TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 September 22, 2022 City Commission Chambers I. 12:00 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. - Lunch - Conference Room 901, City Hall, 300 Monroe Ave NW II. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM by Board Member Kyle Van Strien PRESENT: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams ABSENT: Wallace, Germain STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Sarah Behmlander, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hooker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from August 25, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Lawrence Williams, Christopher Germain B. Approval of Minutes from September 8, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Williams ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon, Christopher Germain IV. Business A. Planning Director's Report B. Adoption of 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule Motion by Mr. Rozeboom, supported by Ms. Joseph, to adopt the 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. Motion carried unanimously. (Ms. Shannon was not yet present)  Agenda items were briefly reviewed. *Ms. Shannon arrived.  Ms. Turkelson advised that both she and Ms. Zeller will be absent from the 10/13/22 meeting. Mr. Kent and Ms. Behmlander will be present. Generated 9/26/2022 6:48 PM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 September 22, 2022 C. Election of Officers Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Ms. Shannon, to elect Mr. Van Strien as Chair. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Ms. Bersche, to elect Mr. Rozeboom as Vice-chair. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Ms. Bersche, supported by Ms. Behler, to elect Ms. Joseph as Secretary. Motion carried unanimously. V. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Conflict of Interest None expressed. B. 507 Bridge St NW - Bar with Extended Hours, Outdoor Seating Address: 507 Bridge St NW Applicant: Gin Gin Lounge, LLC (Jeff Steinport) Requesting: Approval for a bar with outdoor seating to be open until 2:00 a.m. Zoning: TN-CC Traditional Neighborhood – Transitional City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.9.24 Outdoor Seating 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2020-0104 Staff Assigned: Sarah Behmlander sbehmlander@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: October 8, 2022 Ms. Behmlander introduced the request of Gin Gin Lounge, LLC for Special Land Use approval for a bar with alcohol service, outdoor seating, and extended hours. Special Land Use approval is required for bars with alcohol service and for outdoor seating with alcohol service with hours extending past 10 p.m. weekdays and 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. The subject parcel is located within a fairly large City Center Zone District. An aerial photo was displayed and surrounding uses identified. The site is located next to a fairly large mixed-use development consisting of restaurant uses on the ground floor. There is also a fairly large residential development to the north of the subject property. To the west is a vacant commercial property. Ms. Behmlander explained that there is no parking requirement within the TN-CC Zone District. There are available private parking areas with mobile apps allowing one to park in those zones. Ms. Behmlander identified the location of one such lot behind the building, as well as another. Further to the south there are numerous City lots that are also available. Bridge St. also has transit options available through The Rapid, Dash, and scooters and electric bikes. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 September 22, 2022 Ms. Behmlander related that there are a number of bars and restaurants in the vicinity that serve alcohol. O’Toole’s is located adjacent to the site, as is Condado. Anchor Bar is located just further east and Steel Cat is located to the west. Those locations all operate until 2 a.m. Ms. Behmlander referred to the GR Forward Plan noting the Targeted Retail and Entertainment Corridors. The purpose of those corridors is to encourage and suggest additional retail and entertainment uses. The subject property is located along the Bridge St. Retail and Entertainment Corridor. Proposed hours of operation are 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. daily. They propose live entertainment nightly, which is permitted within this Zone District. Ms. Behmlander displayed photos of the existing site. The conceptual floor plan was displayed, details of which will be further refined and reviewed administratively by Planning staff. The entrance is at the south end of the building. Bar seating, as well as table and booth seating are proposed. There will be two restrooms, a small kitchen, and the outdoor patio space on the north end of the building. The patio space is currently occupied with a large walk-in cooler, which will be removed to facilitate the seating area. Ms. Behmlander noted the close proximity to the mixed-use building that includes residential use. As previously mentioned, there is also residential to the north of the site. Ms. Behmlander related that the applicant has submitted a letter of support from the West Grand Neighborhood Organization. They’ve also indicated they were meeting with the Stockbridge Business Association and Downtown Grand Rapids Inc. The applicant can expand upon the outcome of those meetings. Attorney Alex Burridge was present on behalf of the applicant. The applicants were also present. Mr. Burridge related that he visited Bridge St. for the first time last evening and was blown away by the City of Grand Rapids and what is going on, especially the revitalization of the Bridge St. area. Mr. Burridge stated that working with the applicants and seeing the vision they have to continue the revitalization is incredible. Mr. Burridge related that they have received a letter of support from the adjacent apartment complex. They’ve spoken with them about their plan and the proposed outdoor patio. Mr. Burridge noted that the purpose of the TN-CC District is to maintain and enhance the vitality of downtown, provide compatible services near one another, and allow for diverse uses. He doesn’t believe there is a more diverse use than the General Wood Shop. The goal is to encourage lively entertainment and serve people from all walks of life, welcoming them with open arms. The applicants, Jeff and Alberto, have had an opportunity to speak with other bar owners and employees. Locals, employees and tourists are excited for this opportunity. Mr. Burridge explained that they would be looking for a MLCC Class C license but unfortunately, they aren’t available on the market. They’ve shown their efforts in the application packet to try to acquire a Class C license. The General Wood Shop is not going to be located in the downtown area that is somewhat over-populated with bars and restaurants. Rather, it is in the Bridge St. area that is up and coming and being revitalized in a way that is looking for another bar area and another place they hope will be a diverse use desired by the TN-CC Ordinance. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 September 22, 2022 Mr. Van Strien recalled that the walk-in cooler is proposed to be removed to facilitate the outdoor patio. He asked if they intend to install a walk-in elsewhere on the site. Mr. Burridge replied that there will be a walk-in cooler on the side. He referred to the conceptual plan and identified the location of the cooler, which will be smaller than the one that is present currently. Mr. Burridge responded to additional questions indicating that there will be a full kitchen. The proposed menu has been provided in the application packet. Mr. Rozeboom asked why it is important to them to have outdoor seating until 2 a.m. Mr. Burridge replied that they have actually updated their hours, which may not have been reflected in the application. The proposed hours are Sunday through Wednesday until midnight and Thursday through Saturday until 2 a.m. Patrons strongly desire and enjoy the opportunity of outdoor seating during the summer months. There are other locations directly adjacent and nearby that also have the outdoor patio seating and the applicants would like to offer the same. Ms. Turkelson wished to clarify the proposed indoor and outdoor hours of operation. Mr. Burridge replied that both indoor and outdoor hours are proposed as Sunday through Wednesday until midnight and Thursday through Saturday until 2 a.m. Ms. Turkelson referred to the chart of alcohol related uses in close proximity noting that there are several businesses with outdoor seating open until midnight on weekends but weekdays are generally between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m., which has been a fairly consistent pattern of decision making for the Planning Commission to ensure compatibility with the desired residential living in the downtown and neighborhood commercial districts. Ms. Turkelson asked what their plans are for trash removal are and where the receptacles will be located. Mr. Burridge replied that they have updated the plan to include a rollable trash cart, which will be located on the side toward the front of the patio. It will be separated and away from where guests will be seated. They also have what is currently a verbal agreement with the owner of the immediately adjacent parking lot to place a dumpster there. He clarified that they are not proposing that the rollable cart would be placed at the street for pick up. They would roll it to the parking lot. Applicant Jeff Steinport added that the Kale’s Corner property wraps around the subject site. They are in communication with the owner of that property and he has given them verbal permission at this point to have a full-size dumpster on their property. Ms. Turkelson advised that there are screening requirements for a dumpster, which staff will work with them on. She recalled mention of a letter of support from the residential development and asked if that was included in the packet. Mr. Burridge provided copies of letters of support from the adjacent Bridge Street apartments and West Grand Neighborhood Organization. They met earlier today with the Stockbridge Business Association and there was a unanimous vote of support. They will supplement the application with that letter of support when received. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 September 22, 2022 Ms. Shannon asked who owns the adjacent alleyway on the side. Mr. Steinport replied that that is owned by the apartment building and they’ve entered into an agreement with them for use as emergency egress. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Van Strien referred to the plan noting a slat wall with screening and 4’ tall planter boxes. He asked if that is the extent of the intended screening for the patio. How do they feel that will help deter some of the negative impacts of having a patio open until 2 a.m. Mr. Steinport replied noting the grade of the property at the back. Even though what is shown indicates 4’, it will be up higher. They will have larger planters on top of that. They want it to feel like an outdoor green oasis. It isn’t just the slat fence but they will have green on top of that as well. They haven’t determined what greenery they will utilize yet but it is intended to be tall and make it feel a bit more enclosed. There will also be a sail shade above, which should also help with sound. They don’t intend to be playing loud music until 2 a.m. outdoors. Ms. Turkelson pointed out that staff added a condition of approval for the Commission’s consideration to require a certain time that the music on the patio be turned down, especially if allowing later hours of operation. Ms. Joseph feels the use is perfectly appropriate in a location they want to see uses like this. She does feel the patio hours should be limited and not approved until 2 a.m. because of the proximity to residential. It seems appropriate to align the hours with what Condado Tacos has because they are also adjacent to the residential. Condado Tacos has outdoor seating hours until 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight on Friday and Saturday. She would propose the same for the proposed use. Ms. Shannon was in agreement. Mr. Burridge suggested that there is a slightly different use between Condado Tacos and the proposed use. Additionally, there are several other bars that are open until 2 a.m. Ms. Joseph clarified that she was not suggesting limiting the indoor hours; just the outdoor seating. Mr. Burridge also added that hopefully with the patio being enclosed it will help reduce noise, which they would appreciate consideration of. Mr. Van Strien agreed with Ms. Joseph that it makes sense to be consistent with hours of operation considering all of the residential that has been added in the area. New Holland is more fully enclosed and more easily controlled. He understands that screening is proposed here but considering that the apartments are 15’ away he feels it makes sense to start smaller here and see where it goes. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 September 22, 2022 Mr. Rozeboom asked that staff clarify which Zone District this is. The staff report says TN-CC but the description says Transitional City Center. Ms. Turkelson clarified that it is CC but was previously TCC. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Gin Gin Lounge, LLC (Jeff Steinport) for approval to operate a bar with outdoor seating and extended hours at 507 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 provide an amenity for bar patrons that is common in business districts; return a vacant building into productive use to further enhance the vibrancy and uniqueness of the Stockbridge Business District, and; further support the recommendation by the GR Forward Plan to identify Bridge St. as a Targeted Retail and Entertainment Corridor. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards because improvements to the existing building will not impeded the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property uses and the outdoor seating area will be brought into conformance with all site improvement provisions proportional to the extent of redevelopment proposed. 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 current and the desired future character of the neighborhood. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed uses will be minimized because the proposed outdoor seating area will reflect improvements that address the necessary buffering of noise from adjacent residential uses. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, glare, or visual clutter because windows and doors will remain closed during any live performances to mitigate potential noise impacts and amplified music on the outdoor seating area will be reduced at an appropriate time as to not disturb nearby residents. 6. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions and may encourage other investment in the area. 7. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the applicant has submitted letters showing community support for the proposed use and the use will result in peak hours of use that are similar to other uses in the vicinity. 8. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions and, given the size and capacity of the proposed establishment, an excessive number of persons are not anticipated to regularly gather outside the establishment. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 September 22, 2022 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. That the building shall comply with the soundproofing requirements of Section 5.9.12.C. of the Zoning Ordinance, including providing a noise analysis that shall meet the standards of the City’s Noise Control Ordinance. 