TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 December 8, 2022 City Commission Chambers I. 12:00 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. - Lunch - Conference Room 901, City Hall, 300 Monroe Ave NW II. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM by Board Member Kyle Van Strien PRESENT: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel ABSENT: Behler STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Sarah Behmlander, Laura Wahamaki, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from November 10, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Paul Rozeboom, Vice Chairperson YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Al- Shatel ABSENT: Stacie Behler, Lawrence Williams IV. Business A. Planning Director's Report  Agenda items were briefly reviewed.  Ms. Turkelson advised that the project construction value for this year is approximately 1% less than last year. Last year’s investments were approximately $442,000,000 and this year is approximately $438,000,000. There is still quite a bit of work coming in  Ms. Turkelson provided a Master Plan update. The steering committee process continues to move forward and they remain on track with the public engagement anticipated to kick off in January. B. Conflict of Interest None. V. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. 3325 Plainfield NE - Gas Station Alcohol Sales, 24-hour Operation Address: 3325 Plainfield Ave NE (Postponed from 10/27/2022) Applicant: Kum & Go, LC (Ryan Halder) Generated 12/12/2022 7:49 AM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 December 8, 2022 Requesting: Approval for a 24-hour vehicle fueling station and convenience store with the sale of beer and wine. Zoning: MON-C Modern Era Neighborhoods –Commercial Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.9.38. Vehicle Fuel Stations 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0088 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: December 24, 2022 Ms. Zeller presented the request relating that the applicant proposes demolition of the existing improvements on the site and construction of a new gas station and convenience store with 24- hour operation and alcohol sales. Gas stations in the MON-C Zone District are a permitted use. However, developments of an acre or more require Planning Commission Site Plan Review, which the subject property is. Additionally, the proposed alcohol sales and 24-hour operation require Special Land Use approval. Ms. Zeller indicated that the property is approximately 1.75 acres in area and is currently improved with a shopping center. Ms. Zeller recalled that the Planning Commission recently considered a request for reuse of the existing building as a self-storage facility, which was denied. The site has frontage on both Plainfield and Elmdale. There is an oil change business located in front of the site with cross-access, including an easement for the oil change business to cross onto the subject site. Ms. Zeller identified surrounding uses as being commercial with some mixed-density residential on the other side of Salerno, which may be something to keep in mind relative to the 24-hour use and alcohol sales. The project will include the demolition of all existing improvements on the site. A new 5,620 sq. ft. convenience store with vehicle fueling, alcohol sales, and 24-hour operation is proposed. Eighteen parking spaces are being provided. Three curb cuts will be in the same general locations as the current curb cuts. Ms. Zeller explained that because Plainfield is a State road, MDOT has review authority related to the curb cut on Plainfield. Ms. Zeller commented on the proposed site plan and layout. Because the property has frontage on both Plainfield and Elmdale, it is considered to have two front yards. The lot lines not abutting a street are considered side yards. The building’s proposed location significantly exceeds the required 25-foot front yard and 10-foot side yard setbacks. The canopy and underground storage tanks meet the fifteen-foot setbacks from all lot lines. The trash enclosure is proposed to be in the front yard between the street and the building near the northwest corner of the site. This location is not permitted. Approval can be conditioned upon relocating to an appropriate location. Ms. Zeller pointed out that the site plan includes a note for the optional expansion of the canopy and the addition of two dispensers. The Planning Commission should further explore that with the applicant for clarification. The proposed number of parking spaces City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 December 8, 2022 meets the parking requirement. Greenspace and landscaping appear to be met and will be confirmed at the time of LUDS permitting. The proposed building is a single-story, flat-roof building, approximately 18 ft. in height. The fuel pump canopies echo the design of the building. There are no material, expression line, or building entrance orientation requirements in this zone district. There are transparency requirements however. On the two street facing elevations, east and north, the transparency requirements are exceeded, particularly the east elevation facing Plainfield. The requirement is 30% and they are proposing 65% on the east elevation and 46% on the north. The applicant is proposing no windows on the other two elevations, partially because of the location of walk-in coolers. One of the elements for Planning Commission consideration is whether the lack of transparency on those two sides is warranted. Ms. Zeller related that the convenience store will include food preparation and sales, a seating area, and retail area for typical convenience store items. The cash register viewing area requirements are met. The building has been reviewed for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) requirements and the building and site are found to be appropriate. Ms. Zeller displayed a security camera layout, which was part of the CPTED review. Ms. Zeller again referred to the site plan to discuss traffic and circulation. The applicant had a traffic impact study prepared and the traffic study concluded that a traffic signal is warranted at Elmdale and Plainfield. MDOT concurs with that conclusion. However, because there is a traffic signal at Plainfield and Salerno, approximately 600 ft. north, they will not approve a traffic signal at Elmdale. The study also recommended the construction of a full-width, southbound deceleration lane on Plainfield just north of the proposed access to Plainfield. MDOT also concurs with that. There may be some issues with the construction of a deceleration lane in that location however. There may be some sloping grades, as well as the fact that there are two existing curb cuts that service the oil change business. Staff has included the deceleration lane as a condition of approval but ultimately it is up to MDOT. In order to allow the curb cut to the south, MDOT wants the deceleration lane. Those things will need further exploration by the applicant with the owner of the oil change business owner and MDOT. Ms. Zeller pointed out that in the revised staff report they recommended the inclusion of a traffic diverter that would result in right-in/right-out traffic movements only, along with the closure of access to the Wendy’s site to the south. After further discussion and input from MDOT, staff no longer feels that recommendation is necessary. Ms. Zeller related that signage is not part of the consideration today. Any signage will be required to meet the requirements of the MON-C Zone District. There has been no input submitted by surrounding property owners or the Creston Neighborhood Association. Mr. Van Strien asked if it is possible that signage could be used, since the physical diverter is no longer recommended, to encourage traffic desiring to go north to go to Elmdale for the left turn. Ms. Zeller felt that would be possible on the interior of the site. Directing them to Salerno would likely be best since there is a signal at Salerno and Plainfield. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 December 8, 2022 Ms. Joseph pointed out that there is a transit stop between the two oil change curb cuts. In addition to working with MDOT and the City on the deceleration lane they may have to coordinate with The Rapid on impacts to that stop. Ms. Zeller indicated that she wasn’t aware of that transit stop. She agreed that that will also be a consideration with respect to the deceleration lane. Eric Lord, Atwell, was present representing Kum & Go. He explained the note on the plan regarding the optional expansion of the dispensers. That was shown for their internal purposes to show the room that exists on the site. They have no intention of expansion of the dispensers that are proposed. They can delete that from the site plan. Mr. Lord invited questions. Mr. Rozeboom asked that Mr. Lord provide an overall explanation of flow on the site, particularly the connection with the Wendy’s property. Mr. Lord related that there are currently two connections to the Wendy’s property to the south. They propose that those connections remain. They feel the connections are a good thing. It would allow someone at their store the opportunity to go to Wendy’s without going back out onto Plainfield and vice versa. He is happy to hear that closing the connections is no longer part of the recommendation. In general terms of site circulation, the building currently consumes the property from north to south and now they have much better circulation around the site. They are going from a 20,000 sq. ft. building to a 5,000 sq. ft. building allowing much more room for circulation. There is some uniqueness with the road network around the site. What they’ve found is that a lot of the traffic that visits their stores is capture traffic from vehicles that are already traversing and know the area. He is not opposed to internal way-finding signage to direct traffic. He believes that a lot of people will figure out getting to the traffic signal if that is what is best for entering and exiting. He agreed that way-finding signage is a good suggestion. Ms. Shannon asked about the need to relocate the trash enclosure. Mr. Lord replied that they are amenable. They have considered a couple of different locations and feel a spot at the southwest corner will fit well and get it out of the front yard setback. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Michelle Carlson was interested in knowing if there are minimum greenspace requirements. She was also interested in knowing about site lighting requirements. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Ms. Turkelson explained that there is a greenspace requirement. All newly developed properties in the city have a minimum greenspace requirement that must be met in order to be approved. The amount varies depending on the Zone District. In this particular case they are required to have a minimum of 15% of the lot area. Ms. Zeller calculated that they are providing approximately 18%. There are also buffer/landscape requirements that can be counted as greenspace. There is a requirement that parking lots cannot be closer than 5 ft. to the lot line and the 5 ft. must be used for perimeter green space around the property. There is also a tree canopy City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 December 8, 2022 requirement that must be met. Ms. Turkelson also indicated that the Ordinance does have site lighting requirements. Typically, that requirement is more thoroughly vetted during the permitting process. The Ordinance requires full cut off fixtures so the light is directed immediately below the fixture and that there is no spill over the lot line. There is also a maximum amount of light/foot candles limiting how bright the site can be. Mr. Van Strien invited Mr. Bartlett to provide an analysis of the traffic study, particularly that a traffic signal would be warranted but not recommended by MDOT because of the nearby traffic signal. John Bartlett, City of Grand Rapids Traffic Systems Engineer, indicated that he did review the traffic study for the proposed development as part of this process. With respect to the traffic signal, a traffic signal has to meet a warrant to be considered for installation. In this case the numbers used to meet that warrant are projected based on the trips generated by this development. MDOT is of the mindset of typically waiting until the traffic volumes exist before they do something like invest the capital to put a traffic signal in. That, combined with the fact that there is one 600 ft. away, which is closer than what MDOT deems acceptable spacing, is why they will not approve the installation of a signal at Elmdale at this time. That isn’t to say that they wouldn’t consider another signal in the future if the projected traffic volumes exist or problems exist. Another consideration may be that they would relocate the Salerno signal to this location if they felt it was more appropriate. Mr. Bartlett added that gas stations are what he considers an opportunistic use. People passing the site on the way to and from work or residents that live nearby that are used to the traffic configurations are the likely patrons. Twenty hours a day the left turns likely won’t be problematic. During peak hours those that pass the site on a daily basis and are familiar with the traffic tend not to make those difficult left turns. In this particular case, a left turn out of the site would be a northbound turn and there is a Speedway 1,000 ft. south of the site that they would pass, where they could make right-in/right-out movements. He doesn’t believe people would make the poor decision to turn left into and out of this site during peak hours. Mr. Bartlett added that there is another Kum & Go location on 28th St. that they are evaluating. The volumes on 28th St. are of a similar level and people are not making those left turns. The pass by percentages are drastically in favor of right-in/right-out. Mr. Bartlett stated that he is in general agreement with the analysis. He agreed that some on-site signage to let users know they can access the Salerno signal for left turns would be helpful. Mr. Van Strien asked if Mr. Bartlett was aware of what the traffic count at the signal is. He asked the likelihood that the counts there might justify relocation of the signal. Mr. Bartlett replied that he doesn’t have those counts available at this time. The likelihood of moving the signal to this location is limited because access to the east is more significant as it goes into the neighborhoods; it provides access further east than this location would. From an overall network perspective, it is probably unlikely. Dr. Wallace asked that Mr. Bartlett clarify whether or not he is recommending a diverter. Mr. Bartlett replied that he is of the position that MDOT needs to make that decision. Given the number of driveways in this area that are already full access, he doesn’t believe one diverter is going to be that impactful. Additionally, it restricts that access for the 20 hours a day when it City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 December 8, 2022 isn’t a problem. He feels during those busy times people will regulate themselves and restricting it for the other 20 hours a day isn’t necessarily the best course of action. Dr. Wallace suggested they discuss whether that is something they need to enforce or control or just let handle itself. Ms. Shannon pointed out that MDOT has the jurisdiction. She agreed that if there is a gas station on each side of the street and one is traveling north, they will stop at the station on the northbound side of the street. Because it is proposed as 24-hour operation, traffic volumes later at night would be considerably less. Overall, she is in support of the configuration. Plainfield is wrought with many curb cuts that make things difficult but that isn’t part of this consideration. She feels that what they have suggested is thoughtful. Ms. Joseph stated that it would be nice to have internal signage to direct patrons to the signal for left turn movements. She wants to be sure the transit stop is considered when talking about the deceleration lane. She is fairly comfortable with the use in this location, including the hours. She appreciated Ms. Turkelson’s explanation of the requirements and understands that will all be addressed in the permitting process. Mr. Rozeboom feels the transparency proposed seems justified based on their maximizing the interior layout, especially noting that while on two sides there is no transparency proposed, the other two sides would have considerably more than is required. He finds that a healthy trade-off in this case. Ms. Turkelson suggested the Planning Commission discuss the proposed sale of beer and wine, for the record. An operations plan and crime prevention plan have been reviewed and they are subject to the crime prevention ordinance. She asked if the Planning Commission has any thoughts about it being a 24-hour store with the sale of beer and wine. Mr. Van Strien recalled that as they’ve seen the development of new gas stations the focus seems to have shifted to more of a convenience store model where that is their opportunity and not necessarily cannibalizing each other’s gas business. He feels that beer and wine sales are part of that direction. He doesn’t have a problem with that. Under the 24-hour nature of the operation, they are still restricted by law as to what hours of the day they can sell alcohol. In terms of the use, he doesn’t love it but to Mr. Bartlett’s point, there is a tendency for people not to want to cross traffic. Because there is a gas station close by, he normally wouldn’t support this use here. However, the amount of traffic on Plainfield might justify it and it may help with some of the flow of traffic. This is a challenging area considering the speed people travel, as well as the visibility. He is hopeful that people will make the right decisions because visibility isn’t perfect here and speeds are a challenge. Ms. Joseph related that the last traffic count available is from 2018 and it was over 37,000 cars a day that pass this area. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Kum & Go, LLC (Ryan Halder) for approval to operate a 24-hour vehicle fueling station and City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 December 8, 2022 convenience store with sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption at 3325 Plainfield Avenue 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 use will allow the establishment of a retail use and gas station in a manner supporting economic activity, while being sensitive to the surrounding uses; maintain and enhance economically vibrant as well as attractive business and commercial area; and provide reasonable accommodation for growth and development. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because all elements of the site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property, and the type, size, and proportions of buildings and driveways and other elements are designed to promote safe and efficient movement within the site and at its access points. 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 site remains a commercial use in a commercial zone district and auto- oriented uses are expected in the MON-C Zone District. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the building and entrances will be appropriately oriented and adequate parking is being provided. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, glare, and visual clutter because the use is expected to be patronized by drive-by traffic and the site will be constructed in compliance with current lighting and standards. 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 adequate pedestrian facilities will be provided. 7. The proposed use will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the site is currently improved with public infrastructure capable of handling the proposed use, and any private infrastructure will be provided at the developer’s expense. 8. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions and the proposed redevelopment will enhance the viability of the business district in which it is located. 9. 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, as proposed, the use will be unique as compared to existing uses in the neighborhood since there are few other establishments in the vicinity offering package alcohol for off-site consumption. 10. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because no concerns have been expressed by the nearby businesses or residents. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 December 8, 2022 11. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because an adequate operations plan and training will be in place and the use is subject to the CPTED 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 amount of transparency on the west and south building elevations are approved as proposed. 3. That outdoor displays of merchandise shall be directly adjacent to the front of the building and shall be limited to typical service station merchandise (e.g. road salt, vehicle fluids, beverages, and ice). 4. That the trash enclosure be sited in a location meeting the requirements of Section 5.2.13. 5. That if required by MDOT, a southbound deceleration lane shall be constructed pursuant to a design approved by MDOT and the City of Grand Rapids and should take The Rapid stop into consideration. 6. That the use shall comply with the requirements of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Ordinance. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. Ms. Joseph asked if it was necessary to include anything about working with staff on internal way-finding signage. Related to the transit stop, she suggested the applicant coordinate with The Rapid. Josh Naramore, Mobile GR, stated that since it is an MDOT road staff will coordinate with The Rapid. They have a good working relationship and have been able to facilitate those types of City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 December 8, 2022 moves in conjunction with private property owners. He doesn’t feel it is appropriate to hold it up and put the onus on the business owner to do the coordination. The question was called. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel ABSENT: Stacie Behler B. 1109 Michigan St NE - Amendment to Approved Cannabis Retailer Address: 1109 Michigan St NE (Postponed from 10/27/2022) Applicant: Agri-Med, LLC (Howard Luckoff) Requesting: Amendment to Special Land Use and Site Plan Review approvals for a proposed cannabis provisioning center and retailer to eliminate the condition that permanent cross access to Fuller Avenue be provided. Zoning: TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhoods - Traditional Business Area Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.19 Marihuana Facilities 5.12.08.E Site Plan Review 5.12.09 Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0086 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: December 24, 2022 Ms. Zeller introduced the request for an amendment to a Special Land Use and Site Plan Review approvals for a proposed cannabis provisioning center and retailer to eliminate the condition that permanent cross access to Fuller Avenue be provided. This matter was previously postponed on October 27th. The applicant is again requesting that the matter be postponed an additional month to the first meeting in January. The applicant is present to explain their request. Juergen Dietrichson, architect, was present on behalf of the request. He explained that the reason they request a further postponement is that they have been working on this project for quite some time. The original approval was in January of 2020. Because it is a landlocked site, they need access across another property. They are very close to reaching a final agreement with the property owner at 1121 Michigan, the property to the south. The discussions are going very well and the attorneys are working out the final details. What they would like to present in January is a better cross access agreement for both properties and an improvement to the site plan as a result. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 December 8, 2022 Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission postpones, to the January 12, 2023 meeting, the request of Agri-Med, LLC (Howard Luckoff) for amendment to Special Land Use and Site Plan Review approvals for a proposed cannabis provisioning center and retailer at 1109 Michigan St NE to eliminate the condition that permanent cross access to Fuller Avenue be provided. SUPPORTED by Ms. Shannon. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: TABLED OPEN [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel ABSENT: Stacie Behler C. 220 Quimby St NE - Parking Waiver Address: 220 Quimby Street NE Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0104 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Applicant: Pinnacle Construction Group (James C. Lewis) Requesting: Approval for a waiver of over 50% of the required parking for a new mixed-use development Zoning: TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhoods – Traditional Business Area Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.10.05. Reductions in Parking Requirements 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Special Land Use Effective Date: December 24, 2022 Ms. Wahamaki introduced the request for a waiver of over 50% of the required number of parking spaces for a proposed mixed-use development to be located at the southeast corner of Quimby Street and Plainfield Avenue. Other than the requested parking waiver, the project may be developed by right and the Planning Commission’s review will be limited to the parking waiver request. A Special Land Use may be approved to reduce parking requirements above fifty percent. Ms. Wahamaki related that the site is not included in any Area Specific Plan. The 2002 Master Plan Future Land Use map designates this area as Traditional Business Area. The site is surrounded by mixed-use commercial and low density residential. There is a City parking lot just to the south of the project. The subject site is approximately a half-acre and is currently vacant. Ms. Wahamaki related that the proposed project on the site is a four-story, 45,000 sq. ft. development to be known as City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 December 8, 2022 Hillcrest Apartments. It will include a 1,000 sq. ft. commercial space on the ground floor, potentially to be used as a coffee shop, and 72 dwelling units. Sixty-one of the 72 dwelling units are considered micro-units. A micro-unit is defined as a residential unit no greater than 475 sq. ft. Twenty-eight parking spaces are proposed on-site, as well as an indoor bike storage room on the ground floor for up to 60 bicycles. A total of 63 parking spaces would be required for the combination of residential units and the commercial space. As stated, 28 spaces are proposed, which is 44% of the required number of spaces. The applicant has been in conversation with Mobile GR and intends to lease up to 40 spaces in the adjacent parking lot just south of the subject site. However, because the lease agreements are month to month, the 40 leased spaces cannot be considered as part of the parking waiver. Therefore, a waiver to reduce parking by 35 spaces, 56% of the required spaces, is requested. Ms. Wahamaki explained, with respect to bicycle parking for micro units, the number of required parking spaces can be reduced by half a space per unit as long as two bike storage spaces are provided for each unit, which would be a total of 122 indoor bicycle spaces and an additional 14 spaces required for the one-bedroom units and the commercial area; a total of 136 bicycle parking spaces. For uses other than micro-units, after the first 20 required bicycle spaces, additional spaces are calculated at 50%, which would bring the total number of required spaces down to 78. As stated, 60 indoor spaces are proposed on the ground floor and an exterior bike rack will be required for the commercial space at permitting. The Planning Commission should determine whether the provision of the 60 indoor spaces, plus the addition of a bike hook in every unit, meets the intent of the Ordinance for the bike parking requirement for this project. Ms. Wahamaki explained that the Zoning Ordinance allows for several methods to reduce or waive parking including on-street, district parking, and transit. As stated, there is a public City parking lot to the south of the subject site that includes 104 spaces. There is on-street parking in the vicinity and another City lot to the west with 92 parking spaces. There is also a Rapid bus stop in front of the site going north and another across the street for southbound. Ms. Wahamaki related that letters of both support and opposition have been received. There is large general support for the project as a whole. There is some support for the requested waiver. There is some neighborhood concern about the impact on neighborhood parking, particularly for the residents on Buffalo St. Ryan Talbot felt Ms. Wahamaki provided an accurate description of the proposed project. The concept behind this development is to maximize housing density on site as much as possible. There is a housing crisis and 72 units on half an acre is a pretty good amount of density. Creston is a wonderful neighborhood aspiring to be more and more walkable and more accessible. The intent is to put as many people as they can into that walkable, transit-oriented neighborhood to continue to develop those goals and put a very small dent in the housing crisis. Mr. Talbot invited questions. Ms. Shannon asked if there is any research or data on vehicle ownership for units of this size. Mr. Talbot replied that he doesn’t have any hard figures. In Michigan and this metro area, cars are the dominant form of transportation. They are trying to fit as many parking spaces on the site as they reasonably can without sacrificing housing units. In the sense that they are building right City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 December 8, 2022 on a transit line and providing bike parking both indoors and in the units, they are trying to encourage alternative forms of transportation as much as possible. Ms. Shannon noted that there is a parking lot within a block. She asked if Mr. Talbot was aware of how many open spaces there are in that lot and whether they are available for overnight parking. Mr. Talbot replied that he can’t speak to the regulations for those lots. The lot immediately to the south has a couple of spots that seem to be designated no parking from 4 am to 6 am but it appears that those signs are focused in a few areas of the lot. Ms. Turkelson related that the Mobile GR Director is present and could likely answer those questions. Josh Naramore, Mobile GR, stated that as it relates to the east Creston lot, which is immediately adjacent to this development, there are 104 spaces. They currently sign it as no parking from 4 am to 6 am. They don’t prohibit overnight parking. The restriction is for snow plow operations during the winter and for street sweeping services, etc. They can modify that at any time as needed. It is the standard sign they put into place. They place the signs because City personnel plow the lots or they use a 3rd party contractor if it exceeds 2 inches of snow. Ms. Shannon asked Mr. Naramore the usage of the other parking lots in the area. Mr. Naramore related that the last time they did an official, detailed analysis/parking study was in 2017 for both the west Creston and east Creston lots. They do have fiber optic real time cameras in both of those lots and they routinely monitor them for a variety of reasons, one being that they do basic space counts. There isn’t a detailed, hour by hour, report but when they were looking at it over the last few months they found that it is about 30-40% occupied during its peak period. There are 94 spaces in the west Creston lot and 102 spaces in the east Creston lot. Mr. Naramore explained that currently their departmental policy with the Mobile GR Commission is that at any request from any adjacent property or business they can convert up to 30% of all of the spaces in any lot at any given time for permit parking. This development would qualify for that and that would equate to 42 spaces in the current lot configuration. The Mobile GR Commission, at their discretion, can increase that amount. There are also other operational considerations they can look at for larger scale lots such as implementing gate equipment for access control and allowing for 24/7 access. In the current configuration, it is not a necessary investment for either the east or west Creston lots. Should that become an operational consideration or issues with the adjacent neighborhood parking, that is something they could consider implementing. With respect to on-street parking, such as Buffalo and some of the adjacent streets, Mobile GR counts every residential street in the entire city. They currently do that once a year and will be going to twice a year in the coming year. All of that is included in the comprehensive data base they share with the Planning Department for the development of their staff reports. None of the areas in close proximity to this meet the threshold, which is you have to show that at the peak period at any given time during the day that 75% of the on-street parking is occupied. Mr. Naramore related that they perform the counts on two weekdays and one weekend day and they do it twice a day between the hours of 7 and 9 am and between 6 and 8 pm. They are looking to expand that to more of the mid-day in next year’s counts. The City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 December 8, 2022 preliminary analysis does not show at a very high level that there are any that are on the threshold of not being able to have the capacity to support additional parking. If it did meet the threshold, they have a process in place that includes holding a public hearing and it goes to the City Commission to designate a new residential parking permit zone. That is only after the public hearing and the process that is laid out for that. If they were to reach that threshold, they would utilize that tool. The cost to residents is $20 over the course of a year to qualify for a residential parking permit. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Michelle Carlson wondered what the goal for this area is. Is housing needed there? Are other types of businesses needed to bring revenue to the community. She understands parking and traffic will be issues and it seems like a great idea. She is not opposed. She is just curious what the ultimate objective is when looking at these areas; what is the vision? If housing is a need for the area and parking is deficient those are the decisions that need to be made. Ms. Carlson explained that she is relatively new to the Grand Rapids area and is still learning. Gord Huyzen related that he is both a property and business owner. He owns Stones Throw Furniture and the property it is located on. Mr. Huyzen understands what has been done in terms of counting parking spaces. However, he went around yesterday and physically counted the parking spaces and only came up with 99. He doesn’t know where they are coming up with 100+ unless they are counting spaces on private property. He went around at 11:15 yesterday morning and counted on the southern part of the area that there are approximately 37 parking spaces. There were 20 cars parked in those spaces. In the rest of the lot he counted 55 spaces, of which 15 were occupied. The eastern part of that lot is quite often a lot of residents that live on Buffalo parked there overnight. Buffalo has quite a bit of street parking occupied as well. On Friday and Saturday night, and Sunday during the day, you will find the east lot basically full. There was a photo in the packet of the lot with approximately 3 cars parked in it on the east side and that is rare. It certainly wasn’t taken when businesses were in operation. Mr. Huyzen stated that he has at least three cars that are parked there daily and there were no cars parked on that end in the photo. Mr. Huyzen stated that while he loves the idea of the project and the way it looks, he is concerned that they will be consuming 40 spaces. He anticipates they will actually need 60 spaces. That will close him off. They won’t park at the south end of the lot. They will park at the north end by their door where they receive, etc. He feels it will be very impactful on their business. Bret Alward, owner and operator of the Reservoir Lounge which is next to Stones Throw, related that he has been there for 17 years. He has questions and concerns. He is not opposed to the development and likes the idea of more housing going in anywhere in Grand Rapids. He has been waiting for something to happen in this area and Creston and has been weathering the storm for 17 years. Parking is obviously a concern. He doesn’t know what the parking authority considers peak hours but his peak hours are obviously different than that of Stones Throw. Ninety percent of his business occurs after 6 p.m., which was greatly impacted by the pandemic that closed him down for over a year. They are not open for lunches at this time due to staffing and the fact that they are still recovering from the losses from the last 2 ½ years. They hope to change that and return to being open during daytime hours, which would significantly change parking during the day as well. As Mr. Huyzen went around and counted parking, Mr. Alward City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 December 8, 2022 was there last Tuesday and there wasn’t a parking space to be found anywhere. Mr. Alward stated that they have events Tuesday nights and Wednesday nights and are usually busy Friday and Saturday nights. The only night that they aren’t very busy is Monday. Another thing that is frustrating to him when it comes to the project leasing 40 spaces is that the Creston Business Association pays the City for the spaces in the public lots to keep them meter free. He believes that number is approximately $12,000 annually, which doubled a year ago. Even when his business was closed, he continued to pay that fee. He pays $2,600 per year and the consideration is to take away 40 spaces that he depends upon. He agrees that more people in the neighborhood is good for everybody. However, he is also a bike rider and rides quite a bit. He also owns two cars. This is Michigan and most people have a vehicle. Of his 18 employees, all but one has a vehicle. Mr. Alward stated that he doesn’t own the building his business occupies but there are 5 apartments in the building and approximately 9 tenants. There is a karate studio above that is open 4-5 days a week and there are always cars there for that, as well as their employees. There are realtors, buyers and sellers visiting Sun Title. The church also uses the parking lot. These businesses have been here for many years. He is grateful that the parking is meter free because it helps his business and he has been happy to pay to keep it meter free. Michael Biddick was present representing Creston Brewery. He stated that he is also in huge support of the project. The only concern they have is parking. As Mr. Alward stated, employees rely on the parking. They also have an event space and the parking is one of the selling tools they use. They also contribute to keep the lot meter free. Having 72+ people living right across the street is also great for the businesses but where will people that come in from outside of the neighborhood park? Is this going to become an area that is hard to park and hard to visit for a drink, dinner, a show or event? Mr. Biddick stated that having no data to support bike users vs. vehicle users is also troubling. He agrees that they have to be realistic and understand that many will have cars. Do people want to get on a bus to go get groceries and bus them back? Likely not. Mr. Biddick again expressed support for the project but the parking is vital to their business as a restaurant and brew pub. Mr. Van Strien asked if they also pay for the upkeep of the lot. Mr. Biddick replied affirmatively. The business owners all pay into it. Mr. Alward pays considerably more than they do but they contribute x amount of dollars per year also. Ms. Shannon asked how the calculation is made. Is it on the number of spaces available? Mr. Biddick wasn’t aware of how it is determined. Brooke Oosterman, Housing Next, explained that Housing Next is an organization meant to move housing solutions forward. She is also present as a resident of the Creston neighborhood and speaking to the overall demand for housing that they know exists in Kent County and from a residential first-hand perspective of how much that is needed in her own neighborhood. She is excited about this opportunity. Sixty-seven percent of all Michigan households are comprised of one or two people so the micro-unit is serving a critical need in the community. With respect to the parking, something they know impacts overall affordability of residential units specific to the nuances of the Creston neighborhood is overall affordability with the cost of additional parking and infrastructure for that. Ms. Oosterman is excited to see the mixed-use development, the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 December 8, 2022 innovative way of moving those things together to ensure they can provide not only for the housing demand but also at a cost that is attainable and affordable for many of the residents. Deck Andrejczak related that he is a property owner in the Creston neighborhood. He indicated that he has submitted a written statement. He understands that the Planning Commission’s consideration today is just the parking waiver. Mr. Andrejczak indicated that he hasn’t met the developer. He has also submitted his communications to the CID Board and the Creston Business Association. The Planning Commission has heard from several business and property owners that there is huge support for residential in this area but the parking is a concern. They have been in this area for years and have had to fend for the parking. Whether you are contributing to the public lots or not, the residents in this area have to use street or public parking. For the Grand Rapids Parking Commission to consider leasing spots specific to a property is not very equitable to those that would likely be willing to lease spaces today. He would like to see the full parking waiver granted and let them fend for their parking vs. leasing them specific spaces. Bradley Heartwell, resident of the Creston neighborhood, stated that he has developed more than a million sq. ft. in the city in the past 17 years. He provided his background information and experience in the subject matter. Today he is present as a concerned neighbor. He has lived in Creston his entire life and owns a few properties there. He is a resident on Plainfield two blocks from the proposed project. He doesn’t know the team and has nothing to gain from the project except hopefully some new neighbors. He is very passionate about the community. He understands there is some opposition. He provided some history of the Creston neighborhood, which included crime and information on when the neighborhood association was formed facilitating street lighting, road improvements and adding parks. Since then, they have seen businesses and neighbors come and go, more vacancy in the commercial district, increased crime and the closing of Creston High School. Thankfully the high school was repurposed and some businesses have come back in hopes of more reinvestment in housing, etc. He believes in order to have a prosperous community they need diversity of neighbors, income, and housing choices. There hasn’t been a single market rate housing unit built in Creston in recent history. If he were a young professional that wanted to live in a property like this in the Creston neighborhood he would technically be discriminated against because that kind of housing doesn’t exist today. Mr. Heartwell understands that that isn’t a popular opinion but it is technically true. There have been three LIHTC developers who unsuccessfully attempted to build low-income housing in Creston because it didn’t meet the scores for MSHDA credits for multiple reasons that include walkable services and amenities. They need people and critical mass to justify the walkable amenities that can make way for that but today it isn’t feasible to finance or build it. The reality is that at any point in time the City could rescind the free parking here, install arms, and the result would be the same except they wouldn’t get the economic benefit of additional housing stock. They can and will adapt to the parking supply. Creston will be redeveloped eventually and it is finally happening. Mr. Heartwell stated that after reviewing all of the details of the project he believes the group has a focused outlook and will do a great job here. They need people to prosper and housing for those people. They need each other and projects like this to achieve that. Creston needs that. He asked that the Planning Commission please approve this. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 December 8, 2022 Mr. Talbot thanked those that came out to share their thoughts. From a need of housing standpoint, he feels everyone is on the same page. Parking is a resource in the neighborhood that is obviously already shared amongst everyone and he hopes they can come to some kind of arrangement here. He doesn’t have any claim over a parking lot and can respect what is going on. He hopes they can find a way forward to make the project work. Mr. Van Strien asked Mr. Naramore or Ms. Turkelson to speak to the process of how the lease arrangement works. It isn’t up to the Planning Commission whether the spaces are leased or not. It is not part of their consideration because it can’t be counted as a credit toward the required parking but is it still somewhat part of the consideration. Ms. Turkelson advised that it is part of the Commission’s consideration that the availability of district parking counts toward the waiver. What it can’t do, because of the nature of the lease arrangements not being permanent, is count the spaces toward the available supply. It is a consideration of the waiver with all of the understandings of how that parking works but it isn’t part of the available supply of parking toward the development. Mr. Naramore explained that there is no actual long-term agreement that the City has with the Creston Business Association. They pay annually and that is for offsetting maintenance costs. The City purchased and improved both the west and east Creston lots. He agreed that the cost has gone up but that is because the City’s costs have gone up significantly since his tenure with the City because they are doing a lot more in terms of the maintenance. None of their agreements with any customer, anywhere in the city, are long term; they are all month to month. There is a whole variety of legal reasons they don’t do anything longer than month to month. Mr. Naramore explained the current process, which is available for any business to do at any time. They can submit a request to Mobile GR and a notice to every adjacent business is given. When a business requests a parking lease, they send it to every business within 400 ft. of the parking lot and tell them that someone has made a request and they are going to turn a portion of the lot into permit parking. It is available for anyone. The current rate is $35 per space, per month. What they find is a lot of businesses don’t want to pay that. Those that do, and precipitate the request, end up doing just that. The cost is subject to change at any time as they review the rates on a fairly regular basis. The City remains the manager and reviewer of the lot and reserve the right and the discretion for being the good steward and manager of the parking lot as it sits currently. The only prohibition is they have been trying to modify no parking from 4 am to 6 am for snow maintenance operations. Currently, as everyone knows and some have shared, a lot of residents use the lot, which takes up the parking for businesses on nights and weekends but that is because there are no meters in the lots and the City isn’t regulating it in that way. Mr. Van Strien asked what the decision-making process is on whether a lease is approved or not or, if there is no objection, it is granted. Mr. Naramore explained that if tomorrow Stones Throw said they would like permits in the parking lot they would be put out for anyone and all adjacent property owners. Any of the businesses that have commented could lease those spaces from the City. It could be up to 30% of a parking lot without any additional approval and they could go higher than that at the discretion of the advisory committee, the Mobile GR Commission. Thirty percent of any business district City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 December 8, 2022 lot can be converted for permit parking use and that is for exclusive use for an individual or business that pays for it. Mr. Van Strien asked how many spaces are in the subject lot. Mr. Naramore replied that his count is 104 but Mr. Huyzen is making him want to verify that count. They have had it happen recently where restriping has occurred. He would default to Mr. Huyzen. Mr. Van Strien noted then that 40 spaces is over the 30% so it would have to go to the Commission. Mr. Naramore corrected himself indicating that the threshold is 40%, which is 42 spaces as currently calculated. Mr. Van Strien asked what consideration the Commission gives to transient traffic; someone that won’t have a permit in their window. Mr. Naramore explained that if they were to entertain increasing the amount beyond the 40% they would do a comprehensive analysis of west and east Creston lots. They would also do a more detailed on-street parking analysis. As many people know, this is a very well parked district. It has regulated on-street metered parking all along Plainfield. It has a lot of surface parking lots in the area and a lot of on-street parking that exists. That is one of the benefits and why it is one of his favorite business districts. It is very accessible, has bike lanes on Plainfield and Quimby, and it is served very well by The Rapid on Plainfield. From a parking management perspective, there is capacity for being able to absorb additional residential development and still support the commercial development. There are tools in their tool box that they haven’t had to use because it hasn’t hit the threshold. If any of the surrounding streets qualify for residential parking permits, anyone living in the proposed development would also qualify for those. Mr. Van Strien asked if the Business Association determines the amount that the businesses are paying into the maintenance fund. Mr. Naramore replied that Mobile GR makes that determination. He was trying to obtain the calculation they were charged in 2022 and what that calculation is based off of. He was also just assured that there is no long-term agreement that specifies how the City manages the lot. It is specifically targeted to help defray operations and maintenance costs because the lots are not metered. They are not bringing in revenue to help pay for that; they are an expense to the City currently. Dr. Wallace clarified that there are no long-term agreements but several people have just testified to paying annually, which seems to be longer than month to month. Mr. Naramore understood the point. There are a lot of longer-term agreements that they have had for condos and other things that were negotiated well before this. For the purposes of an individual that is leasing parking from the City, they do not have long-term agreements with businesses or the actual use of the parking. He clarified that there is no agreement and the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 December 8, 2022 businesses pay a cost to help defray the maintenance cost for the facility. It isn’t a use agreement. It isn’t actually an agreement; they are invoiced a cost to help pay for the maintenance. They could choose tomorrow not to pay it. There is nothing that says they have to. Mr. Hoeker added that there are no reservations there. They are paying a cost but the lot is just open. Mr. Naramore agreed. Dr. Wallace clarified that the business owners are basically subsidizing the parking for their patrons. If that is the case, and the City will also consider leasing a portion of the lot to the apartment complex, why would they continue taking money for a finite amount of spots. Mr. Naramore replied that the fee the businesses pay is not covering the full cost. Dr. Wallace asked why it is collected at all then. Mr. Naramore replied that it is a past practice that they’ve had. There are some spaces they have for their exclusive use in the west Creston lot. Central Interconnect used it for years. Dr. Wallace expressed her confusion. Her understanding is that they are collecting for maintenance so they don’t have meters. Mr. Naramore agreed. Dr. Wallace added that the second thought is that the City is considering permitting spaces for this new building. It seems to be collecting twice. If there aren’t actual permits for those that are paying for the maintenance of the lot then what does the enforcement look like? Mr. Naramore explained that when there is a petition received to convert what is now a free unregulated, unrestricted, non-payment surface parking lot they convert a portion of it into permit parking. The individuals or businesses who choose to lease pay the requisite rate per month and it is a month-to-month lease. The rest of the parking lot is available for any other type of transient or visitor parking. As it relates to this specific lot, if they were to convert it over they would definitely reassess what they are assessing the Creston Business District in terms of what they are paying for the parking. They do budgeting on an annual basis and they do it for costs of landscaping, snow maintenance, street sweeping, painting, defrayed asset management costs for when the lots need to be resurfaced and for asset management inventory. They try to capitalize all of that. The money being paid by the business association is a very small portion of what those two lots are currently costing the City from a carrying cost perspective. If there is additional revenue that is received as it relates to a new type of use that is being allowed in either of the lots, what is charged to the business district would go down commensurate with the revenue coming in. Dr. Wallace recalled testimony that the cost to the businesses has doubled in the last year. The math doesn’t seem to make sense. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 December 8, 2022 Mr. Naramore related that parking is an extremely expensive business to run. The City owns a lot of land and it has to be maintained. In the east Creston lot they received three code compliance complaints that they had to pay for and were not generated by the City; they were generated by people living in the area. They try to hold themselves to a very high standard. They also installed security cameras in 2019 in the east and west Creston lots as a result of concerns shared with the business district. The installation and maintenance of those is expensive. They also regularly patrol the lots and have maintenance crews cleaning them and picking up trash. There are also landscaping contracts. There are high carrying costs for the lots. Mr. Naramore related that approximately five years ago a number of business districts wanted guaranteed parking in an unregulated environment. The policy of allowing up to 40% of the spaces to be permit parking was implemented. It doesn’t have to be all of them at once. It is basically a first come basis. It isn’t guaranteed for this developer to have access to all 42 spaces from the first day and that was made clear. This is one of the rare instances where there is a proposed development and there is actually a municipally owned City parking lot adjacent to it that can help defray some of the costs. Dr. Wallace asked, in his professional opinion, if there is enough first come first serve parking; would the neighborhood be served by the current parking situation without leasing the 42 spaces. Mr. Naramore replied yes. There are also additional tools in the tool box that can be triggered after the development comes on line to help mitigate anything that happens as a result of that. There is the residential parking permit program, which has been around for a while. The largest neighborhood that utilizes permit parking is Neighbors of Belknap Lookout. That was as a result of a lot of development that occurred for Grand Valley University and Corewell Health. Residential Permit parking is monitored twice a year and the advisory group looks at it and it goes to City Commission if the threshold is triggered. It is a more proactive process vs. a reactive process. If for some reason, five years from now he is wrong there is a tool in the tool box to help mitigate that and it could be that the business district is taking off more so there is a need for more business parking that is creating an issue with some of the residential units in the area. Ms. Shannon asked if there are any other considerations such as the developer building their own parking ramp adjacent to the development to secure the kind of parking they need. Ms. Turkelson felt that would be more relevant to the developer than Mr. Naramore. For the purposes of this review, under the scope of the Planning Commission’s authority and based on the Zoning Ordinance, the availability and close proximity of district parking is the relevant point to offset whether a waiver is appropriate. There are other elements such as transit and bike parking that also go into the consideration of a parking reduction/waiver. What Mr. Naramore is advising is that, based on the City’s surveys and counts, they believe that there is adequate capacity to support the use of this parking by the residential development. The arrangements between the Mobile GR Commission and the cost associated with the lease arrangements contrasting with the maintenance costs is either an operational concern or an issue