Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pud Hartshorn topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves minor Hartshorn Village PUD amendment to add lot 21; defers decision on lot 22
Summary
The planning commission approved a minor amendment to the Hartshorn Village PUD to add lot 21 and realign walking paths and grading, reducing required fill; commissioners deferred action on lot 22 (and a possible lot 23) pending further analysis of utility easements, viewshed impacts and stormwater.
The Muskegon City Planning Commission on Feb. 12 approved a minor amendment to the Hartshorn Village planned unit development to add lot 21 and to realign walking paths and site grading while reducing the amount of fill required on the north end of the residential area.
Staff described the amendment as a minor change that would add two single‑family lots in the northwest corner of the development (proposed lots 21 and 22) and suggested a possible 23rd lot was premature. The amendment would remove one walking path and shift another, and staff said the revised grading steps down more naturally across the site, cutting the amount of imported fill roughly in half. The change is intended to maintain roads, utilities and the private drive configuration while adding lots that front the marina.
Justin Longstrath of Mo and Brew Engineers, representing the applicant, said the grading work aligns the design more closely with existing contours and reduces the volume of fill required. “By doing that it allowed us to effectively cut the required fill in half from what was originally needing to be brought on site,” Longstrath said.
Commissioners raised flooding and emergent wetland concerns to the west, asked how stormwater treatment would be handled, and noted that Consumers Energy easements run through parcels proposed for lot 22 and possibly 23. Staff and the applicant said stormwater calculations and city engineering approval will be part of subsequent submittals; they also noted coordination with Consumers Energy would be required if a building footprint would encroach on an easement. One commissioner said costs to relocate an easement would fall to the utility, not the city.
Given those concerns the commission approved adding lot 21 as a minor amendment and asked the applicant to return with detailed renderings, stormwater calculations and easement coordination if they pursue lot 22 or 23. The motion to approve lot 21 passed on roll call.
