TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 May 12, 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 Board Member Kyle Van Strien PRESENT: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: 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 April 14, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon IV. Business A. Planning Director's Report 1. Adoption of Revised 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule 2. 1225 & 1237 Lake Drive SE - Extension Request  Agenda items were briefly reviewed. The first item, 407 Pearl NW, has been withdrawn at this time.  Adoption of Revised 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule - the revision relates to the change in venue to reflect that the remainder of the meetings this year will take place at City Hall. Motion by Ms. Behler, supported by Ms. Bersche, to adopt the revised 2022 Planning Commission meeting schedule. Motion carried unanimously.  1225 & 1237 Lake Drive SE - Extension request Ms. Zeller recalled that this Special Land Use approval was extended once. The requested six-month extension would give the applicant until November 9, 2022 to substantially commence work on this project. Generated 5/17/2022 9:00 AM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 May 12, 2022 Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Ms. Bersche, to grant the requested six-month extension. Motion carried unanimously.  Ms. Turkelson recalled that the Master Plan Steering Committee meetings have been paused until the consultant is in place. Interviews will take place on May 25. The 50-member Steering Committee self-nominated a 4-member selection committee plus a Planning Commissioner and 2 staff. There was a unanimous decision on the top three choices to interview. The estimated time line is that a final recommendation will be brought to the Planning Commission in June with a contract before the City Commission in July.  Ms. Turkelson recalled previously sharing that the lot width amendment was passed. However, there was a typographical error in Section numbering. It doesn’t change the intent but legal staff felt it significant enough that it is necessary to go back to the City Commission.  Planning Commission Member Update - Mr. Germain will be with the Planning Commission until the end of June when he will move to Marquette, MI for an employment opportunity. Dr. Wallace has chosen not to seek reappointment in January. V. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Conflict of Interest None expressed. B. 407 Pearl St NW - Gas Station Alcohol Sales, 24-hour Operation Address: 407 Pearl St NW Applicant: Kum & Go, LLC (Ryan Halder) Requesting: Approval for a 24-hour vehicle fueling station and convenience store with the sale of beer and wine. Zoning: TN-CC Traditional Neighborhoods –City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.9.38. Vehicle Fuel Stations 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0016 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: May 28, 2022 RESULT: WITHDRAWN C. 1145 McReynolds Ave NW - Demo and Surface Parking Lot Address: 1145 McReynolds Avenue NW Applicant: Bazzani Building Co. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 May 12, 2022 (Peter Skornia) Requesting: To demolish one existing residential building in a TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhoods – Low-Density Residential) zone district to create a 14-space parking lot intended to support a new mixed-use development at 730 Leonard Street NW. Zoning: TN-LDR Traditional Neighborhoods – Low-Density Residential Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.2.03. Alterations, Enlargements, and Demolitions 5.10.03. Off-Street Parking Design Requirements 5.11.11. Parking and Loading Area Landscape Requirements 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0019 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: May 28, 2022 Ms. Behmlander introduced the request for a 16-space parking lot, which is intended to provide parking for the redevelopment occurring at 730 & 736 Leonard NW. In 2020, the Planning Commission approved a request by the applicant to establish ground floor office use and a parking waiver for the 16 residential units and commercial space at 730 Leonard. 736 Leonard is adjacent to 730 and they are in the process of a lot combination and 736 is proposed for renovation and development into 10 residential dwelling units with 800 sq. ft. of commercial space. The construction of the proposed surface parking lot requires Special Land Use approval based on its location in the TN-LDR zone district. Ms. Behmlander displayed a map from the West Side Area Specific Plan, which identifies the subject property as Medium-Low Density Residential on its future land use map. A unique item within the West Side Area Specific Plan is the Parking Hold Line, which is designated along Leonard Street. The subject property is located right on the edge of that holding line. The holding line is intended to keep parking from expanding beyond a defined point into residential areas as, over time, residences adjacent to the commercial district have been demolished to facilitate parking. Ms. Behmlander identified mixed-use commercial to the north, Beer City Bread and a surface parking lot to the east, to the south is a one- and two-family residential neighborhood, and to the west is a surface parking lot that serves the building located at the southeast corner of Alpine and Leonard. Ms. Behmlander provided site information relating that the area of the subject property is 6,720 sq. ft. The site is located immediately south of Leonard Alley, which is south of Leonard St., and it fronts McReynolds Ave. It is also bound by an alley to the west and is immediately adjacent to a single-family home at 1139 McReynolds. Ms. Behmlander displayed archival photos of the subject property from the 1980s. The home on the site was built approximately 1880 and the site also contained a garage with a truck port. The Assessor’s records indicated that the truck port was previously located on this property but was demolished sometime between 1981 and 2003. Unfortunately, they were unable to find documentation on the site to determine whether the truck port was established legally. Rental certification for the two-family home on City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 May 12, 2022 site expired in 2021 and the house has since been vacant. Over the past 10 years there have been more than a dozen enforcement issues with the subject house. Based on parking requirements for this district, and the number of dwelling units and commercial space, 15 parking spaces would be required and the proposed parking lot would satisfy the requirement. Once the lot combination occurs, the residents will be provided with parking tags/permit and the commercial spaces will be provided with a space or two. Ms. Behmlander deferred to the applicant to provide greater detail on that. Ms. Behmlander related that the City Engineer, as well as the applicant, have indicated potential to develop some sort of pedestrian cross walk to get from the proposed parking site to where the tenant entrance is indicated on the east side of the building. The plans don’t currently indicate a pedestrian cross walk. Therefore, that is something staff would like the Planning Commission to consider. Parking lot screening areas of between 6 and 10 ft. are shown on the plan to the south of the parking lot. The applicant has indicated intentions to add landscape buffering to the north, west and east boundaries of the lot. A landscape buffer on any side of a parking lot abutting a public way requires a 3 ft. width screen wall or 5 ft. width of vegetation. A landscape buffer of 10 ft. is required in side yards where the parking lot abuts a residential use. The buffer width can be reduced by 1/3 with the provision of a 6 ft. privacy fence. The applicant has indicated installing a 6 ft. high solid wood fence along the south border to meet the reduction requirement. Should the Planning Commission determine that the proposed land use is appropriate, the minimum tree canopy, interior parking lot landscape standards, and plant materials can be confirmed during LUDS permitting. Ms. Behmlander related receipt of letters of support from the West Leonard Business Association as well as from the West Grand Neighbors Organization. Ms. Behmlander identified key considerations as the demonstrated need for additional parking; loss of residential housing stock; potential impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood of the demolition of the existing house and surface lot; compatibility of the proposed parking lot use with adjacent residential uses; adequacy of proposed landscape buffers with respect to adjacent residential uses; and appropriateness of a pedestrian cross walk to facilitate safe and efficient circulation from the building to the parking lot. Ms. Joseph recalled the intent to install the 6 ft. privacy fence on the south border. She asked if the other buffers are adequate. Ms. Behmlander replied that the landscape buffering they’ve shown on the plan ranges in size from 3 ft. to 8 ft. They are willing to modify that as needed during LUDS permitting. Ms. Bersche asked if there has been any environmental research to determine whether there is potential for a vapor problem related to the former auto service on the site. Ms. Behmlander indicated that she couldn’t speak to the environmental impacts of the site. However, the garage and truck port were for storing vehicles not for repair, servicing, or auto body work. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 May 12, 2022 Mr. Rozeboom noted that the application doesn’t identify the property owner nor has the property owner signed the application. Has it been confirmed that the property owner is aware of this request and in support? Ms. Behmlander deferred to the applicant to respond. Peter Skornia, Bazzani Building Company, provided clarifications. He indicated that 730 Leonard has 18 residential units vs. the 16 stated. They worked with Planning on having the entrance to the parking off of the alley rather than coming in off of McReynolds. They felt that situation worked better and overall acknowledging what they are establishing here is a new separation between the commercial activity and the residential neighborhood. They are retaining the walkability along McReynolds as the sidewalk sees a lot of use from the residential located to the south. With regard to the parking tags, they would be provided specifically for this site. They will end up with a total of 28 residential units as well as some retail use. The parking will be offered to those tenants at a marginal cost. They have done that with other projects and it seems to work fairly well. Not everyone will opt for it but if they want a dedicated space, they pay for it and receive a tag. The space would then be signed accordingly. Mr. Skornia agreed that they will install a fence along the south side. He feels it makes a good transition from what is currently residential but feels more commercial. A lot of that site is paved now and gets used for overflow parking from the neighborhood. Mr. Skornia explained that during the course of this project they got to know the owner of the property, which is how they came to the agreement of purchasing it. The property owner is present today and will speak during the public comment period. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Robert Roman, the current property owner, offered support for the proposed project. It is good for the neighborhood, the business and the city in general. Barb Hickadee asked if it is possible that the green space be located outside of the fence vs. having the fence on the property line so that the neighborhood has the greenery. Ms. Zeller explained that the Ordinance does not say whether the fence needs to be at the property line or not. However, the problem with not putting the fence at the property line generally results in a challenge to maintain the landscaping on the outside of it. Given the narrowness of this, she would suggest putting the fence at the lot line may be the best alternative here. Mr. Van Strien agreed. It would seem to almost fall to the neighbor to care for the landscaping if placed outside of the fence. He referred to the Area Specific Plan noting that this falls within the parking hold line. It was envisioned as a potential, understanding that Leonard is a busy corridor and parking is desired off of the main street. The request seems appropriate. Ms. Joseph agreed. She appreciates that about the West Side Area Specific Plan. It was a well thought out part of that plan. It makes complete sense to support the development that will be occurring across the alley. She does feel it would be good for the applicant to work with City City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 May 12, 2022 staff on appropriate pedestrian markings but she doesn’t know that she feels strongly enough to require that as a condition. Ms. Bersche feels the location of the sidewalk close to that side door is relevant. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Bazzani Building Co. (Peter Skornia) for Special Land Use approval to construct a new surface parking lot at 1145 McReynolds 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 project will support the Parking Hold Line recommended by the West Side Area Specific Plan and the project fulfills the parking requirements associated with the mixed-use development to the north proposed by the applicant. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the development will be designed to meet all 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 project will provide additional parking for the mixed-use development proposed to the north by the applicant and the proposed use will limit the need for on- street parking. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through establishing adequate buffering from the public right-of-way and screening from adjacent residential uses. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare because the proposed use is not anticipated to result in excessive noise, glare, or visual clutter. 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 appropriate site improvements have been proposed to facilitate safe and efficient pedestrian circulation and landscape buffering and parking lot screening contribute to the urban street wall. 7. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the proposed use will allow redevelopment of a vacant structure. 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. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 May 12, 2022 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. SUPPORTED by Ms. Behler. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Ms. Shannon was not yet present) RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [7 TO 0] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Stacie Behler, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace AWAY: Susan Shannon D. 3250 & 3260 Plainfield Ave NE - 24-hour Vet Clinic Expansion Address: 3250 & 3260 Plainfield Avenue NE Applicant: NVA Great Lakes Veterinary Management, LLC (Tim White) Requesting: Approval to demolish an existing car wash to facilitate the expansion of an existing 24-hour veterinary clinic and surface parking lot. Zoning: MON-C (Modern Era Neighborhood—Commercial) 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0024 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: May 28, 2022 Ms. Zeller introduced the request for a new veterinary clinic. Veterinary clinics require Special Land Use approval in all of the commercial zone districts. The development site consists of two parcels, 3250 & 3260 Plainfield. The existing veterinary clinic is on 3260 Plainfield and to the south is a self-service car wash that has not been in operation. The site is in an MON-C zone district, which is destination oriented and the most auto oriented of the zone districts. Combined, the properties are approximately 1.5 acres. There is a slope to the east that goes down to Plaza Dr., which is a private street. The subject property doesn’t actually abut the street as there is a narrow strip of land between the subject property and that street. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 May 12, 2022 Ms. Zeller explained that the existing animal hospital on the site is approximately 5,200 sq. ft. and has four examination rooms. The applicant has indicated that the expansion is intended to accommodate a large service area, which is drawn from as far north as Traverse City, west to the lakeshore, east to Lansing and south toward Kalamazoo. A new, single-story 10,000 sq. ft. animal hospital is proposed on the 3250 parcel, where the car wash currently is. Nearly all improvements on the site will be demolished with the exception of a portion of the parking lot right at the front. It will be a new, state of the art animal hospital meeting the current needs of the region. Ms. Zeller explained that final building elevations for this site have not been submitted yet. However, it is intended to look much like the animal hospital that was recently built in Bryon Township that is part of the same chain. Photos of the Byron Township hospital were displayed. The facility will operate 24-hours a day. It is an emergency animal hospital. The applicant estimates that there could be over twenty medical spaces that could be used concurrently within the animal hospital and there could be up to 25 employees at peak times. Currently, due to COVID-19 protocols, clients remain in their vehicles during their pets’ treatment. There will be no animal boarding, except as part of treatment or observation. With respect to the site layout, Ms. Zeller indicated that the building will meet the minimum setbacks, which is 25 ft. at the front, 10 ft. on the side, and 25 ft. at the rear. The current parking lot is located approximately 2 ft. from the front lot line. The zone district regulations state that in the MON-C zone district parking lots can be located between the building and street but it has to meet the minimum setback for the zone district. Given the fact that this lot is not very deep, the building is being constructed at the minimum setback and the parking needs to be at the 25 ft. setback as well. The five parking spaces at the front lot line are considered non-conforming and the applicant proposes to retain them. The remainder of the parking lot will meet all other setback requirements. While detail is not shown on the plan, the site will meet parking lot screening, landscaping and tree canopy requirements. Ms. Zeller expanded upon parking. The requirement for an animal clinic is 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Based on the proposed 10,000 sq. ft. hospital, 15 parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing 69 parking spaces. They find that they need the number of spaces proposed for the reasons previously mentioned; it is a 24-hour use and it has a very large service area. The applicant commissioned a parking demand study and the consultant found that the Ordinance requirement