TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 November 10, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. 12:00 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. - Lunch - Conference Room 303, 1120 Monroe Ave NW II. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM by Board Member Kyle Van Strien PRESENT: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Tyler Kent, Elizabeth Zeller, Sarah Behmlander, Laura Wahamaki, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich . Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from October 27, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel IV. Business A. Planning Director's Report  Mr. Kent related that a Master Plan meeting took place last evening with Planning Next and Sidewalk Detroit. The logo was finalized. The focus yesterday afternoon was on community connectors, making sure we are getting out into the community. A meeting this morning took place with regard to land use, discussing what worked with the last Master Plan. There are a lot of commercial nodes shown on the Master Plan and it may be worth looking at that again with an emphasis of more intense commercial uses at the nodes and perhaps connectors in between, such as residential or other uses.  Mr. Kent related that the Planning Dept. is fully staffed now, which hasn’t been the case for quite some time.  362 & 366 Indiana Ave SW - Extension request Ms. Zeller related receipt of an extension request. Approval was granted for a two-family in July 2021. The Planning Commission granted one six-month extension in May of this year, which will expire in January, 2023. The applicant is requesting a second extension, which would extend the approval until July, 2023. The request is based on the changing economic environment. Motion by Ms. Behler, supported by Ms. Joseph, to grant the requested six-month extension. Motion carried unanimously. Generated 11/14/2022 8:49 PM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 November 10, 2022  Agenda items were briefly discussed. V. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in 2nd Floor Public Hearing Room, 1120 Monroe Ave NW A. Conflict of Interest Ms. Behler related a conflict of interest with the 259 Front St SW agenda item based on her employment with GVSU and her decision-making role connected to this request. Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Ms. Shannon, finding that Ms. Behler has a conflict of interest in the matter of 259 Front St SW. Motion carried unanimously. Dr. Wallace related that she is also employed by GVSU but is not in a decision-making position that would have anything to do with the request at 259 Front St SW. Motion by Ms. Shannon, supported by Ms. Joseph, finding that Dr. Wallace does not have a conflict of interest in the matter of 259 Front St SW. Motion carried unanimously. B. 1025 Oakdale St SE - Community Center Address: 1025 Oakdale St. SE Applicant: The Grand Rapids Dream Center (Greg Molchan) Requesting: Approval to establish a community center in a single-family home in a residential zone district. Zoning: TN-LDR Traditional Neighborhoods – Low Density Residential Requirements: Article 5 Residential 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0097 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: November 26, 2022 Ms. Zeller explained that she would present both cases together since they are the same applicant and the same request for each location. Grand Rapids Dream Center is requesting approval to establish a community center in two single-family homes located in residential zone districts. They are currently using both of the homes for the requested uses. They are neighborhood community centers holding educational classes, including practical skills, landscaping and driver’s training, community outreach events, and mentor group meetings. Meetings are usually held inside the house. All of the rooms in the homes are used as meeting spaces and many group meetings include a meal. Typical meeting sizes range from 15 to 40 adults or children, depending on the nature of the meeting, plus associated staff and leaders. Group meetings are held between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m., Monday through Thursday. Outside of those hours, the houses are unoccupied and closed to the public. All events are scheduled during the day or evening with no overnight accommodations. Ms. Zeller addressed the specifics of the Oakdale location. The property is in a Traditional Neighborhood - Low Density Residential Zone District. It is just west of Kalamazoo, near the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 November 10, 2022 area of the Boston Square Together redevelopment. Ms. Zeller displayed an aerial photo. It is located on the north side of the street with alley access at the back. To the north is a church with which the applicant has an informal agreement to utilize their lot for parking. The home is a two- story structure with a detached garage accessed from the alley. A photo of the home was displayed. In addition to the informal parking agreement with the church, visitors can park in the street or on the property where available. Because this was constructed as a residential structure there are only two legal parking spaces; the garage parking. For a non-residential use, a parking lot is generally required. For the number of attendees for this use, a maximum of 52, 18 parking spaces would be required. Therefore, this use would need a waiver of 16 parking spaces. As mentioned, they have an informal agreement with the church and there is on-street parking. Ms. Zeller provided details about the Lafayette location. The property is on the east side of the street. It does not have alley access. There is an unimproved alley that is not useable. The site has a driveway off of Lafayette, as well as a detached garage. The home has the same floor plan as the Oakdale structure. The comments related to parking are the same for this property as for Oakdale except that there is no informal parking agreement. In this case, the parking waiver would be greater. Ms. Zeller displayed the floor plan of the structures, which were submitted with the application as well as for building permits. It meets all of the TN-LDR requirements. The first floor contains a kitchen, great room, two powder rooms, a mud room and the entrance. The second floor has a room labeled as game room and there are two bedrooms and a full bath. The applicant has indicated that all rooms are used for meeting spaces, despite the fact that they are labeled bedroom on the plans. The basement is identified as a rec room and there is also another powder room. Including the basement, the houses are approximately 2,477 sq. ft. The Oakdale building permit was submitted in May of 2020 and the Lafayette permit was submitted approximately a year later. Ms. Zeller related receipt of several letters for both locations. The applicant has done neighborhood outreach, which was summarized in their application. Staff has received letters of support from residents, Amplify GR, and Oakdale Neighbors relative to the Oakdale property. There was also an additional letter of support from a neighbor. A letter of opposition was submitted from a neighbor on the block, citing the large gatherings and the amount of street parking occupied by the use. Ms. Zeller summarized the request as single-family homes that are to be used for neighborhood community centers. If the uses are approved, a building permit for a change of use to bring the homes up to the applicable building code would be required. Greg Molchan was present on behalf of the requests. He explained that their mission is that they are a movement that advances to serve and transform communities within the city. One of their core values, which they hold very dear to their hearts, is relationship. It has been years of spending lots of time with neighbors, friends, and residents trying to get to know people and bring people together. What they’ve discovered is how powerful it was that they were becoming a group that was organic and boots on the ground. They are excited about that because they believe that with an ear low to the ground it has helped them to understand the neighborhoods and how they can be impactful and how they can make a difference. What that looks like is City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 November 10, 2022 through ACTS; assistance, community, teaching and service. One of the greatest ways that they’ve done relationship and transformed in the community was to see groups started where mentoring relationships could happen. That happens in a small group environment. They had the privilege and honor to begin to do some group meetings with friends and neighbors inside the neighborhood. They have had some meetings with some neighbors that have had experience or been impacted by poverty. That caused a lot of transients and moving or quick cancellations and it hurt their consistency in what they were doing in the small groups. They wondered what it would be like if they had a home environment, something very relational to the vision of mentorship, and to be able to keep their consistency. That is where the community house vision was born. Mr. Molchan explained that as they saw the vision growing, they saw themselves getting bigger and better at what they did by getting smaller. They worked very hard over the last two years to restructure their leadership to create even smaller group environments. It is a new vision they are learning and growing into. How they see themselves doing that is by continuing to build these small group environments. Mr. Molchan explained what some of their mentoring consists of. They mentor the family structure, children and youth into adulthood, single mothers, under 18 driving empowerment, financial mentoring, job and career readiness, loving and taking care of your family and community, and helping to care for others who might be a bit more unseen such as the elderly. Ms. Joseph clarified that they bought the lots and built single-family homes on them. Mr. Molchan agreed. Ms. Shannon asked if they are considered a non-profit. Mr. Molchan replied affirmatively; they are a 501c3. Mr. Kent asked if they have talked with the Building Dept. about what the impacts would be on the structure if the use is approved. Mr. Molchan replied that they just recently heard back on that. They will have to address ADA requirements. Tom Larabell added that they spoke with the Building Dept. and specifically the improvements that will be required are ADA accessibility items. The houses are close to being set up for that but there will be some remodeling necessary to meet the code requirements. Additionally, if the cooking classes continue, they would need to make the kitchens commercial grade. Mr. Kent asked that the applicant address parking at both locations. Mr. Molchan related that they have had a partnership with Seventh Day Adventist Bible Church at the Oakdale location. Additionally, the nature of being in the neighborhood, the intention is they’ve built small groups and have people come from within walking distance. Many that they serve also utilize the public transit system. Mr. Van Strien clarified that they have the church partnership at the Oakdale property. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 November 10, 2022 Mr. Molchan agreed. With respect to the Lafayette/Madison location, there is parking in front. They have had a partnership with Living Meadows, which is on the corner of Delaware and Lafayette. They aren’t currently operating but they have had ongoing permission to use the parking and at times they’ve partnered with them on events. Mr. Van Strien asked how they get the word out that those coming to the houses should park there or is it employees that are asked to park there. Mr. Molchan replied that in this day of digital communication they try to digitally communicate the best they can with people ahead of time. They have had a partnership in the past with Gerald R Ford as well but he doesn’t know that they’ve had to utilize that partnership for parking, but it has been a usage in the past. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing for both agenda items and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Kent asked the applicant how long they have been in operation and where they were located prior to these two sites. Mr. Molchan replied approximately nine years. They have always seen themselves as a movement and tried structuring their systems for relationship and being on the ground but when they were doing base camp meetings it was through partnerships with Gerald R Ford and River City Scholars. They have also worked with Amplify GR and LINC UP. They still have certain meetings with those collaborations as well. Mr. Kent asked that he speak to the permits that were applied for for the single-family homes and now the request to convert that to a community center. He asked the reason for the initial permit being submitted as a single-family. Mr. Molchan replied that from his perspective he didn’t fully understand the process. Their community house vision was at the forefront of their heart. They have learned now that they need the SLU but they didn’t want this function to feel like a center; they wanted it to be relational. Personally, it was a matter of not knowing. Otherwise they would have laid the foundation from the beginning. He understands that it is like the cart before the horse that they are present today in this manner. Ms. Joseph clarified that it was never part of the plan to have anyone live in these structures. Mr. Molchan agreed. Ms. Joseph recognized that the transit stops for both locations seem rather far away. One is more than a quarter mile and the other is just under. She asked the percentage of those that attend their functions use public transit. Mr. Molchan replied that approximately 70% of those that come are from the neighborhoods. There are transients and they fight hard to maintain connection with families that move and they may take the bus to come in. They work hard to keep them connected to what they do. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 November 10, 2022 Ms. Joseph asked how big their meetings are. Mr. Molchan replied that most of their small group settings are 15-20. They have one community night gathering and those are the ones that have between 30 and 40 or occasionally up to 50 people. The community nights occur every Tuesday, usually from 6 to 8 p.m. Mr. Kent asked if there is any anticipation of exceeding those hours, later in the evenings. Mr. Molchan replied not at this time. They want to coordinate hours that make sense for the families. Ms. Shannon asked staff if the required improvements will be required within a certain time frame or do they have to stop operations until those improvements are made if this is approved. Steve Devlaeminck, Building Official, explained that the use is not an approved use so they shouldn’t be operating as such until the Planning Commission approves it. To convert it requires a building permit, accessibility, and the commercial kitchens. Mr. Van Strien asked if the commercial kitchens are a requirement because of the cooking classes or is that a requirement in general for a commercial property. Mr. Devlaeminck replied that it depends on what is being cooked as to what system is required. Dr. Wallace felt that Ms. Shannon was inquiring as to the timing of the improvements. Mr. Devlaeminck explained further that the structures were never approved for a community center. It was approved as a single-family home. Therefore, it shouldn’t be used as a community center until the Planning Commission gives approval and the required changes have been made. Dr. Wallace asked a bit more about who may be in attendance. The concern is with flooding the neighborhood with non-neighborhood cars parking on the street to attend. She asked if they are coming from the neighborhoods. Mr. Molchan explained the community nights. They see themselves as an all-family organization but the premier part of that family by far is children and youth. They have gotten very good at trying to love children and youth well and any parents that want to be involved along the way. A big majority is children and youth coming into the spaces from the neighborhoods. What they also do, with respect to transportation, is try to help transport people by putting them on a route. Dr. Wallace clarified that they are anticipating people walking. Mr. Molchan replied affirmatively. Ms. Shannon asked if the community night involves families coming; one car for several people or just the children of the neighborhood walking over? City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 November 10, 2022 Mr. Molchan replied that he feels that the majority of the families are either walking or they have been given a ride. Most of the parking they have on community nights are volunteers or certain leaders that may be helping with transportation. That is what he has seen as the greatest parking need with what the flow of their community night has looked like. Ms. Shannon asked if it is a family night or youth coming without parents. Mr. Molchan replied that they still say it is a family night because they want to involve parents, and they try to do things to encourage parent attendance, but ultimately the children and youth are the most consistent attenders. Ms. Bersche went back to the original design of the building. If this was built to be a community space, she wondered why a full bath and bedrooms are included. She asked if there was ever any intention to change the use of the building again and rent the space out. She asked the thought behind having such a home style second floor like that. Mr. Molchan replied that they would be open to renting the space if they felt there was a need to. That wasn’t why they did that. They just felt that they should have a tub and shower as they don’t know what kind of practical use they would need. To do away with that option would feel like they lost something. He related that they have had some out of town guests that have helped them with some of their events that have temporarily stayed in the basement but it isn’t home; it isn’t a residential space. Mr. Van Strien recalled from testimony that currently they have up to 50 people coming to the space. He asked what the plan is if that number grows. Mr. Molchan stated that their effort has been to raise up more mentors so they have the ability to have more quality small groups. It is similar to a classroom with one teacher having more students; you lose quality. What they would do is recognize that the group is too big, and that they are losing the ability to have effective relationship and the transformative piece they want, so they need to get creative and out of the box to restructure so they preserve the integrity. Ms. Shannon asked further if they would be under fire code occupancy restrictions. Mr. Van Strien asked Mr. Devlaeminck if there will be a capacity limit on a structure like this. Mr. Devlaeminck stated that they would need to change the doors to outswing if over 49 occupants. Above 49 is considered an assembly use and requires panic hardware. Fire suppression wouldn’t trigger at that point. A fire alarm system would be required at 300. It would be the doors and accessibility if kept under 100. Mr. Van Strien feels that if there are other limiting factors that that helps alleviate some of the concerns about parking. He suggested they utilize the parking partnerships more so that parking isn’t a concern for the immediate neighbors. Dr. Wallace asked if the Oakdale location has a formal parking arrangement and Lafayette is not. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 November 10, 2022 Mr. Molchan replied that they have an informal partnership with Living Meadows. They know the owners pretty well and he believes they would be more than willing to provide documentation to bring clarity to it. Oakdale is also an informal agreement but they do utilize those spaces a lot. They don’t have a written agreement with them at this point. Ms. Shannon noticed that there is a vacant strip of property adjacent to the Lafayette site. She asked if they own that and if it could be used for parking. Mr. Molchan replied that that is their property. They would be open to adding parking there. It was actually inquiring about that lot that led them to the understanding that they need Special Land Use approval for the use of the property. Ms. Joseph pointed out that parking on that lot would be a different issue. Mr. Van Strien agreed. He doesn’t believe they would support a mid-block parking lot for a non- residential use on a residential street. Mr. Kent asked why they chose to place the home/proposed use at the specific locations. Mr. Molchan replied, with respect to Oakdale, that it was because of their history in the neighborhood. The other reason was the opportunity of the open lot. Oakdale Neighbors had designated the lot for a community purpose and they got the approval from Habitat for Humanity to provide the community use. They have a picnic table there and a library box. They had also done some informal events on the lot. Mr. Molchan stated that when they saw the lot they thought about those possibilities and the relationship with Oakdale neighbors. They began talking with Oakdale Neighbors and had a conversation with Habitat, who sold them the lot. Habitat interviewed them and had requirements because they wanted to make sure they were going to be serious about relationship and community. The other opportunity was the alley access. They were also building a relationship with the Seventh Day Adventist Church and their hope was to have access to that parking. Mr. Molchan stated that they were trying to keep that in mind. With the Lafayette house, it came down to some opportunity, such as the availability of the lot. Historically, that is essentially the first block where they started their community relationship work and the community feedback was that it would be a joy if Dream Center came and did something like this and had a location where they started. They also knew they had the relationship with Gerald R Ford and Living Meadows. They saw those collaborations helping them with the relationships with the location. Ms. Behler recalled that Habitat sold them the Oakdale property. She asked if they had an obligation to build a single-family home for housing in that transaction. Mr. Molchan replied no. They explained to them what their vision was for the property and one of the things that was important to them, with the relationship they have with Oakdale Neighbors, was to keep the picnic table and the book box. They were happy to do so. They are friends with everyone that has the passion for those small areas. Mr. Molchan also stated that they are very good friends with Deb Armstrong of Home Repair Services. They were also very good friends with the former resident and are now friends with the new resident. They had great buy in from Habitat as well as other neighbors/residents. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 November 10, 2022 Ms. Zeller responded to Ms. Behler’s question relating that she reached out to Habitat and the Land Bank for the other property. There were no conditions that either of the properties needed to be used for residential use. Ms. Joseph stated that she is concerned about these uses in these spaces because of the parking. She feels the Commission needs to keep in mind that there is at least one letter from a neighbor that indicated that parking is an issue at the Oakdale house. She also feels they need to keep in mind that the use goes with the land. It doesn’t matter how great this operator is or how many ride the bus or walk, if they approve a community center it is a community center and there isn’t enough parking. Mr. Van Strien pointed out that the one letter of opposition for the Oakdale house said that if neighbors felt differently, she would defer to them and there were several letters of support from other neighbors that did feel differently. He believes there are ways to address the concern about parking. Formalizing parking agreements and having the applicant push for the use of those lots is one way that can be addressed. Ms. Joseph also wished to acknowledge the immense need there is for housing. While these would potentially only be two additional single-family homes, these are the appropriate places for single-family homes. If this use is approved, they would be taking that away. Ms. Shannon indicated that she is less troubled with the Oakdale site because they have parking available with the church. If that can be formalized that is helpful and more security for that use. She understands the nature and desire to operate within a home in a neighborhood. She also agrees there is a need for housing in the neighborhoods. Ms. Shannon feels the issues of handicap access and sufficient parking would have been covered had the application for a permit been for the right purpose. Mr. Rozeboom related that he has mixed feelings about these uses in these locations. When looking at Planning and Zoning there are residential zone districts and commercial districts. There is zoning for the purpose of expectation of uses in each area. He would prefer to have a residential looking building in a commercial area, perhaps on the edge, that would be used for institutional purposes like this. That being said, he is having a hard time articulating significant adverse impact on the neighborhood because the buildings are designed to appear function as a home. Code issues can be addressed so that mainly leaves the parking question. Ms. Behler indicated that she is struggling with the same things. As she considers adverse impact on the neighborhood, the Madison location is more concerning because they don’t have any formalized parking relationship. Adverse impact of 50 people at that location without adjacent parking or formalized parking is a concern for that neighborhood. She believes there are some adverse impacts due to the location in the middle of a Low Density Residential Zone District. She is less concerned about the Oakdale location because of the requirement they can impose that they formalize a parking agreement. She doesn’t know that is possible for the Lafayette location. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 November 10, 2022 Mr. Williams stated that he is looking at it from two perspectives. He loves the concept, as a believer, because this is what believers view as the church. They haven’t used the word church but this is exactly what the message of the church is. Secondly, as a resident, what they are providing is community which provides much more benefit than any adverse effects to the neighborhood in general. He is having difficulty envisioning any adverse effects on the neighborhood besides parking and he believes that can be rectified. Mr. Williams expressed his full support. Ms. Joseph asked staff how they would verify that operations cease while corrections are being made to the structures. They’ve been operating despite the requirements not being satisfied. Mr. Kent replied that it would be addressed through enforcement through either the Building Code or the Code Compliance Office. Ms. Bersche asked about the use of the building as a place to sleep. Mr. Kent replied that that would be a change in use again. Ms. Joseph asked if it were to grow beyond 50 in attendance and be categorized as an assembly use whether it would have to come back as an expansion of the use. Mr. Van Strien replied no, they would have to address the applicable building code requirements because the use wouldn’t have changed. Mr. Devlaeminck wished to clarify that it is either a business or a residential structure; it can’t be both. If it becomes residential then sprinkling the building would be triggered. Mr. Van Strien felt the applicant needed to understand that that would be a restriction on getting a Special Land Use for this purpose. He suggested they could include it as a condition. Ms. Shannon MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of The Grand Rapids Dream Center (Greg Molchan) to establish a community center in a single-family home in a residential zone district, at 1025 Oakdale 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 institutional uses may be permitted in residential zone districts to support the people who live there and the use will not detract from the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 2. The proposed does meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the elements of the site design are harmonious in relation to the character of the neighborhood and adjoining properties. 3. The proposed use would be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood and adjacent properties because activity associated with the proposed use is not anticipated to impose a burden on other uses in the area and the proposed use is intended to serve community members within the surrounding neighborhood. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 November 10, 2022 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the site has been designed to minimize effects on neighboring properties. 5. The proposed use would not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, glare, and visual clutter because the traffic generated by the use is anticipated to be minimal and will only occur during business hours and no outdoor or late evening activities are to be conducted. 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 neighborhood because the proposed site plan indicates appropriate pedestrian access from Oakdale St. and the structure was appropriately constructed to meet the requirements of the TN neighborhood. 7. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use is not anticipated to create nuisances that will require additional City services and the use will support and complement objectives in the Strategic Plan that identify the need to increase residents’ education attainment, employment, and wage growth. 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 a formal parking agreement for 16 spaces, with the neighboring church, shall be executed and submitted to the Planning Director. 3. That a building permit for the change of use shall be obtained. SUPPORTED by Mr. Williams. Mr. Kent suggested the following condition: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 November 10, 2022 4. No overnight stays shall occur on site. Ms. Shannon AMENDED the motion to include the suggested condition. SUPPORTED by Mr. Williams. YEAS: 7. NAYS: 2. (Joseph & Bersche). MOTION CARRIED. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [7 TO 2] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Lawrence Williams YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Behler, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al- Shatel NAYS: Kristine Bersche, Laurel Joseph C. 1026 Lafayette Ave SE - Community Center Address: 1026 Lafayette Ave. SE Applicant: The Grand Rapids Dream Center (Greg Molchan) Requesting: Approval to establish a community center in a single-family home in a residential zone district. Zoning: TN-LDR Traditional Neighborhoods – Low Density Residential Requirements: Article 5 Residential 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0096 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: November 26, 2022 Ms. Zeller explained that she would present both cases together since they are the same applicant and the same request for each location. Grand Rapids Dream Center is requesting approval to establish a community center in two single-family homes located in residential zone districts. They are currently using both of the homes for the requested uses. They are neighborhood community centers holding educational classes, including practical skills, landscaping and driver’s training, community outreach events, and mentor group meetings. Meetings are usually held inside the house. All of the rooms in the homes are used as meeting spaces and many group meetings include a meal. Typical meeting sizes range from 15 to 40 adults or children, depending on the nature of the meeting, plus associated staff and leaders. Group meetings are held between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m., Monday through Thursday. Outside of those hours, the houses are unoccupied and closed to the public. All events are scheduled during the day or evening with no overnight accommodations. Ms. Zeller addressed the specifics of the Oakdale location. The property is in a Traditional Neighborhood - Low Density Residential Zone District. It is just west of Kalamazoo, near the area of the Boston Square Together redevelopment. Ms. Zeller displayed an aerial photo. It is located on the north side of the street with alley access at the back. To the north is a church with which the applicant has an informal agreement to utilize their lot for parking. The home is a two- story structure with a detached garage accessed from the alley. A photo of the home was displayed. In addition to the informal parking agreement with the church, visitors can park in the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 November 10, 2022 street or on the property where available. Because this was constructed as a residential structure there are only two legal parking spaces; the garage parking. For a non-residential use, a parking lot is generally required. For the number of attendees for this use, a maximum of 52, 18 parking spaces would be required. Therefore, this use would need a waiver of 16 parking spaces. As mentioned, they have an informal agreement with the church and there is on-street parking. Ms. Zeller provided details about the Lafayette location. The property is on the east side of the street. It does not have alley access. There is an unimproved alley that is not useable. The site has a driveway off of Lafayette, as well as a detached garage. The home has the same floor plan as the Oakdale structure. The comments related to parking are the same for this property as for Oakdale except that there is no informal parking agreement. In this case, the parking waiver would be greater. Ms. Zeller displayed the floor plan of the structures, which were submitted with the application as well as for building permits. It meets all of the TN-LDR requirements. The first floor contains a kitchen, great room, two powder rooms, a mud room and the entrance. The second floor has a room labeled as game room and there are two bedrooms and a full bath. The applicant has indicated that all rooms are used for meeting spaces, despite the fact that they are labeled bedroom on the plans. The basement is identified as a rec room and there is also another powder room. Including the basement, the houses are approximately 2,477 sq. ft. The Oakdale building permit was submitted in May of 2020 and the Lafayette permit was submitted approximately a year later. Ms. Zeller related receipt of several letters for both locations. The applicant has done neighborhood outreach, which was summarized in their application. Staff has received letters of support from residents, Amplify GR, and Oakdale Neighbors relative to the Oakdale property. There was also an additional letter of support from a neighbor. A letter of opposition was submitted from a neighbor on the block, citing the large gatherings and the amount of street parking occupied by the use. Ms. Zeller summarized the request as single-family homes that are to be used for neighborhood community centers. If the uses are approved, a building permit for a change of use to bring the homes up to the applicable building code would be required. Greg Molchan was present on behalf of the requests. He explained that their mission is that they are a movement that advances to serve and transform communities within the city. One of their core values, which they hold very dear to their hearts, is relationship. It has been years of spending lots of time with neighbors, friends, and residents trying to get to know people and bring people together. What they’ve discovered is how powerful it was that they were becoming a group that was organic and boots on the ground. They are excited about that because they believe that with an ear low to the ground it has helped them to understand the neighborhoods and how they can be impactful and how they can make a difference. What that looks like is through ACTS; assistance, community, teaching and service. One of the greatest ways that they’ve done relationship and transformed in the community was to see groups started where mentoring relationships could happen. That happens in a small group environment. They had the privilege and honor to begin to do some group meetings with friends and neighbors inside the neighborhood. They have had some meetings with some neighbors that have had experience or City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 November 10, 2022 been impacted by poverty. That caused a lot of transients and moving or quick cancellations and it hurt their consistency in what they were doing in the small groups. They wondered what it would be like if they had a home environment, something very relational to the vision of mentorship, and to be able to keep their consistency. That is where the community house vision was born. Mr. Molchan explained that as they saw the vision growing, they saw themselves getting bigger and better at what they did by getting smaller. They worked very hard over the last two years to restructure their leadership to create even smaller group environments. It is a new vision they are learning and growing into. How they see themselves doing that is by continuing to build these small group environments. Mr. Molchan explained what some of their mentoring consists of. They mentor the family structure, children and youth into adulthood, single mothers, under 18 driving empowerment, financial mentoring, job and career readiness, loving and taking care of your family and community, and helping to care for others who might be a bit more unseen such as the elderly. Ms. Joseph clarified that they bought the lots and built single-family homes on them. Mr. Molchan agreed. Ms. Shannon asked if they are considered a non-profit. Mr. Molchan replied affirmatively; they are a 501c3. Mr. Kent asked if they have talked with the Building Dept. about what the impacts would be on the structure if the use is approved. Mr. Molchan replied that they just recently heard back on that. They will have to address ADA requirements. Tom Larabell added that they spoke with the Building Dept. and specifically the improvements that will be required are ADA accessibility items. The houses are close to being set up for that but there will be some remodeling necessary to meet the code requirements. Additionally, if the cooking classes continue, they would need to make the kitchens commercial grade. Mr. Kent asked that the applicant address parking at both locations. Mr. Molchan related that they have had a partnership with Seventh Day Adventist Bible Church at the Oakdale location. Additionally, the nature of being in the neighborhood, the intention is they’ve built small groups and have people come from within walking distance. Many that they serve also utilize the public transit system. Mr. Van Strien clarified that they have the church partnership at the Oakdale property. Mr. Molchan agreed. With respect to the Lafayette/Madison location, there is parking in front. They have had a partnership with Living Meadows, which is on the corner of Delaware and Lafayette. They aren’t currently operating but they have had ongoing permission to use the parking and at times they’ve partnered with them on events. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 November 10, 2022 Mr. Van Strien asked how they get the word out that those coming to the houses should park there or is it employees that are asked to park there. Mr. Molchan replied that in this day of digital communication they try to digitally communicate the best they can with people ahead of time. They have had a partnership in the past with Gerald R Ford as well but he doesn’t know that they’ve had to utilize that partnership for parking, but it has been a usage in the past. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing for both agenda items and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Kent asked the applicant how long they have been in operation and where they were located prior to these two sites. Mr. Molchan replied approximately nine years. They have always seen themselves as a movement and tried structuring their systems for relationship and being on the ground but when they were doing base camp meetings it was through partnerships with Gerald R Ford and River City Scholars. They have also worked with Amplify GR and LINC UP. They still have certain meetings with those collaborations as well. Mr. Kent asked that he speak to the permits that were applied for for the single-family homes and now the request to convert that to a community center. He asked the reason for the initial permit being submitted as a single-family. Mr. Molchan replied that from his perspective he didn’t fully understand the process. Their community house vision was at the forefront of their heart. They have learned now that they need the SLU but they didn’t want this function to feel like a center; they wanted it to be relational. Personally, it was a matter of not knowing. Otherwise they would have laid the foundation from the beginning. He understands that it is like the cart before the horse that they are present today in this manner. Ms. Joseph clarified that it was never part of the plan to have anyone live in these structures. Mr. Molchan agreed. Ms. Joseph recognized that the transit stops for both locations seem rather far away. One is more than a quarter mile and the other is just under. She asked the percentage of those that attend their functions use public transit. Mr. Molchan replied that approximately 70% of those that come are from the neighborhoods. There are transients and they fight hard to maintain connection with families that move and they may take the bus to come in. They work hard to keep them connected to what they do. Ms. Joseph asked how big their meetings are. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 November 10, 2022 Mr. Molchan replied that most of their small group settings are 15-20. They have one community night gathering and those are the ones that have between 30 and 40 or occasionally up to 50 people. The community nights occur every Tuesday, usually from 6 to 8 p.m. Mr. Kent asked if there is any anticipation of exceeding those hours, later in the evenings. Mr. Molchan replied not at this time. They want to coordinate hours that make sense for the families. Ms. Shannon asked staff if the required improvements will be required within a certain time frame or do they have to stop operations until those improvements are made if this is approved. Steve Devlaeminck, Building Official, explained that the use is not an approved use so they shouldn’t be operating as such until the Planning Commission approves it. To convert it requires a building permit, accessibility, and the commercial kitchens. Mr. Van Strien asked if the commercial kitchens are a requirement because of the cooking classes or is that a requirement in general for a commercial property. Mr. Devlaeminck replied that it depends on what is being cooked as to what system is required. Dr. Wallace felt that Ms. Shannon was inquiring as to the timing of the improvements. Mr. Devlaeminck explained further that the structures were never approved for a community center. It was approved as a single-family home. Therefore, it shouldn’t be used as a community center until the Planning Commission gives approval and the required changes have been made. Dr. Wallace asked a bit more about who may be in attendance. The concern is with flooding the neighborhood with non-neighborhood cars parking on the street to attend. She asked if they are coming from the neighborhoods. Mr. Molchan explained the community nights. They see themselves as an all-family organization but the premier part of that family by far is children and youth. They have gotten very good at trying to love children and youth well and any parents that want to be involved along the way. A big majority is children and youth coming into the spaces from the neighborhoods. What they also do, with respect to transportation, is try to help transport people by putting them on a route. Dr. Wallace clarified that they are anticipating