3. That windows and doors shall remain closed during live entertainment. 4. That the volume of amplified music on the outdoor patio will be reduced by General Wood Shop staff by 10 p.m. daily. 5. That General Wood Shop may operate indoors until 2 a.m. and outdoors until 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight Friday and Saturday. 6. Should the use of trash facilities on neighboring properties and/or ingress and egress across abutting properties be proposed, evidence of written permission shall be provided to the Planning Director. 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, Shannon, Williams ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Christopher Germain C. 3599 Camelot Dr SE - Natural Features Setback Reduction Address: 3599 Camelot Dr SE Applicant: Clearshore Realty (Dave Tornga) City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 September 22, 2022 Requesting: Approval for a reduction of the 75’ natural features setback to 25’ to facilitate construction of an 18-unit residential development. Zoning: MON-MDR Modern Era Neighborhood– Mixed-Density Residential Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.11.06. Natural Features 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0081 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: October 8, 2022 Ms. Zeller presented the request for a new three-story apartment building with 18 dwelling units on a 0.95 acre site containing wetlands. Special Land Use approval is requested for a reduction of the 75-foot natural features setback to approximately 27 feet to facilitate redevelopment of the site. Ms. Zeller explained that the Planning Commission has the ability to reduce the natural features setback of 75 feet to no less than 25 feet, which is being considered today. The Planning Commission should consider the standards for reductions for both administrative approvals down to 50 feet and for the Special Land Use down to 25 feet in making a decision. Ms. Zeller related that the site is located in the MON-MDR (Modern Era Neighborhood - Mixed-Density Residential) Zone District. As stated, a multi-family residential development is proposed. The applicant also owns the development to the east. Ms. Zeller displayed the proposed site plan noting that elevations have not been provided. The consideration for the Planning Commission today is the natural features setback. Further review of plans, including any appropriate administrative departures, would be addressed by staff. Ms. Zeller displayed an aerial photo noting that there are several wetlands on the site, although not visible in the photo. The site also contains two areas of steep slopes. One area is no greater than 4,000 sq. ft. and the other approximately 1,300 sq. ft. The site includes mature maples and oaks, as well as walnuts, elms and other species. The wetland and drainage ditch are located at the northern edge of the property. The applicant has had a wetland identification and assessment conducted by a qualified professional, which is required in order for the Planning Commission to consider the proposed natural features setback reduction. According to the report, the wetlands are small, non-continuous, and are of generally low quality. The primary reason these areas are classified as wetlands is based on vegetation and soil type. Ms. Zeller explained that the multi-family development is a permitted use in this Zone District and will be reviewed administratively. A new, 3-story building of 18 dwelling units is proposed with a surface parking lot containing 30 spaces. Ms. Zeller displayed the topographical and tree survey sheet identifying the 25’, 50’ and 75’ setbacks. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that construction, grading and vegetation removal shall stay outside of the 75’ buffer. There are circumstances/criteria for an administrative departure allowing them to encroach into that setback up to 50’. It is the encroachment to within 25’ that requires Planning Commission consideration of the Special Land Use. Ms. Zeller displayed the site plan as well as the proposed grading plan. The applicant is aware that no grading or vegetative removal is allowed within 25’ and all grading is proposed outside of that area. Ms. Zeller related that the Environmental Services Department Stormwater Engineer reviewed the plans and he provided comments that were included in the packet. He confirms that the wetland has low environmental value and that City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 September 22, 2022 the wetland is likely created due to the area acting as a drainage channel for both the subject property and surrounding properties. The Engineer does not object to the request for a reduction in the natural features setback. He also pointed out that because this is considered a regulated wetland by EGLE it could be removed and replaced elsewhere. Dan Tabor of the Environmental Services Dept. is present should the Commission have related questions. Ms. Zeller indicated that if the Commission is amenable to this request and finds that it meets the standards, there are recommended conditions of approval included in the draft resolution. Ms. Zeller related that no letters of support or opposition have been submitted. The application did not include any mention of neighborhood outreach. Ms. Zeller summarized the request and identified key considerations; whether the proposed encroachment into the Natural Features Protection area meets the requirements for a reduction to approximately 27 feet. Dan Tabor, City of Grand Rapids Project Engineer, was present to respond to questions. Ms. Bersche asked if there are any plans to move the wetlands to another location. Mr. Tabor replied no. Allowing for the setback reduction from 75’ to 25’ keeps the wetlands on site while making this property economically feasible to be developed. If the setback wasn’t allowed to be reduced, the applicant could pursue other options through the State to have the wetlands removed. Sometimes those wetlands get restored out of the city or out of the watershed. Mr. Tabor feels that what the applicant is requesting allows for the property to be developed but also keeps the wetlands in the area in a very similar state that they are already experiencing. If looking at existing topography, the streets, and buildings they are all under the current setback limits. Allowing the reduction would match existing conditions. As part of their overall site plan and engineering process they will also have to provide detention storage and water quality treatment for the site. The wetlands here won’t see any significant impacts or experience anything different than they are now. Ms. Bersche noted from the plans that the dumpster location is proposed very close to where the wetland is currently. She asked if there are any anticipated issues with that location. Mr. Tabor replied that dumpsters do present a challenge. He doesn’t believe it impacts the idea of having a setback reduction but it could be something further considered during final site plan review or the development process. Mr. Rozeboom asked if Mr. Tabor anticipates any reason why directional drilling couldn’t be used in this case to minimize the disturbance. Mr. Tabor replied that that was a suggestion he included in the staff report. He didn’t require it because it will be based on soil and/or engineering conditions encountered in the field. He would like to see that utilized to minimize potential impacts. Ms. Shannon asked if the building and adjacent parking lot will cause more runoff to the wetland area and can it sustain that. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 September 22, 2022 Mr. Tabor replied that as part of their engineering requirements they are proposing underground storage for the 100-year storm event, which is required by code. They will also be providing water quality treatment. The wetlands will experience more runoff but, as compared to other sites in the area, he believes it is an appropriate use and appropriate design that meets the standards. The northern area is really a drainage channel that helps convey upstream stormwater from other developments. It is a drainage channel that developed certain soil conditions and vegetation conditions that classify it as wetland based on EGLE requirements. However, it isn’t pristine wetland; it’s a piece of infrastructure. Mr. Tabor feels the proposal is a happy medium between developing the site and protecting the wetlands that are there. Ms. Turkelson asked if the proposed building is as close to Camelot/as far south as it can be. She noted for the record that the setback is 20’, which is proposed. Ms. Zeller replied that she believes so and that can be confirmed. Todd Stuive, Exel Engineering, confirmed that the building is set at the minimum setback both on the west side and along Camelot. With the one-acre site there are challenges but nothing that can’t be overcome with the relief they are requesting. When looking at the setback lines, particularly the 75’, it restricts approximately half of the site, which would be very difficult to make anything work. Mr. Stuive stated that there are two wetlands on the site; the one associated with the drain itself along the northern property line and a pocket of wetlands in the woods. Both of them impact the setbacks but there would be no additional runoff going into the pocket of wetlands. All of the impervious surface they are introducing will be directed to the underground detention proposed. It will be treated for stormwater quality and released into the drain itself. The wetland feature associated with the drain is the side banks that turned into wetlands because of vegetation. Mr. Stuive felt staff explained things adequately. The applicant, Mr. Tornga, has had conversations with the Springbrook Apartment project and he is involved with the Eastbrook Apartments. The Springbrook conditions are even closer than what they are asking for, which was likely developed before the current ordinance was put in place. If looking at this request from the standpoint of acreage, the northern triangular area is approximately .18 acres of area that is preserved, which is 20% of the site. With this small site there are very few options to move things around but he feels as proposed it could be a very viable development. Dave Tornga, applicant, related that he did contact the owner of the 111-unit development to the north, 2 of the 3 office building owners to the south, the owner of the 300-unit complex to the east, and the owner of the 328-unit development across the street to the east. No one expressed any concerns and were in full support. Mr. Van Strien recognized that a number of mature trees will be removed. He asked if they have any plans to mitigate the loss to address the tree canopy goals of the City. Mr. Stuive replied that anything within the grading limits will have to be removed. Through the LUDS process and the landscape plan to be developed they will have to meet the tree canopy requirement. With the existing trees that will remain and the trees they add they will meet that requirement, at a minimum. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 September 22, 2022 Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Rozeboom stated that on these technical cases he appreciates the diligence of the applicant and the department in preparing the staff report. It makes it clear that the standards are met. What he finds compelling is that if the Planning Commission doesn’t find this to be appropriate then the recourse of the applicant could be to remove the wetlands altogether. He believes they would prefer things remain as they are. Mr. Rozeboom offered his support. Mr. Van Strien agreed. He suggested that during the LUDS process it be determined if there is some way to mitigate some of the potential issues with the location of the dumpster enclosure. Ms. Turkelson believes that Mr. Tabor would be in agreement. They can make sure that the design of the dumpster is carefully considered to ensure there is no runoff if it does need to go in that location, which seems reasonable based on the parking lot layout. Ms. Bersche would also like to see a careful look be taken at the trees that are old growth and viable during the LUDS process to help maintain the water quality that will be headed in that direction. She understands they will have stormwater capture but there will still be runoff. Other than that, she supports the request. Ms. Joseph related that she is comfortable with the request but did make a note about the tree canopy goals and how this project might impact that. She trusts that will be addressed during the permitting process. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Clearshore Realty (Dave Tornga) for a reduction of the 75’ natural features setback to +/-25’ to facilitate construction of an 18-unit residential development at 3599 Camelot Dr 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 request will be consistent with the objectives of the Great Neighborhoods Chapter within the Master Plan to promote a broad range of housing choices within neighborhoods and will balance development with the natural environment. 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 and requirements with modifications permitted by the Zoning Ordinance; the environmental features on the property necessitate some degree of unique design, and; natural features and site topography are incorporated into the proposed site design to the maximum extent practicable. 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 natural features and existing site topography have been incorporated into the proposed site design to the maximum extent practicable and the wetland has low environmental value with limited species diversity and low quality plants. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 September 22, 2022 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the removal of protection within this area will not result in a loss of habitat, hydrologic function, or erosion control and the reduction in wetland buffer will not significantly alter or change the conditions that this wetland currently experiences. 5. The proposed development will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because the development will occur as far away from the natural features as possible and without the reduction in setback, this lot would likely not be developable with any wetlands, and the wetlands would likely be removed in their entirety as permitted through EGLE processes. 6. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or would be provided at no additional cost. 7. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use will put an undeveloped vacant property into productive use. 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 25-foot natural features protection area shall be kept in a natural state. The protection area shall not be mowed once the development has been established, and no pathways or other environmentally disruptive development amenities may be constructed within the protection area. 3. That the applicant shall examine the use of trenchless construction methods (directional drilling) in order to minimize disturbance to the wetland and ditch area to the greatest extent possible. Ms. Turkelson suggested the consideration of two additional conditions: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 September 22, 2022 4. That a curb be constructed to surround the base of the dumpster enclosure and/or that the pad be graded to direct flow toward the parking lot/private detention system and water quality unit. 5. That any tree replacement canopy species be considered to support the viability of the wetland. Mr. Stuive indicated that the proposed pitch does direct it toward the parking lot. The curb around it would be an additional safety measure that they wouldn’t have a problem with. Ms. Bersche accepted the additional conditions. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Christopher Germain D. 16 Griggs St SW - Zone Change Address: 16 Griggs St SW Applicant: Aleman Auto Repair, Inc. (Catalino Aleman Martinez) Requesting: Approval to rezone the subject property from TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood Low-Density Residential) Zone District to the TN-TBA (Traditional Business Area) Zone District. Zoning: TN-TBA (Traditional Neighborhood Traditional Business Area) Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.12.10. Zoning Ordinance Text and Map Amendments Case Number: PC-ZON-2022-0080 Staff Assigned: Sarah Behmlander sbehmlander@grcity.us Type of Case: Zone Change Effective Date: City Commission Approval Ms. Behmlander introduced the request to rezone the property from TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood Low-Density Residential) to TN-TBA (Traditional Neighborhood- Traditional Business Area) to facilitate the expansion of the applicant’s existing business, which abuts the subject property to the east. This property is included in the South Division Corridor Plan. It is located at the northernmost point of the Focus Area. The plan recommends that portions of the TN-LDR zones that are closest to South Division transition to Mixed-Density Residential, rather than to expand the TBA Zone District, to help facilitate a nice transition from the Low-Density Residential to Division and the TBA Zone District that exists there. Ms. Behmlander displayed a conceptual site plan provided by the applicant to provide an idea of what they would like to do with the property if the rezoning is approved. There is currently a home on the site. Ms. Behmlander displayed an aerial image depicting the applicant’s current site as well as the subject property, which is also owned by the applicant. The home on site has been City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 September 22, 2022 vacant for a few years. The image depicts that some vehicle storage is currently taking place on the subject site. Ms. Behmlander explained that the TN-TBA Zone District supports retail, personal services, restaurants and a limited number of auto oriented uses require Special Land Use approval. Should the rezoning request be approved, the applicant would like to pursue a Special Land Use approval to expand the business on the subject site. In terms of public engagement, the applicant indicates that they held a public informational meeting on August 18th. No follow-up information has been provided from that meeting. Ms. Behmlander identified key considerations as the appropriateness of transitioning to a TBA Zone District and how that might impact the recommendations of the South Division Corridor Plan. Tameeka Aleman, daughter-in-law of the owners, was present on behalf of the request. Ms. Aleman related that Aleman Auto Repair has been established for 19 years in the Division business district. They live and work in this area and love it. To be able to expand their business would be a tremendous step forward for their growth and development as a small business, which is why they are seeking the zone change. Ms. Aleman commented on the informational meeting relating that they distributed flyers to those within 300 ft. No one attended the meeting and they haven’t heard any expressed opposition. Area residents do support the business as their customers. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Turkelson clarified that this request relates only to the rezoning. The applicant would return with their plans for expansion if the rezoning is approved. The Commission is looking at this as an independent parcel and whether it is appropriate to rezone. Ms. Shannon asked if the property is vacant. Ms. Turkelson replied that her understanding is that the structure is vacant. Ms. Shannon asked if the rezoning is approved and their plans change could the property be used residentially. Ms. Turkelson replied yes. With the recent change to the Ordinance to allow ground floor residential in the TBA Zone District, a single-family home would be a permitted use. Mr. Van Strien recognized from looking at the Zone District lines, on this side of Division in particular, that there isn’t a lot of consistency with the different shaped lots. It looks like some smaller properties are included in the TBA. He doesn’t believe this is completely inconsistent or creates a big problem going forward. It still wouldn’t be the deepest encroachment into the residential district as seen to the south and north. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 September 22, 2022 Ms. Behler agreed. She feels it is appropriate for rezoning. Ms. Behler MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Aleman Auto Repair, Inc. (Catalino Aleman Martinez) to rezone 16 Griggs St SW from TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood - Low Density Residential) to TN-TBA (Traditional Neighborhood - Traditional Business Area), for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Zone District will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Future Land Use map, because the zoning of the abutting property associated with this request is consistent with the proposed zoning and the Master Plan advocates that uses of land are appropriately located and that appropriate places for trade and services are provided. 2. The proposed Zone District will further the themes and objectives of the Master Plan, as well as any relevant adopted Area Specific Plans because the residential designation by the South Division Corridor Plan does not adequately address current development needs and the proposed zoning complements the recommendation of the South Division Corridor Plan to support adaptive reuse where possible. 3. The property to be rezoned can reasonably accommodate the requirements of the proposed Zone District, because the property meets the minimum lot area and width requirements for the TN-TBA zone district. 4. The proposed Zone District designation is compatible with the existing Zone Districts in the neighborhood because other properties with TN-TBA zoning are located immediately adjacent to the subject parcel and a viable use can be established in a manner that preserves the existing traditional character of the neighborhood. 5. The physical, geological, hydrological and other environmental features of the property to be rezoned are compatible with the full range of uses in the proposed Zone District because there are no apparent environmental features on the property that would inhibit the full range of uses on the property if rezoned. 6. The proposed Zone District or Neighborhood Classification will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the proposed zone change may encourage greater utilization of the subject property, as well as surrounding commercial properties. 7. The proposed Zone District is consistent with the trend of development in the neighborhood because the rezoning will adequately support the adaptive nature and demand of properties along a commercial zone district. 8. The property to be rezoned was improperly zoned or classified when this Chapter was adopted or amended because the property is not ideal for residential development, as evidenced by lack of interest in reuse or redevelopment of the site for that purpose. 9. Rezoning the property as proposed would not negatively impact the condition of any nearby parcels currently zoned TN-TBA, especially considering vacancy rates, current per-square-foot lease or sale rates, and other impacts because the rezoning and reuse of the property would encourage investment in the district. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 September 22, 2022 RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stacie Behler, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon, Williams ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Christopher Germain E. 201 Hastings St NE and 525 (aka 513) Clancy Ave NE- Gateway at Belknap PRD Amendment Address: 201 Hastings St NE and 525 (aka 513) Clancy Ave NE Applicant: DNT Management Company (Brian Holland) Requesting: Approval for a Major Amendment to the Gateway at Belknap Planned Redevelopment District to replace ground floor commercial space with dwelling units. Zoning: TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood – Low-Density Residential) Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.7.06. Special District – Planned Redevelopment District 5.12.12. Planned Redevelopment District Case Number: PC-PRDA-2022-0084 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Planned Redevelopment District Amendment Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Zeller introduced the request to replace approved commercial space with dwelling units at The Gateway at Belknap, a residential apartment community with ground floor commercial space fronting Hastings. The development was approved as a Planned Redevelopment District (PRD) by the City in 2014 to facilitate the density that was approved, as well as the mixed-use nature of the development. A change of this nature to the approved development plan with the addition of dwelling units requires a Major Amendment to the PRD, which is a Planning Commission recommendation and City Commission approval. Ms. Zeller displayed the zoning map noting there are a number of PRDs in this area. She clarified that the subject site consists of both the east and west parcels identified on the map. On the west is a three-story building. There is also a three-story building on the east. They are connected by an upper-level walkway. On the east is ground floor commercial and upper floor residential. Ms. Zeller displayed Google Streetview images of the buildings. There is also a single-family residence at the end of Clancy that is part of this development. The project was approved with a total of 87 dwelling units; 86 in the two new buildings. The ground floor commercial was subject to the TN-TBA Zone District for uses and signs. The applicant is asking approval to convert the ground floor commercial to residential. At this point they have provided a plan for the westerly building but also desire approval to convert the easterly building commercial space in the future if they desire. A floor plan has not been submitted for the easterly building but an approval would allow that later conversion. Ms. Zeller further explained that the property is located in the Belknap Lookout Neighborhood. It is addressed in the Belknap Area Specific Plan. The corner property at Coit and Hastings was City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 September 22, 2022 identified as Cottage Retail taking inspiration from some of the home conversions to commercial properties in East Grand Rapids. It developed a bit different than what was recommended by the Plan but it was developed as a PRD and the decision was informed by the recommendations of the Plan. Ms. Zeller displayed a slide of existing conditions of the property, both the easterly and westerly portions. Ms. Zeller clarified that the discussion will largely focus on the westerly building. The applicant is proposing to remove some of the hardscape/pavement and the planters are proposed to be resized. The pavement is to be replaced with landscaping as well as a 4’ aluminum fence for screening, including a vegetated buffer next to the residential units. Along Hastings the buffer would be approximately 9’ in width and along Coit it would be approximately 6’ in width. Arborvitae are proposed to be planted as part of the vegetation. She isn’t sure of the proposed height but they appear to be approximately 8’ based on the window height. Additionally, vertical battens are proposed intermittently. Ms. Zeller indicated that she doesn’t have details about the battens and doesn’t know the specific height or the material. She deferred to the applicant to provide that detail during their presentation. The reason for the proposed landscape buffer between the units and the sidewalk due to the location of the proposed dwelling units. Ms. Zeller displayed an image of the westerly building where 14 studio units are proposed. The units are right at the windows. Spandrel glass is proposed at the entrance area. It is currently a storefront system. Her understanding is that the storefront system is to remain. Other than filling in the doors with windows, the treatment is commercial in nature. Ms. Zeller suggested that the Planning Commission consider the proposed architectural treatment as well as the landscape treatment, along with the proposed use. Ms. Zeller explained that based on the numbers the parking would work. However, the original development was intended to accommodate a mix of uses so the intent of the development would be changing. The Planning Commission may wish to take into account whether the parking remains appropriate, which it may be. The TN-MDR requirements were used in the former parking calculations. Ms. Zeller summarized the request as a change of commercial space in a Planned Redevelopment District to residential units. A total of 27 residential units could be possible. Fourteen are being proposed at this time in the westerly building. Ms. Zeller encouraged the Planning Commission to utilize the recommendations of the Belknap Lookout Area Specific Plan in their considerations, as well as the Chapter 10 development character recommendations for building elements, site layout, setbacks, and general residential treatment for residential units. Ms. Zeller also encouraged the Commission to consider the relationship of the units to the street and whether parking will be adequate for the uses proposed. Ms. Zeller related that the applicant has presented to the Neighbors of Belknap Lookout recently and she received a letter of support from the neighborhood association yesterday. Ms. Joseph noted from the staff report that the proposed fencing is to be installed in the right-of- way. Ms. Zeller agreed. Generally, improvements for private purposes are desired to be on the private property. She deferred to the applicant to explain why they are proposing this treatment. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 September 22, 2022 Brian Holland related that the reason for the request is that the westerly building commercial space has been vacant since it was built in 2016 for a variety of reasons. At the same point there is an increase in demand for housing in the area. They have explored a number of options, the most viable for them being to convert this unused commercial building into a residential portion they are currently seeing a demand for. The first floor was obviously constructed for commercial use and it had a commercial feel to it. As they move forward in the process and think through all of the things they want to address one of the things was the privacy. They didn’t want to necessarily want those walking up and down the street to be directly adjacent to those windows. The thought was to create a buffer, including landscaping and fencing, to give those units an aura of privacy associated with their unit. They hope they have addressed all of the concerns the neighborhood had. They were in support of the project, understanding the concepts and the problems. They believe they are part of the neighborhood and vice versa. Mr. Holland stated that they are only looking to convert the space in the westerly building that has been vacant for six years now. Ms. Joseph understood that they are only proposing conversion of the west building at this time but they are also asking for the option for the easterly building as well. Mr. Holland agreed. The concept