is far too low. The animal hospital operates more like a medical or dental office, which requires 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., which would be a requirement of 60 spaces and a maximum of 72. The Planning Commission has the ability to allow the greater parking number above and beyond the maximum of 120% with the provision of that parking analysis. With respect to building elements, the applicant has shown what their corporate building looks like. Staff did a cursory review of what was provided and it appears that it would meet the zoning requirements. The applicant has agreed that the building will meet all zoning requirements, which has been included as a condition of approval. Another recommended condition of approval is the removal of one of the pole signs. Pole signs are allowed in this zone City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 May 12, 2022 district. However, there is a pole sign at the far north of the site that advertises a business on Plaza Dr. that is no longer in existence. Per the applicant, they do intend to remove that sign. Ms. Shannon entered the meeting. Mr. Rozeboom asked if there is a sidewalk on the plans between the building and Plainfield. Ms. Zeller replied that there is a sidewalk there. Jeff Van Laar, Exxel Engineering, related that the goal of the project is to expand the service that serves a great need and has a lot of demand in the community. There aren’t a lot of locations in the community that provide this service so they have patients come from miles away, as Ms. Zeller mentioned, not just the Grand Rapids community. Medical emergencies occur when they are least convenient and that doesn’t tend to be between 9 and 5. Having a 24-hour service is very important if a pet needs medical attention. People have found the service to be a great benefit. Mr. Van Laar stated that the current site has 46 parking spaces and they are more than doubling the capacity of the building. They have found that the 46 spaces can already be fully occupied at times. As Ms. Zeller mentioned, the parking analysis mentions that this operates more as a doctor or dental office than it does a typical vet clinic. As was also mentioned, all the landscaping, lighting, building elements, and storm water management will be further developed and reviewed during LUDS. Mr. Van Laar related that they have already begun that process and are hoping to submit for LUDS should the Planning Commission approve the request. Mr. Van Laar confirmed that there is an existing public sidewalk. There is also sidewalk for employee entry along the building. He identified another line on the plan that was a small retaining wall they had in the initial grading plan. However, by adjusting a few grades they were able to remove the retaining wall. Mr. Rozeboom asked, with the parking being so close to the sidewalk, how they will keep the cars from impinging on the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Van Laar replied that there is curb and gutter there and they would also be amenable to adding tire stops if desired. Ms. Joseph noted from the parking study that it indicates 60 spaces are needed and the proposal is for 69 spaces. It would seem reasonable to eliminate the 5 spaces at the front and still provide the needed spaces while allowing them to meet the landscape buffer requirements along Plainfield. Mr. Van Laar explained that it is more than the 5 spaces they would lose. If they lose those it would require that the parking lot meet all of the setback requirements so they would also lose the first row of parking and parking along the north side of the lot and along the building. They would lose between 17 and 20 spaces in total. Ms. Joseph asked if they would be amenable if the Planning Commission conditioned it so that they only lost the five along the front. Mr. Van Laar replied affirmatively. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 May 12, 2022 Ms. Bersche asked, with the removal of the retaining wall, if they would be able to add more plantings in that area. Mr. Van Laar replied that they will address that through LUDS. In order to remove the retaining wall they actually moved the building back away from Plainfield a couple of additional feet so they aren’t right on the 25 ft. setback line; it is closer to 27 or 28 ft. so there will be a few additional feet of green space in that area. Mr. Van Strien invited public comment. Donny, a current resident of the third ward, related that he believes that in the subject zone the unhoused population is increasing. He also related that he spent a good majority of his life on the northwest side of Grand Rapids. His thoughts on this request is that it is severely insensitive for the City to spend more money on pets or people’s pets that they can’t afford to take care of. There are a lot of pets that roam the streets because people just drop them off. There is an increasing amount of gentrification occurring so he feels it is insensitive to build a pet hospital here when the unhoused population is increasing. The low-income housing that surrounds this likely wouldn’t appreciate it either. The space could be better used for either an unhoused population resource to give them the ability to be able to live outside comfortably or have it be a natural resource center for the low income population in the surrounding area. Donny stated that he understands this is a commercial site but if not aiding the community that lives, works, and sleeps here and pays for the things that go on in the city then it is just pushing people around in the name of privileged pleasures. Donny clarified that he loves animals and wants to see them prosper and people take care of their pets but he also doesn’t want to see people move away because they can’t afford things. He again stated that he finds this very insensitive to the needs of Grand Rapids. The needs of Grand Rapids are more resources. Donny observed that the sidewalk that passes through interrupts the pedestrian sidewalk and takes the right-of-way from pedestrians. Barb Hickadee thanked Donny for his sensitivity to the people. Having walked the area many times and knowing people that do live in the area, Ms. Hickadee agrees with him 100%. Additionally, this business has been awesome for them. Unfortunately, they have had to use it several times but they exhibited kindness. Their waiting room was cozy and that’s nice when you’re scared. Ms. Hickadee agreed with the suggestion to remove the 5 parking spaces at the front to provide a buffer for people that walk there. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. He noted that the parking has been discussed and the applicant is agreeable to removing the 5 spaces. Ms. Behler asked staff, if the Planning Commission requires removal of those 5 spaces, if they have the authority to allow them to continue to have the other spaces. Mr. Kent replied yes. It will be noted in the findings and it will be pursued with the LUDS permit. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 May 12, 2022 Mr. Rozeboom feels that removal of the two curb cuts associated with the former car wash will be a great improvement for the pedestrian experience. Ms. Behler stated that, as a commercial corridor, the use is consistent with the zoning requirements. The proposed is an improvement upon an existing commercial space and appropriate under the regulations they are charged to apply. Ms. Behler MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of NVA Great Lakes Veterinary Management, LLC (Tim White) for Special Land Use approval to demolish an existing car wash to facilitate the expansion of an existing 24-hour vet clinic and surface parking lot 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 it will support the vitality of the business district, provide a mix of uses in a commercial area, and destination-oriented, high-intensity businesses and services with a dependence on the motor vehicle are anticipated in the MON-C Zone District. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the site is designed to comply with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and all elements of the site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to topography, the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property, and the type, size, and proportions of buildings. 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 future character of the neighborhood by providing a variety of personal services and the slope on the property will remain intact. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because adequate parking to meet the proposed parking demand will be provided and the parking lot will be screened with landscaping as required. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or odors because the use currently operates without incident and no boarding of animals will be conducted as part of this use. 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 site is already part of the sidewalk system and the proposed landscaping will reestablish the street wall. 7. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or would be provided at no additional cost because the proposed use will be adequately served by existing public or private infrastructure. 8. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use will not place an unfair burden on City services and the use will encourage other investment in the area. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 May 12, 2022 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 an application to combine the two lots shall be submitted prior to issuance of the LUDS permit. 