people walking. Mr. Molchan replied affirmatively. Ms. Shannon asked if the community night involves families coming; one car for several people or just the children of the neighborhood walking over? Mr. Molchan replied that he feels that the majority of the families are either walking or they have been given a ride. Most of the parking they have on community nights are volunteers or certain City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 November 10, 2022 leaders that may be helping with transportation. That is what he has seen as the greatest parking need with what the flow of their community night has looked like. Ms. Shannon asked if it is a family night or youth coming without parents. Mr. Molchan replied that they still say it is a family night because they want to involve parents, and they try to do things to encourage parent attendance, but ultimately the children and youth are the most consistent attenders. Ms. Bersche went back to the original design of the building. If this was built to be a community space, she wondered why a full bath and bedrooms are included. She asked if there was ever any intention to change the use of the building again and rent the space out. She asked the thought behind having such a home style second floor like that. Mr. Molchan replied that they would be open to renting the space if they felt there was a need to. That wasn’t why they did that. They just felt that they should have a tub and shower as they don’t know what kind of practical use they would need. To do away with that option would feel like they lost something. He related that they have had some out of town guests that have helped them with some of their events that have temporarily stayed in the basement but it isn’t home; it isn’t a residential space. Mr. Van Strien recalled from testimony that currently they have up to 50 people coming to the space. He asked what the plan is if that number grows. Mr. Molchan stated that their effort has been to raise up more mentors so they have the ability to have more quality small groups. It is similar to a classroom with one teacher having more students; you lose quality. What they would do is recognize that the group is too big, and that they are losing the ability to have effective relationship and the transformative piece they want, so they need to get creative and out of the box to restructure so they preserve the integrity. Ms. Shannon asked further if they would be under fire code occupancy restrictions. Mr. Van Strien asked Mr. Devlaeminck if there will be a capacity limit on a structure like this. Mr. Devlaeminck stated that they would need to change the doors to outswing if over 49 occupants. Above 49 is considered an assembly use and requires panic hardware. Fire suppression wouldn’t trigger at that point. A fire alarm system would be required at 300. It would be the doors and accessibility if kept under 100. Mr. Van Strien feels that if there are other limiting factors that that helps alleviate some of the concerns about parking. He suggested they utilize the parking partnerships more so that parking isn’t a concern for the immediate neighbors. Dr. Wallace asked if the Oakdale location has a formal parking arrangement and Lafayette is not. Mr. Molchan replied that they have an informal partnership with Living Meadows. They know the owners pretty well and he believes they would be more than willing to provide City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 November 10, 2022 documentation to bring clarity to it. Oakdale is also an informal agreement but they do utilize those spaces a lot. They don’t have a written agreement with them at this point. Ms. Shannon noticed that there is a vacant strip of property adjacent to the Lafayette site. She asked if they own that and if it could be used for parking. Mr. Molchan replied that that is their property. They would be open to adding parking there. It was actually inquiring about that lot that led them to the understanding that they need Special Land Use approval for the use of the property. Ms. Joseph pointed out that parking on that lot would be a different issue. Mr. Van Strien agreed. He doesn’t believe they would support a mid-block parking lot for a non- residential use on a residential street. Mr. Kent asked why they chose to place the home/proposed use at the specific locations. Mr. Molchan replied, with respect to Oakdale, that it was because of their history in the neighborhood. The other reason was the opportunity of the open lot. Oakdale Neighbors had designated the lot for a community purpose and they got the approval from Habitat for Humanity to provide the community use. They have a picnic table there and a library box. They had also done some informal events on the lot. Mr. Molchan stated that when they saw the lot they thought about those possibilities and the relationship with Oakdale neighbors. They began talking with Oakdale Neighbors and had a conversation with Habitat, who sold them the lot. Habitat interviewed them and had requirements because they wanted to make sure they were going to be serious about relationship and community. The other opportunity was the alley access. They were also building a relationship with the Seventh Day Adventist Church and their hope was to have access to that parking. Mr. Molchan stated that they were trying to keep that in mind. With the Lafayette house, it came down to some opportunity, such as the availability of the lot. Historically, that is essentially the first block where they started their community relationship work and the community feedback was that it would be a joy if Dream Center came and did something like this and had a location where they started. They also knew they had the relationship with Gerald R Ford and Living Meadows. They saw those collaborations helping them with the relationships with the location. Ms. Behler recalled that Habitat sold them the Oakdale property. She asked if they had an obligation to build a single-family home for housing in that transaction. Mr. Molchan replied no. They explained to them what their vision was for the property and one of the things that was important to them, with the relationship they have with Oakdale Neighbors, was to keep the picnic table and the book box. They were happy to do so. They are friends with everyone that has the passion for those small areas. Mr. Molchan also stated that they are very good friends with Deb Armstrong of Home Repair Services. They were also very good friends with the former resident and are now friends with the new resident. They had great buy in from Habitat as well as other neighbors/residents. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 November 10, 2022 Ms. Zeller responded to Ms. Behler’s question relating that she reached out to Habitat and the Land Bank for the other property. There were no conditions that either of the properties needed to be used for residential use. Ms. Joseph stated that she is concerned about these uses in these spaces because of the parking. She feels the Commission needs to keep in mind that there is at least one letter from a neighbor that indicated that parking is an issue at the Oakdale house. She also feels they need to keep in mind that the use goes with the land. It doesn’t matter how great this operator is or how many ride the bus or walk, if they approve a community center it is a community center and there isn’t enough parking. Mr. Van Strien pointed out that the one letter of opposition for the Oakdale house said that if neighbors felt differently, she would defer to them and there were several letters of support from other neighbors that did feel differently. He believes there are ways to address the concern about parking. Formalizing parking agreements and having the applicant push for the use of those lots is one way that can be addressed. Ms. Joseph also wished to acknowledge the immense need there is for housing. While these would potentially only be two additional single-family homes, these are the appropriate places for single-family homes. If this use is approved, they would be taking that away. Ms. Shannon indicated that she is less troubled with the Oakdale site because they have parking available with the church. If that can be formalized that is helpful and more security for that use. She understands the nature and desire to operate within a home in a neighborhood. She also agrees there is a need for housing in the neighborhoods. Ms. Shannon feels the issues of handicap access and sufficient parking would have been covered had the application for a permit been for the right purpose. Mr. Rozeboom related that he has mixed feelings about these uses in these locations. When looking at Planning and Zoning there are residential zone districts and commercial districts. There is zoning for the purpose of expectation of uses in each area. He would prefer to have a residential looking building in a commercial area, perhaps on the edge, that would be used for institutional purposes like this. That being said, he is having a hard time articulating significant adverse impact on the neighborhood because the buildings are designed to appear function as a home. Code issues can be addressed so that mainly leaves the parking question. Ms. Behler indicated that she is struggling with the same things. As she considers adverse impact on the neighborhood, the Madison location is more concerning because they don’t have any formalized parking relationship. Adverse impact of 50 people at that location without adjacent parking or formalized parking is a concern for that neighborhood. She believes there are some adverse impacts due to the location in the middle of a Low Density Residential Zone District. She is less concerned about the Oakdale location because of the requirement they can impose that they formalize a parking agreement. She doesn’t know that is possible for the Lafayette location. Mr. Williams stated that he is looking at it from two perspectives. He loves the concept, as a believer, because this is what believers view as the church. They haven’t used the word church City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 November 10, 2022 but this is exactly what the message of the church is. Secondly, as a resident, what they are providing is community which provides much more benefit than any adverse effects to the neighborhood in general. He is having difficulty envisioning any adverse effects on the neighborhood besides parking and he believes that can be rectified. Mr. Williams expressed his full support. Ms. Joseph asked staff how they would verify that operations cease while corrections are being made to the structures. They’ve been operating despite the requirements not being satisfied. Mr. Kent replied that it would be addressed through enforcement through either the Building Code or the Code Compliance Office. Ms. Bersche asked about the use of the building as a place to sleep. Mr. Kent replied that that would be a change in use again. Ms. Joseph asked if it were to grow beyond 50 in attendance and be categorized as an assembly use whether it would have to come back as an expansion of the use. Mr. Van Strien replied no, they would have to address the applicable building code requirements because the use wouldn’t have changed. Mr. Devlaeminck wished to clarify that it is either a business or a residential structure; it can’t be both. If it becomes residential then sprinkling the building would be triggered. Mr. Van Strien felt the applicant needed to understand that that would be a restriction on getting a Special Land Use for this purpose. He suggested they could include it as a condition. Mr. Willaims MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of The Grand Rapids Dream Center (Greg Molchan) to establish a community center in a single-family home in a residential zone district, at 1026 Lafayette Ave SE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because institutional uses may be permitted in residential zone districts to support the people who live there and the use will not detract from the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 2. The proposed use does meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the elements of the site design are harmonious in relation to the character of the neighborhood and adjoining properties. 3. The proposed use would be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood and adjacent properties because activity associated with the proposed use is not anticipated to impose a burden on other uses in the area and the proposed use is intended to serve community members within the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the site has been designed to minimize effects on neighboring properties. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 November 10, 2022 5. The proposed use would not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, glare, and visual clutter because the traffic generated by the use is anticipated to be minimal and will only occur during business hours and no outdoor or late evening activities are to be conducted. 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 neighborhood because the structure was appropriately constructed to meet the requirements of the TN neighborhood. 7. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use is not anticipated to create nuisances that will require additional City services and the use will support and complement objectives in the Strategic Plan that identify the need to increase residents’ education attainment, employment, and wage growth. 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 a building permit for the change of use shall be obtained. 3. That 16 parking spaces shall be secured and a written agreement submitted to the Planning Director. 4. No overnight stays shall occur on site. SUPPORTED by Ms. Shannon. YEAS: 6. NAYS: 3 (Shannon, Joseph, Bersche). MOTION CARRIED. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 November 10, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [6 TO 3] MOVER: Lawrence Williams SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Behler, Wallace, Williams, Al-Shatel NAYS: Kristine Bersche, Laurel Joseph, Susan Shannon D. 259 Front St SW - Surface Parking Lot Address: 259 Front St SW Applicant: Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing (John Wilchet) Requesting: To create a 51-space parking lot to support their existing manufacturing use at 524 Butterworth St SW. Zoning: TN-TCC Traditional Neighborhoods – Transitional City Center Requirements: Article 6 Commercial Zone Districts 5.2.03. Alterations, Enlargements, and Demolitions 5.10.03. Off-Street Parking Design Requirements 5.11.11. Parking and Loading Area Landscape Requirements 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0099 Staff Assigned: Sarah Behmlander Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: November 26, 2022 Ms. Behler left the meeting room. Ms. Behmlander introduced the request of Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing to create a 51- space parking lot to support their existing manufacturing use at 524 Butterworth St SW. In order to develop the parking lot, they would need to demolish an existing building and surface parking lots as a principal use requires Special Land Use approval. The property is located in the TN- TCC Zone District. An aerial view was displayed. Ms. Behmlander noted that just north of the subject property is the manufacturing business associated with this application. Ms. Behmlander displayed an image of existing site conditions as well as a photo of a billboard that currently exists on the site. If the request for parking is approved, staff would ask that a condition of approval be included to remove the billboard upon termination of the billboard lease. Ms. Behmlander displayed the conceptual site plan. They will be taking ingress and egress from Emperor through a gated entry and exit. The City Transportation Engineers looked at the plan and agree that it would be best to have ingress and egress from Emperor and not from Front St. to allow for better traffic circulation. They also felt that the vehicle stacking area was adequate for the site. The applicant has provided some details on landscaping, screening and buffering. However, the last three spaces to the southeast have no screening proposed. Therefore, should this be approved, staff will guide the applicant to meet the Zoning Ordinance screening requirements. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 November 10, 2022 Ms. Behmlander displayed an image of the building that would be demolished. The building has been somewhat neglected over the years and the applicant feels that the surface parking lot would serve better than the redevelopment of the site. There are railroad tracks on the west side of the property that, to the best of her knowledge, remain active. Ms. Behmlander displayed an image of the original parking that was available for this site in 2020. The business has been doing well and has expanded on the site and lost the majority of their parking with only a few spaces remaining to the west of the building. The way they have been trying to meet their parking requirement has been through the help of Grand Valley to facilitate the use of 17 spaces on one lot, 7 spaces on a newly developed parking lot, as well as 20 spaces from an adjacent business. If the surface parking lot is approved, they would no longer need the various parking arrangements. Staff would ask that the Commission include that as a condition of approval; to terminate any parking agreements they have in the area. Ms. Behmlander advised that the applicant reached out to all of the adjacent properties but hasn’t provided information as to how those conversations went. A letter of support was submitted by the neighborhood association and a letter of opposition was submitted by Grand Valley State University. Mr. Van Strien wished for clarification. He saw an email from John Ball Area Neighbors that said they voted and didn’t have any opposition. He asked if they had a separate letter of support. Ms. Behmlander replied that they did not. They didn’t explicitly support the project but they did not explicitly oppose. Nick Bykerk, Chief Financial Officer at Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing (GRAM), was present on behalf of the request. Mr. Bykerk provided background on the company relating that the company started in December 2010. They acquired the assets of a joint venture between Van Andel Research Institute and Grand Valley State University. GVSU donated the location of their original manufacturing facility, which is at 140 Front St. SW, Suite 3. It is a very small building; 11,400 sq. ft. That is where they made their humble beginnings. The investors with the original group was a collection of people in West Michigan and it has been a West Michigan home grown business. They struggled early on but over the years they rounded the corner. 2015 was a break out year for them and in 2017 they brought in outside private equity investment from Washington DC; Arlington Capital Partners. They sold the business for fifty-five million dollars and had created 200 jobs at that point. Since then, they have gone through COVID. J & J’s COVID vaccine put them on the map. They were the first to manufacture and release commercial product for them. It also allowed them to recruit talent both domestically and across the entire United States. They continue to grow their client portfolio both internationally and domestically and are now above 400 employees with numerous locations throughout the Grand Rapids area. Mr. Bykerk stated that they have had tremendous success and it is with a lot of thanks to their partners along the way. One of the issues they’ve had since the beginning is parking constraints. Mr. Bykerk indicated that it gives him no pleasure to share details around closed-door conversations. Unfortunately, given the manner in which the conversation has gone and the letter of opposition from GVSU, he doesn’t feel he has much choice but to share the rest of the conversation. On Friday, October 28, 2022, GVSU’s VP of Finance and Administration, Gregory City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 November 10, 2022 Sanial, met with GRAM’s CEO, Tom Ross, to discuss the purchase and use of the property at 259 Front St SW. In short, Mr. Sanial stated that GVSU would oppose their Special Land Use request unless they broke a long-standing contract that GRAM has with them for leased property to allow them access and use to the 3rd and 4th story of their building that serves as their company headquarters. He continued, stating that GVSU would break the current parking leases with GRAM if they didn’t allow them to access and use the aforementioned building. When Mr. Ross expressed his displeasure and being threatened in that manner, Mr. Sanial stated it is just business. Mr. Bykerk assured the Planning Commission that this is not how GRAM does business. Mr. Bykerk related that Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing has invested over a hundred million dollars in establishing a state-of-the-art pharmaceutical manufacturing company in the heart of Grand Rapids at 524 Butterworth, directly across the street from the location in question. As previously mentioned, they employ approximately 400 employees over several locations and have struggled to secure adequate parking for them since the inception of their organization. It is ironic that the party that effectively holds all parking rights in the area is a party that now stands in opposition of GRAM establishing its own meager access to parking, parking that would be complementary to the existing parking arrangements with GVSU and others and parking that GVSU cannot threaten to take away from them if GRAM doesn’t do what they want. As it relates to the letter GVSU submitted, it is important to highlight several considerations. GVSU mentions that the current occupant describes the building as a historic building rich with character and historical value that should be preserved. Mr. Bykerk does not debate the long- standing existence of the building but the suggestion that it has historic significance seems a stretch. Further, within the context of the threat, to pull parking away from GRAM, the conversation was clearly not about historic preservation. Mr. Bykerk urged the Planning Commission to keep that in mind. The building has routinely smelled of rotting deer carcasses and is an eye sore in the ten years that GRAM has been there. It is an eye sore even if you ignore the multi-acre metal scrap yard immediately behind it. Further, after completing environmental investigations performed by Dixon Environmental, this site, half of which is currently a dirt parking lot, is riddled with asbestos and hazardous chemicals. The site, both the building and property, need to be remediated if it is to ever be used by anyone again. The suggestion that this building could be reused is in error without a dramatic overhaul. It is also mentioned in the letter of opposition that parking lots lack aesthetic appeal. As a long-standing neighbor of this site, there is nothing more lacking in aesthetic appeal than the site as it stands currently. Mr. Bykerk indicated that it is their understanding that investment in life sciences and advanced manufacturing is a key initiative to the State and the City. He hopes that the repurpose of this site, to provide parking for future growth, is seen as a reasonable concept to support the investment in life science and advance manufacturing, which GRAM represents. GVSU also suggests that using property in proximity to the Grand River for merely parking purposes would be an error and not the best use of the property. Mr. Bykerk finds that notion interesting and hypocritical given that GVSU has a series of parking lots all along the river. They don’t have issues using the property in such proximity to the river for purposes of their parking but have no problem prohibiting a property that is a fraction of the size from being used toward someone else’s parking purposes. Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Bykerk noted that GVSU highlights that there is no shortage of parking in the area. Mr. Bykerk agreed that there is no shortage of parking in the area. As mentioned previously, on October 28th, GVSU’s VP of Finance threatened to break their parking arrangement leaving them with no options if they weren’t given City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 November 10, 2022 what they wanted. Mr. Bykerk feels that highlights the importance of allowing additional parking to be established in the area; parking that is not controlled by a university that has no problem bullying a company like GRAM in attempting to extort what they want. GRAM is all too familiar with the fact that GVSU has extensive parking in the area; parking that is being weaponized in this conversation and several before. Mr. Bykerk stated that GRAM has created a thriving company in Grand Rapids and creates hundreds of extremely well-paying jobs. They hire a significant number of key positions from out of state and not a single one of their customers is located in the state of Michigan. They are pulling real talent and revenue into Michigan that would not otherwise exist. GVSU is attempting to strong arm them and oppose the construction of the parking lot because they now want two floors of a leased building back from GRAM. Mr. Bykerk would hope that the Planning Commission can see what GRAM has invested in the community and will continue to invest and help them move forward with approval of the Special Land Use request. Ms. Joseph noted that the staff report indicates that the parking needed is for 40 full-time employees plus guests. She asked if the proposed parking will address their parking demand. Mr. Bykerk replied that in the immediate term it does. They have always had a situation where more is better but they have been in a situation where they need to secure whatever they can get. In the current phase of the expansion at 524 Butterworth they added two more clean rooms and the 40, plus guests, represents the initial employees related to that specific expansion. Mr. Van Strien asked Mr. Bykerk to expand upon the site contamination. For a parking lot development, will they be completely remediating the site prior to construction? Matt Van Gessel, Dixon Environmental, replied that they have done a phase 1 and phase 2 environmental assessment. The next course of action, pending approval, would be to continue on with remediation of all environmental concerns. Mr. Van Strien clarified that they would be remediating the site completely prior to construction of the parking lot. Mr. Van Gessel responded affirmatively. Ms. Bersche asked what the remediation will entail. In some cases, a parking lot is really all that a site can be used for when properties are heavily contaminated. Mr. Van Gessel explained that Jessie Adams, project manager of the first build out of the Butterworth facility, worked through the due care act and all of the planning. Mr. Adams, CRV, explained that they built the first phase of GRAM’s expansion. They also built the second phase expansion and are planning the third phase. There was environmental contamination on the 524 Butterworth site that was mitigated and there were strategies and technologies that were utilized to allow the development of that site. He isn’t certain that it would be accurate to say the contamination would preclude development on the subject site. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 November 10, 2022 Mr. Kent asked Mr. Bykerk, with respect to the functionality of the parking lot, what the height of the proposed decorative fence is. The Ordinance permits a 4’ fence and the Planning Commission would have to allow a greater height. Mr. Bykerk replied that they are rule followers by nature so whatever the rules state is what they will follow. Mr. Williams clarified that the site is contaminated and they will clean it up before putting the parking lot there. Mr. Bykerk agreed. They run a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility and pharmaceutical elegance is the term they use. It is important that it is present and installed from the very beginning at all sites. The FDA has a lot to say about that. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Randy Finch related that he owns the property adjacent to the subject site. He is thrilled about this project. The suggestion of the building being historic is a joke. They are down wind of it and there is no fixing it or repairing it. It needs to be leveled. They were lucky with their property when they had it checked that they are clean with everything. The whole area there is starting to turn around. They obviously bought their property right next to a scrap yard and deer hide business and it was great because it was cheap. They are thrilled that this will improve the neighborhood. They have a few questions about the layout of the parking lot because the current property is encroaching on them a bit and they want to be sure to get that cleaned up. He stated that he sees no down side to the request. There isn’t a lot of parking in the area with the construction going on. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. He stated that there are times when he views parking lots as place holders for future development. In this case, when getting remediation of the site, he is okay with a surface parking lot for now. Some day this will likely be something better. Ms. Shannon agreed. This area has a lot of environmental issues given the past uses. It is nice to see a company like this, bringing good jobs to Grand Rapids, able to start out and incubate in Grand Rapids and then add on, build, and remain here. From that vantage point, they will add to the economic welfare of the city. She is in support. Ms. Bersche also supports the project. She agreed with Mr. Van Strien. In a very heavy industrial area like this there will be a lot of clean up necessary so it is a good spot for a parking lot and ready to be rehabilitated into something better. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing (John Wichelt) to construct a surface parking lot at 259 Front Ave SW, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the project supports the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 November 10, 2022 parking requirements associated with the existing manufacturing development to the north. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the proposed use will be designed to meet all standards. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will limit the need for shared or on-street parking within the adjacent residential and commercial neighborhoods. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through adequate parking lot screening and landscaping. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare because the proposed use is not anticipated to result in excessive noise, glare, or visual clutter. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because appropriate site improvements have been proposed to facilitate safe and efficient pedestrian circulation and the proposed parking lot screening will help re-establish the urban street wall. 7. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the proposed use will allow redevelopment of an underutilized property. 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 unused curb cuts shall be repaired to City standards. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 November 10, 2022 3. That the existing billboard be removed from the property upon termination of the current billboard lease. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Ms. Behler recused herself from participation in this consideration and vote.) RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [8 TO 0] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel RECUSED: Stacie Behler E. 1027 Leonard St NE - Electronic Message Center Address: 1027 Leonard St NE Applicant: East Leonard Christian Reformed Church Requesting: Approval for an electronic message center to be incorporated into a new monument sign, located within a residential zone district. Zoning: MCN-LDR Mid-20th Century Neighborhoods–Low Density Residential Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses 5.15.10. Changeable Copy Signs 5.15.11. Signs in Residential Zone Districts Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0095 Staff Assigned: Sarah Behmlander sbehmlander@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: November 26, 2022 Ms. Behler returned to the meeting. Ms. Wahamaki introduced the request of East Leonard Christian Reformed Church for approval to replace an existing monument sign on Leonard St. with an electronic message center. The property is located in the MCN-LDR zone district. The existing sign on the site was installed in June of 2000. The previous sign, that had been in approximately the same location, had been destroyed so they replaced it with the existing sign. The sign appears to be non-conforming relative to the currently required 15 ft. setback; the sign is approximately 8 ft. from the sidewalk. The proposed sign would replace the existing sign, in the same location, and includes a 12 sq. ft. electronic message center. The proposed sign meets the Ordinance requirements with the exception of the minimum setback. It appears to be located well outside of the clear vision area. The proposed sign will replace the existing concrete base with an aluminum base and cap. The electronic message center will operate within Ordinance requirements. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 November 10, 2022 Ms. Wahamaki related that no letters of support or opposition have been received. Staff has not been notified of any neighborhood outreach by the applicant. Ms. Wahamaki identified key considerations as any neighborhood concerns that may be expressed today; potential impacts on nearby residential properties relative to glare and visual clutter; and the architectural compatibility of the proposed materials with the existing church façade. The Planning Commission should consider and discuss the appropriateness of the location of the sign as it relates to the minimum setback requirement. Ms. Joseph noticed a revision to the staff report regarding the location of the sign and wished for clarification. The report says that the proposed sign location can’t be approved as proposed because it requires approval from the BZA. Ms. Joseph asked, if approved, whether they will have to move it back by 2 ft. Ms. Wahamaki replied affirmatively. They will either need to meet the Ordinance requirement or seek a variance. The Planning Commission can approve a waiver of up to 5 ft. Jim VanTol, Postema Signs, was present on behalf of the request. He clarified that the existing sign doesn’t have a concrete base; it is an aluminum form base made to look like concrete. It is a one-piece, free standing sign. The existing sign is 105 inches wide and the proposed sign is 87 inches wide, which gives them some room to work with. It is currently 8 ft. from the side walk edge. His recommendation would be to move the proposed sign back an additional 2 ft. providing a 10 ft. setback from the sidewalk. That would place it 9 inches from the church walkway. Ms. Joseph asked if the operator is aware of the Ordinance requirements of the sign being off at night, etc. Mr. Van Tol replied affirmatively. The sign will be off from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Joseph agreed that the sign should be moved back 2 ft. Nine inches does feel a bit crowded to the church walk. She appreciates that it is on a main street vs. a residential neighborhood street. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of East Leonard Christian Reformed Church to install a new electronic message center at 1027 Leonard St NE, 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 sign will support the purpose and intent of the sign ordinance. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the proposed sign is to meet all setback, area, and height requirements. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 30 November 10, 2022 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 sign will be scaled, sited and architecturally designed in a manner consistent with the character and development within the area. 4. The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because the proposed sign will not have detrimental effects on residential uses across the street. 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 glare or visual clutter because electronic sign functions will operate in accordance with the regulations for electronic message centers and the proposed new sign will meet all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The building and site area required for the proposed use will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable, particularly where the natural features assist in preserving the general character of the neighborhood because the installation of the proposed sign will not entail major excavation and lighting levels will be limited under operational requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 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 proposed sign will comply with all operational requirements of Section 5.15.10. Changeable Copy Signs, including display regulations, light levels, and permitting requirements. 3. That a sign permit shall be obtained and an Electronic Message Center Requirement Agreement be completed prior to the installation of the new sign. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 31 November 10, 2022 Ms. Joseph asked if they have to grant the 5 ft. waiver. If not, they have to seek a variance for the setback. Ms. Bersche AMENDED the motion to include: 4. That the sign shall be permitted with a 10 ft. setback. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel Ms. Turkelson joined the meeting. Mr. Rozeboom left. F. 13 McConnell SW - Optional Plan Review/Special Land Use Address: 13 McConnell St SW and 421 & 427 S Division Ave Applicant: McConnell GR LLC (Jon Morgan) Requesting: Optional Plan Review to modify the building element requirements in the TN-TCC Zone District to facilitate construction of a new 10 story building; and Special Land Use approval for on-site alcohol consumption; a microbrewery and/or distillery; package alcohol sales in association with a food hall; live entertainment; a banquet facility; outdoor food preparation and cooking, including food trucks; outdoor seating; and reductions for vehicle and bicycle parking. Zoning: TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood – Transitional City Center) Zone District Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.9.15. Mobile Food Vending 5.9.24. Outdoor Seating Areas 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses 5.12.14. Optional Plan Review Case Number: PC-OPR-2022-0082 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Optional Plan Review/Special Land Use Effective Date: November 12, 2022 Ms. Zeller introduced the request for a new ten-story, mixed-use development near the southwest corner of the intersection of Wealthy Street and S. Division Avenue in the TN-TCC Zone District. The development is proposed to include 432 market-rate dwelling units along with retail, food hall, and brewery and/or distillery components. There are two elements for the Planning Commission’s consideration today. The first is Optional Plan Review to allow construction of the building exceeding the maximum height permitted in the TN-TCC Zone City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 32 November 10, 2022 District. The TN-TCC allows a maximum of four stories by right and five stories with bonuses. The applicant is requesting ten stories as well as the corresponding increase in residential density. Secondly, Special Land Use approval is requested for a parking reduction as well as a range of uses including alcohol sales and consumption, live entertainment, banquet functions, and outdoor seating. Originally, the application included outdoor food preparation and cooking for a food truck plaza. That has since been eliminated from the application. As mentioned, the property is in the TCC Zone District. On the north side of Wealthy is the City Center (CC) Zone District. In this portion of the CC, ten stories are allowed by right and sixteen stories with bonuses. The area in which the subject property is located is TCC. TOD is located across the street. Ms. Zeller’s understanding is that the subject site is currently vacant. It was previously an industrial facility; Spectrum Industries. Klingman Lofts is located immediately to the west, which is a residential use. To the south, across McConnell, is an underutilized public parking lot. At the intersection is a gas station. Also associated with this project the applicant is proposing to construct a commercial building. No details have been provided for that at this point. That is the location where the outdoor cooking and food trucks were originally proposed. Ms. Zeller displayed an excerpt from the South Division Corridor Plan and identified the subject property on that Plan. The small parking lot at 421 and 427 Wealthy is identified for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) use, which is higher density development located near transit. Tapestry Square is also located across the street, which is ICCF’s development, which is also zoned TOD. Ms. Zeller displayed images of existing conditions as well as the surrounding area, noting the change in elevation along Wealthy. There is a significant grade change from Ionia up to Division. Ms. Zeller explained that the current parking lot on the Division sites that is proposed for commercial development is divided from the primary development site by a public alley, which is why it is not all one development site. However, in association with this development, the applicant does propose a smaller commercial building on those sites. Ms. Zeller clarified that the primary issue is Optional Plan Review for the additional height. Optional Plan Review is an alternate process that allows the Planning Commission to waive certain Zoning requirements to facilitate a more creative plan. Optional Plan Review has been used in other situations where increased height was appropriate. Ms. Turkelson will explain how this came to be pursued as an Optional Plan Review. In addition to the primary request of the additional height is the associated number of dwelling units. Over 400 units are proposed and normally in this zone district 125 dwelling units would be allowed. There are several Special Land Uses being proposed, the main one being a parking reduction. 565 spaces are required and approximately 100 spaces are being provided. Across Wealthy, to the north, in the CC Zone District, no parking is required. The applicant is also seeking a reduction for bicycle parking. The site is located near the BRT and there is also on-street parking as well as district parking available. Because of the number of dwelling units and intensity of the use being proposed, Mobile GR asked for a traffic impact study. The applicant has provided the study, which was included in the packet. The Traffic Engineer concurs with the findings of the study and that any issues could be mitigated with modifications to the timing of the signals on S. Division. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 33 November 10, 2022 With respect to the Special Land Uses, the applicant is proposing a range of uses that will need Special Land Use approval. The proposed uses include restaurants, a food hall with alcohol, retail, and a potential brewpub or distillery, as well as maker spaces. The alcohol uses and requested outdoor seating requires Special Land Use consideration. The applicant is intending to close all of the alcohol uses by midnight and the outdoor seating would be closed by 10 p.m. weekdays and 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. If there is a brewpub, microbrewery, or distillery there would be packaged alcohol sales associated with that use. The applicant also anticipates having packaged alcohol available for purchase to supplement the food hall purchases. Live entertainment is also proposed as an amenity. There will be no ticket sales to performances. They are also asking for banquet functions up to 250 guests per event with typical banquet hall operations. Finally, a resident amenity deck on top of the retail and parking level is proposed. Ms. Zeller related that the applicant engaged in significant neighborhood outreach, which is included in the packet. There were a number of letters of support submitted including from the Chamber of Commerce, The Rapid, and DRGI, citing the need for market-rate housing in the area as well the project’s accessibility to transportation, services and restaurants. A letter submitted today was from the Heartside Neighborhood Association, which was a neutral letter. They didn’t feel they knew enough about the project to fully commit one way or the other. The Heartside Business Association also submitted a letter acknowledging the outreach but not committing to support or opposition. Ms. Turkelso expanded upon the Optional Plan Review consideration, which relates to height, density and a few other elements that didn’t align with the existing Zone District. When asked what path staff would recommend, they went through a fairly comprehensive review to determine what they felt would be best recommended for their team and also provide the City with the tools needed to consider the project in light of the various planning efforts. They considered rezoning to either City Center (CC) or Transit Oriented Development (TOD). In general, she felt bringing CC south of Wealthy was an important Master Plan conversation. The TOD seems to make a lot of sense in light of the planning work that has been done, specifically the S. Division Area Specific Plan and the existence of the Bus Rapid Transit line. However, the project still didn’t fit within the requirements of the TOD. It would result in crafting an amendment to the Ordinance specific to this development, which is generally not well advised. They also talked about a Planned Redevelopment District, which she also feels is an option. However, when looking through the various applicability and requirements it was felt that the Optional Plan Review tool gives the Planning Commission the ability to think about this project holistically and to make a decision. Ms. Turkelson explained that a lot of the recommendations of the planning efforts align with this project so she felt that this process would give the Planning Commission all the tools needed to make an informed decision. Other considerations included the uniqueness of the site and how Wealthy is aligned with the site, the grade changes previously mentioned, and the fact that it is directly across from the CC Zone District and across Division is a TOD node. There were a lot of interesting factors related to the site that were considered and they ultimately arrived at the OPR recommendation to the development team that staff felt was the most appropriate. Jon Morgan expressed his excitement relating that this will be their second investment in the Grand Rapids area. He also related that he is formerly from Grand Rapids. What they’ve found in other developments is that activation is key to everything. They feel both the plan and mixed- City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 34 November 10, 2022 use development that they’ve proposed, along with some of the Special Land Uses, are key to this development plan being successful ultimately. Ms. Shannon recalled that a public hearing was held two weeks ago, even though the project was postponed to this meeting. There were home owners in the area that expressed concern about a liquor store and urged the Planning Commission not to permit that given some of the issues in the Heartside area. In the proposed application that was called out specifically. She asked if that was in response to those concerns. Mr. Morgan replied that it won’t be a liquor store. Suzanne Schultz added that they specifically stated that there won’t be a liquor store because of the request for alcohol. A Class C license does permit packaged alcohol sales and they wanted to be clear, because there is a distillery or microbrewery as well the food hall, and allay any concerns and have it documented in their materials. There are plenty of issues in the neighborhood and that doesn’t need to be one of them. Ms. Schulz displayed an aerial view and identified Wealthy St., US 131, the Downtown Market, a recently constructed City parking lot, the gas station at the corner and the TOD currently being developed. What is interesting about this area over the years is it has been somewhat of a no mans land. When the S. Division plan was done, they weren’t even sure what to do with this area. Part of the issue with that is that Southtown’s Corridor Improvement Authority also claims this area. There is somewhat of a layering of jurisdictions that adds to the confusion. Another question was how far should downtown go. In looking at this, given what is in the area and the fact that the Downtwon Market opened a decade ago, nothing has really happened other than the parking lot being built. When thinking about how to both activate and connect downtown to the S. Division corridor and the southeast side, south of Wealthy St., there is energy happening further down on Wealthy to the east and you have to travel quite a way to see some activation on the southwest side on Grandville. There is nothing that connects these pieces to the south. A development of this kind of magnitude starts to create that energy that is required to be able to transform the corridor and also assist the Silverline in being successful, by adding a large number of new riders. Ms. Schulz related that there is also a DASH service, and bus lines 1 and 5 also serve the area. There is also cross-town service with the Wealthy connection. With Wealthy St. going to grade, which has been talked about by MDOT, there would be no change to this project because this project was here before the freeway. Ms. Schulz explained that the project will be retaining the two-story portion of the building, to be utilized for the food hall. The new construction will be on the parking lot between the existing building and the gas station and the frontage along McConnell. Ms. Schulz feels the design is important from a massing/scale standpoint. The Division frontage would have a reasonably scaled building, the food hall existing structure will remain and then along McConnell will be the one/two story development with the severe expression line/recess to be able to get to the tower. All edges are compatible with the neighborhood from the idea of scale and the tower sits back from all of the lot lines with the exception of one point near Wealthy. Ms. Schulz related that the building where the food hall will be is protected and is helping with the Klingman Lofts building. That is the nearest point where Klingman Lofts is located. There will be no change to that edge where there is currently residential. Ms. Schulz related that they met with Bob City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 35 November 10, 2022 Jacobsons of Klingman Lofts and he expressed support. They also met with the Downtown Market. When they were considering the food hall there was concern about the Market, vendors, and how the food hall might affect the downtown vendors. With multiple restaurants and activity in one place that kind of vibrancy usually builds vs. detracts. From their viewpoint they want the Downtown Market to be successful as it is a major anchor. There are no plans to do anything that would harm the Downtown Market. In talking about the tower, what has been interesting in downtown Grand Rapids is if you look at where market-rate housing has happened and where Low Income Housing Tax Credits have been provided, there is a clear divide between north of Fulton and south of Fulton. North of Fulton it has been market-rate housing and south of Fulton nearly every project has been subsidized, which creates a couple of problems. If it is a LIHTC project there is an income cap. If you make more than a certain amount you can’t live in the neighborhood because you don’t qualify for that housing. If you wanted to live in that neighborhood, you probably couldn’t find a place to live if making a certain amount over Area Median Income. Ms. Schulz related that there is also a story that Denny Sturtevant from Dwelling Place had about when they tried to bring Spartan in to do a small grocery store for the neighborhood and provide goods and services. When they did that, what they found was what should have been the busiest days of the year around the holidays was actually their worst. It was because they didn’t have any market-rate housing nearby with people with disposable income that could continue to help support the goods and services the neighborhood needed. The sales weren’t there and they didn’t have the kind of business to be able to sustain it and the grocery store closed. Having diverse incomes and a wide range in the neighborhood is really needed. The saturation of affordable housing currently is definitely needed and what Dwelling Place anticipated years ago but there also needs to be a balance. Housing Next found that Grand Rapids needs 5,300 more apartment units by 2025 and that doesn’t include Kent County as a whole. On the chart provided in the packet about the Area Median Income and where the levels are, as you get to the 80-120% AMI and 120% and above you begin to see some significant demand. Approximately 45% of all of the apartments are in the 50-80% and above in that market-rate. Ms. Schulz explained that what is interesting with the units being proposed, because there is a mix of micro-units and one-bedrooms, they are hitting in the sweet spot of the 80-120% where it has been very difficult to find housing. The proposed hits a niche that is very much needed in the community. Ms. Schulz referred to the pie chart in the packet relating that the bulk of the units will be studios, some one-bedrooms, and only a few two-bedrooms. The work the developer does highly amenitizes the space. The studio is the place to rest your head and keep your things but the lifestyle this provides is out in the sense of community. It is designed with a pool and activity areas and trying to create a strong sense of community. The number of units being requested helps to support the programming. From the aspect of the Optional Plan Review for the building height and density, Ms. Schulz noted that across the street there are no parking requirements, no density requirements and ten stories by right. There are a huge range of transportation options. Ionia is proposed for a separated bike facility and there is the Dash, Rapid, and Silverline. Additionally, the unit type being proposed finds that not everyone owns a car in this type of development. Transportation is the second highest household cost. What they have found for micro-units is that the need is half a space in Grand Rapids because not everyone uses a car, which is partly why they aren’t City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 36 November 10, 2022 proposing to over-build parking. There are also parking spaces across the street. In coordinating with Mobile GR, they indicated that the upper level, 200 spaces, is rarely used. The only time they see some use is at the Downtown Market when they are having a major event in the evening. Ms. Schulz also stated that what is important with this level of density is the activity on the street it provides; the number of people that will be walking and engaging with the street. There is safety in numbers. One comment they heard from the neighborhood was concerns about the gas station or behaviors that occur near the Downtown Market. The more people you get moving around, the less likely people are to commit crimes because they are being watched; there are more eyes on the street. This density helps with some of those concerns. Ms. Schulz explained that the food hall is a product Mr. Morgan already has in Colorado. It has been quite successful and goes hand in hand with the target market for the units. It is under one management and not all separate restaurant vendors. They are currently planning breakfast, lunch and dinner. There are no other food outlets nearby other than the Downtown Market, which closes at 7 and 8 p.m. For the food and alcohol requests, it will be well managed and under one ownership and control and provides food options. Ms. Schulz invited questions. Ms. Joseph asked about the public lot at McConnell and Ionia and whether there are time limit restrictions or any other restrictions for that parking and is anyone else counting that parking toward their parking requirements. Ms. Schulz replied that Mr. Naramore, Mobile GR, shared with them that he would be willing to work with them on what the possibilities could be. Mobile GR does have a resident parking program for evening hours. He expressed a willingness to discuss that. Ms. Turkelson recalled Ms. Schulz mentioning that the Division lot would be developed with a reasonably scaled building. She asked if she could be more specific; single- or two-story? Ms. Schulz replied that they haven’t designed it yet but it would certainly meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Ms. Turkelson advised that the minimum height for the TCC District is two-stories. Mr. Morgan stated that while it hasn’t been designed currently, it will either be a single-story at two-story height or a two-story but it would not exceed any height limitations. Ms. Turkelson explained that it would actually have to be a two-story structure or it would require an administrative departure or waiver of the building height from the Planning Commission. In light of the fact that it is directly on the BRT line and noted as a TOD in the Plan, she struggles with that a bit to consider a single-story building. It is important that that property be incorporated to this decision making because part of the logic here is to look at a TOD style development to support the BRT and the densities needed and making sure that the frontage on Division is developed and not remaining as a parking lot as it is today. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 37 November 10, 2022 Ms. Turkelson doesn’t believe it was mentioned that this is within the Southtown Corridor Improvement Authority. She asked if they could speak to the engagement efforts they attempted to do. Ms. Schulz related that they met with their development committee. Unfortunately, there was only one member in attendance. The recommendation was made to support. They went to participate in the Southtown CIA’s next board meeting and that was cancelled for lack of quorum. They attended the following month and that was also cancelled due to lack of quorum. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Kevin Basset, CEO of Spectrum Industries, related that he owns the property in question. He has owned the property for 26 years. They first acquired the property to put manufacturing into the facility and subsequently acquired additional parcels around the area, including the property where the City developed the parking lot. As Ms. Schulz stated, the more density you have in a neighborhood like this, the lower the crime will be. Mr. Basset indicated that he could attest to that. They have seen crime become lower and lower as the activity level in the neighborhood has increased. Mr. Basset stated that it was bittersweet when they closed their facility there. They put in a manufacturing process that did decorative components for automotive interiors. It became cost prohibitive to operate here due to competitiveness and aging equipment. They made a decision to close the facility without laying anyone off and deployed them to other facilities in West Michigan. Mr. Basset stated that he spent a lot of years in this neighborhood. He agreed to sell this property to Mr. Morgan simply because it is a market-rate development. He would not have sold it or entered into a contract with them if it wasn’t market-rate. He firmly believes that a market-rate development is going to continue to improve the overall neighborhood and surrounding areas as development continues southward along Division. With the homelessness in the Heartside area it is very hard to attract tenants south of Wealthy St. without having nice amenities, and that is what is proposed here. Mr. Basset related that when he entered into the contract with the City for the parking lot, he has the privilege of having 100 parking spaces in that lot and has agreed to earmark 90 of those spaces for this development, which will be rented at whatever the going rate is at the time. Brooke Osterman, Director of Housing Communications for Housing Next, commented on the housing need, including the importance of continued housing supply at all price points, including market rate. 5,300 new rental units are what is needed just in the City of Grand Rapids. The demand for more than 45% of that comes from market-rate; 2,400 units by 2025. What Ms. Osterman wished to highlight is the importance of market-rate, not only in meeting that demand but also increasing accessibility, affordability, and mobility in the market at all income levels. Just a year ago a study was done that showed that new construction of market-rate has an incredible impact on affordability across income spectrums on nearby existing housing stock. They know that the stabilization of housing prices is important and that both market-rate and non-market housing has an important role to play in that. In this case, it is market-rate, mixed- income opportunity. Kim DeStigter, 18 Goodrich SW, thank the developer for the packaged liquor in association with a food hall; they appreciate that. He asked about the modification of building elements. Is that City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 38 November 10, 2022 only for height or is it for something else? Will the building still be under the scrutiny of the City’s regular building element requirements. There isn’t really a design yet, only a massing model for it. In general, he feels this is fabulous for the neighborhood. All of the comments about the activity are accurate. They like the idea. Mr. DeStigter feels this is precedent setting on what happens when you have 100 parking spaces for 500+ units. He doesn’t know but there is a lot of thought about what should happen and what will happen. They experience squatters in their parking lot and they probably won’t come across Wealthy St. to park. If the assumptions aren’t correct, is there enough street parking in the neighborhood to make this work. He has full confidence that the Planning Commission and Planning Department will address that properly. In general, they want this development to happen. However, 100 parking spaces and a 250- occupancy load for the banquet facility alone is concerning. Where does that go? The public hearing was closed. Ms. Schulz responded regarding parking. She pointed out that Founders Brewing Company has very little parking and has an occupancy of 650. It is the number one place for Uber; people figure it out. Ms. Turkelson responded regarding the building element question. The only exception to the building element requirement is the height. The rest of the building will be subject to the requirements of the TCC Zone District. The existing structure for the food hall doesn’t meet the transparency requirements but that is existing and, unless otherwise required by the Planning Commission, would carry forward those existing non-conforming rights. With respect to parking, that is a determination for the Planning Commission. The goal was to look at this as a TOD and with TOD style development there really isn’t a need for parking because of the access and proximity to transit, especially the accessibility to the BRT line. The Rapid also supports that thought process. Realizing that this is not downtown, it is across the street, and if this were just across the street there are no parking requirements for any development. The goal is to get away from having individual parking lots or parking structures that are incorporated into the cost and space of each development and try to consolidate those demands, whether it is through a City system or private parking system. Those parking systems would then supply any demand for parking and would not be incorporated into each individual development. Ms. Joseph stated that she is in complete support of this project. The location for a request for ten stories is appropriate based on the availability of transit and promoting TOD and multi-modal transportation. While they don’t know how it will all work out, if they don’t do development like this, they never will know. Unlike her trepidations with a couple of previous cases today, she is not concerned about the parking because of the options available in this location. Ms. Joseph also stated that whether it is market-rate, income restricted, owner-occupied, or rental, that is not part of the Planning Commission’s consideration. She is pleased that there will be so many more units of housing with this project, which are desperately needed. Ms. Behler indicated that she is also in support. She lives in this neighborhood and is excited about the continued investment. The Tapestry Square units are going up quickly and are fantastic. Because of the massing there, even though it is across the street, this massing is also appropriate as that part of the community builds out. Ms. Behler offered full support for many of the reasons stated by Ms. Joseph. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 39 November 10, 2022 Ms. Shannon stated that obviously the need for housing and affordable housing is an important goal for the community. She likes the idea of adding more amenities and creating a sub- community south of downtown that will attract people to come in, just as the Downtown Market does, but also serve what will be a great influx of residents. Mr. Williams stated that he is also in support. However, for the record, what is going through his mind is that there is a full neighborhood of black and brown residents in the area. When he sees this project, he sees and hears gentrification. He feels there are a lot of black and brown residents that will be priced out of this neighborhood and driven from it. While he is in support of this project, he wanted that to be on the record so they are aware that this happens, and it happens in processes like this. Hopefully there are things to help mitigate those circumstances; things to help to include everyone in the community when rebuilding and revitalizing, 100% of the community and not just those they want to attract to the community. Ms. Turkelson asked for thoughts on the frontage of Division. Would the Planning Commission be inclined to grant the departure to allow a single-story or stick with the requirement for a two- story, which is the minimum for the district. Ms. Joseph feels two-stories would be appropriate. If she were to make a motion, she would not include that as an exception. Ms. Shannon agreed. Mr. Van Strien feels that when height is used to meet that requirement at times it can be very appropriate. He mentioned examples in Detroit where there are very tall single-story buildings. It is only one floor of active use but it feels very appropriate for a walkable downtown situation. They mentioned that it would be a white box so they don’t necessarily have a user in mind. Ms. Turkelson advised that staff has an administrative departure tool. The desire is to have a two-story but it is something they can evaluate down the road. She just wanted to make sure that if there were strong feelings from the Planning Commission, since it is part of the development application, that she understands what those views are. It is something staff can discuss in coordination when there is an actual user and specific development design for that particular site. Ms. Bersche asked if something taller than a one-story building would block some of the windows in the residential on the second floor. Ms. Turkelson replied no. There is a public alley that would bifurcate the two parcels. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of McConnell GR LLC (Jon Morgan) for: 1. Optional Plan Review approval to modify the building element requirements to facilitate the construction of a new ten-story building with an associated density increase at 13 McConnell Street SW, and City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 40 November 10, 2022 2. Special Land Use approval for alcohol service and on-site consumption, a microbrewery and/or distillery, package alcohol sales in association with a food hall, live entertainment, outdoor seating with alcohol service, a banquet facility, and a waiver for deficient parking, for the following reasons: 1. The project will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the project will support recommendations of GR Forward to increase the number of residents downtown; support the purpose of the TN-TCC Zone District to redevelop and reuse former industrial sites into denser, transit-friendly land uses; and support the recommendation of the S. Division Corridor Plan for redevelopment in the area as a Transit Oriented Development. 2. The project will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the site will be developed so as not to impeded the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property for permitted uses; safe, convenient and well- defined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation within and to and from the site is provided; and the development will be designed to meet all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The project will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties because the project will support the desired mixed-use character of the neighborhood and property to the north of Wealthy Street is zoned TN-CC (City Center), allowing ten stories by right. 4. The project will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because adequate vehicle parking will be provided on-site, on street, and within nearby parking lots and the building will be architecturally designed to be compatible with the requirements of the TN-TCC Zone District. 5. The project will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter because the intensity of the use is appropriate to its surroundings with access to multiple streets and public transit; the permitted and planned uses are allowed within the TCC district and will not include any use which is detrimental; and hours of operation of the proposed Special Land Uses will be limited. 6. The project 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 McConnell building will be appropriately sited relative to the street, and the new buildings on the associated S. Division properties will re-establish the street wall; and the proximity of the project to public transit will encourage mobility shifts that can reduce dependence on single-occupancy vehicles and decrease traffic congestion. 7. The project will not significantly modify the basic standards of the Zone District to the extent that it adversely affects the established or future character of the neighborhood because of the site’s proximity to Wealthy Street, Division Avenue and the CC Zone District and all other zoning requirements of the TN-TCC Zone District will be met. 8. Public or private infrastructure and services already exist and are adequate to support the proposed development. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 41 November 10, 2022 9. The project would not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use will encourage other investment in the area; the many new residents are anticipated to patronize businesses in the vicinity; and the project will help meet the demand for affordable and market rate housing. 10. The proposed project will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all applicable State laws. 11. The request is necessitated by a condition related to the site or structure, is not a means to reduce cost or inconvenience, because the request is partially necessitated by a desire to retain and reuse a portion of the existing historic building on site and because of the desire to create attainable market-rate housing and opening greater commercial and restaurant opportunities in this location. 12. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, it is demonstrated that the area is underserved by the proposed use and that the proposed location for alcohol sales will demonstrably be an asset to the neighborhood because eating and drinking options are limited in the immediate vicinity and the proposed establishment will be open later than the nearby Downtown Market. 13. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the location, scale, and hours of the alcohol uses will inherently limit the intensity and impact of the use. 14. Adjacent or nearby parks, playgrounds, religious institutions, or schools will not be adversely affected because the sale of package alcohol is anticipated to be purchased by patrons also purchasing meals, and not generally by walk-in visitors. 15. 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 will be small in scale. 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. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 42 November 10, 2022 2. That, with the exception of the subject height waiver, the project shall meet the building element requirements and the recommendations contained in “Chapter 3.2 Building Composition” of the Downtown Grand Rapids Streetspace Guidelines. 3. That prior to occupancy, a detailed floor plan and an operations and alcohol management plan for the Special Land Uses shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Director. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Behler, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel VI. Planning Commission Discussion None. VII. Public Comment None. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 3:47 PM