for Mobile GR to determine whether that is a fair arrangement for Creston to continue paying for maintenance costs if a portion are leased. For the purposes of the Planning Commission’s review, there is a district parking lot in reasonable proximity and based on the City’s counts they feel there is adequate capacity. The Planning Commission can agree with that opinion or choose to City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 December 8, 2022 feel it isn’t appropriate and require the development group to provide parking on-site or adjacent through means of either surface parking lots or a structure. Ms. Shannon stated that having listened to the businesses in the district, and having parked there herself, it seems that there aren’t a lot of spaces available. Everyone they heard from agrees it’s a good project but are they taking away parking from what is also making this a viable area. Her concern wasn’t the operational costs but rather whether there is enough parking for the businesses that currently operate there. Ms. Turkelson advised that that was a reasonable consideration. This is going to be a continued struggle for the Planning Commission and City to balance. There is a critical need for housing and a critical need for affordable housing. That data has been provided in the past, as well as reports that quantify the amount of housing needed and the price points. They know that the inclusion/construction of parking costs money and that cost is going to be passed on to the tenant themselves or the owners of the development. As a City, they also subscribe to the fact that surface parking lots are not the highest and best use. For the most part, they look at the surface parking lots as development opportunities when the time comes. They know that housing and beds and heads are what provide the population density to support business districts like Creston because those heads are patrons of the businesses and they spend money in the district. Overall, those businesses are healthier when there are people in the neighborhoods to utilize the businesses. This is a balance that has been struggled with in the past and unfortunately it is only going to get more difficult. There are several cities around the country that are starting to look at no parking requirements citywide. It is becoming a national trend because parking costs money. We want and need housing and want business districts. Creston is favored for its pedestrian scale and all that it offers, and its potential to continue to offer. If there were no parking requirements, the market will bear what the market will bear. In some ways they are trying to force mode shifts by looking at the fairly onerous requirement of bicycle parking so for someone living in this space it will be far easier and cheaper to own a bike and have a safe and secure space, or utilize transit, than to own a vehicle. Those are all of the factors the Planning Commission needs to balance. Fortunately, they were anticipating some of this in Grand Rapids several years ago, which is why the burden was placed on the Planning Commission as part of the consideration for land uses and providing tools to think wholistically of the neighborhood to determine whether each individual project should carry the cost and the space dedicated to private parking. Ms. Shannon agreed with Ms. Turkelson’s comments. She related that when she lived in Seattle she got rid of her car because sufficient transit and access to other modes of transportation were available. She doesn’t know that they are ready to make that move here. Many of the housing projects in Grand Rapids do provide some parking. The dilemma in her head is how much the City provides the parking or waives the requirement. She agrees with waiving the requirement but doesn’t want to take away from the needs of others. Ms. Shannon is considering whether there is excess space. Mr. Van Strien recalled Mr. Naramore responding to Dr. Wallace that he believes there is sufficient parking to handle this addition without them leasing the municipal space. Mr. Naramore agreed. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 December 8, 2022 Mr. Van Strien explained that the problem he is having is that they have the ability to request permit parking and if no one else does the same then they could get those permits. He doesn’t know what the Planning Commission’s role is in preventing that because he doesn’t want that to be designated for a specific place. He doesn’t feel it makes sense considering the nature of this business district. It prevents the spaces from being utilized in a shared manner at the different times the patrons/employees of the businesses utilize the parking. There will be more empty spaces in the lot throughout the day and he believes that is a detriment to this business district. Ms. Turkelson advised that that is a Mobile GR policy choice at that point. The Mobile GR Commission determines that policy. Mr. Van Strien asked if they can make a policy decision not to approve a lease if the request is below the threshold. Mr. Naramore replied yes. There is a maximum allowed under the current policy; 40%. They can ask for more if they feel it is an operational consideration. He added that much of what the Planning Commission is discussing are very detailed operational considerations. They do that in parking garages also. In real time they look at capacity and operations for the amount of over sell or under sell percentage and maintaining transient parking spaces. In a surface parking lot it is a bit different because they aren’t gated. They could choose to gate the lots in the future should it reach the level that they need to manage or regulate it. At this time, they have not made that investment in Creston because there is under utilized on-street parking. A lot of the metered parking during the day is not fully utilized whereas the lot can be from time to time. They have not done a detailed analytical study of the counts in the west and east lots since 2017. Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Van Strien if his question was whether they could say no to the request for permit parking. Mr. Naramore replied that they do have the ability to deny a request. Mr. Van Strien asked if they care what the Planning Commission’s opinion is; do they have any say in whether the request is approved? Mr. Naramore replied that he was asked to come and represent from a staff perspective of the parking and parking waiver consideration for a development. Considering all of the things being looked at, he cares from the sense of he is here to provide the Planning Commission with the context that there is capacity for parking either on adjacent streets or through the permit program. Ms. Turkelson advised that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the Mobile GR Commission and the Mobile GR Commission can take that under advisement. Mr. Van Strien feels it would be a mistake to lease a portion of this parking lot because he feels it would be a detriment to the district. He agrees with the property owner who said he supports this development and use and the waiver of the parking but not the permitting of spaces. He doesn’t know how to balance that or what the Planning Commission’s role is in that. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 December 8, 2022 Mr. Williams agreed. He is in support of the project and waiver. Obviously, parking is an issue everywhere. Mr. Naramore has stated that there is adequate parking. Mr. Williams related that he has lived in Grand Rapids since 2017 and has never been in a neighborhood with adequate parking. In this instance he feels it is important to think in totality. If someone is working full time in an economy with the highest inflation in 40 years, groceries are sky high, would he be choosing to live in a 350 sq. ft. apartment and not have a car? It is highly unlikely someone is driving a BMW and looking for a 350 sq. ft. apartment. The person most likely occupying these spaces do not have a car. They are likely utilizing public transportation or biking. Mr. Williams agrees with Mr. Van Strien that leasing spaces for this development is totally unfair. The businesses and people in the neighborhood have to fend for parking. If you want to live in the neighborhood, whether it is a new development or existing, you will also have to fend for parking. Ms. Joseph agrees that they need to look at this entire situation. There are sharrows and bike lanes in this neighborhood. She related that she used to live in this neighborhood and biked to work often. There is great transit service; 15 minutes during the peak hours and 30 minutes otherwise. Not only is there this district lot adjacent to the property, there is one across the street. Ms. Joseph trusts Mobile GR’s process for evaluating the spaces. She doesn’t have as strong of an opinion about that as other Commissioners do. The businesses have complementary peak times, as described by the business owners. She feels there is enough flexibility in this neighborhood to grant this parking waiver, not to mention the amount of bike parking they are providing in the indoor storage space and bike hooks in the units. Ms. Joseph feels it meets the intent of what they are going for. This is the type of location they want to test these concepts, where they want to encourage mode shift. Ms. Joseph is in complete support. Ms. Shannon related that she is in support. They have to let Mobile GR do their job, as much as she is concerned about that. She agrees that they need to test these concepts. One of her first questions was whether they have any data. She agreed with Mr. Williams that those that live in micro units are at an income level where they also want to save on transportation. Mr. Rozeboom related his experience with parking in other cities compared to Grand Rapids, the extreme being that everyone pays for their own and controls their own 100%. The Seattle version is that it is a free for all. In between that is a good place, where Grand Rapids is, which is trying to use the tools available to diversify the use and spread the cost around in an actively managed way. That is his belief of what Grand Rapids is doing. No other city does it as well, which is to try to take advantage of spaces and put them to good use in a data driven way as opposed to what would be a lot easier for the City, which would be to put up meters in the lots and have everyone pay a very high hourly rate. In this case, he is in support of this project for the reasons stated. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Pinnacle Construction Group (James C. Lewis) for a waiver of over 50% of the required parking for a new mixed-use development at 220 Quimby Street NE for the following reasons: 1. The use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the project will support the purpose of the TN-TBA to direct higher density housing to a location on, or within walking City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 December 8, 2022 distance of a major transit route; and support the recommendation of the Master Plan to help to eliminate redundant parking by encouraging the use of shared parking for uses that experience differing peak parking demands. 2. The use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the site will be developed so as not to impede 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 use 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 this parking waiver is necessary to allow the use to the scale proposed. 4. The use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the amount of parking requested for a waiver will be offset by nearby parking lots, on-street parking, the use of public transportation, and bicycle parking. 