3. That the building shall meet the building element requirements applicable to the MON- C Zone District. 4. That only one pole sign is permitted. 5. That the five parking spaces adjacent to Plainfield shall be removed. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. YEAS: 7. NAYS: 0. ABSTENTION: 1 (Shannon) RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [7 TO 0] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Williams, Germain ABSTAIN: Susan Shannon ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace E. 63 Aster Place NE - Two-Family Residential Address: 63 Aster Place NE Applicant: Richard Broene Requesting: Approval to construct a new two-family dwelling on a vacant lot. Zoning: TN-LDR Traditional Neighborhoods – Low-Density Residential Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.9.06. Attached Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 May 12, 2022 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0029 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: May 28, 2022 Verbatim Transcript Behmlander The applicant is seeking approval to construct a two-family development on a vacant lot in the TN-LDR Zone District. As you may know, the new construction of a two-family home is a Special Land Use in the TN-LDR Zone District. The Master Plan designates this area as Medium-Low Density Residential and the subject parcel is located within the boundaries of the Michigan Street Corridor Plan, which speaks to two key principals related to this project. One being improving existing housing stock and enhancing the integrity of each neighborhood’s unique character as well as providing a broad range of high-quality housing choices and price points to meet the diverse needs of existing and new residents. The subject property is entirely surrounded by Medium-Low Density Residential. The subject property is a vacant lot located near the intersection of Fountain Street and Diamond, here to the west. As indicated, the property is located on Aster Place, an unpaved public right-of-way with approximately 24 feet in width. A portion of the accessway does contain brick and loose gravel, which you can see on the right-hand side here. The few other properties that have frontage on Aster Place actually take their addresses and primary frontage from the surrounding streets. This subject property would be the only one that had primary frontage on Aster Place. In addition to the lack of the paved street, the property is not currently served with public utilities. The nearest services are from Fountain Street to the north. The applicant has obtained a minor vacation of Aster Place, which will allow for private utilities to be located within the roadway connecting to the services found on Fountain Street. If the property is to be developed, public street and other infrastructure improvements would be installed by the developer’s expense. The minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the TN-LDR Zone District have been met based on the submitted plans by the applicant. The building itself would be 28 feet wide and 48 feet deep giving us a building footprint of 2,720 square feet. The building does meet the setback requirements in the TN-LDR Zone District and the proposed use does also meet the requirements of Article 5.9.06., which speaks to attached single- and two-family dwellings. In terms of parking, an 11-foot-wide driveway with an adjoined 1,350 square foot parking area is currently proposed. In this zone district, three parking spaces are required for two dwelling units with a maximum of four spaces allowed. Several angles of parking have been proposed. However, proposed arrangements of parking have not yet met all of our requirements. The angle of parking spaces will need to be evaluated as a modification of the building or site design. In addition to that, parking lots with three or more spaces do require striping and the applicant has indicated intentions to provide a parking plan that reflects appropriate striping. However, new plans didn’t quite meet those requirements but those can be worked out throughout LUDS permitting as well. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 May 12, 2022 At present, there is fencing located to the west and north perimeter of the site and additional fencing is proposed by the applicant for the remaining boundaries of the property but those are not included in these plans today. In terms of building height and design materials, the proposed development meets all of our zoning requirements. In terms of transparency, nearly all of the elevations do meet the transparency requirement with the exception of the north elevation, which indicated an 8.8 percent transparency. This zone district requires 10 percent. The Planning Commission may consider the reduction of transparency or that reduction can be rectified at permitting. Each dwelling unit will consist of two nearly identical 4-bedroom layouts, stacked on top of each other. From this slide, the floor plan on the left is the upper level and the floor plan on the right is the main level. Each bedroom will contain an ensuite bathroom and a shared living space as well as a shared kitchen and dining space. However, there is no indication of a shared powder room in either unit and although there is no requirement for an accessory structure for storage, current plans do not indicate a space for tenant storage. The lower level does face Aster Place while the upper level entrance would face the parking lot area. Several new trees will provide parking screening from adjacent neighbors to the north and the west. Based on the submitted plans, the applicant has indicated a 3-foot buffer on the side yard here and a 5-foot buffer on the rear yard. As such the side yard buffer would need a reduction in order to meet that requirement. In consideration of the reduction, the side yard buffer requirement is 6 feet. So, should the Planning Commission determine that the proposed land use is appropriate, the minimum tree canopy, landscaping standards, and plant materials, those can be also assessed at LUDS permitting. The applicant submitted letters to each owner that abuts either the property or Aster Place itself and likewise all of the property owners within that area were previously approached as part of the minor vacation process that occurred in June of 2021. Two adjacent neighbors have indicated support of the project after speaking directly to the applicant. However, four letters of opposition so far have been received related to this project. In sum, the key considerations we’d like you to consider today is the impact of the two-family home on the desired character of the surrounding neighborhood; the intensity of the use relative to the number of bedrooms in each proposed unit; the appropriateness of the amount of off-street parking available for tenants; as well as the capability of the proposed structure with the architectural character of the block and neighborhood - I’m sorry, the compatibility of the proposed structure; the appropriateness of the building and parking lot orientation on the site; and lastly, the availability of on-site storage for tenant use. Van Strien Alright, thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Joseph I just have one. So, when you say that the developer would have to pay for street improvements, would that include like paving and…like how much would they have to improve the… Behmlander Yeah, everything. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 May 12, 2022 Joseph Everything. Okay. Thank you. Van Strien Alright. If there’s no other questions at this time, I’ll invite the applicant up and they can share any other details with us that they’d like to. Is there no representative from the applicant here? Broene I guess I’ll come up instead. Van Strien Are you with the applicant? Broene Pardon me? Van Strien You represent the applicant? Broene Well I was hoping the architect would be here to represent him but I’m Richard Broene. I’m the applicant’s father. Van Strien Ah, got it. Okay. Broene He was born and raised in Grand Rapids by me and currently he can’t be here today because he is busy designing cities and buildings elsewhere in the Middle East; he is in Dubai right now but his heart is still here in Grand Rapids and he’s done a lot of research here and he wants to get involved. In fact, his thesis was on ways to improve Grand Rapids and he’s the only person I know that has about a five-foot diameter model of the city of Grand Rapids with the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel about an inch high and his ideas for it, which was featured in the Grand Rapids Press some years ago. One of the things he has to say, which I’m sure is no news to you, there is a severe shorting…a severe housing shortage in Grand Rapids and West Michigan at the moment and it’s causing rents to increase dramatically. Without further supply, prices will continue to rise, spiraling significantly and making housing challenging. Roughly 37,000 housing units are needed in Kent and Ottawa counties by 2025 according to Housing Next and currently there are 372,000 housing units in those two counties. So, that’s a ten percent increase in three years. He has shown his plans for this project to a couple of people, a leading housing advocate and a former leader within the City Planning Department here, and both have enthusiastically supported his ideas for it and the proposal for 63 Aster Place is something he would like to start with and perhaps go on from there. They said that’s exactly what this city needs and I hope to find out that that’s true. I only got brought into this yesterday when I heard he couldn’t come here and he learned that he couldn’t attend via Zoom. So, he is listening to live streaming of it right now from Dubai and the architect and I are supposed to be here covering for him but I don’t see anyone from Mathison & Mathison. Anyway, I’ll hang around and if there’s any questions I can answer, I will. Van Strien Alright. Thanks. Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Broene? Shannon I have one. Zeller Sir, we have a question. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 May 12, 2022 Shannon I have a question. So, each unit has four bedrooms, each with their own bathroom, and there’s four parking spots. It seems that eight people could live here that are not related and each have their own car. Where would you expect others to park if that’s the case? Broene There is how many parking spaces? Four? Shannon Four I think was what was said. Four parking spaces. But what leads me to that question is that each bedroom is an ensuite, which would sometimes be related to, you know, four different roommates living together and possibly the need for eight parking spaces. Broene I know that when I go visit him in Dubai we’re all pretty glad that his three bedrooms come with three bathrooms and that’s what he designs. He knows people like that so the plan was not to have, you know, push extra people in there but to give everyone the privacy of their own bathroom. Shannon Okay. Van Strien Any other questions? Bersche Are you aware of any conversations, aside from the letters that we received, with the neighborhood association and their response? Broene No. I’m not even aware of the letters you received other than one from Mr. Vandermeer who is here. Bersche Thank you. Broene Mm, hmm. Van Strien Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. If you’re here today on this case please come forward, state your name, and share your brief thoughts with us. Towers Good afternoon. My name is Andrew Towers, 1032 Fountain Street. Thank you for this opportunity for letting me speak against 63 Aster Place. I’d like to either present or give the Commission three sheets, 24 signatures of immediate residents within the area opposed to 63 Aster Place; Fountain Street addresses, Helen Street addresses. So, either you can look at these or take them. I am on the verge of being heartbroken even imagining of this eight-person duplex being built. It seems vulgar and a greedy ploy to make money and such a cheap use of this open grassy lot that has been behind my house for 33 years and many other people who have lived around it on Fountain and Helen. Just to show you briefly here, this is a picture of my garden. I consider it a humble postage stamp of a back yard but for 33 years I’ve entertained and sat out there in the mornings, afternoons, and in the evenings with my friends and the prospect of having eight vehicles parked directly behind that wolmanized fence just disappoints and concerns me a great deal. I’ll continue. To have eight vehicles at any given time starting up, pulling in and out, right behind my fence is depressing to imagine after 33 years of living and enjoying a quiet serene garden space. Add to that a potential student population that will be housed in this prison box partying all the time. And, by the way, I don’t threaten to call the police for noise and City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 May 12, 2022 nuisance complaints, I promise to call the police. Think of the traffic coming and going out of Aster Place. Going to class and coming back for lunch. Going to a class, going back, coming back for dinner and then going to work. Repeating that, eight people, eight times by eight people every day. And the waste recycling containers that will linger on Fountain Street if they are not properly returned to the duplex. There could be four or more of these containers added now to the end of Aster Place and left on Fountain for days after trash pick up has happened due to the nature of some people not returning them properly. My neighbors and I were offered the property…my neighbors at 1036 Fountain and I were offered the property by a previous owner for around $27 or $28,000 about four years ago. In my brief talks with the City at that time said that if the lot was split into two lots running north and south and combined with my property and my neighbor’s property on Fountain that would violate a length to width ratio aspect that the City would not allow; it would be too deep and too expensive. And now the best anyone can think of is to create this nuisance central waiting to happen. We see a trend in owner occupied residency because the neighborhood has gotten better. Van Strien Alright. Thank you, Mr. Towers, your time is up. Towers Thank you. Van Strien Anyone else on this case? Towers I thought the young man who spoke two cases back spoke much longer and I did go to the restroom and he was still speaking. Van Strien We’ve used the timer for every speaker sir. Towers Thank you. Van Strien Anyone else on this case? Fennema Good afternoon. My name is Philip Fennema. I’m the property owner at 1027 Fountain, which is across the street slightly adjacent to Aster. I would echo some of the same concerns that Mr. Towers brought forward. My primary concern was already brought, which is the parking and overflow parking. Between Houseman Field and the Farmers Market that both exist right in that area parking for both of those areas fill up the street frequently. Any time the Farmers Market is open, most of the street parking spaces are full and the potential for adding, you know, a residence that could potentially house eight additional people or eight additional vehicles is concerning. I also have a concern about resurfacing Aster itself. Right now, that area is porous, along with the lot and I’m kind of concerned about water flowing down that Aster Street into Fountain and what considerations will be taken at that point. That’s all I have. Thank you for your time. Van Strien Thank you. Anyone else on this case? Vandermeer Good afternoon. John Vandermeer is my name. Been living on Helen Street for 60 years. I saw that lot being empty for 60 years. I have seen the blue prints…and I’m gonna read from this. I’m not real good at public speaking so…We have seen the blue prints of the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 May 12, 2022 proposed two-family dwelling and we feel it is not suitable for our neighborhood. I think that calling it a two-family dwelling is not right. This is a building which has eight bedrooms with the possibility of double beds in each bedroom and we’re talking could be sixteen people living in that building. According to the blue prints this building will have eight bedrooms and each bedroom could have a double bed. With this many bedrooms, the possibility is at least sixteen people could be residents in this structure. This sounds to me like it would be a mini motel. We do not want a mini motel with all these people and all these cars going in and out of this little alley area. The area around 63 Aster is mostly single-family houses with children and adding a building with the possibility of up to sixteen cars going in and out of this narrow alley is not conducive to the quiet neighborhood we have enjoyed for 60 years. So, my wife and I, Donna and I, are one hundred percent against this project. Thank you. Van Strien Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Siekman Hello. My name is Ryan Siekman. I live at 1036 Fountain Street with my wife. We’ve lived there for about six years and I’m very much opposed to this. I agree with the last three speakers and my neighbor Andrew Towers especially, just all the issues that this could bring up trying to fit that many people in there. When I first got the letter from the owner of the lot and it mentioned that him and his wife were interested in architecture and were excited for the development there, I was honestly a little excited too for what was going to go in there and then I saw the plans for the big vinyl square with eight bedrooms per floor…or eight bedrooms total and wasn’t as excited anymore. So, I’m very much opposed to that and just want to agree with all the previous things that people have said, all those concerns, and I hope that you do not approve this request. Thank you. Allen Hello. My name is Karen Allen. I live at 1028 Fountain Street. I am next door to Andrew and I am against it for all of the things that he said as well, especially parking because my property is adjacent to the back where the parking would go and, right now, I have a very quiet back yard. We’ve owned our home for about seven years. We just paid it off and to see this going in there, I mean when we very first heard about it we were thinking it was going to be like the other duplexes around, like the one next door to us, which is a two bedroom up, two bedroom down. A couple lives up, a couple lives down and I thought well that’s okay. But, when I saw the plans online I said hey, wait a minute. Why are there no bathrooms outside of these rooms? Why are they all ensuite? It seems odd. What would they put in here? So, I guess those are most of my concerns and that’s why I do not think that you should approve this. Thank you. Van Strien Alright. Thank you. Anyone else? Alright, then I’ll close the public hearing. Commissioners, turn to you. Not sure if there’s other questions for the applicant or if maybe there’s anything you want to address. I know it may be hard to do that on your son’s behalf. Broene