TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 June 9, 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, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Sarah Behmlander, Assistant City Attorney Amber Beebe, and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from May 26, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Wallace, Shannon, Germain ABSENT: Lawrence Williams IV. Business A. Planning Director's Report  Agenda items were briefly discussed.  Ms. Turkelson noted that there is a press conference with the Kent County Prosecutor today at 3 p.m. Understanding that there is some significant community interest, she has asked staff to keep presentations to under 5 minutes in hopes to move through the agenda as quickly as possible. Mr. Van Strien added that when the press conference was announced yesterday, he discussed options with Ms. Turkelson. He personally doesn’t feel it is appropriate to hold the meeting during the announcement. Assuming they don’t get through all of the cases he will try to find an appropriate breaking point at approximately 2:30 - 2:45 pm. The Commission was in agreement to adjourn the meeting if they haven’t gotten through all of the cases. Mr. Williams arrived. Generated 6/14/2022 12:19 PM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 June 9, 2022  Ms. Turkelson related that the recommendation for the consultant to assist with the Master Plan will be Planning Next. Ms. Turkelson stated that she personally feels very good about the firm they will be recommending. Mr. Rozeboom commented on the process. He feels that having Purchasing help manage the details, having a very carefully written RFP, the proposal evaluations, interview with presentation and Q & A, and having a facilitated exercise, and the off-time Q & A with the project managers gave a lot of information that could then be used to arrive at a recommendation. Ms. Turkelson was very pleased that the selection committee had some very good, thoughtful discussions. The recommendation is unanimously supported and the discussion arrived at consensus, which she feels is very important. The goal is to have the contract before the City Commission on July 12. V. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Conflict of Interest Ms. Behler related, with respect to the 816 Madison SE request, that she has served as the honorary chairperson and has been leveraging or using personal relationships in an effort to raise funds for the applicant. Motion by Ms. Shannon, supported by Mr. Rozeboom, finding that Ms. Behler does have a potential conflict of interest. Motion carried unanimously. B. 1512 Fuller Ave SE - Surface Parking Lot Address: 1512 Fuller Ave SE Applicant: Amplify GR (Jon Ippel) Requesting: Approval to construct a surface parking lot. Zoning: TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhood - Traditional Business Area Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 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-2022-0034 Staff Assigned: Sarah Behmlander Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: June 25, 2022 C. 1534 Kalamazoo Ave SE - Boston Square Community Hub Address: 1534 Kalamazoo Ave SE Applicant: Amplify GR City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 June 9, 2022 (Jon Ippel) Requesting: Approval for the renovation and expansion of an existing building for medical office use and the Boston Square Community Hub, to include a child care center, community center, and banquet facility. Zoning: TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhoods – Traditional Business Area Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales 5.9.07. Auditorium, Theatre and Banquet Hall 5.9.09. Child Care Center 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0035 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: June 25, 2022 Ms. Zeller related that she would be presenting both the 1512 Fuller and 1534 Kalamazoo SE requests together, given that they are related. With respect to 1512 Fuller SE, the site of a former self-service car wash, it is being proposed as a surface parking lot in a TBA Zone District. The site is at the corner of Fuller and Romona. Surface parking lots in a TBA Zone District require Special Land Use approval. Ms. Zeller displayed a slide of the proposed parking lot, including the landscaping. The parking lot will have 41 parking spaces that will support the use in the next agenda item. The parking lot has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineers and they found the location of the ingress/egress drive to be appropriate. The plan will be reviewed for final details of landscaping and any potential lighting at permitting if approved today. Ms. Zeller explained that associated with the parking is the primary use. Amplify GR is requesting approval for the renovation and expansion of an existing building that was formerly a church for the use of medical office and the Boston Square Community Hub, which will include a child care center, community center with offices, and a multi-purpose room, which was noticed as a banquet facility because of the potential of it being rented out for private events. Ms. Zeller displayed Google street view images of the facility. The green roofed portion is a single-story building and was the original church. The remainder was an addition to the church that was approved in 2008. It is a concrete block building with few windows on the street frontages. The windows are facing the parking lot. Ms. Zeller displayed a portion of the Boston Square Together Plan. The subject building is the community hub. The plan for the building is somewhat different than is shown on the plan but is essentially the same as what the applicant has been proposing for a number of years now. It is associated with the Planned Redevelopment District approved by the Planning Commission and City Commission a few years ago. The community hub is intended to be adjacent to a public City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 June 9, 2022 park that will be dedicated to the City. Ms. Zeller displayed the PRD that was approved by the Planning Commission, which also showed the community hub and associated parking lot. The free-standing parking lot was not originally part of the plan but additional parking is now proposed. Ms. Zeller displayed images of the interior and exterior of the building. The proposed site plan was also displayed. Ms. Zeller pointed out that there is a proposed extension of Evergreen, which doesn’t currently exist. As she understands it, the Evergreen extension is proposed in two phases with the easterly half to be constructed first and the westerly portion later. That construction would allow ingress and egress to the parking lot associated with the community hub as well as the north parking lot on the PRD property, which was always intended to support the subject