR 3-4
FANS PEOPLE
12.
TOILET RELOCATION
3.
RETAIL/ RESTAURANT ON CORNER IN ORDER TO MAKE WAY FOR MORE RETAIL AND
ADDITIONAL AUXILIARY LOCKER ROOMS
ADDITIONAL OR RENOVATED BUILDING AREA FOR RESTAURANT SPACE ON WESTERN AVENUE, CODE 21.
ROUND OR HALF ROUND TABLES THAT ALLOW GREAT
LEASABLE RETAIL SPACES THAT FIT COHESIVELY WITH REQUIRED NUMBER OF TOILETS MUST BE RELOCATED.
VIEWS TO ICE WHILE ALLOWING A MORE SOCIAL
THE DOWNTOWN AND THE ARENA. USE OF GLASS CONSIDER EVEN DISPERSEMENT AROUND
EXPERIENCE AT CONCOURSE LEVEL
AND OR OPERABLE DOORS ALLOWING ACTIVATION OF CONCOURSE
SIDEWALK. RESTAURANTS WITH ACCESS TO ARENA
CONCOURSE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AMENITY TO 13.
EGRESS RELOCATION 22.
ARENA STORAGE/BOH
FANS RELOCATED EGRESS DOORS AND STAIRS TO ALLOW REALLOCATED EVENT LEVEL SPACE DEDICATED TO
ALTERNATIVE USE OF SPACE AROUND CONCOURSE STORAGE TO ASSIST IN OPERATION OF ARENA FOR
TICKETING RELOCATION HOCKEY, SOCCER, FOOTBALL, CONCERTS
4.
RELOCATION OF EXISTING TICKETING OFFICE AND
WINDOWS TO ALLEVIATE CONGESTION AT NORTH 14.
ADA ACCESSIBLE SEATING
ENTRY. CONSIDER MOVING TO GROUND FLOOR IN PROVIDE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF ADA ACCESSIBLE 23. LUMBER JACK OFFICE ADDITION
SEPARATE LOBBY. SEATING DISPERSED APPROPRIATELY AROUND ARENA. BUILD OUT SPACE ABOVE LOW ROOF ON NORTH
CONSIDER REQUIREMENT TO SEE OVER STANDING SIDE OF CONCOURSE ALLOWING FOR HOCKEY
5.
LOBBY/ENTRY RENOVATION PATRONS TWO ROWS IN FRONT OF PLATFORMS OFFICES. CONSIDER MAXIMIZING USE OF GLASS AND
RENOVATION TO EXISTING ENTRY TO ALLOW FOR ILLUMINATION AT NIGHT TO CREATE “MARQUEE-
SENSE OF ARRIVAL AND ENGAGEMENT WITH CITY LIKE” PRESENCE ON SHORELINE DRIVE EXTENDING
CONSIDER MORE GLASS AND LIGHTING 15.
EXISTING SUITE RENOVATION FOOTPRINT TO THE NORTH
LOBBY/ENTRY ADDITION UPDATE FINISHES AND FURNITURE TO PROVIDE FANS
6.
CREATE MORE INVITING ENTRY FACING SHORELINE WITH MORE PREMIUM EXPERIENCE
DR. INCLUDE EXTERIOR PLAZA AND RELOCATED
TICKETING AND STAIRS
LOGE SEATING
16.
PROVIDE SMALL GROUPINGS OF 4-6 MOVEABLE
7.
CONCESSION RENOVATION SEATS, COUNTERS, BACK COUNTERS FOR FOOD AND
RENOVATE EXISTING CONCESSION STAND WITH NEW CONSIDER IN SEAT SERVICE
FINISHES, EQUIPMENT, SIGNAGE, ETC.
8.
CONCESSION RELOCATION 17.
BEER GARDEN
RELOCATE CONCESSION STANDS AND ADD COOKING CREATE DEDICATED BAR AREA WITH STAND UP TABLES
WHERE POSSIBLE. CONSIDER QUEUE AREA AT FRONT AND PREMIUM RESERVED TABLES WITH TICKETED
COUNTER. MINIMUM OF 4 POINTS OF SALE VIEWS
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 6
LC WALKER
UPGRADES FAN ADDITIONAL CITY
SCOPE REQUIRED OPERATIONS EXPERIENCE REVENUE INTEGRATION RATING
1. RETAIL WITH STOREFRONT
2. RESTAURANT WITH STOREFRONT
3. RETAIL/ RESTAURANT ON CORNER
4. TICKETING RELOCATION
5. LOBBY/ENTRY RENOVATION
6. LOBBY/ENTRY ADDITION
7. CONCESSION RENOVATION
8. CONCESSION RELOCATION
9. CONCESSION EXTERIOR POS
10. CONCESSION SEATING AREA
11. TOILET RENOVATION
12. TOILET RELOCATION
13. EGRESS RELOCATION
14. ADA ACCESSIBLE SEATING
15. EXISTING SUITE RENOVATION
16. LOGE SEATING
17. BEER GARDEN RELOCATION
18. TEAM MERCHANDISE
19. FRONT ROW TABLES
20. HIGH TOP TABLES
21. ADDITIONAL AUXILIARY LOCKERS
22. ARENA STORAGE
23. LUMBERJACK OFFICES
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 7
ARENA
CONCOURSE REQUIREMENTS
4,000 SEATS
*ASSUMED
CODE REQUIRED CONCESSION @ 1 POINT CONCOURSE AREA
TOILETS OF SALE PER 200 SEATS @2.5 SF PER SEAT EGRESS DOORS
Mens: 24 Womens: 46 4,000 seats / 200 = 20 P.O.S. 4,000 x 2.5 S.F. 4,000 seats x 0.15 = 600”
=10,000 S.F.
womens @ 70 SF / fixture *Currently 12,000 S.F. 17 doors for egress
3200 - 3500 SF
mens @ 65 SF / fixture
1500 - 1800 SF
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 8
CONCOURSE LEVEL
EXISTING
N
0’ 16’ 32’ 48’ 64’
SCALE: 1”= 32’
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 9
CONCOURSE LEVEL
OPTION 1
EXISTING SUITE
15.
RENOVATION
BEER GARDEN
17.
BANQUETTE SEATING
S.F.
RETAIL / RENOVATE
1. 11.
RESTAURANT TOILET ROOMS
ADA ACCESSIBLE FRONT
14.
SEATING ROW 19.
TABLES
TOILET
LOBBY / ENTRY 12.
RELOCATION
5.
IMPROVEMENTS
LUMBERJACK
3200 S.F. 23. OFFICES
TOILETS
2200 S.F.
LOGE SEATING / HIGH
16.
TOP TABLES
RETAIL/ TEAM MERCH
3.
CONCESSION 18.
RESTAURANT ON RETAIL
CORNER
4. TICKETING
RELOCATION
TOILETS
2100 S.F.
N CONCESSION ADDITION TO CONCOURSE / LOBBY / ENTRY
8. 12. 5.