One thing that’s been mentioned several times is the traffic and the density and according to the plans for the use of the land, the density is fully consistent with the neighborhood and would not be close to the densities or traffic on nearby alleys. For example, Caroline Place, Mack Avenue, Inset Place, Stormzand Place or even Iris Place despite most of these right-of-ways being narrower. So, yeah, I guess we can all visualize what we want in terms of how much traffic there’s going to be, how many people will live there and everything but we City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 May 12, 2022 could be wrong. I think we see what’s in the plans, what the idea is, what the intent is and that’s what we have to work with and everything is, you know, within what the zoning looks for. Joseph I have a question for staff. On the northern lot line there, there’s going to be a six- foot privacy fence but then I believe you said it’s only three feet between there and the parking lot and that would require an additional…like that would require…the fence doesn’t make up for that. Behmlander You’re exactly right and so they would have to do, I believe it’s six feet and in previous conversations they were willing to go to five so we anticipate that they would work that out during the LUDS review. Joseph Okay, but we don’t… Van Strien But it would still require a reduction? Behmlander Yes. Joseph And we haven’t had a parking plan come to the City that we know can work at this point. Am I correct? Behmlander Correct. That’s correct. Yup. Shannon I thought I heard you say four parking spaces but on the plan it looks like eight. Can you help me? Behmlander Yeah, so four would be the maximum there. When they initially submitted plans to us, they had indicated up to eight and so that was part of the revisions that needed to be made on the site plan, which then we decided to pass over to LUDS review at this time. Joseph So, because it’s just a duplex we have the up to three…or up to four with the twenty percent increase; it’s not based on the number of bedrooms that are associated… Behmlander Correct. Yup, that’s correct. Rozeboom Would Aster Place be available for on-street parking? Would it be wide enough? Behmlander No. Van Strien So, what we have drawn here is for up to eight cars but what we’re saying is that it’s only going to have four? Or will it have eight? Joseph I don’t think we…I mean the plan for parking shows up to eight. That’s what’s been indicated. We’re only allowed to allow up to four because it’s a duplex even though there are eight bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms and no community space. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 May 12, 2022 Behmlander I do have the architect here if you have any questions that you’d like to address to him. Van Strien That would be great. Schulte Hello everyone. My name is Matthew Schulte, architect with Mathison & Mathison Architects. Van Strien Can you provide some clarity on the parking situation here? Schulte Yes, I can. The parking is currently a combination of spaces for at least three vehicles. We’re understanding that there is a minimum of three required, a maximum of four that would be allowed. There is a space to the north which is intended to be an ample area to maneuver but currently we’re not intending for there to be anything more than the minimum three or maximum four spaces in that location and what we’re showing, if you look all the way to the north, an area of permeable pavers to allow storm water to penetrate and then an area just to the south of that of asphalt to be moving in and out…for vehicles to maneuver in and out of the driveway space. Joseph Can you talk to us about the floor plan choices in terms of making every bedroom have an ensuite bathroom? Schulte Yeah, of course. So, we’re understanding that there is an intent for a diversity of housing choices. In particular, the owner was looking for an opportunity to have an ensuite bathroom that would serve each bedroom. The thinking was, or still is, that a kind of primary audience for this particular property might be college students in which case it would make most sense for a bedroom and bathroom scenario for each individual person. But I will say this, it is not…that isn’t a limiting circumstance. The intent is to have, you know, each bedroom kind of offered its bit of privacy and a shared common space; living room, kitchen and so forth. Joseph One other question. So, the…remind me which elevation…one of them is only at eight percent and the transparency requirement…that one, yup…would be ten. Are you willing to increase transparency to meet Ordinance requirements? Schulte Absolutely. Shannon I have a question. Can you describe what kind of outdoor or green space for the occupants in the building and what it’s intended to…how it would serve the two different entities. Schulte Right. There is some green space to the…just to the east of the entry and also some green space to the west of the property. So those spaces are open and available for further development. There was, at a point in the past, a proposition to do…to have kind of a deck or patio space to the west of the property…or to the west of the residence on the property. For cost reasons that was taken off of these particular plans but there is still that open space and additionally, we’re showing an area of green space buffer both to the west and to the north of the driveway and parking area. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 May 12, 2022 Shannon So will that whole area where the cars are parked, I see, you know, right up to the building be paved? Schulte Okay, are you referring to the pavers to the north and then… Shannon Yes, where the parking spots are and then the white space below it before you get to the actual structure, is that all pavement there? Schulte Yeah, that’s a correct interpretation of what we’ve shown. Again, I will say that we’ve had…we have had some conversation with both Sarah Behmlander and with Elizabeth Zeller and we’re understanding that there are some of the finer points of how the driveway and parking area is laying out and fully intending to comply with all the Zoning regulations, any of the conditions that are placed on the property. Shannon You know I appreciate the idea of bringing affordable housing. It just seems like a lot of bedrooms, eight bedrooms on a very small lot. Did you ever consider like two bedrooms or three bedrooms per space, given the lack of parking availability and other things? Schulte In fact we considered a single-family residential property…or project for this particular location. It was the owner’s decision to pursue four bedrooms per dwelling unit as part of this proposal. Rozeboom Could you review the architectural design of the building relative to the neighborhood? Materials and so forth. Schulte Absolutely. Right, so this is a pretty modest…I would call it a fairly straight forward, single gable residential property or project. We’re showing some areas of vinyl siding, a shingle roof. There is an area at the entry of wood siding. So, it’s a mixture of those materials and residential type of windows. Does that describe more what you were looking for? Rozeboom Yeah. Maybe could you talk through how those decisions were made relative to the surrounding structures? Schulte Okay, sure. We see actually all of those materials are present in the adjacent properties. The vinyl siding approximates a wood lap siding, which is very common in this particular area and in the neighborhood. Of course, the shingle roof is also very common and we do see some areas of wood siding on many properties as well. So, we feel this is a good combination of the vernacular materials in the neighborhood. Joseph What’s the material…I’m sorry, I’m trying to read it here…around those front windows there on the east elevation? Schulte That’s a cementitious panel so that would be similar to a Hardi panel or something like that. Relatively smooth and there is…what you see is the panel edges functioning like a rain screen material. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 May 12, 2022 Van Strien Any other questions? Go ahead. Bersche Is there going to be any sort of…and I don’t even…I’m, maybe Elizabeth you could help me clarify but, in a situation like this, this is an awful lot of people in one space. What is the waste situation? The waste. Is there going to be one big dumpster? Are there going to be a handful of dumpsters and where will those be located? Schulte I can answer this. We’re assuming that there will be two…you know, two dumpsters, the size that a single person can wheel individually. I think they’re most often referred to as Herbie Curbies. So, we’re assuming that there would be one of each for…or one for each unit and then probably a smaller recycling unit for each. The location, likely toward the west side of the property just south of the asphalt area so that you could…it could easily be wheeled forward and out to the driveway entry so that they may be picked up at Aster Place. Joseph With the improvements of Aster Place would trash be able to get down…does trash…can it fit down there? Shannon Is Aster Place one-way or two-way? Schulte It’s really…I think functionally it is two-ways because you can only…you have to pull in and pull back out; you’re not able to drive through. But in a way these are one-way or two-ways, it doesn’t really conduct a lot of automobile traffic. It’s really just those folks who are accessing Aster Place and then there are two additional garages that are served off