use. Ms. Zeller explained that the project will occur in phases. Phase 1 will include the larger block portion of the building. They plan to raise the roof 5-6 feet to facilitate two full stories. The smaller building will later be demolished and a two-story medical office use is proposed. The uses include a community center, which will house a number of non-profit spaces, some co- working spaces, as well as the Amplify GR offices. The community center also includes a café, which was not included in the notice because it is a permitted use. There is also a multi-purpose room that can accommodate up to 240 people. They propose to allow the multi-purpose room to be rented but they will also be having community events there. The draft resolution includes the typical banquet hall conditions of approval. With respect to parking, the applicant prepared a parking analysis. A total of 126 parking spaces are required for all of the uses operating at full capacity. They are proposing a total of 94 parking spaces in the three associated parking lots. They are requesting a waiver of 34 spaces. If the Planning Commission finds it appropriate, that can be addressed through a waiver with on-street parking and public transit. Ms. Zeller drew the Commission’s attention to the parking reduction standards pointing out that they can also consider the timing of parking use relative to other uses in the area. In this case, the daycare and full capacity of the multi-purpose room likely will not be concurrent. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to speak to building elements. She noted that they are asking for a transparency waiver. They are adding a significant number of windows. The building currently has very few windows, except on the north side. They will be punching in a number of windows but are requesting a waiver on the south elevation, which is where the assembly space is. The Planning Commission does have the discretion to grant the requested waiver. Ms. Zeller also pointed out that they are asking for a waiver of orientation. They are asking to be oriented to the north, which is where the proposed public park is that they are considering the living room. The Planning Commission also has the discretion to allow that. Ms. Zeller concluded her presentation relating that she did request the applicant bring along material samples as it is a material she is not familiar with. Jon Ippel, Executive Director of Amplify GR, felt Ms. Zeller did a great job providing a comprehensive overview of what has been four years of active engagement and collaboration with the Boston Square neighborhood. They have been working in partnership with the neighborhood association and other parts of the City of Grand Rapids through the Community Partnership Agreement they’ve entered into. Mr. Ippel explained that the community hub is the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 June 9, 2022 cultural anchor of the Boston Together Plan. They are excited about the various uses being integrated that have been lifted up by what neighbors have been asking for, in some cases for decades. They will be partnering with IFF on an early learning neighborhood collaborative to have a high-quality early learning center for children 6 weeks of age to 5 years. That program will have approximately 80 slots available with a focus on serving the children in close proximity to that location and it will also be mixed-income in nature. Mr. Ippel indicated that they are also continuing conversations with a fairly extensive partnership on a medical and health partnership. That will be another part that springs from ongoing conversations about some of the significant social and health disparities that exist in the neighborhoods. The third portion is the community center; the ancillary and non-profit components. The things they imagine happening there are after school programming, work force development, the co-working spaces supporting local and emerging entrepreneurs, and the multi-purpose room that is intended to serve all those different partners as well as neighbors that may have different needs. Whether it be a fundraiser, a neighborhood meeting, it is meant to serve a variety of different capacities in addition to things such as concerts and plays and things of that nature. Mr. Ippel stated that all in all they are pretty excited about what this project will help advance as part of the broader Boston Square Together Plan. Marie Kohne, Urban Works Architects, explained that they will be recladding the existing exterior of the 1534 pre-engineered metal building with a new rain screen façade. They are adding a lot of transparency and brightening up the building with a new façade material. Ms. Kohne circulated a sample of the material proposed. It is a phenolic resin panel; a smooth faced rain screen panel that acts similar to fiber cement. It is a very durable, weather-resistant product that does meet the fire code requirements. There will be various widths of the panels to create an alternating pattern down the façade and they will introduce an accent color to awnings and to highlight the daycare area to be more colorful. Ms. Kohne related that they received some feedback from neighbors that they wanted to see more color so they responded to that by introducing an accent color. Ms. Joseph understands that they are asking to be oriented to the north vs. the south. She wished to clarify that there are entrances to the building on the south. Mr. Ippel explained that to the south is Ramona St. and that will have service entries into it. The way they are envisioning it is that the north side will be the main entrance and there will be some level of entrance closer to Kalamazoo as well. Mr. Rozeboom asked that the applicant take the Commission through the south elevation. It is a large wall that faces the public. He understands they are asking for less transparency than is required on the first floor but that they are proposing extra on the second floor. Ms. Kohne explained that they are requesting a slight reduction in the transparency there because the programs inside don’t really support a lot of transparency. They have medical clinic space on the first floor on the far west side so they’ve done limited glazing there. The second floor of the far west side would be more community wellness spaces so they introduced as much transparency as possible there. In the middle area, where not many windows are seen, is the multi-purpose event space. It is a double height space so they have glazing at the top for natural light but doesn’t have distraction of views on the first floor. On the far east side is the daycare City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 June 9, 2022 with some back of house loading and maintenance areas. The second floor on the east side are the community partnership spaces. Ms. Turkelson recognized that there appears to be several feet between the face of the wall and the sidewalk along that elevation. She asked if there are opportunities to add some landscaping to break up that façade wall where the multi-purpose room is. Ms. Kohne replied that there ae some areas where they can introduce more landscaping but it is pretty tight to the sidewalk. Ms. Shannon asked if the area intended for the parking lot is where the picnic tables are now. Mr. Ippel replied that it is on the other side of the building. Where the tables are today is the Boston Square parklet. The goal is that Modern Hardware would eventually move across the street to where that is located and the City owned park will be where Modern Hardware is. That will be the next phase after they get this project and a couple of the mixed-income buildings under construction. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing for both agenda items and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Shannon applauded their work of engaging the community over the years and building the multi-purpose uses, including the daycare, to really start to anchor the community and complement the housing development that will go along with it. She is in support of the project. Ms. Joseph agreed. With respect to the parking lot, she appreciates them working with staff regarding the pedestrian crossing and monitoring that when changes happen to Fuller to make sure they are facilitating safe crossing for pedestrians from that parking lot into this development. She is also comfortable with the parking waiver based on the transit service that is there and on-street parking available. Ms. Behler agreed with Commissioner Joseph. She is also comfortable with the transparency waiver. It looks like they are working hard, in light of the internal uses, to create additional transparency and they’ve articulated a sufficient explanation on why they can’t meet the requirements on the south elevation. Mr. Rozeboom stated that was his one and only concern. He agrees that it has been adequately addressed, also noting that there is an electrical substation right across the street, which wouldn’t make for such a great view from within the building but pedestrians traveling along that south wall still won’t have a great experience. He appreciates the suggestion of enhancing that with landscaping if possible. Ms. Behler MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Amplify GR (Jon Ippel) for Special Land Use approval to construct a surface parking lot at 1512 Fuller Ave SE, for the following reasons: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 June 9, 2022 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 off- street parking improvement strategy within the Southtown Business Area Specific Plan and the project supports the parking requirements associated with the mixed-use development to the northwest 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 proposed use will limit the need for on-street parking within the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through adequate parking lot screening and landscaping. 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 the proposed parking lot screening will help 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 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. 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. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 June 9, 2022 vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Germain Ms. Behler MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Amplify GR (Jon Ippel) to renovate and expand an existing building for uses including medical office, a child care center, community center, and banquet facility, at 1534 Kalamazoo Ave SE, 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 purpose and intent of the TN-TBA Zone District to encourage a mix of uses in a commercial area and will support the goals of the Southtown Business Area Specific Plan to: be a more stable and thriving business community without displacement by encouraging supportive reuse of underutilized space and be a more vibrant place to work, shop, play, learn, live and do business. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the site substantially conforms to the TN-TBA site layout requirements, and the building will be brought closer to conformity with current building element requirements. 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 uses will be consistent with the desired mixed-use nature of the neighborhood, will provide desired amenities in the neighborhood, and will activate an underutilized site. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed uses will be minimized because adequate parking will be provided and the building services are intended to support residents of the proposed residential developments to the north. 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, smoke, odors, glare, and visual clutter because all uses will occur indoors and assembly events will cease by 11 p.m. 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 mix of uses and the building’s orientation to the proposed public park will contribute to the walkability of the business district. 7. The proposed use will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the site is currently improved with public infrastructure capable of handling City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 June 9, 2022 the proposed use, and any private infrastructure will be provided at the developer’s expense. 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 excessive code enforcement actions, given the proposed scale, hours, and location and the use will encourage other investment in the area. 9. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, it is demonstrated that the area is underserved by the proposed alcohol service use and that the proposed location for alcohol sales will demonstrably be an asset to the neighborhood because, as proposed, the use will be unique as compared to existing uses in the neighborhood. 10. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the proposed hours of operation are consistent with other establishments in the vicinity; the operator and/or his/her designee will be on the premises during events; and the conditions of the Special Land Use approval will limit nuisances that require police or code enforcement actions. 11. Adjacent or nearby parks, playgrounds, religious institutions, or schools will not be adversely affected because no outdoor alcohol service is proposed and there will be no sale of alcohol for off-site consumption. 12. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the applicant has procedures prepared so that the use will be operated in a manner that has the potential to minimize or eliminate negative secondary effects on the neighborhood. 