TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 January 12, 2023 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, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Bersche, Williams STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Laura Wahamaki, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from December 8, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Lawrence Williams IV. Business A. Planning Director's Report  New Planning Commissioner Aaron Jonker was introduced.  Ms. Turkelson provided a Master Plan update relating that there has been good progress and productive Steering Committee meetings. She plans to provide the Planning Commission with a comprehensive update at the next meeting, including sharing recommendations for the three Area Specific Plans to be included in this process.  Agenda items were briefly reviewed. The Commission was informed that there have been two requests to postpone: 1109 Michigan NE and 2160 Celebration Drive NE. Staff recommends postponing both. B. Conflict of Interest Mr. Jonker related that he is acquainted with John Gibbs, the applicant for the last two agenda items. He worked with Mr. Gibbs on the subject project in his past employment but no longer has any interest in that, no current financial ties, and would not benefit in any way regardless of the outcome of the considerations. Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Dr. Wallace, finding that Mr. Jonker does not have a conflict of interest. Motion carried unanimously. Generated 1/17/2023 9:57 AM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 January 12, 2023 Mr. Van Strien provided a brief explanation of the meeting process. He advised those present that there have been two requests to postpone: 1109 Michigan NE and 2160 Celebration Drive NE. V. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in the Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor A. 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: January 28, 2023 Ms. Zeller explained that the applicant is working with the adjacent property owner on finalizing an easement agreement across the Family Dollar property. The applicant is also considering proposing some site changes, which would necessitate a new application. As that is worked through, the applicant is requesting that the matter be postponed to March 9, 2023. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Shannon MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission postpones, to March 9, 2023, the request of Agri-Med, LLC (Howard Luckoff) for an 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. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: TABLED OPEN [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Lawrence Williams City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 January 12, 2023 B. 158 W. Fulton St / 25 Ottawa Ave SW - Hours, Entertainment, Outdoor Seating Address: 158 W. Fulton St/25 Ottawa Ave SW Applicant: Social House Kitchen and Bar (Robert J. Larson) Requesting: Approval for indoor and outdoor hours of operation until 2 a.m.; expansion of outdoor seating with alcohol service; indoor live entertainment and dancing until 1:30 a.m.; and outdoor live entertainment until 1 a.m. Zoning: TN-CC Traditional Neighborhood – Transitional City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.9.19. Live Entertainment 5.9.24. Outdoor Seating 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0106 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: January 28, 2023 Ms. Zeller related that Social House Kitchen and Bar is located at 25 Ottawa Ave SW and 158 W Fulton. The main establishment is on Ottawa and the outdoor seating area is on a different property; the W Fulton site. Social House Kitchen and Bar is asking to operate with indoor hours until 2 a.m.; indoor live entertainment and dancing until 1:30 a.m.; outdoor seating with alcohol service on the existing patio and a proposed expansion of the patio to a deck with hours until 2 a.m.; and outdoor live entertainment until 1 a.m. The patio/outdoor seating area is on the steam utility property but looks like it is part of the Social House property. It has been used for many years by different users for outdoor seating. Ms. Zeller advised that the property is included in the area addressed by the GR Forward Plan but this particular location is not specifically addressed in the Plan, nor is it located on a street specified for entertainment uses. However, that doesn’t mean entertainment isn’t permitted, it just isn’t a priority street identified in the GR Forward Plan. Ms. Zeller displayed a Google street view image noting that the patio is enclosed with a half-wall and vegetation. There is also an accessory structure that accommodates additional seating. Per the submitted floor plan, the existing patio space seats approximately 60 guests; 40 on the open patio and an additional 20 in the accessory structure. There is no parking but, because this is the Downtown City Center Zone District, no parking is required. Ms. Zeller displayed a rendering of the proposed outdoor expansion. Ms. Zeller clarified that the expansion is proposed as an upper-level deck of approximately 885 sq. ft. The expansion would add 43 seats for a total of 100-103 guests. Ms. Zeller advised that the most recent zoning use approval for this location was in 2013 for a full-service restaurant closing by midnight. It included outdoor seating operating until 10 p.m. weekdays and 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. There have been a number of establishments located here since the approved use in 2013. Ms. Zeller was unable to speak to how closely they City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 January 12, 2023 adhered to that zoning approval. It is incumbent upon any new business to confirm the zoning but not all do. One of the conditions of that approval specified that, except for live entertainment permitted accessory to the operation of the basement bar, live entertainment open to the public and/or dance club or dance uses shall be subject to Special Land Use requirements. Social House has had live entertainment and dancing, both indoor and outdoor, and those hours exceeded what was originally approved. Ms. Zeller explained that this came to staff’s attention when the applicant wished to make the deck expansion. At that time staff reviewed the zoning approvals. Ms. Zeller pointed out that there are a number of uses with outdoor seating and alcohol service in the vicinity. She noted that there were attachments to the packet for the Commission’s reference. With respect to outdoor entertainment, those approvals are much more limited. Ms. Zeller reviewed a list included in the staff report of outdoor uses, some required to close by midnight and others 11 p.m. during the weekend. Ms. Zeller explained that the Noise Control Ordinance isn’t typically discussed at Planning Commission generally because it isn’t relevant. Most requests are in compliance with that Ordinance or close much earlier than to be affected by it. Late in 2019 the Noise Control Ordinance was amended to address entertainment in commercial businesses. An excerpt from that Ordinance was included in the staff report. The Noise Control Ordinance is not in the Zoning Ordinance and is not administered by the Planning Department or the Planning Commission. However, it is important to be consistent with it. The Noise Control Ordinance establishes night time quiet hours; Sunday - Thursday after 10 p.m. and Friday and Saturday, after 1 a.m. Ms. Zeller expressed caution that no approvals be granted that conflict with that Ordinance. Ms. Zeller related that the applicant has submitted a robust operations plan. However, there was one element staff would like further discussion with them and the Police Department on; what their de-escalation procedures are before contacting the Police Department. If the Planning Commission is amenable to any of the requests being considered today, a condition has been included in the draft resolution that the operations plan be amended. Ms. Zeller related receipt of a letter of support from the property owner. Several letters of concern were submitted by residents of Plaza Towers citing noise disturbances with the current operations and outdoor music. Staff also received a couple of phone calls expressing the same concerns. Residents have contacted the Police Department with those complaints and there was one complaint that went through Code Compliance. Ms. Zeller summarized the request as indoor hours of operation until 2 a.m., live entertainment and dancing indoors until 1:30 a.m., outdoor seating and outdoor entertainment, expansion of the deck, and outdoor hours proposed until 2 a.m. for outdoor seating and 1:00 a.m. for outdoor live entertainment. Ms. Zeller recalled from the applicant’s website that live bands and dancing are offered. She is not familiar with the nature of the outdoor entertainment and she requested that the applicant expand upon that. Jacey Shachter, Metric Structures, was present as the applicant’s representative. She explained that they came into the project as the design builder. When applying for the Special Land Use for the increase in the patio capacity they were presented with some of the long-standing approval City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 January 12, 2023 issues. They are present to request an amendment to those and be sure they are in compliance with City protocols. As mentioned, there were several establishments in this location prior to Social House that were also operating outside of the approved hours. Ms. Shachter indicated that she didn’t see the staff list of alcohol establishments operating beyond midnight. There are several in this neighborhood open past 2 a.m. Ms. Shachter indicated that they have a table that shows those with alcohol and live entertainment. There are several that have outdoor seating and alcohol service up to 2 a.m. and beyond. With respect to the hours for live entertainment, as they operate currently the majority of the live entertainment is indoors. They are usually inside the main facility. When it is outside it is usually wrapped up by 11:30 or midnight and it is rarely outside on weekdays. When they set up outside it is set up in the accessory structure so there is some sound dampening. The plan is for the sound dampening to be improved with this project. The proposed expansion is a steel structure with a cast concrete deck, which will mitigate sound. The deck is between two very large brick buildings so there is some reverberation that occurs now. The deck will help. They have been talking with acoustic specialists Eagle Tech. They make specific products that adhere to the underside of decks, which are also fire rated, that they plan to use on this project to mitigate the sound transference. Ms. Shachter commented on the de-escalation plan relating that they have a long-standing, good record of no major safety issues. They have recently hired professional security, they have the Real ID system and scan IDs at the door. They also charge cover on the nights they have live entertainment, which tends to draw those seeking out entertainment. Ms. Shachter commented on the Noise Control Ordinance. They are aware that there have been a few complaints from neighbors. A few of those date back to the days of COVID when there was only outdoor service. Those never went to Code Compliance but one recently did. That was dealt with by the ownership. They are now present in an effort to clear those approvals up. There have been a number of establishments in this location and this has been the only one to last more than a few years. They do cater to the entertainment crowd. While it is not directly in the entertainment district, she feels that is a technicality because it is directly across the street from the Van Andel Arena, down the street from Studio Park, and across the street from the BOB. It is approximately 400 ft. from The Woods and The Intersection. It is somewhat of a side street, which is likely why it wasn’t considered the most important when they were master planning at GR Forward. However, it is in the entertainment corridor and most of their business comes from the Grand Rapids as a destination type customer. The live entertainment is important to the operator. The nature of the entertainment currently is a mix of different genres; alternative, bluegrass, and DJs playing top 40s. They’ve also done 80’s nights. Ms. Shachter addressed the public comment indicating that Social House prides themselves on trying to be respectful neighbors. They haven’t had any safety incidents. They have had a few noise complaints, which she believes is fairly typical for this corridor. As Grand Rapids grows, she feels it is a natural bi-product of what’s happening in the city. Grand Rapids is steadily growing and establishments like this help the downtown thrive. They do serve food on the patio all night so it isn’t just a destination for entertainment and alcohol. Mr. Van Strien asked exactly where the live entertainment would take place outdoors. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 January 12, 2023 Ms. Shachter explained that underneath the proposed patio there are currently tables and an exterior bar that will remain. The accessory structure is where the band would be set up. There would be no amplified music on the upper level at all. Mr. Van Strien asked if the outdoor bar is already permitted by the MLCC. Ms. Shachter replied that it is permitted. Ms. Shannon asked if the outdoor seating is seasonal. Ms. Shachter replied that, post-COVID, outdoor seating has become much more popular. It would be used during the winter on the lower portion only. They have no plans for heaters or anything of that nature on the upper level. Ms. Shannon asked if they also have entertainment indoors and how often they have entertainment outdoors. Mandy, Social House Director of Operations, replied that currently they have music outdoors on Friday and Saturday. In the summer is when they have live bands on Thursdays also. Dr. Wallace asked how long the kitchen is open. Mandy replied that currently the kitchen is open until 9 p.m. She responded to additional questions relating that they wouldn’t have a situation where they have entertainment indoors and outdoors at the same time. She explained further that the 9 p.m. kitchen closing hour is essentially still COVID hours but they would intend to have the kitchen open until midnight. That is the goal once they have the necessary staff. Mr. Van Strien asked specifically when they are proposing to have outdoor entertainment and on which days. Ms. Shachter replied that ideally, they would like approval for outdoor entertainment until 1 a.m. at least Wednesday through Sunday and indoor entertainment until 1:30 on those same days or the entire week if possible. Ms. Turkelson pointed out for the Commission that the draft resolution lays out the proposed hours for each of the uses. The italicized text is what has been requested. Ms. Shachter clarified for the record that they would be amenable to some compromise on the proposed hours. Mr. Van Strien asked what the recent noise complaint was and how it was handled. Ms. Shachter replied that she believes it was an outdoor noise complaint late at night after a concert. It was amplified music. The police were contacted and the manager on site lowered the decibels, went to the corner, used a meter and said it was no louder than a car radio at that point. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 January 12, 2023 Ms. Shannon asked what the outdoor hours are for other nearby uses. Ms. Shachter referred to the chart prepared by Ms. Zeller and the latest hour is midnight. However, there are a lot of establishments nearby that definitely operate outside of their approvals, including the amplified music. They are present today to establish a reasonable precedent. Ms. Turkelson related that what was included in the staff report is a broad list of the past decisions by the Planning Commission for outdoor hours of operation. It is unfortunate that some establishments operate outside of those hours. What is included in the staff report is what they are supposed to be adhering to and what would be enforced if a complaint was received. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Madelyn Bryant sarcastically thanked the applicant for their base driven, chest thumping, raucous bash every Friday and Saturday night until almost 2 a.m. She pointed out that the noise curfew in an entertainment area is 1 a.m. When she called the police in August, before The B.O.B. was reopened, they agreed. The police department is right on Fulton and they can hear it. Ms. Bryant related that she lives in the Plaza Tower condos above the Marriot Courtyard on the 15th floor, with a white noise machine running full blast. Not only can you hear the music, you can feel it. The applicant is asking the Planning Commission for permission to do this, the same Commission that wants 12,000 people living in the downtown by 2025. They are the same people that do not live downtown or do all their shopping, and eating there. The residents are sick and tired of being forced to stay up and listen to the rumbling of non-stop base until almost 2 a.m. They aren’t following the laws now and they want the Planning Commission to rubber stamp what they are already doing. She suggested all of the Planning Commissioners come to her condo on a Friday or Saturday night and stay until after 1 a.m. and then decide if they would tolerate that noise in their neighborhood until 2 a.m. This is a pandoras box. Once it is opened, multiple new problems will be created. Mr. Halford related that he is also a resident of Plaza Towers. The group applying for these approvals has already said that they aren’t fully in compliance. They are operating later and why should one believe they will be in compliance if the request is granted. Any fine that may be issued for non-compliance becomes a cost of doing business. If the revenue generated is higher than the fine, and there is no consequence outside of the minor fine, they will pay the fine as a cost of doing business. Mr. Halford’s recollection after calling in a complaint at 1 a.m. is that the police don’t own a decibel meter. By having the venue check it themselves is like the fox checking the hen house and it doesn’t make a lot sense. If they are already in violation by operating later than approved, why would one think they would be in compliance if granted their requests. The outdoor seating area currently has plexiglass windows because of the weather conditions. During the summer it is a rebar fence. It is not enclosed facing the street. He anticipates it will be open again in the summer. With respect to the noise going up, it is quite noisy, including during the day. They pump music through their speakers. They’ve talked about kitchen hours and possibly increasing them after an approval. The Planning Commission is approving specific things and there shouldn’t be any negotiation after that. It is either in the plan submitted or not in the plan. What is approved today shouldn’t be subject to negotiating. One of City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 January 12, 2023 the things they spoke about was the kitchen being open late for the evening patrons. The kitchen is closed at 9 p.m. David Ray, Plaza Towers resident, asked that the Planning Commission deny the request to expand their service and outdoor seating area until 2 a.m. His condo and many others are within 400 ft. of The Social House. As residents they are already subjected to excessively loud music well past midnight. They are already violating the Zoning Ordinance so why would they expect them to adhere to new approvals. Extending the hours to 2 a.m. or beyond is completely unnecessary. The City of Grand Rapids and the Downtown Development Authority are constantly looking for ways to increase the number of downtown residents. Subjecting downtown residents to excessively loud music and noise will have a negative impact, undermine those efforts, and may actually decrease the number of downtown residents. Mr. Ray feels the request should be denied. Orlando Vilereal, Plaza Towers resident, related that he has lived in the city since 1998 and has never had any issues with any of the establishments surrounding the Plaza Towers except this establishment at 25 Monroe. It began approximately 2 years ago and he thought he could resolve it himself. He contacted the management of the establishment and that didn’t work so he contacted the owner and that didn’t work. This past weekend there were issues with music once again, which has been ongoing for 2 years. Mr. Vilereal related that he had his TV on but the base was so loud that it could be heard over his TV. He decided to make a visit and personally contact the manager. He asked that the music be turned down. The manager said he would tell them to turn down the base but that he couldn’t really guarantee anything and that it would have to be taken up with the business owner. He hasn’t called the owner but this public hearing conveniently came up giving him an opportunity to voice his opinion. Mr. Vilereal related that he also called the police department numerous times, including this past Friday night. The dispatcher told him there was no guarantee that they could have someone come out and address the issue because of all of the other issues going on in the city. He asked that it at least be documented and was told they couldn’t do that unless someone actually goes out and documents it. Therefore, there are numerous times that he has called the police department and the issues haven’t even been documented. He would be curious to know how many times the complaints have actually been documented. If nothing is being done to address the issues they will just continue. Dan, Social House General Manager, related that they have had conversations with some residents of the Plaza Towers. They have tried to address the concerns when expressed. The problem is he isn’t entirely sure how the noise rises and that is the biggest point with this structure. They want to be able to stop it from rising up. At the street level he can’t necessarily tell how the sound is going upward. He related that he lives in Venue Tower across the street and most of the time he hears things from The B.O.B. but he can’t quite pinpoint how the sound is getting from Social House to the top of Plaza Tower. They believe that the proposed structure is what they can do to mitigate that and keep it more enclosed. It won’t be open in the back. There will be stairs going up and there will be no entertainment on the top deck. He feels this is the best solution for this situation. Michael Waalkes, Plaza Towers resident, related that he moved downtown in 2005 into a renaissance zone, which encouraged him to move downtown. As he was deliberating the move, City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 January 12, 2023 he and his wife spent a weekend downtown to see what it felt like. At the time it felt a little sketchy sometimes. They didn’t have to walk far before they were uncomfortable but they were encouraged by the growth of the city and made an investment downtown. There are people in the community that have invested millions of dollars into this urban community. Trying to infiltrate entertainment into a residential area just doesn’t work. Everyone has to follow the same rules. He isn’t permitted to blast music at the decibel level that they do and he doesn’t understand how one party who is after economic gain should outweigh the needs of thousands of residents of this community. If this is approved it will spread to other areas such as Bridge St., Cherry, and Wealthy. It will be a problem. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Ms. Shachter responded to public comment. She explained that they did anticipate the expressed concerns. As the general manager stated, she feels this is a partial solution. She also thinks that a part of this discussion is about a much bigger picture conversation. One speaker mentioned pandoras box. They didn’t open that box; it has been opened. Since 1998 the City of Grand Rapids, and this location in particular, has changed a great deal and that is not the doing of this particular business owner; it was a decision that the City and Development Authority made. There are plenty of people that still live downtown and love living downtown, one being the general manager of this establishment. With all due respect, Ms. Shachter understands the hardship of living downtown in a changing demographic and a changing region. However, what they are asking for is the ability to operate within the approved hours. The Noise Ordinance is 1 a.m. If the police are called earlier than 1 a.m. they aren’t going to do anything. They are asking for approval within the confines of the law and what is reasonable. People have different definitions of what is reasonable. They understand and respect that and are trying to do their part to mitigate that at this establishment by constructing the proposed structure and going above and beyond with acoustic treatments and putting live entertainment inside when it isn’t warranted to be outside. They also attempt to mitigate it when it is outside by locating it in the accessory structure. Ms. Shachter asked that as the Planning Commission considers this request that they do so in an isolated way as they didn’t cause the overarching noise pollution in the city. The managers and business owner have a good track record of being respectful and keeping the sidewalk clean and the establishment clean and safe. She feels those things should be taken into consideration as well. Mr. Van Strien recalled that this past Friday night was brought up as an example of when it was loud. He asked if that was a DJ or a band and whether there was dancing. Ms. Shachter replied that there was a DJ. They don’t necessarily clear a dance floor outdoors; there isn’t a dedicated dance floor. Ms. Shachter responded to Ms. Joseph indicating that the DJ was in the cedar room area. She recalled that there was a comment about the front of the establishment not being enclosed. She clarified that it has a 4’ high knee wall that is solid steel and above that is rebar. There are rules about transparency so it can’t be completely enclosed from the street side. There is currently a tent over the patio that has been approved and permitted by the City for temporary use. Ms. Joseph asked what kind of sound dampening treatments have been implemented inside. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 January 12, 2023 Ms. Shachter replied that the cedar room is fire rated. There are typical acoustic treatments on the ceiling, and soft seating. There hasn’t been an issue inside but if that is something they need to address they can. Ms. Joseph asked the size of the space inside vs. the outdoor seating. Ms. Shachter replied that because the interior isn’t part of the consideration, they only provided information on what is existing outside and what is proposed. Based on her recollection, she would estimate that the patio space is 3/4 to 2/3 the size of the inside space as it exists currently. Ms. Joseph asked the number of patrons that are typically at the events, particularly on the weekends with an outdoor DJ. Ms. Shachter replied that it likely depends on the weekend. The maximum has likely been their maximum occupancy of 100 - 130. Smaller turn outs are approximately 30 - 40. Ms. Turkelson advised that the 2013 approval indicates that the first floor has two sections; a full-service bar that can seat up to 25 people and a table that can seat another 70 people. It goes on to say that the second section can seat 150 - 200 people. Ms. Shachter recalled that they had a basement use at one point. There is no longer a use in the basement; it is the main level with a bar and dining tables and the outside patio. Mr. Al Shatel asked if the complaints have been when there is entertainment outdoors or have there also been complaints during indoor entertainment events. Ms. Shachter replied that the record shows that they are mostly when it is outdoors. Dr. Wallace referred to the chart that was included in the packet regarding approved live outdoor entertainment. It is clear that there is a situation here. She provided the example of The Intersection, which is an actual concert venue. Eleven p.m. is the cut off there and she has been to events there that didn’t cease at 11. Typically, in a situation like this she would ask the applicant if they feel they are a good neighbor. She believes they feel they are and that they are trying to correct some previous wrongs that have occurred. Noise complaint enforcement isn’t the purview of the Planning Commission but it is concerning that responsiveness isn’t occurring. When someone calls, they should be able to get a response. Living downtown is complicated from a variety of different standpoints. She isn’t sure that penalizing venues is the answer but she also isn’t sure that ignoring the problem is the answer either. She is interested in considering some problem solving that can work for both parties but she doesn’t feel their power really extends to the other areas where there are issues that have been brought up in public comment. Ms. Shannon related that she lives downtown but not near a venue that makes noise in the evening. She is sympathetic to the noise concerns. She recalled that Rosa Parks has a limit on hours of operation not