On the agenda: Marquette City Planning Commission — Data Center (Oct 6)

 AGENDA 
MARQUETTE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Tuesday, October 06, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.
Commission Chambers, City Hall
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

1) ROLL CALL
2) APPROVE AGENDA
3) APPROVE MINUTES: Minutes of 09-01-26
4) CONFLICT of INTEREST
1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. CITIZENS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS
3. OLD BUSINESS
4. NEW BUSINESS
5. CITIZENS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
6. CORRESPONDENCE, REPORTS, MINUTES OF OTHER BOARDS/COMMITTEES
7. TRAINING
A. Article: From M oratorium s to M aster P lans, Local Strategies for Data Center
Developm ent, Michigan Planner, May-June 2026

8. WORK SESSION ON REPORTS/PLANS/ORDINANCES
A. Discussion about Battery Energy Storage Systems

9. COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS
10. ADJOURNMENT

PUBLIC COMMENT
A member of the audience speaking during the public comment portion of the agenda shall limit his/her remarks to 3
minutes. Time does not need to be reserved for an item of business listed on the agenda, or otherwise addressed
under Item #2, as time is provided for public comment for each item of business.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
The order of presentation for a public hearing shall be as follows:

a. City Staff/Consultants
b. Applicant
c. Correspondence
d. Public Testimony
e. Commission Discussion (Commissioners must state any Ex-Parte contact or Conflicts of Interest prior to
engaging in any discussions), if it occurred, prior to entering into discussion or voting on a case).

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MARQUETTE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 02, 2026
A regular meeting of the Marquette City Planning Commission was duly called and held at 6:00p.m. on
Tuesday, September 01, 2026, in the Commission Chambers at City Hall. A video recording of the
meeting is available online at the City of Marquette’s YouTube channel.
ROLL CALL
Planning Commission (PC) members present (8): M. Rayner, N. Vermaat, J. Guter, J. Fitkin, D. Fetter, S.
Lawry, Vice-Chair A. Wilkinson, Chair Kevin Clegg.
PC Members absent: None
Staff present: City Planner and Zoning Administrator D. Stensaas, Zoning Official A. Landers.
AGENDA

It was moved by S. Lawry, seconded by J. Guter, and carried 8-0 to approve the agenda as presented.
MINUTES
The minutes of the 6/16/2026 meeting were approved by consent, as presented.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
K. Clegg said he has family that owns property in the neighboring development, but he doesn’t think he
has a conflict of interest because of that, and he asked if any members had concerns. Nobody indicated
that they were concerned.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 01-PUD-02-13-A1 975 N. Lakeshore Blvd. – (PIN: 0370072) PUD amendment request
A. Landers read the memo for the case, providing introductory information. She scrolled through the
agenda materials and named each item, beginning with the Staff Report/Analysis and including the
application, the site plan, staff comments on the site plan set, the applicant's replies to staff comments,
maps and photos of the site, and other attachments. She said no correspondence was submitted on the
item.
K. Clegg invited the applicants to address the Commission.
Ken and Susan Schauland of 975 N. Lakeshore Blvd. introduced themselves. Mrs. Schauland stated:
We’re looking to retire and possibly build a house to live in. We’ve been in business for eleven years. We
opened on August 28, 2015. We built it one full year before. In 2012, we started the process of having
the Bed and Breakfast there. We bought that old industrial property. We learned it was a brownfield and
went through the brownfield stuff. It was [zoned] Deferred Development, so we needed to find a zone.
There was a zone that we could have used, Multi-Family Residential, but the residents at Lakeshore Park
Place just didn’t quite like that, with all the potential things it could be. Then it was suggested we look
into the PUD, so we went with that and developed a PUD in 2013. Then through the years, we thought,
what are we going to do? We have to have an endgame; as innkeepers, you can’t just keep going. We’re
probably looking a little tired. Then Ken said that maybe we maybe we can build a house on our property
because we have this one acre. No one really uses the property to the north at all. Once in a while
someone will sit out in the yard. Guests come and they run around all over exhausting themselves and
then they come to the inn and want to just get their feet up or out to dinner. It’s all happening from the
south side.

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MARQUETTE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 02, 2026
It doesn’t feel like we would disturb any bed and breakfast activity. I loved the idea of right on the
property, cutting off a chunk. We didn’t know it would be a major revision, but turns out, according to
the PUD, it’s a major revision. We’re back to the process, hoping it goes well. We were thinking work with
the design and shape of the lot and property. We did ask Lakeshore Park Place if we could enter and exit
from their road, but the residents didn’t want us to disturb them by coming and going. But the City
Engineers and Andrea felt that we could have a regular house driveway off Lakeshore Boulevard. We
don’t have a plan yet. We’re just going through this process. We did the [land] survey, and filled out the
application. And I just have to say, our guests love Marquette. They love how clean and friendly
everybody is. And really, you get a nice variety of folks that come and stay, come and go, eat out. They
really love Marquette and being so close to the lake.
K. Clegg opened the public hearing and invited comments from those assembled.
Tom Rulseh, 1307 Picnic Rocks Dr., stated:
We’re within 300’ of the proposed change, so we got the notice and I appreciate getting that notice. I do
want to say that we have known Ken and Sue since prior to moving to Marquette. We stayed at their inn
as we were scouting out places to live. They’ve been great neighbors, and we look forward to seeing this
plan get approved and adding another residence to our little community there. I think it would be a really
good addition to the neighborhood. Thank you.
K. Clegg asked if anyone else wished to comment and, seeing none, closed the public hearing. He asked
if anyone wanted to motion to suspend the rules for discussion.

