TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 February 24, 2022 City Commission Chambers I. 12:00 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. - Lunch - Conference Room 901, City Hall, 300 Monroe Ave. NW II. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM by Vice Chairperson Paul Rozeboom PRESENT: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Van Strien, Behler, Wallace STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Tyler Kent, Elizabeth Zeller, Sarah Behmlander, Assistant City Attorney Amber Beebe, and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from February 10, 2022 Ms. Joseph clarified for the record that it was she that asked Mr. Van Strien about the pole sign and not Dr. Wallace; page 31 of the minutes. Motion by Ms. Shannon, supported by Mr. Germain, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of 2/10/2022as amended. Motion carried unanimously. RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Christopher Germain, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Kyle Van Strien, Stacie Behler, Adrienne Wallace IV. Business A. Planning Director's Report  Extension requests - Ms. Turkelson advised that staff has received three extension requests due to material delays, construction costs, and labor shortages. Ms. Turkelson explained why the extension requests come to the Planning Commission. 1. 600, 606 & 614 Fairview Ave NE - Extension Request Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Mr. Germain, to approve the requested 6-month extension. Motion carried unanimously. 2. 715 Michigan St NE - Extension Request Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Ms. Bersche, to approve the requested 6-month extension. Motion carried unanimously. Generated 2/27/2022 7:39 PM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 February 24, 2022 3. 650 Burton St SW - Extension Request Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Ms. Shannon, to approve the requested 6-month extension. Motion carried unanimously.  Agenda items were briefly reviewed.  Ms. Turkelson advised of a July 2021 change to liquor licenses. It is now permitted to sell/buy a sealed alcohol beverage to go, when ordering food to go, for off-premise consumption. The Ordinance doesn’t specifically address that change. Ms. Zeller added that there are several types of liquor licenses; on- and off-premise. The off- premise licenses are SDM (Specially Designated Merchant), which is beer and wine, and SDD, which is liquor. The on-premise license is a Class C license, allowing for the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption on the premises. The specific element of change is that Class C license holders may sell liquor that isn’t in the original container. She provided the example of the request before the Commission today. They have an SDM license and want to sell beer and wine to go, as an accompaniment to food, as well as mixed drinks. The sale of the mixed drinks in a sealed container is associated with the Class C license. They can only sell mixed drinks to go if they have a Class C license and serve for on-site consumption.  Ms. Turkelson introduced Sarah Behmlander who recently joined the department as a Planner I. V. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Conflict of Interest None expressed. B. 37 Ottawa Ave NW - Alcohol Service/Outdoor Seating with Sales for Off-Site Consumption Address: 37 Ottawa Ave NW Applicant: Barrio Michigan (Jacob Hawley) Requesting: Approval to establish a restaurant with alcohol service and an outdoor patio with operating hours until 1:00 a.m. and alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption. Zoning: TN-CC Traditional Neighborhood – City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.9.24. Outdoor Seating 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0003 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 February 24, 2022 Effective Date: March 12, 2022 Ms. Behmlander introduced the request to establish a restaurant with alcohol service and an outdoor patio with operating hours until 1:00 a.m. and alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption. An important component of the proposed restaurant is its relationship with the GR Forward Plan that identifies targeted active commercial corridors, which were displayed on the map. The proposed restaurant location is within the active commercial corridor, which emphasizes the need for ground floor retail and restaurant establishments. Ms. Behmlander noted that the subject property is located within the heart of the City Center Zone District. There are a number of establishments within the district that currently have outdoor seating with alcohol service that operate during the week and on weekends. Ms. Behmlander displayed an aerial view noting that the proposed restaurant will be located in the southerly portion of the Helmer Building. She provided some history noting that the Helmer Building previously consisted of a combination of what are now three separate buildings. Located to the west of the site is the AC Hotel. To the north is a vacant Davenport University building with a small surface parking lot. To the east is a multi-level parking structure and to the south are the Venue Tower apartments and 20 Monroe Live. The building formerly known as The BOB is also located to the south. Ms. Behmlander explained that the subject property has undergone renovations since the historical layout of the three buildings. A patio installed during the renovations was meant to serve as an accessory use for the subject tenant space. The subject space shares a wall with a ground floor office furniture store that operates during the day. Ms. Behmlander referred to the aerial view noting that there is a walkway that separates the Venue Tower apartments and the AC Hotel from the proposed outdoor patio and indoor restaurant use. The floor plan was displayed. The indoor dining area and bar area are meant to accommodate approximately 130 patrons and the outdoor patio portion can seat approximately 60 patrons. No live music or entertainment has been proposed. However, the applicant has related that amplified music will be played in the outdoor patio space. He indicated that staff will institute a volume reduction each night at 10 p.m. The applicant has acquired an SDM license for the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption, with proposed to-go sales of Barrio signature alcoholic beverages in branded sealed containers. The sale of alcoholic beverages to go is relatively new; the legislation was passed in July of 2021. The Planning Commission should confirm the details of that aspect of the request with the applicant. Ms. Behmlander related that there have been no letters of support or opposition submitted. The applicant didn’t indicate any neighborhood outreach efforts. Ms. Behmlander identified key considerations as the impact of the proposed alcohol service on neighboring uses and residents, appropriateness of hours of operation relative to nearby residential and commercial uses, and the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption. Ms. Joseph asked if other outdoor seating locations in the area also have amplified music. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 February 24, 2022 Ms. Behmlander replied that 20 Monroe Live and The BOB have a container bar and outdoor area where drinks are served and would typically operate until midnight. The BOB did have music in the outdoor seating area. Jake Hawley, owner of Barrio restaurants in Michigan, was present on behalf of the request. He stated that he has been with the company for 10 years. They have had a lot of success in East Lansing and opened a location in Traverse City, which they are also having great success with. They are excited to locate in Grand Rapids and feel the concept and brand fit very well, particularly downtown in the entertainment district. Ms. Joseph asked if he has done any public engagement. Mr. Hawley replied that it isn’t something they did out front but have since. They are working with their landlord, CWD, who is very well connected with the community. They are big on being good neighbors, investing in the community, and supporting causes within the community. With regard to the outdoor music, they are dedicated to being good neighbors. They understand there is a residential component within close proximity. The amplified music on their patios is very low in comparison to other locations and they will be good neighbors and turn it down as early as they need to. Ms. Shannon asked if they will be open until 1:00 a.m. and whether that is