TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 June 23, 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: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Rozeboom, Wallace STAFF PRESENT: 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 June 9, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Paul Rozeboom, Adrienne Wallace IV. Business A. Planning Director's Report  Mr. Kent related that they expect to have the consultant hired for the Master Plan on 7/12/22 with kick off in early August.  Mr. Kent advised that Ms. Turkelson is in Portland at an ADU conference.  Interviews for the Planner 1 position will be taking place in a couple of weeks bringing staffing levels back to 100%.  Mr. Kent related that projects are moving along. They are beginning to hear concerns about interest rates, construction costs, and materials.  Mr. Germain was recognized for his service on the Planning Commission.  Agenda items were briefly reviewed. V. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Conflict of Interest None expressed. Generated 6/27/2022 4:14 PM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 June 23, 2022 B. 1232 Bridge St NW - Restaurant with Alcohol and Outdoor Seating Address: 1232 Bridge St NW Applicant: Hygge Group, LLC (Elliot Muller) Requesting: Approval for a restaurant and outdoor patio, both with alcohol service, along with a parking reduction. Zoning: TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhood – Traditional Business Area Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.9.24. Outdoor Seating 5.10.05. Off-Street Parking: Reductions in Parking Requirements 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0027 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: June 11, 2022 Ms. Zeller introduced the request as a continuation of the public hearing originally considered by the Planning Commission on May 26. The applicant is requesting approval for a restaurant with an outdoor patio with alcohol service, along with a parking reduction. The hours of operation of the outdoor patio, as well as the proximity to residential, requires Special Land Use approval. The requested parking waiver also necessitates Planning Commission approval. Ms. Zeller recalled that when the applicant was before the Planning Commission on May 26th, there was discussion about the new restaurant with 125 patrons indoors and 100 seats outdoors. The Planning Commission asked for additional community engagement, submission of the traffic generation report and further exploration of parking solutions, such as an official agreement with the nearby church. With respect to parking, Resurrection Fellowship Church, which is located down the block, has a parking lot that is vacant most of the time. The church has submitted a letter indicating that they and the applicant have agreed upon terms for unlimited use of 60 spaces in the parking lot except for Sundays during services and during special church events. A formal agreement has not been provided. The required parking can be provided on a separate lot within 300 feet of the subject site. The church parking lot does meet that criterion. The Planning Commission may want to consider the implications of encumbering the church property in perpetuity as the church could change hands, etc. Additionally, it is uncertain what is going to happen in the area of Bridge/Valley/Garfield in the future. There are some ongoing discussions about changing the street configuration in this area, specifically Valley north of Bridge, which could have some impacts on neighborhood parking. Ms. Zeller added that there has also been some discussions about other redevelopment in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission may wish to require the parking agreement for a specified amount of time, such as five years. Ms. Zeller related that the applicant has submitted the trip generation analysis and it was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineers. The engineer agreed to the findings of the analysis that the land use will generate more trips than the existing/previous thrift store use but not by a City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 June 23, 2022 significant enough amount to require a further traffic safety analysis or changes to the surrounding roadways. Ms. Zeller noted that the applicant provided a summary of their neighborhood engagement activities. Staff has received several letters. John Ball Park Area Neighbors has submitted a letter expressing concerns about the proposal including the lack of sufficient parking, traffic safety issues in the area, specifically the hill west of the overpass, as well as the intensity of the proposed use. Should the Planning Commission be amenable to the outdoor seating request, they ask that outdoor sound or music amplification be prohibited. There was no specific request in the application for outdoor entertainment. JBAN also asked about requiring substantial sound buffering methods, which has been included as a condition of approval in the draft resolution, and about limiting the hours of operation to 10 p.m. Sunday - Thursday and 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. JBAN also suggested a reduction in the seating capacity outdoors may further help mitigate sound from the patio. Ms. Zeller related that she very recently received several letters from the residents next door. They have similar concerns, specifically about noise and parking. They did mention in their letters that they oppose the restaurant. However, Ms. Zeller pointed out that it is the outdoor seating that is under consideration. The applicant could still operate a restaurant with alcohol service that stays open until midnight without Planning Commission approval. There would still be a need for a parking waiver. Ms. Zeller summarized the request as a restaurant with outdoor seating until midnight. The Planning Commission should discuss the appropriateness of the proposed hours of operation, adequacy of buffering and sound mitigation, and the appropriate height of the fence. Ms. Zeller noted that the applicant requested a 7 ft. high fence. There is a grade change. Typically, 6 ft. is found to be the most appropriate. The Planning Commission should also consider the adequacy of the parking arrangements. Ms. Shannon asked if there is a four way stop at that intersection. Ms. Zeller replied no, there are no stop signs on Bridge St. at that intersection, they are on Valley. Ms. Joseph recalled from the packet that there was information submitted comparing other outdoor seating surrounded by residential. She asked if there is a capacity comparison. It seems that many of those in the provided information likely don’t have 100 seats. Ms. Zeller replied that she didn’t do an analysis of the capacity. She would agree with that assertion however. It is very likely most of them do not have that capacity. The greater issue is not just proximity to residential but the nature of those commercial zone districts. This business district has not been very vibrant and this would be a significant change, which should be considered. Elliot Muller, Ben Muller Realty, was present on behalf of the request. He felt Ms. Zeller provided an accurate description of their request. He stated that no development is bound to please everyone, especially in a densely populated area. However, their plans have been well received amongst the majority of the neighborhood. In their outreach, which exceeds what was provided in today’s packet, they have received an outpouring of support and excitement to City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 June 23, 2022 welcome Sovengard into the neighborhood. Mr. Muller acknowledged that concerns were raised. They feel their solutions meet or exceed what was asked. Sovengard’s mission is to be a part of the fabric of