only because of residents but also because of the Amway Grand Plaza. While enforcement isn’t the role of the Planning Commission, she would hope that staff could communicate that to the Police Department as an issue. Even if the entertainment is during the permitted time frames, are the decibel levels exceeding what is permitted? City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 January 12, 2023 Ms. Joseph is interested is seeing a sound study provided demonstrating to staff that they know what the allowable levels are per the Ordinance. If they haven’t done a study, they should have the reference for themselves as an operator and neighbor. Outdoor seating is one thing but outdoor live entertainment and amplified music is another. Ms. Joseph feels the hours for outdoor entertainment should be limited. She suggested they could seat people outside until 1 a.m. on the weekends but she doesn’t feel amplified music outside should go that late; it is somewhat unreasonable especially when there is a significantly larger space inside where they can offer live entertainment. She feels the longer hours inside are more reasonable, although not until 2 a.m. Mr. Jonker recalled that it was mentioned, and he finds it plausible, that there is a unique situation here because of where the deck is in relation to the two large buildings and how the sound is bounced in there and ends up at the Plaza Towers building. He finds it unique that there aren’t complaints about the other establishments that are actually quite a bit closer to Plaza Towers. In his opinion it is plausible that putting an upper deck on this, with the proper sound attenuation, might make a difference. However, in this case he would almost like to see that happen first and see the complaints about noise during allowable hours reduced and then come back and discuss increasing the hours. The deck may make a significant difference in the noise transmission levels that get all the way over to Plaza Towers. Mr. Jonker would be more comfortable with extended hours outdoors without music and then potentially more analysis around how the sound transmits. Mr. Al Shatel agreed that he would like to see studies on the sound and how it can be mitigated, particularly if there is a desire to get more people to invest in living downtown. It is also important to enforce the noise ordinance as well so that residents know when they are making that investment that they are getting what they signed up for. He would like to support the business and it seemed like most of the complaints were just with the outdoor entertainment. Mr. Al Shatel would like to see if there is something they can do to reduce those hours and bring the entertainment indoors to be respectful toward their neighbors. Mr. Van Strien indicated he has no problem with the outdoor seating and the extended hours there. Ms. Shachter mentioned that the current approval they are operating under dates back to 2013 but all operations were to cease by 11 p.m. outdoors and there was no provision for outdoor amplified music. They are operating way outside of that right now. It makes sense to limit what is approved today and perhaps in the future that could be extended if it is proven that the new structure mitigates some of the sound issues. However, Mr. Van Strien doesn’t know that a study makes sense. He doesn’t feel tabling and having them provide a study now makes sense. He would prefer to limit it to a reasonable time at this point and once the project is complete it could be reassessed. Ms. Joseph clarified that she wasn’t suggesting tabling. They have imposed conditions in the past with respect to providing material to the Planning Director regarding sound. Ms. Turkelson explained that if indoor live entertainment is approved the Ordinance has a soundproofing study that would be required as part of one of the use standards. If the Planning Commission is generally comfortable with the proposed 2 a.m. limit on hours they would be City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 January 12, 2023 requiring, by default, that the applicant submit a soundproofing study as part of the permit process. With respect to the outdoor seating, the Ordinance limits outdoor seating to 10 p.m. week nights and 11 p.m. on weekends. Therefore, there needs to be some articulation if going beyond what the Ordinance permits. The Ordinance was an effort to recognize in the mixed-use commercial zone districts a balance between where people live and play. This is downtown and that is one point of why going beyond 10 and 11 p.m. might be appropriate. Ms. Turkelson agrees with the thoughts of the Planning Commission that perhaps outdoor seating itself can go beyond and perhaps limiting the outdoor live entertainment further and adhering to the standards of the Ordinance, which is 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. Those hours have fairly consistently been applied to the Traditional Business Areas for seating and outdoor entertainment. For the downtown that has been pushed an hour or two later in some instances, depending on the location. That would not preclude the applicant from coming back in the future to request an extension of the outdoor entertainment piece of the outdoor seating. Part of that application process should be some sort of noise study to understand how noise could be better contained, which could be through the system that is being installed. Mr. Van Strien clarified that the Planning Commission can approve outdoor entertainment but there is still a Noise Ordinance that they have to abide by. Ms. Turkelson agreed. Mr. Van Strien clarified that just having approval for outdoor entertainment doesn’t give permission to play the music so loud that you can hear it half a mile away. Ms. Turkelson agreed. Ms. Shannon stated that she would like to see them operate under what the current limitations are under the Ordinance for outdoor entertainment. At such time that they wish to expand those hours she would expect they provide the appropriate studies to show they are meeting the noise restrictions. The Planning Commission engaged in discussion on the conditions included in the draft resolution. The Commission was amenable to 2 a.m. for indoor operations. The Commission was also amenable to live entertainment indoors until 1:30 a.m. With respect to outdoor seating and the upper-level deck, Mr. Van Strien suggested midnight during the week and 1 a.m. Friday and Saturday, which would not include the entertainment. He also clarified, when considering what has been granted to other uses, that they consider these on a case by case basis. Mr. Van Strien suggested limiting outdoor live entertainment to 10 p.m. during the week and 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. It is also important to note that the Noise Control Ordinance is relevant. There was discussion on food availability. Mr. Van Strien doesn’t feel tying food sales to approvals makes much sense. There is too much fluctuation in the industry and challenges in operating a business. He isn’t sure that has ever been enforced. Ms. Turkelson advised that it has been enforced in that when a business transitions from a previous approval, which was a full serve restaurant, to strictly a bar they have flagged it. She City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 January 12, 2023 provided the example of one on Michigan St. that was no longer serving food; it was just serving alcohol. It has been enforced. Mr. Jonker noted that the 2013 approval required over 50% of the sales be food related. Ms. Joseph suggested requiring the kitchen remain open until 9 p.m. Mr. Van Strien asked if the condition of no ticket sales for any live entertainment would include a cover charge. Ms. Turkelson replied typically it would include cover charges. It is simply to try to reinforce that this is a restaurant venue vs. a nightclub. With the limits on hours of operation and requiring food service she feels that condition becomes immaterial. Ms. Joseph stated that, overall, she finds the use appropriate. What they’ve discussed to mitigate potential negative effects on neighbors also seems appropriate. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Social House Kitchen and Bar (Robert J. Larson) for operation of a bar and restaurant with outdoor seating with alcohol service, live entertainment and dancing, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed uses will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will provide for bar patrons a use that is common in business districts and support the vitality of the local economy by encouraging investment, diversifying the economic base, and expanding employment opportunities. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the proposed deck improvement will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property uses. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood and adjacent properties because the use will support the Purpose and Intent of the TN-CC Zone District by providing “Interesting and fun places to eat and socialize with a mixture of ages, social peers, co-workers, and families” and concerns expressed about potentially detrimental aspects of the operation will be addressed with conditions intended to mitigate their impacts. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed uses will be minimized by limiting the hours of outdoor entertainment, appropriately locating the outdoor uses along the street, as well as adequate screening and landscaping. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, or odors because the hours of the outdoor entertainment and amplified music will be limited. 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 amplified music and live entertainment in the outdoor seating area will be reduced at an appropriate time as to not disturb nearby residents. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 January 12, 2023 7. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions and the use will encourage other investment in the area. 8. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the use will result in peak hours of use that are similar to other uses in the vicinity. 9. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions and because the hours of outdoor entertainment will be limited. 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 use is subject to the Noise Control Ordinance. 3. That indoor hours of operation are permitted until 2 a.m. daily. 4. That indoor live entertainment and dancing are permitted until 1:30 a.m. daily. 5. That windows and doors shall remain closed during indoor live entertainment performances. 6. That outdoor seating on the existing patio and proposed upper level deck are permitted until midnight Sunday through Thursday and 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, subject to the Noise Control Ordinance. 7. That outdoor live entertainment is permitted until 10 p.m. weekdays and 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. 8. That full food service, offering meals for consumption on the premises, not generally for take-out, shall be in effect until 9 p.m. daily. 9. That the operations plan be amended to include de-escalation procedures, subject to review and approval of the Police Department. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 January 12, 2023 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, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Lawrence Williams C. 401 Stocking Ave NW - Bar & Restaurant Expansion, Live Music, Outdoor Seating, Parking Waiver Address: 401 Stocking Ave. NW Applicant: Sip Shine (Kyle Search) Requesting: Approval to operate a bar and restaurant with live music and operations until 2 a.m; establish rooftop seating; and obtain a parking reduction. Zoning: TN-TCC Traditional Neighborhood – Transitional City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.9.24. Outdoor Seating 5.9.12. Live Entertainment 5.10.05 Reductions in Parking Requirements 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0102 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: January 28, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki introduced the request of Sip Shine for an expansion of the previous use at this location. The previous use established was Harmony Hall and the proposed uses are very similar in nature. They are just an expansion of the established use. The applicant is requesting indoor live entertainment with hours until 2 a.m. They are also expanding an outdoor rooftop patio and requesting outdoor seating on the rooftop deck until 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. A parking reduction is also requested. Ms. Wahamaki related that this property is located in the Traditional Neighborhood - Transitional City Center Zone District. The use is appropriate for the location and meets the intent of the Westside Area Specific Plan which states Village Center encouraging retail shops and restaurants located at the intersection of primary and secondary streets. Ms. Wahamaki identified surrounding uses as Dollar General to the north, Hendrik Apartment and Bridge St. Market to the east, Steel Cat Bar, Kusterer Brauhaus and a vacant commercial building to the south, and to the west is urban open space and a pregnancy center. The site is located at the northwest corner of Stocking and Bridge St. The site is approximately 22,000 sq. ft. in area and includes an existing multi-level restaurant and micro-brewery as well as City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 January 12, 2023 a surface parking lot. The proposed site improvements include a building addition of approximately 300 sq. ft. on the southwest corner to accommodate an elevator to provide ADA access to all levels of the building. The applicant is also proposing the addition of a rooftop deck. The improvements on site may affect the minimum green space requirement. Ten percent green space is required and currently they have approximately four percent. Due to the building addition, greenspace will be slightly reduced. Ms. Wahamaki indicated that the dumpster enclosure on the site is appropriately located. However, the Planning Commission should consider a condition requiring the dumpster enclosure to meet the current zoning requirements. Ms. Wahamaki commented on the requested parking waiver. In this zone district the parking requirement for a restaurant is a ½ space for 3 persons indoors. The addition of the outdoor seating doesn’t affect the parking calculation. The proposed seating for the entire building is 408 guests, which includes both indoor and outdoor. Based on the indoor seating, 53 parking spaces are required. The parking lot is proposed to have 45 spaces, a deficiency of 8 spaces. Harmony Hall had an occupancy of 260 guests, which required 44 parking spaces. Relevant parking reduction considerations include on-street parking, transit, and alternative vehicles. Ms. Wahamaki related that there is on-street parking available on Bridge St. and Stocking. The building is served by The Rapid route 9 and DASH WEST. If the applicant were to include an alternative vehicle parking space on the property it could also help address the parking requirements. Using reductions for on-street and district parking, transit, and the alternative vehicle parking the deficit could be met. Ms. Wahamaki explained that the proposed indoor hours of operation are until 2 a.m. However, initially they will not be open that late but they wanted the potential of staying open that late. Initially the indoor hours will be 10 and 11 p.m. on weekdays and 2 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. The proposed hours of operation for the outdoor seating portion will be 10 p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Inside the building the first floor would include a tasting room for distilled spirits. Tastings would be done through a guided presentation. There is also a private dining room on the first floor. The applicant also intends to include packaged alcohol sales of their distilled spirits as shown in the retail areas of their site plan. The second floor includes bar and table seating and outdoor seating on an existing deck. There is also a performance area on the second floor that includes a stage. Ms. Wahamaki deferred to the applicant to speak to any changes that may be made to the stage area, which is where the live performances will be held. Part of the expansion request is that live performances are an integral part of the business plan. They anticipate performances to be held daily as an amenity to the restaurant use. On the third floor is a standing room bar and tables. Self-serve beer taps are included on the plan but it is Ms. Wahamaki’s understanding they no longer intend to include those. The applicant can confirm whether or not they intend to pursue including those self-serve beer taps. The third floor also has outdoor rooftop seating. The outdoor deck is on the side of the building that is close to the apartments above Bridge St. Market. They intend to have ambient music on the deck but it is understood that while music will be offered through speakers on the deck, the noise will not be loud enough to be heard in the surrounding vicinity. Ms. Wahamaki related that the applicant hosted an open house that included invitations to area businesses and neighborhood and business associations. Letters of support have been submitted by the West Grand Neighborhood Association and several business owners. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 January 12, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki identified key considerations as any neighborhood concerns regarding noise and activity, the impact of the proposed outdoor seating and alcohol use with the expansion of additional guests, and the adequacy of the basis for waiving parking to the extent requested. Kyle Search, managing partner of Sip Shine, was present on behalf of the request. He related that the idea behind the rooftop deck is to provide a nice view of the city. It is not intended to be entertainment space. There will be no live music outdoors, no base, and no DJs. There will be no self-service on the third floor; they will be putting a bar on that floor that will be manned. The acoustic music they propose on a daily basis is not a band; it will be ambient music to give patrons something nice to listen to to enhance the experience. Mr. Search explained that the expansion to accommodate an elevator is to ensure patrons can access the third floor easily. There will also be a ramp installed on the third floor to provide access to the rooftop deck. Ms. Joseph asked if food will be available on all floors, including the tasting room and the third floor, or only the second floor restaurant. Mr. Search replied just the second-floor restaurant. The third floor will basically be a waiting area for the restaurant and the first floor will be the tasting room. Mr. Rozeboom asked where they would tell patrons to park if the parking lot was full. Mr. Search replied that there is public parking just down the street. There are also scooters and bike parking right in front of the building. There are plenty of opportunities for parking. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Shannon was pleased not to be considering rooftop entertainment. She feels this is a good application and an interesting mix of uses. Ms. Joseph agreed. It is exciting to see the space activated again after the closing of Harmony Hall. Ms. Joseph asked staff about the draft condition related to food service. With there being three different elements of operations, she asked how they would accommodate that. Ms. Turkelson explained that the goal was that in the restaurant portion of the space that full food service would be available until a reasonable dinner service hour. Ms. Zeller agreed. The intent is that they don’t want the entire building to just become a bar. She suggested the applicant comment on how late they intend to have food service. Mr. Search indicated that they intend to have full food service on the second floor during all hours of operation. There is a bar area on the second floor as well. If someone is on the third floor and would like a bite to eat, they could come down to the second-floor bar. He again stated that they intend to have food available during all hours of operation. Ms. Shannon asked about ticket sales. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 January 12, 2023 Mr. Search indicated there will be no ticket sales or cover charges. Mr. Rozeboom asked about the dumpster enclosure and pointed out that they would be trading some greenspace for more access to the building for patrons, which is reasonable. Ms. Joseph would agree that the condition to try to bring it closer to conformity is appropriate. Adding ADA flexibility is great. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Sip Shine (Kyle Search) to operate a bar and restaurant with live music, hours of operation indoors until 2:00 a.m., rooftop seating, and a parking reduction, at 401 Stocking 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 use will support the vitality of the local economy by encouraging investment, diversifying the economic base, and expanding employment opportunities and will support the intent of the Westside Area Specific Plan “Village Center” designation, which encourages the growth of retail shops and restaurants at the intersection of primary and secondary streets. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because improvements to the existing building will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property uses and proposed building improvements will provide additional means of ingress/egress for occupants, as well as expanded ADA accessible access. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will support the desired mixed-use character of the neighborhood and the use is generally consistent with the previous uses on the site. 4. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, glare, or visual clutter because windows and doors will remain closed during any live performances to mitigate potential noise impacts and the parking lot and building entrance are oriented away from residential uses. 5. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the proposed expanded use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity and will contribute to the walkability of the zone district. 6. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services already exist or would be provided at no additional cost because the site is currently improved with public infrastructure and reliance on additional public services is not anticipated. 7. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions and the use will encourage other investment in the area. 8. 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 City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 January 12, 2023 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. 9. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the use will result in peak hours of use that are similar to other uses in the vicinity. 10. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions and the use will encourage other investment in the area. 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 site be brought closer to conformity with greenspace requirements. 3. That a trash enclosure shall be constructed to meet the requirements of Section 5.2.13. of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. That full food service, offering meals for consumption on the premises, not generally for take-out, shall be in effect until 9 p.m. daily. 5. That windows and doors shall remain closed during live entertainment performances. 6. That there shall be no ticket sales for any live entertainment events. 7. That no live entertainment shall be permitted outdoors. 8. That any music or amplified sound on the rooftop deck shall not be heard above the ambient sound of the surrounding area. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. Ms. Turkelson asked Ms. Zeller if it is technically possible to increase the greenspace. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 January 12, 2023 Ms. Zeller replied that there may be some opportunities for improvement and staff will work with them to determine what is possible. The question was called. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Lawrence Williams D. 2160 Celebration Dr NE - Residential Building Address: 2160 Celebration Drive NE Applicant: Victory Development Group, LLC Requesting: Approval of a Major Amendment to the approved Celebration Village development to construct a five-story mixed-use building with up to 250 dwelling units. Zoning: SD-PRD Special Districts - Planned Redevelopment District Requirements: 5.7.06. Special District - Planned Redevelopment District 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Planned Redevelopment District Case Number: PC-PRDA-2022-0113 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Major Amendment to a Planned Redevelopment District Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Turkelson advised that there is a request to postpone this case as there are a few items outstanding from the development team that staff is waiting for that need to be vetted through various departments. The draft resolution to postpone includes those items and deadlines for submittal that will allow staff an opportunity to review it prior to coming before the Planning Commission. The applicant would like to be placed on the January 26th agenda. Because this item was noticed, the public hearing should be opened and would be continued if it is postponed. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Shannon MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission postpones the request of Victory Development Group, LLC for a Major Amendment to the approved Celebration Village Planned Redevelopment District to January 26, 2023. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the requested traffic impact study shall be submitted no later than Thursday, January 19, 2023. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 January 12, 2023 2. That the proposed number of dwelling units of each type, and the number of and type that will be considered micro-units (475 square feet or less) be provided in order to calculate the parking requirement. 3. That renderings of all building sides, or more detailed elevations, be provided. 4. That details about the use and purpose of the courtyard be provided. 5. That a summary be provided to explain how the proposed amendment will affect the existing Celebration Village master deed and easements. 6. That, with the exception of the traffic impact study, the above-mentioned items shall be submitted no later than Tuesday, January 17, 2023. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: TABLED OPEN [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Lawrence Williams E. 2984 Bradford St. NE - Major PRD Amendment Address: 2984 Bradford St. NE Applicant: Corewell Health (Rodney VanderZand) Requesting: Approval of a Major Amendment to an approved Planned Redevelopment District to construct a cardiovascular ambulatory surgery center, and assignment of the NOS Zone District for the purposes of signs. Zoning: SD-PRD Special Districts - Planned Redevelopment District Requirements: 5.7.06. Planned Redevelopment District 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Planned Redevelopment District 5.15.08. Planned Sign Program 5.15.13. Signs in Special and Overlay Districts Case Number: PC-PRDA-2022-0114 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Major Amendment to a Planned Redevelopment District Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Zeller introduced the request of Corewell Health, previously known as Spectrum Health, for a Major Amendment to an approved Planned Redevelopment District to construct a cardiovascular ambulatory surgery center. The Master Plan for this area has been modified a number of times since its approval in 1993, which was originally for Blodgett Hospital prior to the merger of Blodgett and Butterworth. A new hospital was proposed in this area. A hospital was not constructed but there are plans to construct a number of medical facilities in the PRD. There is no revised Master Plan from Corewell so, at this time, the request is for a Major Amendment. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 January 12, 2023 Ms. Zeller related that the site is identified in the 2002 Master Plan as Institutional, which reflects the proposed and existing medical office uses in the vicinity. There is no sub-area plan that addresses this area. Ms. Zeller noted that the site is currently improved with a single-family home. It does contain some wetlands and some steep slopes. The applicant is proposing to construct the facility near the street. Ms. Zeller displayed the previously approved PRD. A survey of the site, as well as a demolition plan were also displayed. All existing improvements are proposed to be removed. The proposed facility will be a single-story, 19,500 sq. ft. outpatient medical center with 60 parking spaces. In addition to the Major Amendment, there is also a request for a reduction of the 75 ft. natural features setback to 50 ft. Ms. Zeller also explained that they are looking to assign the NOS Neighborhood Office Service Zone District for the purpose of signage, which is what was done for the most recent Spectrum Health amendment for a residential rehabilitation facility on Leffingwell. They could return with a Planned Sign Program but, for ease of administration, the NOS Zone District assignment is requested at this time. Ms. Zeller related that the proposed building will meet all of the minimum setback requirements for a PRD, which is 20 ft. from a lot line. The parking lot is proposed to be in front of the building. Generally, that is not a condition seen in the Traditional Neighborhoods or Mid- Century Neighborhoods. The surrounding area is Modern Era Neighborhood and, because of that, it was felt that this design was not inappropriate. The applicant can likely speak to why they are proposing this design, which has to do with the topography. The Planning Commission should consider whether the front yard placement is found to be appropriate. The site will exceed all of the green site elements required. A full landscape plan will be provided at permitting. Ms. Zeller indicated that there are regulated wetlands on the site. The City of Grand Rapids does not regulate wetlands but does regulate the area outside the wetlands. A 75 ft. buffer is required in order to protect the wetlands. There are ways to encroach into that 75 ft. setback. It is usually permitted if the wetlands aren’t high quality or are manmade. In this case, the wetlands identified on the survey are recognized by the Kent County Drain Commission as a County Drain detention basin that resulted from the constructed storm water management system that serves the subject site and surrounding parcels. The applicant is requesting to encroach into the 75 ft. buffer no closer than 50 ft. The Stormwater Project Engineer finds that a reduction of the wetlands protection area to 50 ft. will have negligible impacts on this particular wetland area. The Planning Commission should consider whether that encroachment is appropriate. Additionally, there are some areas of steep slope, which is shown on the plan. A small area of steep slopes is proposed to be impacted by this project. The area of impact is under 10,000 sq. ft. The disturbance is something that can be allowed and is also part of the Commission’s consideration today. The portion to be graded is approximately 1,000 sq. ft. Ms. Zeller displayed building elevations. The north elevation is what faces Bradford, east is toward the church, west is facing West Michigan Heart and the south elevation will be looking at the expressway. In a PRD the transparency requirement is 60% on the front elevation. None of the sides meet that requirement. However, the building is very consistent with the requirements of the Neighborhood Office Service Zone District, which requires 30% on the front and sides. All sides, except for the east side, well exceed 30%. The Planning Commission should consider City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 January 12, 2023 whether the proposed design is appropriate. The building materials will be face brick and wood veneer panels meeting the requirements. Staff does have some concern about the height of the parapets. The Ordinance limits the height of parapets above the roof to 4 ft. Some higher parapets are permitted at entrance features. Some of the parapets proposed are a bit higher than 4 ft., which is something that can be addressed at permitting with staff. Ms. Zeller commented on parking. Sixty parking spaces are proposed. The approved PRD set the parking requirement for this kind of facility at one space per 200 sq. ft., which would result in a requirement of 98 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 60 spaces and requesting a reduction of 38 spaces. The applicant is proposing 8 electric vehicle charging spaces, which is an allowable reduction that will allow it to be reduced by 32 spaces. They remain a few spaces short of the requirements but because they do have staff locker rooms and showers, they are eligible for an additional reduction if they provide covered bike parking spaces. Providing 8 covered bicycle parking spaces would then bring them to the point of meeting the parking requirements. Ms. Zeller suggested the applicant also elaborate on why they feel 60 spaces are appropriate for their use. Ms. Zeller related that a traffic impact study was provided and reviewed by the Traffic System Engineer who found that the study concludes that the project would have minimal impact on existing traffic operations at Bradford and nearby intersections. Ms. Zeller related that when the original PRD was approved in 1992, and during subsequent amendments, there was discussion of the hospital providing area-wide infrastructure improvements. None of that has occurred to date but the entire model has changed. The City has begun discussions about improvements. As a condition of approval, the applicant is being asked to negotiate in good faith with the City on appropriate infrastructure improvements. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to discuss their neighborhood outreach. A letter of support was submitted by the Northeast Citizen Action Association. Rodney VanderZand, Corewell Health Manager of Planning and Design, was present on behalf of the request. He related that they are excited about this project. While they are present to discuss a building and site, this is something unique to the area. Approximately a year ago this service wasn’t allowed in the State of Michigan. Since then, CMS as well as the State of Michigan Certificate of Need Committee has approved a new type of Certificate of Need that allows for cardiovascular outpatient services. What that means is they can take some of the things that they are currently required to do in the hospital and move them to a location similar to this. Corewell Health was the first in West Michigan to apply for this and they are excited to provide an industry leading care delivery model that no one else is currently doing around here. It will allow patients to have an outpatient ambulatory procedure in a warm and welcoming environment. Having the same procedure in the hospital is not as convenient as what is proposed. The goal is to bring care closer to the community and lower the cost of care in doing so as outpatient services are more cost effective than visiting the hospital. Mr. VanderZand explained that there will be three cath labs inside the building along with space for a fourth. There will also be 16 prep/recovery bays. When fully built out and utilized there will be approximately 20 staff that occupy the building and they will perform approximately 20 procedures in a day resulting in 40 persons visiting the building. The number of staff and the number of visits is what helped influence the trip generation report that was reviewed. It will add very little traffic to the area, City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 January 12, 2023 which has been a concern over the years. It is also the basis for why they are requesting a reduction in parking. In addition, they own the neighboring property and the lower level is not typically full so they have opportunities for additional parking if it became needed. The adjacent Calvary Church parking is also not typically used on weekdays so that is also a potential option. Mr. VanderZand agreed with Ms. Zeller that there is a fairly significant grade change on this site going down toward the wetlands to the southwest. The design team tried to work as best as possible in siting the building to have the least impact. They chose to locate the building to the southwest, which allowed the foundation walls to get taller and capture the grade change and in turn place the parking to the north and the east in areas that are mostly already clear and relatively flat. Mr. VanderZand pointed out that neighboring properties have parking in the front yard as well so it is consistent with what is in the neighborhood. Mr. VanderZand acknowledged that they are requesting a reduction in the buffer from the wetlands from 75 ft. to 50 ft. They are barely touching the 75 ft. line and are trying to have as little impact as possible. With respect to transparency, in a surgery center with operating rooms and care spaces, there aren’t a lot of opportunities to add a lot of windows. They have done their best to place the public facing spaces on the Bradford side. They were able to get the glazing up to approximately 49%. To balance the lack of transparency they have worked hard to provide interest in that elevation as well utilizing two different colors of brick and wood material. It is an exciting building and they feel a first class design for the area. Ms. Joseph asked if they are amenable to the 8 covered bicycle parking spaces. Mr. VanderZand replied that they have no problem with that provided there are no additional requirements such as additional lockers and such. They have discussed a network of bike paths throughout the campus so the bike parking does seem appropriate. Ms. Turkelson added that when the PRD was created the parking calculations were assigned and the use was somewhat different. Another option may be to consider whether or not the assigned parking calculation from the previous approval is still appropriate or whether the Commission would prefer to assign a general professional office parking calculation, which would require 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. putting the requirement at 57 spaces. That may be another tool to consider vs. the waiver, which necessitates the bike parking. Ms. Joseph asked if there are any plans to update the Master Plan for this PRD. Mr. VanderZand replied that in 2020 when they brought the long-term care building before the Planning Commission there were two diagrams that showed what they had for buildable land left. That is the most recent thinking of where they could potentially place buildings. Even since then, healthcare is dynamic and ever-changing so even parts of that have become obsolete at this point. They ended up putting a solar farm next to the highway instead of a building site. The subject building falls roughly where they did show one of the buildings, although it was connected to the existing heart building. That is the best that they have to date for their future development opportunities. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 January 12, 2023 Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Van Strien indicated he is comfortable with the parking reduction. At the time the PRD was approved they were likely asked to over-park. He trusts that they know what they need. Ms. Joseph agreed. If changing the type of calculation is a tool they can utilize she is also comfortable doing that. Ms. Turkelson added that they are still required to provide bike parking but the amount and covered spaces doesn’t become part of that equation. Ms. Shannon stated that she is sensitive to the fact that healthcare is ever changing, which results in the need for them to recognize those kinds of changes when considering where the opportunities are for additional facilities to be constructed. Ms. Joseph stated that she is also comfortable with the transparency reduction because of the nature of the use. She appreciates the thought that has gone into the design to create visual interest. With respect to the natural features setback, though the building barely skirts it, it is likely more of that area will be disturbed during the construction. She appreciates that they have gone into that protection zone as little as possible. Ms. Joseph feels it is reasonable. She asked if they will be providing additional storm water mitigation related to what they are constructing. Ms. Turkelson replied affirmatively. Chris Miller related that he is preparing the stormwater engineering and site layout on the site. There is a County Drain on site and the Kent County Drain Commission’s stance on that has been that they will provide any additional detention that would be required outside of what had already been master planned. If any additional is required, they will store that on site. There is a provision for an underground storage system should it be required. They will be required to provide water quality treatment for the site regardless of what impervious surface is added. Mr. Al Shatel MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Corewell Health (Rodney VanderZand) for a Major Amendment to an approved Planned Redevelopment District to construct a cardiovascular ambulatory surgery center, a reduction of the 75-foot natural feature protection area to 50 feet, a parking reduction, and assignment of the NOS Zone District for the purposes of signs, at 2984 Bradford Street NE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because all elements of the site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to topography, the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property; natural features and site topography are incorporated into the proposed site design to the maximum extent practicable; safe, convenient, and well- defined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation within and to and from the site is provided. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 January 12, 2023 2. The mix of uses, density of development, and design of the proposed PRD are consistent with the Master Plan and the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because they support Master Plan Chapter 4, “Vital Business Districts and a Strong Economy,” by: maintaining and enhancing economically vibrant as well as attractive business and commercial areas; and providing reasonable accommodation for growth and development. 3. The proposed PRD will ensure efficient development on the property and will result in a logical and orderly development pattern in the neighborhood because the SD-PRD Zone District provides flexibility relative to use and site layout. 4. The proposed development will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the use is generally consistent with the planned medical-related use originally contemplated for the site; the property is not in close proximity to residential uses; and the proposed building design and materials meet the characteristics important in Planned Redevelopment Districts. 5. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed development on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through adequate parking for the use as anticipated, attractive architecture, and appropriate landscaping. 6. The proposed development 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 use will have lower traffic volumes than originally anticipated for the site. 7. Connections for pedestrians and vehicles are provided between the parking lot and the building. 