behind that is that this is all one PRD. There are existing commercial tenants in the other building and he is not planning to disturb them or throw them out. He feels they are integral to the neighborhood. However, if they are requesting the one they felt they may as well request both. His understanding is that there would be a further approval process if they want to convert the easterly building so the City would be involved in that process. At a minimum there will have to be building and other permits. It was a catch all type of thought process but they aren’t considering converting the easterly building at this time. Ms. Turkelson explained further that she and Andy had that conversation early on. Because any increase in residential density is a major amendment needing a Planning Commission recommendation and City Commission approval, the discussion with them was that if there is potential in the future for converting that space her thought was the Planning Commission has historically responded better to seeing a project in its totality vs. a piece meal request. Therefore, what it did was provide the Planning Commission an opportunity to think holistically on the change and give them the flexibility in the future should those units not have commercial tenants. Based on the way the resolution was drafted, if the Commission recommends approval today, they would be granting both the east and west approval for residential and it would not come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Williams left the meeting. Mr. Holland clarified that they would still have to secure building permits. Ms. Turkelson agreed. It just wouldn’t come back to the Planning Commission or City Commission. Mr. Holland related that they own and operate a lot of mixed-use developments and he is sorry to say that this is the first one they haven’t been able to completely satisfy as it relates to the west City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 September 22, 2022 building. They believe the mixed-use developments they have throughout the state are very viable. Unless something dramatically changes, he doesn’t see the east building changing. They believe the commercial tenants they have there are integral to the neighborhood and also to the success of their residential component. Mr. Rozeboom asked what methods of marketing the space proved to them that it was not viable as commercial space. Mr. Holland explained that they have had three different brokers since 2016. They were successful on the other side, which is relatively the same amount of space. Most of the feedback they received from the brokers they are currently using and have used in the past is that it just isn’t convenient the way the building was designed. In hindsight he understands what they are saying. The parking for the commercial building sits behind the commercial building on the east side. Customers would have to park at the rear and walk around all the way to the far corner of the building in order to access the commercial space. They had a variety of people that looked at the space and asked where customers would park. When advised where the parking was, they said that wouldn’t work for them because it is visibility and convenience that is important to them. Mr. Holland summarized that it is a parking issue. They talked with the Planning Department about parking options, particularly getting parking back on Hastings. This seems to be the best alternative to the parking dilemma. Residents are more willing to come in the back door or come around to the front door than commercial customers that want easy in and easy out. Ms. Turkelson asked that Mr. Holland explain why they aren’t eliminating the storefront systems and constructing a more residential façade as a better solution to the concern about visibility. Mr. Holland isn’t certain it would or wouldn’t be a better solution. They aren’t opposed to doing that but he feels what the designers came back with is a good plan. As part of their process internally, they shared the plan with some of their residential customers and they said they love the windows and the potential that they could have a balcony out front. They liked the ability to be connected with the street while at the same time be removed from the street when they want to be. Andy Eckert, Ghafari Associates, explained that they felt, given the studio style apartment - more of a loft, urban apartment, that leaving the storefront gives the user an expanse of light within a smaller space. They didn’t want to just close things in and give them smaller windows because the units are fairly small. The other thing was they felt they could provide the screening elements with landscaping and vertical battens to break that up. They felt there was a good distance from the building where tenants would feel comfortable. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Elianna Bootzin, Neighbors of Belknap Lookout, recognized that the Planning Commission received their letter of support. The big focus of the discussion was on the western building, which is where the immediate changes are expected to occur. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 September 22, 2022 Ms. Joseph asked, with respect to the fencing in the public right-of-way, where the property line is and how much of that buffer would be lost if the fence was moved onto the property itself vs. in the public right-of-way. Ms. Zeller replied that it appears to be a couple of feet. Mr. Holland related that in a lot of municipalities they have zero lot lines and they do install landscaping in the right-of-ways. They wouldn’t be opposed to moving the landscaping. In all of their developments they try to make their properties appealing from a natural perspective. They also provide bonds in other municipalities for the installations in the right-of-way. The landscaping would be insured, with the City being the additional insured for those landscaping items. If there are ever any problems the City would be protected from an insurance perspective if there is concern about a liability issue. Ms. Turkelson clarified that the encroachment would be approximately 2-3’. She believes that can be handled with an encroachment permit. There is about 8’ of what would be pedestrian space for sidewalk between the planter and the edge of the new landscaping. In some of the early meetings she had with Ghafari, in light of the fact that they aren’t proposing to change the façade she felt there had to be some sort of physical separation. In the early concepts she pushed to add landscaping, which may have been proposed by the developer anyway but that separation is imperative. Ms. Turkelson stated that she struggles a bit with the storefront remaining. She did encourage them to look at the Clancy façade and utilize some of those elements to fill in the storefront system to reflect a more residential character because, even though the landscaping will provide good separation, she is concerned that the blinds will all be closed or the landscaping and battens will serve as more of a wall for the pedestrian experience, which isn’t typical in a traditional neighborhood. Her initial preference was to remove the storefront system and add in a more residential character and if that couldn’t be done then some sort of landscape separation was imperative. Ms. Turkelson explained that her understanding of the battens is that they will be in line with the arborvitaes that are approximately 5’ from the windows. Mr. Holland stated that he feels Andy and his team did a great job. When they shared the plans with customers, they were ecstatic; they loved it. He doesn’t want that to be the hold back because in the bigger picture they want this space to be more viable vs. having an empty building. An empty building doesn’t necessarily portray the best for anyone. Ms. Joseph asked the material of the battens. Mr. Eckert replied aluminum but will look like wood. It is a Knot Wood product. Ms. Shannon stated that after hearing the testimony she is in support of converting the space to residential. The number of years of vacancy is not creating a healthy atmosphere. Likewise, there is a demand for more housing. She is reluctant to amend the east building however. She is glad to see they are occupied commercially. Mr. Rozeboom agreed with Ms. Shannon. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 September 22, 2022 Ms. Joseph indicated that she is also fine with that. She is comfortable with the façade mitigation but she is also not in love with it. She was interested to hear how others feel about that element of it. Ms. Bersche related that she was in Chicago the past few days and saw a lot of this going on at the street level. She has reservations because of the separation when pedestrians are walking on the sidewalk and there is a giant fence you are walking along. You feel separated and more a part of the street than the community. However, that said, there are beautiful ways to do it. It may be the type of material and the access piece where it isn’t just a solid fence; there is a gate to access the sidewalk, which may make it feel more like part of the neighborhood and not so segregated from the street. She would hope to be able to maintain that feeling of connection to the residents from the street level. Ms. Behler indicated that she is fine with the change in use. Unlike others, she isn’t really opposed to expanding the approval to the other commercial space that just happens to be occupied at this time. It isn’t an inconsistent use as long as they do it right in terms of the access to the sidewalk and not create a sense of a walled off environment. It does sound like it is in everyone’s best interest to create that space. Mr. Van Strien agreed. Mr. Rozeboom pointed out that the expressway is right across Hastings which makes him more amenable to this kind of treatment then he otherwise might be. With respect to the easterly building, the whole premise of this development was mixed-use, which is why he wouldn’t want to give up on the commercial immediately. Additional discussion took place regarding whether to extend the approval to the easterly building. Mr. Van Strien and Ms. Behler were comfortable with granting that approval. Ms. Shannon again expressed her opinion of not being in favor of approving the easterly building. Mr. Van Strien asked if that space was vacant in 6 months and they came back whether she would support the change then. Ms. Shannon replied perhaps years, but not 6 months. Mr. Rozeboom stated that he wouldn’t necessarily support the change in 6 months because the premise for the rezoning to PRD was to be mixed use. Ms. Joseph stated that she agrees with Ms. Shannon and Mr. Rozeboom. She would like to see the commercial that has proven to be viable remain viable so there is a nice neighborhood commercial area in this development. It is an asset for everyone. Ms. Bersche recognized the housing demand as well as the applicant’s request. However, if something presents itself in 2 years and the spaces sat empty for a year and they could have provided an additional 14 units then are they being forced to wait or dragging it out longer. If City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 September 22, 2022 they were to pass it now, they could perhaps move that along more quickly if that was the demand at the time. Coming from a small business background, it is volatile. However, they would still have the opportunity to return and request that change later. Ms. Shannon asked the applicant how long the easterly building commercial spaces have been occupied. Mr. Holland replied that one tenant has been there 3 years, one has been there 1 ½ years, and the other moved in this year. Ms. Turkelson recalled that they talked briefly about the landscape separation and whether they could reach an agreement. The current design seems to have a wall effect between the arborvitaes and the batten. She suggested a condition of either lowering the battens to 4’, which is the permitted height of a fence in a front yard and perhaps look at a landscape design to ensure there is some privacy and separation but also not to create a wall between the building and the sidewalk. Ms. Bersche explained that she was under the impression that there are spaces with gates directly to the sidewalk. Ms. Turkelson didn’t believe there are. Mr. Eckert clarified that currently they were only proposing a 24-34” wrought iron type fence at the sidewalk and a few arborvitaes per storefront. Ms. Turkelson recalled that the fence height was 36” and that isn’t concerning as much as the landscaping, arborvitaes, and the battens behind it. That was the piece she was a bit hesitant about based on what is shown and there is no access into the unitshe access is at the corner into the units. Ms. Shannon MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Commission approve the request for DTN Management Company (Brian Holland) for approval of a Major Amendment to the Gateway at Belknap Planned Redevelopment District at 201 Hastings St NE to replace ground floor commercial space with up to 14 dwelling units, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because all elements of the site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property and the type, size, and proportions of buildings. 2. The proposed amendment to the PRD is consistent with the Master Plan and the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance because the amendment reinforces and supports the desired character for this area with the proposed use, site design, and building elements and the amendment supports the objectives of the Great Neighborhoods Chapter within the Master Plan to promote a broad range of housing choices. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 September 22, 2022 3. The proposed PRD amendment will ensure efficient development on the property and will result in a logical and orderly development pattern in the neighborhood because the site plan is generally consistent with the existing improvements on the site and has been designed to meet all site layout standards. 4. The proposed development will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed building and site changes will be scaled, massed, oriented, sited, and architecturally designed in a manner consistent with other development in the surrounding neighborhood; the use will enhance the vitality of the development, and; the proposal will result in increased greenspace. 5. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed development on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through the appropriate placement of buildings and entrances, and the location of screening, fencing, and landscaping. 6. The proposed development will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future adjacent uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, or visual clutter because the residential use is not anticipated to result in any increase in intensity on the site. 7. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the project will result in improved vitality within the development and the change of use will put vacant commercial space into productive use. 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 upon City Commission approval. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 September 22, 2022 3. That the proposed landscape be designed so as not to have the effect of creating a wall between the building and sidewalk and that the battens shall be lowered to a maximum height of 4 ft. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Shannon ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Lawrence Williams, Christopher Germain VI. Planning Commission Discussion None. VII. Public Comment None. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 3:05 PM