TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 April 27, 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, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Bersche STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Laura Wahamaki, Sarah Behmlander, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from April 13, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al- Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche C. Planning Director's Report  Agenda items were briefly reviewed.  Ms. Turkelson related that there will be an evening meeting on 5/18/23 with a focus on developing visions and values for the Master Plan. The Neighborhood Summit will be held on 5/20/23 with basically identical sessions as offered at the 5/18 meeting. Ms. Turkelson related that she met with the consultants about activities for the neighborhood organizations and Community Connectors. Training will be provided on 6/20 with a request that the Community Connectors to do at least one Walk & Talk and a request that the neighborhood associations do at least two.  Ms. Turkelson related that she has put forth the Planning Commission’s request for a joint meeting with the City Commission for a housing policy discussion. The joint meeting is anticipated in June with more information to come. Ms. Joseph indicated that she watched Mr. Kilpatrick’s presentation. She asked if there has been any discussion about non-traditional types of housing, such as transitional/housing for specific populations. It seems like that is missing from the housing conversation. Generated 5/3/2023 9:02 PM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 April 27, 2023 Ms. Turkelson stated that she did some research on the history of single-room occupancy (SRO). The Ordinance currently allows SROs as Special Land Uses but it is defined as 50 or more rooms. She doesn’t know if there is value is allowing a 10 room SRO as a Special Land Use on major streets in an LDR district. Would that be helpful? What would it look like? Staff has struggled with the co-ops. There are several in the city but they have independent units and shared community space. She recalled conversations from 2016 about more of a dorm style co-op. There was a struggle between saying yes to something like that yet a concern about fraternity style housing. When considering the land use and Fair Housing law, the two are difficult to separate. Ms. Shannon asked if the City is looking at what other communities are doing to house the homeless. Ms. Turkelson replied that Community Development largely takes the lead on the homeless population. The Housing First model is the preferred model, which is where each individual gets into a home. However, when looking at the data, Grand Rapids has enough shelter capacity to support those individuals. Not everyone chooses to go into a shelter for a variety of reasons. Dr. Wallace added that the Housing First model doesn’t care about you getting clean or finding religion, which is why the shelters vs. the Housing First model is explosive in this area; it is a conservative religious base. The model here has been met with some controversy. Ms. Shannon pointed out that you can’t stay in a shelter during the day. She asked what Planning’s role is. Ms. Turkelson acknowledged that Planning does have a role. Some of that is simply increasing housing supply in the market. All of the housing types are allowed, such as transitional shelter housing. One area Grand Rapids is likely more restrictive, from a zoning perspective as well as State code, is the tiny home communities. She isn’t sure how Kalamazoo is doing it but, in the State of Michigan, having tiny homes without full service and hook-ups is considered a campground and not allowed year-round. If you are going to have a tiny home, the Ordinance has a minimum of 750 sq. ft. for single-family homes and State plumbing code requires hook up to each unit. The community that was toured outside of Austin, TX doesn’t actually have zoning, which is why it is located there. It is imperfect as well. Buses are available limited times per day so the residents are very cut off from access to things. Ms. Turkelson believes that the tiny home concept is where they struggle the most. While it may be possible to resolve it through zoning in some ways, she doesn’t feel it resolves the affordability issue when each unit has to be fully connected and each unit has to be a full living unit because of State law. She suggested that allowing smaller scale transitional housing in other areas may help.  Ms. Turkelson advised that there is an individual present today that would like to discuss metal siding requirements with the Planning Commission. She will speak to the Planning Commission during general public comment at the end of the meeting. III. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 April 27, 2023 A. Conflict of Interest None expressed. B. 1615 Broadway Ave NW - Self-Storage Facility Address: 1615 Broadway Ave NW and 1636 Hamilton Ave NW Applicant: Storage Five Grand Rapids LLC (Chris Catania) Requesting: Approval to convert a manufacturing facility into 24-hour self- storage facility. A parking reduction is also requested. Zoning: TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood—Transitional City Center) Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.31. Self-Storage Facilities 5.10.05. Reductions in Parking Requirements 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0027 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: May 13, 2023 Ms. Zeller introduced the request for approval to convert a manufacturing facility into a self- storage facility. Self-storage facilities require Special Land Use approval in commercial zone districts. In the TN-TCC Zone District, all self-storage activities must be contained within a single building and conducted exclusively indoors. Individual storage units can only be accessed from inside the building. Ms. Zeller indicated that this application meets the criteria. Ms. Zeller related that the subject site is across from an IT zone district east of Broadway and to the south is a mixed-density residential zone district. The mixed-density residential zone district consists of primarily medium density housing. The subject facility is currently occupied by JEDCO, which is a sheet metal fabrication supplier to the aerospace and defense industries. The building is approximately 68,000 sq. ft. and the property itself is 2.71 acres. Ms. Zeller explained that the property is zoned TCC but is generally Master Planned as industrial. There is no Area Specific Plan addressing this area. Ms. Zeller stated that the applicant intends to retrofit the existing building into a climate controlled self-storage facility. Internal clearance allows for two stories in portions of the building. There will be some internal conversion to increase the rentable square footage. The facility will have between 800 and 1,000 units, ranging from 5’ x 5’ lockers to 10’ x 30’ units. The leasing office will be open and staffed daily from 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. The units will be accessible from three different points on the site between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. by code access. The office area is located near the corner of Broadway and Richmond and the applicant is proposing to have the leasing office in that location. There are some non-conforming parking spaces in that area that Mobile GR has asked be removed. There will be parking nearby for visitors to the leasing office. Ms. Zeller identified the location of the three proposed entries. She pointed out the hatched areas and loading areas on the site plan. There is also a large vehicle loading area at the north. There are a number of curb cuts on site and the applicant would be City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 April 27, 2023 closing at least one of them and others will be narrowed, at the request of Mobile GR, to meet current City standards. Ms. Zeller commented on parking. The parking requirement for self-storage is based on the drive-in model storage facilities with outdoor access; the type not permitted in the TCC zone district. Ms. Zeller suggests that the parking requirement of the Ordinance is a bit high for the proposed use. If the Planning Commission is amenable to this use, there should be adequate parking for the use as intended. At the northwest area of the site there is a parking lot that is going to remain. There is loading and unloading area near the north entrance and the east entrance, as well as the southerly entrance. Based on the floor area, 69 parking spaces would be required. Thirty-seven parking spaces are proposed. The Planning Commission has the discretion to waive the parking requirement. The relevant parking reductions in this case would likely be transit and on-street parking. There is on-street parking in the area. With respect to landscaping, the site has a significant amount of landscaping at the south and some on Broadway. Additional green space will be created at the corner. One element the applicant should address is the area between the parking lot and the adjacent property at 1630 Hamilton. Ms. Zeller feels there is opportunity to meet the landscape buffer requirement in that area, which has been incorporated as a condition of approval if the Planning Commission is amenable to approval. Ms. Zeller related that there are no exterior changes proposed to the building. Windows are concentrated in the office area, which is what would be asked. As proposed, the building exterior is satisfactory, assuming the windows remain transparent. Ms. Zeller indicated that the site doesn’t meet the minimum requirement of the Use Standards for self-storage facilities, which is 3 acres; the site is 2.1 acres. Ms. Zeller reiterated that that criteria is based on the drive-in, outdoor access facilities. The Planning Commission can waive the site area requirement. Ms. Zeller related that the applicant has met with the West Grand Neighborhood Association and a representative is present to speak to the request. Ms. Zeller identified key considerations as whether the proposed use will contribute to the existing and planned character of the area and any concerns that may be expressed by the public. Ms. Shannon asked if the facility is currently vacant. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to respond. Rob Lamer, Exxel Engineering, related that his understanding is that JEDCO owns the building and will be relocating to a larger facility. They are either still in the building or just recently moved but the facility is not completely vacant. Mr. Lamer explained that from a site plan standpoint it is a simple design. They will be keeping the same building that is present today. There is a lot of pavement around the site already. All of the diagonal cross hatching shown on the plan is pavement that will be removed and restored to green space. From a storm water/ drainage standpoint, that will remain as is. They will add landscaping to the green space. With City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 April 27, 2023 respect to the buffer mentioned by Ms. Zeller, they will remove some existing pavement further distancing parking from the adjacent residence. The suggestion by staff was to install a privacy fence but he would prefer to know what the resident prefers. Ms. Zeller clarified that staff advised a landscape buffer was necessary, not specifically a fence. Mr. Lamer continued stating that they are proposing to remove some pavement and add green space so they can provide a buffer. Ms. Joseph asked the extent of the community outreach. Chris Catania was present on behalf of the request. He explained that he is the applicant, hopefully the future owner, and developer of the project. He related that they met with the neighborhood association last week and previously went before them to introduce the project. His understanding is that they are supportive. Ms. Joseph asked if they talked with the residents of the nearby homes. Mr. Catania replied that he didn’t speak with them directly. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Annete Vandenberg, West Grand Neighborhood Organization Executive Director, agreed that overall the Board is supportive. Their concerns primarily had to do with parking because a lot of times parking is reduced and then Vital Streets comes in and has a different plan. The only other concern was CPTED being part of the survey process because these areas tend to get hit with theft, etc. They would encourage a CPTED survey be put in place during this process. Ms. Vandenberg related that the only other concern she heard from a neighbor was that a lot of people wouldn’t be working there anymore and changing it from manufacturing/industrial to self-storage is going to change the use of the building permanently and that we won’t get those manufacturing jobs back. They are grateful that JEDCO is staying in Grand Rapids but someone else won’t be offering manufacturing jobs because of the change to self-storage. There being no further public comment, Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Mr. Van Strien recalled that the facility will be staffed from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. He asked the number of employees. Mr. Catania replied that the operation hours are 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. for the office and 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. for customers to access their storage. The office will always be staffed with two people. Obviously during the construction process they will employ hundreds and there will be support contractors that will be in to clean and maintain the building. Mr. Van Strien asked if there are any additional thoughts on incorporating CPTED standards into the design of the facility after meeting with the neighborhood association. Mr. Catania replied that he feels it will be very beneficial and he is amenable to doing so. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 April 27, 2023 Mr. Van Strien asked if there is any concern about having multiple entrances and how that will work on the site. Mr. Catania replied that he isn’t concerned. He would actually prefer one more but they will be eliminating two curb cuts, one on Richmond and one on Broadway, to help with traffic. The current owner has outgrown the facility, which is one reason they’re moving. A reduction in the amount of vehicles around the facility will be a good thing for the site and the neighborhood. Every customer will have a specific code to get in. It is a secure facility so he doesn’t have any concerns about the access. Mr. Van Strien asked that he speak to the style of units that will be installed. Are they modular units or framed and drywalled spaces. Mr. Catania replied that it is all metal; corrugated steel. There will be 800-1,000 units depending on how they configure the space. Each unit is 8’ 8” tall with a roll-up or swing door. It will likely be managed by CubeSmart, which is a publicly traded company. They have district and regional managers that will be overseeing the property. Ms. Shannon asked, as it relates to parking, how many employees are on site now. Mr. Catania replied on behalf of the owner that there are just under 250 employees over three shifts. Current property owner, Dan Szymanski, responded further indicating that there are three shifts. There are approximately 15 employees on third shift, 35 on second shift, and approximately 200 during the day. The site is used very hard and parking is hard. They have grown and are bulging at the seams. They have equipment that has never been in this location and is already in the new building. One of the things their employees will likely enjoy most is they will have adequate parking at the new facility; they have parking there for approximately 400. The proposed use will be a very sleepy operation compared to their manufacturing operation that has been there for 40 years. Mr. Williams asked if they are amenable to installing the required landscape buffer adjacent to 1630 Hamilton. Based on the plans, pavement will be removed and that will provide 5-7.5’ of buffer area. The requirement is for 10’. He asked if they can provide the 10’ buffer. Mr. Lamer replied that if they go to 10’ they will lose a bank of parking. They want to make sure they have sufficient parking. That area needs to have 17’ spaces of 90 degree parking. He can remove the amount of pavement shown and still get the 37 parking spaces on the site. The Commission entered into discussion. Ms. Shannon stated that she hates to see the neighborhood employer moving, yet she understands their growth limits. She appreciates that there will be a reduction in parking for the proposed use, which has likely been a burden on the neighborhood for quite some time. She also appreciates the addition of green space. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 April 27, 2023 Ms. Joseph related that she has concerns about this use here. Self-storage would basically make it impossible to have manufacturing here ever again. It seems to be a building that is adequate for modern manufacturing and there isn’t a lot of that in the city. She doesn’t favor this permanently changing uses. Mr. Rozeboom asked which zone districts permit self-storage, and perhaps why. Ms. Turkelson recalled that not too far removed, on Seward, the Planning Commission heard a Special Land Use request several years ago for a self-storage facility and one of the struggles the Commission had was the lack of activity along a pretty significant commercial corridor. Ms. Turkelson feels the resolution that was ultimately arrived at has benefited the area in that they were required to retain commercial uses along the frontage of that building. There is also a coffee shop that anchors that building. That may be something to consider here. There appears to be some similarities, although the building type being conducive to today’s manufacturing practices might be a significant distinction from that building. There was the opportunity to support mixed uses in that building vs. a wholesale self-storage facility that has a lot less activity than what much of the planning work desired. Mr. Rozeboom recalled requiring that at 28th and Breton also but that was a commercial district. Ms. Turkelson responded to Mr. Rozeboom’s question relating that the districts where self- storage is permitted by Special Land Use is TCC. Ms. Zeller mentioned the requirement of the use being contained in a single building and not the suburban style self-storage facility. It is also allowed in commercial zone districts such as Alpine, northern Plainfield and 28th St. The City’s practice has been to take a very thoughtful approach as to where self-storage facilities are permitted, how they are designed, and how they integrate into the surrounding uses. On 28th St., for example, there was a lot of discussion about buffering and making sure that there was landscape screening. Fence style was also a consideration. In most cases it is abutting residentially zoned properties, depending on which side of the street it is. Having appropriate transitions, lighting, etc. is something that has been very important for the Planning Commission, hence the reason it is a Special Land Use; to give pause and make sure the proposed use is being contextualized. In the TN-TCC zone district it is a Special Land Use and, in most cases, the Planning Commission has taken a very careful approach to look at it and make sure it was integrated or a part of a larger mixed-use development. Ms. Turkelson recalled a more recent application on the south side of Wealthy St., the Sligh building. It is integrated inside the building and doesn’t signal a stand-alone facility. The one on Seward is another example where it isn’t the primary use of the property. Ms. Turkelson can’t recall a stand-alone self-storage facility in the TCC zone district. Ms. Zeller recalled there is one on Coldbrook. Ms. Turkelson recalled that had a very thoughtful design about how it integrated into the residential and transitioned from some adjacent industrial uses. There was a lot of conversation about the activity of the office space and trying to make sure it was well designed at the street level and that walkability was preserved into the neighborhood. Ms. Turkelson added that self- storage is permitted by right in the IT zone district. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 April 27, 2023 Ms. Shannon asked if the proposed plan includes signage or if that would come back separately. Ms. Turkelson replied that they would fall under the rights of the TCC zone district. She doesn’t believe the sign package would come back to the Planning Commission unless they ask for a Planned Sign Program, which she doesn’t anticipate being necessary. Ms. Shannon recalled self-storage units such as this having a lot of signage on them. Ms. Turkelson feels the Grand Rapids sign regulations are likely more restrictive than many of the surrounding jurisdictions to make sure the signage is appropriately scaled for the building. The number of signs on each building is limited based on customer entrances and street frontages. Ms. Shannon felt it was interesting to note that much of what is located across the street has been changed to housing. Mr. Van Strien clarified that there are a lot of different businesses there but no residential. Mr. Van Strien indicated that he doesn’t mind the reduction in parking here. He doesn’t care for the use however, because of the lack of activity. The application stated that would be a positive thing but he looks at it a bit differently. The activity that is happening there now is fully enclosed within the building and isn’t disruptive to the neighborhood. Most manufacturing that would take place on a property like this is not intrusive to the residents and it provides a base of employment for residents of the area. He would hate to see that go away. Mr. Van Strien also struggles to see how this helps the local economy, which is one of their standards. It may generate a lot of income for the new owner but not having those employees there will hurt the almost immediately adjacent restaurants that have been there for a long time and have relied on employees of these facilities to remain in business for as long as they have. Properties such as this are limited and he would hate to see this convert to something that would be long-term and very difficult to change. Mr. Szymanski stated that he has been coming in front of the City for 40 years and has been criticized for buying houses and tearing them down for a manufacturing facility that makes noise and struggles for parking. He thought they would favor the day they would leave. The facility is not suited well for manufacturing. Absent this user it would likely be relegated to a warehouse because there is very inadequate access for large trucks. Manufacturers have looked at it in the past and said there just isn’t enough in and out ability. Mr. Szymanski stated that in their business they can put the value of 10 semi trucks in the back of a pickup truck. They are very unique that way and don’t need a lot of truck docks because it is high value materials coming in and going out in small groups. Any other manufacturer around would find this facility inadequate because of the trucking. The proposed use is unique in that they won’t have semis trying to back in and offload large volumes. Mr. Szymanski stated that the jobs are gone from the subject location. They are moving to the northeast side. As stated, absent the proposed use, it would likely become a warehouse and there aren’t a lot of jobs related to that use either. It is a hard sell for any other manufacturer that has typical volumes to use this building because the infrastructure isn’t there. There is only one truck dock and the truckers don’t like backing into it because it is difficult with all of the traffic there. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 April 27, 2023 Mr. Jonker echoed the comments of Ms. Joseph and Mr. Van Strien around the concern of the use, lack of activity, etc. However, Mr. Jonker does sympathize with the existing user and the idea the space is going to be hard to repurpose for something else. There is 60,000+ sq. ft. of chopped up manufacturing/warehouse style space with clearly not enough parking to handle any type of significant workforce. It will be disappointing to see it go to something that feels dormant. In a city with a lack of manufacturing space, and having been marketed for over 18 months, there are obviously challenges with the building so he has sympathy for that as well. Mr. Williams stated that he is generally in favor of the proposal because of the reality that they’ve already bought a new building. These jobs are already moving. It doesn’t sound like they will maintain a presence there just for the sake of having the space. The only other option here is for a new owner or user to come in. Since the space doesn’t provide what is necessary for a typical manufacturing facility it is both fortunate and unfortunate that they have to take what has been dealt here. Mr. Williams stated that his only reservation is the buffer between the site and 1630 Hamilton. He would definitely like to see more space provided there. Ms. Shannon stated that with the housing shortage, if we could wave a magic wand this would be a wonderful housing site. There is a very valuable structure here and she agrees that it isn’t suited to today’s manufacturing. She would rather see the proposed use than a warehouse. Ms. Turkelson recalled that part of the conversation around the U-Haul self-storage facility on Grandville was looking at providing some more active uses. She asked if there were any conversations about whether there is an opportunity to activate some portion of this building vs. the entire facility being self-storage units. Ms. Zeller replied that they didn’t discuss it because of the way the building is designed. Had the building lent itself to that, staff would have discussed that. It is a manufacturing facility. The area at Broadway and Richmond is a single-story, which is the area that looks like the office. There is nothing that looks traditional like what is seen across the street. Ms. Zeller added that she believes the older part of the building was actually constructed as a church. Ms. Turkelson asked the applicant if he explored alternative uses, perhaps along the Richmond frontage. Mr. Catania replied that the facility, as it exists, doesn’t allow for that. For one there is no parking. It is almost impossible to even conceptualize something along those lines. From an activity standpoint, it is a less active use than the current use, which is extremely intensive. However, people use these facilities daily. They are vital parts to the community. There is zero storage available within a 2 mile radius of this facility. 30% of their customers are small business owners that use units for everything from inventory to compliance storage. It is a critical component to the community. During COVID they were allowed to stay open because of the critical nature of some of the customers, such as cities and police departments utilizing storage. Mr. Rozeboom indicated that he has mixed feelings as well because of the use and change in use. However, he is leaning in support for the reasons expressed earlier. Additionally, the neighborhood association views it as a favorable change, which is notable. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 April 27, 2023 Ms. Shannon MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Storage Five Grand Rapids LLC (Chris Catania) to convert a manufacturing facility at 1615 Broadway Ave NW and 1636 Hamilton Ave NW into a self-storage facility, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will bring a property that will be vacated back into productive use. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because site elements are designed to promote safe and efficient movement within the site and at its access points and all elements of the site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property, and the type, size, and proportions of buildings. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will support the planned character of the district and will provide an indoor storage option near a residential area. 4. The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because the proposed use will occur in a completely enclosed building and adequate landscape buffering will be provided from residential uses. 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, and visual clutter because the use is located on a major street and the property is already improved with existing buildings. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because non- conforming parking areas will be removed and several curb cuts will be narrowed or removed. 7. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the proposed use will provide new investment in the area and will bring a property that will be vacated back into productive use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 April 27, 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. There shall be no commercial enterprise or activity operated from the storage units. 3. That no storage of combustible or flammable liquids or fibers, or explosive or toxic materials shall be permitted. 4. That the building and site shall meet the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 175 - Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Ordinance. 5. That the site plan shall be modified to facilitate construction of a buffer north of the residential property at 1630 Hamilton Avenue NW that meets the requirements of Section 5.11.12. 6. That 1636 Hamilton Avenue NW and 1615 Broadway Avenue NW shall be combined. SUPPORTED by Mr. Rozeboom. Mr. Williams asked whether the second half of point 4 was applicable since they are unable to provide the required 10’ buffer adjacent to the residential property. Ms. Turkelson explained that a buffer was included as a condition of approval. There is an opportunity to reduce the width of the buffer with the use of a solid wood fence. Ms. Zeller added that staff will work with the applicant to provide the most appropriate buffer in compliance with the Ordinance. Mr. Williams expressed that he strongly desires the 10’ of buffer, without a solid fence. The question was called. YEAS: 5. NAYS: 3 (Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace). MOTION CARRIED. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [5 TO 3] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Paul Rozeboom, Vice Chairperson YEAS: Rozeboom, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker NAYS: Kyle Van Strien, Laurel Joseph, Adrienne Wallace ABSENT: Kristine Bersche C. 1621 Leonard Street NE - Package Alcohol Sales Address: 1621 Leonard St. NE Applicant: SAAP Enterprise, Inc. (Salam Majeed) Requesting: Approval to sell wine, beer and distilled spirits for off-site City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 April 27, 2023 consumption in association with a proposed convenience store. Zoning: MCN-C Modern Era Neighborhoods –Commercial Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0030 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: May 13, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki presented the request for approval to sell wine, beer and distilled spirits for off- site consumption in association with a proposed convenience store. The subject space is within the shopping center located on the north side of Leonard between Plymouth and Ball. The Zone District is MCN-C, which is also the zoning to the north, east and west. To the south is NOS. The uses in the area are consistent with the Zone District. There is self-storage to the north, dollar stores, restaurant, and tax services. There is an auto service use to the west and the Speedway at Leonard and Ball was recently approved by the Planning Commission to expand. To the south there are several different offices, including some medical related and some counseling. There is also some residential to the south. Ms. Wahamaki explained that there are some sensitive uses in the area that the Planning Commission may wish to consider when adding an alcohol sales for off-site consumption use to the property. Within the same shopping center is Admiral Discount Tabacco that received approval by the Planning Commission in 2018 to sell beer and wine. Ms. Wahamaki believes they currently sell beer in that store, which is two suites removed from the proposed convenience store. The Speedway to the west of Ball was approved for alcohol sales for off-site consumption in 2019 and in 2021 they were approved for the expansion of the store, which also included the alcohol use. There are a couple of recovery treatment centers in the general vicinity, as is the Kent County Juvenile Detention Center. Ms. Wahamaki related that staff has confirmed with the GRPD that this site is not a concern currently. They don’t receive a lot of calls for service to that area. Ms. Wahamaki displayed an overhead view of the shopping center. The subject building is 24,000 sq. ft. and it is occupied by several different uses. The building was constructed in 1987. There is a small addition on the west side of the building that was added in 2006. The parking lot is situated in front of the building. There are currently 104 spaces in the parking lot. There are two curb cuts on the site for access to Leonard Street and there is cross access between the properties to both the east and west where there are additional curb cuts. There is also a sidewalk to the east of the property that connects it to the building at the rear, which is a CubeSmart self- storage facility. There are shared trash receptacles and loading docks at the rear of the building. All of the parking is shared between the tenants of the site. Ms. Wahamaki related that the subject space is located one suite from the west end of the building. It was most recently used for the Hillary Scholten campaign office. It is a 2,400 sq. ft. space. Ms. Wahamaki stated that the space meets the minimum transparency requirement of the Ordinance. She noted that the subject suite and the restaurant suite windows aren’t full storefront City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 April 27, 2023 windows like the rest of the suites. Their windows begin a bit over 3’ from grade so they have less window space but it does meet the minimum requirements. The space is subject to CPTED requirements. The submitted plan has been reviewed by the CPTED Specialist and the Police Department. As a result, the floor plan has changed and the Planning Commission received a copy of the revised floor plan. The original submittal showed that the west window was 50% covered by coolers, which doesn’t meet the CPTED requirements. The applicant has essentially flipped the floor plan to meet the CPTED requirements. However, the CPTED Specialist has not had an opportunity to review the amended floor plan. A condition of approval has been included in the resolution that the coolers be moved and the floor plan be updated to meet CPTED requirements. Ms. Wahamaki suggested that condition continues to apply because the CPTED Specialist will need to review the plan. The other consideration for CPTED related to the parking lot lighting. Because it is a shared parking lot, and most of the stores close earlier, staff wasn’t sure how to handle the requirement of having it lit from dusk to dawn. The applicant reached out to the property owner and staff