SCALE: 1”= 32’ RELOCATION OPERATIONS BELOW RENOVATION 0’ 16’ 32’ 48’ 64’
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 10
ARENA LEVEL
OPTION 1
ARENA
22.
STORAGE
N AUXILIARY LOBBY / ENTRY
21. 5.
SCALE: 1”= 32’ LOCKER ROOMS IMPROVEMENTS 0’ 16’ 32’ 48’ 64’
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 11
CONCOURSE LEVEL
SEATING LAYOUT - OPTION 1
CONCERT LAYOUT: 4160 SEATS HOCKEY LAYOUT: 3738 SEATS
2255 BOWL SEATS
1800 FLOOR SEATS
N
SCALE: 1”= 64’
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 12
CONCOURSE LEVEL
EXISTING
N
0’ 16’ 32’ 48’ 64’
SCALE: 1”= 32’
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 13
CONCOURSE LEVEL TOILET ROOM
12.
RELOCATION
OPTION 2
BEER GARDEN
17.
RELOCATION
3,000 S.F.
WOMENS MENS WOMENS
TOILETS TOILETS TOILETS
RETAIL / TOILET ROOM
1. 11.
RESTAURANT RENOVATION
BARRIER FREE 4 TOP
1.
SEATING SEATING 10
ON GLASS
LOBBY / ENTRY 24. CLUB
5.
IMPROVEMENTS
LUMBERJACK
2200 S.F. 3200 S.F. 23. OFFICES
LOGE SEATING / HIGH
16.
TOP TABLES
RETAIL/ WOMENS MENS WOMENS TEAM MERCH
CONCESSION 18.
RESTAURANT ON 3 RETAIL
TOILETS TOILETS TOILETS
CORNER
TICKETING
4.
RELOCATION
2100 S.F. / FLOOR
CONCESSION RELOCATION 8.
N TOILET RELOCATION LOBBY / ENTRY
12. RETAIL 2. 5. 0’ 16’ 32’ 48’ 64’
SCALE: 1”= 32’ IMPROVEMENTS
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 14
ARENA LEVEL
OPTION 2
ARENA
22.
3.
STORAGE
N AUXILIARY LOBBY / ENTRY
21. 5.
SCALE: 1”= 32’ LOCKER ROOMS IMPROVEMENTS 0’ 16’ 32’ 48’ 64’
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 15
CONCOURSE LEVEL
SEATING LAYOUT - OPTION 2
CONCERT LAYOUT: 3818 SEATS HOCKEY LAYOUT: 3264 SEATS
2018 BOWL SEATS
1800 FLOOR SEATS
N
SCALE: 1”= 64’
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 16
CONCOURSE LEVEL
EXISTING
N
0’ 16’ 32’ 48’ 64’
SCALE: 1”= 32’
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 17
CONCOURSE LEVEL 4.
TOILET
12. 9.
CONCESSION
RELOCATION
RELOCATION
OPTION 3 - RECOMMENDED
WOMENS MENS
1300 S.F. TOILETS TOILETS
17. BEER GARDEN
RETAIL / RELOCATION
1.
RESTAURANT CONCESSION
1700 S.F.
RETAIL / TOILET
2. 11.
RESTAURANT RENOVATION
CONCESSION
CONCESSION 7.
9. RENOVATION
POS AT STREET
CONCESSION
LOGE
BARRIER FREE 16. UNIQUE
6. SEATING 5.
SEATING SEATING
CONCESSION
EXISTING
EXPANSION
LOBBY / ENTRY 23. POTENTIAL
5. LUMBERJACK
RENOVATION
OFFICES
3000 S.F.
LOGE SEATING / HIGH
16.
TOP TABLES
RETAIL/ CONCESSION
RESTAURANT ON 3. 8.
RELOCATION
CORNER
WOMENS MENS
TOILETS CONCESSION
TOILETS
LOBBY / ENTRY
6.
ADDITION
1900 S.F.
CONCESSION SEATING
10.
AREA
N
TOILET RELOCATION 12. 2. RETAIL 0’ 16’ 32’ 48’ 64’
SCALE: 1”= 32’
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 18
ARENA LEVEL
OPTION 3 - RECOMMENDED
all hockey ops moving
upstairs
ARENA
22.
3.
STORAGE
TICKETING
4.
3.
RELOCATION
N AUXILIARY LOBBY / ENTRY
21. 5.
6.
SCALE: 1”= 32’ LOCKER ROOMS RELOCATION 0’ 16’ 32’ 48’ 64’
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 19
CONCERT LAYOUT: 4278 SEATS HOCKEY LAYOUT: 3176 SEATS
2018 BOWL SEATS
2260 FLOOR SEATS
N
SCALE: 1”= 64’
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 20
EXTERIOR SKETCH 1
WESTERN STREETFRONT
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 21
EXTERIOR SKETCH 2
SHORLINE STREETFRONT
01/16/17 LC WALKER ARENA | 22
Date: 5/8/2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Department of Public Works
RE: Amity Bridge – Resolution of Support for Bridge Funding
Application and Commitment for Matching Funds
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The Engineering Department would like to apply for bridge preservation funding through
the Michigan Department of Transportation. These funds would be used to remove the
Amity bridge and build a new roadway on fill. The bridge was originally constructed to
cross a railroad line that no longer exists.
Construction is estimated at $415,000, and the city would be required to provide
matching funds of approximately $90,000 plus engineering costs. Funding is available
starting in 2021.
The MDOT application requires a resolution of support and commitment for the
matching funds.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$200,000 split over fiscal year 20/21 and 21/22
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution of support for the bridge preservation fund application and commit to
funding the required match and engineering costs.
City of Muskegon
RESOLUTION
SUPPORT OF
APPLICATION FOR BRIDGE PRESERVATION FUNDS
WHEREAS, Muskegon City Commissioners desire to promote safety and fiscal responsibility for
the residents and visitors of our great city; and
WHEREAS, Muskegon City Commissioners acknowledge there is no longer a need for the bridge
carrying Amity Street over the abandoned railroad; and
WHEREAS, Muskegon City Commissioners agree that removing the Amity bridge and rebuilding
the roadway on fill reduces the future costs of maintenance; and
NOW, THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, that Muskegon City Commissioners support the
application for federal and state bridge preservation funds and commit to funding required
match dollars for removal of the bridge.
Dated this ______ of _______ 20__.
________________________________
Stephen J. Gawron
Mayor
_________________________________
Ann Marie Meisch
City Clerk
Commission Meeting Date: May 8, 2018
Date: May 8, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Planning & Economic Development
RE: Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act Application
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Request to approve the proposed local MMFLA application.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To pass the resolution approving the application.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
None
5/8/2018
Resolution No. _______
MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOCAL MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITIES LICENSING ACT
APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the City Commission has worked with City staff to create a local application for the Medical
Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act;
WHEREAS, the application sets forth the requirements to obtain local approval for a license allowed by the
Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act ; and
WHEREAS, the application must be approved by City staff before a license may be granted by the State of
Michigan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Muskegon, Michigan that
the local application for the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act license be approved as
presented.