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 all right-of-way improvements are subject to review by the Engineering Department of the City of Grand Rapids. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 June 9, 2022 3. That the proposed access to the parking lot is contingent upon the improvement of the construction of the Evergreen Street extension. 4. That construction phasing and parking shall be coordinated so that the construction of both on- and off-site parking lots intended for the proposed uses adequately supports the parking requirements of the project. 5. That events shall cease by 11 p.m., seven days a week, with the facility vacated by 12:00 a.m. New Year’s Eve events may operate until 12:30 a.m. with the facility vacated by 1:00 a.m. 6. That music and dancing incidental to a private event may be permitted but there shall be no events or ticket sales to the general public at which admission is charged at the door. 7. That the operator and/or his/her designee shall be on the premises during all events. 8. That the event space may accommodate up to 240 individuals, subject to occupancy determination by the City’s Building Official and applicable building and fire codes. 9. That a noise analysis shall be conducted by a qualified engineer and, if necessary, the building shall be sound proofed to meet the requirements of the Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 151, Article 5 of the City Code). 10. That the facility rental agreement shall include prohibitions on congregating/loitering and the consumption of alcoholic beverages in the parking lot and shall discourage parking within the residential neighborhoods in the vicinity. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. Ms. Turkelson asked if the Commission would entertain a condition about the landscaping to mitigate for the lack of transparency. Ms. Behler AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE: 11. The applicant shall provide additional landscaping along the south elevation between the sidewalk and face of building, subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Germain D. 670 Burton St SE and 2080 Union Ave SE - Final Site Plan Review/Minor Change Address: 670 Burton St SE & 2080 Union Ave SE Applicant: Dwelling Place (David DeVelder) Requesting: Final Site Plan Review of the building designs for a previously approved development; a minor change to the approved development for setback regulations; and modifications to the site condominium plan to establish shared open space and a City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 June 9, 2022 sidewalk reconfiguration. Zoning: SD-PRD (Special Districts- Planned Redevelopment District) Requirements: 5.7.06. Planned Redevelopment District 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Planned Redevelopment District 5.12.13. Site Condominiums Case Number: PC-SPR-2022-0048 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller Type of Case: Site Plan Review with public hearing Effective Date: Immediate Ms. Zeller recalled that in December, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval for the establishment of a new Planned Redevelopment District to facilitate a four-story office building for use by Bethany Christian Services and approval of 42 site condominiums to be improved with single-family homes. That project was subsequently approved by the City Commission. There were conditions of approval that the building elevations come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval through Site Plan Review and that the elevations reflect the character of the built environment in the vicinity. The applicant is present today to present those elevations as well as two changes to the site plan that are being incorporated as Site Plan Review Amendments. One is a Site Plan Review for a Minor Change for building locations and the second is amendments to the Site Condominium Plan to establish shared open space and sidewalk reconfigurations. Ms. Zeller displayed the approved plan. The area in question is the Dwelling Place portion of the development. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to provide an overview of the details of the building elevations. She described the proposed site changes. The applicant is proposing a 5’ minimum and maximum building setback. As approved, there was a Required Building Line with all building fronts lining up with that line. The applicant feels they need a bit more flexibility in the location of the building so they are proposing the 5’ area in which the front of the building can be placed. There is also a change to the site condominium lot lines to allow for a split sidewalk and more functional green space between the courtyard homes. Another area of consideration is a lot line adjustment between the Bethany Christian Services parcel and the Dwelling Place parcel so that the east-west sidewalk will be on the Dwelling Place Property. Ms. Joseph noted from the staff report that there was a question about the maintenance of the common green space. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to address that. Jeremy DeRoo, Dwelling Place, responded regarding the green space maintenance. It will be treated similar to the other common green spaces on the property. It is a site condo so there will be a small condo fee associated with it for that maintenance. He explained that since they were last before the Planning Commission they had a series of community engagement sessions. They had a session specifically for near neighbors and one for buyers looking to purchase in the neighborhood to solicit feedback. Most of the changes are a result of what they heard in those sessions. Mr. DeRoo complimented Kim DeStigter, the architect, on the process he utilized to listen to the community and incorporate feedback into the plan. He was able to produce something that reflects a lot of the character of the existing neighborhood. Throughout the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 June 9, 2022 process they heard positive feedback from residents who have been engaged in the process. Some of the residents that previously came and spoke in opposition of the project were advocates. They intentionally reached out to those that expressed opposition and asked them to be part of the process. A number of them did compliment the final results. Kim DeStigter explained that some of the major input they received from the neighbors was we like our neighborhood because every house is different. Reacting to that, they have five different designs and each of those designs can have different color schemes. If there are 11 houses in a row there isn’t any real repetition there. There may be the same house design but likely not the same colors. The other thing they heard was on Winchell they didn’t want to be looking at the sides of houses across the street. To address that, the first lots on Winchell have some side yard depth. Based on the