TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 July 13, 2023 City Commission Chambers I. 12:00 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. - Lunch - Conference Room 901, City Hall, 300 Monroe Ave NW II. Business - 12:30 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM by Board Member Kyle Van Strien PRESENT: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Bersche, Wallace STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Laura Wahamaki, Sarah Behmlander, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker, and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from June 22, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Adrienne Wallace C. Planning Director's Report · Agenda items were reviewed. · 1216 & 1228 Leonard St NE - Second Extension Request Ms. Turkelson related that there has been a request for a second extension for the car wash that was approved by the Planning Commission. They have submitted for their LUDS permit but have not submitted for the building permit. Motion by Mr. Rozeboom, supported by Ms. Shannon, to approved the requested extension. Motion carried unanimously. · There will be no second meeting in July. The second meeting in August will be reserved for the annual Planning Commission workshop. III. Joint Meeting with City Commission beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Call City Commission to Order (Mayor) Mayor Bliss called the meeting to order. B. Roll Call (City Clerk) City Clerk Joel Hondorp called roll of the City Commission. Generated 7/19/2023 11:11 PM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 July 13, 2023 CITY COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Bliss, Knight, Robbins, Moody, O’Connor, Ysasi, and Perdue STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Laura Wahamaki, Sarah Behmlander, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker, City Clerk Joel Hondorp, City Manager Mark Washington and recording secretary Carol Gornowich C. Joint Meeting with City Commission Mayor Bliss called the joint meeting to order. Planning Commission Chair Van Strien expressed that the Planning Commission is eager for this discussion and the dialogue around housing policy. It is a topic the Planning Commission hears about on a regular basis and an important issue the City and citizens are facing. Mayor Bliss agreed that housing is an important issue. The City Commission has discussed the need for housing in the community for years. There have been a number of efforts made but they also realize that one key to moving the needle is policy. City Commissioners, Planning Commissioners, and staff introduced themselves. City Commissioner Ysasi arrived. Planning Director Kristin Turkelson explained that the joint meeting is being held in part because there is a requirement from the MEDC for the Redevelopment Ready Certification program. The City of Grand Rapids is a Redevelopment Ready Certified community. The program provides technical assistance, funding, and resources for the City to help facilitate some good work. Relative to housing, the MEDC is a partner with the City on covering the cost of a pre-permitted plan set that they are currently working on developing for two- and four-units. The plans would be available to community members once they are complete. There would still be a process related to what lot the structure would go on but there is good work and support provided through Redevelopment Ready Communities. Having a joint meeting is one of the requirements associated with certification. Staff felt a housing policy conversation would be very timely and has also been desired by both Commissions. Ms. Turkelson related that the agenda topic relates to housing policy. She recalled that she provided an abbreviated version of the presentation to the City Commission on Tuesday. The intent of the discussion is to ensure they are headed in the right direction and that there is a plan for the topics they would discuss today. The later part of the presentation goes into greater detail about those topics and an opportunity for discussion. Ms. Turkelson noted that in the spring the City received an updated report on the housing needs assessment that was completed in 2020 and updated in 2023. It was no surprise that the housing need is greater than it was before; a need of over 14,000 residential dwelling units in the city over the next five years. The conversation about housing reform is not unique. It is well documented. It is known that Zoning has played a role in causing issues around the country for City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 July 13, 2023 the creation of new housing and it certainly has a role in helping to create new housing should the zoning be done well. The zoning has to be tailored to the plans and needs of each individual community around the state and country. Those conversations, in part, have helped inform some of the topics for discussion today. Ms. Turkelson recalled that there have been conversations in the past about housing policy. In 2015 was Great Housing Strategies and in 2018, Housing Now. There was additional conversation about housing policy with the 2002 Master Plan and those conversations continue today with the update of the Master Plan. It is well known that there is a need for housing; all types of housing at all price points. Every neighborhood is going to have to allow for change. It is known that traffic may increase as a result of increased density but it isn’t beyond the infrastructure that is currently in place. Ms. Turkelson believes it is likely that it will be necessary to look at significant parking reductions in order to support the densities where it makes sense. Any new infill should align with good planning principles. The built form of a neighborhood should be considered for compatibility and appropriateness. Ms. Turkelson suggested there are a lot of opportunities along some of the major commercial corridors, such as Alpine and 28th Street, and those opportunities shouldn’t be ignored. In conjunction with the Economic Development team they work hard to consider what resources can be brought to the table to support new housing developments in those locations. They cannot expect that the housing need is going to be solved within the neighborhoods. In terms of planning, it is believed that an incremental approach is best, that some changes are made, monitored, and assessed for appropriateness and effectiveness. They can then continue with additional changes, which has been the historical approach in the city that has worked well. Ms. Turkelson stated that zoning changes alone will not solve the housing shortage. Additional work and tools will be necessary. Ms. Turkelson noted that some good work was done with the 2002 Master Plan relative to Great Neighborhoods, policy recommendations, and the way the city grew and developed over time. The current policy reflects that. Zoning was the implementation tool that was used. There are two residential zone districts in the city. The vast majority is Low Density Residential (LDR). Densities vary by neighborhood and type. Density allowances have slowly increased over time. 61% of the city is zoned LDR. That zone district allows single-family residential by right. Planning Commission review is required for two- and multi-family residential. Approximately 8% of the city is zoned Mixed Density Residential (MDR), which is the zone district that permits all housing types by right. The vast majority of the housing stock in Grand Rapids are single-family homes. Ms. Turkelson again related that there is a need for approximately 14,00 new residential housing units over the next five years, which is an average of 2,800 units per year. Ms. Turkelson related that since approximately 2015 the city has averaged 538 new units per year. There is clearly a deficiency in the number of units being provided. They recognize that zoning is a part of that because most of the new units have been in developments of 20 or more units. The affordable housing option of two or four units isn’t occurring in the city at the desired rate. There are a number of reasons for that and zoning is just one. There are zoning regulations that are clearly supporting infill development at a greater scale and that large scale can have impact on the built form, gentrification and displacement. There are also land costs, construction costs and financing City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 July 13, 2023 that impact development. When combined, those elements are producing the large scale infill developments. That isn’t a bad thing but it shouldn’t be the only housing type being produced. Ms. Turkelson recalled that Mayor Bliss asked about best practices and what other cities are doing. They have put a lot of thought and research into that as well as attend conferences in other communities. The challenge with providing an answer is that every state has different enabling legislation. Different states have had laws that have stepped in, such as California, where they are no longer allowed to prohibit accessory dwelling units. She believes they are also looking at a bill saying that municipalities can no longer require parking. The variation between states and between cities and the market is very different. Ms. Turkelson invited Mr. Kilpatrick to comment on the matter. Ryan Kilpatrick, Housing Next, feels that Ms. Turkelson has made a very good point. Local market context is very important when thinking about zoning changes. He helped to co-author the state-wide zoning reform took kit with the Michigan Association of Planning. Zoning is a critical barrier to availability of housing supply. As Ms. Turkelson mentioned, it is one element in the overall cost. When adding regulatory burdens with the cost of land, construction, etc. it results in a lack of affordability. The other important work that is happening at the City level is associated with the Economic Development Department and some of the new legislative tools that are available now. Pairing zoning reform with economic development tools is how to achieve more affordability and more supply. As Commissions think about zoning reform, he suggested thinking about it in a context sensitive manner. Considering which neighborhoods we are operating in, what are the housing production goals, and what housing typologies make the most sense to satisfy the known needs is how they begin to ascertain what the unit types, lot sizes and widths, and parking requirements are. All of those things have an impact on cost and financial viability. Mr. Kilpatrick feels the list of recommendations