Adopted this 8th Day of May, 2018.
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
BY: __________________________________
Stephen J Gawron
Mayor
ATTEST: __________________________________
Ann Meisch
Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing constitutes a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the Muskegon
City Commission, County of Muskegon, Michigan, at a regular meeting held on May 8, 2018.
______________________________
Ann Meisch
Clerk
5/8/18
Application for Medical Marihuana Facilities Licenses
in the City of Muskegon
Application for License Type(s):
☐ Grower Class A ☐ Provisioning Center
☐ Grower Class B ☐ Secured Transporter
☐ Grower Class C ☐ Safety Compliance Facility
☐ Processor
Address of proposed licensed facility: ______________________________________________________
Application fee: $5,000 per license (licenses may be stacked).
Payment method used:____________________________________
Applicant Information
Applicant Name:
Home Address:
Phone Number:
Have you received preliminary approval from the State of Michigan for an MMFLA License?
Planned Opening Date:
Property Owner Information
Owner Name:
Home Address:
Phone Number:
Does the applicant have legal possession of the premises from the date this license will be issued by
virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement?
________Ownership ________ Lease ________Other (explain)
Step 1: Background Check
The applicant must pass the background check to move on to Step 2.
Has the applicant been indicted for, charged with, arrested for, convicted of, pled guilty or no contest to,
or forfeited bail under the laws of any jurisdiction (state, federal, or foreign) concerning any felony
criminal offense or a misdemeanor involving a controlled substance?
☐ No ☐ Yes
Has the applicant been found responsible for violating a local ordinance in any state involving a
controlled substance that substantially corresponds to a felony in that state, whether the offense has
been reversed on appeal, reduced, expunged, set aside, pardoned or otherwise?
☐ No ☐ Yes
Please provide the following information for all arrests, charges, indictments, and convictions related to
felonies regarding controlled substances.
Offense Date Court Case Disposition
Arrest/Charge/Indictment/Conviction Name/Location Number
Does the applicant have any outstanding taxes, fees, assessments (including any separate business
entities the applicant has ownership in) due to the City of Muskegon? All outstanding fees due to the
City of Muskegon must be paid before advancing to Step 2.
☐ ☐No Yes
Step 2: Proof of Business Responsibility
The applicant must provide the following before advancing to Step 3:
• Copy of deed or lease agreement.
• Proof that the applicant has reasonably demonstrated it possess sufficient financial resources to
fund the project.
• Acknowledgement and consent to investigations, statute and rule compliance (notarized).
• Copy of insurance policy, bond, or securities for facilities if building has already been purchased
or leased. This may be submitted after approval if building has not been purchased or leased yet.
Step 3: Plans
The following plans must be approved before a license is granted:
☐ Security Plan – The applicant must explain how they will maintain a safe environment for neighbors and
customers. Security cameras or guards are required and their locations must be shown on the plan.
☐ Outreach Plan – Provisioning Centers must explain how they will meet with neighborhood
organizations, business association, crime watch and other neighborhood organizations to provide
contact information for questions and concerns.
☐ Site Plan – See Appendix 1 for site plan requirements.
☐ Building Façade Improvement Plan – See Appendix 2 for building façade requirements.
☐ ADA Plan – Building plans showing that the building will be brought into full compliance of Americans
with Disabilities Act standards.
☐ Waste Disposal Plan – Explanation of how waste, chemicals and unused plant material will be disposed.
☐ Odor Elimination Plan – Documentation of carbon filtration system to be used along with other odor
eliminating procedures.
☐ Blight Elimination Plan – The plan must address how the business will eliminate existing blight on
premises. The plan must address the following:
• Buildings and light poles shall be painted with no chipping or fading.
• Windows must be in good condition with no cracks.
• Parking lot must be in good condition with no potholes. All asphalt cracks must be sealed.
• All fences must be in good condition without any visible wear.
• All dumpsters must be screened with privacy fencing.
☐ Customer Plan – The plan must address the following:
• How will the customer enter the building and view the product?
• Will locks/buzzers be used to enter display rooms?
• How many customers may enter at one time?
• Will there be security checking people at the door?
• What packaging will be used to keep product from being identified outside?
☐ Employment Plan – Plan must explain the following:
• Hiring procedures
• Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (see the City’s EEO & Employee Relations Director if you
need assistance)
• Anticipated employment levels
• Hours of operation and number of shifts – employees per shift
☐ Charitable Causes – The applicant is encouraged to provide a statement on the businesses intended
charitable contributions.
☐ Secure Transporters only: Provide proof of auto insurance, vehicle registration, and registration as a
commercial motor vehicle as applicable for any transporting vehicles used to transport marihuana
product.
Appendix 1
A site plan showing the following requirements, in addition to the standard requirements listed in
Section 514 of the zoning ordinance, must be submitted:
Landscaping – Decorative landscaping shall be provided with irrigation, even on sites that do not currently
meet the minimum landscaping requirements. Grass is required in all terraces. All new construction
projects shall require underground sprinkling. All sites must contain the following (see figure 1 for
example):
• An average minimum greenbelt of 10 feet shall be maintained along all street frontages.
Greenbelt buffers shall be landscaped in grass, ground cover, perennials, and/or other natural,
living, landscape material.
• All required front setbacks shall be landscaped with a minimum of one (1) canopy or shade tree, two
(2) understory or evergreen trees and (2) shrubs, for each thirty (30) lineal feet (or major portion
thereof) of frontage abutting the right-of-way. Deciduous canopy trees shall be a minimum of twelve
(12) feet in height and a minimum caliper of 2 inches at four and one-half (4 ½) feet above the ground.
Evergreen and understory trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high at planting.
• Parking lots exceeding 5,000 square feet (including all parking spaces, lanes, drives and other
areas devoted to vehicular use) shall be landscaped with at least one (1) landscape island. For
each additional 5,000 square feet (or each additional 20 spaces, whichever is greater) an
additional landscape island shall be required. Landscape islands shall be at least 180 square feet
in size, with a minimum width of three (3) feet. Landscape islands shall be landscaped with one
(1) shade canopy tree and three (3) shrubs for every eight (8) parking spaces. Canopy trees shall
be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in height with a minimum caliper of 2 inches at four and one-
half (4 ½) feet above the ground.
Traffic control – Applicant must demonstrate how traffic will enter/exit property. Actions may be required
to limit traffic near residential/commercial uses, this may include eliminating curb cuts and installing new
curbs or other measures. See figure 2 for an example.
figure 1.
Existing Site Conditions
Required Landscaping Improvements
figure 2.