has received an email from the property owner indicating they are willing to maintain the parking lot lighting in operation from dusk to dawn for the entire shopping center. Other CPTED requirements have been addressed in the floor plan. The cash register is in full view from the street and, provided no signs are hung in the windows, it would appear to meet the CPTED requirement as well. Ms. Wahamaki related that the proposed store will sell snacks and some food. Other services proposed include check cashing, money order and bill pay, in addition to alcohol, tobacco, and lottery sales. The proposed hours are 9 a.m. to 11 p.m., Sunday through Wednesday, and 9 a.m. to midnight, Thursday through Saturday. A 17-door cooler is proposed for beer, wine and soft drinks, and two shelving units will be devoted to wine display. Liquor display shelves will be located on the wall behind the cash registers. A video surveillance system is proposed, with cameras located throughout the store. Staff will be trained regarding the sale of alcohol. An adequate training program was outlined in the application materials. As previously stated, the Admiral Tobacco store located two suites away currently has approval for beer and wine sales. Ms. Wahamaki related that the applicant met with the Northeast Citizen Action Association. She deferred to the applicant to provide further detail. There is also a representative from the Association present. Staff received a letter from NECAA voicing some concerns about adding packaged alcohol sales to this location. Concerns relate to potential neighborhood effects, particularly in association with some of the sensitive uses nearby. Staff also received a letter from the Baxter Neighborhood Association. This building is not within the boundaries of that association but the applicant does own another convenience/liquor store in that neighborhood; Miss Tracy’s. The applicant recently acquired the store and has brought it into compliance with CPTED requirements. The letter from Baxter speaks to the positive changes that have been made since the applicant acquired that store. Ms. Wahamaki identified key considerations as neighborhood concern, appropriateness of the changes made to the floor plan considering CPTED requirements, and the appropriateness of two establishments selling alcohol for off-site consumption in the same shopping center. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 April 27, 2023 Mr. Van Strien referred to the letter from NECAA. He noted that one sentence stated that allowing an SDM outlet in proximity to these uses is not allowed by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. They were referring to a park, early learning neighborhood collaborative, social service agencies, etc. He asked if that is a requirement of the State vs. something included in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Wahamaki stated that she doesn’t know if it is a requirement of the State but the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t prohibit the use near those locations. However, she would suggest they are a consideration with respect to the general welfare and neighborhood character. Mr. Van Strien also noted that the neighborhood association has requested something similar to a Good Neighbor Plan. Is that something the Planning Commission can impose as a condition of approval; that they have a regular meeting? Ms. Wahamaki wasn’t certain that is something the Planning Commission can require. However, a condition has been included that they submit a Good Neighbor Plan that addresses some of the additional CPTED concerns that weren’t expressed in materials provided with the application. Ms. Turkelson added that she would be uncomfortable with a condition that requires meetings on any sort of frequent basis. If the Planning Commission feels an approval could benefit from a Good Neighbor Plan, perhaps outlining what elements of that plan would be necessary would be appropriate. Crime prevention, a training plan, litter and loitering control, trespass enforcement and landscaping would be appropriate. There is a requirement about neighborhood communication but she would hesitate to require meetings. Perhaps there are some frequent communications or at least exchange of contact information that could take place. Ms. Joseph asked if there is a permanent trash enclosure. Ms. Wahamaki replied that from what she can see, there is not a permanent enclosure. Because it is a shared space, she isn’t certain that is something that can be required. Ms. Turkelson added that, given their trash and recycling needs, she would expect the applicant to be able to clarify. She feels it would be reasonable for them to provide a dumpster container that meets the City requirements. Applicant, Salam Majeed, stated that the proposed is a convenience store that sells liquor, beer and wine for off-premise consumption. He invited questions from the Planning Commission. Ms. Joseph asked if he is amenable to elements of a Good Neighbor Plan. Mr. Majeed replied that he is open to that. He likes to work with the neighborhood associations and the police department to resolve any issues that may arise. Ms. Joseph asked if he worked through the neighborhood association to do community engagement. Mr. Majeed replied that he only met with the neighborhood association. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 April 27, 2023 Mr. Van Strien asked if Baxter provided the letter at his request related to the changes made at Miss Tracy’s. Mr. Majeed replied no. It was more of a thank you letter for working together. Mr. Rozeboom asked for clarification on the trash situation for the shopping center. Mr. Majeed replied that he would like to have his own dumpster but he doesn’t know the rules yet or if there is enough space. Either way he is open to cooperating. Jerry Merogil, Green Cane Properties, related that they are the owner of the building. He explained that there is an alley behind the building to the north. In the alley each tenant has their own dumpster and recycling services. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Carrie Davis Vredway related that she and her family moved from the Highland Park area to the NECAA neighborhood several years ago. The Board of NECAA, of which she is a member, met this week. Review of property updates and Special Land Use permits were among the topics discussed. The SLU being requested today is for a convenience store within an established shopping strip mall, which is full of opportunity for the right shopping outlet. Ms. Vredway provided the definition of convenience store; a small market open for long hours. This is not a small store; it is over 2,000 sq. ft. It is being mislabeled. It is not a convenience store; it is a liquor store. The main purpose of liquor stores is to sell alcohol, which will be on prime display to all pedestrians, drivers, and citizens within the immediate area. The other stores owned and operated by the applicant are Miss Tracy’s Liquor Store and Home Run Liquor, Beer & Wine on Post Dr. in Plainfield Township. The Beckwith retail center is considered a neighborhood hub, which per the Master Plan serves as a focus of the neighborhood, or several neighborhoods, on a major roadway. Leonard is considered a connector street and residents and visitors travel in excess of 40,000 vehicles a day. There is also significant foot traffic with the #15 bus having stops on both the north and south sides of Leonard directly in front of this shopping center. The walkable communities immediately adjacent include multiple apartment complexes, single- family homes, and healthcare complexes that also serve as outpatient services for many therapies, including alcohol addiction. The proposed liquor store does not meet a need in this neighborhood. It serves to encourage a lifestyle of degradation of a family shopping center. What the community really needs in the shopping center is a grocery outlet to replace the Save A Lot that left last year. The shopping options there provide very poor nutrition or options available to children, young adults, and people without their own method of transportation. The liquor store will offer the types of products that contribute to poor nutrition and also to refuse that won’t be placed in trash cans but rather thrown as the consumers are walking away or getting into their cars. Ms. Vredway concluded her comments stating that NECAA does not endorse this store. Betsy Hernandez, NECAA President, stated that NECAA is the second largest neighborhood association in the city but they are all volunteers. The Ordinance referenced in the letter may or may not have been 100% accurate; it came from her experience with the Cannabis Ordinance where requests are denied because of proximity to behavior medical facilities, parks, churches, City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 April 27, 2023 etc., several of which are located directly across the street from the subject location. Ms. Hernandez related that she spoke with several of those uses this morning as part of their outreach and received several signatures. She hasn’t spoken with a single person that supports this idea or feels there is a need for it. Ms. Hernandez noted that they submitted letters in 2017, 2018 and 2019 regarding the Fuller Quick Stop, the Admiral Tobacco, and the Speedway location, all of which are approved to sell beer and wine. They opposed all of those requests. They are requesting that there be no more alcohol facilities allowed in this area. Ms. Hernandez was surprised to hear that the police department said this is not a high crime area. In 2021, Leonard and Fuller was the second highest crime area in the entire city for auto thefts. In 2010, Leonard and Plymouth had the second highest crime rate in the entire city. It is a high crime area. Ms. Hernandez related that NECAA recently met with the Planning Dept. and they plan to meet with the Economic Development Dept. in the next two weeks. As part of the City’s Master Plan their focus is going to be Leonard St. between Fuller and Plymouth. It is the sorest spot and has the highest crime in their area and they see a huge opportunity for that particular block. They’ve spoken with Mr. Merogil several times, as well as the owners of the vacant Save A Lot property. They see a lot of positive opportunity for the neighborhood at that location. Ms. Hernandez thanked the applicant and property owner for meeting with them. They were aware of the opposition that would be expressed. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Jerry Merogil stated that everyone knows a convenience store can sell liquor, beer, and wine. They aren’t trying to be deceptive at all. Mr. Merogil also appreciates the time speaking with Ms. Hernandez about this. Mr. Merogil related that they don’t expect Admiral to renew their lease. They’ve had a lot of staffing issues and the company was purchased by a company in North Carolina and is no longer a local business. Generally speaking, he doesn’t understand why an exception would be made for this company when every other alcohol provider that has requested approval has received it. If someone wants alcohol, they can find it at Family Fare down the street. Mr. Merogil feels it is irrelevant to think this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and everything will go into disarray. The property has been for lease. He has spoken with Ms. Hernandez before about the fact that it has been for lease and the phone isn’t ringing. He wishes there were people calling with the kind of uses the neighborhood association desires there. He agrees with Ms. Hernandez, ideally, that this property can be changed in the long term but right now these are the opportunities they have for tenancy. He feels vacancy is much worse. Mr. Majeed added that they have received MLCC SDD and SDM approvals for this location. Ms. Turkelson clarified that there are two separate review processes required for any alcohol sales. One is the State level, which determines whether someone can hold a license. In this case the answer is yes. The other review is by the local municipality for whether he can use the license and whether it is appropriate in this location. It is a multi-step process for any alcohol license that comes through the State. Even though the State may have granted the license, that doesn’t give him the rights to use the license until the Planning Commission determines it is an appropriate location. Mr. Jonker recognized that Admiral appears to close at 9 p.m. nightly. The proposed seems to have much different hours. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 April 27, 2023 Ms. Zeller related that Admiral was approved for the sale of beer and wine in 2018 or 2019 and the hours approved are the hours that were requested. Ms. Turkelson added that it was noted in either the staff report or NECAA’s letter that it is acknowledged that these hours are inconsistent with the hours that are generally happening in that plaza. NECAA’s request, should this be approved, is that those hours align with other businesses in the plaza. Mr. Al-Shatel related that his initial thoughts relate to the history of what has occurred at Miss Tracy’s, being a good occupant and good business in the neighborhood, and being responsive. Mr. Al-Shatel acknowledges the neighborhood association’s concerns as well, which is not wanting another business like this in the neighborhood. However, if another is going to be allowed, they seem to be a great candidate in terms of being responsive to meeting CPTED and making the business as safe as possible. Ms. Joseph stated that she also appreciates that they have reconfigured the floor plan to be in alignment with CPTED. She also appreciates their willingness to work with the neighborhood and go above and beyond what would be required; providing some elements of a Good Neighbor Plan. Ms. Joseph related that she is in support. Ms. Turkelson recalled that when reviewing other applications there have been conversations about the amount of floor area dedicated to alcohol sales. She doesn’t know if that is something the Planning Commission would be interested in knowing to determine whether there is greater opportunity for retail sales of other products. Ms. Joseph referred to the updated floor plan noting that three of the five middle shelves are not intended for alcohol sales. She is comfortable with that. Ms. Shannon related that she is leaning toward support of the request. She was impressed by the letter from the Baxter Neighborhood Association thanking them for taking into account the issues they had. She feels that demonstrates what they can expect at this location as well. Mr. Williams indicated that he is generally in support of this. He does agree that this is definitely more of a liquor store and not much of a convenience store. You are going here to buy alcohol and not snack items. He doesn’t feel they were trying to be deceptive at all but he doesn’t look at this as a convenience store; it is a liquor store. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of SAAP Enterprise, Inc. (Salam Majeed) for approval to sell wine, beer and distilled spirits for off-site consumption in association with a proposed convenience store, at 1621 Leonard St. NE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will support the vitality of the business district by establishing a business in a currently vacant suite. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 April 27, 2023 2. 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 store will be part of an existing shopping center designed for commercial retail uses that serve the neighborhood. 3. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because adequate parking will be provided and the site is in an established mixed-use commercial building. 4. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, glare, and visual clutter because the store is not proposed to be open past midnight, which will limit late-night traffic to and from the shopping center. 5. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because adequate transparency will be provided and the building and site layout are not proposed to change. 6. 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 proposed store will enhance the viability of the business district in which it is located. 7. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because an adequate Operations Management Plan and training will be in place and lighting in the adjacent parking lot will operate from dusk until dawn to provide additional security. 8. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the operation is expected to be in compliance with the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Ordinance and additional elements of a good neighbor plan will be required. 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 19 April 27, 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 use shall comply with the requirements of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Ordinance, including but not limited to: a) The lighting for the adjacent parking lot area shall operate from dusk until dawn. b) Any coolers within five (5) feet of the front window shall be moved and the floor plan updated accordingly. 3. That the applicant provide a plan to address litter control, loitering control, and trespass enforcement in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Sec. 5.12.06.D. - Good Neighbor Plan. Ms. Joseph responded to Mr. Rozeboom indicating she was comfortable with the hours of operation as requested. If others have feelings about the hours, she would be open to modifying them. Ms. Turkelson and Mr. Rozeboom offered suggested conditions of approval. Ms. Joseph amended the motion to include: 4. That the applicant work with staff to provide appropriate screening for the dumpster, in accordance with the Ordinance. 5. All window coverings are explicitly prohibited. SUPPORTED by Ms. Shannon. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al- Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche D. 1323 (aka 1301) Cedar Street NE - Ronald McDonald House Expansion Address: 1323 (aka 1301) Cedar Street NE Applicant: Ronald McDonald House Charities of West Michigan (Ellen Carpenter) and the City of Grand Rapids Requesting: Approval of a Planned Redevelopment District to District to facilitate the addition of eight guest suites to the existing facility 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-PRD-2023-0031 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 April 27, 2023 Type of Case: Planned Redevelopment District Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Zeller related that the site is currently the home of Ronald McDonald House (RMH) Charities of West Michigan. They provide temporary accommodations, along with food, transportation, and other amenities to families with children receiving care at Grand Rapids area hospitals. RMH wishes to provide additional capacity to serve more families. The current NOS zoning does not accommodate the expansion of the use. It is considered lodging, which isn’t allowed in the NOS District. In order to accommodate the proposed use, rezoning to Planned Redevelopment District is proposed. Ms. Zeller provided some background explaining that when the RMH was proposed in 1988, the site was zoned R1, which did not allow the use. The original Planned Unit Development ordinance (now termed PRD) was used to establish the use. There have been a couple of amendments to the PUD, the last one being the addition of parking. In 2007, the Zoning Ordinance was updated based on the 2002 Master Plan and this area was identified for office and it was zoned as office. RMH was already built out at that time. Ms. Zeller’s assumption is that because it was already built out that the PUD zoning wasn’t maintained. Ms. Zeller explained that RMH wishes to add new guest suites in an existing building; the building that resembles a barn. It is currently used as a garage and one or two apartments for an on-site manager. The space is no longer used for an on-site manager. They wish to convert that structure to five new guest suites and some ground floor offices for staff. They would also like to do a building addition, a garage, to accommodate several vehicles that they use to transport their guests to the area hospitals. They are proposing to modify the barn building. It will be clad in vinyl siding to match the main house. They will also be doing some renovation to the main facility with modifications to the kitchen space, dining, and laundry rooms. They are also proposing a new playground. Ms. Zeller related that the original facility was to contain 16,000 sq. ft. and 18 private guest suites. The way it was eventually configured resulted in 17 guest suites. There are 40 parking spaces at the front and those spaces were allowed through the previous amendments. The proposed garage addition is approximately 236 ft. from Cedar and the garage will be 41 ft. from the private drive to the west. The private drive looks to be a continuation of Benjamin but is actually a private street belonging to Life EMS, which is also utilized by a couple of other properties. With respect to parking, there isn’t a parking calculation that exactly fits this unusual use. The parking calculation for lodging is one space per room plus accessory uses. For the proposed 25 guest suites, 25 parking spaces would be required plus 3 spaces for the office space, for a total of 28 spaces. Ms. Zeller isn’t certain that addresses everything that is happening on site. She asked the applicant to speak to the other things that occur on site, such as the number of volunteers, and what the overall parking demand is. Ms. Joseph asked if the materials proposed for the barn exterior meet the material requirements. Ms. Zeller replied that they do meet the requirements. The proposed materials are vinyl siding for both the new garage and rehabilitated barn. Generally, in a PRD, they may ask for higher City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 April 27, 2023 quality materials. However, Ms. Zeller suggests that the materials should match the materials on the main structure. What the development looks like, it is intended to look like a house, and proximity to other residential structures may also be a consideration. Ms. Turkelson asked if the rezoning back to PRD was structured in a manner that would support all of the existing uses on site. Ms. Zeller replied that she hopes so. The intent is for a continuation of the existing uses plus the expansion. She discussed their future plans with the executive director and there is potential for future expansion but it is too far down the road to have been able to incorporate it in this request. Ms. Turkelson clarified that the intent is to reestablish approval for the entire facility to give them some flexibility internally. If there are major expansions it would come back to Planning Commission and potentially City Commission. Ellen Carpenter, Executive Director of Ronald McDonald House Charities of West Michigan, was present on behalf of the request. She related that they have been on this property for 33 years. The site is 5 acres and the housing they offer is at no cost for families that have hospitalized children. All of the amenities such as rooms, food, transportation, laundry, etc. are offered for free. They are a local 501c3. They get their license from McDonalds but are not funded by them; they are funded by local donors and companies. They primarily serve Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital but also partner with Mary Free Bed, Pine Rest, Forest View, and other facilities in Grand Rapids, which are all expanding. Therefore, they believe the demand for their services will