Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the September 10th meeting of the City of Muskegon's Planning Commission. Calling this meeting to order, and may I have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Willette-Leroy?

Here.

Johnson?

Here.

De La Garza? Here. Seifert? Galran?

Here.

Keener? Mazade?

Here.

Blake? Ann Simmons?

All right, thank you. We do have a quorum, so we will move ahead. First item is approval of the minutes from the August 13th, 2026 meeting. If I may have a motion, please.

So moved. Support.

Moved and supported to approve the minutes from August 13th, 2026. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. And then today we do have the two public hearings on the agenda. Item A, Case 2026-17, request to rezone the property at 1145 Wesley Avenue from our neighborhood residential to form base code Neighborhood Edge by Pioneer Resources. So what we'll do is we'll have a staff report. We'll allow the applicant to come forward and give us their information, and then we will ask for a comment from the public. Staff report, please.

Yes. Pioneer Resources conducts their operations at 1145 Wesley. They're a non-profit organization that assists seniors and people with disabilities to attain independence. Inside this facility they host office and also therapy uses. They would now like to add a dog daycare which would be open to the public and also used as vocational training for persons with disabilities. This use would be conducted in the garage building in the back of the property. They're planning on a renovation and also a small addition to that building. The properties owned are neighborhood residential. The existing use of offices are considered legally non-conforming. Technically, they could be approved as special use permits for office uses. However, there is none on file, and this new use for a dog daycare would not fall as a permitted use under a special use permit. So a zoning to a business district would be their option. Kennel uses are only allowed in a few districts in the city. B4 and form-based code neighborhood edge or form-based code neighborhood core. And those would be for indoor kennels only, which this would be, no outdoor kenneling. Outdoor kennels are allowed only in industrial districts. Rezoning to form-based code neighborhood edge would bring the existing uses into conformance and allow for the dog daycare. And also when rezoning a single parcel, it's appropriate to ask if this would be a spot zone. So we have a little exercise that we've done below how to identify a spot zone and with some staff comments. The first is, is it a small size? Is the rezone tract, is it small compared to a large contiguous district surrounding it? Staff comment is that the parcel measure is just under six acres, so it's very large in size. Also, the surrounding area consists of schools, single-family housing, multi-family housing, parks, and small business corridor. Another question is, would it be an inconsistent use? Would the new rules allow a land use that clash with the neighboring properties, such as an industrial use in the middle of a residential neighborhood? Staff's comment is that the rezoning would actually bring the property into conformance. The existing office buildings are allowed as a special use permitted in our districts. However, there's no special use permit on file. rezoning to form Brace code neighborhood edge would bring the property into performance while also allowing them to expand operations such as the dog daycare would any special benefit be issued in this stance the change mainly favors a single property owner or instead of serving the greater public or conforming to the community needs staffs comments would be that the property owner will not be favored by the rezoning of the property it will bring the property into conformance. Pioneer resources is a valuable resource to the community and the rezoning will help them continue their efforts and expand their services to the neighborhood. The large campus style setting will ensure that there is plenty of distance between the new use and existing residential properties. Are there any conflicts with the master plan? The designation goes directly Would the designation go directly against the city's comprehensive master land use plan? Staff's comment would be that the future land use map identifies this property for multi-family housing. Although it does not call for business specifically, it does call for a more intense use than the low to moderate residential that currently exists. Notices were sent to all properties within 300 feet and we have not heard any comments from the public yet.

Thank you for that. And so do we have the applicant present? Do you want to come forward and just give us any additional updates or information you think relevant?

Sure. My name is Stacy Freed. I am the Chief Clinical Officer at Pioneer Resources. Additional information, the social enterprise, it's called Wagging Ways, and our hope is to roll this out in a couple different phases. We want to start with the dog daycare that would employ both individuals and also individuals with disabilities, provide employment opportunities for them. Um, in the first phase, uh, we want to do the dog daycare and we are going to be providing dog transportation. So we've already identified and we have a bus set aside, um, to provide this. There is no other business in the area that provides transportation. So we feel like we're meeting an unmet need. Um, The first phase will be the dog daycare itself and the transportation and then rolling into the next phase our hope is to provide apprenticeship opportunities for individuals to learn about dog grooming and to help them transition into community employment. There will be a lot of opportunities for learning and training for individuals with disabilities. So it's called Wagging Ways and I would be happy to take any questions.