the neighborhood. They want a place the neighbors can be proud of and enjoy being customers of. Mr. Van Strien clarified that the application does not include live music, entertainment, or amplified music outside. Mr. Muller indicated that is not part of the plan. Mr. Van Strien recalled that Mr. Muschiana mentioned the possibility of having some acoustic music at the previous meeting. He asked if that is still something they would hope to do. Mr. Muschiana replied that he needs clarification of amplified vs. non-amplified music. They are open to making it work. If that needs to be something they file for separately and if it is something the neighbors are concerned with, they are willing to work with whatever the best solution is for that. At this time they aren’t applying for any entertainment license. Mr. Van Strien asked how often in the existing location they have entertainment outside. Mr. Muschiana replied once a month, if that. It is very seldom. Mr. Van Strien asked staff about the temporary use permit. Ms. Zeller replied that a temporary use permit can be requested up to four times per year. Mr. Van Strien suggested that may be an option for them. That way, each individual event could be addressed separately. Without having it specifically requested in the application, he doesn’t feel the Planning Commission would be comfortable granting a blanket approval for the outdoor entertainment. In the future, if they wanted to do it more than four times a year they could return. Mr. Muller stated that is understood and not a problem for them. They understand they didn’t apply for that. Mr. Van Strien recalled that they have requested the 7 ft. fence. He asked if there is any additional buffering they have planned for to help alleviate some of the concerns. Mr. Muller replied that they have developed a plan. Jim Morgan, landscape architect, distributed a graphic to the Planning Commission. The graphic is showing the existing buffer at the former location. The plan is to do the same. He explained that the photo in the upper right corner is an actual photo of the living wall that is adjacent to the residential to the north. It goes beyond what is required by code. It makes the outdoor dining space very pleasant and it also absorbs the sounds. They are also suggesting a 6 ft. solid wood fence along the perimeter. The plan depicts where the living wall would go; on the south side and wrapping around the east side a bit. The rest of the perimeter is a 5 ft. landscape strip with a solid 6 ft. wood fence. All of the plantings would comply with code. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 June 23, 2022 Ms. Joseph asked if they would be comfortable with some additional limitations on the hours of the outdoor seating. Mr. Muller replied that they understand why that has been suggested by JBAN. It is a point they are potentially willing to flex on. His only rebuttal is that hours of operation is when they make their money. Their current demographic doesn’t stay too late. They are not predisposed to overserving their clientele compared to some of their other neighbors. They want to be respectful and understand there are children living in the area and people that want to go to bed and to work. They are open to discussing that with the Commission. Ms. Behler asked, in the absence of the formal agreement with the church, if he could speak to some of the terms, such as the length of the parking agreement. Is it an annual agreement that is updated annually? The parking needs are going to continue with the use regardless of whether they own the location or not. Mr. Muller replied that he is not at liberty to disclose the terms and conditions of the parking contract between the church and the restaurant. Ms. Behler clarified that they don’t actually have a formal agreement then. Mr. Muller replied that the Planning Commission has the letter that says they have a formal contract. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Zack Cook, resident of the 1100 block of Bridge St., stated that he does not oppose the restaurant. He would just love to find a parking solution. That remains his primary concern. If there is some way to solidify that the church agreement remains in place if the subject use does change hands, or something else changes, so that they don’t have another 50-60 cars parking on the street that would make him more comfortable. There are always things changing and it increases parking and traffic. With respect to noise, he feels the proposed mitigation is great. The living wall, wood fence and landscaping will help knock down noise and he doesn’t feel noise will be an issue over the cars and motorcycles traveling Bridge St. If the traffic engineer said that traffic safety is fine, that’s great. That was also one of the concerns he had. Therefore, it is really just the parking that remains a concern especially knowing they are going to be tearing up Garfield in the next year. Based on the information provided by Ms. Turkelson at the last meeting, the available parking is already 50-75% occupied. Knowing that the parking on Garfield will be gone, he asked how they will alleviate the 100-200 extra cars along the street at any given time. Tammy related that she lives 4-5 houses away and is opposed. She doesn’t believe the applicants or Planning Commissioners would appreciate 100 people in an outdoor area immediately adjacent to their back yard. She was thrilled when they proposed locating at the site across the street. She suggested the applicants look into 1215 Bridge St., which recently burned and is to be demolished. That may actually solve all the problems. Tammy commented on how a 30 year resident was made homeless and ended up dying. He then told the neighbors the building was City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 June 23, 2022 historic and that he was going to make a parking lot but can’t tear it down. She feels they have been told a number of lies. It was stated that this site has been vacant for years. That isn’t true. It has had an electronics shop, fire fighters, and a thrift store. She doesn’t feel they can believe everything being promised. What if it doesn’t work out as they plan and then they will have a bar there that someone else comes along and buys and it ends up being a detriment? There is a business on the opposite corner from this site and they have gatherings out behind their building and she can hear them. The residents in the area have had a really rough time with the college houses and these are the people he is saying are supportive very likely. That is because they are transient and don’t have to live there all the time. They just go there to have fun. Tammy is sure she will hear the noise from the outdoor patio area. She doesn’t feel that location is appropriate. Additionally, there are a lot of accidents due to the hill to the west. People can’t stop during the winter and hit cars coming off of Valley. It happens regularly and that will increase. If they were to locate across the street and work with the site where the building just burned, they would have that whole area plus a one-way street. There would be no worry about parking or an agreement with the church and what would happen if that parking goes away. Tammy feels they should stick to their original plan. It would address a lot of the issues. Peter Carlberg, John Ball Area Neighbors, recognized that the Planning Commission received their letter. He stated that the proposed is a very large capacity outdoor seating area, which is concerning because of the amount of hub bub that can be generated. The reason they are concerned about any amplification is that that makes the patrons talk even louder so they can hear each other over the background noise. In the area he lives, Putt Putts on Fulton has background music playing and those people