TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 April 13, 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, Bersche, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Joseph STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Laura Wahamaki, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from March 23, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al- Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Laurel Joseph C. Planning Director's Report  Ms. Turkelson briefly reviewed the agenda items.  Ms. Turkelson reminded the Commission that staff will be proposing text amendments for their consideration in May. III. Planning Commission Discussion beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Community Master Plan First Round Engagement Update Sarah Bongiorno, Planning Next, provided a presentation regarding the first round of community engagement and what to expect in the second round. B. Overview of Updated Housing Needs & Opportunities Report Ryan Kilpatrick, Housing Next, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the updated Housing Needs & Opportunities Report. IV. Public Hearings Generated 4/14/2023 6:18 PM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 April 13, 2023 A. Conflict of Interest Mr. Van Strien recalled that he recused himself from review of a similar request in the past due to the proximity and similarity to his business. For consistency, he feels it would be appropriate to recuse himself in this case as well. Motion by Ms. Shannon, supported by Mr. Al-Shatel, finding that Mr. Van Strien has a potential conflict of interest. Motion carried unanimously. B. 526 Maynard Ave NW - Major Amendment for Childcare Center Address: 526 Maynard Ave NW Applicant: Magus Capital Partners (Vishal Arora) Requesting: Approval of a Major Amendment to incorporate a commercial childcare center into a multiple-family housing development. Zoning: SD-PRD (Special Districts- Planned Redevelopment District) Requirements: 5.7.06. Planned Redevelopment District 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Planned Redevelopment District Case Number: PC-PRDA-2023-0020 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller Type of Case: Major Amendment to an approved Planned Redevelopment District Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Zeller recalled that the Planning Commission previously reviewed this project, which was a major amendment to allow development of 240 residential units with frontage on both Lake Michigan Dr. and Maynard. It has subsequently been divided and now has frontage only on Maynard. The applicant has been back for some minor amendments and for Final Site Plan Review. Today, the project is before the Planning Commission for a Major Amendment request to add a commercial daycare into the development. Because of the nature of the use that wasn’t originally contemplated, it requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Commission with final approval from the City Commission. Ms. Zeller noted that the development was approved for 240 dwelling units. In lieu of 10 of those residential units, the applicant is proposing to devote that area into a childcare center of approximately 7,800 sq. ft. The childcare center would be in the building closest to Maynard and closest to the northern property line where there are adjacent residential dwelling units. There are no site changes being proposed to the development to facilitate the childcare center other than the addition of a playground. The entrance drives on both the north and south are proposed to remain as previously approved. The landscape buffer that was approved between the entrance drive, parking lot, and residential homes to the north will remain as approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Zeller displayed the landscape plan indicating that the landscaping will be installed upon completion of the improvements on site. A fenced outdoor play area is proposed west of the area devoted to the childcare center. The play area is adjacent to the proposed detention basin, which is required to be fenced. Ms. Zeller explained the proposed site circulation associated with the childcare and identified the location of the parking area devoted to the use, as well as the employee parking area. Parents will not be prohibited from using the north entrance but, for traffic circulation purposes, they will be encouraged to use the southerly entrance. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 April 13, 2023 Ms. Zeller related that the childcare center is anticipated to be licensed for up to 120 children, ages 6 months to 12 years old. There will be 8 classrooms with 20-25 employees working at the center, 16 of which may be working at any given time. The parking on site for the residential use remains sufficient even with the dedicated spaces for staff and the pick up and drop off. There was a previous amendment to the development requested by the State, which was a request for additional parking. Ms. Zeller noted that a new entry canopy is proposed to identify the childcare center entrance from the parking lot. There is one main access to the childcare center. However, there are doors to every classroom, which is a building code requirement for emergency egress. Ms. Zeller identified doors that will provide access to the playground. A glass overhead door is proposed in one of the classrooms for easy access to the playground. Ms. Zeller displayed the building elevation facing the parking lot and again identified the location of the proposed childcare facility. Some of the windows that were previously proposed in the dwelling units will be converted to doors to provide the emergency egress required. With respect to traffic, Mobile GR requested an addendum to the previously prepared traffic impact analysis to compare the trips anticipated for the residential development and the proposed childcare center. The analysis