of Aster, one all the way at the south end and one about half way and facing to the east. Shannon So it’s really like a long driveway. Schulte That’s correct. Bersche And then is there a place to turn around at the end of that driveway? Schulte At the end of the driveway or at the end of Aster? Bersche At the end of Aster Place. Schulte There is not a turnaround at the end of Aster. Bersche Oh, okay. Van Strien Just the parking area that they’ve proposed. Bersche Okay. So, waste containers can’t be picked up down that street. Behmlander Correct. Bersche So they would have to be wheeled all the way down? City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 May 12, 2022 Schulte They could be wheeled down to Fountain. That’s correct. Oh, sorry, technically that’s north to Fountain but yes, down the hill. Bersche Okay. Thank you. Behler I have a question about setbacks and maybe it’s a staff question and not an applicant question. I think I’m looking at materials submitted by the applicant around a 27-foot setback required for the building line and then it says however 10 to 12 feet expected based on surrounding houses. Can somebody just answer the question if the existing…or if the proposed plan meets all setback requirements? Obviously, this is a strange lot in that it’s in the middle of…so could somebody walk me through whether or not the proposal meets the setback requirements? Behmlander Yeah, the building itself does meet the setback requirements. The parking area was really what was in question in regard to setbacks. Behler So, the way that it is proposed in the application, it does not…the parking area does not meet the setback requirements? Behmlander Correct. Van Strien Alright. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Alright. Thank you. Schulte Thank you. Van Strien Alright, Commissioners, discussion on this case. Joseph I think this is a tough one. I am definitely in support of housing choices and adding more housing to our city. We definitely need it. I’m a little concerned about not having a parking plan that seems to align with the number of residents we will expect in this duplex. I’m not an engineer and I’m not an expert, I just don’t understand how the circulation is going to work at this point. So, I’m concerned about that more so than other elements, I think. Obviously, the design is up to the architect. Van Strien Yeah, I think you’re right. I’m in favor of a duplex or housing here. I think we need to fit that in where ever we can so I’m definitely not opposed to that and I hope we continue to see more of this. I do think that this site presents some interesting challenges and I’m not satisfied with what’s being proposed. There’s so much confusion about the parking because I feel like they’re trying to provide enough space for more than four cars but say that there’s only room for three to four cars because that’s what the code requires but they know that that’s not enough and there’s not a natural relief valve here like we have on a normal infill. This is not a normal infill. This is a very unique infill situation. While I agree that, you know, architecture can take some liberties, I don’t think that this is a great fit with the surrounding architecture so I don’t…I think that that’s another Standard that we rely on and I don’t think that this is a great fit. So, I could go either way but I’m inclined to not support this. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 May 12, 2022 Shannon I have…I’m in agreement with your feelings and expressions about just trying to fit so much in to a space that’s landlocked except for a small, albeit you know, a street but more like an alley and ingress and egress with the density of this. We need the housing. It’s a nice lot. It’s a beautiful neighborhood. I just don’t…I have problems with the whole parking plan and coming in and out of there and how you turn around and where else people might have to park if they’re living there. Behler Yeah, I think the use…the general use of multi-family in this space is appropriate. I think as we walk through the Standards, you know, they meet the Standards in lots of ways but as we look at some of the standard issues around intensity with the use the way that the site plan and the design have been proposed do not…are not consistent and compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. So, I would support even multi-family housing in this space because it does meet the requirements. I cannot support the intensity of the use as proposed given the design and the parking. Bersche I agree. I think, like everyone has stated here, we need the…although we need the space I just don’t…I feel like there are far too many unknowns and I don’t quite understand how this parking and then the access to the property, as far as City services, I’m not quite understanding that as well, especially with the trash pick-up. I think that could result in some issues. Williams Yeah, I just echo everything that you guys have said. I think we’re all completely…complete aligned with that and I know this doesn’t need to be said but I just have to say it for the…just for the record. College students, formerly unhoused people, low-income people do not create nuisance in and of themselves in our neighborhoods and I don’t think just the kind of language that was used today, I think it’s inappropriate. I don’t think it should be used to explain. I would agree with the cars, of course, the parking. You know, if we all drive, you know, Chevy Cruises then maybe not this would be a problem but if you’re driving your diesel 350 it’s going to be a huge problem in this, you know, for parking in this kind of a duplex. But, yeah, just for the record. We are talking about people, we are talking about human life, and I think anytime we’re talking about that, especially in respect to housing, that the language that we use is important. So, that’s just my feelings on that. Van Strien I agree. Thanks for saying that. Rozeboom I think my feeling is I could support this. I am not clear on how the parking is going to…would actually work but if there was a way that it could be demonstrated to work, I would be in support and, in this case, because of the particularities I would want…a lot of times we say we want the applicant to work with the staff through the LUDS permitting process, understanding that there’s some give and take there. In this case, I would want it to be strictly adhering to the Zoning Ordinance. But if it could be strictly adhered to, then I would be in favor of it. Schulte I’m not sure if this is appropriate for me to pose an additional question but I would like to know, if possible, from Mr. Van Strien. You mentioned that you had some opposition architecturally and I wonder if you could elaborate on that; if that refers specifically to the parking plan or if you’re referring to the materials or composition of the proposal. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 May 12, 2022 Van Strien I’m not sure if it’s appropriate to pose a question at this point but I think it’s a combination of all of the above. I think that the choice of materials and the design of the structure itself is somewhat inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood but I don’t…I don’t think the question sways the Board at this point, but just for feedback. Schulte Understood. Thank you. Van Strien Commissioners, any other thoughts on this or would someone be open to making a motion? Bersche I do have one other thing to comment on. There seems to be a lack of community support around the project and especially the neighborhood association, which is quite active in this community. I would…it would, I think, have been important for their support or at least their input and the Brikyaat Plan and their planning around this community as well. I just wanted to state that. Behler I’ll make a motion but I do also want to just state that we’ve had other applications in front of us where long-standing open space has become sort of relied upon by the neighborhood and I want to be clear that my motion, which will be to deny the application, is not based on an expectation by any adjacent land owner that this space is theirs or that it needs to be maintained in an undeveloped way. My motion will be based on the application as it stands today and whether or not it is consistent with the adjacent uses. So, just to be clear of that. So, I’ll give it a shot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission denies the request of Richard Broene for Special Land Use approval to construct a new two-family dwelling at 63 Aster Place NE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use detracts from the character of the medium low-density residential neighborhood because of the intensity of the use, specifically testimony and application that the use will be a four bedroom unit…four bedrooms per unit with two units and is not consistent with the TN-LDR zone district relative to building and parking lot scale and proportions. 2. The proposed use not will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of 5.12.08.E. because the site has not been designed to completely comply with all of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the building and parking lot design is not harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to the size and type of lot, the character of the neighborhood and adjoining properties. 3. The proposed use will not be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the general intensity of the proposed use and its design will not reflect the intensity of the TN-LDR zone district. 