Preferred Not Preferred
Appendix 2
An elevation drawing depicting the following building facade requirements shall be submitted:
• Bay Doors. See figure 3 for example.
• Security bars/gates are prohibited. However, security shutters may be used but are not
required. See figure 4 for example.
• Canopy over main entrance. See figure 5 for example.
• Ornamental lighting fixtures near all ingress/egress doors. See figure 6 for example.
• Signage. Businesses 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.
figure 3. figure 4.
figure 5. figure 6.
Commission Meeting Date: May 8, 2018
Date: April 30, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
From: Planning & Economic Development Department
RE: DDA On-Premise Liquor License for Nipotes
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve the Resolution for a
Downtown Development Authority On-Premise Liquor License for
Nipotes. The Liquor Control Commission allows for additional liquor
licenses within Downtown Development Authority Districts under
certain conditions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Approving the Liquor License will allow for a
new restaurant in the downtown area which should result in increased
revenue for the City.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the attached resolution.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None.
Property of Three Squared, Inc. -- Copyright Three Squared, Inc. 2018 -- confidential and not to be duplicated
NIPOTE'S
RESTAURANT
98 W CLAY AVE
MUSKEGON, MI
1430 SQUARE FEET
W/ 220SF TERRACE
CUSTOMER APPROVAL PROJECT: NIPOTE'S TITLE: TITLE SHEET SHEET:
A1
DATE:
DATE: LOCATION: 98 W CLAY AVE, MUSKEGON 04/24/2018 REVISIONS:
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE 04/24/2018
DRAWN BY: BC
SIGNATURE:
04/17/2018
03/18/2018
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A resolution concerning the issuance of a Downtown Development Authority
District On-Premises Liquor License pursuant to 436.1521a(1)(b) of the Michigan
Compiled Laws.
The City Commission of the City of Muskegon hereby RESOLVES:
Recitals
1. Nipotes, LLC. has applied for a Downtown Development Authority District On-
Premises Liquor License for the premises at 98 W Clay Ave, which is located
within an area established by the City Commission as a redevelopment project
area pursuant to 436.1521a(1)(b) of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
2. It is required that the City Commission approve a specific applicant, at a specific
location “ABOVE ALL OTHERS”.
3. This resolution was approved at the regular meeting of the City Commission on
May 8, 2018.
City Commission Findings
The City Commission is satisfied that:
1. That the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated a commitment for a capital
investment of not less than $75,000 for the build-out and improvements of the
building that will house the licensed premises, which amounts shall be expended
before the issuance of the license.
2. That the licensed business shall be engaged in dining, entertainment or recreation,
that is open to the general public, with a seating capacity of not less than 50
persons.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMMISSION RESOLVES:
The City Commission deems it to be in the best interest of the City of Muskegon
to approve the application of Nipotes, LLC, for a Downtown Development
Authority District On-Premises Liquor License for the premises at 98 W Clay
Ave, pursuant to 436.1521a(1)(b) of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and
recommends to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission the issuance of said
requested license “ABOVE ALL OTHERS”.
Adopted this 8th day of May, 2018.
AYES: ______________________________________________________
NAYES: ______________________________________________________
ABSENT: ______________________________________________________
By: ________________________
Stephen J. Gawron
Its Mayor
By: ________________________
Ann Meisch, MMC
Its Clerk
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Date: 4/23/2018
Estimate Name: Nipotes 4/23/2018
Building Type: Restaurant with Modified Containers
Location: MUSKEGON, MI
Story Count: 1
Story Height (L.F.): 10
Floor Area (S.F.): 1430
Labor Type: OPN
Basement Included: No
Data Release: Year 2018 Costs are derived from a building model with basic components.
Cost Per Square Foot: $161.09 Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
Building Cost: $247,444 ** Area, Perimeter entered is outside the range recommended by RSMeans.
Complete CPSF: $232.39
Complete Building Cost $332,324
% of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost
A Substructure 10.69% 18.50 26,453.30
A1010 Standard Foundations 14.82 21,196.00 X
Foundation estimate 21,196.00
A1030 Slab on Grade 3.26 4,654.88 X
Slab on grade, 4" thick, non industrial, reinforced 4,654.88
A2010 Excavation 0.42 602.42 X
Excavate and fill, 4000 SF, 4' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on site storage 602.42
B Shell 29.18% 49.94 72,198.14
B1020 Roof Construction 5.45 7,793.56 X
Insulated metal sandwhich Panel on roof trusses 5,885.07
Roof, steel joists, beams etc 1,908.49
B2010 Exterior Walls 28.12 40,208.00
Containers- modified & installed 33,833.00 X
Additional Build outs all w/ ga x 6" studs 16" O.C.,10' high, insulated walls 6,375.00 X
B2020 Exterior Windows 4.69 6,850.00 X
All storefront windows (allowance) 6,850.00
B2030 Exterior Doors 4.37 6,243.14 X
Door, aluminum & glass, without transom, full vision, double door, hardware, 6'-0" 3,510.35
Door, aluminum & glass, with transom, non-standard, double door, hardware, 6'-0" 2,032.08
Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'-0" x 7'-0" 700.71
B3010 Roof Coverings 6.37 9,106.83
Roofing, single ply membrane, EPDM, 60 mils, loosely laid, stone ballast 2,100.74 X
Insulation, rigid, roof deck, extruded polystyrene, 40 PSI compressive strength, 4"
thick, R20 3,668.95 X
Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face 2,697.65 X
Gutters, box, aluminum, .027" thick, 5", enameled finish 536.68 639.49 X
Downspout, aluminum, rectangular, 2" x 3", embossed mill finish, .020" thick 102.81
B3020 Roof Openings 0.95 1,357.12 X
Roof hatch, with curb, 1" fiberglass insulation, 2'-6" x 3'-0", galvanized steel, 165 lbs 612.66
Smoke hatch, unlabeled, galvanized, 2'-6" x 3', not incl hand winch operator 744.46
C Interiors 9.39% 15.34 23,241.22
C1010 Partitions 2.25 3,220.26 X
Metal partition, 5/8"fire rated gypsum board face, no base,3 -5/8" @ 24" OC 1,493.33
Metal partition, 5/8" water resistant gypsum board face, no base layer, 3-5/8" @ 389.74
Gypsum board, 1 face only, exterior sheathing, fire resistant, 5/8" 840.45
Add for the following: taping and finishing 496.74
C1020 Interior Doors 2.09 2,982.58 X
C1021 Door, single leaf, wood frame, 3'-0" x 7'-0" x 1-3/8", birch, hollow core 2,982.58
C1030 Fittings 0.74 1,065.23 X
Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, plastic laminate 1,065.23
C3010 Wall Finishes 1.86 2,666.09
Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work, primer & 2 591.02 1298.59 X
Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work, primer & 2 707.57
Ceramic tile, thin set, 4-1/4" x 4-1/4" 1,367.50 X
C3020 Floor Finishes 5.43 7,770.22 X
Polished Concrete 4,488.64
Tile, quarry tile, mud set, maximum 3,281.58
C3030 Ceiling Finishes 2.96 4,238.25 X
Gypsum board ceilings, 5/8" fire rated gypsum board, painted and textured finish,1-
4,238.25
5/8" metal stud furring, 24" OC support
D Services 29.30% 50.71 72,513.30
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures 7.61 10,887.21 X
Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung 3,555.14
Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung 690.01