It was moved by J. Guter, seconded by M. Rayner, and carried 8-0 to suspend the rules for
discussion.
J. Guter stated:
My initial reaction is that I don’t really see any major concerns from my viewpoint in this request. I think
it still meets the intent of the original PUD. I don’t think splitting this off will impact the function of the
bed and breakfast inn. I think it continues to meet the intent of the Community Master Plan.
S. Lawry stated:
I think it does add additional housing, which we are in very short supply of. It’s infill housing; it's not
taking a green lot and basically tree clearing. I believe there’s plenty of room for use of this property. I
do have a few questions or concerns, mostly for staff, regarding some of the emails we received. We
should probably review this according to the original PUD criteria. He also said that J. Guter had another
concern for staff to address.
J. Guter said he had asked staff what happens to the zoning of the new parcel that’s created.
S. Lawry said he though that was answered by staff already. I also have a question about utility
availability. He said he believes all the utilities are in a public easement on the adjacent property, which
would allow the City to go in and provide laterals to this property. He also said that may not be well
received by the condo association over there across the street, but it is public, they have the right to do
that.
A. Landers said we talked to Engineering about how they want it to be connected. D. Stensaas asked the
applicants if they talked to Engineering about utilities.
Mr. Schauland said that were having a meeting with Andrea and Dave, they called the City Engineer
down and we talked to him about the utilities.

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MARQUETTE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 02, 2026
He related that the water and sewer are behind that lot and are available within reason to get to. He said
he thinks they would come from the property at the corner, and that haven’t talked to phone company,
but he thinks that’s available. He said the gas line runs through the bed and breakfast’s property, but the
gas company said we could hook it up by running it over there if want to use that gas.
S. Lawry said there are private homes directly across the private road to the north, and this is kind of just
an extension to that. He said he thinks this proposal is good as long as it meets the criteria.
K. Clegg said, to reiterate, we’re only voting on the potential division of the PUD. We’re not voting to
rezone the child parcel at this date, and that would occur at an additional meeting.
S. Lawry said he had one more question. The packet labels, or their letter labels as variances a couple of
things as variances that are a variation of the traditional variance, and these are not the kind of variances
that have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
A. Landers said that is correct, and that PUDs have their own variances that are approved by the
Planning Commission.
K. Clegg said he noticed there is a minimum PUD size of two acres. He asked if we see this meets the
waiver requirements, or if we have any objections.
There were no objections stated.
K. Clegg said it does not have any characteristics that significantly impact development.
K. Clegg said he will go through Section 54.323(F)(5.a-j) to see if the parent parcel meets the criteria to
be reduced in size. He said any new developments must substantially meet three or more of the following
objectives. He read each item and paused after each for commissioner comments. Many of the answers
came from the commission members' head-nodding body language. He read each item a-j:
a) To permanently preserve open space or natural features because of their exceptional characteristics
or because they can provide permanent transition or buffers between land uses.
J. Guter stated: I think it kind of meets that. It continues single family residences that are in and provides
a transition to more dense housing setback from Lakeshore. And we have mixed use development on the
other side, so I think it fits in well.
K. Clegg said if reduced in size, the parent parcel will still have that. He asked if anyone disagreed, and,
acknowledging no disagreement, said: “Yes” (it meets the criteria).
b) To permanently establish land use patterns that are compatible or that will protect existing or
planned uses.
K. Clegg said yes, based on the members' consensus.
c) To accept dedication to set aside open space areas in perpetuity.
K. Clegg stated: kind of, there’s less than there used to be.
J. Guter said that there’s nothing saying it couldn’t be developed in the future anyway.
A. Landers said this is where they are setting aside a dedication, like an easement, or something that
states it will always be open space. They don’t have that on site. They would not meet this criteria.
K. Clegg stated: then this is a no, an N/A.

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MARQUETTE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 02, 2026
d) To provide alternative uses for parcels that can provide transitional buffers to residential areas.
K. Clegg said yes, based on the members' consensus.
e) To guarantee provision of a public improvement that could otherwise not be required that would
further public health, safety or welfare.
K. Clegg said no, because this is not a public improvement.
f)

To promote the goals and objectives of the community master plan.

K. Clegg said yes, based on the members' consensus.
g) To foster the aesthetic appearance of the city through quality building design and site development.
K. Clegg said yes, based on the members' consensus.
h) To bring about redevelopment of sites where an orderly change of use or requirements is determined
to be desirable.
K. Clegg said yes, based on the members' consensus.
i)

To bring about redevelopment of sites that have been identified as environmentally distressed for
Brownfields.

K. Clegg said yes, based on the members' consensus.
j)

To facilitate appropriate development of environmentally sensitive areas.

K. Clegg said this is not applicable, based on the members' consensus.
K. Clegg said that is a finding of facts on this case, and asked if anyone wanted to make a motion.

It was moved by J. Guter, seconded by S. Lawry, and carried 8-0 that after conducting a public
hearing and review of the PUD application with supporting information and staff memo attachments
for 01-PUD-02-13-A1, the Planning Commission recommends that the PUD amendment request be
approved by the Marquette City Commission for the following reasons:
•

It meets more than three of the criteria in section 54.323(F)(5) and still meets the original
intent of the PUD;

•

It will not materially impact the functions and activities of the existing Bed and Breakfast;

•

It will add housing to the community.

CITIZENS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS
Nobody provided comments.
CITIZENS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Nobody provided comments.

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MARQUETTE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 02, 2026
CORRESPONDENCE, REPORTS, MINUTES of OTHER BOARDS/COMMITTEES
A. Correspondence from Resident
D. Stensaas said that this letter followed from a phone conversation that he had with the author of the
letter, the context of the conversation, and he explained the particular development inquiry about a
parcel adjacent to Mr. Ray’s home. He also related information about the planning and implementation of
Mixed-Use zoning districts on N. McClellan Avenue and elsewhere in the city. He also said that rezoning
some parcels in this area back to medium-density residential has been discussed over the last couple of
years, and that staff has identified other parcels for possible rezoning that the Planning Commission may
consider and even initiate a rezoning process for if it finds it worthy and justifiable.
S. Lawry explained the rationale for the distribution of Mixed-Use zoning districts, as provided in the 2015
Community Master Plan, which Mr. Lawry helped develop as a Planning Commission member.
Planning Commission members and staff discussed the different requirements for the development of
commercial businesses and home-based businesses, as well as the distribution of Mixed-Use zoning
districts in the N. McClellan Ave. corridor and elsewhere. They also discussed the process of City-initiated
rezoning and the outlook for studying the rezoning of some of the Mixed-Use properties discussed by
staff, as well as others that may merit having their zoning status changed again to better fit their current
or potential uses. The members expressed a desire to hold a work session to evaluate the official zoning
map and related information.
WORK SESSION
A. Annual Report to City Commission – meeting on 9/14/26
D. Stensaas said that he had reworked the annual presentation from last year, incorporating the concerns
that had been expressed by members, and discussed the draft presentation that he had prepared while
going through each of the slides. The Commission discussed some of the content and the format, with a
few requests to add information and make changes.

COMMISSION and STAFF COMMENTS
J. Guter said he wanted to thank Dave and Andrea for putting this report together.
D. Fetter thanked staff for their work on the presentation.
N. Vermaat said he also appreciated the presentation and that it was visually appealing.
S. Lawry said now that Dockside Marine has sold its site at the end of Baraga Ave., the Working
Waterfront zoning may only apply to Thill’s Fish House if that site doesn’t support a marine business
going forward, which may be a reason to revisit the viability of that subdistrict designation.
D. Stensaas said that there is no business for the September 15th meeting. He also said that has started
to learn about creating use standards for battery energy storage systems and that there evidently has
been developer interest in such a project for the WE Energies site.

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MARQUETTE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 02, 2026
K. Clegg thanked staff for the presentation and said it was well done. He also said that he was glad to
see everyone again.
ADJOURNMENT
K. Clegg adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.

Prepared by A. Cook (transcription) and D. Stensaas, Planning Commission Staff Liaison (transcription
and editing).

CITY OF MARQUETTE
PLANNING AND ZONING
1100 Wright Street
MARQUETTE, MI 49855
(906) 228-0425
www.marquettemi.gov

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:

Planning Commission
Dave Stensaas, City Planner and Zoning Administrator
October 02, 2026
Training – Article: From M oratorium s to M aster Plans, Local Strategies
for Data Center Developm ent, Michigan Planner, May-June 2026

The following brief article explains what data centers are and why they have recently
become the topic de jour in municipalities across Michigan, and it enumerates several important
facets of hyperscale date centers that should be included in any relevant ordinance updates.
Because data centers and battery energy storage systems (BESS) are often co-located, this is
relevant to the work session discussion later in the meeting and serves as a primer for research
and work on an update to the Land Development Code for both uses.

CITY OF MARQUETTE
PLANNING AND ZONING
1100 Wright Street
MARQUETTE, MI 49855
(906) 228-0425
www.marquettemi.gov

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:

Planning Commission
Dave Stensaas, City Planner and Zoning Administrator
October 02, 2026
Work Session – Discussion of Battery Energy Storage Systems

Staff and the Planning Commission will discuss key items from the Battery Energy Storage
System guide produced by the University of Michigan.