Ms. Turkelson is presenting are the kinds of things Housing Next would have recommended and have been discussing for the last couple of years. The broader, more important point is that the Grand Rapids market, and particularly the city and some neighborhoods within the city are unique. There are things to learn from Minneapolis, which is one of the first communities to do a broad, well publicized zoning reform. Portland OR and Austin TX and some communities in California, as well as communities in Nashville and Atlanta, are all doing zoning reform in one way or another but it is all a bit different. Mr. Kilpatrick stated that Ms. Turkelson’s point about catering this to the local market and to specific neighborhood context is going to be important while constantly keeping in mind what barriers are in place and how they can systematically remove those to make housing more affordable and more prevalent. Ms. Turkelson stated that when looking at some of the topics she is lacking on best practices because they have been informed by best practices that are happening around the country but they have to be tailored to the market and conditions of Grand Rapids. Ms. Turkelson suggested she go through the presentation of topics and then have a discussion on each of the topics separately. Ms. Turkelson suggested that Accessory Dwelling Units is one low-hanging fruit. There is a lot of good work happening in California and Oregon despite their enabling legislations that are different. One question she asked while attending a conference in Portland was what the impacts City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 July 13, 2023 have been when allowing accessory dwelling units to be more permissive and more streamlined. What happened when owner-occupancy wasn’t required? What were the impacts and challenges? The answer was that there really hasn’t been an impact. Allowing for accessory dwelling units by right or at a staff review level does increase the supply and ability for an individual to move forward with a level of predictability. Eliminating the owner-occupancy requirement that is currently in place was an important aspect. Ms. Turkelson stated that she feels accessory dwelling units are a good opportunity for Grand Rapids but it won’t happen at a scale to solve the housing shortage issue. Another topic of consideration is to reconsider the unit occupancy limits. The current requirement is no more than four unrelated occupants within a dwelling. She feels they should evaluate whether that continues to make sense or whether there is a new maximum that could be considered. Ms. Turkelson stated that Group Living uses is a fairly broad category within the Ordinance. She suggested specifically looking at whether there are opportunities to consider single room occupancy, rooming/boarding houses and transitional shelters and perhaps allowing a more permissive code within residential districts. Currently, the code supports those uses in mixed commercial districts. There have been a number of requests for those types of uses in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Turkelson stated that Small Scale Residential Infill is a very broad category but she feels there is opportunity to update the code and look at minimum lot width and area requirements, and specifically to reduced them; look at what the review process is and whether that could be streamlined for small scale with a scale and massing that may not greatly affect the pattern of development already happening in a neighborhood. As previously stated, they also have to be prepared to look at parking requirements, which she believes to be a challenging conversation. However, they can’t just look at increasing densities in each neighborhood and reducing the amount of area that is required while still suggesting that two parking spaces per unit is appropriate; it doesn’t fit. To make changes in the other categories without making parking adjustments won’t move the needle, at least not without impact of acquisition of land and creation of new parking lots and upsetting the built form. Ms. Turkelson provided more information regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. Currently, ADUs are permitted as a Qualified Review, meaning the applicant will need Planning Commission consideration if a neighbor within 300 ft. requests a hearing. If there is no request then it is reviewed administratively. Ms. Turkelson related that they haven’t received a lot of requests for ADUs, zoning being one reason. The construction costs, building code, utility connections, specifically the State Plumbing Code are elements outside of the control of the City but greatly factor into a reason why an ADU may not be the most affordable option. Financing is also an issue. Currently, banks will not provide a construction loan based on projected income of an ADU, which means an individual has to have the capital to be able to afford to construct that unit. Ms. Turkelson feels it is important for zoning to support and be ready should those other factors make sense for a property. Ms. Turkelson stated that in looking at the review process the AARP has done a lot of good work and there is a report on ADUs based on best, even better, and ideal practices and eliminating review through a Planning Commission is one of the better City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 July 13, 2023 practices they would like communities to consider; allowing it either by right or staff level review. Elimination of the ownership requirement is another big issue, which is something Ms. Turkelson feels could be explored. She believes there is a concept that if ownership is in place it results in better management and thus less impact or potential negative impact. She isn’t certain that is true. It is a requirement in place to try to control impacts. A lot of the research of late is suggesting to look at current enforcement practices and what resources are available utilizing the nuisance code to address impact vs. utilizing the zoning code to prevent something that may have an impact. Ms. Turkelson recommends considering changes to the review process, the occupancy requirement and perhaps even the parking requirement of one space per each ADU in addition to the parking required for the primary single-family residential use. The changes have the potential of increasing supply of affordable and diverse housing types, provide opportunities for intergenerational housing, income generation for the property owner, and potentially increase the parking demand on an individual lot. Ms. Turkelson expanded on unit occupancy limitations. Currently, no more than 4 unrelated individuals can occupy a dwelling unit. Changes to consider are to increase that number. There are also Housing and Building Code occupancy limitations to address safety. The unit occupancy was put in place to try to minimize potential impacts and not create impacts different than a traditional sized family. Potential implications of increasing the occupancy limit are that there could be a cost sharing benefit to tenants, increased demand on utilities, and increased vehicle trips and number of vehicles parked in a driveway or on the street. Ms. Turkelson explained the group living requirements. This use category includes uses such as nursing care facilities, but when considering this category and where changes could be made Ms. Turkelson’s focus was on rooming/boarding houses, single-room occupancy (SRO) uses, and transitional/emergency shelters. Currently, rooming/boarding houses are permitted in the LDR Zone District with review and approval by the Planning Commission. SROs and emergency shelters are only permitted in the Mixed-Commercial Zone District. Changes to consider are to distinguish between small, medium, and large scale group living uses and whether small-scale uses could be permitted within the residential zone district and perhaps having a tiered review process. Potential implications relate to residents of transitional shelters typically needing support services; an operation management plan is critical to have in place; it may be a good reuse of former institutional buildings such as schools and churches, and; provide a more residential setting for residents. Ms. Turkelson addressed Small Scale Residential Infill. Within the LDR district, duplexes require Planning Commission approval, unless located on corner lots. Multi-family also requires Planning Commission approval. The minimum lot width for a multi-family is 90 ft. and it must be located on a Major Street. The Planning Commission does have the discretion to waive the location on a Major Street requirement. Ms. Turkelson noted that there aren’t a lot of, if any, 90 ft. parcels in the city. Inherently that requires the acquisition and consolidation of properties. If acquiring properties and demolishing buildings for new development, economies of scale come into play; you need enough new units in the development for that to be feasible. The parking requirement is 1 - 1.5 spaces per unit, which necessitates quite a bit of land to support a multi- family development. Ms. Turkelson suggested changes to consider. The multi-family category could be tiered. Currently, multi-family is considered 3 or more units. There could be City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 July 13, 2023 opportunities to consider small scale uses such as 3-6 units or 3-8 units and larger developments of 7 or more units. Within the Traditional Neighborhoods district the smaller scale developments of 6 or less units could be allowed by right on streets that can support and are planned for higher volume; Link Residential and Network Residential streets. Additional considerations are to eliminate or greatly reduce lot width and area requirements to allow for small scale infill development that could occur on existing lot sizes without acquisition of additional property and reduce or eliminate parking requirements. Ms. Turkelson commented on Vital Streets. Every street in Grand Rapids was assigned a certain typology. For the purpose of this discussion, Ms. Turkelson feels it makes sense to focus on Link and Network Residential streets. Link Residential streets are predominantly low to moderate density residential in character and can be the location of non-residential uses such as community facilities or schools. Within that street typology it acknowledges that there are slightly higher volumes on those streets. Network Residential streets are higher volume/greater intensity. The Vital Streets plan acknowledges that while residential is the predominant land use, residential density