Lavatory w/trim, vanity top, PE on CI, 20" x 18" 1,640.41
Kitchen sink w/trim, countertop, stainless steel, 44" x 22" triple bowl 3,310.36
Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20" 1,012.96
Water cooler, electric, wall hung, dual height, 14.3 GPH 678.33
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution 5.47 7,821.88 X
Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 500 MBH input, 480 GPH 7,821.88
D2040 Rain Water Drainage 1.38 1,968.76 X
Roof drain, CI, soil,single hub, 3" diam, 10' high 1,839.31
Roof drain, CI, soil,single hub, 3" diam, for each additional foot add 129.45
D3050 Mitsubishi Mini Splits 12.68 18,127.86
D3051 Rooftop, multizone, air conditioner, restaurants, 3,000 SF, 15.00 ton 12,253.17 X
D3052 Commercial kitchen exhaust/make-up air system, rooftop, gas, 2000 CFM 5,874.69 X
D4010 Sprinklers 3.52 5,027.80
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, 1 floor, 2000 SF 3,854.04 X
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 1000 SF 1,173.76 X
D4020 Standpipes 2.04 2,913.55 X
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor 2,913.55
D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 11.32 16,188.05 X
Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & wire, 3 4,456.55
Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 400 A 4,449.90
Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 120/208 V, 3 7,281.60
D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring 6.70 9,578.19 X
Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 10 per 1000 SF, 1.2 watts per SF 3,216.16
Miscellaneous power, 1.8 watts 503.5
Central air conditioning power, 6 watts 925.77
Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10 fixtures 4,932.76
E Equipment & Furnishings 15.37% 26.60 38,038.24
E1090 Other Equipment 26.60 38,038.24 X
28.00-Restaurant furniture, bar, built-in, front bars (allowance) 25,000.00
15.00-Window and Clerestory Addition 12,000.00
4.00-Emergency lighting units, lead battery operated, twin sealed beam light, 25 W, 1,038.24
F Special Construction 6.06% 0 15,000.00
Patio Allowance 10.49 15,000.00 X
220SF Patio/Railing Allowance 15,000.00
G Building Sitework 0.00% 0 0
SubTotal 100% $161.09 $247,444.20
Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit) $17.48 $25,000.00
Permits & Inspection fees $3.15 $4,500.00 X
Contingency 10.00% $17.30 $24,744.42
Architectural & Engineering Fees $30,635.00
TSI Construction Management & OH included
Total Building Cost $332,323.62
**** Excludes kitchen equipment, site alterations custom fixtures
For estimation ONLY-- not to be used for BID purposes
8,467.34
Commission Meeting Date: May 8, 2018
Date: May 3, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Planning & Economic Development
RE: Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Request to approve the ordinance for the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To approve the ordinance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
None
5/3/2018
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 34-116
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.
O:\CLERK\Common\Word\Agenda Items for Next Meeting\2018\050818\13b_Licensing Ordiance; Med. Marij
(003).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.
O:\CLERK\Common\Word\Agenda Items for Next Meeting\2018\050818\13b_Licensing Ordiance; Med. Marij
(003).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; 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, 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
O:\CLERK\Common\Word\Agenda Items for Next Meeting\2018\050818\13b_Licensing Ordiance; Med. Marij
(003).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.
O:\CLERK\Common\Word\Agenda Items for Next Meeting\2018\050818\13b_Licensing Ordiance; Med. Marij
(003).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
_______________, 2017, 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:_______________________, 2017
________________________________
Ann Marie Meisch, MMC
O:\CLERK\Common\Word\Agenda Items for Next Meeting\2018\050818\13b_Licensing Ordiance; Med. Marij
(003).doc 5
City Clerk
Publish: Notice of Adoption to be published once within ten (10) days of final
adoption.
O:\CLERK\Common\Word\Agenda Items for Next Meeting\2018\050818\13b_Licensing Ordiance; Med. Marij
(003).doc 6
CITY OF MUSKEGON
NOTICE OF ADOPTION
TO: ALL PERSONS INTERESTED
Please take notice that on ___________________, 2017, 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: _________________, 2017 CITY OF MUSKEGON
By________________________
Ann Marie Meisch, MMC
City Clerk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISH ONCE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF FINAL PASSAGE
O:\CLERK\Common\Word\Agenda Items for Next Meeting\2018\050818\13b_Licensing Ordiance; Med. Marij
(003).doc 7
Commission Meeting Date: May 8, 2018
Date: May 3, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Planning & Economic Development
RE: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - Medical Marihuana Facilities
Licensing Act Overlay District
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Staff-initiated request to amend the zoning ordinance to include a new section for the Medical
Marihuana Facilities Overlay District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted in favor (4-2) of recommending to the City Commission to approve
the zoning ordinance amendment for the MMFLA overlay district at their February 15 meeting.
Michalski, Larson, Gawron and Doyle voted in support. Mazade and Montgomery-Keast voted in
opposition. Peterson and Hovey-Wright were absent. The version they approved for
recommendation is slightly different than from what staff is presenting tonight, as this version allows
all types of licenses within one overlay zone, rather than restricting licenses between two separate
overlay districts.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
ORDINANCE NO._____
An ordinance to amend Section 2320 of the zoning ordinance to create a Medical Marihuana
Facilities Licensing Act Overlay District.
THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGON HEREBY ORDAINS:
NEW LANGUAGE
SECTION 2330: MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITIES OVERLAY DISTRICTS
A Medical Marihuana Facilities Overlay Districts is hereby created as outlined in Figure 23-2.
Within said overlay district only, Medical Marihuana Facilities to the extent licensed pursuant to
City Code Sections 34-201 through 34-208 are permitted.
A. Overlay District:
1. Location: Please see Figure 23-2 for the location of the overlay district. Within the
overlay district, licenses for Provisioning Centers, Growers, Processors, Secure
Transporters and Safety Compliance Facilities are permitted.
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.
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.
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.
This ordinance adopted:
Ayes:______________________________________________________________
Nayes:_____________________________________________________________
Adoption Date:
Effective Date:
First Reading:
Second Reading:
CITY OF MUSKEGON
By:_________________________
Ann Meisch, MMC, City Clerk
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
8th day of May, 2018, at which meeting a quorum was present and remained throughout, and that the
original of said ordinance is on file in the records of the City of Muskegon. I further certify that the
meeting was conducted and public notice was given pursuant to and in full compliance with the
Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Public Acts of Michigan No. 33 of 2006, and that minutes were kept
and will be or have been made available as required thereby.
