TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 February 23, 2023 City Commission Chambers I. 12:00 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. - Lunch - Conference Room 901, City Hall, 300 Monroe Ave. NW II. Business - 12:30 p.m. A. 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 B. Change of Agenda Order Ms. Zeller explained that she moved 1109 Michigan St. NE to the beginning of the public portion of the agenda. Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Ms. Shannon, to amend the order of the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. C. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from February 9, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Lawrence Williams D. Planning Director's Report 1. 1216 & 1228 Leonard St NE - Extension Request Ms. Zeller related that Tommy’s Car Wash has requested a six-month extension as they are working through logistics and franchise items related to the project. They anticipate the project starting later this year. The LUDS permit has been obtained. Motion by Mr. Rozeboom, supported by Dr. Wallace, to grant a six-month extension. Motion carried unanimously.  Agenda items were briefly reviewed. Generated 2/28/2023 6:01 PM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 February 23, 2023  Ms. Turkelson related that the Master Plan launch party scheduled for this evening will take place as scheduled. The launch party schedule for 2/22/23 was canceled due to weather conditions and will be rescheduled. The launch party held on 2/21 was well attended with approximately 130 present. III. Planning Commission Discussion beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. 1109 Michigan St. NE - Extension Request Ms. Zeller recalled that Agri-Med was before the Planning Commission on March 10, 2022 for a Site Plan Review Amendment to their proposed cannabis facility. The approval will expire on March 10 of this year. The applicant is requesting a 6-month extension. Ms. Zeller also recalled that they currently have another plan that is being considered by the Planning Commission, which was an amendment to the Special Land Use to eliminate a condition of approval that there be connection to Fuller Ave. That request is scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission on March 9. If the Planning Commission is amenable to granting an extension of the Site Plan Review and associated Special Land Use that was approved on March 10, 2022 they will withdraw the request for an amendment to the Special Land Use and will proceed with the extension granted today. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant’s representative to explain their rationale. Maxim Ermakov was present on behalf of Agri-Med LLC. Mr. Ermakov noted that their counsel, Alan Green, submitted a letter that explains the situation at hand. Mr. Ermakov invited questions related to the requested extension; there were none. Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Ms. Shannon, to approve the 6-month extension request because of the alignment with the Ordinance and issues outside of the control of the applicant pursuant to the letter dated February 16, 2023. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. IV. Public Hearings A. Conflict of Interest Ms. Joseph related that her husband signed a letter of support, on behalf of his employer, for the Coit Ave. project. Neither he or his employer have any financial interest in the project; they currently rent some of the houses from the applicant on a month to month basis. Motion by Dr. Wallace, supported by Ms. Shannon, finding that Ms. Joseph does not have a conflict of interest. Motion carried unanimously. B. 628 & 630, 632, 636, 638, 644 and 646 & 648 Coit Ave NE - Multifamily PRD Address: 628 & 630, 632, 636, 638, 644 and 646 & 648 Coit Ave NE Applicant: Union Suites LLC (Thomas Ralston) Requesting: Approval to rezone the subject properties to a Planned Redevelopment District to facilitate construction of a 3-story, 52- City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 February 23, 2023 unit apartment building. Zoning: TN-LDR Traditional Neighborhoods – Low-Density Residential Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.7.06. Special Districts - Planned Redevelopment Districts 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Planned Redevelopment District Case Number: PC-PRD-2023-0007 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller Type of Case: Planned Redevelopment District Effective Date: City Commission Approval Ms. Zeller introduced the request for approval to rezone the properties to a Planned Redevelopment District (PRD) to facilitate construction of a 3-story, affordable multi-family apartment building with 52 dwelling units and 32 below grade parking spaces. Rezoning to a PRD requires a Planning Commission recommendation and City Commission approval. Upon Planning Commission’s recommendation of this project, it will move on to City Commission. Ms. Zeller identified the location of the proposed project in the Belknap Lookout area, which is addressed in the Area Specific Plan (ASP) that was adopted in February, 2010. The properties are designated as Belknap Mixed Housing District, which recommends multi-family development in the types shown within the Plan. Ms. Zeller displayed the examples included within the ASP. The subject properties are currently zoned Traditional Neighborhood - Low-Density Residential. Ms. Zeller displayed a zoning map with the subject parcels identified in green. Properties located to the north and west are medium-low density residential. Coit School is located across the street and to the south is a previously approved PRD, which was approved in 2022. That PRD also includes 52 residential dwelling units. Located to the east is high-density residential. Ms. Zeller displayed slides of what is proposed to the south to provide context for the Planning Commission. The same developer is involved in that project. It is a courtyard style building, also 3-stories, and also 52 units; 50 one- and two-bedroom and 2 three-bedroom units. That development includes parking access from the alley. Ms. Zeller related that the subject properties, combined, are slightly over half an acre. There is a grade change on the property with Coit being 10-15 ft. higher than the alley, which facilitates the tuck under parking from the alley. Ms. Zeller displayed a massing image depicting the grade change as well as what the proposed building would look like. As mentioned, 52-units are proposed; 39 one- and two-bedroom units, 12 three-bedroom units, and 1 four-bedroom unit. There will be 32 parking spaces accessed from the alley. Because of the grade change, from the alley the 3-story building will be 4-stories with the parking at alley grade. Ms. Zeller displayed renderings of what the building is intended to look like. Ms. Zeller referenced the site plan relating that the building is intended to have an RBL/setback along Coit consistent with the other building proposed along Coit. On Fairbanks the building is consistent with the setback of the home on Fairbanks. On the south and east sides a setback of 5 ft. from the lot lines is proposed. Adjacent to the single-family residential home on Fairbanks and the alley, setbacks of 15 ft. are proposed. The applicant is also proposing the trash enclosure within that setback. Ms. Zeller displayed an image depicting the parking level. Several of the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 February 23, 2023 spaces are intended to be directly accessed from the alley. The Traffic Dept. has not provided input or expressed any objection. A similar configuration was permitted across the alley. Given that it is a one-way alley, Ms. Zeller believes it will be found to be acceptable. With respect to building height, it is proposed to be 3-stories at Coit and 4-stories at the alley, which is similar to the approved building to the south. The building will be approximately 39 ft. to the mid-point of the roof at the 3-story portion and approximately 53 ft. to the mid-point of the roof at the alley. The materials proposed are horizontal lap fiber cement siding with a cultured stone veneer base. Ms. Zeller explained that the proposed is considered a high-density development. It is approximately 63/64 dwelling units per acre with 683 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit, which is consistent with what is allowed in the TN-TBA Zone District; 750 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. Ms. Zeller commented further on parking. There are 32 on-site spaces proposed. Due to the closure of driveway curb cuts on Coit, a number of additional parking spaces will be created. The applicant estimates 13 parking spaces directly adjacent to the PRD. Because this is an affordable housing development, based on the calculation, 56 parking spaces are required. There is a deficiency of 24 spaces. The applicant is requesting that the parking requirement be reduced based on the on-street spaces along Coit, covered bike parking within the parking garage, and one space signed for low emission or EV charging. In addition, the Planning Commission can take proximity to pubic transit into account. Public transit is located on Lafayette, which isn’t too far away. Using the reductions for on-street parking, mass transit, covered bike spaces, and spaces signed for low emission vehicles, the Planning Commission could grant a parking reduction. Ms. Zeller added that when the applicant prepared for their approval of the development to the south a trip generation analysis was required by the Traffic Systems Engineers. They have reviewed that same study and have found no further analysis to be necessary. They are satisfied that the street network can accommodate the proposed number of vehicles. Ms. Zeller explained that in the Use Regulations for multiple-family dwellings, they are to be located on Regional, Major or Collector Streets or within two hundred feet of such a street. Coit Avenue doesn’t meet the street type or distance criteria. Lafayette is located to the east but is not within 200 ft. It is very walkable to Lafayette where there is public transit available. The Planning Commission granted that waiver for the similar development to the south. Ms. Zeller related that the applicant has provided an overview of their engagement activities. A number of letters of support have been submitted by neighborhood residents who cite the need for additional affordable housing. Staff has also received several letters of opposition to this project. One such letter is from the resident next door on Fairbanks; both the owner of the property and another resident of that home have submitted letters of opposition. They are concerned about the impact of this development on their home. Another letter was submitted expressing concern for lack of parking, the density of the project, two contiguous developments of high-density on the same block and the rushed nature of the neighborhood engagement. Ms. Zeller explained that the applicant presented to the Community Development Committee of NOBL on February 10. However, there wasn’t a quorum of their committee at that meeting so City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 February 23, 2023 they didn’t submit a formal position letter. They did include their meeting minutes, which identified some of their concerns about the project. Ms. Zeller summarized significant considerations for the Planning Commission. Staff would encourage the Planning Commission to consider: neighborhood concerns and supporting opinions that have been submitted, as well as testimony from this public hearing, how the proposed development comports with the ASP and the MH context district relative to building form, size, scale, massing, proportions and location. Staff would also ask that the Commission consider the building materials and whether they are found to be appropriate. Scale, massing, the slope of the roof and the transition to other properties on the block should also be considered. Ms. Shannon asked if the apartments are accessible from the parking under the building. Ms. Zeller replied affirmatively and deferred to the applicant to discuss the interior layout. Thomas Ralston related that this project wasn’t something they planned when they acquired the site. It is unique in that they are able to have the parking podium and offer off-street parking. It is a considerable amount of covered off-street parking and something they are proud to be able to offer the residents. Mr. Ralston commented on their community outreach. As staff mentioned, they have had a mixed response from community members. He pointed out from the Belknap letter that there were six board members in favor of the project and three opposed. The system they have in place for the neighborhood to make a recommendation calls for unanimous support. Mr. Ralston invited questions from the Planning Commission. Ms. Joseph referred to the site plan noting that the front porches are 6-8’ and 7-8’ in some places. She asked for clarification as to how deep the porches will be. Additionally, it appears that two of the porches may provide direct access to units but the others appear to be more community based. She asked for clarification on the functionality of the porches. Mr. Ralston agreed that several of the porches do provide direct access to units, which is a component they wished to incorporate to engage eyes on the street and engage the streetscape, as well as to be an amenity for the resident of the unit. In keeping with the consistency of the architectural style, the main entry to the building also has a covered porch area. The component of having the porches is intentional to provide an amenity to the residents, to give the building a more unique identity, and to engage the street. Ms. Joseph noted that there appears to be vents next to some of the windows. She asked what those are. Mr. Ralston explained that, similar to the adjacent property, the heating and cooling system proposed for this development is a packaged system. Those systems are located as shown in the plans. The vents are covered with an ornamental grate that is intended to blend in with the façade material, which is a high quality fiber board product. This HVAC system is fairly common in housing of this type. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 February 23, 2023 Dr. Wallace recognized that they have some community support but there is also some opposition. Some of the opposition relates to the rushed or hurried community engagement approach. She asked that Mr. Ralston speak to their outreach efforts. Mr. Ralston explained that the project wasn’t one they had intended when they originally acquired the site in 2020-2021. When they acquired the property, it was their intent to do the one project. The opportunity presented itself unexpectedly in December of 2022 to acquire the adjacent parcels for a second project. Once they were aware of the opportunity to acquire the parcels, they immediately engaged the community. They reached out to the neighborhood association during the first week of January and attended a community development meeting. They held a town hall meeting for the neighborhood the third week of January and participated in a second community development meeting the first week of February. Shortly thereafter they attended a second board meeting. The formal community engagement with NOBL was over twice as much as they had with the previously approved project. Mr. Ralston noted that NOBL has generated a formal community outreach program which is documented on their website. They followed all of the community engagement requirements and received a letter from NOBL commending them on those efforts. In addition to engaging members of the neighborhood, they also engaged the Grand Rapids Public Schools and have a letter of support from the Superintendent. They engaged non-profit organizations, such as Family Promise, and support service providers in the area to bring in as many ideas and input as possible in the time they had. Regrettably, the time they had was four months between the time they were made aware of the opportunity to acquire the property and the tax credit application deadline. Ms. Shannon asked if the parking in the alley is for existing residents or will it be available for the proposed development. Mr. Ralston replied that the parking that is there, shown in the plan, is owned by the apartments to the east. All of the residents in that development rent those spaces at a monthly cost. Mr. Ralston felt it was important to note that in affordable housing they don’t charge rent for the parking; residents get that as a benefit. Ms. Joseph recognized that there is a 15 ft. setback from the single-family home to the east. She asked if there are other buffering mechanisms proposed in that area. Mr. Ralston replied that their civil engineer and architect will be putting together optimal buffering mechanisms. During the community engagement they talked about what the neighborhood would like to see there. Mr. Ralston stated that he proposed ornamental grasses and fencing to provide privacy and an aesthetic that an urban environment like this would benefit from. Ms. Turkelson asked the architect which architectural character he was pulling from in the Area Specific Plan. She is somewhat curious about the choice of a pitched roof on a building of that scale. Greg Metz, architect, replied that over the past 6-8 months he has walked through the neighborhood absorbing the community. When this project presented itself, he felt that doing a flat roof there seemed to be incongruous with the buildings surrounding the park. One thing he City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 February 23, 2023 noticed was that all of the houses surrounding the park had pitched roofs and he felt it was important to maintain the consistency of that ring around the park with the pitched roof. He also felt that utilizing a pitched roof brought the scale down a bit more than a flat roof does because he can lower the eave closer to grade than he can with a flat roof parapet. From the sidewalk it appears lower, which is important because it brings the scale down. It wasn’t any one specific architectural character that he drew from in the ASP. The photos in the ASP are more representative but some do have pitched roofs. Mr. Metz stated that he felt the pitched roof fit the character of the neighborhood better on that corner. In his opinion, this building relates more to the park than the adjacent building to the south, which related more to the school. Ms. Turkelson respectfully disagreed that a building of that scale in a traditional neighborhood would have a pitched roof and with that slope. However, that is for the Planning Commission’s consideration. Ms. Turkelson asked about the proportion of the courtyard. It seems that in most courtyard style buildings there is more of a 50/50 proportion. The proposed seems somewhat out of proportion. Mr. Metz agreed that it is a bit tight. It is similar to older apartment buildings seen in Detroit and Chicago. They have a tight center courtyard. That is actually the entry in the traditional apartments in Detroit and Chicago. This is more of a light-well than anything. It isn’t really meant to be a courtyard for gathering. People can obviously congregate there but it is more of a courtyard than an entry. Ms. Turkelson commented on proposed materials noting that three floors of white Hardi board siding are proposed. She asked if there was consideration given to change the material at the base. There were some nice design elements utilized in the building to the south. She wondered if a masonry base would have been a better choice. Mr. Metz asked if she meant masonry vs. the proposed stone. Ms. Turkelson clarified that she was referring to the first floor, particularly the Coit frontage. Mr. Metz explained that he considered that but the scale was odd. It felt very heavy by doing that with masonry. Given additional study he may be able to find a better balance but in his initial studies it felt like a lot and didn’t look like it belonged to the neighborhood; it looked more suburban/country club-ish. He doesn’t want to create that here. He wants something with a similar vein to the other houses in the neighborhood. Ms. Turkelson explained that in her observation it is a fairly large structure yet the elements, such as the porches and the roof, don’t feel like they go together very well architecturally. Her questions were raised to better understand those choices. Mr. Van Strien asked what conversations they’ve had with the resident at 210 Fairbanks or what they’ve done, in addition to thinking about landscape buffering, to hear and address their concerns as best as possible. Mr. Ralston stated that the owner was present at the town hall style meeting and expressed concern about proximity. At that time he suggested the possibility of a nice fence or ornamental City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 February 23, 2023 grasses and the response was that they really didn’t have any suggestions and at the time they said they weren’t open to providing any input or ideas. They just really don’t want them to do a project in this location. That is the only interaction they’ve had with that resident. However, it is his understanding that the neighborhood e-blast makes its way to all residents so, had they wished to, they could have attended any of the other four formal meetings held for engagement. Mr. Jonker recalled from testimony that they won’t be charging for parking. He asked if the parking will be assigned since not every unit will get a parking space. Mr. Ralston explained that studies show that with affordable housing the parking need is ½ space per unit. This will be a mixed-income development, 30-80% AMI, and many of those in the 30% category won’t have a car. They will assign parking and there will be some units that choose to park on the street because it is more convenient, especially those that have the direct walk up from Coit and from Fairbanks. Mr. Jonker asked how the spaces will be assigned. Mr. Ralston replied it will be first come, first serve. KMG Prestige will be the managing company and they will ultimately handle that. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Elianna Bootzin, Neighbors of Belknap Lookout Executive Director, acknowledged that they did not reach consensus to support so there is no official support from the neighborhood organization. However, they did have extensive engagement, as described, which still feels fast to several of the members. She acknowledged that it is a new process they are still getting used to. Ms. Bootzin clarified that their e-blast reaches approximately 500 recipients and not necessarily everyone of them lives in the neighborhood. An optimistic estimate is that it reaches approximately half of the households in the residential portion of the neighborhood. With respect to the roof, Ms. Bootzin noted that Belknap Place is in a different location but is a similar project in the neighborhood and it does have a sloped roof. Mr. Van Strien asked about their new process for hearing and scoring new projects and whether she feels it was done in a timeline that fits the process. Ms. Bootzin replied that they fit in what they requested but not what felt like enough to several people. Bailey Tuczak, 210 Fairbanks, related that this is her first home. It is a small house and the only portion of the block that won’t be redeveloped into apartments. As stated, she did attend the town hall meeting on the porch of 646 Coit. She expressed her opposition and confusion as to why no one approached her to potentially purchase her home. In looking at the map, her home will now be cornered in between three high-density apartment complexes. When she bought her home there was only the one existing complex. She currently has to fight a bit for parking on the street but it is okay because it is just the one complex. Her’s is a four bedroom, two bath house with only two parking spaces in the driveway area. With three high-density complexes it will overtake the area. The alley is one-way and all of the cars will have to drive through it for parking. The City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 February 23, 2023 trash enclosure is proposed right next to her driveway, which isn’t far enough away per the Ordinance, but it is also undesirable. She feels it is unfair to corner her in with large apartment buildings knowing it is a single-family home. Who would want to move into her home in the future? When she moved in, she had a view of Coit Park and you don’t expect to be overtaken with multiple high-density apartment buildings. Ms. Tuczak related that at the meeting she did state that she isn’t against the complex; she is in support of this type of housing. However, it will severely affect her well-being and feeling of safety. There will be hundreds of additional people between the two buildings and she anticipates parking will be an issue. As the applicant stated, sometimes it is easier to park on the street. Ms. Tuczak related that she works from home in community building and bettering communities every day. To see her community want this to go forward without any regard for her well being is unfavorable. She is concerned about being stuck there if this goes through. Willaim Hebert related that he has been a resident of Belknap for 17 years and served on and chaired the Planning Committee for NOBL. As Chair of the committee, he commended Mr. Ralston for reaching out to him and showing him his project at the corner of Madison and Cherry to provide reassurance that he looks out for the neighborhood. Mr. Hebert related that behind his home is a horrible complex done by Copper Rock; the Belknap Bluffs project. As part of their presentation before the Planning Commission they showed drawings of the green space they promised between the homes and the project. There is only 5’9” between the property line and the back of the monstrous, vinyl sided project. No green space was delivered. Mr. Hebert asked if there is a mechanism in place or some recourse that if developers don’t deliver as promised the Planning Commission can go back to them. Mr. Hebert explained that he voted for the project that Mr. Ralston has in process now but the committee didn’t approve it. He went around the committee and the board to appeal to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission approved the project. Mr. Hebert is questioning whether the setback is what was promised. One of the reasons he voted for the project was he promised to tie in the brick to reflect what was happening across the street at Coit school. The more recent drawings are red and black brick, much more institutional looking, and what he considers to be a betrayal of what was presented. Mr. Hebert commended Ms. Turkelson for mentioning aesthetics. Aesthetics count. He has never seen the Planning Commission take aesthetics into account. He understands it is difficult to measure aesthetics. He has worked as an architectural photographer for decades and knows what good taste is. This doesn’t reflect the nature of the neighborhood. Mr. Hebert recognizes the need for the density and affordable housing but this is the neighborhood’s welcome mat. This is people’s first impression of the neighborhood and it determines the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hebert expressed his opposition to this project. Angel Gonzalez, 545 Fairview, commented on outreach. He related that he has been in the neighborhood for 22 years and has been involved in every development project that has come along. There was no outreach in this case; he found out about it a week ago. That isn’t the way they do things in Belknap. What they have happening is what they feared; developers who say one thing and do another. That is also not the way they do things. Mr. Gonzalez acknowledged that he knows Mr. Ralston personally and did sell him the property. He also supported the initial project. However, Mr. Gonzalez feels his statement about not having plans for this project is disingenuous and that is an issue. Residents are not happy with doing business this way. Residents expect the city leaders, the Planning Commission and City Commission, to hold people accountable; when they say something they need to do it. Aesthetics and plans matter. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 February 23, 2023 What is proposed does not reflect the neighborhood in any way, shape, or form. It would be a great detriment to the neighborhood for the Planning Commission to allow this to proceed. Mr. Gonzalez clarified that he has been an advocate for development but he is an advocate for good development, development that people feel connected to. This is not that. Projects have been denied in this neighborhood over the past 17 years that were much nicer looking than this. They were denied because they didn’t feel they met the aesthetics or ideals that were established as a neighborhood. This project doesn’t honor the ideals of the ASP. Mr. Gonzalez commented on parking stating that he feels a great standard is 1.5 spaces per unit. If that standard was upheld consistently the premise of the conversation would have shifted and the initial building that was constructed would have been vastly different. The conversation today would be vastly different as well. Mr. Gonzalez feels there are a significant number of others that would oppose this project but they didn’t hear about it. When he heard about it he assumed they would have time to go to the neighborhood and have time to adequately vet the project. Mr. Gonzalez asked that the Planning Commission deny the project, send it back, and allow the community to consider the project in the proper manner. Marshal Grate, 544 Fairview, related that he has been a resident in the neighborhood since 2015 and serves on the NOBL Board. Mr. Grate echoed the sentiments expressed. From his perspective, the NOBL Board was ambushed by this project. The developer came to them in January and didn’t relate his time line. He gave the impression that it would be a slow walk to get consensus from the neighbors. The first Mr. Grate found out this project was on their agenda this month/February was when he got a message from a member of the Development Committee saying it came up for their approval. They didn’t approve it as they didn’t have a majority. There was nothing in their agenda packets about the project and suddenly they were in an emergency situation of them wanting approval. Mr. Grate stated that this project did not get approval from the NOBL Board. Some of the concerns have already been expressed. There is great concern about the parking. Another 52 units on this block with only 32 parking spaces. Essentially you are putting 20 people on the street that want to have an automobile. Mr. Grate stated that he is absolutely in favor of developers curtailing parking spaces, particularly in their neighborhood, but he feels a one-to-one ratio is fair. Secondly, this project totally destroys the block with respect to the Area Specific Plan. It goes to nearly 100% of apartment block housing, which is contrary to the nature of the neighborhood. Mr. Grate understands there is a political push to increase density but he wants the Commission to consider who will occupy these units. Based on the number of U-haul vehicles he observes in the spring and fall, a lot of the people that occupy the apartment blocks are not permanent residents; they are transitory. Mr. Grate clarified that he isn’t against that but the reality, based on the size of these units, is that the occupants will be those that will leave the neighborhood after a short while and go elsewhere. It won’t promote a stable neighborhood. Some of those speaking today have committed their lives to live in this neighborhood on a permanent basis and this project is contrary to that. Mr. Grate related that they asked the developer if there was any compromise on the parking situation and whether they could reduce the number of units. The response was they couldn’t do that based on their profit margins. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing and invited the applicant to respond to comments. Mr. Van Strien invited the Planning Director to respond to the question regarding recourse. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 February 23, 2023 Ms. Turkelson explained that typically when a plan or site plan is approved by the Planning Commission it is further developed into what is called a LUDS permit/site construction permit. Staff works hard to make sure those align and certainly, in the case of setbacks, get no worse. She provided the example of the Planning Commission approving a 5 ft. setback. Staff would not allow a 4 ft. setback. If a building had to move to 6 ft. because of grading and such, that is something that would be within staff’s scope of authority. There are specific standards in the Zoning Ordinance under Site Plan Review that allow for staff to make relatively minor site plan amendments. It is typically a 10 ft./10% rule. There is always a little bit of change that happens. Once the plans are approved through the LUDS permit process, there are inspections that are done and bushes and shrubs are literally counted to make sure that whatever was permitted is what was installed or constructed. If there are discrepancies, they would look into that. Ms. Turkelson’s recollection of Mr. Hebert’s concern was that she was asked to look into it and that it wasn’t what was expected or anticipated but it was what was permitted and allowable under the code. In that particular case she would have to look back to speak to the details. Mr. Van Strien clarified that he wanted to address the concern about that and if there was a discrepancy in what was presented to him or to the Planning Commission at some point what action can be taken and the procedure for addressing it. Ms. Turkelson explained that a discrepancy between what the Planning Commission approves and what is permitted is something that staff can address. If commitments were made outside of the Planning Commission process, that isn’t something staff has the authority to enforce. Mr. Van Strien recognized that through a normal community engagement process plans may be presented with a number of variations. It sounds like in this case some things have been presented and then they’ve been altered to perhaps address some concerns but also to fine tune the project. What the Planning Commission has been presented with is what they are considering today. Ms. Turkelson agreed. If the plans have evolved since what was presented to the neighborhood, the Planning Commission could ask for continued engagement if they don’t feel adequate engagement has taken place. The consideration and decision is based on the plans presented to the Planning Commission, not other renditions that may have been presented through the process. It isn’t uncommon to have projects evolve through the processes. Mr. Ralston thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration. He also thanked the neighborhood members who voiced their opinions and took the time. With respect to the concern for the change in the plan from the initial project at 608 Coit to what is presented today, it is his recollection that they didn’t change the setbacks from what was committed to. Steve Wooden, Dwelling Place, explained that Dwelling Place is a long-standing affordable housing non-profit in West Michigan and a 10% partner in the proposed project. Mr. Wooden stated that the process the developer has gone through aligns with the neighborhood associations development review process. By their own admission, they are still figuring out whether that process is sufficient. Mr. Wooden pointed out that when considering a PRD approval, you look at the local planning, the ASP, what has been approved around it and, in the end, what they are proposing is not only in line with the ASP in terms of the massing, the inspiration drawn from City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 February 23, 2023 what is in the ASP regarding pitched roofs and other projects in the area that have pitched roofs, and the fact that it has the same story line and setback as the project to the south. Mr. Wooden related that he has also been told and witnessed people suggest that having blocks be more alike in their massing actually improves that form. If there is already one approved at 3-stories, with that setback, having that continue along the block would only improve the aesthetic; they complement each other. Mr. Wooden again stated that the developer has gone through the process that the neighborhood association created. There is certainly a desire to continue ongoing engagement to be a good neighbor and, in the end, there is a need for additional housing and additional affordable housing. The housing needs assessment that was released showed a need for 10,000+ new housing units in Grand Rapids to meet demands. If that isn’t accommodated, it will only put pressure on housing costs across the board. Mr. Ralston added that, when speaking about transient populations, the proposed affordable housing is not suitable for the type of folks that move in in the spring and out in the fall. They are not allowed to rent to full-time students. This housing is for permanent residents with no less than 12-month leases. They follow the fair housing guidelines and have an affirmative marketing plan to ensure that they meet all the guidelines set forth by MSHDA and the other affordable housing rules and regulations. Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Ralston to address the comment from the home owner related to consideration of purchasing that property to make the block complete. Mr. Wooden stated that ultimately what is being approved is what is proposed on the parcels in question. In projects in the past, when Dwelling Place has put forward multi-family housing projects that are adjacent to single-family homes they have considered purchase but it usually doesn’t come to fruition because of not being able to come to an agreement on price. When they have, it’s usually been for two times SEV or appraised value. Ultimately, what the Planning Commission is considering is tied to the subject property exclusively and it’s the Commission’s ultimate decision whether or not that single property should affect the zoning consideration of the other parcels. Mr. Ralston added that, when dealing with affordable housing, a major consideration is the actual cost of building the properties and a huge contributor is the cost of the land that the building sits upon. This project, like all affordable housing projects, has to compete for tax credits statewide. It is very competitive and the addition of a several hundred thousand dollar very beautiful home would not be feasible under the current design. Ms. Turkelson explained that she understands the Commissioner’s question. She advised that it should be kept in context with how this project relates to the pattern of development of that block and not necessarily focus on why wasn’t the owner approached for a purchase. That is a civil matter; a private transaction. Ms. Turkelson appreciates that is a complicated separation but if the Planning Commission is concerned about the scale and massing of this development as it relates to the adjacency of smaller scale buildings and the setbacks, that is within the Planning Commission’s purview. She would prefer they avoid the discussion about a sale or approach. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 February 23, 2023 Ms. Shannon related that her concern is the massing of the entire block and the remaining single resident. In the community engagement it wasn’t a matter of reaching out to ten homeowners, it was one, to discuss what was proposed. Mr. Ralston recalled that they did speak with the resident during part of the community engagement and learned of her concerns. They will do what they can to address those in terms of privacy shielding and ornamentation to make this as favorable of a situation for everyone as possible. Dr. Wallace asked that the applicant address the concerns of parking and the location of the trash enclosure. Mr. Ralston indicated that they can relocate the trash enclosure to in between the two developments in order to eliminate the concern expressed by the neighbor. He suggested he could grant himself an easement for the location of the dumpster. With respect to parking, parking on the streets is permitted. Only residents that are local to the street are allowed to park on the street. That is a mechanism to ensure that transient and work-related parking isn’t taking place. Dr. Wallace pointed out that the volume of parking being provided is what people have expressed concern about in their correspondence. Mr. Ralston again related that parking for affordable housing is something that is a nationwide topic of discussion. Typically, approximately 50% of their families will have cars. Their other projects are similarly parked and they don’t have parking issues with overflow spilling out and causing problems in the neighborhoods. The Planning Commission has a mechanism in place through the various metrics provided by staff to reduce parking. They’ve done everything they can to meet and exceed those requirements specific to affordable housing and the related parking. Mr. Wooden added that there is a constant tension between parking and housing. That is one of several factors as to why there is a nationwide shortage. When looking at the provisions in the Ordinance that allow for reductions, it shows the consideration that this commission and the City Commission have had in ensuring that they aren’t only providing for housing choice and allowing people the option of choosing a more suburban lifestyle which could afford them one or multiple parking spaces or one in a more urban neighborhood like this that may trade off having a dedicated parking space and having to utilize the public system. It is not only a housing choice but a mobility choice. This development provides covered bike parking, provides space for low emissions or an electric vehicle, and is near public transit. In the end, time and again, this city has supported housing choice and supported mobility choice, which is why those provisions are in the code allowing those reductions. That doesn’t mean that people won’t voice concerns time and again, and he understands the tension that comes with that change, but he would defer to the rationale as to why those reductions are in the code in the first place. Dr. Wallace recognized that even with the reduction credits the project is still deficient. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 February 23, 2023 John Casterley, Nederveld, responded that they were showing that with the credits and on-street parking that they are meeting the parking requirement. He also added that between the two buildings there would be enough room to fit two dumpsters and a joint enclosure but they would be across the current property line. If that is something the Planning Commission is considering, that may be something they would need a formal departure or variance for. Ms. Turkelson advised that they would want to see some sort of easement or agreement to know that the dumpster is allowed to be used by both properties. It isn’t an ideal situation because properties change hands and it becomes an enforcement issue. Mr. Van Strien asked if it would be practical for the residents if a dumpster enclosure is between the two buildings. Mr. Casterley replied that it may be a slightly longer walk for the residents from where the elevator comes down but residents would become familiar with the location. The other apartment building has dumpsters on both sides on the alley. Mr. Rozeboom asked the height of the proposed building at the corner nearest the home on Fairbanks. Mr. Ralston replied that they don’t know off the top of their head but the home on Fairbanks is 2 ½ - 3 stories with a peaked roof. Mr. Metz asked that the elevation drawings be displayed, sheet A102. The height is 51 ft. to the ridge and 44-45 ft. to the bottom of the eave. Mr. Rozeboom recognized that the house, adjacent to where the dumpster is shown, is quite a bit lower than the bottom of the entry shown on the elevation displayed. Mr. Metz stated that the adjacent house isn’t as low as the dumpster. The building would be 47- 48 ft. from grade to eave from the side of that house. Mr. Ralston concluded his comments expressing his appreciation for the deliberation and constructive comments. The proposed project brings a deeply needed product to the community. They have a rare opportunity to put housing in this neighborhood now. The tax credit system is structured in such a way that you don’t get multiple chances. You submit your application in April and this body has an opportunity right now to take the voices of many into consideration and make a decision based on the voices of many. He acknowledged that they have heard several very passionate neighbors but he believes the full picture is also told in the letters of support from other community members and stakeholders. Mr. Ralston urged the Planning Commission to consider the need and support from all of the other stakeholders that were included in the outreach, which was considerable. He hopes the Planning Commission finds favor to see them on to the City Commission. Mr. Al-Shatel referred to page 69 of the Area Specific Plan. He asked staff to clarify the sentence stating that infil buildings shall not exceed 35 ft. in height. Is that a neighborhood standard that was set in place? City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 February 23, 2023 Ms. Turkelson explained that that was the recommendation from the neighborhood that created the ASP. The ASP was subsequently adopted as part of the Master Plan. It is the recommendation/vision, which is important. Ms. Turkelson advised that the Commission should keep in mind that not all of those plans are codified and that is how the Planning Commission utilizes the standards to refer back to the recommendations of the ASP. Mr. Jonker felt it was important to note that the recommendation relates to the Belknap TR district, which this is not a part of; this is the Belknap MH. Mr. Van Strien added that he doesn’t know that he would consider this infil. He thinks of infil as one or two properties and not a chunk of them, which is why a PRD is proposed. Ms. Shannon stated that when she first saw the drawing she found it attractive but the presence on Coit feels very suburban with the small front porches. She recalled from the review of the project to the south that she liked the courtyard feeling, a feeling of community. She recognizes that there is a park across the street but she doesn’t feel a sense of having a place in front of your own space to bring kids out to play and gather with others. Ms. Shannon feels the small indentation looks out of place. It doesn’t have a sense of purpose. The mass seems very large. The Planning Commission is keenly aware of the need for affordable housing and she hasn’t heard people in the neighborhood disagreeing with that. Ms. Shannon stated that she understands their time line but she doesn’t feel that the need for something is a reason to rush it through. Ms. Joseph responded to a concern expressed during public comment clarifying that the Planning Commission can’t consider who is occupying the housing, whether it is rental or owner- occupied. Ms. Joseph indicated that she does share some of Ms. Turkelson’s reservations related to the aesthetics of the proposed building. The roof is either not pitched enough or not flat enough; it feels like an odd in between space compared to what is pointed to as examples in the ASP and what is in the neighborhood already. Ms. Joseph added that she would also want the porches to be as big and deep as possible to actually make them useable. The courtyard is too narrow. The applicant’s testimony is that it is intended for light. If there aren’t porches into the courtyard it could become a safety issue, not because of the people that live there but because of the architectural choices. That narrow area wouldn’t necessarily have the eyes on the street. Ms. Joseph isn’t extremely concerned about the parking. The argument that not everyone would need, choose, or be able to have a car is valid. It is a great walkable neighborhood and there is access to transit. Ms. Joseph appreciates the fact that the purchase of the adjacent property is civil. She clarified that her concern is the fact that there would be a single-family home on an island where the rest of the block is being developed into multi-family and how out of place and strange that massing is. Ms. Joseph also appreciates the consideration of the grade and how that makes this building even bigger against that single-family home. She has concerns about the site plan and design. Obviously, there is a desire for more housing. Mr. Van Strien echoed Ms. Joseph’s comments. He isn’t too concerned about parking and reducing the parking requirement. It is written into the Ordinance to allow for things like this and for the Planning Commission to give special consideration. He is not opposed to the use or density of multi-family housing here; he feels it is appropriate considering the proximity to parks, schools, and downtown. This is a very engaged community in the development of the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 February 23, 2023 neighborhood and it has been for many years. Long before many other neighborhoods got interested in what was being developed in their communities Belknap was leading the way and has continued to be engaged in that process. What Mr. Gonzalez said about this isn’t how they do things, Mr. Van Strien has seen him come here before and say something completely different because of the engagement process or because even if he didn’t feel like he was engaged with, he likes the project. That isn’t what they heard today and it isn’t just his comments. Unfortunately, what they have is a time line for funding, whichis a good thing but bumping up against the ability for something to be completely vetted. Things do evolve over time as more conversations happen and he isn’t sure that there has been time for things to fully evolve here to make the best project possible. He would like to see multi-family here in the future but he doesn’t know that what they are considering is the best that they can feel really comfortable recommending. Mr. Jonker felt it was important to note that the time line is constantly repeating itself. There is another opportunity in several months to resubmit if this isn’t the right time. It isn’t as if this is the only time to submit this. Mr. Al-Shatel expressed his respect for the community input. He would like to see more time to have the project vetted and engage further with the community. He agreed that parking isn’t as big of a concern because of the walkability. He would like to see the support of the neighborhood before recommending something to the City Commission. Mr. Rozeboom stated that he isn’t caught up on the parking either. He pointed out that with a PRD the idea is often that it is mixed-use and that is supposed to allow for parking to be used for different uses during the course of a day or week. That isn’t the case here but he finds the applicant’s argument compelling, based on their experience with types of occupants, that the ratio they are providing will be appropriate. Mr. Rozeboom feels the encroachment on the single- family home is too much. He recalled the Beacon Hill projects approved on Boston with a similarly sized building and a grade change along a row of single-family homes. When it was pulled back and brought down a bit it actually worked a lot better. That might be more appropriate here. It is rather insensitive to even draw a plan that shows a dumpster enclosure where it is. Ms. Joseph stated that all of the comments suggest to her that the use and parking waiver are appropriate but the site plan, design, and community engagement needs more time. Ms. Turkelson advised that the Planning Commission could table the request open so that it would be re-noticed when and if it comes back to the Planning Commission. They would have the ability to go back and work with staff and the neighborhood on modifying the site plan to address the concerns expressed. Mr. Van Strien identified concerns as scaling, setback, how it relates, and aesthetics. Ms. Joseph added that it provides additional time to consider the buffering. Ms. Joseph MOVED TO TABLE OPEN to allow the applicant additional time to work on the site plan, community engagement, and architectural design. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 February 23, 2023 RESULT: TABLED OPEN [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 C. 648 Bridge St NW - Bar & Restaurant, Food Truck Address: 648 Bridge St NW and 345 Lexington Ave NW Applicant: 484 Bennaville, LLC (David Meikle) Requesting: Approval to establish a bar and restaurant with a permanent, partially-enclosed food truck court, and indoor and outdoor seating with alcohol service. Zoning: TN-TCC Traditional Neighborhood – Transitional City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.9.15. Mobile Food Vending 5.9.24. Outdoor Seating 5.12.08.E. Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0006 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: March 11, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki introduced the request for Special Land Use approval to establish a bar and restaurant with a permanent, partially enclosed food truck courtyard, and indoor and outdoor seating with alcohol service. A parking waiver is also requested. Ms. Wahamaki identified the location of the site at the corner of Bridge and Gold. It is located in a TCC Zone District with TCC to the north and east. To the south and west there is TBA and Low Density Residential. There are several bar and restaurant establishments in the TCC Zone District near this site. Across the street is urban open space and most of the residential properties are south and west of the subject parking lot. The most intense portion of the proposed use would be closer to the other uses of the same type. The Westside Area Specific Plan identifies this site as a village center, which includes building designs and a mix of uses that engage and promote street life. Ms. Wahamaki related that the original building was constructed in 1917 as an auto service station and later became a car dealership until it became Duthler Family Foods, which operated until 2017. The original building is the south portion of the building on the site. Some time later the north portion of the building was constructed at the corner of Bridge and Gold. The parking lot that currently exists is behind the building at the corner of Gold and Douglas. The small site on Lexington is also used for parking and egress/ingress is provided from Lexington. The subject site is approximately .8 acres in area. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 February 23, 2023 With respect to the parking on site, Ms. Wahamaki stated that the parking area that exists will be restriped and provide 58 total spaces on both the Bridge St. property and the Lexington parcel. The tree canopy and green space requirements with the parking is shown in the proposed plan. There is currently no green space on the site. There is a 10% requirement for tree canopy and green space. The proposed improvements will bring the site closer to conformity with green space requirements. Ms. Wahamaki explained that the parking requirement calculation is based on building occupancy, which is 398 people, requiring 67 spaces; ½ space for every 3 people. There is no parking requirement for outdoor seating in this zone district. The expected indoor seating for the building is 140 people. Based on building occupancy and the number of parking spaces provided, there is a deficiency of 14 parking spaces. If calculating based on the indoor seating alone, the parking provided would be adequate for the use. The Planning Commission may consider a parking reduction based on on-street parking and business district parking. The applicant will be restoring the street parking on Gold Ave. and, as part of the parking lot improvements, they will be closing off the curb cut entrance to the parking lot on Douglas St. creating more on-street parking spaces. The site is also served by The Rapid Route 9 and Dash Bus on Bridge St. and there are available public parking spots within 500 ft. Ms. Wahamaki addressed the building portion of the site. Due to poor condition, the roof of the building addition fronting Bridge will be demolished to maintain as much of the façade as possible. They will reconstruct the perimeter walls of the building to create an enclosed courtyard area. The courtyard area will be reminiscent of the original building. They have incorporated the design of the original parapet so it will maintain the established street wall and create a warm and inviting environment for pedestrians. The openings will be covered by large metal screens, some of which will have planter boxes with vines growing on them to add green space. Other screens, closer to the corner of Bridge and Gold, will be retractable that open during business hours and close and lock securely to keep the area safe. Ms. Wahamaki explained that the food trucks will enter on Gold St. There will be no more than four food trucks in the courtyard at any time. The mobile food vending will be outdoors but has walls around it. The applicant has been in conversation with the Fire Department and has revised their plan. The revised plan has been approved by the Fire Department for fire safety standards. It is expected that the food trucks will operate about six months at a time and then rotate. An entrance is proposed on Gold St. for the food trucks to enter and exit as needed. There will be no generators used. They will have RV hookups and will run on natural gas; propane will not be used. It is a permanent fixed location for the trucks but will allow some flexibility and new vendors to come in and out. The outdoor area is expected to be active seasonally. During the cold winter months it will remain open for people to sit and dine but the food trucks may not be in operation during the coldest months of the year. They propose adding fire pits to make it warm and inviting. They will also plant trees within the courtyard to add greenspace. There will be a bar in the outdoor area as well as within the renovated indoor space. The food trucks will not sell alcohol. Alcohol will only be sold at the bar areas but patrons can purchase alcohol and take it outside if they wish. Ms. Wahamaki related that the original building, central on the site plan, will be renovated both inside and out. It will include kiosks for food vendors to come in, such as those interested in starting a food business but that don’t have a food truck. There will be a shared kitchen and clean up area. Restrooms will be located within the building, additional seating and back of house City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 February 23, 2023 operations. An enclosed trash area is proposed at the southwest corner of the building. It will have double doors that open to the outside for trash removal. Currently there is an easement for the trash enclosure on the adjacent parcel. The proposal for the new indoor trash enclosure will bring the site closer to conformity on that point as well. Proposed hours of operation are Monday - Friday, 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. There is no live music proposed at this time. The renovations to the interior space will include a new customer entrance and additional store front windows. The current building doesn’t meet the Zoning Ordinance standards and the renovations will aid in bringing it closer to conformity and help to create more dining space. Ms. Wahamaki deferred to the applicant to elaborate on the neighborhood engagement meetings they’ve held. Her understanding is they’ve held an open house and had conversations with different associations. Staff has received several letters of support from local business owners, the business association, and the neighborhood association. Ms. Wahamaki summarized that the Planning Commission is asked to consider the use at this location, mobile food vending at a permanent location in the partially enclosed outdoor courtyard, along with a reduction in parking, and indoor and outdoor alcohol service. Ms. Joseph asked if there is a cross access agreement in place for the parking spaces on the Lexington property. Ms. Wahamaki replied that it is indicated on the survey that there is an agreement. The applicant may be able to provide additional information. Ben Franceschi, Mathison Architects, was present with David Meikle, owner of the Back Lot with locations currently in Petosky and Charlevoix and one coming soon in Marquette. Mr. Franceschi stated that this is one of the most important projects their firm is working on currently, being a neighbor down the street. It is rare they have an opportunity to work on a project with an owner with values like this where they are able to do a project that is architecturally sensitive, sensitive to the community, and to the vision of growth for Grand Rapids. They are very excited to be working on the project for those reasons. They are taking a light touch on a historic project. They were extremely excited when they saw the original Ford dealership photos. They believe the proposed is harkening back to the original architectural quality seen in the photos; there is somewhat of a restoration aspect to this adaptive reuse project. Mr. Franceschi suggested that green space vs. parking is likely what they will spend the most time discussing today. In response to Ms. Joseph’s question regarding access to the parking on Lexington, in their meetings with the neighborhood they heard a bit about concern for parking in the area. This area of Bridge St. is somewhat congested so they opted to show those spots. Those spaces are available and they could strike an agreement for an easement north of those spaces to access the dumpster. They also had conversation about what makes the most sense in terms of green space vs. available parking in the neighborhood. Mr. Franceschi made a correction to the proposed hours. They would be open until 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and not open until 11 p.m. on Sunday. Mr. Franceschi explained that they technically didn’t hold an open house. They met with the West Side Corridor Improvement Authority at their Board meeting. Annette Vandenberg, Executive Director of the West Grand Neighborhood Association, was hosting their annual meeting within a couple of days of when they had intended to host their City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 February 23, 2023 open house. At least 60 people attended that meeting so they felt that was an adequate community event to present the project. They also met with Mitch Cook of the Bridge Street Market, the Stockbridge Business Association, and the leader of Bridge St. Ministries about the project, all of which offered support. Mr. Meikle related that they have been in Petosky for five years and Charlevoix for two years. They are currently working on their location in Marquette and hopefully Grand Rapids. The concept is communal. It allows people to gather and visit the different food trucks. Petosky is 100% compostable. They have a solar array and rain collection. They try to be as green as possible. They are also not a late night bar. They will be closing between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. based on the night of the week. Mr. Jonker asked about access control to the courtyard space. Do patrons enter and choose a seat. Mr. Meikle explained that there are no reservations. It is first come first serve and sit where you’d like. Mr. Jonker noted that it appears quite open, almost like a park area. Mr. Franceschi explained that they were trying to strike a balance with transparency requirements to make it feel very open, which is why they have the metal screens that can be slid open and closed. The primary intent is to have the northwest two portals be the primary access to the courtyard space so that ingress and egress can be monitored. Mr. Jonker asked for further information about the game room. Mr. Meikle stated that they call it a game room. They might have games but it may also be for private parties. That is to be determined or it may be some of both. There is a need for a private party room in this area. Mr. Rozeboom asked if there will be any amplified music outside. Mr. Meikle replied that they will have music playing but not live music. Pandora is their commercial music source. All of the speakers will be pointed internally and not toward Bridge St. Ms. Turkelson recalled from Ms. Wahamaki’s presentation that this will be somewhat of a seasonal amenity. She asked what happens in the evenings and during inclement weather. Are there gates or shutters or something to prevent an individual from being able to walk into the lot? Mr. Franceschi replied that structurally they have to provide lateral stability for the wall because they are removing the roof. They are also able to provide a frame inside the wall such that they will have sliding screens that would make it completely secure during off hours. Ms. Turkelson clarified that the two portals at the northwest corner would look consistent with the same screens during off hours. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 February 23, 2023 Mr. Franceschi agreed. Ms. Turkelson asked about lighting on the lot. Mr. Meikle replied they will utilize string lights or something similar. Ms. Turkelson also clarified that there will be music playing through speakers but no live entertainment. Mr. Meikle agreed. Ms. Turkelson asked if the trees within the courtyard are in tree pits. Mr. Franceschi explained that they would be in tree pits with benches around them. Ms. Turkelson advised that there is an expectation that street trees be provided along Bridge and on Douglas, as well as if there are additional opportunities in the parking lot or on the site itself. Mr. Franceschi explained that provided the concrete surface is in good shape it will be a suitable surface for the use and they intend to keep that. They will provide trees where ever possible to meet the requirement. Ms. Turkelson advised that an encroachment permit will be necessary for the awning to project over the City right-of-way. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing. Louis Ramirez, owner of Maggie’s Kitchen, expressed concern about parking. The new business is good for the area but there should be consideration given to where patrons will park. He believes Mr. Zapalla would be willing to sell his property and he suggested the applicant consider talking to him. Lauren D’Angelo, owner of Patty Matters food truck and Vice President of the Grand Rapids Food Truck Association, indicated that the food truck owners have a lot of questions about this. She recalled from the presentation that the trucks will be run off of natural gas. All of the food trucks in town are set up to run off of propane. She asked how that will work. Ms. D’Angelo commented on the six-month operational term. All of the food trucks operate on a day-to-day basis. They are on wheels so they can move. To be locked into a six-month contract is detrimental to how the food trucks in this area operate. There are so many things that go on and if someone is locked into that contract they lose out on every other opportunity in this area. Ms. D'Angelo suggested that since there is only room for four food trucks that they consider a rotational schedule. She also asked why there would be no winter operations. There are currently 15-18 trucks operating in this area through the winter that would love an opportunity for a place to park during winter months. Ms. D’Angelo asked if there are any permanent restaurants in the currently operating food truck lots that the applicant owns and how does that work. There has been another food truck lot in Grand Rapids that has been open in previous years that had a restaurant attached with rotational food trucks. Ms. D’Angelo asked if the applicant is aware that City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 February 23, 2023 food trucks have been parking on the corner of Bridge and Lexington; the former bank location. That is one corner removed from the subject location and until this point food trucks have been able to park there for free. She wondered why they would pay to park in a space one block away if there is a current free location. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing and invited the applicant to respond to comments. Mr. Meikle explained that it is an easy conversion from propane to natural gas. There is no restaurant associated with any of his properties. They’ve found that consistency is very important; people want to know what is available there. The things that are very important are consistency, seating, restrooms and adult beverages, which is why this model is successful. In Petosky he has had the same trucks for three years; no one has left. Being at the same place daily vs. roaming is the model that works well. Mr. Van Strien explained that if the Commission has specific questions, they can bring them up. However, the operational considerations aren’t really part of their purview; that is more between the applicant and the food trucks. He anticipates this is likely a good opportunity for several food trucks if anything. He also anticipates there will be plenty of conversations with the Food Truck Association to determine who might be a good fit for the space but it isn’t really part of the Commission’s discussion today. Ms. Turkelson agreed. Those are private decisions that don’t have relevance to the land use distinction. She doesn’t feel it would be appropriate or within the Commission’s scope of authority to get into some of those concerns. However, the applicant is encouraged to reach out to the Association to discuss some of their questions and comments. With respect to the former Chase bank location one block away, that site was included as part of the Social Zone as part of DGRI’s work. When they established the Social Zone, that parcel was included, which is the reason the food trucks are allowed to be parked for what seems to be permanently or at will at that location. That was a separate process under the authority of the City Commission. If and when the zone were no longer in existence, those food trucks would not be allowed to be there on a permanent basis, which is defined as anything longer than 90 days. If the designation were removed and the bank property chose to have a food truck on site they would be required to come through the same process. Mr. Franceschi addressed the parking concern expressed by Mr. Ramirez. The parking they are providing on site is more than some other properties on Bridge St. provide. With that said, they want to be a good neighbor. They don’t want to create congestion. They believe they are able to meet the parking space requirements given the mechanisms in the Ordinance for a parking reduction. Ms. Shannon stated that she appreciates the concept coming to Grand Rapids. This neighborhood has exploded with opportunities and entertainment. She also appreciates the research done to see what the original building looked like and the commitment to bring it back. This is going to be a good opportunity that she hopes works well in Grand Rapids. Ms. Joseph feels it is an exciting project and that the use is appropriate in this location. The mechanisms for the parking waiver hold as well. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 February 23, 2023 Mr. Van Strien feels it is a great project and a great reuse of the existing building and bringing back some of the nicer architecture that was present years ago. It will be a nice asset for this neighborhood and the city as a whole. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of 484 Bennaville, LLC (David Meikle) to establish a bar and restaurant with a permanent, partially-enclosed food truck court, and indoor and outdoor seating with alcohol service, 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 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 the site will be brought closer to conformance with site improvement provisions relative to and proportionate to the extent of redevelopment. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will support the desired mixed-use character of the neighborhood. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use will be minimized because the proposed courtyard screens and added greenspace will help create a buffer between the outdoor use and neighboring properties. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, glare, and visual clutter because the proposed outdoor area is oriented away from nearby residential uses and the hours of operation are consistent with similar uses in the vicinity. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the restoration of the open-design street wall and the proposed outdoor use are compatible with other uses in the vicinity and will contribute to the walkability of the zone district. 7. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or would be provided at no additional cost because the site is currently improved with public infrastructure; reliance on additional public services is not anticipated; and the proposed screens at the courtyard openings will close and adequately secure the site. 8. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/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. 9. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, it is demonstrated that the area is underserved by the proposed use and City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 February 23, 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 other existing alcohol uses in the neighborhood and support for the proposed establishment has been expressed. 10. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the proposed hours of operation are consistent with the operations of other establishments in the vicinity. 11. 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 may 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 this approval does not include outdoor entertainment. 3. That the site be brought closer to conformity with current Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking lot screening and landscaping, tree canopy, street trees, and greenspace. 4. That the sidewalk, curb, and street on Gold Avenue be improved to meet City Standards. 5. That the unused curb cut at Douglas Street shall be repaired to City standards. 6. That alternative vehicle parking be incorporated into the parking lot. 7. Outdoor music is permitted to be ancillary to dining, subject to the Noise Ordinance. 8. The hours of operation are limited to Sunday through Thursday, 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. and Friday and Saturday, 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 February 23, 2023 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. 700 Burton St SW - Surface Parking Lot Address: 700 Burton St. SW Applicant: I Site Consulting Group (Andrea Hendrick) Requesting: Approval to construct a surface parking lot to support a proposed adult use cannabis retailer on the adjacent property at 650 Burton St. SW Zoning: TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhoods–Traditional Business Area Requirements: Article 6 Commercial Zone Districts 5.8.05. Floodplain Overlay District 5.10.03. Off-Street Parking Design Requirements 5.11.11. Parking and Loading Area Landscape Requirements 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0100 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: March 11, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki introduced the request for approval to construct a surface parking lot to support a proposed cannabis retailer on the adjacent property at 650 Burton SW. The property is zoned TN-TBA. The parcel is long and spans two zone districts. The portion under consideration is the portion in the TBA Zone District and will be divided from the remaining parcel upon approval. The request has been submitted to divide the parcel at the TBA Zone District line. Ms. Wahamaki related that to the north is industrial zoning, to the east the proposed cannabis facility and US 131. To the west and south is Plaster Creek. The site is within the Floodplain Overlay District. Ms. Wahamaki recalled that there were some recent text amendments for the Floodplain Overlay District to update maps used to define the floodplain areas. Some of the terms were also updated. The maps that were used to determine where the floodplain and floodway lines are on and near this parcel are the new maps. None of the proposed development on the site is within the floodway, which is the protected area where development cannot occur in order to protect the natural environment. The proposed parking lot is in the floodplain but surface parking is a permitted use in the floodplain area. In the floodplain, uses are limited to what is allowed to be placed there because of the potential flood hazard. This is a small irregular lot that doesn’t have a lot of development potential but a surface parking lot can be placed where it is proposed. There is also a natural features protection buffer requirement of 75 ft. from Plaster Creek. The proposed parking lot is outside that 75 ft. buffer. Ms. Wahamaki summarized that it meets the requirements for the Floodplain Overlay District and the natural features protection. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 February 23, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki related that the site that will be developed is approximately half an acre once it is split from the larger 2.5 acre parcel. It has existing blacktop and chain link fence which will be removed. They are proposing approximately 18 parking spaces which will be used by employees and patrons of the future cannabis facility. Because of the separation distance requirements for cannabis facilities, the subject property cannot be combined with the neighboring cannabis property and no cannabis use would be permitted in the parking lot at 700 Burton, including curbside service. Any curbside service would have to occur on the 650 Burton parcel. There is a dedicated driveway proposed so there would be two curb cuts. No feedback has been provided by Engineering or Traffic Safety but it has been expressed to the applicant that the preference would be to have the two curb cuts combined into one. Any landscaping, greenspace, screening and tree canopy requirements will be confirmed at LUDS permitting. Ms. Wahamaki related that the applicant has been in contact with the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association and can speak to the details of that engagement. Staff has received one letter of opposition from a neighboring business owner citing concerns about increased traffic at the intersection. Mr. Van Strien understands that the properties can’t be combined due to the separation distance requirements. However, is there anything that prevents the lot from sharing a curb cut. Ms. Turkelson didn’t feel that would be an immediate concern given the traffic safety management employed throughout the Ordinance. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to require the shared curb cut, understanding that the parcels can’t be combined because of the separation distance. Ms. Zeller recalled a similar situation at Jars, located at 1815 Alpine NW. One curb cut serves the two parcels. Andrea Hendrick was present on behalf of the request. The proposed surface parking lot would be the primary use at 700 Burton. She provided some history relating that this is an old railroad lot. They have submitted a request to split the parcel on the zone line. It is currently under review and should be complete upon the decision for the parking lot. They have reached out hoping the County or City would be interested in picking up the southern portion of the parcel and potentially use it for some form of connectivity in the future. With respect to the neighbor to the north expressing concerns about traffic, the building at 650 Burton is the only contributor to traffic so the addition of the supporting parking lot shouldn’t have any impact. If anything, by combining the two access points, which they prefer to do, it will actually help traffic. Ms. Hendrick explained that they have discussed combining the two curb cuts with Ms. Zeller and it is there intent to do so. Their engineer is more than willing to work with the Engineering Department for what is best. They would be amenable to a condition of approval requiring that. Ms. Hendrick related that they have been in touch with the Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association. They have a development meeting next month. They were also interested in seeing the elimination of one of the curb cuts. They had no opposition to parking as a primary use on the site, especially since there are issues of more parking needed for cannabis uses throughout the city. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 February 23, 2023 Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Turkelson asked, with the elimination of the curb cut, if there is an opportunity to reconsider the design of the parking lot. It seems excessively wide. She understands they want to achieve a certain number of spaces but she suggested there may be a layout that makes better sense with the elimination of the second drive. It also seems to present an opportunity to provide some landscaping along the frontage. Ms. Hendrick was amenable relating they will add that to their design. Mr. Van Strien asked if there is a dumpster enclosure associated with the adjacent project and, if so, where is it on the plan. If reconfiguring this with a single curb cut it probably makes sense to put that more toward the west and they could have more parking on the east, immediately adjacent to the building. It also opens up space for more green space. Ms. Hendrick was amenable. She identified the location of the 75 ft. buffer explaining that that is the boundary for where they can design the parking lot without coming back to the Planning Commission. When this goes to LUDS they can have a discussion about the dumpster enclosure. Ms. Hendrick clarified that this will be a Sky Mint project and she believes Mr. Bowman is already working with them on the LUDS issues. She will pass that information on to Sky Mint with respect to the modifications. Mr. Rozeboom recalled that they had intended to use trash carts and not have a dumpster. Ms. Hendrick replied that that may be the case. Ms. Turkelson agreed, based on the site plan previously approved by the Planning Commission. There appears to be some opportunity to improve site design, layout, landscaping and dumpster location. Staff can work with the applicant on those things if the Planning Commission finds that the use of the land as a parking lot is appropriate. Ms. Joseph related that her only concern initially was related to development that would impede on Plaster Creek. It has been stated by staff and in the staff report that none of the development is encroaching on that. Therefore, she is comfortable with the use here and definitely supportive of consolidating to one curb cut. Dr. Wallace agreed. She expressed her appreciation for the applicant’s flexibility to do what is right here and not just what is convenient for the business model. Ms. Shannon MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of I Site Consulting Group (Andrea Hendrick) to construct a surface parking lot at 700 Burton Street SW to support a proposed adult use cannabis retailer on the adjacent property at 650 Burton Street SW, for the following reasons: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 February 23, 2023 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 Objective 6 of Chapter 5 of the Master Plan to encourage business investment while balancing economic growth with priorities for neighborhoods, the natural environment, and the quality of the built environment. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the development has been designed to meet all standards. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed improvements will occur on a previously developed site and the nearby creek will be appropriately protected. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through adequate parking lot screening and landscaping. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare because the proposed use is not anticipated to result in excessive noise, glare, or visual clutter. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because appropriate site improvements have been proposed to facilitate safe and efficient pedestrian circulation. 7. The proposed use will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because no development is proposed within the Floodway Area or the 75-foot natural feature protection area. 8. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or the economic welfare of the City because the proposed use will allow productive use of a property encumbered by a number of site constraints. 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. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 February 23, 2023 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 two proposed curb cuts shall be consolidated into one. 3. That an EGLE permit will be required prior to the issuance of a City LUDS permit for site construction. 4. That a detailed soil erosion plan will be submitted as part of the LUDS permitting process. 5. Due to separation distance requirements, cannabis use, such as curbside pickup, on the property is not permitted. SUPPORTED by Mr. Al-Shatel. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Lawrence Williams E. 851 Leonard St NW - Major PRD Amendment Address: 851 Leonard St. NW and 850 & 860 Courtney St. NW Applicant: Genesis Non- Profit Housing Corporation (John Wynbeek) Requesting: A Major Amendment to an approved Special District-Planned Redevelopment District to facilitate construction of a +/-55 dwelling unit, four-story multiple-family housing development. Zoning: SD-PRD (Special District-Planned Redevelopment District) Requirements: 5.7.06. Special District – Planned Redevelopment District 5.12.08. Site Plan Review Standards 5.12.12. Planned Redevelopment District Case Number: PC-PRDA-2023-0012 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Planned Redevelopment District Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Zeller presented the request for a Major Amendment to an approved Special District- Planned Redevelopment District to facilitate construction of a 55 dwelling unit, four-story multiple-family housing development. Ms. Zeller recalled that the properties in question were zoned PRD on October 27, 2020. The City Commission adopted an ordinance to rezone the properties from TN-TBA and TN-LDR to PRD to allow the construction of a three-story, 38-unit affordable housing development. The original 1931 portion of the former funeral home was to be maintained and reused. Ms. Zeller displayed a photo of existing site conditions, which is what it looked like at the time of approval. It was originally a funeral home and had several additions as well as an outbuilding. The additions and outbuilding were to be demolished and the central, original funeral home would be maintained and a 38-dwelling unit, affordable housing development was to be constructed. The applicant sought LIHTC funding for the project, which was not awarded. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to discuss that in further detail. The fact City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 30 February 23, 2023 that the funding wasn’t awarded led them to re-examine the project and they came up with the plan before the Planning Commission today. Ms. Zeller displayed a rendering of what is currently proposed. It has gone from a 38-unit development to a 55-unit development. The previous approval was for a 3-story building. Proposed is a 3-story building at the front with a step back to a fourth story. Ms. Zeller noted that the parking lot is to the rear of the existing funeral home building. It is located in the LDR Zone District and is adjacent to a residential structure to the west. There is also a single-family home to the west on Leonard St. Ms. Zeller displayed the proposed site plan. All site improvements, including the original funeral home, will be demolished. The building will be 3 and 4 stories with the fourth floor stepped back from the street. The front of the building will feature a communal roof deck above the third story facing Leonard. The 55 dwelling units will be comprised of 48 one-bedroom and 7 two-bedroom units. The one-bedroom units will be approximately 664 sq. ft. and the two-bedroom units approximately 1,000 sq. ft. The units will be restricted to a range of affordability levels and will be targeted to seniors. Parking will be provided in the parking lot fronting on Courtney but it will be reorganized and landscaped. Ms. Zeller commented on density. The proposed 55 units on this property equates to 44 units per acre, which is high density. The proposed building will be located in the TBA portion of the site. It will meet the minimum 5 ft. PRD setback requirements and it was also designed to meet TBA requirements at the front of the building. In the TN-TBA there is a required building line (RBL) of 19 ft. from back of curb for residential buildings. The architect took into account the adjacent single family residence and is siting the building approximately where the adjacent porch is; the closest part of the building is consistent with the porch of the adjacent home. Ms. Zeller related that the side setback for developments in the TN-TBA Zone District when they are adjacent to residential uses is 10 ft. The proposed setback on the west, adjacent to the single-family home, ranges from 12 ft. 10 inches at the closest point and at the rear it is approximately 18 ft. On the east there are commercial uses and the setbacks range from 12 ft. to 17.5 ft. The lots are slightly irregular resulting in the inconsistent side setbacks. In the TN-TBA Zone District the minimum setback is 18 ft. at the rear lot line. At the closest point to the property on Courtney the building is approximately 10 ft. Ms. Zeller suggested the Planning Commission should consider the setbacks when deliberating this project. Ms. Zeller indicated that the trash enclosure is proposed on the east side, which would be appropriate as it is closest to the commercial uses and there is a commercial parking lot in the LDR Zone District. With respect to other site elements, it exceeds the minimum greenspace requirement for a PRD; 33% is proposed. Tree canopy of 12% will be required and will be confirmed at LUDS permitting. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to discuss the floor plan details if the Planning Commission has questions. There is an entrance at the rear adjacent to the parking lot. There is also an City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 31 February 23, 2023 entrance at the front, which is likely not intended to be the main entrance, for resident and visitor access. Ms. Zeller commented on the height. The building will be 3 and 4-stories. The fourth story is a darker color, which is intended to make it recede. At the street, the 3-story portion is approximately 34.5 ft. and the 4-story portion approximately 47.5 ft. Ms. Zeller pointed out that four stories is allowed in the TN-TBA Zone District. However, that would be conditioned upon it meeting the rear yard setback. That is something the Planning Commission may wish to consider. The materials proposed are clap board siding and brick. The architect has indicated that the building materials were chosen to reflect the historic neighborhood materials as well as the existing funeral home structure. Ms. Zeller displayed the building elevations. She noted that there is an outdoor deck feature on the third story which she asked the applicant to further describe. With respect to parking, this will be an affordable housing development. Ms. Zeller recalled that the site is currently zoned PRD, which has the highest parking requirement. That parking requirement is more associated with auto oriented parts of the city. Therefore, Ms. Zeller referred to the TBA and LDR parking requirements because she felt it was more appropriate to this development. Using the TBA and affordable housing calculations they would be required to provide 42 parking spaces. Using the PRD or LDR calculations they would be required to provide 55 spaces. The site has 36 parking spaces proposed. Parking is deficient. Ms. Zeller recalled there was detailed discussion related to parking associated with affordable housing projects during a previous agenda item. They do anticipate a lesser need for parking. There are a number of waivers that can be applied. In this case it would be on-street parking as well as transit. Transit service is available on Leonard. Ms. Zeller recommended assigning the residential signage requirements for any desired signage. Ms. Zeller asked that the applicant convey information on their neighborhood outreach. A letter of support was submitted by the West Grand Neighborhood Association. A letter from the adjacent neighbor on Courtney expressed opposition to this project citing the scale, potential for loss or damage of their shared concrete wall, damage to their driveway and garage foundation, and loss of privacy and security due to the height of the building. Ms. Zeller identified key considerations as the compatibility of the layout and design relative to the neighborhood context including scale and massing, materials, and transition to other properties on the block. Ms. Joseph asked if the entrance facing Leonard would be required to have any other elements. She realizes that the main entrance will face the parking lot. Ms. Zeller replied that there is a feature at the front identifying the entrance to the courtyard and entrance to the building. She would suggest that is an entrance feature. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 32 February 23, 2023 John Wynbeek, Genesis Non-Profit Housing Corporation, provided some history relating that they purchased the property in 2017 and located their office there. He has been working there for the last 5+ years. They had a previous plan to develop 38 units of housing, 13 of which were supportive. Genesis was founded to do permanent supportive housing and also housing for seniors. They are looking at this project currently as a combination of both. The State Housing Authority has a division between permanent supportive housing and senior housing. However, they feel this project can blend the two together. Mr. Wynbeek related that they also operate Heron Manor and Heron Woods, located on Leonard NE. Heron Manor is affordable assisted living and Heron Woods is a senior community. They are using their experience there and in permanent supportive housing to develop 55 units for seniors and they will have some supports available for them. Mr. Wynbeek feels that the previous design was really nice. It preserved the original building and provided 38 units. They found through two applications to MSHDA that it was too expensive and it was a little too small. When they presented that concept, they were in the process of converting St. James elementary school from a 100 year old school to 36 affordable apartments. They had the concept of trying to preserve some of the history of the neighborhood in mind. Unfortunately, it just didn’t work due to the increasing construction costs and the inefficiency of trying to keep the original building and build around it. The benefit is that they are going from 38 to 55 units creating more housing for seniors in the community. The income range/AMI ranges from 30% AMI to 60% AMI. To put that in context, 30% AMI is just under $19,000 of income per year and 60% is double that. They are targeting seniors with limited means. Currently the plan is for 4 apartments at 30% AMI, 11 at 40%, 11 at 50%, and 28 apartments at 60%. Tuesday they were awarded 11 project-based Section 8 vouchers from the Grand Rapids Housing Commission and they will be applying to the Wyoming Housing Commission for 9 more. The vouchers will help seniors living there have permanency, which is desperately needed in this community. Community space will be provided on site; a community multi-purpose room of approximately 1,100 sq. ft. In addition to that there will be a smaller meeting room, on-site property management, as well as support coordination. Mr. Wynbeek stated that they will be working to coordinate supports that they currently provide at Heron Manor and Heron Woods properties. They also have a partnership with Grand Valley nursing students at St. James and they will extend that to this development as well. They are also working with Senior Neighbors. The goal is to develop a senior community that is affordable for people and also gives them the supports that they need. Mr. Wynbeek explained that this target population doesn’t typically have a lot of cars. They’ve found both in their supportive and senior housing that there is ample parking. All of the units in this development will be visitable and 8 of the units will accommodate persons in wheelchairs. There is a bus stop in front of the building on Leonard St. The Go Bus is available and they also provide transportation at the Heron Manor and Heron Woods site. They own a bus and a car and provide transportation for people that are unable to use public transit. Mr. Wynbeek stated that they feel they have ample parking for this target population. When they develop a project, they want to provide parking. They don’t want there to be an inability for visitors, staff or student nurses to park there. Based on their experience in both senior and supportive housing, they feel the parking they have on site and the additional street parking will be adequate and will not disrupt their neighbors. Ms. Joseph asked about outreach to the neighbors. She also asked that Mr. Wynbeek address the concerns expressed by the neighbor on Courtney about potential damage to the wall, their driveway and garage foundation. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 33 February 23, 2023 Mr. Wynbeek stated that they’ve been in the neighborhood for five years and have been participating with the neighborhood association and business association. The previous development had their support. In October there was a joint meeting of the neighborhood and business associations and he spoke there and indicated they were revising the plan and that they would be proposing demolition of the existing building and redeveloping the site. On February 15 the neighborhood association had their annual meeting and they presented there. They provided the planning information to their Board of Directors and they provided a letter of support. Ms. Joseph indicated that she was more concerned about direct outreach to the neighbors directly adjacent to the development. Mr. Wynbeek related that they reached out to the adjacent neighbors with the previous application and they’ve also done that most recently last week. The neighbor adjacent on Courtney is present to express her concerns. Mr. Rozeboom asked how tall the building is adjacent to the home. Kim DeStigter, architect, replied that the building is 47 ft. 6 inches. He added that they have tried with the architecture to minimize the scale and how the building is treated. At the front it is 3- stories and the heavy cornice line goes all the way around the building with the negative space at the top. Mr. Rozeboom appreciated that and also noted that it is in the TBA Zone District and not LDR so it is a different circumstance. Mr. DeStigter added that the parking lot hasn’t changed at all from the previously approved plan other than they have added two parking spaces. The footprint of the building is actually less than what it was before except for the 10 ft. on the property line, which skirts the back of the building. It was difficult to push the whole building forward another 8 ft. to provide the required setback. There is community space being provided in the courtyard and they’ve tried to address the street front. The intent of the code is to put something on the street at the entry. The building with the parking lot at the back wants to have elderly get in easy. They’ve tried to do the same thing as a front entry by bringing that element out at the front to the street, which he feels will be very nice for the street front. With respect to the wall on the property line, they don’t have any intent to take the wall down or damage it in any way. If anything, they are providing more buffer on that neighboring line. If the wall needs repair, their intent is to help do that. They wouldn’t do that without cooperation with the neighbor. With respect to the foundation, construction of buildings occurs all over the place and it doesn’t impact the foundation of adjacent homes. He doesn’t know why that would be a concern. There won’t be a basement on this project. It will be excavated just like a regular building. It happens with every project that comes before the Planning Commission and they aren’t destroying neighboring foundations. Mr. DeStigter would like to alleviate that concern indicating that it typically doesn’t happen. That isn’t to say that it never happens but it is their intent to do just a normal excavation, approximately 4 ft. deep. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 34 February 23, 2023 Diane Hale, 864 Courtney NW, related that she sent the letter expressing her concerns. This is her first meeting and, based on her observation, she understands that the Commission desires community involvement and input. Ms. Hale disagreed that there has been good outreach to the neighborhood and community, especially her and the neighbors on her block. She read about the project in the newspaper and is part of the West Grand Neighborhood Association Facebook page. She saw they were having their annual meeting and signed up to attend. That is when she had communication with the applicant. She went to her neighbors afterward and asked if they had had any communication and they have not. A few received green post cards for the Planning Commission meeting but those that didn’t aren’t even aware of it. Ms. Hale stated that she would like the opportunity for her neighbors, especially those that will be directly affected by this, to have an opportunity to voice their concerns and questions. If they weren’t aware of the meeting then they wouldn’t have submitted a letter, which is her concern. Ms. Hale understands that it would be a civil matter if there was an issue between her property and their building. Her concern about foundation damage to her garage came from the prior design of the project. They sought advice from a concrete expert and if the wall is damaged by any work they do in the parking lot it is close to the foundation of the garage. She was advised that if there is any damage to the wall as a result of any work that needs to be done in the parking lot it will impact her property. She just wanted to be sure to cover all those bases with the developer so it doesn’t result in damage or out of pocket costs. Primarily, after attending today’s meeting, she wants her neighbors to have an opportunity to voice their opinion and concerns. She doesn’t feel that having one meeting with the association is sufficient. If you aren’t part of the association, you wouldn’t have been aware of it. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing and invited the applicant to respond to public comment and Commission questions. Mr. Wynbeek indicated that they have worked closely with the neighborhood association over the years as an occupant there and took direction from them on the outreach. As was discussed previously in the meeting, the tax credit time frames can be tight and may not be as desirable. Mr. Wynbeek stated that as a neighbor there they have done a variety of things in conjunction with the neighborhood association; gun buy back program, parking lot blood drive, COVID testing, and he has worked with them closely. Mr. Wynbeek acknowledged that there could be more neighborhood engagement but he was taking direction from the neighborhood association on this. Mr. Wynbeek added that the balcony on the south side of the third level of the building creates much more communal space for people living there and it fronts on Leonard St. They feel it is a nice amenity. Seniors are often on site more often than those who work and they feel it will be a nice space. MSHDA would like to see outdoor community space in the form of balconies. They often look for individual balconies and they are making the case that this communal space really is much better for the senior population because it gives them an opportunity to get outside together in a space they feel is very attractive. Mr. Rozeboom asked if there will be any amplified music on the deck. Mr. Wynbeek replied that is a difficult question when working with seniors because they don’t hear very well. They don’t have any plans for outdoor entertainment there. They don’t want to disturb neighbors. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 35 February 23, 2023 Dr. Wallace indicated that she does support the project but she is curious as to why, with him working on site daily, he didn’t have a conversation with the adjacent neighbor who has concerns. Mr. Wynbeek replied that they had an extensive conversation at the neighborhood meeting on February 15. He provided renderings and the site plan and they talked about her concerns. It wasn’t a matter of not talking but perhaps more a matter of timing. It takes time to get the plans together and you have to have them together before you can sit down and talk to people about what is proposed. The time frame was not what they desired but they did have an opportunity to talk privately at that meeting to hear the concerns. Dr. Wallace encouraged ongoing dialogue. Mr. DeStigter indicated that they have already committed to having that ongoing dialogue. Ms. Hale agreed. However, her other neighbors weren’t at the meeting. Ms. Shannon indicated that she is in support of the project. It is a large project and the need is great. Throughout the day she has seen a theme with community outreach and developers should be encouraged to talk with their immediate neighbors about their plans so that they feel included. Ms. Shannon is impressed that they have committed to the ongoing dialogue. Dr. Wallace asked staff for an explanation of how projects are noticed. Ms. Turkelson explained that all property owners within 300 ft. are sent individual post cards. In addition to that, it is also published in the newspaper. They also look to neighborhood and business associations to help spread the word. Staff strongly encourages neighborhood engagement when they have their pre-planning meetings. They go as far as saying that historically the Planning Commission has had significant concerns when adequate neighborhood outreach hasn’t been done. Perhaps not so coincidentally, these two projects did not have the benefit of pre-plan meetings prior to the submission of this round. However, in the past they’ve had significant conversations about this property but this particular submission did not have the benefit of meeting ahead of time. Ms. Joseph stated that she is in support of the project. She also encouraged the applicant to continue the dialogue with the neighborhood and especially those directly adjacent. She appreciates Mr. Rozeboom pointing out that the front half of the site is in the TBA Zone District and not in the Low Density Zone District, which she feels is relevant. Ms. Joseph appreciates the step back of the fourth floor so there aren’t four stories right along the street. Ms. Joseph stated that she isn’t concerned about the parking. Dr. Wallace indicated that she is not concerned about the parking either. She is sad to see the original building go. She liked that plan. This is necessary and it expands the current offerings. Dr. Wallace again encouraged the applicant to be neighborly and keep them up to date on progress. It is good practice. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 36 February 23, 2023 Mr. Rozeboom expressed his appreciation for the courtyard in the design and making it possible to be an active space. He acknowledged that it is tricky knowing the population of the residents and their particular needs. He feels they’ve done a nice job with the design. Mr. Al-Shatel agreed that the courtyard space is nice. He echoed the sentiment of being concerned with the lack of personal outreach to neighbors. He doesn’t understand why there isn’t more of that occurring given the proximity. It is a concern for people making investments in their homes, given the size of some of these projects going in. Mr. Al-Shatel stated that he is in support but the lack of connection with the neighbors is concerning. Mr. Jonker expressed his support for the project. He appreciates the design elements. He noticed that there is a 4-story building directly across the street right on the right-of-way line. The proposed is setback and it steps back again at the fourth story. He appreciates the thought that was given to that as well as the courtyard space. Mr. Jonker agreed with the previous comments related to outreach. Anytime you build a significant structure like this within 15 ft. of someone else’s property it is a balancing act but one that can be achieved. Mr. Al-Shatel MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Commission approve the request of Genesis Non- Profit Housing Corporation (John Wynbeek) for a Major Amendment to an approved Special District-Planned Redevelopment District at 851 Leonard St. NW and 850 & 860 Courtney St. NW to facilitate construction of a +/-55 dwelling unit, four-story multiple- family housing development, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed building and site will meet all standards for Site Design because the development maintains the existing street wall elements but fills in the “missing teeth” and provides efficient interior circulation, open space, and walkability and the proposed use fits well at an appropriate density for the size of the site, which allows for an efficient layout. 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 the Westside Area Specific Plan recommends uses other than ground floor retail in areas outside the commercial nodes, and recommends the redevelopment of underutilized properties and the proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the Great Neighborhoods Chapter within the Master Plan to promote a broad range of housing choices and encourage income diversity within neighborhoods. 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 proposed PRD will provide flexibility in the setback and RBL requirements to allow a logical redevelopment of this irregularly shaped site and the setback flexibility allows for the provision of adequate on-site parking. 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 building is oriented to Leonard, creating a consistent street wall and the parking lot on Courtney is consistent with the existing use on the lot. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 37 February 23, 2023 5. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed development on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized because the building has been designed with adequate setbacks from adjacent residential uses; the structure will be located in the TBA portion of the property, while the use of the portion of the property in the residential district will not change; the reorganized parking lot will include adequate screening, buffering, and landscaping, and; adequate parking will be provided for the use. 6. The proposed development will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future adjacent uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic or noise because traffic is not anticipated to be significant given the nature of the development; the surface parking lot will be visually screened from the residential neighbors, and; the project is intended to house seniors. 7. Pedestrian and vehicular connections will be provided between buildings, uses and amenities within the property, as well as connections to and from the surrounding properties because, although the overall number of curb cuts will be reduced, the development will allow a convenient connection to Courtney, and eliminate access to Leonard, the higher trafficked street, and; the building will be appropriately sited relative to Leonard and will facilitate access to transit and businesses. 8. The proposed development will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because the site has been disturbed over the years and little is left of its original features. The additional greenspace will soften the site significantly from its current state. 9. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do 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 subject property is located in close proximity to public transit and major streets and is currently served with public utilities. 10. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because new housing units and residents will provide vitality to this part of the corridor and the scale and design of the proposed development will not place an excessive burden on services currently furnished by 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 common recreational areas are provided. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 38 February 23, 2023 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 signs shall be governed by the rules and requirements for residential zone districts. 3. 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. 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 V. Planning Discussion Items None. VI. Public Comment None. VII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 4:34 PM