Thank you for that. And do we have questions from the commission?

Do you plan to house any animals overnight?

Not yet. Long-term plan wise, we would like to offer the overnight. To begin though, it'll just be during the day.

So as a follow-up question, I wanted to ask Mike, I saw in your, you mentioned that the code considers this as a kennel use. Is overnight housing the animals permitted as a use as a kennel?

Yes.

Or as, maybe I should say, as this zoning district?

Yes, my interpretation of the code would be that a kennel would allow overnight stays. This came up a little bit when we had to rezone the lakeside form-based code to allow for the new vet going in the former RPC building. Ultimately, we decided that since they're not having dogs overnight without staff, that that would not be a kennel, but we did determine that a kennel would be the appropriate type of use for overnight stays.

So does the district's definition of a kennel, does it, because I don't have that, does it specifically indicate that overnight housing is permitted?

It doesn't say whether or not it has to be a set amount of hours or overnight. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. And I would say I think the kind of well-understood idea of a kennel would include overnight. So I think unless it was called out, I would presume that it would, you know, include that capacity unless we stated otherwise. Right.

I would think so too, but I want to be clear about that because I think there's a difference between having dogs during the day and then overnight housing of animals.

Right, and the staffing requirements to go along with that for sure. Any other questions for our applicant at the moment? I do have a couple more questions we can ask now. While you're up here, it might be more for staff at the moment, though. Does that also allow for grooming within the kennel definition, or would that have to be a secondary...

I would say that's an even less intense use and something that would be allowed as a service type of use in this district. She wouldn't need to come back for that.

My point is if they wanted to add that service, would she need to come back for additional licensing or...

I'd have to read through the ordinance and the permitted uses, but, um, the kennel itself is allowed as a permitted use by right. So I believe this, that type of use also would be, this is just to rezone the property to that district, which allows that as a use by right.

Okay. And then, um, regarding your application, um, this is intended to be an indoor kennel, meaning you do not at any time intend to bring the animals outdoors. For any activities?

Yeah, there will be outside play areas, so we'll have a designated area. Smaller dogs, designated area. Larger dogs, so they'll be inside and outside.

Can you, have we kind of delineated where that would be, other than using this garage as the kennel? I didn't see where we kind of denoted where animals would be given space.

that been determined my understanding it was behind the garage building is that correct i could point to it but building all the way in the back that has the three smaller buildings next to it other side um the three smaller on the very bottom yeah right there my left okay and so then you're intending to use this area basically It's on the other side of the back building. It's my loft. Right? It would be back there in that area where the outside play areas would be. So it's all woods along there.

Is the area that you're intending to use already fenced?

No, it is not. I don't believe we will be fencing it.

And then I can ask my other questions later. I think I'm good for now. Okay. Do you have one more?

Just to clarify, with regard to the outdoor play activities with the dogs, that would only be during your normal business hours of Pioneer Resources? Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you for now. At this point, this is a public hearing, so if anybody in the audience would like to come forward with any comments, you may do so at this time. You may come forward to the podium if you have a comment. If you'd like to make a comment, yes, ma'am. Sorry.

I just had a question.

Sorry, if you could just give us your name and then just let the questions would be to us for its comment on the application.

I'm Toni Gern, Lakeshore Drive, and she mentioned the name of the kennel operation. I wondered if that was a franchise or something. What is that? Okay. Dog something or other, something or other.

Thank you. So at this point, we're taking comments, ma'am. And so we'll take your comment and then we may potentially get results for those questions. Just double checking if you're coming in for the public hearing and you have a comment. You're welcome to do so now. Okay. Otherwise, I'm not seeing any other folks with comments or questions at this time. So I will go to the phones. That would be 231-724-6721. We'll give... folks at home an opportunity to call in with any comments. You can ask questions but we will not be able to respond to those during the public hearing portion. I'm not seeing anything coming in, but we need to wait for it to... We got a little delay on the TV there. I'm not seeing anything coming in over the phone line. I'll go ahead and take a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved. Moved.

Moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. And those opposed say no. So the public hearing has closed at this time. I do have a couple more questions for staff. Do you have a question?

No, just let me change.

Your motion under .

Yeah, I'll just proceed. I move the request to rezone the property at 1145 Wesley Avenue from neighborhood residential to form-based code, neighborhood edge be recommended to the City Commission for approval. Second.

Okay, motion on the table, moved and seconded. My additional questions essentially are, do we have a similar service in place in the city that you're aware of as of now? And if so, have there been any?

I'm not aware of one.

Not aware of one, okay. My question would have to do with whether we'd received any complaints regarding that type of business as of now. I'm not aware of the business existing, therefore I'm not aware of any particular complaints.

Mike, can you give me some examples of other potential permitted by right uses in that district that we're talking about, the neighborhood edge?

Yep, I'm going to pull it up here.

Okay, thank you.

Neighborhood edge is the recommended zoning that we are talking about. Change for today.

So these are the uses. It goes by building type. So some will allow them in all the building types. Some of them only allow them in a couple. Kennels only allowed in a flex building, which this would be.

You're saying a kennel would be allowed in the neighborhood edge? Only in a flex building, which this would be considered. And the reason I ask this is because we find ourselves many times being asked to rezone a piece of property to a certain district. And the proposed use is perhaps Okay, but some of the other potential uses are not, in my mind, always okay. And so I think that's where I have a little difficulty. Some of the uses here would not be okay from my standpoint in that neighborhood. Which ones would those be? I don't know about a hotel. Motel would be a good use on that piece of property. Or a theater or light manufacturing. Those are some things that I don't know. I think might be more objectionable to the neighborhood. And so I think sometimes we find ourselves in a quandary about... permitting or rezoning a property to fit a certain request. And then sometimes that changes over time. And then the property's sold and then there's other potential uses that can go into that property that may not be welcomed by the neighborhood.

We need an MSA approval to move this forward. So we need an MSA approval to move this forward.

Can it go to the City Commission regardless?

I mean, in order to the motion.

No, it doesn't matter. Thank you. We'll go to the City Commission with or without recommendation.

Okay. In order for the recommendation to be approved, as soon as I answer this.

It still goes to the City Commission. It just says that the Planning Commission failed to recommend. That's the answer. I wish we don't have five. Yes.

Okay. Is there any other strong complaints about a particular use in this zoning that anybody has at this time?

Good question.

Would Pioneer Resources be considered an educational institution?

More of a service provider.

It seems more of office use to me. And with the therapy that they do, it's more of office. But with the dog daycare, that's something completely different.

Okay. The reason why I ask is because there's certain exemptions for educational institutions such that they can't have livestock otherwise. So I'm just wondering if that's the route to go rather than rezoning at Neighborhood Edge and opening up potentially unintended consequences for the property down the line. whether or not we classify it as for educational purposes and allow this type of activity just under the auspices of educational purposes.

What's CareerTech zoned as? Does that fall under the township or us?

I think they're zoned RM1, possibly. I don't know.

Because I know that they have veterinary programming and other services. That's the reason I asked. Similar type use. I would say that career tech is a very similar type use.

I will say that, well, some of the light manufacturing would require a special use permit, but that's dependent on the building type.

Well, if we don't have any other further comments, we can essentially take it to a vote. Go ahead. One more.

Well, I'm just trying to think about other approaches. So there is no opportunity to figure out a special land use permit for this?

No, that would have been my initial recommendation, but looking through it, it doesn't appear that that's an allowed type of use.

So what you're saying is that if this rezoning is not viable at the end of the day, the special use permit is not an option for this business?

Correct.

Do you know? I just wanted to also add that the requirement would be that if animals were allowed to be outside unleashed, they would require a fence. Is that correct? Or would there not be on private property?

It's not a requirement, but I would assume they're going to put up a fence.

You mentioned that, but I was checking whether it would be a requirement for the neighborhood. We do have schools on both sides. Okay.

I mean, you may not, this may not be the preferred approach, particularly setting precedent or standard practice, but I'm just wondering, like, what the process of creating this special land use permit option for this. I know we don't necessarily want to create a special land use permit option for every unique situation, but I'm just, I think there's legit concerns that Commissioner Mazate is raising about all the other potential use by right activities for this property. So I'm just trying to figure out a way to Accommodate this request because I think that intended activity there is is is I? Have no objections to the intended activity there, and I think it can be a nice part of the programming I'm in a service to our community So I'm just trying to figure out a way that we might be able to accommodate that undesired use without potentially opening Pandora's box by rezoning it Yeah, I mean in the process to expand on the special use permit allowability is the question I

We would need to amend the ordinance to allow that type of use as maybe a special use permit if it's associated with a non-profit group or something like that. But it's not going to stop at dog daycares. They might want to open up a coffee shop for vocational training. Do we have to add that in? Do we have to add in Any other type of uses that we're not thinking of?

Is vocational training itself? I mean, I realize we have the animal component here, but I feel like it's the vocational training that we're trying to... What's your question? Whether the vocational training is already a special use permit option.

Well, this would be for the dog daycare only, so it would be associated with that.

I think this might be a conversation for the folks on the level above us. Are we checking into something relevant, Steve?

Got anything? Yeah, we're good?

You look thoughtful.

I'm having a little bit of a quandary. Again, the particular agency and the mission, but with Commissioner Mazzaid's bringing up, once with the rezoning, because this isn't specific to the agency, the rezoning goes with the entire property, does that indeed present a risk for future uses that we weren't really planning on or perhaps would not see as compatible with the existing neighborhood. It was a very good question, a good point.

I don't think this is unusual. I mean, we... I think that many times when we rezone a piece of property, there's a myriad of uses that are permitted, some of which we may or may not like. I, more than anything, wanted to understand what were the possibilities because I didn't know. I do like that. I like what the mayor said about an option to have a special use permit. Apparently that's not an option.

It's not an option.

And I just, you know, I just wanted to know what other things could go in there because things change over time, you know. But having said that, I'm prepared to vote on this.

Okay. And part of the reason I wanted to give this good discussion, right, is as a planning commission, right, it's not just a decision commission. It's thinking forward and trying to think through the consequences of those choices. But also it sounds like folks are very interested in the opportunity presented. to us as a city for this business to exist. So I just want to, I guess, give some clear direction to the folks on the city commission of what our real thoughts are as to the way to take this forward instead of expecting them to have the expertise to decide that. I am interested in the special use permit component. I think that maybe we need some more flexibility in that for new opportunities that come up. If that makes sense.

I'd like to speak a little bit more on the special use permit. If you look on the screen, it's actually number six. It wouldn't be allowed if the building wasn't already there. The way I interpret it that it would be allowed is that it's a previously existing or established commercial use, not already converted to residential. So we have these buildings that were built there as offices. I'm not sure exactly when they were built or under what zoning district, but they clearly would not be able to be built now. But they do exist, and you can see that the types of uses are supposed to be things that are not very intrusive to the neighborhood and things that would be harmonious with residential living. This is not a residential use. It's a whole campus of business and office uses. That's why I suggested a zoning that would already allow that. If we were to open this up to dog daycares in every one. We're going to be seeing probably a lot of very small commercial buildings that are embedded in the middle of neighborhoods. Nelson Neighborhood has a lot of those, over 20 of them. And you could see maybe a former tiny machine shop or a little warehouse being asked to operate a dog daycare that has 50 houses around it. This is already a very large campus-type setting that really has no business being zoned residential. So that's what staff's recommendation was, to bring it more into conformance.

Can we look one more time at the allowable uses in this zoning? Maybe talk a little bit, really, which, in reality, which of these would present a problem in this type of neighborhood? So is this everything with a P?

P means permitted, so it's a use by right. S stands for special use permit.

So we had one concern maybe around a hotel motel. Light manufacturing, there's already an S there sometimes.

depending on the building type and do we have other examples of where this zoning is already in place within the city

Several, there's several. I'm just trying to think of where, again, these would be problems in those areas necessarily, I don't think.

Most of the form-based code is downtown or downtown adjacent, so that's where you'll see the neighborhood edge. Probably more on the outsides of downtown, outskirts.

I would say it is a former resident of that neighborhood. I used to live right on Ducey, around the corner from this property. And it is very much a campus, right? It's kind of like Baker College. It's a place where people aren't expecting there to be houses there. They're expecting there to be activity of some kind. There's a school on both sides of it. So people are used to people coming and going and dropping off kids and engaging. So the current use doesn't really bother me.

When we look at the permitted uses, as you run through, of course, nobody has a crystal ball. But I think for a majority of the permitted uses, we probably wouldn't. not see much of a opportunity for those to come about, even if there was a change of hands in the type of property. Um, you know, it's, it's not a clear cut commercial district adjacent to, you know, a density of other commercial uses. So, you know, as far as, uh, restaurants, motels, brew pubs, um, Oh, railway terminal doesn't count anyway. Uh, but, uh, And looking at the current and former uses of it, again, as you said, this is a campus, the type of use. Yes.

And Willette-Leroy.

Yes.

Willette-Leroy.

Yes. Motion passes.

This will go to the city commission meeting at 5.30 on September 24th.

It does need another round of approval, but we appreciate your time today. We do have a second public hearing on our agenda today. If you could pull that up real quick, we'll take a look at it.

This is case 2026-18, a request to rezone the property at 1210 Lakeshore Drive from form-based code urban residential to our neighborhood residential. The subject parcel previously contained a house for many years, but it was demoed in 2021. The property was considered legally non-conforming for many years because of the I-2 zoning, which was most likely because of the proximity to Kohl's Quality Foods. The parcel was rezoned to form-based code urban residential in 2018, along with the form-based code expansion in the NIMS neighborhood. Staff included this property in the rezoning because of its historical residential use. However, rezoning to R1 may have been more appropriate, which R1 was a zoning designation at the time, which is now R. The property owner is having difficulty getting their house plans approved because they don't meet the form-based code regulations. Most notably, they can't meet the requirement that a garage must be placed at least 40 feet back from the property line. This requirement is to encourage alley loaded developments in parking. However, there's not an alley in this area and there's no possibility of one because of the topography. Ever since the zoning reform passed, which allows duplexes, accessory dwelling units, staff has been recommending the R neighborhood residential designation rather than the form base code designation for properties without alleys. The lot measures 61 by 132. Another problem is the owner is having difficulty with the form-based code maximum width regulation, which says it cannot exceed 36 feet wide. The form-based code requires smaller lots and the maximum width requirement encourages owners to split the lots when possible. This lot has historically contained a house wider than 36 feet, as many of the properties on Lakeshore Drive do. Also, many of the Lakeshore Drive properties also have garages that are built up. Closer to the streets and there's no possibility of having them set 45 45 feet back because of the cliff When rezoning a single parcel again, it's important to look at see if it was a spot zone It is a small size however It's the same size as all of the other residential parcels on Lakeshore Drive Almost all of which are zoned our neighborhood residential. There's two that are zoned on lakefront recreation which seemed to have happened because of the Coles condos and They were lumped in with them. I do not understand why I think believe one of them's a Victorian house that certainly doesn't fit in there We did consider trying to rezone those properties Along with this one because it would be more appropriate However, given the fact they're in the middle of designing their house. We didn't have time to have a group meeting on on how that would look, so that's something we'll try to pursue in the future. Another thing to look at is inconsistent use. Would the new rules allow land uses that clash with neighboring properties? Staff says that a rezoning to our neighborhood residential would not clash with neighboring properties, but rather bring it into conformance with the rest of the residential properties on Lake Shore Drive. The new zoning would allow the house to be constructed with the same regulations as the rest of the residential properties. Would there be any special benefit? Staff's comments are that the property will not be favored by a rezoning of the property. In fact, the property owner appears to be held to a different standard to the rest of the residential properties on Lake Story Drive with the current zoning. Are there any conflicts with the master plan? The proposed zoning designation actually aligns with the master plan. The parcel along with the rest of the residential parcels on Lake Story Drive are noted as low to moderate residential on the future land use map, which this would be. And we did notice everyone within 300 feet of the property and have not heard any comments from the public.

Okay, thank you for that. And do we have the applicant present? If you'd like to come forward, give us your name and anything you'd like to add.

I'm here representing Greg Wing, which is actually the owner of the property. My name is Dave Dusendank, Dusendank Customs. I build the home. are in the mix of designing it now, but we stopped until we figured out whether or not I had mentioned it would definitely comply with the rest of the houses on the street, better to be air zoning, and it wouldn't require a garage to be 40 feet back on the cliff in the back that goes to the holding company.

Thank you for that. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant at this time? Seeing none. Thank you for that. We're going to go to the public hearing on this item. So if anybody in the audience would like to come forward with any comments, you may do so now. I am seeing none, and so we'll go to the phones. 231-724-6721. We'll give that a minute or so and see if anybody calls in.

Can I ask a question while we're waiting? I suppose. So, Mike, I guess along the same lines as the last case, are there significant differences in the permitted uses from form-based code, the current form-based code that we're talking about here, and that our district... other than lot sizes and so forth. I'm just talking about the uses.

Not really. The R district does allow for duplexes, so does the form-based code. The form-based code would allow a triplex if there's an alley, but there's no alley here. So it's essentially the same zoning designation without the alley.

That's what I thought.

There's just more stringent design guidelines on the form-based code.

We may have some more questions, but at this time I will take a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Moved to close the public hearing. Any support? Support. Moved and supported. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those say no. Public hearing has been closed. I don't have a question, but I did just have another comment, and I did hear already that we had the intention of reviewing the neighboring lots for a zone change. I think staff has been very good about looking for opportunities to update our zoning based on the actual usage and our intended usage. So I would encourage us to do that so that we can avoid the kind of spot zoning situation that we might otherwise find ourselves in again at the next time. Go ahead.

I'd move that the request to rezone the property at 1210 Lakeshore Drive from form-based code urban residential to our neighborhood residential be recommended to the city commission for...

Moved and supported. I will take a roll call on that. Oh, we have any more comments?

We didn't get to the questions of the motion itself. You mentioned, and you just referenced it, you mentioned that looking at potentially rezoning neighboring property. Could you clarify exactly which? You're talking about the other three homes on that same row joining them? Are you talking about what?

Yeah, so the two property, you can see the subject parcel is outlined in red. The two properties to the left are existing houses. Okay. And going down the hill, you can see where the Kohl's condos are. For whatever reason, I believe when they rezoned that to allow for the Kohl's condos, they lumped those two in there. I'm not sure why. They're not involved with the condos. And Lakeshore Recreation only allows housing developments. It really doesn't suggest individual houses, so... I believe that was incorrectly rezoned at some points, and they could potentially have some issues expanding or building a new house under that designation. So we would like to hold a focus group with those two. We just did not have time to do it this time. Okay.

Okay.

For some reason I was thinking there was already three there. Okay.

Just coincidental or for just curious. um right behind there there's still like a spick of a little bit of land that's i2 do you know why that remained i2 and was not zoned um because you looked just to the you can see the dark gray above there is still i2 just the north of there you see the dark gray With the light gray, then the blue and the dark gray. That dark gray is I2 still. There's a small portion of land there, but it's still I2. And I'm just wondering why that remains I2 and was not rezoned to one of the surrounding areas.

designations that's better fitting but that's just an aside i'm just curious like why that remains i think we've noticed that in the past and kohl's was still operational and there was still a lot of change going down at the end of west western at the end there so i think we wanted to keep our options open i think someone was also possibly proposing some type of boat storage units there at one point. So I think that's kind of why it's left over, but that's a good point to probably take a little closer look at that, especially now that Coles is gone.

Yeah, I was curious because most of the Coles is under the neighborhood's edge now. Yeah. So I was just curious why the I-2 remained. Okay. Yeah, you're already looking at rezoning the other two properties. I think preferably it would be done all at one time, but... just then it doesn't feel as, I mean, it feels appropriate. What you're asking to rezone for this particular parcel is appropriate, particularly given that it does not have a rear, an alleyway for rear access, a rear loading, whether the garage or otherwise. So I think what you're asking is appropriate. I just think it also would be appropriate for the neighboring two properties as well. And so it's not to avoid any perception of spot zoning. It'd be my preference to do it all together, but it's not. critically necessary at the same time. But I do appreciate you having those conversations. And certainly the property owners are going to have something to say about the rezoning of their lots. But I do think it's appropriate to have those conversations in consideration.

And so what would the timeline be required in order to, you know, if you started from today, what would be the timeline to bring that back to us?

We would send out letters to those two property owners and ask if they wanted to attend a focus group meeting. and then we would set up a meeting, explain to them why they should consider that, and if they want to move forward, we would probably do it as a staff-initiated request rather than making them pay for it.

I would agree. I think we've identified the issue, and perhaps if we can take that on ours, and if we can make that happen yet this year since we've identified it, I think that would make me more comfortable with avoiding the spot zoning issue. That's all I have on that. I see no further questions, and now I will take a roll call.

Commissioner Mazade?

Yes.

Garan?

Yes.

De La Garza? Yes. Johnson? Yes. And Willette Leroy?

Yes. All right. Motion passes. And so, again, that will go to the City Commission at their next opportunity. And that brings us to the rest of our agenda, which... UNFINISHED BUSINESS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE UNFINISHED BUSINESS? I THINK THERE MAY BE THINGS, BUT NOT FOR TODAY, THAT I HAVE.

WELL, I GUESS IT'S SORT OF UNFINISHED. IF WE CAN SEND OUT AN EMAIL OR INQUIRY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COMMISSION, BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HAVING A JOINT MEETING. We can look at coordinating with members of both commissions.

Yeah, there's only one city commission meeting in October, so staff was talking about that and think maybe later in October would be good, so we'll probably send an email out here shortly.

We are going to have a second city commission meeting in October. It's just going to be a joint Muskegon School Board city commission meeting. It's going to be the same night where we're going to be doing it at Muskegon Public Schools. So the city commission will have two meetings that night. That's not to say we can't do a joint planning commission city commission meeting as well, that month, but I just wanted to let you know there will be two general sessions of the Commission in October for the regularly scheduled times.

That's on unfinished business. Seeing no other unfinished business. Do we have any new business? Seeing no new business. I don't have any other business. So we do have a general public comment period if anybody wants to come forward. from the audience. Got anything exciting to share with us? Now would be the time.

We do have another business.

Oh, you have other business?

Yeah, I do have one.

What do you got?

Commissioner Garwin actually has an exciting opportunity to share with us.

Thank you. The Muskegon chapter of the International Strong Towns Movement, the Muskegon Strong Towns Small Group is going to be hosting its first Walk About Nothing, which isn't really about nothing. It's about everything, our neighborhoods, our environment. But this inaugural walk We're going to piggyback on some exciting development in Midtown. And on the 17th of September, next Thursday, at 1135 3rd Street in Midtown, we're going to gather in a window between 4 and 6 p.m. as Strongtown members or people interested in Strongtowns for an open house meeting. at new development there. Frank Peterson and his partners, Jeff Salo and Oh, Mr. I'm forgetting the third gentleman I've not met yet. Anyway, it's an exciting development in Midtown. A great adaptive reuse of an old building that for years was automotive supply and a machine shop in the back end. But they're bringing in an engineering hub and an expansive new development. And they're hosting... open house and they are very happy to extend that invitation to the Strongtown Small Town group here in Muskegon. And anybody interested, there is an Eventbrite under Frank Peterson's Facebook or go to Muskegon Strongtown Small Town small group, and you can contact me through that medium or personal message and get you set up. So looking forward to it. A lot of exciting things happening along 3rd Street there in Midtown, which I really think will be beneficial to the neighborhood and the city as a whole.

I agree, the building is looking good, so I'll be excited to see it get occupied. It'll be very good for the neighborhood. Thank you for that. Okay, that was under new business, and now we have general public comment, but as mentioned, there is no one in the audience interested at this time, so I will go to the phones. 231-724-6721. I've got to work on my Jeopardy theme song or whatever my little ditty's going to be. All right. I don't think we have anybody calling in. And I'm going to go ahead and take a motion to adjourn.

May we adjourn?

You may. We are adjourned.