consistent with other outdoor seating spaces in the immediate area. Mr. Hawley replied that they have observed that others are open until between midnight and 2:00 a.m. With the event traffic, they feel it is important to have options for people to patronize after shows and games. The late night is an important component of their business. They want to be available to those attending events both before and after. Ms. Turkelson related approval information related to the beer garden approved for The BOB. Alcohol service was permitted until midnight and food service until 2:00 a.m. Amplified sound was limited to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight on Friday and Saturday. Mr. Hawley indicated that they would be amenable to complying with those limitations. Ms. Turkelson related that the adjacent space was described as an alleyway but it is extremely active. The vast majority of loading and unloading for events at 20 Monroe Live occurs in that alley. It also serves as the primary drop off area for the hotel. The initial hope was that it would be very pedestrian friendly and it may be in the future, especially as more activity such as this occurs. She reiterated that it is an active drive area between the two buildings. Ms. Joseph referred to the application material and recalled that it included an operations management paragraph. She asked if there is a more comprehensive operations management plan that will be submitted to the City. A paragraph isn’t necessarily typical of what is submitted with similar requests. Mr. Hawley indicated that he would be happy to provide that. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 February 24, 2022 Ms. Joseph also recalled from the application material that the applicant is open to hiring security on event nights and is not proposing banquet rooms. She asked if the security is for when events are occurring in the area. Mr. Hawley confirmed that was correct. Ms. Bersche asked what kind of lighting they will have on the patio and will the patio be blocked off in some fashion. Mr. Hawley replied that the patio will have a rail around it. You won’t be able to access the patio unless you go through the front doors of the business. They will use decorative lighting that they will string between the railing posts and the side of the building. It will be an enclosed patio designated only to the business and not like a sidewalk café. Mr. Rozeboom invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Joseph feels this is a great space for this type of use. This is an area of the city where they want vibrancy and this use complements the events. With respect to staff lowering the music at a certain time, she asked how staff feels about that in terms of enforcement. Would they rather have a cut off time? Ms. Turkelson explained that, as proposed, it makes enforcement more difficult. They would typically prefer something less subjective. She suggested modeling the hours of the beer garden, which was 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight Friday and Saturday, or something similar. That would allow them the ability to have amplified sound but give a very specific time frame for it to be on or off. She suggested that, because it is next to residential, 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday may be more appropriate, which is similar to what was initially proposed. Ms. Shannon indicated that she likes the project. They have seen how the addition of outdoor seating all over downtown has added to the vibrancy, feeling of community, and excitement. This is an incredible location given the proximity to the Van Andel and other venues. She likes that the outdoor seating will be enclosed. Ms. Shannon supports the project. Mr. Germain added that as a downtown resident this is exactly the type of development that drove him to want to live there in the first place; to be able to walk to these places. Walking down the alley he has wondered why there wasn’t more going on there. The way it is designed, there is clearly supposed to be more going on. Mr. Germain is supportive. The hours for the amplified music make sense. He has been in the nearby residential building and if you can live by The BOB, you can live by some amplified sound on a patio. Mr. Rozeboom recalled that there is a high-pressure water line in the alley, which is why it will never be covered over. Ms. Turkelson clarified that her suggestion of 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. was specific to the amplified sound. She was not suggesting those time limits for the overall use of the patio. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 February 24, 2022 Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Barrio Michigan (Jacob Hawley) to establish a restaurant with alcohol service and an outdoor patio with operating hours until 1:00 a.m., and alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption accessory to the primary restaurant use, at 37 Ottawa Avenue NW, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will support the vitality of the local economy by encouraging investment, diversifying the economic base, and expanding employment opportunities; utilize active commercial corridors encouraging unique ground floor restaurants as recommended in the GR Forward Plan; and support public input demand for additional restaurant activity in Downtown Grand Rapids as mentioned in the GR Forward Plan. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the outdoor seating has been designed to meet all standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will support the desired mixed-use character of the neighborhood and the sale of to-go beverages is intended as amenity accessory to the primary main restaurant use. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed uses will be minimized because the outdoor seating has improvements of railing and landscaping to provide buffering from nearby residences and public right of way and amplified music on the outdoor seating area will cease at 10 or 11 pm each evening. 5. The proposed uses will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, or odors because Downtown is the appropriate location for the proposed uses. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the outdoor seating will contribute to the walkability of the City Center Zone District and the reuse of the building will create vibrancy in the district. 7. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services already exist or would be provided at no additional cost because the site is currently improved with public infrastructure and reliance on additional public services is not anticipated. 8. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions and the use may encourage other investment in the area. 9. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, the proposed location for alcohol sales will be an asset to the neighborhood because the use will contribute to the vitality of the district. 10. The uses as constructed and operated by the applicant are compatible with the neighborhood because the proposed hours of operation are consistent with the operations of other establishments in the vicinity. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 February 24, 2022 11. The uses as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the primary use is as a restaurant serving food for consumption on the premises during all hours of operation and the sale of to-go beverages is accessory to the main restaurant use and is intended as an amenity for restaurant patrons. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. Full-service indoor and outdoor hours of operation are 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. daily. 3. Amplified music outside shall end at 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. 4. Per MCL 436.1537a, all off-premise alcohol sales must be stored in Barrio branded sealed containers. SUPPORTED by Ms. Shannon. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Kyle Van Strien, Stacie Behler, Adrienne Wallace C. 1216 & 1228 Leonard St NE - Automatic Car Wash Facility Address: 1216 & 1228 Leonard St NE Applicant: QCW Enterprises 2, LLC (Mandi Brower) City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 February 24, 2022 Requesting: Approval to to construct an automatic car wash facility. Zoning: TN-TBA (Traditional Neighborhood – Traditional Business Area) Requirements: Article 6. Mixed Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0005 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: March 12, 2022 Mr. Rozeboom related that there has been a request to postpone this agenda item. Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Ms. Bersche, to postpone 1216 & 1228 Leonard St NE to the 3/10/22 meeting. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: TABLED OPEN [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Kyle Van Strien, Stacie Behler, Adrienne Wallace D. 2630 and 2636 S Division Ave - Vehicle Repair Address: 2630 and 2636 S. Division Ave. Applicant: Kado A. Kado and Chris Kado Requesting: Approval to establish a vehicle service and repair facility Zoning: TN-TBA (Traditional Neighborhood – Traditional Business Area) Requirements: Article 6. Mixed Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.40. Vehicle Repair 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0004 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: March 12, 2022 Ms. Zeller introduced the request to establish a vehicle repair facility, which requires Special Land Use approval in the TN-TBA Zone District. The property is located on S Division in the TN-TBA Zone District with a Low Density Residential District to the east. Together, the two properties are approximately 27,000 sq. ft. in area; 2/3 of an acre. The properties are improved with two main buildings. The building on the northerly lot is located at the lot line and the other is set back approximately 35 ft. The buildings are on two separate lots but have an interior connection at the rear portion of one of the buildings. Also present on the site is a frame garage accessory structure, which is approximately 700 sq. ft. The accessory building has its own driveway and curb cut. There is no curb cut for either of the two buildings from S Division. Access is currently off of Rosemary. There is pavement leading to the buildings. There are currently four overhead doors that are proposed to remain. The site includes a significant City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 February 24, 2022 amount of green space. As part of the proposal, the two properties would be combined into a single lot and an addition of approximately 1,400 sq. ft. is proposed in front of the building that is currently setback from Division; 2636 S Division. The addition will bring the building closer to the street. Ms. Zeller displayed the existing building elevations. 2630 is located at the lot line and 2636 is set back approximately 35 ft. There are four overhead doors on the north elevation as well as a loading dock. Ms. Zeller also displayed the proposed elevations reiterating that a 1,400 sq. ft. addition is proposed. Two large windows are proposed, which appears to meet the 60% transparency requirement. The addition is intended to be used for storage. The overhead doors will be used for vehicle repair bays. The door that is currently a loading dock will be turned into an additional overhead door/bay. Access to the site will continue to be from Rosemary. A new surface parking lot is proposed with 14 spaces to support storage of vehicles awaiting repair or pickup. The frame accessory structure is proposed to remain. Ms. Zeller explained that she has included a recommended condition of approval related to the accessory structure; that it must be maintained in good condition and if it is ever to be eliminated that the driveway and approach be removed and the curb cut restored to City standards. Any of the parking spaces closer to the street than the remaining buildings would also be required to be removed. There appears to be ample room on site for additional parking if that were to occur. Ms. Zeller related that the proposed use does meet the parking requirement; 15 spaces are required for the vehicle repair plus the small office area. With the 14 surface spaces and the indoor bays, the parking requirement is met. Ms. Zeller commented on green site elements. There is significant green space on-site. There are some street trees but staff would recommend that the site be brought into conformity with the street tree requirements. Per the site plan, new trees are proposed. There is no objection to the planting of trees on the property. However, not at the expense of street trees. Ms. Zeller identified the location of a former pole sign within the right-of-way. A condition requiring its removal has been included in the draft resolution. Ms. Zeller explained that there are a number of Zoning Ordinance requirements for vehicle repair uses. The proposed use can meet all of the requirements with the exception of the minimum lot size. The Ordinance requires 1 acre/43,560 sq. ft. and this property is 27,000 sq. ft. The Planning Commission frequently grants waivers to this requirement for vehicle repair facilities in the TN Zone District. Ms. Zeller suggested that in this case, with the existing improvements on the properties and the proposed parking, this site can adequately accommodate the use. Ms. Zeller related that the applicant has conducted neighborhood outreach and has submitted a petition in support of the use that was signed by residents in the vicinity. An additional letter of support was submitted by the residents of the abutting property on Rosemary. Ms. Zeller has not received any letters of opposition. Ms. Zeller identified key considerations as the appropriateness of a vehicle service use at this location and the appropriateness of proposed site improvements. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 February 24, 2022 Mr. Rozeboom asked if the parking area will have curbing so vehicle parking doesn’t occur in the grass area. Ms. Zeller suggested the Planning Commission could impose that requirement. She did explore that with the staff plan reviewer. However, the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t always require curbing. Mr. Rozeboom suggested wheel stops at a minimum. Ms. Shannon asked if the fence dividing the property from the adjacent residence is to be replaced. It appeared to be a bit run down. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to respond. Her recollection was that the site plan didn’t indicate any fencing replacement. Per a Google street view image, Ms. Zeller noted the presence of a chain link fence along Rosemary that appeared to be in disrepair. She isn’t certain whether that fence remains but a condition of approval was included requiring that any fencing either be removed or repaired. Landon Bartley, Proxima Collective, was present on behalf of the applicant. The applicant was also present. Mr. Bartley clarified that the existing loading dock facing north, shown on the plans to be replaced by an overhead door, will likely be blocked off instead of replaced with an overhead door. At one point there was a plan to locate an indoor paint booth in that bay. There are no longer plans to have a paint booth. Only 4 service bays are required for the applicant’s operation so their intention is to block that door vs. replacing it, which wouldn’t have any significant impact on transparency. With respect to the west/front elevation, they feel it matches the existing building and the character of the TBA Zone District. With respect to street trees, they are amenable to relocating the proposed trees along the north property line to the street to comply with the requirements. The existing chain link fence is not proposed to be replaced at this time. If it is replaced it would be compliant with permitted materials. It will be repaired to ensure it is in good condition. Mr. Bartley also related that he spoke with the applicant regarding the privacy fence to the east. The applicant is amenable to installing a new, 6 ft. wooden privacy fence to provide adequate screening for the properties to the east. Mr. Bartley pointed out that there has been significant neighborhood support, per the petition and letter of support from nearby neighbors. Mr. Bartley concluded his presentation stating that they feel this is a great proposal and hope for approval by the Planning Commission, including the requested waiver of the required lot area. The 27,000 sq. ft. should be sufficient to accommodate the use while leaving a substantial amount of greenspace. Operationally speaking, the bulk of the business is proposed to be from the dealership to the north, which the applicant also owns. They will also offer repair services to those within the neighborhood as well as other customers. Mr. Rozeboom asked if they would be amenable to the parking lot curbing or wheel stops. Mr. Bartley replied that the preference would be wheel stops in each parking space. However, if the Planning Commission determines curb is better, they would accept that as a condition of approval. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 February 24, 2022 Ms. Joseph asked how the garage structure will be used. Mr. Bartley replied that they plan to maintain that building, repair it if needed, and use it for parts storage as needed for the operation. The bay to be blocked off would also be used for parts and storage. Ms. Turkelson noted that the windows at the front will be in a storage room. She asked if the glass will be clear. Mr. Bartley agreed that they will be clear, non-tinted windows. Ms. Turkelson advised that visibility into that area will be required. If there are any operational or security concerns for what will be stored there, they may wish to consider a floor plan modification. Mr. Bartley explained that the intent with the addition is storage initially and potentially a future office. They can explore ways to maintain visibility while blocking view of product. Ms. Turkelson commented on wheel stops vs. curbing. Wheel stops tend to get bumped around. Part of the reason vehicle repair facilities are Special Land Uses is because of some of the historical challenges of vehicles getting moved to locations on the site where they aren’t supposed to be. Her opinion is that a curb and gutter system would be far more effective in making sure vehicle parking is controlled. While the applicant may be a reputable operator and willing to stay within the boundaries of where they are supposed to be parking, that historically hasn’t been the case with some of these uses. Whether it be curbing or landscaping, some physical barrier more stable than wheel stops may be appropriate to provide that security and separation from the grass area. Ms. Shannon asked if there are any restrictions as to how long a vehicle can be parked. Ms. Turkelson isn’t aware of any such restrictions. She is aware of additional requirements from the City’s perspective such as not having dismantled or junk vehicles on site. They have to be plated and have an owner. Mr. Bartley explained that the intent is to have the cars in the spaces while waiting for service. There is no salvaging or wrecking proposed for this site. The bulk of the business is intended to be from the car dealership to the north that the applicant owns. With respect to the wheel stops, they have a significant amount of space to the east that is green space that could be used for snow storage potentially. The point is well taken as to what is better and the applicant will work with whatever the Planning Commission decision is. Ms. Bersche asked about waste management practices. Sites such as this tend to start off with good intentions of having just the dumpster space. She asked if any other exterior storage is proposed or anticipated. She also asked what processes are in place to prevent outdoor storage of tires, used oil, etc. from happening. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 February 24, 2022 Mr. Bartley stated that with the frame garage and the storage space accessed from the east door of the north building there should be ample space to store parts. There will be no activity taking place outside. Mr. Bartley also identified the location of the dumpster enclosure, which would take care of other incidental trash. The intent is to store parts within the garage and building and not outside. Ms. Bersche asked if there will be a designated area on the interior for waste oils, etc. Mr. Kado explained that there are companies that enforce disposing of oil and parts correctly. They plan to have a dumpster for recyclable parts and for garbage parts, as well as a special oil container to dispose of the oil, which will be inside the building. Mr. Rozeboom recalled the rule allowing for up to two vehicles for sale on the property. He asked if that is part of this application. He understands that the applicant owns an adjacent car dealership. However, if they sold this property in the future would that be allowed by right. Ms. Turkelson replied that it would be permitted by State law. Ms. Zeller added that allowing the sale of up to two vehicles is generally part of the Special Land Use consideration. That was not part of this request but could be added in. Mr. Bartley indicated that with respect to a future use or potential sale he believes the applicant would appreciate having that flexibility if the Planning Commission is amenable, although it is not part of the current request. Mr. Rozeboom opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Shannon would like to see some activity in what is now vacant space and creating more transparency along the street. The addition of landscaping and offering service to the neighborhood, as well as the complement to their existing business, is a good use of this space. Ms. Joseph appreciates them bringing the building up to the street. She would like them to work with staff on a reasonable barrier between the parking lot and the lawn area to ensure vehicles aren’t parking on the lawn. She agreed that wheel stops alone may not be enough but she isn’t certain that curb and gutter are necessary. Perhaps a combination of landscaping and wheel stops would be appropriate, if staff feels that would be sufficient. Ms. Turkelson suggested a condition; that a physical barrier including landscaping or a curb and gutter system be provided. Mr. Rozeboom recalled that in these types of applications that they’ve considered in the past they have often dealt with overhead doors facing residential, which isn’t the case here. They’ve also often dealt with a number of curb cuts and often from the major road, which also is not the case. While the site is not one acre, it has the ability to provide parking spaces needed for the operation. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 February 24, 2022 Ms. Turkelson seemed to recall that tire storage cannot take place indoors unless the building has fire suppression. Mr. Kado explained that they aren’t necessarily going to work much with tires. It will be more of a mechanic shop. If they were to do so, they could store them in a cage outside. Ms. Turkelson advised that additional detail on the cage and where it would be located would be necessary. Mr. Bartley stated that the intent is not to have a significant amount of tire storage. He asked if they could explore fire suppression with staff or return to the Planning Commission for tire storage if that became necessary. Ms. Turkelson was amenable. She advised that there should be no outdoor storage of tires. Whether that means there are no tires on site or the tires are stored inside with the proper fire suppression, her intent was to make sure the applicant was aware of the fire department requirements. Mr. Rozeboom suggested noise and odors are also potential adverse effects with this type of use. Since all work will be done indoors, noise and odors should be controlled. Ms. Shannon MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Kado A. Kado and Chris Kado for approval to establish a vehicle service and repair facility at 2630 Division Ave. S., for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will provide a mix of uses in a commercial area and allow for reasonable use of the property and bring the site closer to conformity with current regulations. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the development has been designed to meet all standards and requirements with modifications permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and the site will be brought closer to conformity with current landscape standards. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will be consistent with the current character of the neighborhood and adequate parking is available on site. 4. The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because all repair activities will be contained within the building and effective landscape screening and buffers will be provided. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare because excessive noise, glare, or visual clutter is not anticipated and visual clutter will be mitigated by landscaping. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 February 24, 2022 otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the building addition will re-establish the street wall. 7. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use will not result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions and the proposed use will encourage additional investment in the area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. That the two lots shall be combined. 3. That any trees located in the public right-of-way shall be protected and retained. 4. That the pole for the former pole sign on S. Division Avenue shall be removed. 5. That vehicle parking spaces shall not be located closer to the street than the existing structures. 6. That the frame accessory structure on the property shall be maintained in good repair but if it is ever removed: a) Any parking spaces shall be relocated to be no closer to the street than the remaining structures; b) The driveway to the structure shall be removed and replaced with appropriate plant material; and c) The drive approach shall be removed, and the curb repaired to City standards. 7. That landscape standards shall be met for street trees, parking lot screening, parking lot landscaping, and landscape buffers between the parking lot and the abutting residential property. 8. That any existing fence in disrepair shall be repaired or removed. Any existing fence in disrepair shall be repaired or removed except that the solid 6’ fence along the east lot line shall be repaired and retained. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 February 24, 2022 9. That all vehicles awaiting repair or pickup shall be parked on-site on hard-surfaced, designated parking areas. 10. That damaged or wrecked vehicles shall not be stored on site for purposes other than repair. 11. That all activities shall be performed within the building, and all equipment, vehicle parts, tires, and any other materials and supplies shall be located and stored within the building. Ms. Shannon accepted the following recommended conditions of approval as part of the motion: 12. A physical barrier including either landscaping or a curb system shall be provided along the parking lot adjacent greenspace. 13. No collision repair, body work, or painting shall be conducted on site. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. Ms. Joseph asked if there is also a desire to add a privacy fence along the east property line. Ms. Shannon clarified that there is an existing privacy fence there. She suggested they could add that it be repaired or replaced, unless that is covered by condition #8. Mr. Bartley explained, with respect to condition #13 related to collision repair, body work and painting that that is not intended. If it is in the future, he understands it would require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. He wouldn’t want the applicant to be caught in a situation where if they go to the Board they also have to return to the Planning Commission to ask for removal of a condition. Ms. Turkelson explained that if the BZA approved a Use variance it would supersede the Planning Commission condition. Ms. Zeller asked that the Planning Commission clarify the issue with the privacy fence. She explained that they don’t need a fence if it meets the landscape buffer requirements. Ms. Joseph was of the understanding from testimony that the applicant was willing to install one. However, if there is something adequate there currently then it just needs to be in good repair. Ms. Shannon’s understanding was that the chain link fence was in need of repair or had to be removed. She was also of the understanding that the privacy fence would remain and be repaired or replaced. Ms. Turkelson recommended revising condition #8. There is currently a solid wood fence along the east property line but the way the condition reads is that any existing fence in disrepair shall be repaired or removed. If the intent is to require a 6’ fence along the east lot line then the condition should be amended to state that any existing fence in disrepair shall be repaired or removed except that the solid 6’ fence along the east lot line shall be repaired and retained. Ms. Shannon and Ms. Joseph were amenable to the amendment to condition #8. The question was called. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 February 24, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Kyle Van Strien, Stacie Behler, Adrienne Wallace E. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Administrative Departures for Infill Development Applicant: The Fulton Group, LLC (Josh Smith) Requesting: Consideration of text amendments to Section 5.2.05. of the Zoning Ordinance to allow flexibility in lot width to allow for new single- and two-family infill development when certain conditions apply. Requirements: 5.12.10. Zoning Ordinance Text and Map Amendments Case Number: PC-TXT-2021-0076 Staff Assigned: Tyler Kent Type of Case: Text Amendment Effective Date: City Commission approval Tyler Kent introduced the request to amend the Zoning Ordinance, per an application received from The Fulton Group. He explained that it is a unique situation where the City is partnering with them to consider the language they submitted. Staff has met with them on a number of occasions over the last few months to consider the information, apply it, and consider possible revisions to the proposed amendments. Mr. Kent explained that the amendments are specific to infill development of single- and two- family units located either on a vacant lot or a lot that may have additional land available for development. The proposed amendments were reviewed. For lot widths, there shall be no less than thirty-six feet between the two side lot lines measured at the required front setback line or the required building line of the district in which it is located and the requirements of 5.2.D.5 and 5.12.16 are satisfied upon approval by the Director. Specific to new lots with residential uses, the desire was to ensure that no existing residential structures are demolished. As part of the Administrative Departure for the creation of new lots, where there is an existing single- or two-family residential use prior to a land division, an Administrative Departure may be granted upon review by the Director, should the application meet the following requirements: i.) The departure may not result in demolition of any principal household structure; ii.) The proposed use is defined as a household living land use in the Zone District; iii.) Lots with structures must provide a property survey, sealed by a professional surveyor, providing proof that all setbacks and other requirements can be met; iv.) The proposed lots must be no less than 36 ft. in width. If the lot is accessible from a usable alley, the lot may be less than 36 ft. provided it is no less than the original platted lot; v.) A survey shall be submitted showing the original plat, showing the registered date of the plat for which the applicant is City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 February 24, 2022 requesting the Administrative Departure; vi.) All departures will be reviewed by the standards outlined in Section 5.12.16 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kent explained that for single- or two-family household unit development on a vacant lot the lots must be stand alone lots that do not contain a principal household structure prior to division. An Administrative Departure may be granted for the establishment of a vacant lot upon Director review and approval provided the application meets the following requirements: i.) the proposed use is defined as a household living land use in the zone district; ii.) the proposed lots must be no less than 36 feet in width, or if the lot is accessible from a usable alley, the lot may be less than 36 feet provided it is no less than the original platted lot; iii.) A survey shall be submitted showing the original plat, including the registered date of plat for which the applicant is requesting the Administrative Departure; iv.) All departures will be reviewed by the standards outlined in Section 5.12.16 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kent added that tandem parking may be permitted for attached single family and two-family dwelling lots 36 feet or less if approved by the Director. He clarified that the two-family uses would need to seek Special Land Use approval from the Planning Commission. The proposed amendments would provide the opportunity for additional housing to meet the needs of the most recent studies, assist in eliminating the need for dimensional variances for vacant lots, support reinvestment within the neighborhoods, and preserve existing structures. Mr. Kent related that they took a wholistic look at the overall city and mapped out all of the lots that are vacant. The map was displayed with larger lots, green space areas, detention areas, and preservation areas identified in blue. The lighter pink are buffers around the TBA zone districts that allow for some additional densities. The red areas are the TBA zone districts. The dots identify the vacant lots they were able to map. Mr. Kent related that they mapped out all of the neighborhood associations within the city and were able to identify the vacant lots. Planning documents were also reviewed with respect to the proposed amendments. The Master Plan and Neighborhood Pattern Workbook support appropriate infill development, as do several of the Area Specific Plans. Mr. Kent provided information from the housing analysis performed by Ryan Kilpatrick. The city needs at least 5,340 rental units and 3,548 more owner-occupied units by 2025 to satisfy demand. To address the needs, it will be necessary to look at the Zoning Ordinance as a portion of the solution to achieve those results. Mr. Kent related that staff asked Mr. Kilpatrick to engage the neighborhood associations. He sent an email on January 31, 2022 and has attended six board meetings. Of that, five of the six organizations are supportive of the amendments or neutral. Boston Square has requested that the amendments be delayed until the draft Equitable Economic Development Support Policy is adopted. Sam Kallen, an associate of Mr. Kilpatrick, expanded further on the neighborhood association outreach efforts. On January 31, Mr. Kilpatrick sent an email to all 30 of the neighborhood associations on the City’s neighborhood association contact list. They heard back from five City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 February 24, 2022 neighborhood associations and the S Division Grandville Corridor Improvement Authority. They gave six presentations to those groups. Five of the six had either positive or neutral feedback. Boston Square had positive feedback but they were clear that they wanted to ensure that the racial equity was taken into consideration. Comments they heard were “this seems like a pretty obvious fix”. Mr. Kent related that Mr. Kilpatrick participated in the discussions related to the amendments and provided feedback, as did Lynee Wells. They had a number of meetings reviewing the proposed amendments and making adjustments. Lynee Wells, Aligned Planning, was present on behalf of The Fulton Group. She expressed her appreciation to the Planning Department for their collaborative effort. They hope to implement the Area Specific Plans and the City’s Master Plan. Ms. Wells related that she worked on the Division United Plan, which spanned three different municipalities. It included an intensive zoning analysis and some of the changes that are proposed today were included in the implementation of that plan. Other plans also talk about neighborhood character and increasing housing supply. When thinking about racial equity, anytime they can remove barriers to entry and offer more opportunities for people to participate in the development process, it helps to level the playing field. The proposed amendments would help to streamline infill development within existing neighborhoods and it would not result in the removal of existing housing stock. The focus is to identify parcels that are large and that may have been combined. In the case of the Charles example provided, the plat was originally 40 ft. lots. Over time, lot #103 was combined with the adjacent lot. The applicant today desires to remove that lot combination and take it back to what it was originally platted as and build a two-family unit or attached single- family unit. Historically there was a two-unit home there and the neighboring houses are also two units. The current ordinance distinguished established areas and non-established areas in the community. Non-established are the green fields where development doesn’t exist today and the established are the neighborhood platted areas. In established areas, to determine the lot width for a two-family, you need 130% of what the surrounding median lot width is. What that was resulting in was bloated lot sizes. With the larger lot sizes there will be larger buildings and people are reacting to infill that doesn’t look like what is there today because of the larger lot size requirements. The goal is to roll that back, recognize that there is an existing pattern and that the plats have been in existence for decades, and consider how to better integrate infill into a current pattern of development. Ms. Wells commented on advantages of the proposed amendments, in addition to reducing the barrier to entry. There is a psychological, financial, and time commitment that goes along with going before the Planning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, or the City Commission. That in itself can be very intimidating. By making this a more streamlined process, working together with the development team and the Planning Director, it will help reduce those barriers. This also enables infill. Infill is taking advantage of the existing infrastructure that has already been invested in as a city; streets, water, sewer. The more users, the more revenue for maintenance and ongoing projects. It also supports the business districts by having more residents within walkable neighborhoods. It is also a response to the development pattern and not an imposition of artificial larger lots that are not consistent with the current urban form. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 February 24, 2022 Ms. Wells stated that in addition to the case study provided, there are other case studies available. Many never get to the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission because people throw up their hands because of the uncertainty. Mr. Kent indicated that they looked at other sites besides the Charles example. He displayed an image of another site with a lot width of 51 ft. At some point the two lots were combined creating that lot width. He displayed another where the two lots were never combined but the adjacent lot has a driveway that is used by the homeowner to the west. The amendments are an effort to maximize the existing lots that may be available and address the issues of the approval process while trying to maintain the character of the built environment. Mr. Kent identified key considerations. Do the proposed amendments have the potential to impact the integrity of the neighborhood/built environment? Does the proposed amendment allow for adequate space to accommodate on-site parking? The proposed amendments will result in smaller lots and building widths. Are the building element standards adequate to preserve the architectural form, which is the responsibility of the developer and potential homeowners to ensure the built environment looks the same, which is important to the integrity of the neighborhood. Ms. Shannon asked, based on the inventory work they’ve done, how many lots could be developed. Mr. Kent replied approximately 600-700. Ms. Shannon asked if the style of the housing would have to be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Turkelson replied that it doesn’t necessarily have to be consistent with the neighborhood but it does have to meet the building element standards of the Zoning Ordinance. In the case of a historic district, it would have to meet the Historic Preservation standards, which would likely align more closely with the existing building form. However, in the residential zone districts, the building element standards provide specificity about transparency and building materials but there are a variety of architectural styles that can be developed within those form standards. Ms. Shannon recognized that part of the proposed amendments seems to be about streamlining the process. She asked how many have come forward and received variances in a given year. Ms. Turkelson replied that variances are tracked. There have been a limited number. As Ms. Wells stated, many don’t proceed with a request to the BZA because when staff meets with the applicant, they review the standards for granting a variance and it is a high bar. There have been a number of cases where staff couldn’t say they had a chance at success because there isn’t a practical difficulty with the lot. It is either reasonably used or can be reasonably used. It is a matter of looking at the policy of the City or what the future vision of the City is relative to infill development. Ms. Turkelson clarified that she wouldn’t suggest that the proposed amendments are being necessitated by repeated variance requests or approvals of dimensional variances because in many cases applicants don’t come to the table. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 February 24, 2022 Mr. Rozeboom asked Ms. Turkelson to speak to the timing of this request knowing that the Master Plan process is beginning. Why now vs. waiting through the Master Plan process. Ms. Turkelson stated that historically a similar conversation came up in terms of looking at the lot width and area requirements for residential zone districts through the Great Housing Strategies work the City did in 2015, as well as the Housing Now initiative in 2017. Admittedly, in 2017, when they had the conversation with the community about lot width and area requirements, the City Commission looked at it and said that because they were about to embark on a Master Plan update it was a good conversation to have as part of that plan. At the time they didn’t have the knowledge that the former Planning Director would be leaving the City and that they would be experiencing significant staffing transitions. That delayed the start of the Master Plan process, as did the global pandemic. There were some critical things that happened after the decision was made to wait for the Master Plan work. At this point they are looking at the Master Plan adoption to be approximately 2024 and then there is significant work to be done with the Zoning Ordinance that would facilitate the conversation about lot width and area reductions bringing a Zoning Ordinance re-write to 2025 or 2026, which was not anticipated in 2017. Ms. Turkelson agreed that timing is somewhat awkward, which is in large part why the Planning Department hasn’t initiated any major policy changes. However, they have recently looked at the TBA Zone District Standards and one of the discussions that took place was that there is a housing need now. There are different things happening in the community that need to be addressed more quickly than was initially anticipated. Ms. Wells added that they have been doing the Area Specific Plans and the neighborhood and business district level conversations around land use and zoning. They have done a lot of work since 2017 to put them in this position to do this type of surgical amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that will potentially have a great affect on the provision of housing in the neighborhoods. Ms. Joseph recalled that the Boston Square Neighborhood Association requested waiting until the implementation of the draft Equitable Economic Development policy. She asked how that relates to the proposed amendments. Ms. Turkelson indicated that she didn’t have the benefit of hearing that comment from Boston Square to fully understand the context of it. From her perspective she doesn’t fully see the relationship because the Equitable Economic Development Plan and the matrix/score card being worked on really speaks to economic development incentives that could be available for a project. Those incentives wouldn’t be available for the development of single- and two-family housing of this scale. Mr. Rozeboom opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Shannon stated that she sees the merit of the proposed amendments. She lived in Seattle for six years and there is what is commonly called the skinny house all over to try to solve their housing crisis. The homes tend to go up and be long and really add to the neighborhoods, diversity in the neighborhoods, and the affordability. Ms. Shannon wished to pay respect to City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 February 24, 2022 Boston Square. In terms of equity issues, infill housing can promote cost savings, affordability, and accessibility vs. leaving these resources vacant. Ms. Turkelson felt it important to clarify that the lot width requirements are not being changed. What the amendments are doing is giving staff and/or the Planning Commission, for two-family, a tool to determine whether or not a reduction in a lot width is appropriate. Mr. Kent referenced the standards of 5.12.16. and those are standards staff is required to look at, much like the Special Land Use standards, to consider whether it is appropriate. The intent of the Zoning Ordinance, neighborhood compatibility, environmental constraints and public facilities will all be considered. Staff doesn’t have to approve a request and if there are any concerns associated with a request they can say no, in which case an applicant would have the right to seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals or, staff could express their level of discomfort and bring it to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. In some of the early conversations they had with Ms. Wells and her team they looked at the context and they felt like the original plat best supported the original neighborhood pattern. It isn’t perfect because there have obviously been changes over time but, looking at the initial pattern of development that many neighborhoods still respect, there are some thresholds with the 36 ft. minimum lot width. There are controls in place to determine whether a request is appropriate. It is an Administrative Departure and is not changing the underlying requirements of the Ordinance. In cases where there has been concern associated with density, the process is not being changed. Ms. Turkelson stated she would have significant concern with an amendment being proposed if the request was to shift it from a Special Land Use, which includes a public hearing, to a by-right development at staff level. The amendment provides the ability to consider character and context and community input remains critical and will continue with this use. It still requires all setbacks, greenspace, and building elements to be met. Ms. Turkelson sees this as a narrowly tailored approach to allow for some incremental infill development that doesn’t support demolition or displacement of existing homes or families. Ms. Turkelson clarified however that this could have significant impact. There are hundreds of properties that they are aware of that are vacant. What they don’t know is how many extra wide lots there are that could be split. There could be hundreds of those as well. Although this is a narrowly tailored approach with proper controls, there are still some significant impacts. The positive result could be an increase in infill but there could also be some concerns with the neighborhood form changing. With that in mind, Ms. Joseph asked if staff feels there has been enough time to engage the neighborhoods on this issue. She supports efforts to increase housing and reduce barriers but wants to be sure the neighborhoods have had enough time to consider it. Ms. Turkelson replied yes and no. Going to 30 neighborhoods to have a conversation about zoning is challenging and takes a significant amount of time. They have done the best they can with the resources available. They have reached out to the associations. Ms. Turkelson suspects that where the greater concerns will arise will be specific to increased density, meaning the two- family forms. If it is two units with four bedrooms each, she could understand how neighbors would have some concerns. However, the Planning Commission doesn’t have to approve that. It would continue to involve a public hearing. Ms. Turkelson likes the fact that the project-by- project discussion and additional engagement will remain in place for the two-family requests. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 February 24, 2022 Ms. Wells wished to clarify the comment regarding setbacks. A new lot would have to prove that all of the required setbacks could be met. There may be instances, such as the example they provided, where the setbacks might be constrained on the resultant lot but not increase the degree of the non-conforming situation. Ms. Joseph clarified that Ms. Wells was speaking of when lot lines are at the edge of an existing house. Ms. Wells agreed. They wouldn’t be able to resolve some of that but it wouldn’t become worse. Mr. Rozeboom asked that staff speak to the building element requirements. Ms. Turkelson recalled a professional colleague telling her that bad architecture is just bad architecture and no amount of form standards in an Ordinance will protect us from that. Ms. Turkelson feels there are fairly prescriptive form standards in place. Where it is flawed is that one can go to Home Depot and buy six different styles of windows and still meet the transparency requirement but it will look bad with the six different styles. Shy of becoming a true form-based ordinance, which is something they made the decision not to pursue in 2008, she doesn’t know how to say it will 100% look like what is there or that everyone will like the look of it. In her opinion, another flaw in the form standard is that they don’t have any controls on the roof pitch. However, that conversation took place as part of the last neighborhood pattern master plan process and that wasn’t something that the community wanted. Ms. Turkelson isn’t certain that being more prescriptive will accomplish what many might consider good architecture. Mr. Rozeboom asked if these changes make that any worse. Ms. Turkelson doesn’t believe so. Ms. Joseph asked if there are negative potential impacts that they aren’t considering. They’ve discussed the potential for infill development being fairly significant in some areas. Ms. Turkelson feels that will depend on one’s perspective. She isn’t sure that all neighbors will consider more density or more infill development a good thing because it increases traffic and other concerns they routinely hear at the Planning Commission. This does have good parameters in place to ensure impacts are mitigated. It is important to keep in mind that there is a critical housing need that has been quantified through the Housing Next work. How do you get there if not willing to accept some change in all neighborhoods? They are looking at vacant lots first and it is specific to one- and two-family development and they aren’t looking at demolition and displacement or facilitating the construction of large structures, which could be more impactful and more change to the character of a neighborhood. Any change can be challenging. When seeing infill housing on smaller lots, smaller than perhaps a typical lot in the block, Ms. Turkelson believes there will be some push back. She feels the proposed is a reasonable and measured approach to try to accomplish the larger goals that the City has set out to address housing needs. Ms. Joseph stated that her perspective is that we want to increase the amount of housing and infill development helps with that. She asked if there is a chance that this doesn’t do that or that City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 February 24, 2022 it could do the opposite. What she is hearing is no; that this wouldn’t prevent in any way the development of additional housing. Her understanding of this proposed amendment is to lower barriers to infill development and allow for smaller scale where it aligns with the original plat. Her understanding is that staff feels they have had enough time to consider this to ensure this will not have an adverse effect resulting in the opposite of what the goal would be. Ms. Turkelson stated that she doesn’t believe it will have the opposite effect. It will result in change and they have to be prepared to accept that if they are going to address the housing need they have. The applicant has been very gracious in working with staff and agreeable to the suggested changes they’ve had to the amendment. Her recollection is that this was submitted in late August. It is a new process. She can’t recall previously receiving a request for a zoning amendment from an applicant and the initial thought was they could accept the request. Once staff received the amendment and considered it with respect to all of the other chapters, there were a lot of recommended changes and concerns about how it fits in and where the conflicts were. With what needed to be changed, would it still accomplish what the applicant was asking for? They have been very gracious in working with staff. There have been several meetings and she believes it is in the best interest of the City. Ms. Turkelson clarified that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Commission. The City Commission is not obligated to hold a second public hearing. If the Planning Commission needs more information or more examples, or wishes to postpone so that the three absent Commissioners can weigh in, the conversation could resume at the next Planning Commission meeting. If those present are comfortable, a recommendation can be made and taken to the City Commission for consideration. Mr. Rozeboom asked if anyone feels they need more time. Mr. Williams responded affirmatively. He finds this to be complex and there are obviously several Commissioners absent. Mr. Williams stated that he is having a hard time trying to figure out how this impacts people that want to build, or don’t want to build, and the neighbors. He has been listening to this presentation and discussion and has no idea what the impact of this amendment would be. He asked for a laymen’s explanation of the impact of this change. Ms. Turkelson referred to the example provided; lots 22 and 23 in the plat. The original plat was at 51 ft. When created, single-family parcels were anticipated to develop at 51 ft. wide and that each parcel/lot would have a home built on it. For some reason, the property owner bought both parcels and has an extra wide lot. Today that owner may not want that extra wide lot and may wish to split the parcel. Because of how the Ordinance is structured, which requires extra wide lots for two-family dwellings, if the existing structure is a two-family dwelling the property could not be split. The proposed amendment would provide the opportunity to look at the form of the neighborhood, context, how the buildings are used, what the buildings look like and perhaps it would be appropriate to split off what appears to be an extra wide side yard and build another structure, either a single-family or another two-family, without materially impairing what is happening on that block. It would also allow the addition of units to the neighborhood, which potentially increases the affordability of the neighborhood by adding housing units. It would work to add units to achieve the goals of the City. Because it is an extra wide lot and because of the way the amendment is crafted, there is no demolition or displacement that would be occurring. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 February 24, 2022 Mr. Williams clarified that essentially it is giving people the ability to sell off a portion of their property, in situations such as the example, resulting in generating wealth for their family and providing opportunities for more housing in the city. Ms. Turkelson agreed. It provides a tool to be able to do that. Ms. Joseph clarified that two-family requests would still require approval by the Planning Commission. Ms. Turkelson agreed. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Commission approve the proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance because the amendments support the 2002 Grand Rapids Master Plan, Chapter 3 Great Neighborhoods, which recommends that:  Housing choices should be made available to people of different ages, ethnicity, and income levels;  Neighborhoods should have a particular character and style of housing; and  New homes should be built on vacant lots (where appropriate). 2. The proposed amendments will enhance the functionality or character of the future development in the city because the amendment will provide opportunities for infill development in already developed areas of the city. 3. The proposed amendments will protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the amendments are consistent with the objectives of the Grand Rapids Strategic Plan which:  Support housing development and services that help keep people in their homes; and  Support efforts to ensure all residents have safe, stable, and permanent housing. The amendments will contribute to the efficient use of existing infrastructure. 4. The proposed amendments will address a community need in physical or economic conditions or development practices, because the proposed amendments will help relieve the current lack of housing supply within the City and, pursuant to the Grand Rapids Housing Needs Assessment, the City will need at least 5,300 more rental units by 2025 to satisfy demand. 5. The proposed amendments would not result in the creation of significant nonconformities in the city because the proposed amendments would not permit creation of nonconforming lots. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 February 24, 2022 RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Kyle Van Strien, Stacie Behler, Adrienne Wallace VI. Planning Commission Discussion  Ms. Joseph asked if the Master Plan process or the annual report will provide information as to how the tools are impacting housing. Ms. Turkelson replied that they have the mechanisms in place for the TBA districts to be able to quantify how many new units result from the code change. They plan to do the same with the change the Planning Commission just recommended to the City Commission.  The next meeting will be March 10, 2022. There are currently no applications for the March 24, 2022 agenda. Staff will confirm that there will be no meeting that day by next Tuesday, March 1. VII. Public Comment None. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 3:06 PM