may be higher along these corridors because they connect to the transit systems. Ms. Turkelson displayed a graphic of a tool created to assist the Planning Commission in making data informed decisions. It includes every property type, parcel number, the street network typology, and how many are corner lots. The information can be sorted by zone district, adjacency to alleys, etc. Ms. Turkelson feels the data can help to understand potential impacts. When considering the scenario of changing the code to allow two-family by right in all residential zone districts in the city it has the potential unit increase of 18,000 units. If only allowing two-family by right on Link and Network Residential street types, it has a potential unit increase of nearly 14,000 units. Ms. Turkelson explained how those numbers were derived at. There are 6,622 residential properties on Link Residential streets in the Traditional Neighborhoods zone districts. Assuming each of those are single-family residences that have the potential to convert to a duplex is where the potential unit increase comes in. Of course not every property is going to convert to a duplex but there is a lot of potential with some of the small changes. Parking reductions were expanded upon. The current requirement in the LDR districts is 2 spaces per single-family unit and at least 1.5 spaces per unit per multi-family. Some changes to consider, especially in Traditional Neighborhoods, are to reduce or eliminate parking requirements for residential developments containing 6 or less units. Ms. Turkelson explained that Traditional Neighborhoods are largely serviced by transit or transit is easily accessible and they are connected for goods and services. The failure to eliminate or reduce parking requirements will likely negate other proposed changes or necessitate acquisition of adjacent parcels and demolition of existing structures. Ms. Turkelson reviewed next steps, today’s joint meeting being the first step. In late summer into early fall the Planning Commission can utilize the feedback provided from conversation today in crafting amendments. Her plan would be to have a package to consider by the end of the year. The anticipated communication strategy has been outlined. A lot of work has been done already having housing conversations through other efforts. Ms. Turkelson feels that utilizing the Planning Commission’s public hearing as the primary opportunity for input will be sufficient. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 July 13, 2023 Mayor Bliss suggested discussion on each recommendation. Mr. Van Strien expressed his appreciation for the recommendations. He would be interested in hearing any concerns about the recommendations. In general, he is in support of many of them. Mayor Bliss recalled that ADUs have been allowed for some time. The initial thought was that they would see more of them throughout the city and they haven’t. She would agree that it is a policy they should consider amending. She is personally supportive of implementing some of the proposed changes to encourage more ADUs throughout the city. Commissioner O’Connor expressed his full support for the recommended changes regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. He suggested also considering eliminating or reducing the required unit size for an ADU and let the building code drive the life safety decisions. Commissioner Moody related that his biggest concern is eliminating parking requirements. He would like more detail on that and what it would look like. Ms. Turkelson feels that is a topic that needs further discussion with the Planning Commission. She was hoping to hear today that there is a willingness to consider it further. She doesn’t have a specific opinion or idea as to whether it should be eliminated in all circumstances, reduce it by half, etc… She is looking for guidance and direction and in working with the Planning Commission they can come to more specific code changes that could be considered. Commissioner Moody agreed that it needs to be looked at in more detail. What he doesn’t want to see happen is 6-7 people living in a house with 6-7 vehicles on the street. Residents may not be pleased with that and it may clutter streets. Commissioner Ysasi expressed support for the recommended changes. She recalled the challenges with the State plumbing requirements and would like to see further work on that as well. Commissioner Knight agreed with Commissioner O’Connor’s suggestion of considering the ADU unit size. There is potential with a single-family home on a large lot to perhaps provide for two units. Commissioner Knight recently had the opportunity to tour a 360 sq. ft. unit and was amazed at the way it was built. She also feels that with financing for ADUs being a challenge that further consideration should be given to those that have the ability/capital to build and add on; look at how we are adding to the culture of neighborhoods vs. continuing to push people out of spaces that bring that lived experience and culture to that space. Commissioner O’Connor related, from his real estate appraisal experience, that FHA will finance a single family and up to four units with an ADU. However, there remains a disconnect between local lending and people being able to do it. Additional work needs to be done to learn who the local lending partners are that will provide financing and provide those connections to citizens that are interested. In his 10 years of real estate appraising, he never encountered an ADU; it City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 July 13, 2023 wasn’t something that existed in Grand Rapids 20 years ago. Hopefully, if they create the expectation that it is something that exists in Grand Rapids, it has a positive outcome. Commissioner Perdue appreciates the comments regarding access to capital. She feels there needs to be a comprehensive strategy across City departments as they consider education, access, connectivity, supplier diversity, and neighborhood dynamics. Commissioner Perdue understands that there aren’t as many ADUs as were anticipated. She asked if staff has an understanding of how many are used as rentals vs. occupied by family. Ms. Turkelson doesn’t believe there is a resource available that outlines the tenancy of ADU occupancy. Commissioner Perdue asked if the assumption is that most ADUs would be rental units. Ms. Turkelson responded affirmatively. Mr. Kilpatrick added that what they are seeing nationally in markets that are adding ADUs at a significant rate is that 60% are occupied by family members of the homeowner. It is a function of the way they are financed and the cost of construction. Very often they don’t initially make a lot of sense financially for the homeowner unless they are doing it to support a friend or family member. Approximately 40% of ADUs are revenue producing income property. Mr. Kilpatrick added that one of the big opportunities with ADUs is when there are targeted programs to make sure that financing is aligned with the regulatory environment. A great opportunity for ADUs is aging homeowners who have been in their home for 20-30 years and are now in their 60’s - 80’s and navigating stairs is no longer a viable prospect but they don’t really want to leave their home or property. Building an ADU in the back yard for the homeowner and then allowing them to rent out the primary residence to a family essentially allows them to pay for their own retirement plan. He agreed with Commissioner O’Connor that what they need to do is make sure they have financial partners coming alongside regulatory reform to ensure the entire city has the same access to the capital necessary. In most neighborhoods there will be enough rental income to support the cost of the unit. It is a matter of the up-front financing. Mr. Kilpatrick responded to questions relating that the numbers provided were gathered by AARP who is one of the leading best practice partners in the country focusing on ADUs because these are great opportunities for adults that want to age in place. Commissioner Perdue is also open to the conversation regarding ADU unit size, although she is a bit skeptical about going smaller. She has been to other cities that have a lot of small units. In Grand Rapids there are already a lot of people struggling to make ends meet, particularly those that are renting. While there are a lot of great landlords, they don’t all have the same approach when leasing units resulting in unfortunate situations for people that don’t have the flexibility or choice because of socio economic circumstances, etc. She worries about how those dynamics might intersect with going smaller and smaller. Mayor Bliss pointed out that there are some great examples of micro-units. For those that haven’t had the opportunity, she would encourage a walk-through to see how they are designed. She City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 July 13, 2023 agreed that a small unit isn’t for everyone and definitely not for families but it is an affordable option for a single person or those that may wish to age in place. Commissioner Robbins added his support for the proposed changes and adding options for ADUs. He related that he has been asked by a number of citizens about ADUs. Commissioner Robbins asked if there are any conversations at the State level they can couple with in making changes to the local regulations. He is interested in removing barriers at this level but also put the ball in their court to assist with this process. Ms. Turkelson related that as a department they are very active in the regulatory process of revised building codes. They are coming along but it is slower. Commissioner Moody asked, as they discuss housing affordability, if there has been any conversation about houses that have been demolished and are being redeveloped on properties that are affordable for families that would be ADUs as well. Ms. Turkelson replied that there are conversations but specific to the ADUs there hasn’t been a lot of conversation, likely due to the complexities previously discussed. She is aware that the Boston Square development, particularly the townhome style portion along the north end, is interested in ADUs but the fact that ADUs are currently only allowed with a single-family home precludes them from having an ADU. The changes being discussed today would benefit those newer style developments. Commissioner O’Connor wished to relate to the public present, and the greater audience, that there is a water issue that could be dealt with locally, getting water from a primary residence to a secondary residence, but from a State Plumbing Code perspective you can’t take waste water from a secondary dwelling unit and run it back into a primary dwelling unit. City Manager Mark Washington recalled a comment regarding a single-family lot having multiple ADUs on site. He clarified that code only permits one ADU per single family residence. Ms. Turkelson agreed that the current code says that in order to have an ADU the primary use of the land is single-family. The suggestion offered is to allow one accessory dwelling unit in addition to the primary use of the property, which could be a duplex or multi-family. Mr. Van Strien summarized that he has heard concerns about the elimination of parking requirements, reducing the required size, and the accessibility of these opportunities for folks in all areas and at all income levels. He asked if there are concerns about allowing ADUs in association with duplexes or multi-family. Commissioner O’Connor feels that where there are large enough lots he is supportive. Mayor Bliss related that her hope is there will be some flexibility. She provided the example of a 365 sq. ft. garage that someone wishes to build a unit atop of. She would hope there is enough flexibility in the code to use some pragmatic common sense approval process for that and not have it be so rigid. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 July 13, 2023 Commissioner Moody related that he attended the Michigan Economic Development Corporation seminar this morning and one of the things they discussed was building on top of existing buildings/going up. The concern was whether it could be done and what the related rules and regulations are. Mr. Al-Shatel asked if the ADUs are held to the same safety requirements that a typical rental unit would be. Ms. Turkelson responded affirmatively. Ms. Shannon asked if the need for 14,000 dwelling units includes the homeless population. Knowing those demographics could help to identify the kinds of housing needed and where the growth is coming from. Mr. Kilpatrick offered to follow up with additional detail. He related that 2/3 of all households who are seeking housing now are either single adults or two adults with no children at home. In addition, in any given month there are approximately 1,000 individuals who don’t have a permanent dwelling. Many of them will have short stints of couch surfing, staying with a friend or family member. At any given time approximately 250 people are unsheltered in Kent County. Of the unsheltered, typically a majority are single adults and the majority are male. However, there are families with children who are unsheltered. Throughout the course of the year there are usually 200-300 unsheltered families with children. The short answer is that there is a need for a lot of housing of all types and sizes but it can be broken down to provide a detailed look at the households they believe are in need of housing now. Mr. Van Strien suggested that, unless Planning Commissioners want to weigh in or ask further questions, he would like to hear comments and concerns from City Commissioners so that as the Planning Commission works with staff they have some better guidance. Mayor Bliss moved the discussion to Unit Occupancy, which is currently that no more than four unrelated individuals can occupy a dwelling unit. She was interested in some history as to why that restriction was put in place. She recalls a number of issues from her time as a City Commissioner where a 3-bedroom house would have six unrelated college students occupying it and almost acting like a fraternity house. To address it they fell back on this rule for compliance. She doesn’t recall when or why the rule was put in place. Is it egress, safety, parking, an effort to prevent nuisance, or a combination? Mayor Bliss would also be interested to know whether other cities have similar rules. Ms. Turkelson replied that it is not an uncommon rule but the number varies by municipality. She believes it was implemented in the 2008 code but will confirm that. Her belief that the reason for creating or setting a limit was to ensure they were able to control and mitigate for potential impact. The way the Housing and Building Codes are structured for life safety, most residential dwellings could legally accommodate far more people than what was comfortable in terms of the impact to a residential neighborhood. When you have unrelated persons, it tends to be a higher volume. Because they are unrelated, they don’t live as cohesively as a family unit. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 July 13, 2023 Families tend to come and go together, share meals, etc. With unrelated individuals, people tend to be on a different schedule, come and go differently, friends come over, etc. The more unrelated individuals you have the greater the impact in terms of cars, noise, etc. Commissioner O’Connor expressed support for changing the number of unrelated individuals that can live in a unit. Six seems like a reasonable number. He doesn’t feel that taking the cap off entirely makes sense. He is often an advocate for letting the Building Code drive decisions so that the residents inside any structure in the community are safe and can escape in the event danger presents itself. He understands that there are potential impacts by increasing the number, such as additional cars and bodies. However, he also considers the problem they are faced with and asks himself what the easiest path is to getting roofs over more people’s heads. If the number of unrelated individuals that can reside in a unit is increased, there is no need to build anything to provide an opportunity for more people to have a roof over their head. There will be push backs that landlords will take advantage of more people. Perhaps they continue to charge $500 for a bedroom but it doesn’t bother him that a landlord may be able to capture more money because that means there is a college student that probably isn’t trying to take a different house further into the neighborhood. Commissioner O’Connor feels this is the easiest path to have an opportunity to put more people’s heads in beds in Grand Rapids without having to build anything. Commissioner Knight related that she has two others living in her home and they don’t sit together or come and go together and they are her children. She agreed with Commissioner O’Connor. Her only push back is thinking about the maintenance of the units and code violations and making sure that is still taken care of. Ms. Turkelson understood. With all of these suggested efforts it is critical to make sure the Code Compliance teams are resourced appropriately to be able to mitigate for impacts. Mr. Kilpatrick related that there are a number of non-profit shelter providers; Wellhouse, AYA, and others. Lifting the unrelated individual cap, even if it only increases to six, would make it much more financially viable for those providers to provide safe, sustainable, affordable housing opportunities. They are often transitional but, as Commissioner O’Connor pointed out, it doesn’t require additional construction and those types of units don’t have to be subsidized; the subsidies can be saved for other households. Commissioner Robbins stated that, in light of learning that a large number of those seeking housing currently are single or two individuals with no children, this change seems especially applicable. There is nothing that has to be built and it is an easy thing to change. It couples well with the demand they are seeing for types of housing. Commissioner Moody expressed concern related to parking on the street. If there are 7 residents in a house, all with cars, there will be parking on the street. Mayor Bliss summarized that the consensus is support for this change with the caveat of the concern related to parking. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 July 13, 2023 Group Living was the next topic of discussion. Commissioner O’Connor stated that he continues to come back to cost. The cost to construct a unit often exceeds $300,000. It is difficult when you start to factor in how much subsidy is needed to build the capital to be able to get it to a point where it can support 30, 40, 50 but often even getting enough support to get it to 80% AMI is incredibly difficult. This isn’t for everyone. They aren’t trying to solve every problem with each of these suggestions but it creates different opportunities in different capacities and in different places. Being able to build Single Room Occupancy is a way to reduce the cost of getting a roof over people’s heads. Some people may be fine with having just a bedroom with a shared kitchen. They like the adventure of having different friends and neighbors they meet on a daily basis. Some people may be fine with that for a year or two if that provides the transition to save up enough in order to buy or move. Without having that tool, he feels they are missing an opportunity. When you think about building a home or property, the things that cost the most are kitchens and bathrooms. Therefore, if you can build something that has shared spaces where those costs are burdened across the entirety of the project, it is a way to build units for people that cost less than $300,000 a unit. Doing it at various scales seems to be the most sensitive way to do it. They shouldn’t be putting 10 unrelated individuals in a 800 sq. ft. house in the middle of a Low Density Residential neighborhood but they should have the ability to have some in business districts or on Link Residential streets that may be able to support a bit higher density because of the public transportation component. There is also potential to build some of these in neighborhoods also. From a form base, they can look and function like a house where people live and share common living arrangements. Mayor Bliss indicated that she sees the benefit of it as well. However, concerns they’ve heard in the past are typically from licensed facilities. Mayor Bliss asked if licensed facilities would fall under this provision. She also asked what is meant by the tiered review process. Ms. Turkelson explained that those would be different uses that are not currently under consideration for changes. Those would be adult foster care, residential rehabilitation living, etc. This would be specific to rooming/boarding houses, which they don’t see a lot of requests for. Mayor Bliss recalled one on Plainfield and one in Eastown that was a co-housing proposal. Ms. Turkelson indicated that those are the types of uses the code currently doesn’t support that they would be trying to carve a path forward to allow, and the proposed would do that. Ms. Turkelson explained that she mentioned adult foster care because she feels a lot of the licensed facilities do a good job of the small, medium and large scale based on the number of beds/individuals. Currently, an SRO is an SRO and the definition says typically 50 or more units. It looks at the historical model where it is quite a large facility. The co-op Mayor Bliss referenced in Eastown is most similar to the SRO concept. If they were to say no more than 10 rooms and perhaps on a major, well-connected street they may be able to carve a path to allow for either by-right or Planning Commission consideration of a small-scale use such as that. Perhaps the larger scale model, 50 plus units, does belong in a commercial zone district, which is what she means by the tiered process based on the size and scale of the facility. Mayor Bliss asked if hostels are challenging under the code also. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 July 13, 2023 Ms. Turkelson agreed. There is no path forward for that. This suggestion is trying to be accommodating for those somewhat unique uses and saying if it is a smaller scale, and presumably a lower impact because of that scale, perhaps they can be more permissive in allowing it in the city and allowing it where it makes sense in the residential districts. Commissioner Perdue noted that the presentation material mentions increasing tenancy period. She asked what the current status is. Mr. Kilpatrick offered additional information as Ms. Turkelson looked for the requested information. He related that the target demographic for this type of housing is often returning citizens who have served time and are trying to re-enter but have very limited income as they re- enter society. Having opportunities that are low cost and low barrier is very important. Many of those citizens are most likely to become chronically homeless over time because it is extraordinarily difficult for them to find housing. When you check the box that you have a criminal background it can be very difficult in a scarce housing market. SROs are a great way to get back into the housing market. It would be the same for recent college graduates or college students that don’t want to live in a party house but do need housing. Ms. Turkelson related that the current use regulation for an SRO talks about continuous tenancy of at least 32 days. Her thought was that if they are going to be more permissive in allowing an SRO in a residential neighborhood, perhaps they encourage longer term tenancy of at least 90 days so that the impact of a transitional residential use would be lower. Commissioner Ysasi stated that she feels those experiencing homelessness or foster youth that become adults would be in a similar situation as returning citizens. She also thinks about those living in hotels/motels. There is an idea that this is kind of happening already because of the situation we are in. They also saw this during COVID when there was a need for different individual spaces. Hopefully we will never go through something like that again but she feels they should consider some of the other mitigating factors in the future. She agrees it isn’t the only answer but it seems like they are already kind of doing this in some situations. Knowing that helps her to feel comfortable continuing this conversation. Mayor Bliss recognized a consensus to move forward with some changes in this area. The discussion moved on to Small Scale Residential Infill. Mayor Bliss is very supportive of, where it makes sense, allowing additional infill and higher density. Her big concern with this is demolition. There are a number of examples of developers buying up single-family affordable homes and banking properties with the intent to demolish them and develop higher density and really changing the dynamics of entire neighborhoods sometimes. There is a lot of affordable housing in the community that is older stock that needs rehabilitation but it remains affordable. It is more environmentally sustainable to fix up a house than demolish it for new. Mayor Bliss asked how you balance that. Ms. Turkelson explained that Zoning is limited in terms of the ability to control for affordability. The Rent Control Act prohibits dictating price points. Ms. Turkelson feels this suggestion helps prevent the scenario Mayor Bliss is speaking of. Under the current code, in order to do a multi- City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 July 13, 2023 family development, an individual must acquire multiple properties to meet the minimum 90 ft. lot width requirement. If one begins acquiring properties at the price point of land costs now, you may as well acquire a number of properties because then they will demolish everything, build one building, and get 50 or 60 units in it in order for the development pro forma to make sense. What is being suggested is to allow for smaller minimum lot area and width. If someone owns a single-family home on a 50 ft. lot, perhaps they can just control for the number of units but allow for the conversion of that existing structure into a four-plex. Maybe the structure doesn’t make sense to convert and it could result in demolition of the existing structure with a new build of a four-plex on that same property but it is still on one property. Mayor Bliss stated that she understands having a home and adding on, creating a duplex, or if you have a large house doing renovations to make it a multi-family. However, she has been concerned with the predatory purchasing occurring in the city now. She wants to be certain she isn’t supporting something that has unintended consequences in the future. Mayor Bliss invited Mr. Kilpatrick to speak to that. Mr. Kilpatrick agreed with Ms. Turkelson that the code is currently designed to favor the large block acquisition and there are only a couple of developers in town that can afford to do that but they’ve done it well over the last decade. The other thing that is happening now is that single- family homes are transitioning out of the hands of households of low- and moderate-income into the hands of households of higher income. Mr. Kilpatrick related that they did an analysis of the 49507 zip code and looked at the creation of new dwelling units and the median income. What they found was that there was a reduction in the number of 2, 3, and 4-family dwelling units and an increase in the number of single-family and owner occupied dwelling units. They also found a significant increase in median income in that zip code. It is because they are limiting the number of housing choices in that neighborhood and across the city and across the county and region. What is being seen is a lot of competition for a limited supply. The households with the most income are out-competing everyone else. When saying the only housing option in a neighborhood is single-family, the people that are most likely to buy that housing option are homeowners today. Homeowners are willing to spend more today than developers are. The good news is the owner occupancy rate has gone up, which he believes the 2002 Master Plan called for. The bad news is that the owner occupancy rate among households who have traditionally lived in that neighborhood, especially black and brown households, has not gone up. Mr. Kilpatrick feels that reverting to a status quo of saying single family is more important has consequences as well. They need to be cognizant of what those consequences are when there is such a scarcity of housing in the marketplace. Commissioner Knight asked how they carefully determine how to combat that because it looks like something that has happened before. They know all about the red lining that happened. You have a family with more income come in and purchase a single-family dwelling and what happens with people that own houses and rent them is that they raise the rent causing people to move and allowing others who can afford the house to move in. Commissioner Knight stated that they need to be very careful about allowing that cycle to continue to happen. She understands there is a need for single-family dwelling and understands the intent of the suggestions but it is a piece that is triggering right now. Yes, the consequences are unintended but she feels some of it is intended. It has been happening but just has a different face on it. How are we trying to put City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 July 13, 2023 some measures in place to say this isn’t who we are? We need a mixture of people within these spaces in these neighborhoods and especially people that have traditionally owned these houses and lived in these spaces. Now they don’t see each other anymore. You don’t know what your community looks like because you can’t find anyone that looks like you in your community. Commissioner Knight clarified that she understands what the intent is and she isn’t against it but she is against what is happening. She feels something can be done to make sure the intention is done well as opposed to impacting people negatively. The Deputy City Manager entered the meeting and City Manager Mark Washington left. Commissioner O’Connor agreed that Commissioner Knight’s fear is real. If land cost is 25-30% of your construction costs there are few examples outside of East Grand Rapids and lakefront communities where people buy and demolish properties to rebuild because of the scarcity of the underlying land. In Grand Rapids housing prices have certainly gone up. The lower west side is where he lives and works and a house in that neighborhood that used to be an $80,000 house is now $180,000 or $280,000. No one is buying a $280,000 house to demolish and rebuild on a 35 ft. lower west side lot. What could have happened, given the current code, is to acquire three single-family houses on 30 ft. lots to get to the 90 ft. minimum to build a four unit. That underlying land cost might make sense if you can get it to a scale that is big enough. If someone has a 45 ft. buildable old neighborhood lot there is such a parking burden on that that no one can build a four unit on that lot and the cost of the lot won’t let you build a single-family and experience a return on your investment. Even with the non-profit housing providers building single-family homes, the homeowner ends up needing support at the end of the day. The land bank homes that Dave Allen used to build needed some kind of offset at the end of the day because they build a house that costs $380,000 but it only appraised for $300,000 because it costs so much to acquire the land and build the house. The math just doesn’t work. People may be going around trying to buy homes but he doesn’t believe they are trying to buy single-family houses to tear them down to rebuild single-family; it isn’t happening. Commissioner O’Connor also commented on setback requirements. The 30 ft. lots in the city are unbuildable because of setback requirements. One thing he would like to be looked at is how side yard setbacks are measured. Does it have to be 5 ft. from every point along the entire side or is it an average where it can be 6 ft. at the front and 4 ft. at the back as long as the median of the setback is 5 ft. He has had a couple of examples given to him where the plan reviewer said it wouldn’t work because it was not a consistent 5 ft. Commissioner O’Connor also understands that the minimum unit width was reduced from 16 ft. to 14 ft. but reducing or eliminating the minimum width even further may be helpful. Mayor Bliss clarified that the recommended changes would be to allow this on Link and Network Residential streets. Ms. Turkelson agreed. Her recommendation is to focus on those corridors first and assess either through the Master Planning process or success over the next five years and perhaps make further changes then. She feels it would be a mistake to allow for these types of changes on all streets in all residential neighborhoods. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 July 13, 2023 Mayor Bliss stated that she would be more apt to support the recommendation with that limitation. Commissioner O’Connor asked if staff knows how many two-unit structures have been built on corner lots since that change was made. Ms. Turkelson replied approximately a dozen. Commissioner O’Connor stated that he understands and respects the recommendation to keep it to Link and Network Residential streets. He would be completely supportive of 3 units and up on those streets but he feels two units by right in any single-family zone district is something that should be on the table for discussion and consideration. It could have a very low impact. Two family homes exist all over. Any residential street built before 1940 is littered with two-family homes. Why not let it happen in all residential districts? Ms. Turkelson replied that that isn’t currently part of her recommendation. That said, there are opportunities to look at lot width and area requirements but if the lot width and area requirements are met then it is a Planning Commission application. It isn’t that it can’t happen at this point but there is a process. Commissioner O’Connor pointed out that people like certainty. It is a $2,000 gamble to make the request to the Planning Commission. Mayor Bliss felt that was a suggestion that could be explored but it isn’t part of the current discussion. Commissioner Perdue wished to clarify her understanding of a statement Mr. Kilpatrick made. She recalled the changes in the 49507 zip code and the socio economic status of single-family homeowners. She believes she heard him make the connection between the lack of housing types in the neighborhood and single-family being the only real option. She asked if he was implying that if there were more housing options that higher income earners would opt to live in a duplex or four unit instead of the single-family homes. Mr. Kilpatrick replied that if there are more housing options available there are more options for people to stay in the neighborhood and there are more options for people to move into the neighborhood. What they are finding is younger, more affluent households want to be in the 49507 area. There is access to transit. There is access to neighborhood amenities. There is a growing influx of small business. It is becoming a very attractive neighborhood. When single- family housing options are one of the primary and predominant options in the marketplace that is the choice they make. If they have the income to support a mortgage they can often out-compete a developer who otherwise would have all of the same cost constraints but would also have to spend a lot of money on rehab. If other opportunities are available, such as ADUs, two-family by right, or small format multi-family you can slowly build more options into the neighborhood and preferably try to stabilize the neighborhood with a greater variety of both affordability and size opportunities. To Commissioner Knight’s earlier point, using the other tools in the economic development tool box are critical to be paired with this. Zoning alone doesn’t ensure City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 July 13, 2023 affordability over the long term unless every other community in Kent County is also along for the ride in improving their zoning code. The other opportunity for the City is to think about the Brownfield policy, considering the Land Bank opportunity, considering residential facilities exemption, neighborhood enterprise zone, etc. All of those things are tools to ensure affordability for the income and demographic characteristics you want to ensure are either preserved or created in the neighborhood. They would have to be paired with zoning reform to ensure the desired outcomes. Ms. Turkelson mentioned it at the beginning; Zoning alone doesn’t solve for a lot of those challenges. It enables solutions but doesn’t create the ultimate solution. Commissioner Perdue feels all of the recommendations are great opportunities and this one excites her the most. She also feels it is a more accessible opportunity for local residents to get involved in small-scale development. Ms. Joseph wished to ask questions related to the Group Living requirements and recommended changes. Her assumption is they would have different rules related to occupancy by related and unrelated individuals. Ms. Turkelson agreed. When talking about the suggestion for increasing the term of tenancy requirement, Ms. Joseph is concerned and curious about impacts to shelters. Ms. Turkelson explained that she was specifically referencing tenancy requirements for SROs, not shelters. Currently the use regulations of an SRO says that there is tenancy of at least 32 days. She is suggesting that if they are going to allow SROs in residential neighborhoods, presumably at a small scale, to make sure that the tenancy period increases to lessen potential impacts of a more transient type use. She is not suggesting changing tenancy requirements associated with transitional sheltering; that is a separate use. Ms. Joseph feels reuse of former institutional buildings could have a huge potential benefit. What if a church wanted to stay but also wanted to expand their mission to include shelter? How does that work with these recommendations. Ms. Turkelson replied that currently the use table only allows for that church to be used for a church or any other use permitted in the district, which is residential in a residential district. Transitional shelters are not allowed in residential districts. If a change were to be made it would allow for perhaps a portion of the building or all of the building to incorporate a transitional shelter. Mayor Bliss left the meeting and Commissioner O’Connor took over as Chair. He moved the discussion to the topic of parking reductions. The Mayor wished to share that she is supportive of the reduction of parking. She would like to see neighborhoods built for people, not cars. Commissioner O’Connor shared his support for a reduction in parking. Commissioner Robbins understands that parking is a hot topic. He lives in a neighborhood where there are residents that have been there for 50 years and they are distraught after having been City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 July 13, 2023 able to park in front of their house their whole life and that is no longer always the case. This will definitely require some sacrifice from a lot of people. However, based on his personal experience living in that neighborhood for ten years, there is now a grocery store and there is better access to transportation. As a member of the Mobile GR Commission he is aware that there are a lot of larger scale investments going into transportation at both the City and County level. While parking is a concern, he also feels the infrastructure we have and the future plans for it can certainly bear the weight of a lot of the elimination/reduction of parking requirements. Commissioner Robbins would be in favor of considering those. He would also be interested in seeing the potential impacts on certain types of streets, similar to the information provided in the Scenario Building Example in the presentation. Being a sensitive topic, his aim would be to have the greatest benefit with the least amount of reduction. Commissioner Ysasi believes they will see a lot of individuals who have shifted their work environments. They aren’t necessarily leaving at 8:30 and coming home at 5:30. Her husband has a car but rarely uses it when it is warm out. She believes more and more people are recognizing the expense of having a car if you aren’t using it and whether that is something they need. In having this discussion, she feels it is important to consider the other investments being made in different forms of mobility. Commissioner Ysasi recalled the Community Land Trust on Union/the former St. Joe’s Seminary. People felt very strongly about that but what may not be good for one could be a good option for someone else. These will be the difficult decisions they face. As stated, this isn’t going to be resolved with one change. Commissioner Ysasi expressed her support. Commissioner Perdue stated that she has some reservations about full elimination of parking requirements. She recognizes the benefits of it yet shares the concerns expressed. While they see investment occurring, she isn’t sure the ride share program and future investments in transit are enough yet to account for eliminating parking requirements. As she thinks about her neighbors and all the different neighborhoods within the Third Ward, she isn’t sure that is realistic right now. It may be in the future when there is a stronger transit system and all of the other things are in place. Her opinion at this point is to consider some changes but not fully eliminate the requirements. She is open to continued conversation and additional information and justifications for the recommendations. Mr. Van Strien addressed Commissioner Perdue’s comments. By eliminating parking requirements he doesn’t believe they would see an increased demand in parking immediately because it comes as new development takes place. He believes it will allow time for the transit system to improve and for things to catch up. They don’t want to provide all of these transit opportunities without having the demand for it. This can help push the transit system into a better place. Ms. Joseph also wished to point out that the recommendation is just for developments with six units or less. She agreed it is necessary to work together. The Rapid is currently working on their master plan so this is an appropriate time to be having this discussion. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 July 13, 2023 Commissioner O’Connor recognized that the Planning Commission is the body approving Special Land Uses for residential projects. How often does the Planning Commission give some sort of parking waiver to a residential project. Mr. Van Strien replied every time. Ms. Turkelson clarified that those waivers are granted because they are earned based on the Ordinance; there is proximity to transit, creation of bike parking, etc. It isn’t arbitrary. Ms. Turkelson noted that parking requirements were eliminated in the downtown. She doesn’t believe there has been a single development that has gone in that didn’t provide some parking. Often times what they see is that the market and financing tends to drive the requirement for parking. They haven’t seen a wholesale elimination of parking even though the Ordinance does permit it. Ms. Shannon recalled the Planning Commission approving the tiny homes and didn’t recall there being a requirement for parking. Because they were tiny homes on tiny lots they didn’t have a place for parking. Ms. Turkelson agreed that there is no parking directly adjacent but there is parking within the development. She acknowledged that there was a significant parking reduction granted for that development. Commissioner O’Connor thanked everyone for the discussion and hopes that staff and the Planning Commission have what is needed to move forward with some work. He expressed his appreciation for their service to the City of Grand Rapids and their leadership in helping think through some of these important and difficult decisions. Commissioner O’Connor invited public comment. James Lewis, Second Ward resident and member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, related that he is the Development Director of Real Estate for a construction group. He has spent the last ten years developing housing and has done approximately 500 units in three states. Mr. Lewis appreciates what Ms. Turkelson and the Planning Department have put together. The small lot development options are critical for making that kind of development happen because it isn’t happening. There is no opportunity for it to happen as a developer. In all of the units he has developed none of them have been in a building of less than 40 units. He has owned duplexes in a couple of states and feels there is a real opportunity there for what he would say is an emerging developer market. Right now you have to be well capitalized and work for a large company to do development. Because it is so difficult to get projects through the planning process you really aren’t going to tear down a single-family house and put up a three-family. You need to be able to do that to accommodate the housing needs. Even taking the small steps he doesn’t believe it will produce much of a result because there isn’t the capacity within the current development community to address that need. He believes there is a question of not only bigger developers like him but who needs that opportunity to find small-scale opportunities and pursue them? To Ms. Turkelson’s and Mr. Kilpatrick’s point, the financing opportunities make the 50-unit building work. It is necessary to stack tools together to make a project work. If you are just doing a single lot, you don’t have those tools available to you now. As new tools become available, City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 July 13, 2023 they should be tailored to the small developer. If a tool can only be accessed by a LIHTC developer and LIHTC has to be 50 units then it isn’t a useable tool. If Brownfield can only be utilized for a 40-50 unit building, they aren’t useful tools. Bill Moore, 312 Prospect NE, stated that we all know the numbers and supply constraint is going to result in higher prices. The higher you get those numbers it ultimately will move the needle. Mr. Moore stated that he is against any by right changes simply because the Planning Department has been consistently reckless and dishonest and abusing the lack of oversight by leadership. Mr. Moore stated that he has had three frauds perpetrated against him and he would be happy to explain that to any Planning Commission members after the meeting. That has not changed under current management and Ms. Turkelson knows why. Mr. Moore suggested the City stop using street parking to subsidize commercial developments such as Spectrum, GVSU and local businesses because of the parking issues it creates. With respect to the parking requirements and the number of bedrooms, Mr. Moore stated that he has all one-bedroom units. In 55 years he has never needed more than 1.2 parking spaces for the one-bedroom units. Perhaps there is some delineation between the number of bedrooms per unit vs. eliminating all parking requirements. Mr. Moore stated that he celebrates pre-approved plans. He went to Lansing in 1995 for building modular schools. Some of the ideas he gave them was to have some packages worked out with Universal Forest Products, Lowes, Home Depot, etc. where you have three different options available for fixtures, etc. (economy, basic, and luxury) and take the risk out of it for contractors and allow people to purchase those materials directly. Anything you can do to reduce risk reduces cost for contractors. He also suggested having a database available that people can see the actual build results by any contractor or owner that utilizes those pre-defined plans so that information is shared so that everyone can reduce their costs and risk and ultimately reduce the price. With respect to streets, Mr. Moore knows that we like to think we have the capacity but this City doesn’t use accident statistics to prioritize intersections and signage. Angelita, homeowner on Clancy, stated that parking is a big issue. She isn’t able to park in front of her house. There was an apartment complex built there recently and she feels that is enough and not add more to it. The residents of the apartments have to do the blue dot parking and if they can’t afford that they park in front of the houses. They leave their car for more than two weeks and she has to call the police to get them ticketed and the car removed. The apartment complexes are not good for the homeowners or the neighborhood. They get cars that speed and run stop signs endangering her grandchildren. Adding more apartment complexes isn’t going to solve what is happening now. She suggested staying in her neighborhood for a week to see what she has to go through. Ben Korndyke, resident on Coit, stated that what has been passed in the past on Coit is an abomination. Fifty-two densely packed units without parking in a Traditional Neighborhood- Low Density Residential area is destroying that neighborhood. Today an applicant is going to ask for another 52 units without adequate parking, without adequate greenspace, without adequate open space and he hopes it is turned down. It is currently destroying their neighborhood and it shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place. It is all about greed, grants, and the low- income tax credits they’re getting. This is not about helping people. They are destroying low density residential neighborhoods by doing this. The Commissioners should be aware of this realizing that 60% is zoned this way. It doesn’t have to be made high density residential or, in City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 July 13, 2023 their case, extreme density residential. They should be at 10 units per acre and these projects are over 50 units per acre. It is a shame. Commissioner O’Connor closed the public comment period and adjourned the joint meeting. The Planning Commission took a short recess before resuming their meeting. Chairman Van Strien called the Planning Commission meeting to order. IV. Public Hearings A. Conflict of Interest None expressed. B. 670 Burton Street SE and 2080 Union Avenue SE - PRD Amendments Address: 670 Burton Street SE and 2080 Union Avenue SE Applicant: Bethany Christian Services (Scott DeVries) 650 Burton Street LLC (Michael Garrett) Requesting: Approval to amend two previously approved Planned Redevelopment Districts. Bethany Christian Services is suspending plans for their approved expansion, and the amendments are requested to realign the PRD boundaries and establish the children’s transitional group home use as originally approved by variance in 2018. Zoning: SD-PRD (Special District – Planned Redevelopment District) Requirements: Article 7 Special Districts 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Planned Redevelopment District Case Number: PC-PRDA-2023-0040 and PC-PRDA-2023-0041 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Planned Redevelopment District Amendment Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Zeller introduced the request to amend two previously approved Planned Redevelopment Districts (PRDs). The amendment of each requires a separate Ordinance but, because they are related, the public hearings are being held together. Ms. Zeller identified the location of the property south of Burton, between Union and Martin and north of Winchell. Ms. Zeller recalled that in January, 2022, the City Commission adopted two Planned Redevelopment District Ordinances. Ms. Zeller displayed a site map and explained that the first PRD amended the existing Samaritas PRD at 600 Burton and 2080 Union and the second created a new PRD to include the existing Bethany Christian Services property at 670 Burton and the unimproved portion of 2080 Union. The new PRD allowed Bethany Christian Services to construct a four- story building and associated parking, as well as 42 site-condominium home sites for Dwelling Place’s Community Land Trust. The two elements, Bethany and Dwelling Place, are operationally separate. The current requests under consideration are intended to facilitate Major City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 July 13, 2023 Amendments to change the boundaries of both PRDs. Bethany Christian Services is no longer proposing their expansion and will not be purchasing the portion of 2080 Union intended to be improved with a parking lot. The proposal is to remove the site of the proposed Bethany parking lot from the Bethany/Dwelling Place PRD, and include it in the Samaritas PRD. The second