DATED: ___________________, 2018. __________________________________________
Ann Meisch, MMC
Clerk, City of Muskegon
Publish: Notice of Adoption to be published once within ten (10) days of final adoption.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
NOTICE OF ADOPTION
Please take notice that on May 8, 2018, the City Commission of the City of Muskegon adopted
an ordinance to amend Section 2320 of the zoning ordinance create a Medical Marihuana
Faculties Overlay Distract.
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 days from the date of this publication.
Published ____________________, 2018. CITY OF MUSKEGON
By
_________________________________
Ann Meisch, MMC
City Clerk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISH ONCE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF FINAL PASSAGE.
Account No. 101-80400-5354
6
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 15, 2018
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, M. Hovey-Wright
MEMBERS ABSENT: E. Hood, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, H. Mitchell
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Rooks, 75 W. Walton; D. Kamps, 1885 N. Buys Rd.; L. Spataro,
1567 6th; B. Krick, 1762 Jefferson; Dr. R. Hilt, 1627 Jefferson; F.
Farmer; 1668 Jefferson; Q. Tiffany, 1694 Jefferson; L. & R. Doctor,
1706 Sanford; D. Manley, 4290 Eastlake Dr; B. Lowry, 4080 Oak
Hollow Ct; A. Cirner, 1729 Huizenga; E. Seifert, 297 W Clay; D.
Foster, 135 Ottawa; J. Slack, 1472 Marquette; G. Adams, 2112
Sampson; S. Orey, 3060 Sherwood; R. King, 3393 Fulton; K.
Johnson, 1281 Montgomery.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of December 14,
2017 was made by J. Doyle, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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. The property is zoned Form
Based Code, Neighborhood Context Area (FBC-NC). 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.” 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. 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. Notice was sent to all
property owners/tenants within 300 feet of this property and no comments were received. 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.
J. Rooks stated that the pictures that were included in the members’ meeting packet were the views
from inside the units which was his primary concern due to the blocking of the view from inside
of the units. There were discussions of individual screening of the air conditioning units. He
discussed the permits and any changes would be a life safety issue from what he had originally
submitted. He went over the different views and how the screening would be minimal in blocking
the different views from the adjacent properties. He shared pictures of different view of adjacent
properties as well as pictures of a metal mesh that could be attached to each air conditioner on one
side and would look like the screening and the holes wouldn’t be seen as well as they would be
white. He also provided pictures of the air conditioners and asking that they be left as is. J.
Montgomery-Keast asked for clarification of the photo in regards to the vacant lot and the area of
Jefferson St. J. Rooks explained how he and another adjacent property owner were using this
section for parking and the City owns a strip that 60 feet deep along Western and he believed the
an offer had been made on it for development. F. Peterson explained the lot is 60 feet deep and the
full length of Western Ave. but an offer had not been made for this City owned portion yet. M.
Hovey-Wright asked if Mr. Rooks considered using the same type of screening on the Jefferson
St. side as the units weren’t attractive to look at. Mr. Rooks stated that he would not as it isn’t as
noticeable on that side of the building.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by J. Doyle and
unanimously approved.
There was discussion on the screening of the units in regards to the pictures that were provided at
the meeting. Mr. Rooks stated that they would need to be about an inch away from the units. M.
Franzak stated that the ordinance states that the units have to be screened with the same color so it
would blend in. The units already have a screen over them and if they were painted to match; it
would look better. Mr. Rooks agreed and was willing to paint the screens to match.
A motion 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 with the painting of the screens to be white, was made by M. Hovey-
Wright, supported by J. Montgomery-Keast and unanimously approved with F. Peterson, B.
Larson, B. Mazade, J. Doyle, S. Gawron, M. Hovey-Wright, and J. Montgomery-Keast voting aye.
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. 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. This
request requires a rezoning to multi-family and a special use permit. 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. 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. The Rescue Mission’s Woman’s
Shelter is located behind this property to the east. 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. Notice was sent to all property owners/tenants within 300 feet of this
property. Staff had 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. 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.
D. Kamps described what the program does as well as what the requirements are that the residents
must commit to. He described the home on Peck St. This location opened September 2016. They
purchased this location for woman. He discussed the upgrades that were performed to the structure
and how they have kept to the historic nature of the home by painting it. Since their upgrades to
this structure there have been upgrades to the two houses to the south of this home.
T. Michalski arrived at 4:18 p.m.
D. Kamps did make a correction that the proposed amount of people would be four men with one
house manager for 1698 Sanford if this were approved. M. Hovey-Wright asked if there had been
any incidents at the home for women. D. Kamps stated that there hadn’t been. M. Franzak
confirmed that he had checked to see if there were any police reports for the Peck St. location in
the past year and there hadn’t been any. J. Montgomery-Keast had asked why the applicant felt
this home would meet their needs and if they had considered other homes in other areas as well.
D. Kamps stated that this location was near other facilities, bus lines, and the City of Muskegon’s
central location and with the size and layout of the structure along with the price; met their needs.
T. Michalski admitted that this is a tough decision for him. The program is a valuable program.
The program is not catered for juveniles that are caught up in the system and need help. His
concerns are for maintaining the History of the Jefferson neighborhood and this type of use seemed
to be in the center of Muskegon. He suggested that there may be other areas/communities that
could support this use as there are the same amenities as well as the bus system located within
them. He is not opposed to the program as the program is a good program and there is a need for
this type of program.
L. Spataro, Nelson Neighborhood Improvement Association, stated that they have no issues with
the Step Up program and that the house on Peck St. was zoned for this type of use. He shared the
history of a Victorian mansion that had been located in this area and was deeded to senior citizens.
As the times changed; the structure ended up being demolished as it was no longer needed to house
the senior citizens. He went over the history of zoning and the changes that were made over the
years. This particular home is a single-family home and has concerns with the values of the other
homes in the surrounding areas if this were changed when it is compared with other single-family
homes. He suggested trying to find a way to allow this use in the current zoning as opposed to
changing the zoning. Should the zoning change and this use end up leaving this structure; anything
that would be allowed in the zoning district would be allowed. He suggested looking at allowing
a special use permit for this zoning district to allow the use as more stipulations may be placed and
should the use discontinue; it may be removed. He also suggested looking at a possible overlay
district. He would rather have the request tabled so other avenues may be reviewed. B. Larson
asked M. Franzak to explain the details for this request as opposed to leaving the zoning and having
this as a special use permit instead. M. Franzak stated that the criteria for a special use permit
would have to be met. When considering a special use permit for this type of use in a single-family
zoning district may not be the best for all the single-family zoning districts. By allowing a special
use permit for this type of use; it would then be allowed in all the single-family zoning districts
throughout the City and some areas may not be the best place for this type of use.