site plan they couldn’t just turn the houses to face Winchell so within that 20’ setback they are providing screening so you aren’t looking directly into the side and back yards of these homes; it is more of a green space view from across Winchell. They have opened up the courtyard as a visual connection to the neighborhood. The reason they need the flexibility on the setbacks, particularly on Martin, is that the setback was bringing the homes really close to the street and the homes across the street weren’t that close. To better fit in with the neighborhood, a more gracious setback seemed to be more appropriate. Mr. DeStigter displayed renderings of a view down Martin as well as screening they propose on Winchell. The court yard is opened up and not screened so the people from the neighborhood can see into that courtyard. A view of the courtyard was displayed. Mr. DeStigter related that one of the comments they heard was that they wanted their child to go out and play where they could see them. If there is a sidewalk right down the middle there is no place for the child to play. He believes that splitting the sidewalks provides a lot more opportunity for community and neighbors to get together. Mr. DeStigter displayed an alley/street view. He also displayed the different home designs with different color schemes. A typical site plan was displayed. They will either have a garage or 8 x 10 shed. All of the homes will have basements with the option to finish them at a later date. The proposed materials are a combination of vinyl siding with an opportunity for accent colors utilizing paintable cement board. Ms. Turkelson appreciates all the effort that went into the creation of the architectural elevations. She asked how prescriptive the condo documents are. If an individual buys a site condominium, will they have this pallet to choose from? When beginning construction permitting of these homes these are the renderings staff will be evaluating those plans from. It will be important that the condominium documents are very prescriptive. If there are statements about color and/or model variation, that should also be prescribed in the documents. Mr. DeStigter indicated that that hasn’t been totally finalized but they have discussed adding three different color schemes. Ms. Turkelson stated that she is less concerned about the color variations but the detail shown on the plans is truly what will make these homes compatible with the neighborhood. She wants to ensure that there isn’t going to be some value engineering during the construction permitting where banding and trim work is eliminated. That would be unfair to the community and the Planning Commission. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 June 9, 2022 Mr. DeRoo stated that these are the designs they have been pricing out and this is what they can afford to build. There is no anticipated value engineering. This is what they are proposing to do. Mr. DeRoo respects the process Mr. DeStigter went through to engage the community and the details of the homes in the area is what gives it the character. Their intention is to reflect that in the designs presented. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Joseph feels the work done to get to this point is fantastic. She appreciates all of the effort to engage the neighborhood and the designs they came up with. In looking at the character of the surrounding neighborhood, these renderings really reflect that. She is very supportive. She also appreciates the slight site change with the sidewalk and creating the extra green space. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Dwelling Place (David DeVelder) for Final Site Plan Review of the building designs, a minor change to the approved development for setback regulations, and modifications to the site condominium plan to establish shared open space and a sidewalk reconfiguration, at 670 Burton St. SE & 2080 Union Ave. SE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development will meet the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance because it will be an appropriate use of the property as a support for residential purposes; is consistent with the purpose and intent of Planned Redevelopment Districts to encourage a sensitive design that respects the neighborhood character as well as natural or man-made features of the site and surrounding area; and promotes quality design and environmentally sensitive development. 2. The site is designed to comply with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance because the proposed setback modifications provide the flexibility for slight deviations that exist in the built environment in the vicinity. 3. The proposed site will be developed so as not to impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted by this Chapter because the proposed buildings will be scaled, massed, oriented, sited, and architecturally designed in a manner consistent with and sensitive to other development in the vicinity and the proposed building design and high-quality materials meet the characteristics important in Planned Redevelopment Districts. 4. 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 because although the revised sidewalk locations are in the same general locations as originally approved, the revised sidewalk arrangement will facilitate a sense of community. 5. The arrangement of public or common ways for pedestrian circulation respects the pattern of existing or planned streets and pedestrian or bicycle pathways in the area. 6. Safe, convenient and well-defined pedestrian circulation within and to and from the site will be provided because the driveways, streets, and other elements are designed to promote safe and efficient movement within the site and at its access points. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 June 9, 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. 1. That this approval shall take effect after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. SUPPORTED by Ms. Behler. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Stacie Behler, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Germain E. 2200 Griggs Ave SE - Site Plan Review Address: 2200 Griggs Ave SE Applicant: Oxford Hamlet LLC (Brad Rottschaffer) Requesting: Approval to amend the previously approved site plan to replace the approved community building and shuffleboard court with a pickleball court and pergola Zoning: MCN-LDR (Mid-Century Neighborhood – Low Density Residential) Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review Case Number: PC-SPR-2022-0038 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller Type of Case: Site Plan Review City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 June 9, 2022 Effective Date: Immediate Ms. Zeller related that the applicant for Oxford Hamlet is requesting an amendment to the previously approved site plan for Breton Hamlet, a multi-family development of 48 dwelling units on 7.2 acres. She recalled that the Planning Commission approved the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request to construct 42-attached and 6-detached single-family dwellings in August of 2020. Site amenities included a community building and shuffleboard court to be located near the north lot line between the wetland area to be retained and the six-unit Mews Court building. The applicant is now requesting to amend the previously approved site plan to replace the community building and shuffleboard court with a pickleball court and pergola. Ms. Zeller displayed a photo submitted by the applicant of the intended pergola type. The modification will result in a slight increase in green space on the site. Two rows of evergreen trees are proposed to buffer the 30’ x 60’ pickleball court. The tree canopy plan is otherwise not affected by this change. Ms. Zeller recalled that a condition of approval required that construction of the community building and its associated structures be performed in a manner that would not disturb the 25-foot natural features protection area. If the modified site plan is approved, staff recommends the Planning Commission restate that condition. Ms. Zeller related that the applicant conducted outreach with the property owner to the north. These neighbors have submitted correspondence in support of the change. Ms. Zeller concluded the presentation recommending that the Planning Commission consider whether the application and plans conform to the purpose and intent of the original approval. Ms. Shannon asked if Planning Commission approval would be required if they want to change the pickleball court to a tennis court at some point in the future. Ms. Zeller replied that a tennis court is a larger court and would likely require some site changes so they would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Previously, a shuffleboard court was approved. Staff felt that because of more noise and activity associated with pickleball that it should come back to the Planning Commission. Brad Rottschaffer was present on behalf of the request. He related that the property owner to the north contacted him approximately 6 months ago with the concern about how close the shuffleboard court was to their property line. They met with them and suggested pickleball since it is such a popular thing now. It will pull the line further away from their house and they could get more trees in. They were in support of it. Ms. Turkelson asked if there will be a fence around the pickleball court. If so, how high? Mr. Rottschaffer replied affirmatively. He anticipates the height of the fence would be 10-12’. Ms. Turkelson advised the Commission that that should be part of their consideration because typically fence height is limited to 6’. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 June 9, 2022 Mr. Van Strien was comfortable leaving the fence height up to staff. He is only concerned about the neighboring property but he would assume they don’t want the balls flying over into their yard. Ms. Turkelson feels the evergreen trees will likely mitigate the impact of what she presumes would be a chain link fence. Within the Ordinance, staff is somewhat limited as to the height. There are departures but when it is associated with a larger Planning Commission discussion, she would prefer the discussion on the fence occur here. Mr. Van Strien asked if those limits exist internal to the property vs. just along the property line. Ms. Turkelson responded affirmatively. Therefore, the Commission should expect there to be a fence along the north side of up to approximately 10’. Ms. Joseph would expect there would be one on the south side also. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Joseph feels it is a great change. As the applicant said, pickleball has become wildly popular. The concept of the pergola in the photos they submitted looks beautiful. She is in support of approval, including the appropriate height of fencing to mitigate balls leaving the court. Dr. Wallace is also supportive of the project. She would like the applicant to discuss the fence with the neighbor. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Site Plan Review request of Oxford Hamlet LLC (Brad Rottschaffer) for approval to amend the previously approved site plan to replace the approved community building and shuffleboard court with a pickleball court and pergola at 2200 Griggs Ave SE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development will meet the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance because the change will reinforce and support the desired character for this development with the proposed use, site design, and building elements. 2. The site is designed to comply with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance because adequate buffering between uses is proposed and the revision is generally consistent with the approved plan. 3. The proposed site will be developed so as not to impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted by this Chapter because the proposed changes will be oriented, sited, and architecturally designed in a manner sensitive to other development in the vicinity. 4. 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 because the court will be sited with adequate setbacks from the adjacent low-density residential uses. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 June 9, 2022 5. Natural features and site topography are incorporated into the proposed site design to the maximum extent practicable because the proposed change will respect the required wetland setback. 6. Buildings and structures are placed in a manner that preserves and protects environmentally sensitive areas because natural features and site topography are incorporated into the proposed site design to the maximum extent practicable. 7. Landscape buffers or greenbelts are provided that ensure that proposed uses are adequately buffered from one another and from surrounding public and private property because a significant landscape buffer is proposed between the development and the adjacent low-density development to the north. 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 this approval shall take effect after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 3. Construction of the pergola and pickleball court shall be performed in a manner that will not disturb the 25 ft. natural feature protection area. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Germain City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 June 9, 2022 F. 816 Madison Ave SE - Social Service Facility Address: 816 Madison Ave SE Applicant: Women’s Resource Center (LaSandra Gaddy) Requesting: Approval to operate a social services facility. Zoning: TN-LDR Traditional Neighborhood – Low-Density Residential Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.9.34. Social Service Facilities 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0040 Staff Assigned: Sarah Behmlander Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: June 11, 2022 Ms. Behler recused herself and left the room. Ms. Behmlander introduced the request of the Women’s Resource Center for Special Land Use approval to establish a social services facility in a TN-LDR Zone District to provide job training, peer mentoring, and professional development to women. Associated improvements will include interior and exterior renovations to the existing building and parking lot, as well as an 842 sq. ft. two-story addition to the southeast corner of the existing building. Ms. Behmlander pointed out that surrounding properties are Medium-Low Density Residential uses. However, just to the north is ICCF. The Future Land Use Map identifies this area as Medium Low-Density Residential. Uniquely, this proposed use also complements one of the priority objectives in the Strategic Plan; increasing resident’s educational attainment, employment, and wage growth and also supports employment and workforce development efforts in historically marginalized communities. Ms. Behmlander related that the existing building, built in the late 1800s, originally served as Engine House #7 for the Grand Rapids Fire Department. Over time the property has served as an office space as well as a youth camp, both of which obtained approval through a variance and Special Land Use respectively. The existing building is approximately 3,472 sq. ft. The parking lot access off of Madison is both ingress and egress. There is an automatic remote controlled access gate to the east that they do plan to use if need be. Ms. Behmlander deferred to the applicant to speak to that further. Ms. Behmlander displayed an image of current conditions of the parking lot. She pointed out the landscape buffer and screening that is now provided. Planning staff would ask that the Planning Commission consider adding some enhancement to the green space requirements typically seen for parking lots given that it is adjacent to and within a residential area. As mentioned, interior renovations will take place, which includes the first-floor floor plan. The first floor will include meeting and teaching spaces, offices, a reception area, and the business boutique. The second floor will have offices, collaborative open office space, training rooms, flex space and team break room. The proposed site plan indicates a new accessible entry on the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 June 9, 2022 southeast corner of the building addition, which will provide the space for the welcome lobby and the business boutique. The business boutique is a service that provides donated business attire to the clients that come in for services. The applicant has indicated that LEED Green Building requirements will be applied to the greatest extent possible, which would include design elements that protect water efficiency, energy use and pollution mediation, reuse of materials, and clean indoor air. Ms. Behmlander commented further on the previously mentioned green site elements. There are no proposed changes to green space elements at grade. However, the proposed site plan does include an 842 sq. ft. green roof on the building addition for stormwater mitigation and to bring the site closer in conformance to the green space requirements of the residential neighborhood. In Commercial districts, LEED certification can provide a reduction to the green space requirements. However, that isn’t necessarily true in a Residential zone. Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the use and how it relates to a commercial use. The Planning Commission may grant a waiver for the remaining green space as the existing is approximately 23% and they need 30% to meet the requirement. Ms. Behmlander deferred to the architect on the project to expand on their LEED certification conversations with the consultants. Ms. Behmlander related that the Women’s Resource Center intends to move to this location primarily because they were having structural issues at their previous site. More importantly, they want to be located closer to the clients they serve. Currently, they serve mostly women in the 49507 and 49506 zip codes and there are also several community partners located within the vicinity. Ms. Behmlander related that the proposed hours of operation will be typical business hours. They will have 12-15 employees with 60-70% of those employees on site at any given time. The others would be working remotely. As it relates to parking, 7-10 of the spaces will likely be full at all times. Ms. Behmlander related that they do meet the parking requirement of 14 spaces, which is exactly what is proposed. They lost one space in order to meet some ADA requirements for the barrier free parking space. That calculation was also based on assuming that the full-time employees who use the office space are also the employees doing the educational course work in the classrooms and offices. There is on-street parking available on the adjacent streets and a transit stop is located just out the front door of the subject building. Ms. Behmlander related that no letters of support or opposition have been received. Planning staff did encourage the applicant to reach out to not only the adjacent neighbors but also the neighborhood association group Seeds of Promise. Staff has not been informed that there has been any direct engagement with those neighbors or those groups. However, last month they held an event to receive feedback from some of the clients and participants of the WRC. If the proposed use is approved today, WRC will host a community open house to engage with neighbors and community partners within the Madison and MLK Jr. community. Ms. Behmlander asked that the Planning Commission consider the appropriateness and compatibility of a social service facility in this zone district; adequate green site elements to fulfil the TN-LDR green space requirements of the Ordinance; and adequate and proactive community engagement and neighborhood outreach. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 June 9, 2022 Ms. Joseph asked if the parking lot screening requirements are currently met and if staff is recommending more or the requirements are not met and they should be required to do so. Ms. Behmlander replied that they are at approximately 23% green space and the requirement is 30%. They had indicated that with the green roof that would supplement the requirement but that doesn’t count in a Residential zone district. Ms. Joseph clarified that she meant the parking lot screening. She recalled the photo displayed during the presentation. Ms. Turkelson suggested conducting an analysis to determine if they are deficient. If so, additional landscaping could be required to ensure compliance, unless Ms. Behmlander has already conducted that review. Ms. Behmlander explained that it technically does meet the requirements. However, given the conditions shown in the photo, staff recommends that the Commission consider adding a landscape buffer or screening enhancement to what is already there. Ms. Joseph asked if the materials of the addition meet code requirements or if that would be confirmed at permitting. Ms. Turkelson agreed it would be confirmed at permitting. Mr. Rozeboom asked if a trash dumpster is proposed. Ms. Behmlander replied there is not a dumpster proposed. She deferred to the applicant to address how they will handle their refuse disposal. Sandra Gaddy, CEO of Women’s Resource Center, responded regarding the trash. There is currently a City container on the site. To the best of her knowledge, they will pick up in the area of the remote gate. Ms. Gaddy also related that they have scheduled an open house for the community on Tuesday, July 19. Their architectural partner and construction company will be present with their team to answer questions. They have sent out letters to the community partners and many of them attended the late April public announcement for their capital campaign. They have tremendous community support through their capital campaign portion and tremendous support from the local non-profit community partners. Ms. Joseph asked about direct engagement with those immediately surrounding the property. Ms. Gaddy replied that they will have the open house on July 19, which is when they will also have a survey as individuals come in so they can determine whether the programs and services they are presenting to them now are meeting their needs and what other needs they may have. Mr. Van Strien asked if the front elevation of the building will change at all or just be touched up. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 June 9, 2022 Kirsten Runschke, Architektura, replied that there is no intent to change anything on the Madison façade. If anything, they may look at the doors on the front and perhaps update those to give them an opportunity to use that space. They are maintaining all the brick and the windows. The materials they are proposing for the addition are brick and glass, although they don’t believe they will find a true match for the brick. There will also be a bit of metal accent. Ms. Joseph clarified that there will be an entrance on the Madison side. Ms. Runschke agreed. They are not removing that; they are just providing another ADA accessible entrance. Ms. Bersche recalled Ms. Behmlander mentioning the electric gate. She asked if that will remain and be utilized. Ms. Runschke replied that at this time it is intended to stay. Ms. Gaddy added that they are also doing neighborhood canvassing prior to the open house so they will reach out to the neighbors prior to having the event to make them aware well in advance. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Shannon stated that she appreciates the reuse and updating of the historic building. She applauds the efforts to move to where the clients are and add value to the neighborhood both through their services and reusing the vacant building. She expressed her support for the project. Ms. Joseph appreciates the project and loves this building and is happy to see it will be active. She would have liked to see more engagement with the direct community before being asked to make this decision so they had an opportunity to look at it, instead of engagement after the fact. However, she feels it is an appropriate use for this location and is also in support. Ms. Shannon MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of the Women’s Resource Center (LaSandra Gaddy) to operate a social services facility at 816 Madison Ave. SE, 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 social service for the convenience of residents in the vicinity and will support and compliment objectives in the current Strategic Plan that outline the need to increase residents’ education attainment, employment, and wage growth. 2. The proposed use does meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because adequate ingress and egress to the site and building is provided and the site layout is arranged so as to permit access for clients, employees, and emergency vehicles by practicable means. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 June 9, 2022 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because activity associated with the proposed use is not anticipated to impose a burden on other uses in the area; the proposed use will complement and provide support for both residential and community-oriented services and uses within the neighborhood; and the proposed use is intended to serve community members within the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because appropriate landscape buffering and fencing exists on site and will remain in place to ensure effective buffering and screening from the public right-of-way. 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, smoke, odors, glare, visual clutter and electrical or electromagnetic interference because the traffic generated by the use will be minimal and will only occur during business hours; no outdoor or late evening activities are to be conducted; and the proposed building elements and function will be influenced by LEED regulations and standards to limit general pollution. 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 proposed site plan indicates appropriate pedestrian access from both the parking lot and Madison Ave. and no additional site design elements are proposed that would impede on pedestrian circulation or the public right-of-way. 7. The building and site area required for the proposed use will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable, particularly where the natural features assist in preserving the general character of the neighborhood because existing greenspace will remain in place and the added green roof will bring the site closer in conformance to the Zoning Ordinance green space requirements. 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 create nuisances that will require additional City services. 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. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 June 9, 2022 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. Additional landscape screening, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director, shall be installed around the perimeter of the parking lot to enhance the existing screening. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [8 TO 0] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Germain RECUSED: Stacie Behler VI. Planning Commission Discussion - None. VII. Public Comment - None. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 2:30 PM