4. The proposed use will have adverse effects on the neighborhood because an appropriate ratio of proposed parking per tenant is not appropriate and the increase in the intensity City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 May 12, 2022 of use of the alleyway, as described in testimony, will create negative effects for adjacent neighbors. 5. The proposed use…uses will be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to the existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter because the intensity of the use is not compatible with the intensity of the TN-LDR zone district, the proposed parking lot design does not conform to landscape buffering and parking screening requirements. 6. The proposed use would 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 proposed building and its parking lot are not appropriately oriented to facilitate safe and practical pedestrian circulation on the site and the proposed location and landscaping of the parking lot does not contribute to the establishing of the street wall. 7. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services will not be provided at no additional cost because there are no existing public or private infrastructure or services to the lot. 8. The proposed use would be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because, as with any increase in density, there is potential for additional costs through service calls to City agencies and, per testimony, the inability for City trash to access the lot. I believe that that’s the conclusion of my motion unless there’s some other components that I should add. Joseph Would you be amenable to, under Standard 1, after four bedrooms per unit, would you be willing to add or amenable to adding with ensuite bathrooms because I think the indication that those are private for individual is maybe…reflects the intensity more than just the number of bedrooms itself? Behler I think to the extent that it could limit a renewed application, I don’t think that there’s anything in and of itself of an ensuite that goes to density. With the four bedrooms, to me that’s just the number of people who can live in the home and the intensity of the use. I don’t think ensuite… Joseph Okay. Behler …personally, I just don’t think that that’s dispositive of intensity. Van Strien Alright, we have a motion. Is there support for the motion? Bersche I’ll SUPPORT. Van Strien Okay, any discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. All Commissioners Aye. Van Strien Any opposed? (silence). Alright, that motion passes. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 May 12, 2022 RESULT: DENIED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace F. 2550 Eastern Avenue SE - Conditional Rezoning back to MCN-LDR Address: 2550 Eastern Ave SE Applicant: The City of Grand Rapids Planning Department Requesting: Approval to rezone the property to its original MCN-LDR (Mid- 20th Century-Low Density Residential) zoning designation. The property is subject to an unimplemented and now void agreement conditionally rezoning the property to the SD-NOS (Special District-Neighborhood Office Service) Zone District to facilitate development of a medical office building. Zoning: SD-NOS-A (Special District-Neighborhood Office Service) with Conditional Rezoning Agreement Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.12.10. Zoning Ordinance Text and Map Amendments Case Number: PC-ZON-2022-0033 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Zone Change Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Zeller presented the request from staff to rezone the property back to its original zoning. The property is zoned MCN-C with a Conditional Zoning Agreement. In March of 2017 the City Commission approved a Conditional Rezoning Agreement affecting the subject property. The property is improved with the former Seymour School and it was zoned Mid-Century Neighborhood - Low Density Residential and was used by a church, which still owns the property to the north. U of M Metro Health was entering the market at that time and they wanted to purchase this property and establish a medical office use. They did significant neighborhood outreach and the proposed use was supported by the public. They had proposed to demolish the school building and construct an office building with a parking lot. Rather than rezoning it to the Office Zone District, which would have been a spot zoning and inappropriate, it was rezoned to the Conditional Rezoning Agreement, which was offered by the applicant with conditions. The health system has since abandoned this site for development and it has been sold. After two years the agreement became invalid. Based on that, the Zoning Ordinance directs staff to undertake rezoning back to the original zoning. Ms. Zeller recalled that something similar occurred on Coit, across from Coit Elementary, when a portion of that PRD was never developed. Ms. Zeller related that there is no Area Specific Plan that applies to this portion of the neighborhood. The Southtown Business Area Specific Plan stops at the commercial portion. The 2002 Master Plan Future Land Use Map indicates institutional, which reflected the former school City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 May 12, 2022 use. The underlying zoning to residential remains appropriate given the surrounding zoning; MCN-LDR. Ms. Zeller explained that the property has been sold to ICCF and they have plans for redevelopment of the site. An application has been submitted and staff anticipates it coming to the Planning Commission in July after the rezoning is complete. Ms. Zeller emphasized that that project is not under consideration today. Only the rezoning back to residential is being considered. Regardless of whether or not the ICCF project comes to fruition, this would be the appropriate course of action according to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Van Strien invited public comment. Jan van der Woerd, ICCF Community Homes, stated that he doesn’t understand the Zoning Code and why it is necessary for them to go through two steps but they are fine with that. A lot of community engagement has already occurred related to a development the Planning Commission is not considering today. As it pertains to the site and rezoning, he feels it is very important to realize that this part of Alger Heights is a cross roads. It is not all low density residential. It is a wonderful example of low density residential in a historically planned community on a commercial corridor. This is the tail end of the commercial functions of the Alger Heights Business District, which is one of the most enviable commercial districts in the city. They are excited to own the property. They have no way of paying for the development they will present in July but it does have a unique blend of uses. Ms. Shannon stated that when she first saw the site, and not knowing anything about ICCF’s plans, she thought this is a nice property for some new housing, which is certainly needed. Ms. Joseph stated that, as it relates to what they are considering, this seems like a straight forward procedural matter. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of 2550 Eastern Avenue SE from SD- NOS (Special Districts-Neighborhood Office Service) with a Conditional Rezoning Agreement to MCN-LDR (Mid-20th Century Neighborhood-Low Density Residential) Zone District, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Zone District will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Future Land Use map, because the property was originally zoned MCN-LDR, consistent with the zoning of the surrounding properties and, although the Future Land Use Map of the City’s 2002 Master Plan designates this area as “Institutional,” this reflects the property’s previous school use and current improvements on the property. 2. The proposed Zone District will further the themes and objectives of the Master Plan, as well as any relevant adopted Area Specific Plans because redevelopment of the property or reuse of the school building for residential purposes would be supported by Section 10.7 School Reuse in a Pre-World War II Neighborhood Context. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 May 12, 2022 3. The property to be rezoned can reasonably accommodate the requirements of the proposed Zone District because the property is two acres, which can support the range of housing types, densities and uses permitted in the Zone District. 4. The proposed Zone District designation is compatible with the existing Zone Districts in the neighborhood because the proposed Zone District is consistent with the Zone District of surrounding properties. 5. The physical, geological, hydrological and other environmental features of the property to be rezoned are compatible with the full range of uses in the proposed Zone District because there are no apparent environmental features on the property that would inhibit the full range of uses on the property if rezoned. 6. The proposed Zone District or Neighborhood Classification will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the proposed zone change may encourage future utilization of the subject property, as there is no intent to develop the property as previously proposed and the existing conditional rezoning agreement is now void. SUPPORTED by Ms. Behler. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Stacie Behler, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace VI. Planning Commission Discussion None. VII. Public Comment None. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 2:56 PM