get loud in order to hear each other over the background music and street traffic. The sound issues with this request are serious. The landscape buffer of wood chips and a living wall put on the fence is not a buffer. A line of tall firs along the fence may be sound dampening but a living wall is not. Mr. Carlberg also commented on traffic safety. He described the hill configuration to the west and how it jogs. If drivers aren’t riding their brakes, they get going pretty fast and they come through the curve with blocked views from the underpass and are then right in front of the subject location. That is why people that drive that street regularly find this to be dangerous. Mr. Carlberg stated that at their meeting people didn’t want to kill this proposal but the three issues they raised all need serious attention. Mr. Carlberg can understand why the church would want to be in a position where they could cancel the agreement at any time if they didn’t feel things were going well. If that is the case, then there is no guarantee that they have parking for the use. They would love to have a restaurant in this neighborhood and everyone loved the plan for across the street but this request raises more problems. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Mr. Muller responded to comments. There are no guarantees in life. They can’t guarantee that someone won’t drive into the side of their building. They can’t guarantee that they are going to thrive there. However, he feels they’ve shown that they have done all of the due diligence that they possibly can on the issues that have been raised. As he stated in the last meeting, he feels there is an unknown mentality of what they are as a business. He understands the concern that once it is allowed it could later be several different things. However, even in their current space they have had to address noise issues. The living wall is an effective sound barrier. Additionally, 65% of their sales are food vs. alcohol. Although they are proposing an outdoor beer garden, City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 June 23, 2022 they are a place that people generally come to for dinner. Mr. Muller stated that they have done their best to address the concerns. With respect to the church, the church has been there for 20 years. Not having the contract available for review seems like it is an issue for everyone. They can’t force the church to produce something they aren’t comfortable producing. They have given them a lot of grace to have this opportunity and he feels it has solved a lot of the issues raised by the neighborhood. There is more than ample parking in that lot and it is very seldom used. They are also participating with them for snow plowing, salting, and maintaining the lot. The church is going to allow them to install proper signage that indicates that it is parking for the restaurant and their employees. Ms. Joseph clarified that when Ms. Behler was asking about the terms of the contract, she doesn’t believe she was asking about the monetary arrangements. She believes she was asking about things like the number of spaces, the hours, and the length of the agreement. She asked if Mr. Muller could share some of those things. Mr. Muller replied they have access to 60 parking spaces during their business hours. The restaurant is not open on Monday and Tuesday. Ms. Behler noted that they wouldn’t have access during the Sunday services. Mr. Muller agreed, they wouldn’t have access during the service hours. Sovengard opens at 10 a.m. on Sunday, which is when the service occurs. He acknowledged that there would be an hour or so overlap. Ms. Behler asked the length of time the agreement is in place. Is it an annual agreement? That matters because if it is a 6-month agreement then in 6 months the restaurant would have no parking. Mr. Muller replied that it is an ongoing term. They have also been working with the City on other opportunities that would add quite a few new parking spaces to the immediate neighborhood. They are also working with City departments to address the public safety concerns that were raised and assist in whatever way they can. They are happy to help and want to be good neighbors. There is additional parking they are talking to the City about north of Bridge St. on Valley. They hired an engineer to draw up what that could look like and he believes that was included as part of the packet. The City is evaluating that, which would add 28 permanent parking spaces on a city street that is currently three lanes. Mr. Morgan explained further that they put together a concept drawing for Valley, north of Bridge. Valley has a 66 ft. wide right-of-way. It is a one-way street that is currently 36 ft. wide. Within that 66 ft. there is room for angled parking on both sides with a 14 ft. drive aisle, which exceeds the standard, and sidewalks on both sides. That is something that would be a public parking opportunity without adding any right-of-way. Mr. Morgan doesn’t believe that MDOT would be involved because it is a city street that could be improved. That is a potential for parking but they do have 60 spaces agreed upon with the church, which exceeds the requirement of 57 spaces. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 June 23, 2022 Mr. Kent indicated that he has received some information on improvements to Valley. He has shared that information with Mobile GR. They are taking a look at it. It is his understanding that Valley Ave. is actually owned by MDOT and maintained by the City so there are some things that would have to be addressed there. As mentioned, improvements are going to be made to Garfield. It is currently one-way and they are going to make it two-way as a test pilot to see how that area functions. Based on that, there may be some discussions about Valley and improvements to that street. However, at this time, there is no commitment from the City to make any improvements there. They will consider it in the future. With respect to the church parking, he recalled Mr. Muller stating that there is no time period guaranteed within the contract. There seems to be some concern about that and the outdoor dining. Staff would want a copy of the agreement as part of the conditions to release the LUDS permit, should the Commission approve the request. He asked if they could provide any more information as to the term of the parking agreement. Mr. Muller stated that he is happy to discuss it with the restaurant and the church and make that a condition of LUDS where they outline the terms and conditions being requested. The Planning Commission engaged in discussion. Ms. Shannon stated that she loves the concept of this restaurant having frequented their original location. That said, the other side of the street seemed to work so well for outdoor gathering with the buffer of the highway. Additionally, the lack of any solid agreement or guarantees of parking at the church is concerning. Ms. Joseph indicated she would want to make sure the City has a copy of the agreement to make sure that if this is approved then the parking is guaranteed for a certain term so it doesn’t go away as soon as this was passed. Ms. Joseph would be interested to hear how others feel about the capacity of the outdoor seating area. She appreciates the work that went into providing the graphics of the soundproofing proposed. She recalled from testimony that the fence height they are requesting now is 6 ft. vs. 7 ft. She would also be interested to hear how others feel about a 10 p.m. close for the outdoor seating vs. the requested hours. Ms. Behler appreciates the efforts and conversations that have taken place between the church and the applicant but they haven’t been provided proof of the agreement, which was one reason they tabled the request in May. They don’t have a copy of the agreement or know what the terms are other than for the number of spaces and time. The use will continue with this space, regardless of this particular applicant’s involvement. Ms. Behler can’t be supportive of it, despite how much she would like to, because parking seems to be the single biggest concern from the neighbors and neighborhood association. In the absence of really understanding the details of the agreement, she cannot be supportive. Mr. Van Strien asked if there is an acceptable term. Ms. Behler replied that if there was a term, that could potentially be acceptable. In the absence of any specificity, her guess is that there isn’t any. As staff mentioned, in order to get the LUDS, they will have to provide the actual agreement. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 June 23, 2022 Mr. Van Strien asked, if they were otherwise inclined to support this request, is there an acceptable term that could be shown on a parking agreement and turned in to City staff as a condition of approval. It could be an indefinite agreement for as long as the restaurant is in operation. If the parking ceases to exist then the permission for outdoor seating goes away? Ms. Behler stated that is what she would expect. She believes it is impossible as a Planning Commission to hold parties responsible for the future. The church could change hands and they can’t obligate the next land owner to agreements they have. There is no specific term she is necessarily looking for but just the existence of a number. Mr. Van Strien asked if a ten-year term would be acceptable. Even JBAN doesn’t want to kill the project; they just want some assurance. Mr. Van Strien doesn’t want this to fail if there is a way forward. Ms. Behler agreed. She wants to be supportive of ongoing business development and economic growth within the community. Parking is the biggest concern expressed at this and the previous hearing. While there are aspirations around additional parking, there is nothing right now. She doesn’t want to kill the project either but is not in a position today, based on the aspiration of parking and the vagueness of the parking agreement, to support it. Mr. Kent asked if the Commission would be amenable to tabling for two weeks for the applicant to return with a more defined agreement. Ms. Behler countered that they have done that once before and todays hearing hasn’t resulted in the specificity necessary to believe that this applicant meets the standards they are obligated to follow. All of the other aspirational parking is certainly not going to get done any time soon. Ms. Beebe agreed that more details are necessary in terms of the parking agreement. Her recollection is that they testified to having secured 60 spaces and they somewhat alluded to the hours the spaces would be available. She suggested the Planning Commission could impose a condition of approval on the outdoor seating that the parking agreement for 60 spaces must exist. In other words, if the parking agreement goes away so does the outdoor seating. That way they wouldn’t have to impose a certain term limit or worry about whether or not the property gets sold or the agreement terminates. Ms. Joseph noted that the parking requirement is 32 spaces for the interior capacity and 25 for the outdoor seating. Ms. Behler felt Ms. Beebe’s suggestion made sense but the interior space would still need 32 spaces regardless of whether the outdoor seating is in operation. Mr. Van Strien feels there is a difference. Similar to the previous approval on the opposite corner, Valley can absorb some of the demand. Parking does exist in the area but whether it is enough is the problem. Therefore, tying half of the needed parking up with this approval does something to alleviate concerns. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 June 23, 2022 Ms. Behler recalled from the May hearing that Ms. Turkelson articulated some information that wasn’t in the staff report regarding the current on-street parking use in this vicinity and it was pretty high if she recalls correctly. She agreed there is some capacity but not enough. Mr. Van Strien asked Ms. Beebe if the parking agreement ended whether there would be an opportunity for them to provide a new agreement or solution and, if so, how would that work. Ms. Beebe replied that they would most likely have to file a new application. Mr. Van Strien added that if the other solutions come to fruition in the meantime, it is likely the Commission would want to see the use continue. Ms. Shannon suggested it may be more efficient to table. Mr. Van Strien asked that one of the applicants speak to that. Mr. Morgan explained that because of the timing of the restaurant, which is now closed, tabling is not good. For the restaurant to continue, they need to continue moving forward. They are comfortable with Ms. Beebe’s solution. They feel that, in time, parking in this area can be improved and there is a wonderful opportunity on Valley. It will take time. They do have an agreement with the church and don’t think that it is going to go away. They can work on something that is more substantial in detail. Mr. Van Strien advised that they will need to provide the agreement to City staff. Ms. Behler feels that, with Ms. Beebe’s assistance, if there is an opportunity to link the parking agreement to the outdoor use then she would be comfortable with that, especially if the applicant would be required to submit the formal agreement for LUDS. Ms. Beebe suggested they could tie approval to the actual agreement or tie it to them providing 60 spaces within a certain distance from the subject site. That way, if something were to happen in the future, such as more parking becoming available in the area, it wouldn’t be tied to the agreement with the church but to the number of spaces needed for the use. Mr. Van Strien agreed. That would eliminate the need for them to come back if the agreement with the church fell through but they find other solutions in the meantime. Ms. Beebe agreed. They may be able to discuss it with staff vs. having to come back in. Ms. Bersche stated she is much more comfortable with that. Mr. Van Strien recalled from the applicant’s testimony that they are amenable to compromise on the hours of operation for the outdoor seating. He feels that seems like a fair compromise considering how close some of those residences are. Ms. Behler agreed. As Ms. Zeller pointed out, there is very little other commercial in this area. Contrary to some of the comparisons the applicant provided, in order for this to be harmonious City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 June 23, 2022 with this particular community and the proximity to LDR, she would favor closing at 10 p.m. during the week and 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Mr. Van Strien expressed his comfort with that. He also feels the buffer is appropriate. In terms of the traffic, that is really out of their control what is happening coming down Bridge St. His hope would be that more activity at this intersection will encourage people to slow down more. They’ve seen that in other business districts where there is more activity. Mr. Kent added that there is a plan next year for a flashing beacon at Garfield and Bridge. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Site Plan Review and Special Land Use request of Hygge Group, LLC (Elliot Muller) for a restaurant and outdoor patio, both with alcohol service, along with a parking reduction, at 1232 Bridge St. NW, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will reflect the purpose and intent of the TN-TBA Zone District to include active uses such as retail and restaurants on the ground floor and the proposed outdoor seating will contribute to the vitality of the business district. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the proposed outdoor seating has been designed to meet all standards and requirements with modifications permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and the site will be brought into conformance with all site improvement provisions relative to and proportionate to the extent of redevelopment. 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 mix of small-scale retail, service, entertainment, civic, office and residential uses to enhance the vitality of the area. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use will be minimized because appropriate buffering and screening is proposed from abutting residential uses; the hours of the outdoor seating activity will be reduced; and a parking agreement will be provided. 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, or odors because the scale and hours of the operation will limit the intensity and impact of the use on other uses in the vicinity. 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 redevelopment of the site with the building located at the street will create vibrancy in the district. 7. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, the proposed location for alcohol sales will be an asset to the neighborhood because there are no such establishments currently in the subject business district. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 June 23, 2022 8. The use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the proposed use as a restaurant that operates no later than 11 pm is not anticipated to create excessive noise or activity. 9. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the primary use is as a restaurant serving food for consumption on the premises during all hours of operation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. That the restaurant may operate until midnight, with seating on the outdoor patio operating Sunday through Thursday no later than 10 p.m. and Friday and Saturday no later than 11 p.m. 3. That this approval does not include outdoor entertainment. 4. That additional soundproofing elements as submitted by the applicant today shall be incorporated to mitigate the impact of the outdoor seating on nearby residential properties, with details to be provided with the LUDS permit. 5. That the fence surrounding the site shall be a maximum of six (6) feet in height. 6. That the applicant shall work with the City engineers on improvements to the abutting right-of-way. 7. As a condition of the outdoor seating approval, the applicant shall be able to show that they have 60 parking spaces available by agreement or otherwise. SUPPORTED by Ms. Shannon. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 June 23, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Paul Rozeboom, Adrienne Wallace C. 3445 28th St SE - Centerpoint Site Plan Review Address: 3445 28th St SE Applicant: PineTree (Lee Pearson) Requesting: Approval for changes to the southwest portion of The Shops at Centerpoint near the intersection of 28th St and East Beltline Avenue SE, including new development, parking, and traffic circulation. Zoning: MON - C (Modern Era Neighborhoods – Commercial) Requirements Article 6. Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.12.08. Site Plan Review Case Number: PC-SPR-2022-0052 Staff Assigned: Tyler Kent Type of Case: Site Plan Review Effective Date: Immediately RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Paul Rozeboom, Adrienne Wallace D. 3445 28th St SE - Outdoor Seating with Alcohol Service, Amendment of Planned Sign Program Address: 3445 28th St SE Applicant: BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. c/o GPD LLC (Jared Taylor) Requesting: Approval to operate a restaurant with alcohol sales and outdoor seating, as well as a Planned Sign Program. Zoning: MON-C Modern Era Neighborhood - Commercial Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts Article 15 Signs 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.9.24. Outdoor Seating 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses 5.12.14. Optional Plan Review Procedures City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 June 23, 2022 5.15.08. Planned Sign Program 5.15.12. Signs in Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0046 / PC-OPR-2022-0047 Staff Assigned: Sarah Behmlander Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: July 9, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Paul Rozeboom, Adrienne Wallace E. 3445 28th St SE - Drive-through bank Address: 3445 28th St SE Applicant: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Jeff Killingsworth) Requesting: Approval to construct and operate a drive-through ATM. Zoning: MON-C Modern Era Neighborhood—Commercial Zone District Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.10. Drive-In or Drive-Through Facility 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0049 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: July 9, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Paul Rozeboom, Adrienne Wallace F. 2750 E. Beltline Ave SE - Restaurant Drive-though Expansion Address: 2750 E. Beltline Ave SE Applicant: Chick-fil-A, Inc. (Chase Shaw) Requesting: Approval to construct a building addition and second drive- through lane at the existing restaurant. Zoning: MON-C Modern Era Neighborhood—Commercial Zone District Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 June 23, 2022 5.9.10. Drive-In or Drive-Through Facility 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0051 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: July 9, 2022 Mr. Kent introduced the request for Site Plan Review for the former Toys R Us site located at 3445 28th St. The building has been vacant since approximately 2018. The site is currently zoned MON-C, commercial. Mr. Kent displayed the site plan for the Shops at Centerpoint which evolved approximately 10 years ago. The area of the site being discussed today is at the southeast corner of the site. The overall site is approximately 65 acres in size. Mr. Kent explained that there are currently cross access easements along the perimeter of the subject area as well as through the Toys R Us site, which is currently being proposed as three outlots. There is also a north easement off of the East Beltline that runs in front of Krispy Kreme as well as a portion of Chick-Fil-A, allowing for access to Chick-Fil-A. What is being proposed, with respect to the Site Plan Review, is creation of two more easements running north/south along the proposed restaurant in the middle, as well as on the east side of Krispy Kreme, and in between proposed lots 2 and 3. Overall, it will provide more continuity as well as customers, pedestrians, and cyclists being able to cross the parcels. Currently, customers of Chick-Fil-A queue up on the Toys R Us property. At times there are up to 40 vehicles in queue. The proposed plan would help alleviate that with a landscape island directing people either north or south and getting to and from either Chick-Fil-A or north to either the proposed Chase Bank or BJ’s restaurant. The proposed easements are not currently in place. Mr. Kent identified an area of the land owned by MDOT, which is leased to Centerpoint for access. Mr. Kent explained that staff would like to see the addition of directional signage to direct people through the redeveloped area as well as consistent lighting throughout the redeveloped area of the three parcels. Mr. Kent displayed sheet 1 of 2 to provide an understanding of the existing site with the Toys R Us retail space as well as what is proposed; dividing the parcel into three outlots. BJ’s is proposed to locate on Parcel A, Chase Bank on Parcel B, and Parcel C is unknown at this time. Mr. Kent explained that the proposed Chase Bank is a 3,376 sq. ft. new building. The request today is for Special Land Use approval for the drive-through, which is a single lane ATM with a lane around allowing traffic to traverse around someone at the ATM. The applicant proposes 30 parking spaces for the site. The Zoning Ordinance requires 10 spaces. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the request for the additional spaces. He explained further that there are cross access easement for the overall area for the reciprocal agreement. The landscape plan was displayed. The proposed will increase the landscaping since it is currently just a large parking lot for Toys R Us as well as the shopping center. The building floor plan was displayed. Building materials proposed include stucco and metal panels. They are requesting some additional height on the parapet to screen mechanicals. Building elevations were displayed. Mr. Kent noted that on the east side of the building there is only one window. The transparency requirement on that side is 15%. Depending upon how the building is laid out on the interior, they may request a City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 June 23, 2022 reduction in the transparency. It may be appropriate to request additional landscaping in that area to break that elevation up. Mr. Kent related, with respect to Chick-Fil-A, that they are seeking an additional drive lane for the existing restaurant. The queuing for the drive-through currently overflows onto the Toys R Us site through the reciprocal agreement. What they propose is additional drive lanes throughout the entire drive-through to help with the efficiency of the restaurant and drive-through in general. The proposed drive-through will also include a large canopy, fans and heating for staffing during the different seasons. The addition of the drive-through lane is shown in their traffic analysis to assist in the reduction of the queuing. A portion of the drive lane will be located in the right-of- way. Additional landscaping is proposed on the east side of the drive lane. They are proposing a new dumpster enclosure along the drive lane as well. Mr. Kent identified the location of the easement for cross access between BJ’s restaurant and Chick-Fil-A. Mr. Kent displayed the site plan and the interior floor plan. The request also includes a 156 sq. ft. building addition for the additional window. Building elevations were displayed. Ms. Behmlander took over the presentation with respect to the proposed BJ’s restaurant. The request is to operate a restaurant with outdoor seating, with alcohol service, as well as an amendment to the Centerpoint Planned Sign Program. Relative to site and building review, lighting, green space elements, and building requirements will be reviewed by staff at permitting. Ms. Behmlander pointed out that the applicant has indicated a dumpster enclosure to be located on the north side of the building as well as three proposed bike racks, also north of the building. Ms. Behmlander related that access to the site is provided from both 28th St. and the East Beltline. The floor plan indicates that the restaurant will accommodate approximately 297 guests indoors, including the bar seating area, and approximately 40 outside on the patio. Originally Planning staff would have been able to administratively approve the outdoor seating. However, due to hours of operation, it is before the Planning Commission. In addition to the alcohol service, they have also indicated that they intend to sell BJ’s branded beer to go in several different forms. Ms. Behmlander displayed a slide of the proposed security camera plan. The plan was reviewed by City staff to ensure it conforms to CPTED standards, which it does. Ms. Behmlander related that a total of eight wall signs are proposed. Part of the issue is that the proposed signage is not consistent with the MON-C Zone District nor the Centerpoint shopping center Planned Sign Program. Ms. Behmlander displayed the north elevation, the side facing the access way from the East Beltline. The image provides a good representation of the dumpster enclosure from the street view as well as the signage. The square footage proposed for signage on the north elevation is appropriate and in line with both the Planned Sign Program and the Zone District. The east elevation meets the sign requirements of the Zone District. However, with the addition of the laser cut silhouette panel, it far exceeds the requirements of both the Zone District and Planned Sign Program. The silhouette panel was determined by City staff and the Advisory Arts Council to be considered signage due to its commercial speech relating to the ingredients of brewing beer. On the west elevation there is a similar situation where the majority of the signage is appropriate. However, with the addition of another silhouette panel it brought them approximately 300 sq. ft. over the Centerpoint Planned Sign Program. Ms. Behmlander noted that the neighboring buildings all seem to meet the signage standards of the Zone District and the Planned Sign Program in terms of size; Chick-Fil-A, Chase Bank, and Krispy Kreme. Ms. Behmlander displayed the south elevation noting the proposed patio and its orientation. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 June 23, 2022 Planning staff would suggest the Planning Commission consider requiring more landscaping on this elevation to screen and help buffer from the traffic and noise of the busy intersection, as well as mitigate some of the urban heat island effects there may be from the parking lot. Ms. Behmlander displayed both day time and night time views of what the restaurant and signage would look like. BJ’s is known for this design and aesthetic at all 200+ locations. Ms. Behmlander summarized the request to consider whether the eight proposed wall signs are appropriate and necessary, whether the proposed use is appropriate and complementary to the Centerpoint shopping center, and the impact of the proposed outdoor seating and alcohol service on adjacent commercial uses. Ms. Shannon appreciates the cooperative work of bringing all four requests forward together; it makes sense to look at the overall project. It would seem that the different property owners worked together on the plan and are in concurrence on it. Mr. Kent agreed. Staff has been meeting weekly with the folks of PineTree to continue to move these projects forward. Staff is very appreciative of their assistance through this with all of the tenants being proposed for the sites. Ms. Behler asked if it is necessary to amend the Planned Sign Program for Centerpoint if they allow the laser cut silhouettes or can they simply allow them through resolution with this application. Ms. Zeller explained , if approved, it would be an amendment to the Centerpoint Planned Sign Program specific only to this building. The approval would not open up the same amount of signage to the rest of the Centerpoint users. Lee Pearson, PineTree, was present representing the shopping center ownership as the new manager as of last fall. He explained they have been working diligently with City staff to bring all of this together. They appreciate all of the efforts of the different tenants and they aren’t done yet. Mr. Pearson is excited about the overall redevelopment and what Chick-Fil-A is proposing to do because he believes it will help enhance the whole corner and address a lot of the traffic issues that currently exist in a much more orderly manner. He is also excited about getting rid of the dark box and bringing in DJ’s restaurant as well as Chase Bank and having an opportunity for another parcel there. Ms. Joseph asked the Chase Bank applicant if additional transparency is possible on the east elevation or if they would be willing to work with staff to add landscaping to break up the large wall. Vicky Walker, Kimley-Horn, replied that there are a number of offices along that side and having a level of opaqueness is important from a privacy standpoint. They are definitely open to working with staff on additional landscaping. Ms. Joseph also noted from the report that there is excess parking proposed for that site. She asked if the intention of that is to be shared with the rest of the development or does Chase have a need for more parking than what would normally be allowed. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 June 23, 2022 Ms. Walker replied that with most of the Chase prototypes they do go above code from a parking standpoint to ensure there is adequate parking for patrons and employees. Code requires 11 spaces and there are 8 employees at any given time within the bank. Those spaces would likely also be available to the surrounding uses. She doesn’t know if a parking agreement is in place but that doesn’t mean that someone couldn’t overflow into it. Mr. Pearson responded to Ms. Joseph indicating that, per the reciprocal easement agreement that is in place which they are working on amending with all four parties, anyone could park in any of those spaces. Mr. Kent asked if the ATM currently located just north of Krispy Kreme will be removed. Mr. Pearson replied that it is currently a Chase ATM and his understanding is that once the building goes up that ATM will be removed. Mr. Kent asked, should the Planning Commission be amenable to these requests, that conditions of approval include submittal of a copy of the second amendment of the declaration of reciprocal easements, restrictions and operating agreement to the Planning Director for review, as well as that directional signage be integrated into the overall area of the southeast portion of the campus. Ms. Zeller advised that those conditions have been included in the draft resolutions, as has parking lot lighting. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Behler asked the BJ’s representative if they are amenable to staff’s suggestion to add more landscaping in the area of the outdoor seating. Joan Leguay, BJ’s Restaurants, replied that they are happy to work with staff and provide additional landscaping there. Ms. Shannon stated that although the proposed artwork is considered signage, she feels it enhances the building and the development. She is in favor of amending the sign plan to accommodate that. Ms. Behler was also comfortable with the signage request. She wants to be respectful of the Art Advisory Council and their recommendation that it be considered signage vs. decorative. She is comfortable with their recommendation that it be considered that way given the nature of the sign itself. Ms. Behler MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of PineTree (Lee Pearson) for Site Plan Review for changes to the southwest portion of The Shops at Centerpoint near the intersection of 28th Street and East Beltline Avenue SE to facilitate coordination of new development, parking, and traffic circulation, at 3445 28th St. SE, for the following reasons: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 June 23, 2022 1. The proposed development will meet the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance because the proposal will reinforce and support the desired character for this area with the proposed site design and vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation. 2. The site is designed to comply with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance because safe, convenient, and well-defined vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation within and from the site will be provided and the existing and proposed cross access easements will support improved vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the site. 3. The proposed site will be developed so as not to impeded the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted by this Chapter because new internal drive aisles will be constructed to provide defined vehicular circulation routes throughout the development. 4. Redevelopment of existing sites will be brought into conformance with all site improvement provisions of this Chapter relative to and proportionate to the extent of redevelopment because the site will be developed in conformity with all site provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relative to and proportionate to the extent of redevelopment. 5. The buildings are provided with adequate means of ingress and egress by public streets and walkways because private cross access easements over adjacent properties exist and new easements will be provided and the site circulation plan will be designed to provide defined vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian connectors to public right-of-way. 6. All elements of the site design are harmoniously and eficiently 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 proposed parcels will be redeveloped in a manner consistent with other developments in the MON commercial classification. 7. Access points are located to minimize conflict with traffic operations on abutting streets and the number of access points is the minimum needed to provide reasonable access to the site because the cross-access easements over abutting properties will provide for legal access to both 28th Street SE and East Beltline Avenue SE and pedestrian and bicycle access is available at the 28th Street sidewalk/pathway. 8. Safe, convenient and well-defined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation within and to and from the site will be provided because the site access points and internal site improvements will provide for defined traffic circulation, pedestrian connectors and bicycle amenities, promoting safe and efficient movement within and to the sites. 9. The scale and design of the proposed development will not place an excessive burden on services currently furnished by the City because the site is currently served by public water, sewer, and police and fire protection and site improvements include additional sewer and water improvements to the site. 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 City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 June 23, 2022 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 reciprocal easements, restrictions and operation agreements be approved by the Planning Director and recorded prior to the closure of the LUDS permit. 3. That an internal directional sign plan be approved by the Planning Director for this section of the Shops at Centerpoint prior to the issuance of the LUDS permit. 4. That any future development sites are subject to Zoning Ordinance regulations. 5. That any subsequently created lots shall have frontage on cross access easements. 6. That free standing pole lighting be consistent in height, design, and meet the Zoning Ordinance regulations. 7. That the approval shall have immediate effect. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Behler MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Ken Colliander) to construct and operate a drive-through ATM, at 3445 28th St. 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 reflect the purpose and intent of the MON-C Zone District to encourage a broad range of business, service and commercial uses in appropriate locations and the development on an underutilized property will enhance the vitality and encourage additional investment in the area. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because as a new development, the site has been designed to meet all standards and requirements with modifications permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and the proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 June 23, 2022 because the use will support the desired mixed-use character of the neighborhood and adjacent properties. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the intensity of the use and site orientation are appropriate to its surroundings and adequate vehicular stacking will be provided. 