Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Ldc Right Of Way Snow Transit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission weighs land‑development code issues: right‑of‑way plantings, snow removal and transit

5809867 · September 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

In a work‑session discussion the Marquette Planning Commission reviewed draft Land Development Code items and raised concerns about rights‑of‑way planting rules, discontinuation of pollinator garden certification, sidewalk snow removal enforcement, and local transit funding and coordination.

At a Sept. 2 work session, the Marquette City Planning Commission discussed a range of Land Development Code (LDC) issues including policy clarity for right‑of‑way plantings, the end of a local pollinator‑garden certification, enforcement of sidewalk snow removal and obstruction rules, and ongoing efforts to improve transit service and secure funding.

Commissioners said the city lacks clear, consistent policy language and internal processes describing what is allowed in the terrace (the right‑of‑way between street and sidewalk) and how more permanent features should be handled. Several speakers noted residents have placed landscaping timbers, rocks and other semi‑permanent features in the right‑of‑way; while smaller, removable plantings have been tolerated, larger or permanent installations can be removed in an emergency without prior notice.

Commissioners and staff reported the county conservation district previously provided a pollinator‑garden certification and signage program but, in at least one recent case, county staff stopped issuing the certification. Planning staff said that change was not broadly communicated and has left residents unclear about where to seek verification that a naturalized yard meets the city’s invasive plant management expectations. Staff said the city needs to update guidance and coordinate internally so residents and enforcement officers have consistent direction.

Snow removal and sidewalk clearing also drew extended discussion. Staff and commissioners noted the land‑development code includes a removal requirement after snowfall, and that enforcement of obstruction (for example, plowing snow into sidewalks) is inconsistent. Commissioners reviewed the history of sidewalk plow routes — previously one side of each street, later reduced to priority routes serving schools and business districts for budget reasons — and said limited funding and operational constraints make comprehensive sidewalk clearing difficult. Staff cautioned there are rare heavy‑snow exceptions in the code when clearing is impractical.

On transit, staff said Marquette participates in regional transit planning with MarkTran and receives periodic federal or state funding shared across projects. Commissioners said a redevelopment‑ready communities program administered by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation may provide fellows to support local climate‑action planning; staff noted those fellowships are not free and the city would need to provide matching or local funds. Earlier funding cycles for shared regional grants were described as roughly $375,000 in available funds split among jurisdictions in the region; staff said the city has struggled to provide small local matches for items such as bus shelters (an estimated $12,000 per shelter in past discussions).

Commissioners recommended removing items from the presentation that create confusion about which body (planning commission or city commission) is responsible for particular code enforcement or city‑wide policy topics and suggested bringing clear, prioritized questions to the city commission and manager's office for coordination. They also suggested earlier engagement on LDC amendments and pursuing a joint annual meeting between the planning commission and city commission as recommended in redevelopment‑ready guidance.

The discussion included multiple requests for clearer internal coordination so staff answering public queries can direct residents to the correct office rather than referring them to multiple meetings.