increase. They pull from nearly every county in Michigan and the new facilities that will be coming will likely draw more from outside the region because of their specialties. Typically, they serve between 300-350 families annually and turn away about half as many. Adding 8 additional suites is 50% more capacity. Ms. Carpenter stated that they feel the renovation is cost effective for them. They believe the demand will continue over the next few years. There is potential for adding additional wings. They raise all of their funds locally so they felt this was a cost-effective way to step into additional capacity and also test their fundraising capabilities. Ms. Carpenter related that there are approximately 10 neighbors across the street. They have sent a note to them letting them know it is a renovation and that most of the construction will be inside of the existing building. All of the parking, trash, and materials will be staged on their property and it won’t be necessary for them to close the street. It will be a two-phase project. They will begin with the internal work gutting the kitchen and increasing the size of the kitchen. They will then finish the 8 rooms with bathrooms, 3 of which will be ADA compliant. They are also trying to get staff out of the basement and up to the main floor. Ms. Carpenter also related that they have 1,400 - 1,500 volunteers a year. They help with the property, make meals and treats, help with laundry and all of the other things it takes to run a short-term hotel. Most families stay for approximately 2 weeks. During COVID it was a lengthier stay; approximately 24 days. The longest resident was there for about 250 days. Ms. Carpenter responded to questions relating that volunteers come to the site between 8 and 5. They sometimes have in-house volunteers that may be helping in the office so there may be 1 or City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 April 27, 2023 2 during the evening. The families are at the hospital all day. Ms. Carpenter related that when she left today there were 2 cars in the parking lot plus 2 staff cars. Volunteers park in the upper parking lot and they also carpool. They may fill the upper lot with volunteers but it isn’t very often that happens. Ms. Carpenter stated that there are 7 full-time and 7 part-time staff and the facility is staffed 24/7 so they come and go. They feel the parking they have is adequate for the 8 additional rooms. Architect Steve Fridsma, Elevate Studio, added that the garage addition is taking place over what is mostly impervious surface already so it won’t be adding to stormwater impact. There is a net increase of approximately 150 sq. ft. Ms. Turkelson suggested, if the Planning Commission is inclined to approve, structuring the approval for guest suites in the barn structure vs. setting a number at 8. In the future, should the offices turn into a new guest suite then perhaps it could be covered by this approval, unless the Planning Commission feels that is material and should come back. If in the future they find the office space isn’t as necessary and they want to turn it into a guest unit it may not materially impair a decision, in which case they wouldn’t focus on the number of units but rather units within, especially given the amount of parking that is currently available. Mr. Jonker recalled that pre-COVID he spent some time doing some training in the basement of the barn. He believes that room was rented. He asked if there is opportunity to continue that use and does that affect parking. It was a fairly good-sized space and he doesn’t know how often it is used or what the parking situation is when bringing in a group like that. Ms. Carpenter replied that occasionally people use their conference room. Because the volunteers come and go and because the parking lot is basically empty during the day with families being at the hospital the parking tends to be sufficient. There are a few community groups that hold meetings there and they hold their Board meeting there. It may be once or twice a month and usually only between the hours of 8 and 5; she doesn’t like to have strangers in the house in the evening when families are returning. Mr. Rozeboom asked that Mr. Fridsma describe the materials proposed. Mr. Fridsma stated that the vinyl siding will be matching. It is a high grade siding that matches what is on the main house. A vertical vinyl board and baton will also be used, which matches the northern quarter of the barn, which is a vaulted space. That space will remain and they will be popping the roof up where the dormers had been on the barn for four units up, with one built into the vaulted space, and 3 barrier free units down. The existing barn is board and baton, which is why they are introducing the new vinyl board and baton that will tie those two ends of the building together. Trim will be a rough sawn, textured, PVC trim that matches recent work that was done in 2017 on the main house. The windows will be a composite material but the exterior will match the windows on the existing building as well. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There was no public comment and the public hearing was closed. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 April 27, 2023 Ms. Joseph stated that she is definitely in support. She wishes they could approve more than what has been requested. It is such a large site and a very valuable use. Ms. Shannon also offered her support. She has been on the site and it does feel like home inside and the grounds are gorgeous and peaceful. While there is more room to grow, this is a good plan to add capacity without taking away from the beauty of the lot and keeping it feeling like home while families are away from home during a difficult time. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Ronald McDonald House Charities of West Michigan to rezone 1323 (aka 1301) Cedar Street NE from the NOS (Neighborhood Office Service) Zone District to the SD-PRD (Special District-Planned Redevelopment District) Zone District supporting all existing operations as well as to facilitate expansion of the existing hospitality house use on the site, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Zone District is consistent with the trend of development in the neighborhood because a range of uses exists in the vicinity, including governmental uses, institutional uses, and uses which have been established by variance. 2. The property to be rezoned was improperly zoned or classified when this Chapter was adopted or amended, because the current zoning does not recognize or accommodate the significant improvements present on the site. 3. The proposed building and site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property, and the type, size, and proportions of buildings. 4. The proposed PRD is consistent with the Master Plan and the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance because it is consistent with the purpose and intent of Planned Redevelopment Districts to encourage a sensitive design that respects the neighborhood character as well as natural or man-made features of the site and surrounding area; and promotes quality design and environmentally sensitive development. 5. 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 site layout and building design respect and are consistent with surrounding and desired development. 6. 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 and future uses will be generally consistent with the past use of the site and will not materially increase the intensity of the use; the proposed use will not be any closer to adjacent residential development than originally developed; and the proposed building design and high-quality materials meet the characteristics important in Planned Redevelopment Districts. 7. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed development on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized because adequate parking, attractive architecture, and appropriate building orientation and entrances will be provided. 8. 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, noise, smoke, odor, or visual clutter because traffic is not anticipated to substantially increase City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 April 27, 2023 and the proposed expansion is not materially different from the existing operation of the site. 9. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services already exist or will be provided at no additional public cost, and will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the subject property is located in close proximity to public transit and major streets and is currently served with public utilities. 10. 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. 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 erected in this PRD shall be governed by the rules and requirements of the NOS Zone District. 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. 4. That this approval allows for the subject “barn” structure to be used for hospitality suites, not limited in number of units, to the extent that the parking demand is met and the building massing remains as proposed. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 April 27, 2023 RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al- Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche IV. Site Plan Review A. 1830 Breton Rd SE - Planned Sign Program Amendment Address: 1830 Breton Rd SE Applicant: Signworks of Michigan, Inc. (Todd Frass) Requesting: Approval of a sign for the new Lululemon store location that deviates from the approved Breton Village shopping center Planned Sign Program. Zoning: MCN-C Mid-20th Century Neighborhood–Commercial Requirements: Article 15 Signs 5.12.08. Site Plan Review Procedures 5.15.08. Planned Sign Program 5.15.12. Signs in Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts Case Number: PC-OPR-2023-0024 Staff Assigned: Sarah Behmlander sbehmlander@grand-rapids.mi.us Type of Case: Site Plan Review Effective Date: Immediate Ms. Behmlander introduced the request for an amendment to a Planned Sign Program for Breton Village. The tenant requesting the specific signage is Lululemon. The development is located within a commercial zone district surrounded by low density residential as well as some office use. For those not familiar with Breton Village, the original Planned Sign Program was designed to fulfill what would be considered as a traditional mall setup. Over the years there have been some revisions to the site. Ms. Behmlander referred to the site plan identifying a portion of the site that was reconfigured. She also identified the former location of Lululemon and the proposed space, which is larger. The larger space has no impact on the amount of signage they are able to have in terms of quantity. Ms. Behmlander displayed what the Planned Sign Program considers the major identifier located at the front entrance. That sign has already been approved through the permitting process. The rear entrance signage, which is permitted, has also been permitted through sign permitting. What is unique about this Planned Sign Program is that it states that corner tenants have the ability to have extra signage but it doesn’t explicitly state what that means. Ms. Behmlander felt that her interpretation of allowing them what would typically be approved for wall signage in that zone district would be best for this site. In some ways there was already some flexibility established with what they were requesting. Beyond that, they then requested the wall sign labeled FH4, which is what the Planning Commission is considering. When looking at an overhead view of the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 April 27, 2023 floor plan there are two identifier signs located on the corner and one sign on the rear. Ms. Behmlander identified the wall location where they would like to place the additional 25 