estimates that there will be an increase in traffic at the a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips. The analysis assumes a 25% internal capture of residents in the complex using the facility. However, even with the internal capture there is an anticipated increase in traffic. The analysis found that the additional trips could be accommodated within the adjacent roadway network. The Mobile GR Engineer has reviewed the analysis and concurs with the findings. Mobile GR also found the queuing and pick-up/drop off area to be adequate. Ms. Zeller related that no additional signage specific to the proposed use is being requested. The applicant anticipates utilizing a door sign at the entrance. The developer is also allowed two monument signs and they could incorporate the childcare identification on the existing signs allowed. Ms. Zeller stated that additional neighborhood outreach information was submitted yesterday related to a meeting that was held on Monday. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to expand upon that outreach. Ms. Zeller related that she received two letters of opposition to this request this morning, which are included in the Commission’s packet. Mr. Van Strien recalled that one of the letters mentions that they would have a living room view of the daycare parking lot. He asked if the parking lot was ever proposed to be on the Maynard side of the building or was it always considered internal to the complex. Ms. Zeller replied that it was always internal to the complex. She isn’t certain what the letter was referring to. Her understanding is that person lives across the street from the development. Vishal Arora, Magnus Capital Partners, was present on behalf of the request. They feel the proposal is innovative and directly responsive to the current need for both affordable housing, which this project is, and accessible childcare, which is a community need. Mr. Arora related that they held a neighborhood meeting on Monday of this week. He apologized that the site plan City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 April 13, 2023 shared at that meeting was an older version of the site plan. The primary difference was the northern drive egress showing it winding slightly south and not aligning with the drive across the street, which caused some confusion. Mr. Arora agreed with Ms. Zeller that there never was an external or Maynard facing parking lot; it has always been internal. The comment in the letter could be related to what they anticipate to be happening on the northern boundary. As mentioned, that is unchanged from the previous approval. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Charles Cook, 555 Maynard, stated that the site plan before the Planning Commission is not the site plan they have seen for the past four years. He and his neighbors feel they’ve been given misinformation about this project from the beginning. The site plan previously showed the driveway in a different location and now it is directly across from Mr. Cook’s driveway. The traffic study was conducted in 2020 and unless it was done in January or February there is no way it is accurate due to the shut down that occurred in March of that year. There are 498 parking spaces in the development, not to mention 50 - 100 more vehicles associated with the proposed daycare. That is almost like turning Maynard into Lake Michigan Dr. Mr. Cook stated that he and his neighbors are greatly concerned about this. Two years ago a traffic light was installed at Maynard and Lake Michigan Dr. There have been multiple traffic accidents there with people running the red light regularly. Mr. Cook stated that he doesn’t understand the information related to how this will affect traffic on Maynard. He feels it is highly inaccurate. Putting in a childcare center, in addition to the residential use, will add another 50 - 100 cars with people in and out. Existing residents are concerned about this entire issue, as well as their property values. They’ve invested in their homes and now, with this going in across the street, it gravely concerns them that they will lose the money they are putting into their homes. They don’t feel it is right. They don’t feel the studies are accurate and they have been given misinformation through the entire process and the communication has been poor. Brandon Bilski, Degage Ministries Grant Specialist, stated that while he applauds the attempts to have much more affordable housing in the city, he deals with over 100 women in their shelter daily. That number has gone up 60% since the pandemic. In part of Mr. Kilpatrick’s presentation he spoke of the many renters who are at risk. The economic situation is dire, internationally, when it comes to housing. Mr. Bilski stated that they need bold solutions and stand up to what is the core of the systems. They need to come together and create a bold solution to the housing crisis. The fact that there are zero units available for 0-60% AMI is a tragedy and it isn’t addressed in Housing Next’s proposal. They are trying to account for the market in and of itself. Mr. Bilski stated that he is trying to account for everyone that deserves dignity and respect. Our civic duty is to help the most vulnerable among us. Instead of just looking at the quotes for the billions of dollars it would take to give everyone a $100,000 house, he suggested looking at real tangible solutions such as tiny home villages and transitional housing that can support mental health needs as they deal with the trauma of the economic violence this causes daily. Mr. Bilski encouraged Commissioners to come to Degage and some of the other shelters and walk with them in this struggle. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 April 13, 2023 Tyler Hunty related that he is the childcare facility operating partner with Magnus Capital. He explained that they reached out to obtain statistics about the need for childcare in this specific zip code. The children in that zip code compared to the available capacity have a need for 20 - 25%; childcare is in dire need in that area. Ms. Turkelson expressed surprise that there is no signage being requested for the childcare facility. Mr. Hunty recalled that there are two monument signs approved and they will utilize one of them at the entrance they want parents to use in an effort to direct the traffic. They will also communicate that information to the parents. A sign is also proposed above the canopy of the entryway. Ms. Zeller didn’t recall discussion of a sign above the canopy. She related that in the PRD amendment to allow this development, signage associated with residential zone districts was assigned to the development. For the size of this property, they could have two monument signs. They can share space on those signs and divide them as they choose. They are also allowed a window sign on the door, which was her understanding of what is proposed. Staff will be happy to work with the childcare provider on anything else. Dr. Wallace asked if this is the final request that will come before the Planning Commission. They have looked at this project a number of times. Dr. Wallace asked that the applicant respond to public comment with respect to whether the correct information has been presented, is it accurate reporting, and will they be back in a few months with a different idea. Mr. Arora replied that what has been presented to the Planning Commission today is correct and does represent a change from the existing approved PRD. The proposed is a notable change but they feel it is an appropriate change. It is the bulk of the changes they anticipate for the PRD. The remaining change that may occur over the course of the development would relate to landscape design and things of that nature but only to upgrade them from current municipal standards. They don’t anticipate anything beyond that. Dr. Wallace asked if there is anything that can be done through landscaping, or some other means, that would help to alleviate the north driveway to driveway situation. Mr. Arora replied that they would be open to discussion regarding landscape features in an effort to alleviate concerns. They would be happy to work with staff on those efforts. Ms. Turkelson explained that the Planning Commission can require additional landscaping. However, it will be necessary to adhere to the clear vision corner requirements. Her recollection is that the north driveway had to move because of Engineering’s standards. If the Planning Commission feels that landscaping, beyond the minimum requirements of the Ordinance, is necessary along the north lot line to screen the addition of a commercial use, that is something that can be considered. They will have to be careful about the clear vision corner requirement when considering additional landscaping on the south side of the north drive. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 April 13, 2023 Mr. Jonker asked that staff respond to the concern of the traffic impact analysis being inaccurate due to the pandemic shut down. He noted that the study was performed in October 2020. Ms. Turkelson agreed that the analysis was done in October of 2020 during the pandemic shut down. However, the data used for the analysis was pre-COVID data. Ms. Shannon clarified that the Commission isn’t considering the footprint of the building but rather the change in use of the ground floor from apartments to a childcare facility. Ms. Turkelson agreed. The use is changing but the building footprint is not. The Planning Commission would be approving the footprint of the use and if that should increase in the future it would require a Planning Commission amendment. Ms. Bersche asked if it will be necessary to relocate a dumpster enclosure due to the change in use. Ms. Turkelson didn’t believe that would be necessary. There is a dumpster located on the north end of the building, directly east, that seems to be a reasonable location for use by the daycare facility. Relocation of that dumpster would not be supported by staff other than potentially to the south. Ms. Bersche asked if the parking remains adequate after providing for the daycare staff and pick- up and drop off. Ms. Turkelson replied that it is adequate. Ms. Shannon feels the addition of the proposed use makes this an even more viable community and will enhance the entire neighborhood. She was pleased to hear that the data used for the traffic analysis was data prior to COVID. Ms. Shannon supports the use; it adds an amenity good for the complex as well as the area in general. Ms. Turkelson felt it was worth noting that there is a Bus Rapid Transit line on Lake Michigan Dr. A sidewalk connection along the entire frontage of this development is required and will add a connection and improve walkability from the residential areas to the north and provide a direct connection from this development to the BRT line. Mr. Williams feels this decision is more difficult. The residential use is already approved. Affordable housing implies, to him, that residents have an income. He isn’t concerned about the comment related to college students living here and interfering with the children going to daycare. Having a space where educators, factory workers, etc. can still afford to live in the City is a good thing. Prior to the proposed use within the development, one of the biggest concerns was the traffic. They don’t want Maynard to become Lake Michigan Dr. While the childcare will be a huge benefit to the community and residents of the development, it will no doubt add to the traffic, which is already an existing concern. Ms. Shannon noted that the developers are trying to contain most of the daycare related traffic to the south entrance, which may alleviate some of those concerns. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 April 13, 2023 Ms. Bersche stated, from a traffic perspective, that she drops off and picks up her children from school on a daily basis. The childcare facility is intended to serve up to 120. Oftentimes it is families with more than one child. She understands and appreciates that there will be additional traffic but it will likely be that there are two peak periods. She doesn’t anticipate there will be in and out traffic all day long. It will be more limited to certain times of the day. She felt that was something to consider in terms of the traffic. Mr. Van Strien added that he has a hard time challenging the traffic study since he isn’t a traffic expert. However, looking at the increase of potentially 28 daily trips, it doesn’t concern him too much especially given the traffic pattern they are trying to encourage with drop off and pick up. Mr. Van Strien continues to feel the use as a residential development is the right use and something the city needs. One of the letters they received included the comment that I cannot believe that what this city needs is more apartments. They’ve learned today, and previously, that that is not the case; we do need more places for people to live. Mr. Van Strien also feels the proposed childcare is an amenity that people also need. It nicely incorporates into this residential development and hopefully it is an amenity the residents of the development can utilize. He is supportive. Ms. Turkelson suggested it may also be helpful to look back at some of the past planning work the City has done, specifically the Vital Streets Plan. Maynard is identified as a Link Residential. What that means is streets that serve a larger network function providing connectivity between neighborhoods and local destinations. It goes on to say that they are commonly the location of local community facilities such as parks or recreational facilities, schools, or houses of worship. In looking at the residential zone districts, which is what this was prior and is surrounded by to the west and north, community childcare facilities are uses that are allowed as Special Land Use. One of the standards for Special Land Use talks about the location of the use itself. Traditionally, the Planning Commission has looked at allowing these types of non-residential uses on streets that can support higher volume such as Link Residential streets. There is some past planning work that would suggest allowing these types of non-residential uses in locations such as this makes sense. It is certainly a significant difference from what is there currently, a green field. Certainly the traffic data does show that there will be an increase in traffic but it isn’t an increase beyond what the network can support. It is a change to the character and a change for the people that currently live there but it isn’t a change beyond what the system can support. Mr. Yonker felt that information was helpful. He is supportive of the request. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Magnus Capital Partners (Vishal Arora) for a Major Amendment to the approved development plan at 526 Maynard Ave NW to incorporate a commercial childcare center, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed building and site will meet all standards for Site Design because all elements of the site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property and safe, convenient, and well-defined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation within, and to and from the site, is provided. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 April 13, 2023 2. The mix of uses, density of development, and design of the proposed PRD are consistent with the Master Plan and the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the Great Neighborhoods Chapter within the Master Plan to protect the character and quality of established residential neighborhoods and promote active and vibrant mixed-use environments in appropriate locations. 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 adequate connections to existing walkways and public sidewalks are proposed and the proposed buildings will be placed in the previously approved location. 4. The proposed development will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will not be any closer to adjacent residential development than originally approved. 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 and the driveway and parking lot are adequately buffered from adjacent residential uses. 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, glare or noise because traffic is not anticipated to be significant given the nature of the development and the surface parking lot will be visually screened from the residential neighbors. 7. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services already exist or will be provided at no additional public cost, and will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the subject property is located in close proximity to public transit and major streets and is currently served with public utilities. 8. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the scale and design of the proposed development will not place an excessive burden on services currently furnished by the City. 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. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 April 13, 2023 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 all conditions associated with previous approvals for this project shall remain in effect, except as modified by this resolution. 