B. Krick stated he could see this structure from the east window of his home. He does understand
the necessity of the program, but he believes there is a better location than the location proposed.
Dr. R. Hilt also had some concerns with the location. He is fond of Mr. Kamps and the
organization. His biggest concern is the change of zoning because it becomes something that is
there forever. This could be detrimental to the neighborhood. This neighborhood has been having
many houses being rehabbed. He doesn’t feel this use would be good for this neighborhood and
not necessarily in the Nelson Neighborhood. F. Farmer added that he has lived in his homes on
Jefferson for 45 years and has seen the changes. He is concerned with the domino effect this may
have on the neighborhood and adjacent properties. He has concerns when larger homes end up
being broken up into multiple units. He would like the commission to vote against the rezoning.
Q. Tiffany has his home currently up for sale and his realtor did inform him that this type of use
could affect his property. He has had offers on his home from people wanting to put an office in
the home. He turned the offers down. He would like to see the commission vote against the
rezoning. L. & R. Doctor stated that they have lived in their home for 30 years and has seen the
slow changes. The lady’s rescue Mission is adjacent to their property and they listen to the foul
language that the women use while their children are outside playing at the Mission. They have
had some women from the Mission approach them for cash or to use their phone. In the past there
had been adult foster care at the location which was governed by the State, so the City couldn’t do
anything about it. He is thankful that this type of endeavor does fall under the City’s purview and
would like to see it voted down. B. Lowry described what a family is and how the Step Up’s
program helps create family for those that really don’t have it. He understands the issues that were
discussed when it came to the zoning. He was also pleased that no one had said anything bad about
the program itself. L. Spataro stated that they were not against helping children in need because
the need is real. The solution is not to change the zoning for this property because no one knows
what will happen in the future. He didn’t want to see any damage caused in this area of single-
family housing. He felt that there should be something that would be more creative than a rezoning.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by T. Michalski, supported by J. Montgomery-
Keast and unanimously approved.
T. Michalski would like to see this request for rezoning be tabled until March so staff may have
time to see if there is a more creative way for this use to be located here as opposed to having the
property rezoned due to what may happen to the property in the future.
A motion 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
tabled until March so staff may look at a different way that this use may work within the zoning
without having to rezone the property such as an overlay district, was made by T. Michalski,
supported by M. Hovey-Wright and failed with T. Michalski and M. Hovey-Wright voting aye and
F. Peterson, B. Larson, B. Mazade, J. Doyle, S. Gawron, and J. Montgomery Keast voting nay.
Discussion continued with B. Mazade stating that a compromised solution would make sense and
that rezoning this property would have a lifetime effect and would allow for more principle uses
that could impact the neighborhood later. M. Hovey-Wright added that there is a need for this use
as the Webster House had closed years ago and she knows the good that programs like this can do
but there are other locations that would be better than the property on Sanford with public amenities
that are available.
A motion 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 denial was made by B. Mazade, supported by F.
Peterson and unanimously approved with T. Michalski, F. Peterson, B. Larson, B. Mazade, J.
Doyle, S. Gawron, J. Montgomery-Keast, and M. Hovey Wright voting aye.
B. Mazade felt that the commission should take action on the special use permit because the City
Commission could decide to approve the rezoning request. Commission and staff discussed
whether or not the denial of the rezoning request for this property would be required to continue
to the City Commission for final approval or denial. It was unclear if the Zoning Enabling act
would require a denial recommendation of a rezoning request by the Planning Commission would
be required to go before the City Commission. Planning Commissioners and staff concurred that
the special use permit should still be considered. B. Mazade added that if the Special Use request
was denied; it would make the rezoning request moot.
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. This is for the discussion and motion. Staff
report is listed with the rezoning request above.
D. Manley, Realtor, felt that granting a special use permit under the current zoning for this property
wouldn’t affect any appraisals for this area. He brought up Terrace Point’s appraisals were coming
in lower than expected. He didn’t understand why the neighbors would have an issue with this use
as the program is a good program. He could understand the property not being rezoned; but there
should be allowances for uses such as this. He suggested allowing the use for a year to see how
this program works in this neighborhood. B. Larson had brought up that the special use permit
would be contingent upon the successful rezoning of the property. B. Mazade added that the City
Commission could approve the rezoning even if the Planning Commission recommended denial
of it and B. Larson concurred that a motion on the special use permit should be made.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by J. Doyle and
unanimously approved.
A motion 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 denied was made by B.
Mazade, supported by S. Gawron and unanimously approved with T. Michalski, F. Peterson, B.
Larson, B. Mazade, J. Doyle, S. Gawron, J. Montgomery-Keast and M. Hovey-Wright voting aye.
Hearing, Case 2018-05: Staff-initiated request to amend Section 2330 of the zoning ordinance to
create a Medical Marijuana Facilities Overlay District. 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. 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. Please see the enclosed proposed MMFLA Ordinance that references
amending Chapter 34, Article IV of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Muskegon. Please also
see enclosed the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance: Section 2330 – Medical Marihuana
Facilities Overlay District.
1. 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.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment.
T. Michalski stated that there had been a lengthy conversation at a prior Commission meeting
regarding this and what the role of the Planning Commission was. His understanding was that the
City was going to determine whether or not they would have dispensaries and then determine
where they would go. Now the Planning Commissioners are looking at this in reverse and looking
at where they should go before determining if the City was going to allow for dispensaries or if
the State was going to even issue more licenses. He had concerns about possibly wasting their time
looking at this now. M. Franzak stated that the City Commission wasn’t comfortable with voting
on whether to allow it until it was determined where they would go. F. Peterson added that staff
had asked for more time to see what other cities were also doing. This was then going to be brought
back to the City Commission in March or early April. Staff felt this would be a necessary step to
bring this before the Planning Commission with a strong understanding of where this would be
acceptable to the City Commission. The City Commission didn’t want to approve it if there was a
chance it could be anywhere but wanted to see it in more of a defined district. This would need to
be approved at the Planning Commission, City Commission and then the State levels. By starting
with the Planning Commission; this will allow for a stronger understanding of a defined district.
M. Hovey-Wright stated that she tried looking for the areas and wasn’t sure of the locations based
on the map that was supplied in their packets. The places she looked had structures that looked
like they should be removed. She stated it made sense to consolidate the areas. B. Mazade asked
about the proposed District 2 having two locations that are not contiguous. M. Franzak confirmed
that there were two due to the residential neighborhood in the middle. J. Montgomery-Keast asked
if there were any churches in the proposed areas. M. Franzak stated that to his knowledge there
wasn’t but churches do come and go in different commercial sites.