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, odors, or noise because the use is anticipated to be used by many patrons already within the shopping center, which is an auto-oriented use. 6. The proposed use would 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 improvements do not exacerbate the existing conditions on the site, which are already auto oriented in nature. 7. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or would be provided at no additional cost. 8. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the proposed improvements will encourage additional investment in 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. Ms. Joseph asked if Ms. Behler would entertain an additional condition of adding landscaping to mitigate for lack of transparency. Ms. Behler added: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 June 23, 2022 2. The applicant shall work with staff to add landscaping to mitigate the lack of transparency on the east elevation. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Behler MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. c/o GDP LLC (Jared Taylor) to operate a restaurant with alcohol sales and outdoor seating, as well as an amendment to a Planned Sign Program, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will support the vitality of the local economy by encouraging investment, diversifying the economic base, and expanding employment opportunities; provide a mix of uses in a commercial area; and conform to CPTED Ordinance standards through means of building and site design, security measures, and responsible alcohol service. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the proposed outdoor seating area will be designed to meet all standards and requirements as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Potentially adverse or detrimental effects arising from the proposed use will be minimized because, given the relatively small size of the outdoor seating, the surrounding commercial uses, and the proximity to Major roadways, associated impacts are anticipated to be minimal and reasonable and appropriate hours of operation have been determined. 4. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, the proposed location for alcohol sales will be an asset to the neighborhood because the use will contribute to the vitality of the Centerpoint development and the use will be unique as compared to other adjacent establishments. 5. The use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the proposed hours of operation are consistent with the operation of the other establishments in the vicinity. 6. The use as proposed to be operated will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the primary use is as a restaurant serving food for consumption on the premises during all hours of operation and the sale of to-go beverages is accessory to the main restaurant use and is intended as an amenity for restaurant patrons. 7. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed Planned Sign Program would result in a more attractive aesthetic setting, improved safety, provide more convenient identification for planned users, or other similar purposes that would not be achievable without deviations from the specific sign requirements of the Zone District because the applicant has proven that the proposed sign package is necessary to provide greater means of wayfinding within the Centerpoint development and the proposed silhouette signage will provide unique aesthetic improvements to the Centerpoint development. 8. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed plan substantially furthers the Purposes and Intent of Section 5.15.01. because the proposed signage will be consistent with other signage already allowed throughout the development as outlined in the original Planned Sign Program. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 June 23, 2022 9. The applicant has demonstrated that approval of the Planned Sign Program would not create any adverse impacts on one or more properties in the vicinity because the proposed amendment reinforces and supports the character of the surrounding commercial district by taking into account building scale and massing, and nearby travel speeds and balances the right to communicate with needs to promote orderly communication, promote community aesthetics, and prevent a proliferation of signs and sign structures that can be confusing and distracting. 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 no additional signage may be permitted for this site unless the Planned Sign Program is further amended by the Planning Commission. 3. That full-service indoor and outdoor hours of operation are 11:00 a.m. to midnight Monday - Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to midnight Saturday and Sunday. 4. Volume reductions of amplified music and general noise on the outdoor patio will be reduced by BJ’s Brewhouse staff by 11:30 p.m. daily. 5. Per MCL 436.1537a, all off-premise liquor and beer sales must be stored in BJ’s Brewhouse branded sealed containers. 6. The applicant shall work with staff to add landscaping in the area of the outdoor seating. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Behler MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Chick-fil-A, Inc. (Jeff Killingsworth) to construct a building addition and a second drive-through lane at the restaurant, at 2750 E. Beltline Ave. SE, for the following reasons: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 June 23, 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 proposed use will reflect the purpose and intent of the MON-C Zone District to encourage a broad range of business, service, and commercial uses in appropriate locations and the development on an underutilized property will continue to enhance the vitality and encourage additional investment in the area. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because as an addition to a development, the site has been designed to meet all standards and requirements with modifications permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the use will support the desired mixed-use character of the neighborhood and adjacent properties. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the intensity of the use and site orientation are appropriate to its surroundings and adequate vehicular stacking will be provided. 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, smoke, odors, or noise because the addition of an additional drive-through lane is not anticipated to significantly disturb surrounding tenant property or use. 6. The proposed use would 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 improvements do not exacerbate the existing conditions on the site, which are already auto oriented in nature. 7. The proposed development will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because additional landscaping and greenspace, including an island in the drive-through area, will be added. 8. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or will be provided at no additional cost. 9. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the proposed improvements are necessary to ensure little to no additional costs or traffic control be mitigated through 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. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 June 23, 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. 2. That all reciprocal easements, restrictions and operation agreements be approved by the Planning Director and recorded prior to the closure of the LUDS permit. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams, Germain ABSENT: Paul Rozeboom, Adrienne Wallace VI. Planning Commission Discussion None. VII. Public Comment None. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 2:47 PM