sq. ft. wall sign for their newly relocated store. The applicant’s argument is that the landscaping within the development would hinder the visibility of the additional corner wall sign that they’ve been granted. The Planning Commission is asked to consider whether that additional 25 sq. ft. wall sign emblem logo is appropriate or not. Ms. Turkelson asked what the allowance was in terms of square footage for the two identifier signs and the additional sign vs. what was installed. Ms. Behmlander replied that the Planned Sign Program calls for 1.5 sq. ft. per 1 linear foot for major identifiers. For minor identifiers it is slightly less than that. Ms. Turkelson explained further that she was interested in knowing whether they used the total square footage of signage they were allowed based on that formula; was there square footage allowed that hasn’t been used yet? Ms. Behmlander replied that there is. They were under what they are allowed per linear foot by about 10 sq. ft. for both the minor and major identifiers. Where it gets sticky is the language about the corner tenant space getting more signage and not being explicitly clear on what that means. Therefore, she had allowed the additional wall sign to count towards that and to utilize the leftover square footage. The sign being considered is beyond both of those interpretations she had made. Mr. Rozeboom asked if visibility is the problem, then why not just move the additional corner sign into a more visible location. Ms. Behmlander agreed that was a good point, or perhaps a different sign type that is permitted in the development. She was hoping for a response from Forestry to determine the species of trees and whether they are without leaves during the winter months but she was unable to get that information. She agreed that potentially moving the sign could be a solution if the Planning Commission feels the proposed sign is in appropriate. Ann Frass, Signworks of Michigan, was present on behalf of Lululemon. Lululemon is a tenant at Breton Village Mall currently and they are moving from a smaller space to a much larger space and in conjunction with the interior expansion they are looking at expanding the signage. As Ms. Behmlander mentioned, they have signage that has been submitted and approved. That signage is aesthetically pleasing, professional, and inviting but it is not visible, which is the uniqueness they are presenting today with this request. It is not visible due to landscaping that is already in place, owned by and put in place by others, and it is not changing. You cannot see the Lululemon signage that is proposed for the new location until you are nearly on top of it. As Ms. Behmlander mentioned, this is part of the Planned Sign Program and perfect for their situation because the building is unique and part of an integrated complex. The Planned Sign Program is in place to ensure that requested signs work in a coordinated fashion to meet the general intent for signs within the zone district. Ms. Frass pointed out that based on the formula, the approved City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 April 27, 2023 signage would be allowed at 94 sq. ft. The signage currently proposed for that elevation is only 32.5 sq. ft. The additional item they are looking for is a logo only, and only 25 sq. ft. Therefore, the total on that elevation is only 57 sq. ft. While it may seem easy or obvious to simply make the signage on this elevation larger and closer to what is allowed and avoid erecting a second sign, it isn’t possible due to the architectural store frontage; the windows that are there. If they tried to do that it would be imposing, not be aesthetically pleasing, and would not look professional or inviting. It also wouldn’t uphold the purpose and intent of the Ordinance. Sign FH4 is their solution. It is a proposal to manufacture a 5 ft. x 5 ft. logo to the right of the signage that is already there. They propose this as a solution to the architectural and landscaping challenges that exist at this building. Ms. Frass stated that they looked at the sign ordinance and wish to uphold that. Under item 1, the purpose of the sign ordinance, it says that the article promotes safe, well-maintained, vibrant and attractive residential and business neighborhoods while accommodating the need for signs to function for the purposes they are intended. The regulations of this article are written to directly address these purposes and intents and to provide the least restrictive means to accomplish that end. The same section also states that it is recognized that sign regulations provide businesses with equal opportunity to attract the public, that uses that are substantially the same in character deserve similar treatment while recognizing that those with clearly unique circumstances may need to be regulated by other means to ensure purposes and intents of the article are met. Ms. Frass stated that is what they are trying to do here; to uphold the code and comply with any intent and purpose. What do signs do? Signs are visible communication. They are obviously a need to accommodate people reaching this store. Ms. Frass stated that they are looking for an equal opportunity. You can see the Jos. A Banks, Orvis and other signs clearly when coming in and the Lululemon sign is not visible. Therefore, it impedes on their competitive situation just by visibility. Ms. Frass understands that the Ordinance’s purpose is to provide equal opportunity to attract the public. What they would argue is that is not being met. Ms. Frass emphasized that it is their intent to be in compliance with the Zoning Code’s purpose. When looking at the small size of the proposed signs collectively, and the square footage, as well as individually, this project does not impede travel, does not confuse the public, does not degrade the community, it doesn’t crowd the store frontage but the proposal would provide information, enable travel, navigation and promote commerce. In conclusion, Ms. Frass stated that the proposed signage is in compliance and fulfills the purpose of the Zoning Code and will maintain aesthetics, professionalism, and an inviting demeanor in this area. Ms. Joseph wished to confirm what she was seeing on the plan; that there is not an entrance on the subject side of the building. Ms. Frass agreed. If you are looking at that side of the building you need to walk to the left and enter on that elevation. Dr. Wallace asked what happens when the trees grow. Will they continue to increase the size of the sign for the sake of landscaping impediment? City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 April 27, 2023 Ms. Frass replied that the location being considered for sign FH4 won’t be affected by that. However, the existing sign is currently being affected. Dr. Wallace clarified that if the Planning Commission approves this request to include a larger logo placement and then the trees grow and impede the logo visibility, will they be requesting a larger sign. Ms. Frass suggested that will be 15-20 years before getting to the size of tree that would do that. Stores tend to come and go and relocate just for visibility. She sees that happen regularly. Mr. Jonker asked, if the 13 ft. wide sign present over the windows now isn’t visible then why not relocate it. Ms. Frass replied that the first reason is branding; it is centered above the windows that are in place, which is consistent with branding. The second reason is that even if they moved it over to the other side the logo would be invisible and it couldn’t increase in size without negatively affecting the aesthetics due to the window placement. Due to the architecture of the building, it was not aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Joseph asked if there is a service door represented by a dotted outline. Ms. Behmlander didn’t believe it was a service door. That wall abuts another tenant space. Ms. Turkelson asked if the renovation is complete for Lululemon. Ms. Frass replied that she didn’t believe it has begun yet. The permits are in place. Mr. Van Strien clarified that the street view they have is of the existing condition as the Omelette Shoppe. His understanding is there will be significant renovation on that elevation. Ms. Frass responded affirmatively. Mr. Van Strien noted that there is currently an entrance on that elevation. It appears that the roof line will be corrected so that it is uniform. Mr. Rozeboom feels the proposal seems appropriate if they are staying within the overall sign area requirement and trying to fit in with the architecture. Ms. Shannon agreed. Given the landscaping and storefront, this seems to meet the code and seems to be a good solution for the challenges of the site. Ms. Joseph disagreed. She feels they should just move their sign to the blank wall that is visible. She doesn’t see a need for two signs. If the renovations haven’t started, perhaps they can influence the design so they are still within the branding requirements of Lululemon not to be centered over windows that aren’t centered. It was a generous interpretation to allow them to have a sign there at all. The proposed seems excessive and unnecessary. Customers are driving City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 April 27, 2023 into a parking lot and not traveling 50 mph. They will see the sign when driving into that complex. Mr. Williams stated that generally he is supportive but for none of the reasons stated. This is one of those stores where if you are going there, you are going. It isn’t an impulse stop. Having it visible from the street is desired by the brand but this isn’t needed. It would have been easier if they just said they are moving and want a bigger sign because we want to show off our brand. Mr. Jonker agreed that the reasons stated seem somewhat disingenuous. When sliding one a bit further to the left you can see between the trees and see the signage already approved. At the same time, it is 100 ft. + from the main street and is internal to the development. However, he does support the request. Ms. Joseph related that her concern is if the Planning Commission decides that it doesn’t really matter here, they will get requests for an additional logo sign from other tenants. This is a Planned Sign Program and they can come back as many times as they want to. If allowing the additional signage for this one space, there is an entire complex here to consider. Ms. Turkelson agreed. However, she feels there is some merit to the fact that they are still under the allowable square footage of what that elevation could have otherwise supported. Ms. Behmlander clarified that in terms of area they are below the value permitted but in terms of quantity, they exceed both the Planned Sign Program and the Zone District. Ms. Shannon stated that as shopping centers are moving to be more external than internal, the distinction of the different signs and logos becomes more important. Ms. Shannon doesn’t see where this disrupts or takes away from the look of the building and it doesn’t exceed the permitted square footage. Mr. Rozeboom agreed that they don’t want to open a can of worms but he doesn’t feel they are in this case because to him the architecture matters, the specifics matter, and, furthermore, he believes the entire complex has been very carefully designed and has manifested itself in a very successful shopping center. He is supportive in this case. Ms. Turkelson recalled that they fought for every one of the trees. There were a lot of challenges retrofitting this site to de-mall it and bring it up to current landscape requirements. Mr. Jonker asked Ms. Frass if the applicant plans to put their logo on the monument sign at the street. Ms. Frass replied no, she doesn’t believe signage on that monument sign is available to them. At this time, it won’t become a multi-tenant sign. Ms. Turkelson clarified that that will be a landlord decision. Staff can’t regulate content of a sign. If the landlord decides to change that, they could have a logo or sign on the monument sign. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 30 April 27, 2023 Mr. Jonker suggested if the tenant decides to pay the extra money that may afford them a place on the monument sign. Ms. Behmlander explained that the Planned Sign Program here states that major or large-scale tenants would be provided a space on the monument sign. She would expect there is a fee associated with that. The developers have made it clear that Lululemon would qualify for a space on the pylon sign. Mr. Al-Shatel MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Signworks of Michigan, Inc. (Todd Frass) for an amendment to the Planned Sign Program of Breton Village, located at 1830 Breton Rd. SE, for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed Planned Sign Program amendment would result in a more attractive aesthetic setting, improved safety, provide more convenient identification for planned users, or other similar purposes because the additional sign will allow for adequate and effective identification and appropriate commercial speech. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the location and/or physical characteristics of the property or the needs for identification are unique when compared to other similarly situated parcels in Breton Village because the landscaping hinders visibility of the store identification signage when entering the development. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed plan substantially furthers the Purposes and Intent of Section 5.15.01., because the proposed amendment would protect the need to promote new businesses within the Breton Village development. 4. The applicant has demonstrated that approval of the Planned Sign Program amendment would not create any adverse impacts on one or more properties in the vicinity because the proposed amendment reinforces and supports the character of the surrounding development by taking into account building scale and massing; balances the need and right to communicate with needs to promote orderly communication and community aesthetics; and will ensure that signs are located, designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a way that protects life, health, property and the public welfare. 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 31 April 27, 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. SUPPORTED by Ms. Shannon. Mr. Williams pointed out, with respect to the third finding, that this isn’t a new business yet the statement is that it will protect the need to promote new businesses within the Breton Village development. Mr. Al-Shatel struck the word “new” from that finding. Supported by Ms. Shannon. YEAS: 7. NAYS: 1 (Joseph). MOTION CARRIED. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [7 TO 1] MOVER: Salim Al-Shatel SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker NAYS: Laurel Joseph ABSENT: Kristine Bersche V. Planning Commission Discussion  Katie Ostreko related that she is the Vice President of Sales and Marketing for a company located in Walker, MI. They sell metal building products, including siding. What she would like to ask the Planning Commission to consider today is to rethink the standard of the metal siding requirements in the City of Grand Rapids for residential, multi-family, and light commercial. The product they have been struggling with in Grand Rapids meets extensive testing and building standards, including those of the Florida building code, including fire, hail, and wind. They also have a lifetime warranty on their product. Since introducing the product, they manufacture it in Walker and they’ve had so much demand across the country that it has doubled in sales each of the last four years that is has been available. It is because of the innovation, patents, and unique looks they can offer that are driving people in Grand Rapids to want to use the product. They have distributors in Michigan and have been able to sell it across the state but they have not been able to use it in Grand Rapids. They have had people want to use it on multi-family applications, as well as light commercial and residential. They have run up against a standard they feel is dated in terms of how it is measured. It is measured by gauge, which is variable from a steel standard. It also requires a one-inch rib design, which they believe is due to strength, but it really limits the look of what people can do. Ms. Ostreko suggested Grand Rapids work with them to look at the new standards for testing that are out there, how they are utilizing technology to offer a new product that is likely more durable and has more performance, and a lifetime warranty for the customers, including chalk and fade. Once it goes up it will remain as beautiful in year 10, 20 City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 32 April 27, 2023 and 30 as it is year one. Ms. Ostreko provided a sample of their product and invited anyone to their facility that would want to learn more about the new adaptations in siding that are being done. They would be happy to share how they make, ship and test the product to allow for rethinking the standards. Ms. Ostreko would also ask that in the meantime that they get granted an exception for their customers, whether local distributors they work with in the area or contractors and builders, to allow them to use the products in Grand Rapids as long as they provide documentation of their performance standards. Mr. Van Strien felt the matter would be handled best by staff. Ms. Turkelson related that they have exchanged email communications and staff welcomes the opportunity to meet and further discuss. She doesn’t know the conversations that have taken place on the permitting level to understand what was found to be non-compliant. Ms. Turkelson doesn’t feel that the standards are outdated. She recalled that they were updated in 2014 or 2015. They visited Eikenhout after hearing similar concerns and learned a lot and changed the Ordinance as a result of that learning experience. Staff is definitely open to that. As a City they do have different standards for a reason. They went through a very extensive discussion about community character, architectural character, and building form through the 2002 Master Plan and there was a very strong push from the community to make sure that the building form and building element standards were consistent with the architectural character. All of the standards put in place were an effort to respect that desire. Ms. Turkelson feels there are likely opportunities to modify the standards slightly, or perhaps extensively, but there has been strong push back on EIFS and its quality and consistency, or lack thereof, with the architectural character. There is also strong push back on corrugated metal siding not being appropriate in an urban environment. Ms. Turkelson isn’t inclined to say that because other municipalities allow it that Grand Rapids should too. In terms of allowing an exception, based on the Ordinance language, staff doesn’t have the authority to make exceptions for their customers; neither the Planning Commission or City staff have that flexibility. Ms. Turkelson indicated that she is happy to meet with Ms. Ostreko and have a discussion with staff to ensure they are aligned on how they are interpreting this product with the architectural standards. It isn’t unusual for systems to change more rapidly than zoning code. Product lines do improve more quickly than they have the capacity to update zoning every time products change. If it is a product that meets the architectural standards and the expected quality, she wouldn’t see any reason why they couldn’t move forward either through an interpretation process or perhaps even a code adjustment. Mr. Van Strien stated that when projects come before them proposing metal siding it feels like there is some flexibility in interpreting what is being proposed with what the Ordinance states. Ms. Turkelson agreed. It depends on the project and the architectural element. There is specific language that allows more flexibility in some areas than others. A PRD is an area where there is more flexibility than perhaps by-right developments in a TBA. Building materials is generally more restrictive in terms of the language; it is more specific than transparency for example.  Mr. Rozeboom asked how the park and pay lots he has observed are regulated. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 33 April 27, 2023 Ms. Turkelson replied that it is a complicated answer. Some of it depends on whether it is a stand alone parking lot approved as the primary use of the property. In which case the ownership and management of it is not a land use issue they have control over. If it is a stand alone parking lot and someone chooses to provide it for a fee or not, there was difficulty in tying that to a land use implication vs. a management or ownership right. If it is a parking lot ancillary to a primary use and the ownership is renting those spaces out for pay as you go to the general public then staff has made the interpretation that that is a second primary use and contrary to the parking requirements of the City; the ancillary parking should be supporting the primary use of the property. Each case has to be looked at independently to understand the primary use consideration and the parking demand and supply on the lot. There have been complaints and staff has done enforcement. Any time a complaint is received, that analysis is done. Mr. Rozeboom feels that it is common sense that if already approved for parking in some form or another then it isn’t a concern of his. He was thinking more of a vacant lot that invites the public to pay and park, such as at Fuller and Wealthy. Ms. Turkelson would suspect that is a violation and, if staff receives a complaint, they would begin the enforcement process. The system is a complaint-based approach. They don’t have the resources to actively look for violations. If there is a blatant safety concern, that would be different. Mr. Rozeboom explained that the reason it comes to his attention is because the preference would be to have an active use on the vacant land. If an owner can gain income by holding onto vacant land, it is counter to that.  Mr. Van Strien recalled the West Grand Neighborhood Association comments about parking waivers or reductions and the Vital Streets conflict. He believes that comes from the project occurring on Leonard St. right now. Some of the concerns are about removing on-street parking in favor of wider sidewalks. He suggested they keep in mind for future projects that when talking about using on-street parking as a possibility for reducing parking requirements that perhaps staff could identify whether or not the sidewalks and street themselves already meet the standards of Vital Streets and if it is a possibility that things will be removed in the future in favor of wider sidewalks. He isn’t sure that has been part of the Planning Commission’s consideration. Ms. Turkelson agreed that is a relevant point and they have heard those concerns. If there is a request for a waiver, reliant on on-street parking, it would be important to understand if that street segment complies with the Vital Streets standards and/or where it is in the capital improvement plan. She agreed that those spaces could go away. Ms. Joseph asked, when street projects are occurring, if the land uses/previous approvals for parking reductions are part of the Design Team’s discussion. Ms. Turkelson replied affirmatively. The different departments have different goals and objectives they are trying to achieve and sometimes those are in conflict. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 34 April 27, 2023 VI. Public Comment VII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 3:42 PM