A. Cirner stated that he was a Planning Commissioner in Palm Springs, CA and had worked on
this issue there. He had moved here almost a year ago and would like to offer his services to help
the City when it comes to this type of planning and ordinance language as he had been through it
already and he is familiar with mistakes that other municipalities have made and would like to help
make sure no mistakes are made. He does feel that this planning should be brought together at this
juncture. B. Larson stated that this is about the districts at this time. A. Cirner stated that churches,
schools, etc. should be researched before looking at locations. He would like to help out with work
sessions regarding this and to reach out to the other communities that have gone through this
already. E. Seifert is passionate about this. He described his personal experience regarding his wife
and himself and their need for this. His wife had passed away two years ago. Medical Marihuana
has helped his wife get off some of her medications. He to had obtained a Medical Marihuana
license for his health issues and it helped him better than any other medications that he had been
on. There are many buildings that are not feasible for this type of use; but other areas may need to
be looked at and it shouldn’t be restricted. He is also willing to help with this to ensure it is done
accurately. D. Foster stated that she had spoken on this about eight years ago. This is about the
patients and getting them comfortable and some of the locations aren’t feasible. The places need
to be easily accessible and making patients comfortable. She felt the districts could be in nicer
areas. She felt that the proposed areas aren’t aesthetically pleasing or inviting. It took her two and
a half months to find her facility and when she was looking; she looked at accessibility, what the
structure looked like and handicap accessibility. J. Slack stated that he is a young entrepreneur and
was born and raised in Muskegon. He stated that 50% of the taxes go back to the local municipality
for the schools, etc. He would like to get into this industry. G. Adams stated that the overlay
districts are a good start and is necessary. He wanted to locate his business here. He had sold one
of his facilities that he had in Lansing. There are a lot of people that would want to invest in this.
He would like to have a facility here and not just be a caregiver. He had brought up how he has
worked with Muskegon Heights for having properties zoned correctly and are hashing out the
language now. S. Orley had done research into cancer and Parkinson while in college. He would
like to bring his services to Muskegon as well. He owns an old building on E. Apple that is located
next to Dominoes. He has patients that he has to deliver to. He spoke with Ann Meisch regarding
the number of growers located in Muskegon and he doesn’t believe there have been any issues
with any of them. R. King is happy to see that the City is looking at having dispensaries in
Muskegon. This is medicine and she isn’t sure that segregating dispensaries in the industrial areas
is a good choice. Marihuana businesses are highly regulated, so this type of business isn’t
something that just anyone can get into and it is expensive to get started. She stated that Ann Arbor
has 18 dispensaries with four dispensaries in the prime downtown business district.
M. Hovey-Wright left at 5:40 p.m.
M. Franzak added that he received over 100 inquiries and given input and offered help with writing
the ordinance. He brought up how the City started out with caregivers who grow out of their homes
and there had been no issues. Now there are commercial and industrial areas where growers are
located. K. Johnson shared a spreadsheet from when medical marihuana was approved by the
voters in 2008 which was the highest voter turnout. Every precinct was in favor of this. He shared
other positive information regarding the need and how helpful it is medically. This is a continuing
positive when it comes to zoning and this is the next best step. He is also a caregiver. This is widely
supported. The State is saying that local municipalities can opt in and choose where it will go
within their municipalities. He did have concerns with the proposed locations. He felt the
ordinance could be crafted in a way that it could be in other areas. He has been to the different
neighborhood association meetings to discuss this and he has had feedback from
Beachwood/Bluffton to Marquette neighborhoods and they feel these shouldn’t be segregated in a
small area; but should be more spread out to accommodate more. The proposed area is on the bus
route so it is accessible to people where it is proposed. He feels they should be allowed to be near
pharmacies or other medical areas. There have been studies that show that deaths from opioids
have declined since the approval of medical marihuana. He believes that staff’s proposal is a good
start but would like to see it spread to other areas as well.
F. Peterson left at 5:50 p.m.
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 Section 2330 of the zoning ordinance, to allow for a Medical
Marihuana Facilities Overlay District, be recommended to the City Commission for approval, was
made by T. Michalski, supported by S. Gawron and was approved with T. Michalski, B. Larson,
J. Doyle, S. Gawron voting aye and B. Mazade and J. Montgomery-Keast voting nay.
Hearing, Case 2018-04: Staff-initiated request to vacate Market St between Western Avenue and
Terrace St. 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. A permanent license is available, but it cannot be utilized across a public street.
Vacating 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. 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. Staff sent notices to all property owners adjacent
to Market St and had not received any comments at the time of this writing. Staff recommends
approval of the street vacation.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by T. Michalski, supported by S. Gawron and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the request to vacate Market St, between Western Avenue and Terrace St, be
recommended to the City Commission for approval was made by J. Doyle, supported by S. Gawron
and unanimously approved, with T. Michalski, B. Larson, B. Mazade, J. Doyle, S. Gawron, and J.
Montgomery-Keast voting aye.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None.
OTHER
B. Mazade asked for an update on the cell tower issue. M. Franzak stated that the proposal is ready
for the March meeting.
B. Mazade asked for an update on the former Nims School building. M. Franzak stated that it
would be coming back as they would like to demolish the gym for additional parking. They will
also be adding an urban farm in the back, but it won’t need approval and they want to move the
pocket park to another location on the property and then the City can sell the property to them.
B. Mazade asked for an update on the planning process with Pure Muskegon. M. Franzak stated
that he would try to get the schematics, but he wasn’t sure if they wanted it made public yet. B.
Mazade was also interested in when they would be back before the planning commission.
J. Doyle asked for an update in regard to Melching and the storing of aggregate at their new
location. M. Franzak stated that Melching needs the Drain Commissioner’s approval first but he
hasn’t applied yet. Staff also put them in contact with another chemical company so there is a
chance that the buildings could be saved.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
HM
MC
SIXTH
SEVENTH
PARK
SEAWAY
LAKETON B-4 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
I-1 B-4
B-2
GENERAL BUSINESS
CONVENIENCE COMPARISON BUSINESS
I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
SEAWAY
I-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
MC MEDICAL CARE
OSR OPEN SPACE RECREATION
R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MUSKEGON HEIGHTS
COMMISSION MEETING DATE; May 8, 2018
Date: May 2, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Jeffrey Lewis, Director of Public Safety
RE: Demolition of 1713 and 1747 7th Street
AKA Park Street Storage
_______________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The Director of Public Safety requests that the Commission authorize the amount of
$220,000.00 for the demolition, removal of debris and hard surface foundations, parking lots,
etc. that remain at the location listed above, commonly known as “Park Street Storage”. The
building and adjacent lot is dangerous and abandoned and is a source of public safety issues.
The building has no functional use and is in disrepair. Please review the attachment(s) for
specifics and details regarding the history of the structure.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Negative impact on the Public Improvement Fund, note $150,000.00 was budgeted (17/18)
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
No action at this time (to be reviewed in the fourth quarter forecast to make adjustments for
the additional $70,000.00 needed to complete the project).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the demolition of 1713 and 1747 7th Street.
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails