Category Archives: News

News that pertains to Muskegon’s Liveability

News

City Commission Moves To Develop Third Street Property

Leave a comment

On March 14, 2023 city commissioners directed city staff to recommend West Urban Properties for the development of the property on 1095 Third Street. This property was once the site of Catholic Charities, but is now vacant. Three developers have expressed interest on developing the site, and commissioners had to choose which option to pursue.

Image sourced by author 3/15/23

This will not be the only time this issue will come before the commission, it will have to come before the commission for further approval later. Mayor Johnson did also present the idea that they may reach out to one of the other developers if they reject West Urban Properties down the road.

The main motivation of the commission seemed to be that West Urban Properties would have a portion of their units available for Section 8 vouchers. Commissioner Ramsey suggested that making the section 8 and other vouchers work with this development would set an example to other market rate apartments in the city. Mayor Johnson also noted that more units were proposed by this developer than others.

West Urban Properties proposal featured many good urban qualities to make the area more walkable, was mixed use, and would help to enliven and activate Hackley park at more hours, as housing in proximity to that park is currently limited. It is notable that the proposal from all three developers included a historic photo of the building, obviously relating that the building’s facade is worse now than the way it was originally built. Prices for apartments, and how many would be section 8 accepting is to be determined, but this was the only market rate option. The proposals can all be accessed via section 10.d links attached to the meeting agenda here.

Image sourced by author 3/15/23

OPINION: I believe that West Urban Properties was the wrong choice in this location for Muskegon. Muskegon has several large market rate apartment buildings now, and more in the future as Adelaide Pointe and Harbor 31 are constructed. 3rd street is adjacent to downtown, and affordable housing projects there would allow downtown to be more equitably shared by different classes, and not only those wealthy enough to afford it. It is true that more landlords should accept section 8 vouchers, but as the first new development on this side of downtown, affordability should be the priority here. I believe that the General Capital proposal of would be more affordable to more people and would benefit the city of Muskegon and its residents more at this location. General Capital built the Ten 21 affordable apartment building, and their plans included Live/Work lofts and commercial space.

News

City Commissioners Vote No On Parkland Walking Path Amendment

On January 24, city commissioners voted no on an amendment to the development agreement with Parkland Marina, LLC which originally terminated public access to a break-wall with a walkway, railing, and scenic views of Muskegon Lake in 2021.

This comes as a lawsuit has been filed against the city by the adjacent land-owner Mart Dock, which alleges that the city improperly gave the land away without consideration. This lawsuit was determined by the circuit judge to have enough merit to continue to litigation, and it was expressed at the meeting by the city’s legal council that they had a limited time to address the lawsuit’s claims before litigation would proceed.

The amendment was thus a concerted effort to address the issues highlighted in the lawsuit. In short, the agreement stipulated public access to the boardwalk and the walk itself, and that Parkland, “may relocate the path of the public access to a comparable location, to facilitate its development of the Property.” This process of relocating public access would have to be reviewed and approved by city council before a building permit would be issued for it. It also would have reinstated the same access as was available under the previous public access dedication, “until Parkland commences construction of the Project.”

The rest of the amendment attempted to address other legal concerns, first by raising the amount of money given to the city for the land to $25,000 instead of $2. It explained that the new price is still low because 1) The land is under an easement that only allows access to Parkland anyway, 2) the land is contaminated, and 3) Parkland is legally required to invest millions into the property. Finally, the amendment would have required that the short road that leads to the boardwalk be vacated, to address Mart Dock’s allegation that the road was a public street, which could not be given away without some higher level of consideration. The City considered that road to be a driveway.

The council meeting all told was 4 hours long including other business. Most notably, the public comment section included over seven members of the public urging commissioners to vote no on the amendment. In every case it was clear that commenters wanted public access to the walkway, but not clear what about the amendment they specifically disagreed with. A few took issue with the idea of a boat storage business on the property at all. One gentleman was so passionate that after lapsing his time, he continued to speak over the mayor’s gavel and threats to have him removed. Channel 13 did have a camera present.

The city commissioners seemed to be at a loss over the amendment. They wrestled with passing an amendment so hotly opposed by a room of concerned citizens, or rejecting it and thus denying any access at all. In the end, all but the Mayor seemed to believe that inaction would be better than passing the amendment and accidentally creating a bigger problem down the road. The Mayor, Ken Johnson, voted for the amendment, believing that it provided sufficient access while safeguarding it into the future. All the while legal council was very adamant that there would be great l risk should the lawsuit continue. With no amendment now, the future is unclear.

OPINION: Everyone involved wants public access. Parkland wants it in a way that will help its business. Commissioners want it for the public. The Mayor and city civil servants want it and want to avoid a lawsuit. Mart Dock probably wants it so that they can trade the adjoining parcel for Fisherman’s Landing (although Parkland’s owner alleged in the meeting they were suing to hurt their business competition.) The real question is how we are going to get it. The biggest issue with this amendment was that it was written by the city manager primarily to address a lawsuit. It wasn’t crafted with public input, or debated and discussed before it was introduced. That may have been a result of the limited time afforded by the lawsuit. Either way, we are now at the mercy of this lawsuit, which may hopefully end in public access someday, and will certainly cost the city money that should really be going to something better than defending a poor decision. I can only hope that Mart Dock will come to some agreement quickly that codifies public access.

One thing I will say is that the Mayor wants public access too, and has pursued it even before it came into the public eye. He bore the brunt of a lot of anger on Tuesday. The amendment, though imperfect, seemed to come under a disproportionate amount of opposition because it was difficult to understand, or because people really don’t want a boat storage business there at all. I am proud of how many people really care about our access to this beautiful lake. As one commenter put it, we’re “lake people.”

News

City Commissioners Approve Tiny Homes Hotel in Lakeside Neighborhood

Tiny Digs Portland (Tiny Digs Portland Facebook)

City Commissioners approved a planned unit development (PUD) located at 2033 and 2044 Lakeshore Drive in Muskegon on August 23. Lot 2033 sits on the corner of Moon Street and Lakeshore Drive in the Lakeside neighborhood. The approved PUD granted to Tiny Digs Muskegon LLC allows for 10 “Micro-lodging” units. The units are to be used only for short term stays of 30 days or less by definition, although actual stay limits may be less than that. A stipulation was also included that 5 canopy trees be planted along Moon Street.

A view of the corner of Moon and Lakeshore as of September 2021 (Google Street View, 9/06/2022)

Tiny Digs is not new to the tiny homes rental scene. They operate a similar business in Portland, Oregon. The hotel in Portland features a variety of tiny homes which range in styles and colors, and sleep a range of 2 to 5 guests. The representative of Tiny Digs Muskegon told the council that the aim is for a maximum of 2 to 4 guests in each unit at Lakeshore Dr. at a time. This is due to the limitations the size of the lot will impose on the sizes of the units. The representative also mentioned that the aesthetic character of the development would be pleasant and described it in a way that sounded quite suburban, even describing a possible white picket fence.

There were many concerns raised at the city commission meeting on the 23rd, from both nearby residents and city commissioners. Most questions seemed to be sufficiently answered by the time a vote came to pass with the exception of parking. The site is not in an area that has parking minimums, and there are currently no planned parking spots on-site for guests. Instead, Tiny Digs has arranged for parking at the lots of nearby businesses. Mayor Ken Johnson raised the concern about this arrangement disappearing in the event that those businesses are sold. This point did not seem to be properly answered, which lead to what seemed to be general confusion among commission members. At one point the commission seemed to make an effort to postpone voting on the issue in order that the concerns of those outspoken against the PUD be addressed. However, commissioner Hood made a motion to adopt the PUD. The motion passed 4-1, with Mayor Johnson being the only no vote. Commissioner Gorman and Commissioner Ramsey were absent.

OPINION: The pros most likely outweigh the cons for this development. Although some residents brought up the concern that the lots could service a larger and more dense building, my hope is that the existence of these short term rental units encourages exactly that sort of high density development throughout the Lakeside Form-Based code area. My hope is that these tiny homes act as a buffer between the commercial and residential areas, and bring more commercial interest to the Lakeside neighborhood without being a nuisance to nearby single family homes. This development also sparked a conversation on parking which will hopefully be a part of a transition in thinking away from parking as an immediately available resource everywhere in the city.