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: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al- Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Laurel Joseph C. 16 Griggs St SW - Auto Repair Expansion Address: 16 Griggs Street SW / 1801 S. Division Avenue Applicant: Aleman Auto Repair (Catalino Aleman) Requesting: Approval to expand an existing vehicle repair garage. Zoning: TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhoods - Traditional Business Area Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.40. Vehicle Service or Repair 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0017 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: April 29, 2023 Ms. Zeller introduced the request of Aleman Auto Repair for approval to expand an existing vehicle repair garage. On November 1, 2022, the City Commission approved rezoning of the subject property from TN-LDR to TN-TBA to facilitate expansion of the adjacent vehicle repair business. The property owner has now submitted an application to demolish an existing residential structure on the property and make improvements for vehicular storage associated with the vehicle repair business. Special Land Use is required for vehicle repair facilities or their expansion in the TN-TBA Zone District. Ms. Zeller recalled that in September, 2016, the Planning Commission granted Special Land Use approval to expand an existing vehicle service facility building. They also demolished an adjacent home at that time. Their property is now approximately 12,000 sq. ft. They wish to add the adjacent, formerly residential, property of approximately 5,700 sq. ft. to enlarge their business. In total, they will occupy approximately 18,000 sq. ft. The home will be demolished City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 April 13, 2023 and all site improvements removed. The parking lot will be setback approximately 20 ft. from the front lot line/Griggs. Even though it could be closer to the street, but no closer than the existing building, staff recommended that it be no closer to the street than the adjacent residential building. The space furthest south in the lot will be challenging to exit. Typically, for a parking lot for use by the general public, that space wouldn’t be allowed. Given that this is a parking lot to be used by the vehicle repair shop, it was felt that it would be better to add as many spaces as possible. Ms. Zeller related that they will utilize the existing shared curb cut to access the parking lot that was previously utilized by the existing residence on the site and the repair facility. Ms. Zeller related that they will be required to provide for stormwater management as well as water quality. A light pole is proposed in the landscape buffer between the parking lot and the home to the west. Light poles are not permitted to be located in landscape buffers, which can be addressed during LUDS permitting. Ms. Zeller related that the proposed greenspace is adequate and tree canopy will be reviewed at LUDS permitting. With respect to parking lot landscaping and buffering, there will need to be parking lot landscape screening between the parking lot and the street, which can be addressed at permitting. Additionally, a landscape buffer is required between the parking lot and the two adjacent residential uses. The applicant proposes a 6 ft. high privacy fence, in which case the width of the buffer can be reduced, with Planning Commission approval. As proposed, the buffer widths are within the reduction ratio that the Planning Commission has the authority to approve. With respect to minimum parking requirements, the proposed expands the parking so parking for employees will be adequate. Ms. Zeller commented on vehicle service and repair requirements of Article 9, noting that they will be carrying some of those over, such as their operations plan that was completed previously. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to speak to the public meeting they held. There has been no correspondence submitted related to this request. Ms. Shannon asked if the lots will be combined. Ms. Zeller replied that that should be included as a condition of approval. Ms. Shannon asked if they have the appropriate amount of green space. Ms. Zeller replied affirmatively. Mr. Al-Shatel asked who owns the home proposed for demolition. Ms. Zeller replied that the applicant has owned the home for many years. Tameeka Aleman, daughter-in-law of the applicant, invited questions. Ms. Zeller asked that Ms. Aleman speak to the neighborhood outreach. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 April 13, 2023 Ms. Aleman related that they held a neighborhood meeting and circulated flyers prior to that. No one attended the meeting but her father-in-law has lived there for many years and knows a lot of the neighbors. No one has expressed opposition. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Brandon Bilski, Degage Ministries Grant Specialist, applauds the proposal. It definitely speaks to entrepreneurship and the ability for small, independent businesses to thrive, especially in a cut throat economy. Michigan actually has one of the largest per capita amounts of small businesses and is likely competitive nationally. Unfortunately, not everyone gets that same capacity to have a small business or even a job. The number one way to have access to that is through housing. The more housing that can be provided at 0-30% AMI would be beautiful. We need to give everyone access to equality of opportunity. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Dr. Wallace stated that she loves that this business continues to grow. She doesn’t see any problem with the request. She did consider the demolition of the house due to the need for dwelling units. However, this seems appropriate in this space and this is a growing business they should care about supporting. Dr. Wallace appreciates their success. Mr. Jonker agreed. He would generally not be in favor of taking a house down to put in parking. However, the thriving business is great to see in this area. It can be a difficult area for businesses at times. He applauded the applicant for continuing to invest in this community. Mr. Williams asked the applicant how long a vehicle is typically parked in their lot. Ms. Aleman replied that they move cars pretty quickly. It can depend on the service being provided. If it is an engine, it could be there for two days depending on parts deliveries. Most of their service is same day or next day pick up. Mr. Williams referred to the aerial view noting that there appears to be cars parked within the subject area already. Ms. Aleman explained that the technicians do park the cars depending on what service needs to be performed. If her father-in-law purchases a car, it may sit there for repairs, which is why it may appear over-parked. Mr. Williams explained that the reason he asked is that it appears they are already using the space for the business. Ms. Aleman clarified that her response was with respect to the business property. Her understanding is that they have parked some cars on the subject property but she believes those may be cars that were towed or her father-in-law purchased. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 April 13, 2023 Ms. Turkelson added that the aerial photo is indicative of a business that has been experiencing success and growth and visually represents the need to expand. They were beginning to encroach on spaces that were not otherwise intended to be used for the storage of vehicles for repair. Mr. Williams expressed his support for the request. Mr. Al-Shatel MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Aleman Auto Repair, Inc. (Catalino Aleman) to utilize 16 Griggs St. SW for vehicle storage associated with an existing auto repair facility at 1801 S. Division Avenue, 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 foster a strong economy by encouraging the expansion of an existing local business. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the expansion has been designed to meet all standards and requirements with modifications permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. 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 be consistent with the current character of the neighborhood and adequate on-site parking is available. 4. The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because effective screening, fencing, landscaping, and buffers will be provided. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare because excessive noise, glare, or visual clutter is not anticipated. 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 landscape screening will be planted in front of the parking area, re-establishing the street wall. 7. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or the economic welfare of the City because the use will not result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions and the active use will encourage other investment in the area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 April 13, 2023 iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. That the operations plan associated with PC-SLU-2016-0078 shall remain in effect. 3. That all activities shall be performed within the building, and all vehicle parts, tires, etc. shall be stored within the building. 4. That any trash containers kept outside of the building shall be enclosed in a permanent enclosure in accordance with the requirements of Section 5.2.14. 5. That the site shall meet green site elements (green space and tree canopy) and parking lot landscape requirements (screening, buffering, and interior landscaping) consistent with the standards of Article 6 and Article 11. 6. That, with the installation of six-foot high privacy fence, the landscape buffer along the west property line shall be at least seven feet in width, and the buffer along the south property line shall be at least six feet in width. 7. That all lots associated with the use shall be combined. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Van Strien turned the meeting over to Mr. Rozeboom and left the meeting. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Salim Al-Shatel SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al- Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Laurel Joseph D. 710 Wealthy St SE - Distillery Tasting Room Address: 710 Wealthy St SE Applicant: Mammoth Distilling, LLC (Chad Munger) Requesting: Approval to establish a distillery tasting room with outdoor service and alcohol sales for off-site consumption and limited live entertainment. A parking waiver is also requested. Zoning: TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhoods – Traditional Business Area Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales 5.9.12. Live Entertainment 5.9.24. Outdoor Seating 5.10.05. Reductions in Parking Requirements 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 April 13, 2023 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0023 Staff Assigned: Laura Wahamaki lwahamaki@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: April 29, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki introduced the request for approval to establish a tasting room/cocktail lounge associated with an off-site distilled spirits production facility. The sale of distilled spirits for off- site consumption and a waiver of the required number of parking spaces are also requested. Ms. Wahamaki noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this property as Traditional Business Area. It is also within the Cherry Hill Historic District and is subject to review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Ms. Wahamaki described surrounding zoning to the east, north, and west as TBA. To the south is Low Density Residential. Surrounding uses include a City-owned parking lot to the north as well as a yoga studio and former Royals restaurant that is currently vacant. To the west is the former Elk Brewing, which is currently vacant, and a mixed-use building with second floor residential. To the east is mixed use with retail on the ground floor and second floor apartments. To the south is a City-owned parking lot and Low Density Residential homes. With respect to the site and building, Ms. Wahamaki related the site is approximately 5,000 sq. ft. in area. The site has been vacant for a number of years with the windows boarded up. It had a fish mural on the boards covering the windows. The property is improved with a one-story commercial building approximately 2,000 sq. ft. in area. To the rear of the site is an accessory structure of approximately 772 sq. ft. in area. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) has approved some changes to the property. They have approved new storefront windows as well as a new door system. The accessory structure was approved to include new overhead doors, a new man door, and windows. A trash enclosure is located on the west side of the accessory structure, which was also approved by the HPC. A building permit has been issued for work on the main structure for the storefront and white box interior renovation. With respect to the use, Ms. Wahamaki stated that the tasting room will be approximately 1,600 sq. ft. There is space for approximately 64 patrons on the interior and 64 patrons on the outside. The interior space will have a cocktail bar and seating for 64 patrons. There will be built in shelves around the staircase leading to the basement, which is the location for the merchandise/packaged alcohol sales. Picnic tables will be provided outside to accommodate approximately 64 patrons. The accessory structure is expected to be used for additional outdoor seating or a mobile bar. They have proposed installing a fence along the west side of the property at Wealthy and at the alley to fully enclose the space. The west side of the outside area is expected to be used for outdoor games such as bocce ball. Live acoustic music is proposed both indoors and outdoors, limited to 2-3 days per week, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. The proposed hours of operations indoors is Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to midnight, and Sunday, 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. The proposed outdoor hours are Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., and on Sunday from noon to 10 p.m. Food will not be served. Customers will be encouraged to bring in food purchased elsewhere. Occasional catered dinners may be offered as special events. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 April 13, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki commented on parking. There is no on-site parking. A total of 38 spaces are required. The Planning Commission may waive the required parking based on meeting waiver requirements, one of which is the availability of on-street and district parking. There is a 26 space lot across Wealthy St., which is City-owned, and the other City-owned lot also has 26 spaces off the alleyway behind the subject property. There is also on-street parking on Wealthy St. Additionally, the Rapid route 5 services Wealthy St. There is a bus stop across the street going west and additional stops a few blocks away at Eastern. Ms. Wahamaki related that the applicant has indicated that they’ve reached out to neighborhood businesses. Ms. Wahamaki deferred to the applicant to share additional information related to their outreach. No letters of support or concern have been received. Ms. Wahamaki identified key considerations as the impact of the proposed alcohol service on neighboring uses; the intensity and hours of the outdoor use relative to neighboring uses; and, whether the parking should be waived. Ms. Turkelson asked if there was discussion about the outdoor seating hours until 10 p.m. during the week vs. the proposed 11 p.m. hours. Ms. Wahamaki replied that there was not. Stewart Hickman was present on behalf of the request. He clarified that they don’t plan on the patio being open until 11 p.m. He would keep the hours fairly consistent with his other tasting rooms, which would traditionally close by dark. Mr. Hickman related that they canvassed the neighborhood and passed out flyers. They met with business owners along the corridor and held a meet and greet at the Winchester, which turned out to be other business owners showing up and thanking them for trying to come to the neighborhood since the space has been vacant and an eyesore for a long time. Paul Lee has shouldered a lot of the business and employment along the corridor, particularly since COVID. Mr. Lee has been very supportive of their proposal. Mr. Rozeboom wished for clarification that the live music would not be amplified. Mr. Hickman agreed that it would not be amplified, unless perhaps inside. It is intended to be background music allowing patrons to enjoy conversation. Mr. Rozeboom asked how they anticipate directing patrons where to park. Mr. Hickman replied that he will likely direct them to the City owned lots. It seems like the goal of the corridor is to be a place that you can come to visit a number of establishments in one visit. Mr. Rozeboom asked if employees would also utilize the City owned lots. Mr. Hickman agreed. Mr. Rozeboom opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 April 13, 2023 Ms. Shannon agreed that the space has been an eyesore for a long time. She is supportive of the request. Mr. Williams related that he lives a couple of blocks away. It is good to see something going into this location and the removal of the window boarding. With respect to parking, he isn’t concerned. He walks to businesses in the area and is aware that a lot of others do as well. Those that he knows that come to the area typically utilize Uber. Mr. Jonker agreed. Many of the businesses in the area don’t have on-site parking and it seems to work out just fine. He is also supportive. Ms. Turkelson recalled that, although not officially adopted, several years ago the Wealthy Street Business Alliance prepared a position paper that helped to convey their desired uses as it relates to Wealthy St. Ms. Turkelson noted that this area is within what they defined as retail TBA uses, meaning they were less supportive of office uses being located in these blocks. This request would seem to align with the intent of what they had hoped for for this block within their district. Mr. Al-Shatel asked what outdoor hours are permitted by the Ordinance. Ms. Turkelson replied Sunday through Thursday until 10 p.m. and Friday and Saturday until 11 p.m. This request exceeds those hours most evenings. Ms. Shannon MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Mammoth Distilling, LLC (Chad Munger) to establish a distillery tasting room with outdoor service and alcohol sales for off-site consumption and limited live entertainment at 710 Wealthy St. SE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will support the vitality of the local economy by encouraging investment, diversifying the economic base, and expanding employment opportunities and will provide a mix of uses in a commercial area. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because improvements to the building and site are consistent with the standards for the Zone District. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will support the desired mixed-use character of the neighborhood and the proposed hours are consistent and compatible with similar uses already established in the area. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use will be minimized because the outdoor seating area will be located between the main building and accessory structure and will be buffered from 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, smoke, odors, glare, and City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 April 13, 2023 visual clutter because the business will typically be open no later than midnight and no food preparation is proposed, mitigating smoke and odors from the site. 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 reactivation of a previously vacant building will restore the street wall and help increase the vitality of the neighborhood. 7. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or would be provided at no additional cost, and will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the site is currently improved with public infrastructure and reliance on additional public services is not anticipated. 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 excessive code enforcement actions, given the proposed scale, hours, and location. 9. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, it is demonstrated that the area is underserved by the proposed use and that the proposed location for alcohol sales will demonstrably be an asset to the neighborhood because as proposed, the use will be unique as compared to existing uses in the neighborhood. 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 other establishments in the vicinity. 11. Adjacent or nearby parks, playgrounds, religious institutions, or schools will not be adversely affected because sale of package alcohol is anticipated to be purchased by patrons visiting the tasting room, and not generally by walk-in visitors. 12. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the use will be relatively small in scale and the hours will be limited. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 April 13, 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 hours for package alcohol sales associated with the primary tasting room use shall be consistent with the general operating hours of the business, being Monday-Saturday: 11am - 12 am and Sunday: 11am - 10 pm. 3. That the hours of outdoor seating shall be Sunday - Thursday: 11am - 10 pm and Friday and Saturday: 11am - 11pm. 4. That the area of package alcohol display shall be consistent with the submitted floor plan and testimony, specifically in the built-in shelving unit adjacent to the basement stairs near the front of the store. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Mr. Van Strien did not participate in this agenda item due to a potential conflict of interest) RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [7 TO 0] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Bersche, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Laurel Joseph RECUSED: Kyle Van Strien V. Public Comment Brandon Bilski, Degage Ministries, stated that the Planning Commission is in a position to do great good. He understands that the issues are complex. There are two different land trusts coming out and certain positive things that could really help the community but there is the ability to do so much more. They can creatively go out into the community to ask what the needs are. The Master Plan is planning for the next 20 years. However, within that, the fact that only $6 million was given to affordable housing, and so much in matching funds, that is a drop in the bucket compared to what is truly needed. How much of our tax paying dollars are going into this vital issue on the lowest level for people that desperately need it? Mr. Bilski wished to point out that 50% of those that come into a shelter only stay for 6 months. It is a revolving door of everyday people going in for services. People that need help shouldn’t be shamed. It could be anyone that finds themselves in need and because of that, it demands everyone for a solution. What does that mean for those on the Planning Commission to be bold? He suggested Commissioners reach out and sit down with him. He is here to serve. He is on the front lines writing grants to ensure everyone is taken care of, that they get to eat, and at the end of the day they are helping everyone thrive. It is cheaper to house people that are homeless vs. the emergency services demand of that population. The thing we stand for as a city, at its core, is not being honored because it is private institutions that are doing everything to help the most vulnerable. He asked what they might do together to change and save lives. VI. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 3:43 PM