8. The proposed development will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because the natural features buffer will be disturbed as little as possible; site landscape features will be preserved in their natural state insofar as practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal, alteration to the natural drainage courses, and the amount of cutting, filling and grading; and the building’s proposed extended foundation will act as a retaining wall, minimizing the area of steep slope impact. 9. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services already exist or will be provided at no additional public cost, and will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the applicant will be responsible for the construction of any new infrastructure necessary for the development and the applicant and the City of Grand Rapids will establish a fair and equitable implementation plan for the funding of areawide public infrastructure improvements. 10. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use will support the expansion of jobs and services in the City. 11. Wherever practicable, the proposed development will provide amenities, including but not limited to, park and recreational facilities, urban open space, and non-vehicular connections that serve a public purpose because the development will maintain significant greenspace for visual relief. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 January 12, 2023 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 transparency shall be reduced consistent with the submitted elevations. 3. That eight covered bicycle parking spaces shall be incorporated into the plan. 4. That the applicant collaborates in good faith with the City of Grand Rapids to establish the extents, design criteria, and schedule that guarantees a fair and equitable investment in right-of-way and public infrastructure improvements. 5. That this approval shall take effect as required by the City Commission approval in accordance with Section 5.12.12.G. of the Zoning Ordinance. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. Ms. Turkelson addressed condition #3; the requirement for 8 covered bicycle parking spaces. She suggested the Commission could require that and it would effectively leave the parking calculation as it was previously approved. Alternatively, that condition could be redacted and state that the required parking for the proposed facility is modified to 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, which would negate the need for the covered spaces. Mr. Al Shatel AMENDED THE MOTION TO REDACT THE THIRD CONDITION AND REPLACE IT WITH: The required parking for the proposed facility is modified to 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. The question was called. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Salim Al-Shatel SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Lawrence Williams City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 January 12, 2023 F. 211 Logan St SW (Cesar Chavez) - Self-Storage Facility Address: 211 Logan St SW Applicant: SBAM SB, LLC (John Gibbs) Requesting: Approval to convert a portion of the historic Sligh Building into a 24-hour self-storage facility. A parking reduction is also requested. Zoning: TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood—Transitional City Center) Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.31. Self-Storage Facilities 5.10.05. Reductions in Parking Requirements 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2021-0115 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: January 28, 2023 Ms. Zeller explained that there are two items under consideration for the same general site. She will provide presentations for each site and the Planning Commission can hold a combined public hearing. However, separate motions will be necessary. The southerly portion of the project site is 211 Logan SW. The overall site is the block surrounded by Wealthy, Cesar Chavez, Century, and Logan, with the exception of the property at the corner of Wealthy and Century. The first portion of the consideration is on what the developer has labeled Site B. It consists of the former Sligh Furniture factory building, which currently houses a range of uses. The building ranges in height from two stories to five stories to seven stories. Ms. Zeller recalled that there was an approval given by the Planning Commission to allow additional height under Optional Plan Review. The concrete portion of the Sligh building was to be demolished. The demolition is no longer proposed because the building was deemed historic. The portion to be discussed first is on Century and Logan. The location is currently home to several antique stores. The applicant is proposing to convert a portion of that building into self-storage. In the TCC Zone District, self-storage is only allowed within a building. It cannot be the more suburban or more industrial style where you drive in and storage lockers are accessed from outdoors. Self- storage is permitted in the TCC Zone District as a Special Land Use. Ms. Zeller related that the self-storage facility would be accessed from entrances at the corner of Century and Logan and would be located in the interior of the building, which is quite deep. It will be on the ground floor surrounded by retail on the Century side, residential on the interior side and levels 2-5 of the existing building would be residential dwelling units. The self-storage facility is proposed to be approximately 61,000 sq. ft. Units would be accessed from the rental office and lobby of the building at the southeast corner. There are also proposed off-street loading spaces in the addition to the building. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to elaborate on how that will work. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a street loading space on Century along with street parking spaces. The final configuration of Century Ave. is up to Mobile GR and Engineering. The applicant will be working with them on finessing the details. On street parking will be permitted but it is likely that the 90-degree parking spaces won’t be permitted in the future due to anticipated higher traffic volumes on Century Ave. with potential street reconfigurations. Ms. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 January 12, 2023 Zeller clarified that that is not something the Planning Commission needs to dwell on today. There will be off-street loading bays and there will likely be an on-street loading space. Office hours will be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., seven days a week. Customers will have 24-hour key-card access to their storage units. All storage use will be entirely indoors. No outdoor storage is proposed. Ms. Zeller elaborated on parking relating that the parking requirement in the Ordinance is based on the other type of storage facility previously mentioned where one drives in, parks in front of their unit, and accesses it from outside, which doesn’t apply to this type of use. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that a significant number of the users of this facility are expected to be residents of the larger development, which, when complete, is anticipated to include 438 dwelling units with on-site parking; 367 garage and surface parking spaces. On Site B itself, 244 dwelling units are proposed. 128 of those units are anticipated to be micro-units. The applicant is asking for a parking reduction. There are a number of parking reductions available. However, Ms. Zeller suggests that only the on-street or district parking waiver could be applicable. For this development 62 parking spaces are required. They are requesting a waiver of 31 spaces with parking to be in the street. Practically speaking, many of the people visiting the self-storage facility will already be parking on site because they live there. Visitors will likely use one of the loading spaces if they are dropping off or picking something up. Ms. Zeller asked that the Planning Commission consider those elements in their decision making. As previously mentioned, the building has been designated historic. It is not a local landmark. However, it will be on the National Register. Because of that, any exterior building changes are subject to review by the State Historic Preservation Office. The City won’t have as much discretion in the changes that can be required. That being said, the State will look to ensure changes are historically accurate. Windows are proposed. Instead of requiring that this meet the 60% transparency requirement for street facing windows, staff suggests that the building be subject to State Historic Preservation Office review. Ms. Zeller explained that there are a number of Use requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for self-storage facilities, most of which don’t apply to this type of use. The proposed is appropriately located on major streets. Ms. Zeller related that she hasn’t heard any neighborhood concerns. She deferred to the applicant to expand upon their neighborhood outreach. Ms. Zeller summarized the Logan portion of the project relating that it consists of reuse of a portion of a historic building for self-storage use. Ms. Zeller described the proposed project on the north portion of the site. The Planning Commission will be considering Optional Plan Review for site modifications or building element modifications. In this case it is primarily height that is being considered. She recalled that the applicant previously received Optional Plan Review approval for construction of a six-story building on the site. The applicant is now requesting approval for five stories in the A-1 and A-2 buildings. The café building received approval as a single-story, which remains the proposed design. In the TCC Zone District four stories is the maximum height allowed with five stories permitted with bonuses. The applicant is not intending to utilize the height bonuses but they are asking for additional stories. Ms. Zeller asked that the applicant detail exactly what their City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 30 January 12, 2023 rationale is for the additional height. Along with the additional height they will be modifying the unit count associated with the new site layout. Ms. Zeller displayed a slide of what was previously proposed compared to what is now proposed. She recalled that the concrete portion of the Sligh Building was originally intended to be demolished. A five-story building with a parking garage and a six-story building with a parking garage was proposed. Now that they are unable to demolish the concrete portion of the Sligh Building they have had to revise their plan. They are now proposing two five-story buildings. One building will include a parking garage and surface parking will also be provided. Ms. Zeller related that she performed a density calculation. Based on the combined area of all of the properties, as well as the adjacent right-of-way that is used in calculating density, the project at 438 dwelling units would be permitted. The plans are conceptual in nature. At the time of permitting, a full LUDS and building permit review will be required. Ms. Zeller recalled that the previous approval included a condition to ensure appropriate building design. It was conditioned upon meeting the TN-TCC building element requirements, except for height, and the recommendations contained in the Downtown Grand Rapids Streetspace Guidelines. Staff recommends that same condition of approval for this request. John Gibbs, Sturgeon Bay Partners, was present on behalf of the request. He feels the proposed changes in planning and design will allow for this project to move forward and be successful. He explained that they have broken it into the self-storage component and the Optional Plan Review amendment. With respect to the self-storage, it has been a long, exhausting process to figure out a way to solve for such a deep and inefficient core. The old warehouses are typically well over 100 ft. deep. They feel they have found a way to solve that by inserting third-party self-storage into the core of the building that is open to the public and tenants in the building while not really changing the character of the historic property. The proposed use will make up less than 10% of the total building square footage. It allows for them not to have to build such deep and dark residential units that would likely be hard to lease. Lynee Wells, Aligned Planning, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work on this project. She stated that they have come a long way since the April meeting in 2021 when they originally received approval. Since then they have received two extensions and have had a lot of time to think through the project and explore the preservation issues with their historic preservation professionals. They were excited to hear that the concrete addition is eligible to be listed on the National or State Register. With that comes the recognition that this is an important building in the city. They have listened to all of the public comment, even following the meeting, and they are happy to be able to preserve the entire building. With that comes a great cost and an opportunity to find new uses. Not only are they providing the opportunity for storage space available to the public and the residents, they are also providing other TCC permitted uses such as maker spaces, which is consistent with the GR Forward Plan and also meets the vision of the Grandville Area Specific Plan. Ms. Wells explained that the vision and overall program remains the same for the entire site. They also desire to be responsive to some of the building configuration challenges. It is 130 ft. deep and they know that the sun cannot penetrate that deep into residential units. Natural light is important and they know they will have more success leasing units if there is natural light available. As Mr. Gibbs mentioned, repurposing the core space for self-storage addresses many of the needs. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 31 January 12, 2023 Ms. Wells commented on the height relating that staff asked that they provide justification for the request. She recalled that they were approved for six stories at the north end of the property. At the south of the property, where the concrete addition is today, they were approved for a five story building. They are essentially moving the five-story approval to the north. There is an increased cost with preserving the concrete addition, as well as preserving the entire building. To offset that cost they have dropped the height at the north from six stories to five. One of the justifications is that they were approved for six stories and they are reducing that. They also are within the overall height ceiling of the site itself. The Century building is seven stories. What they are proposing to the north is no greater than what is already on this block. Therefore, they are not impacting the character of the area and they are continuing to provide the infil residential that the city needs to meet the housing demand they are facing in the community. Ms. Wells related that they are also providing maker space. Ms. Wells agreed with the information provided in the staff report and the comments offered by staff. They are willing and open to work closely with Mobile GR and the Engineering Dept. on the parking configuration along Century. They do believe the parking reduction is necessary for the storage use. As Ms. Zeller mentioned, the intent of the parking calculation is really for the stand-alone, suburban style storage facilities. Ms. Wells indicated that they will meet all of the other TCC zoning standards and have proven those out; the required building line, green space, and open space. They will be working closely with the Director with respect to the parking questions related to the north of the property. Ted Touloukian related that he is the architect for the project. He commented on the importance of the project from an urban design point of view. This is an urban revitalization project and it will certainly be a vibrant mixed-use project. He feels that the changes that occurred between the first Optional Plan Review approval and now are a significant improvement. They are going to historically preserve more of the Sligh Furniture building and by doing so they create other opportunities for uses. In the red brick building it has traditionally been residential uses. In the core of the building, it was pointed out that there were some challenges with how to use it. By providing self-storage that is open to the community as well as the residents of the development it provides a good impact in the neighborhood. By saving the concrete building they open up other opportunities for the project. There is approximately 125,000 sq. ft. of maker space, light industrial uses, which is a great provision for the community. Mr. Gibbs and his team have been working to find opportunities for the site. There are other pieces of the development that have not changed. There remains a central courtyard that is open to public use. Where they once had a parking garage it is now removed from the site and they have the maker space. It allows for a much greater transparency on the site where parking can be intermixed with tree canopy. They have been able to maintain the urban open space and greenspace on the site. With that, it keeps the vision that this project can be impactful on the community as not just a place for the tenants but a location that is open to the whole community and city at large. They are proud of the work they have accomplished together. It has been a great team effort. Mr. Touloukian indicated that he has enjoyed the process with the different City departments. Ms. Joseph asked how many self-storage units they anticipate fitting in the space. Mr. Gibbs replied that they are still in the design process of that but it is approximately 61,000 sq. ft. of self-storage, which is approximately 8% of the gross square footage. He anticipates 100 City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 32 January 12, 2023 - 200 self-storage units. There is a built-in tenant base with the number of micro-units in the building. Those tenants will benefit from storage. It will also be completely open to the public. Ms. Joseph asked if they considered offering it as an amenity to the residents of the development. Mr. Gibbs replied affirmatively. Ms. Joseph pointed out that there are proposed residential units immediately adjacent to the self- storage units that will be available for access 24/7. She asked if there are any concerns about impacts on those units related to people accessing their storage units at different times of the night. Mr. Touloukian replied that the nice thing about the layout is that there is one single entry at the corner of Logan and Century. They did that intentionally to limit options for security issues. There won’t be different access points from inside the building. Mr. Gibbs clarified that the self-storage will not be sharing a hallway with residential units. The residential units, in theory, won’t even know there is storage in the core of the building. Mr. Touloukian added that there is a corridor for the residential units and commercial spaces that are separate and there will be a separate circulation core for the self-storage. They are completely isolated, very independent, and not co-mingled. Ms. Joseph asked if residents of the units around the self-storage would have to go to the main entrance to access their storage unit. Mr. Gibbs replied affirmatively. Ms. Shannon asked that the maker space be elaborated upon. Mr. Gibbs explained that they see this as a win for the building and community. They were previously planning to take down the 150,000 sq. ft. concrete wing and they are now preserving it. There will be more space for existing tenants of the building to expand and grow into a larger footprint. There is currently a 50,000+ sq. ft. furniture manufacturer in the building that employs 50-60 people. That tenant wants to grow and this will allow for that, adding more jobs. There is also a screen printing company in there currently and they are having conversations with other tenants and non-profits that are looking for maker space. Ms. Wells interjected that they have met with the Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association’s development committee. They shared with them what has been shared with the Planning Commission. They discussed the maker space and entrepreneurial spirit that is found in many of the neighborhoods and especially in the Roosevelt Park neighborhood. They will be presenting to the business district at their March meeting. They really want to find collaboration with the neighborhood and learn more about makers that are in Roosevelt Park that are looking for spaces to test out their business model or take something they are doing in a home office and bring it into this space. They had support from the Roosevelt Park development committee. There were City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 33 January 12, 2023 some questions about the future collaboration with the business community and they are looking forward to working together on that as they move forward. Ms. Shannon asked if it is considered manufacturing/industrial space or mixed-use. Ms. Turkelson replied that it would be considered light industrial, which is a permitted use in that zone district. Ms. Shannon finds it interesting that they are reutilizing a building that was vacated because it is multi-story and isn’t conducive to manufacturing and repurposing it for manufacturing. Mr. Rozeboom asked that they speak further to the southwest corner of the site. Previously a street wall was proposed there and that is no longer the case. It seems like a missed opportunity relative to connection with the rest of the neighborhood to have just a surface parking lot there. Mr. Touloukian explained that the dimension between the concrete building and the corner is an awkward dimension that doesn’t allow for many things to happen. What they found in studying different options there is that they can improve the green buffer that exists along Cesar Chavez. When addressing parking needs it also provided a nice opportunity. They will further develop the corner to intermix the tree canopy and embellish it as more of a lush green edge as opposed to what it is now, which is an asphalt edge with a large loading door. He feels it is a significant improvement in that corner. Mr. Rozeboom agreed that it is awkward space. Mr. Jonker recognized that in the revised plan there is obviously a lot more surface parking. He asked if they considered putting parking in the seven-story building. Mr. Touloukian replied that they did look at that and study it. The grid is quite compact as a former industrial building. The column spacing was pretty tight and it would be very invasive to consider that. It is very cost prohibitive. Ms. Turkelson asked if they considered whether residential could be a use that could be conducive to that building or whether they run into the same issue with the floor plates. She also asked for further detail on the loading and unloading areas for the self-storage. Mr. Touloukian indicated that they did study residential. It is a very deep building and they ran into a lot of the same problems. Through the team discussions they realized that it was a great opportunity to diversify the uses on the site and improve the connectivity with the community with options for engaging with small businesses and different community uses. Ms. Turkelson commented further on the loading space. It appears there is loading area on Logan but she isn’t clear as to how that works. Mr. Touloukian explained that being a 360-degree site there really isn’t a back. They prioritized it by saying that the middle of the site needs to remain very pedestrian friendly, which is why the courtyard and a number of the entries are located there. Greening those edges also made a big City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 34 January 12, 2023 difference. It is also a question of pedestrian safety in terms of bringing loading into the middle of the site. The second tier of consideration is that because it is a historic building there are very minimal changes that may be allowed through the historic review process. There are currently six loading bays that exist and they are planning to maintain that. The programing of that and who will utilize those will develop as the project further develops. There is another loading bay on the street adjacent to the self-storage. There is also a handicap accessible ramp that will allow for utilization of the single-point of entry at the self-storage entry point. If one wanted to leave the southeast corner of the site there is pedestrian access that would take you into loading bays and they can further develop interior access if necessary. Ms. Turkelson clarified that the six off-street loading spaces are existing loading bays that will be repurposed for an unknown user within the site and they would not be dedicated to self- storage. Mr. Touloukian replied that it could be used for self-storage, maker space, residential, or maintenance staff. The intensity of uses may dictate overlap. He feels the use of those bays will come out through the project development in later phases. On Century is the other loading space, which is more proximate to the entrance for self-storage, which also has ramp access for accessible entry into the self-storage facility. Ms. Turkelson clarified that if someone arrives with a UHaul they would use the Logan truck bays or park in the parking spaces. Mr. Touloukian replied that one could use the Logan truck bays or park in the parking spaces. He also pointed out that there are some drop off points around the perimeter of the site but they are not dedicated for loading. Ms. Turkelson asked the dimension along Logan that is currently curb cut. She asked if six loading bays are really necessary or are there some street space improvements that could be made. It is an unfortunate pedestrian space to remain in its current configuration. Mr. Touloukian replied that he believes they came to the seven number based on the zoning requirements for loading, based on the gross calculations. Ms. Wells asked if Ms. Turkelson was suggesting they could do less loading bays. Ms. Zeller felt there may be an opportunity to work with staff on the appropriate number of loading spaces. Ms. Turkelson understands the Ordinance requirement and why it is in place. However, she isn’t sure that the intent for a development of this scale was to consolidate them into one location on the site, especially if it is external and results in a 200’ curb cut. Mr. Touloukian pointed out that the curb cut exists now. They could improve it. Mr. Van Strien asked if they could identify the third party that would operate the self-storage. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 35 January 12, 2023 Ms. Wells related that they have a partner for that use. Mr. Van Strien asked if they have weighed in on the preferred number of loading spaces. Mr. Touloukian replied that, if appropriate, they would love to study that further and perhaps make a recommendation to staff at a later point. Ms. Turkelson advised that there is an opportunity for an administrative departure. For a project like this they would typically look to the Planning Commission to provide input. However, if the Planning Commission shares her concern about the existing curb cut condition they could provide some flexibility to determine at a staff level how many are necessary and what improvements could be made as the tenant information becomes better understood. Mr. Touloukian agreed that would be a significant improvement on Logan, particularly for pedestrian safety. He believes it would be well received and they can work through that if it is appropriate. Ms. Turkelson explained that if the Planning Commission shares her sentiment that it is unfortunate then they will continue to advance those conversations in an effort to come up with an improved design that still meets the loading needs of the development. Ms. Joseph wished to clarify that the only entrance to the proposed self-storage is external to the rest of the building off of Century. Mr. Touloukian agreed. However, based on Building Code requirements there are egresses that are noted on the plans but they are not to be used for public entrances. Ms. Turkelson referred to the plans noting that it discusses an area immediately adjacent to Century that indicated it may be self-storage or may be office use. She wished to confirm that it is not their intent to have self-storage units along that façade wall and there would be transparency and an active use. The applicant team responded affirmatively. Mr. Touloukian added that it is a very unique space. It is the one-story infil that occurred between the wings on either side and there is a great opportunity for an active use. They agree that the best use is not to be self-storage. Ms. Turkelson clarified that the plan indicates self-storage with related office. Ms. Wells clarified that the intent is not to store things in front of the windows. Mr. Touloukian added that the reason for that note is because that is the entry and where the office would be. That is where people would be received. Ms. Shannon clarified that there is also retail proposed along Century. Mr. Touloukian replied that they are showing retail in a couple of locations. One of the big improvements on Century that will relate to the retail uses is that currently there is a lot of City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 36 January 12, 2023 asphalt and head in parking along the whole street. They have coined it the promenade, which allows for different accessible ramp entries that get up to a raised platform and that raised platform is accessible to the retail spaces, which will be a big improvement. The second improvement there are the street trees along that edge where they will have the parking. He feels it will be a vibrant extension of the streetscape. Mr. Gibbs added that it will provide better connectivity to the ballet, Founders, and The Rapid. Mr. Touloukian added that another aspect they are happy with is that the entry into the site from the train station will also be significantly improved. It provides another pedestrian extension that will occur leading into the center of the site where the public courtyard will be. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Dr. Wallace indicated that she prefers this to what was previously approved. It is more optimal for the space. Ms. Joseph stated that she was somewhat skeptical about the self-storage, especially in terms of impact on residents. She now feels bad for the residents on the fifth floor that would have to come all the way down to the outside to get to their storage unit. She appreciates the complications of the building and that doing self-storage this way has the least amount of impact in terms of design and what people are seeing from the outside. Therefore, she is comfortable with it. She is also very comfortable with allowing the five-stories. As the applicant pointed out, six stories were previously approved. Ms. Joseph expressed her excitement in having so much residential near the transit station. It is a great opportunity. It is disappointing that there is so much non-residential development around the transit station so it is good to see that there will be residential here. Ms. Turkelson suggested that with the emergency egress required there could be internal opportunities to use a key box system so that tenants have greater access to storage units. That is something they can explore further. Mr. Touloukian agreed that they can explore that. Ms. Joseph clarified that she was not suggesting it be a condition of approval. Mr. Rozeboom pointed out that one of the standards for Optional Plan Review is that the request is necessitated by a condition related to the site or structure and is not a means to reduce cost or inconvenience. He appreciates that Ms. Wells specifically provided that explanation. Mr. Rozeboom asked Ms. Turkelson’s thoughts on height in this area. Ms. Turkelson related that they have had discussions internally within the Planning Department as to whether or not they should be allowing five stories by right in the TCC zone districts. There was a very similar conversation a couple of blocks away for the 10 McConnell site about whether height increases are appropriate, and in some ways needed, to be able to achieve the residential densities that the city needs as well. There have been some preliminary conversations City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 37 January 12, 2023 about adjusting the TCC height requirement and not to necessarily increase the height of the TCC but to eliminate the bonus structure to make it easier or eliminate a hurdle of the existing Ordinance. Ms. Turkelson feels there is some merit to that. There was a very similar conversation with respect to the Traditional Business Areas where they used to allow three stories or four stories with the bonus. That bonus structure was eliminated to simply allow four stories in the Traditional Business Areas, which is reducing cost and increasing possibilities for increased density. Overall, at an intersection like this, with Wealthy having the grade challenges, and both Wealthy and Grandville being high volume streets, she has no concerns about five stories generally. She hesitated to think that it was appropriate for staff to consider this, even though it was less than what the Planning Commission previously approved, because there was very deliberate conversation about why allowing the six story, using the Optional Plan Review tool, was appropriate for these particular cases and she didn’t feel it was appropriate for staff to make that determination, especially since five stories is allowed in the zone district through an incentive. Therefore, she felt it was necessary for the Planning Commission to determine whether the facts today surrounding the need for the development, and specifically going from six stories to five, she wanted to make sure that those findings didn’t materially impair the previous decision. Ms. Well asked, if the Ordinance does change in the future and five stories is permitted by right, would there be a way to remove the Optional Plan Review so they wouldn’t have to come back when making changes. Ms. Turkelson advised that, if the Ordinance were to change, any future considerations would be subject to the new Ordinance. Mr. Van Strien asked if Commissioners are in agreement that self-storage is amenable in this case and how it is laid out. There was general consensus. Dr. Wallace MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of SBAM SB, LLC (John Gibbs) for Site Plan Review and Special Land Use approval, including a parking reduction, to convert a portion of an existing commercial building at 211 Logan Street SW into a self-storage facility, 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 bring a vacant building back into productive use. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because site elements are designed to promote safe and efficient movement within the site and at its access points and 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. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will support the planned character of the district and, as City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 38 January 12, 2023 additional residential units are being constructed in the vicinity, there is a need for the self-storage use. 4. The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because the proposed use will occur in a completely enclosed building and will provide an indoor storage option in a residential area. 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 the use is located on a major street and the property is already improved with existing buildings. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the use will be occurring in an existing building. 7. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the proposed use will provide new investment in the area and will bring an underutilized property back into productive use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. There shall be no commercial enterprise or activity operated from the storage units. 3. That no storage of combustible or flammable liquids or fibers, or explosive or toxic materials shall be permitted. 4. That ground floor interior space adjacent to an exterior window shall be devoted to active use. 5. That the building and site shall meet the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 175- Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Ordinance. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 39 January 12, 2023 6. That the building elevation shall be subject to review by the State Historic Preservation Office. 7. That loading and unloading areas with direct access to the street and all proposed right-of-way improvements shall be subject to Planning, Engineering, and Mobile GR review and approval. SUPPORTED by Ms. Shannon. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Lawrence Williams G. 440 Cesar E Chavez Ave/188 & 190 Wealthy St SW - Optional Plan Review for Height Address: 440 Cesar E Chavez Avenue SW and 188 & 190 Wealthy Street SW Applicant: SBAM SA, LLC and SBAM SB, LLC (John Gibbs) Requesting: Optional Plan Review approval to modify the site layout, building placement, and building element requirements in the TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood–Transitional City Center) Zone District to facilitate the construction of two new five-story buildings and a single- story building. Zoning: TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood–Transitional City Center) Zone District Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.14. Optional Plan Review Case Number: PC-OPR-2022-0116 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: January 28, 2023 Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Optional Plan Review request of SBAM SA, LLC and SBAM SB, LLC (John Gibbs) to modify the site layout, building placement, and building element requirements to facilitate the construction of two new five-story buildings and a single- story building at 440 Cesar E Chavez Avenue SW and 188 & 190 Wealthy Street SW, for the following reasons: 1. The project will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the site will be developed so as not to impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property for permitted uses and the development will be designed to meet all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The project will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the project will be consistent with the multimodal transportation goals promoted by the Master Plan and will be consistent with the Grandville Avenue Area Specific Plan as it provides infill City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 40 January 12, 2023 development and a continuous street wall along Grandville Avenue, it includes mixed use residential, commercial, and maker space, and it will extend the streetspace elements of street trees, bike lanes, and public spaces to better knit together the neighborhood and Heartside. 3. The project will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the project will exceed the minimum required open space and tree canopy and will provide a variety of outdoor amenity areas for formal and informal gathering; and, as a transition to the predominantly single-family detached residential neighborhood of Roosevelt Park, this development sits at the gateway to Heartside and successfully bridges two unique neighborhoods, honoring the existing historic building stock while introducing a new opportunity for living, working and leisure. 4. The project will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the proposed heights and intensity of the use are appropriate to their surroundings; adequate vehicle parking will be provided, on street, at grade near the courtyard, and within a parking structure; and the buildings will be architecturally designed to be compatible with the historic buildings on the site. 5. The project will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter because the intensity of the use is appropriate to its surroundings with access to multiple streets; the permitted and planned uses are allowed within the TCC district and will not include any use which is detrimental; traffic will be disbursed on four sides of the block and the streets are built to accommodate the additional traffic as they include multi-lane arterials; and the project is within a 5-minute walk of Rapid Central Station and will include a mobility hub to facilitate multi-modal transportation options. 6. The project would not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the proposed project includes buildings that are placed at back of curb along major streets to form a continuous street wall, helping to knit Heartside to the Roosevelt Park neighborhood and improving walkability. 7. The project will not significantly modify the basic standards of the Zone District to the extent that it adversely affects the established or future character of the neighborhood because the requested modifications in the number of stories will be consistent with the established pattern within the block; this project is unique in its scale and provision of a common courtyard and will not establish precedent as it is the only property in this neighborhood with similar characteristics; and all other zoning requirements of the TCC Zone District will be met. 8. The proposed development will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because no original site features exist, as the development will occur on previously developed property and the project will result in increased greenspace and tree canopy. 9. Public or private infrastructure and services already exist and are adequate to support the proposed development. 10. The project would not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use will encourage other investment in the area; the many new City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 41 January 12, 2023 residents are anticipated to patronize businesses in the vicinity; and the project will help meet the demand for affordable and market rate housing. 11. The proposed project will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all applicable State laws. 12. The project will provide urban open space, or other amenities that serve a public purpose because public open space is provided within the common courtyard. 13. The request is necessitated by a condition related to the site or structure, and is not a means to reduce cost or inconvenience because the request is necessary due to the desire to preserve a historic building that represents an important part of Grand Rapids’ past as the Furniture City; to preserve a building of this scale requires additional height in the new buildings to accommodate the densities permitted by right; and the allowance for a one-story café building ensures that this space remains affordable. 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, with the exception of the preliminary site layout and requested height waivers, the project shall meet the requirements of Article 6 and the recommendations contained in “Chapter 3.2 Building Composition” of the Downtown Grand Rapids Streetspace Guidelines. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. Ms. Turkelson asked if the Commission would consider a condition that states that the applicant shall work with the Planning Director to determine the number of loading spaces needed to support the development and the proposed design be amended to create a more pedestrian friendly streetscape. Ms. Joseph AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 42 January 12, 2023 3. The applicant shall work with the Planning Director to determine the number of loading spaces needed to support the development and the proposed design be amended to create a more pedestrian friendly streetscape. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. The question was called. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Lawrence Williams VI. Planning Commission Discussion None. VII. Public Comment None. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 4:45 PM IX. Resolutions