5. The use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise or visual clutter because the intensity of the use is appropriate to its surroundings with access to multiple streets and public transit. 6. The use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the proximity of the project to public transit will encourage mobility shifts that can reduce dependence on single- occupancy vehicles and decrease traffic congestion. 7. Public or private infrastructure and services already exist and are adequate to support the proposed development. 8. The use would not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because publicly available parking in the area already exists to support the increased need resulting from the proposed use and there are businesses in the vicinity within walking distance that the new residents are anticipated to patronize. 9. The proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all applicable State laws. 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. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 December 8, 2022 iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. SUPPORTED by Ms. Shannon. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel ABSENT: Stacie Behler D. 2135 E Beltline Ave NE - Planned Sign Program Amendment Address: 2135 E. Beltline Ave NE Applicant: Grand Rapids Retail Management II LLC (Gabe Schuchman) Requesting: Approval for an amendment to the Celebration Village Planned Sign Program. Zoning: SD-PRD Special District – Planned Redevelopment District Requirements: Article 7 Special Districts Article 15 Signs 5.12.08. Site Plan Review Procedures 5.15.08. Planned Sign Program 5.15.13. Signs in Special and Overlay Zone Districts Case Number: PC-SPR-2022-0105 Staff Assigned: Sarah Behmlander sbehmlander@grand-rapids.mi.us Type of Case: Site Plan Review Effective Date: Immediate Ms. Behmlander introduced the request for approval of an amendment to the Celebration Village Planned Sign Program to allow signage for one of two new buildings being developed. Ms. Behmlander recalled that the City Commission approved the PRD amendment in May, 2022 to allow for the two buildings based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Prior to that there have been over a dozen amendments to the PRD. That being said, the original PRD and Planned Sign Program were established in the late ‘90’s. Ms. Behmlander displayed an aerial image of the subject site. The building on the site has been demolished to facilitate the two new buildings. Also of note is that the original PRD had the buildings closer to the street. An amendment allowed for parking in front of the buildings. Because of that, signage visibility may have been impacted given that the buildings are now 50 ft. further back. The subject property has frontage along the East Beltline. Ms. Behmlander City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 December 8, 2022 identified the access into the Celebration development south of the site. There is also access further north and two additional access points on the south side of the Celebration development. Ms. Behmlander displayed a photo of the original Planned Sign Program that was approved. She identified the location of the subject site. She noted that at that time there was just one outlot in the space. As mentioned, there will now be two buildings, which is what brings the need for the amendment. Ms. Behmlander displayed the site plan for the two new buildings. She clarified that they are not considering signage for the second building. The applicant today is for the urgent care building. They are proposing four wall signs as well as a ground sign. Ms. Behmlander displayed the proposed signs indicating they would like a wall sign on each elevation. Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider eliminating the south elevation wall sign. When looking at the overall site plan, the sign is within a pedestrian walkway and not necessarily an integral part of the internal roadways or the East Beltline. When traveling north on the East Beltline it would be very difficult to actually see that sign. Ms. Behmlander displayed an example of the ground sign proposed; a masonry base and appropriately sized ground sign with three tenant panels. One panel would be for the urgent care and the other two panels would be for the second building that was approved. When looking at the other side of Celebration Village there is a ground sign that is very similar to the proposed sign and includes an option to have tenants on the panels. The intention behind having ground signs at this development was to help direct patrons to businesses within the development. It wasn’t necessarily meant for just one or three businesses; it was meant to serve as a wayfinding element. When looking at the neighboring property to the north, that building has its own signage and ground sign. It is fairly different from the other sign on the south side of the development and very different from what is proposed today. One thing for the Planning Commission to consider is what it would look like or how it would contrast to the Hopcat sign relative to the other signage that would perhaps be more appropriate to help direct people to the businesses. Ms. Behmlander wished to show the Planning Commission a comparison of the Planned Sign Program to the East Beltline Overlay District and what is proposed today. With the Planned Sign Program, the main point is to allow for signage on the front and rear of the building. For the East Beltline Overlay, the intent is to just have signage above the customer entrance on the front of the building. The applicant today is proposing four signs for a total that is much greater than what would typically be proposed in this area. With respect to the ground sign, it is fairly similar to the Planned Sign Program and smaller that what would typically be seen on the East Beltline. Ms. Behmlander wished to stress why the proposed would be important rather than having a stand alone sign for each tenant. It consolidates the visibility for those business. Ms. Behmlander asked that the Planning Commission consider whether the number of proposed signs is appropriate and if the ground sign is compatible with the surrounding Celebration Village. Ms. Joseph asked how big the Hopcat sign on the front of the building facing the East Beltline is compared to the proposed urgent care front wall sign. Ms. Behmlander indicated it is fairly similar and in line with what was typically approved. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 December 8, 2022 Greg Mcdade was present on behalf of the owner and developer of the project. He felt Ms. Behmlander accurately described the proposal. He invited questions from the Commission. Ms. Joseph asked if they are comfortable with eliminating the proposed sign on the south elevation. Mr. Mcdade replied affirmatively. He feels it makes sense. Typically, when working with their tenants this is how they lay out their signage and then they go through the permitting process themselves. He doesn’t feel it is a big issue and he can definitely relay that message to the other parties. Mr. Van Strien invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Joseph wished to clarify staff’s position on the ground sign. Her understanding is that as proposed, with the three tenants next to each other, staff would consider that appropriate based on what is in the other part of Celebration or is the opinion that the sign itself is not appropriate and should also be eliminated? Ms. Behmlander feels that is at the Planning Commission’s discretion but her analysis would be that the intention behind the Planned Sign Program at Celebration, specifically regarding the ground signs, was to allow for multiple tenants to be featured on those ground signs. Which tenants those would be was not clear from the Sign Program but the original plan had two ground signs located on Knapp, the clock tower on the East Beltline that has several panels, and a ground sign on the East Beltline. There was no indication that there would need to be a ground sign where the subject sign is proposed. Mr. Rozeboom indicated that he isn’t necessarily opposed to the proposed ground sign. In looking at the East Beltline Overlay District, it would allow a ground sign to be much larger based on travel speeds. He wondered what the proposed small panels would actually do. Ms. Behmlander explained that when she looked at the Planned Sign Program those ground signs were meant to provide direction for drivers once they are within the development and not so much to grab the drivers off of the East Beltline. She believes the intention was that the buildings would be closer to the street so there really wasn’t a need to have that additional ground sign. When you are on the East Beltline you can see those businesses along the frontage and it would be up to the Planning Commission as to whether there is a need for the ground sign. Ms. Turkelson added that the overall philosophy of Planned Sign Programs and this project specifically was to try to consolidate signage so that not each individual development pad had their own sign. In exchange for that there was flexibility in terms of the amount of signs and trying to tailor the signs to the needs of the specific development. Ms. Turkelson suggested that the Commission needs to be cognizant of the fact that if a ground sign is approved for this specific tenant there is a high likelihood of future and/or existing buildings requesting the same consideration. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 December 8, 2022 Ms. Behmlander added that when looking at the entirety of Celebration Village the only ground signs are those she previously identified. None of the other tenants within the development have their own ground sign. Ms. Shannon feels the signs are helpful. This complex has become so large and multi-faceted in terms of the businesses. She feels it is helpful and by consolidating provides some management over the signs. She would be in support of this request. Ms. Behmlander wished to add, with respect to visibility, that although travel speeds on the East Beltline are 55 mph in this area there isn’t a lot of landscaping that is infringing on the visibility of those buildings. Even with vehicles parked along the East Beltline, you can still see the buildings and the signage on them. Ms. Joseph agrees that the south elevation sign should be eliminated. She would also be comfortable eliminating the ground sign. It isn’t close to the driveway and people will be driving much faster by that sign. The signs on the building itself are fairly significant and easy to see. She doesn’t see the need for the ground sign. Ms. Turkelson added that the nature of the use is such that one wouldn’t be driving by and spontaneously stopping into an urgent care. That is likely a use someone is pre-planning to visit. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Grand Rapids Retail Management II LLC (Gabe Schuchman) for an amendment to the Planned Sign Program of Celebration Village for a new urgent care building to be located at 2135 E Beltline Ave NE, for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed Planned Sign Program amendments would result in a more attractive aesthetic setting, improved safety, provide more convenient identification for planned users, or other similar purposes, because the proposed amendments will allow signage typically permitted by the underlying East Beltline Overlay District and will allow for adequate and effective signs for identification and appropriate commercial speech. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed plan substantially furthers the Purposes and Intent of Section 5.15.01., because the proposed amendments would protect the need to promote new businesses within the Celebration Village development. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the approval of the Planned Sign Program amendments would not create any adverse impacts on one or more properties in the vicinity because the proposed amendments reinforce and support the character of the surrounding development by taking into account building scale and massing, and nearby travel speeds; balance the need and right to communicate with needs to promote orderly communication, promote community aesthetics, and prevent a proliferation of signs and sign structures that can be confusing and distracting; and will ensure that signs are located, designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a way that protects life, health, property and the public welfare. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 December 8, 2022 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. The south wall sign and ground mounted sign are not permitted/approved. SUPPORTED by Mr. Rozeboom. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Paul Rozeboom, Vice Chairperson YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel ABSENT: Stacie Behler E. 345 Summer Ave. NW - Outdoor Seating and Alcohol Sales Address: 337 & 345 Summer Avenue NW Applicant: Butcher’s Union Hospitality (David and Paul Reinert) Requesting: Approval for a restaurant with alcohol service, live entertainment and outdoor seating. Zoning: TN-CC Traditional Neighborhoods – Transitional City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales 5.9.12. Live Entertainment 5.9.24. Outdoor Seating 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 December 8, 2022 Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0103 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use and Final Site Plan Review Effective Date: December 24, 2022 RESULT: WITHDRAWN F. 1815 & 1825 Alpine Ave NW - Cannabis Retailer Expansion Address: 1815 & 1825 Alpine Ave NW Applicant: Alpine Ave. Holdings, LLC (Jason Abro) Requesting: Approval for expansion of an existing medical marijuana provisioning center and recreational cannabis retailer. Zoning: TN-TCC Traditional Neighborhoods – Transitional City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.19. Marihuana Facilities 5.12.06. Neighborhood Meeting 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0021 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: December 24, 2022 Ms. Zeller presented the request for approval of an expansion of an existing medical marijuana provisioning center and recreational cannabis retailer. The use is a Special Land Use. Any expansion of a Special Land Use also requires Special Land Use consideration. The subject property is located in the Transitional City Center (TN-TCC) Zone District. The applicant proposes a 627 sq. ft. expansion of the existing 1,135 sq. ft. building at 1815 Alpine. The applicant is also requesting curbside service. Ms. Zeller noted that the history of approvals for this site was included in the Commission’s packet. She noted that on November 4, 2021, Special Land Use approval was granted for the northern parking lot. The applicant needed additional parking for their use and it is well-used today. At the time the parking lot was approved it couldn’t be combined with the 1815 site because of separation distance requirements between cannabis uses. Since that time there has been a lot split of another cannabis use at 701 Ann and that use is now further away and the applicant can combine the two subject lots. The applicant intends to do that, which will facilitate their expansion of curb side service to what is currently 1825 Alpine/the surface parking lot. Ms. Zeller displayed the existing and proposed floor plans and identified the proposed building addition. The addition would accommodate an additional employee area, storage area, restrooms and an exterior door as well as a window. The proposed elevations depict the new window on the elevation as well as the closure of the two existing windows. Staff is recommending that the two windows they propose closing be retained. Ms. Zeller believes there were some misunderstandings during plan review. The floor plan was changed and the result is that the product is now visible from the outside, which does not comply with State or City requirements. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 30 December 8, 2022 The two windows have some safety film on them, which does inhibit visibility. In order to meet State and City requirements the applicant is proposing to close those windows. Staff has discussed it with the applicant and they are amenable to retaining the windows. Staff recommends that they be permitted to tint the windows so you can’t see product from the outside. Alternatively, they could put vinyl on the windows, which would allow for seeing out but not in. Ms. Zeller related that the plan has been reviewed by the CPTED professionals on staff as well as the Police Dept. and they find the proposed plan to be compliant, even with the windows as proposed. Ms. Zeller explained that the addition will result in a total of 19 parking spaces, including those on both sites, which exceeds the number of parking spaces required. The use definitely needs as many parking spaces as possible. Several parking spaces are intended for curb side service; two on the existing lot and three north of the proposed trash enclosure. Curb side service is permitted by the State. With the combination of the two lots, curb side service can be allowed on the northerly lot, which helps to somewhat mitigate traffic congestion because orders are placed on line and delivered to the vehicle making for a quick transaction. Finally, Ms. Zeller related that the West Grand Neighborhood Association has submitted a letter of support for the proposed expansion. Ms. Joseph recalled that the curb side service was initially allowed due to the pandemic. She asked if that is something the State is going to sunset and something that will become under City control. How long is that anticipated to be permitted? Al Romero-Gibu, City Cannabis Manager, agreed that curb side was initiated as a result of the pandemic. Curb side is now permitted in municipalities following municipal approval. The City of Grand Rapids has not prohibited continued curb side sales. Lisa Dowdy was present representing Jars. As the Planning Commission knows, the parking lot was approved last year, which has helped them immensely. It has been a blessing to now be able to combine the two sites, which would allow them additional curb side parking spaces. As a business practice they are trying to become 80% e-commerce. Ms. Dowdy stated that they have a major parking issue on the site and traffic flow is very congested. Currently they rent 10 parking spaces from the FOP Lodge down the street for employee parking. All of the parking spaces on site are for customers. Allowing the combination of the lots to be able to add more curb side spaces for quicker transactions will help the business. The addition to the building will also be a benefit. The employees don’t currently have a break room. The vault space is a 10 x 10 box where they have their office space and vault and it doesn’t work. The addition will provide more vault and employee space. Ms. Dowdy related that they were originally supposed to come before the Planning Commission in May. The floor plan has changed slightly. They plan to move the lobby wall back approximately 3 ft. to increase lobby space so people aren’t waiting outside. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 31 December 8, 2022 Ms. Joseph feels the proposal will likely improve things. It seems to be a reasonable request. Ms. Shannon MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Alpine Ave Holdings, LLC (Jason Abro) to expand an existing medical marihuana provisioning center and recreational marihuana retailer at 1815 and 1825 Alpine Avenue NW, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed retailer is a commercial use in a mixed-use commercial zone district and the commercial designation for this area in the Master Plan supports a range of commercial uses, including retail. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the changes proposed by the applicant bring the site and building closer to compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed building and site improvements generally maintain the existing layout of the property and character of the area and the proposed site improvements would introduce green space. 4. The proposed use will minimize potential adverse effects on the neighborhood because the applicant proposes adequate on-site parking and the GRPD has approved a CPTED plan for the proposed use that is designed to mitigate potential crime impacts. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter because immediate traffic impacts associated with the proposed use are expected to significantly diminish over time and excessive amounts of noise, odor, or visual disturbance are not typically associated with retailers. 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 hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the character of the area in the vicinity of this property is predominantly auto-oriented, and the proposed use will not significantly change that condition. 7. 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 applicant proposes to increase the amount of green space on the site by removing existing paved areas and no existing green space would be removed by the proposal. 8. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or will be provided at no additional cost because the proposed use seeks to reuse an existing, developed property, which is currently serviced by public infrastructure and an increased police and fire presence associated with the proposed use is not generally required to a greater extent than other retail commercial land uses. 9. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the proposed use is expected to generate a significant number of jobs and potential tax revenues. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 32 December 8, 2022 10. The proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all applicable State laws because the marijuana industry is closely regulated by local and State regulations, and the proposed use will be subject to all such regulations. 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 window treatments such as tinting or vinyl screening may be applied to the two existing windows on the north side of the building to prohibit the product from being visible from the outside. 3. That, except as amended by this resolution, conditions of approval associated with PC- MSLU-2019-0096 and PC-MSLU-2020-0069 shall remain in effect. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. Ms. Zeller clarified that the marijuana conditions, Standard Condition Set B. Marihuana Operations, are not necessary to include as that is covered by condition #3. Mr. Rozeboom clarified that condition #2 implies that the two windows are not to be removed. Ms. Turkelson agreed. Staff would not exercise administrative authority to allow those windows to be removed. The compromise was to determine whether the Planning Commission was comfortable with allowing tinting instead. The question was called. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 33 December 8, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel ABSENT: Stacie Behler VI. Planning Commission Discussion None. VII. Public Comment None. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 3:50 PM