amendment would allow the operation of Bethany Christian Services as originally approved by variance. When they were before the Planning Commission for the PRD consideration, they were proposing to expand the operations on their site that were granted by the BZA. The approved PRD allowed the expansion. While Bethany is no longer proposing the expansion, their operations no longer fall under the BZA variance approval; the variance no longer exists because the property has already been rezoned. Therefore, Bethany is subject to the PRD. The intent of today’s consideration is for Bethany to continue to operate as they have been operating in the existing improvements on the site. Ms. Zeller clarified that there are no changes proposed operationally to the Samaritas PRD, it is just adding the property proposed for Bethany’s parking lot to the Samaritas PRD, and allowing Bethany to continue to operate as they have been. There is no change to the approval for Dwelling Place’s Community Land Trust home sites. Mr. Van Strien asked if the space going to the Samaritas PRD will remain green space and not be turned into a parking lot. Ms. Zeller agreed. There are no plans for improvement at this time; it would be green space. James Lewis was present representing Bethany Christian Services. He explained that COVID changed how Bethany was thinking about their staffing levels and where they wanted their staffing. They decided that the new building wasn’t necessary and/or they couldn’t fund it any longer. The greenspace in the middle of the site currently resides in the Samaritas PRD/ownership. When the PRD was approved it was based on a future lot split that hadn’t transpired yet. Mr. Van Strien invited public comment related to 2080 Union SE; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Van Strien invited public comment related to 670 Burton SE; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Shannon asked, if Samaritas wished to improve that space in the future would they have to return. Ms. Zeller replied affirmatively. It would be an amendment to the PRD. Ms. Joseph felt that the request was relatively straight forward. It is really just a logistical situation to get the lot lines where they should be and approving the operations that were approved by the BZA in 2018. She is pleased that nothing is changing with the Dwelling Place development. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of 650 Burton Street LLC (Michael City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 July 13, 2023 Garrett) to adjust the boundary of an approved Planned Redevelopment District at 2080 Union Avenue SE. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. All conditions of approval of Ordinance No. 2018-09/Proceeding 8772 of February 20, 2018, and Ordinance No. 2021-01/Proceeding 91366 of January 25, 2022, shall remain in effect. 2. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. 3. That this approval shall take effect as required by the City Commission approval in accordance with Section 5.12.12.G. of the Zoning Ordinance. SUPPORTED by Mr. Rozeboom. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Bethany Christian Services (Scott DeVries) to amend the boundary of the Special District-Planned Redevelopment District (SD-PRD) at 670 Burton Street SE and 2080 Union Avenue SE and to allow a transitional group home and school, and associated office uses, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because all elements of the site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property. 2. The use, and design of the proposed PRD are consistent with the Master Plan and the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance because the proposed development will be an appropriate use of the property as an institutional use in a residential neighborhood 3. The proposed PRD will ensure efficient development on the property and will result in a logical and orderly development pattern in the neighborhood because no physical or operational changes are proposed to the site since the use variance of 2018, resulting in appropriate transitions to nearby low-density residential uses. 4. The proposed development will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the project maintains the neighborhood’s unique character, enhances its walkable scale and reinforces its sense of place. 5. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed development on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through the provision of adequate, screened parking; attractive architecture; and appropriate building orientation and entrances. 6. The proposed development will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future adjacent uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, glare, or visual clutter because adequate setbacks will be provided from adjacent residential uses and sound and light will be buffered by the natural vegetation around the perimeter of the site. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 July 13, 2023 7. The proposed development will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable, particularly where the natural features assist in preserving the general character of the neighborhood because no changes are anticipated to the perimeter vegetation. 8. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the scale and design of the proposed development does not place an excessive burden on services currently furnished or may be required by the City. 9. Wherever practicable, the proposed development will provide amenities, including but not limited to park and recreational facilities, urban open space, and non-vehicular connections that serve a public purpose because the development will maintain significant greenspace for the visual relief of nearby residents. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated, and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans. 2. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. 3. That no new site improvements are associated with this approval. 4. That the conditions of approval associated with Board of Zoning Appeals decision P- BZA-2018-0012 on July 10, 2018, shall otherwise remain in effect. 5. That the land shall be divided according to the submitted plans. 6. That signs for the Bethany property shall be governed by the rules and requirements for residential zone districts. 7. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. 8. That this approval shall take effect as required by the City Commission approval in accordance with Section 5.12.12.G. of the Zoning Ordinance. SUPPORTED by Mr. Rozeboom. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Paul Rozeboom, Vice Chairperson YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Adrienne Wallace C. 210 Fairbanks St NE, 628, 636, 638, 644 and 646 Coit Ave NE - Multifamily PRD Address: 210 Fairbanks St NE, 628, 636, 638, 644 and 646 Coit Ave NE Applicant: Union Suites LLC (Thomas Ralston) Requesting: Approval to rezone the subject properties from the TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood–Low Density Residential) Zone City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 July 13, 2023 District to a Planned Redevelopment District to facilitate construction of a 52-unit, 32-parking space apartment building with three stories at the street and four stories at the alley. Zoning: TN-LDR Traditional Neighborhoods – Low-Density Residential Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.7.06. Special Districts - Planned Redevelopment Districts 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Planned Redevelopment District Case Number: PC-PRD-2023-0050 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller Type of Case: Planned Redevelopment District Effective Date: City Commission Approval Ms. Wahamaki identified the location of the site, south of Fairbanks and east of Coit in the Belknap area. She recalled that on February 23, 2023, the Planning Commission postponed consideration of a very similar request for a 52-unit affordable housing apartment building. That request did not include 210 Fairbanks. Since February, the applicant has negotiated an option to purchase that property and has redesigned the project to incorporate that parcel into the plans. Ms. Wahamaki noted that the site is surrounded by high-density residential to the south and east. The building to the south is currently under construction. That PRD was approved by the Planning Commission. It involved the same applicant and is very similar in nature to what is before the Commission today. Coit School is located to the west with Low Density Residential to the north. Ms. Wahamaki related that the Belknap Area Specific Plan includes these properties. The plan designates this property as Mixed Housing District in which a variety of different residential buildings is encouraged, including apartment buildings. Ms. Wahamaki displayed examples of the types of apartment buildings encouraged to be developed in the area. Ms. Wahamaki displayed an image of existing conditions. The residential buildings on the property will be demolished. An image of the proposed new building was displayed. It matches in scale and nature to the sister building to the south. 52-units are proposed. There will be 32 parking spaces provided on the basement level, accessed from the alley. A trash enclosure is proposed on the property line between both properties. Should the Planning Commission decide that this is an appropriate location for the trash enclosure, a cross-access easement agreement would be required. The Required Building Line along Coit is approximately 38 ft., which is consistent with the apartment building being constructed to the south. Along Fairbanks, the RBL is proposed to be 27 ft., which is consistent with the minimum requirement in the TN-LDR Zone District. Ms. Wahamaki noted that there is a significant grade change on the property going to the north and to the east. The grade is approximately 10-15 ft. lower at the alley than at Coit, which facilitates the parking tucked under the building. Ms. Wahamaki displayed a rendering depicting the grade change and how the building was designed to incorporate elements of the existing site. At both street fronts the building is three stories high. At the alley it is four stories high, including the basement level parking with three residential stories above. The primary building materials are brick and vinyl siding. There is a significant amount of greenspace incorporated on the site. Ms. Wahamaki displayed the east and west elevations of the proposed building. The east elevation depicts the parking that will be provided underneath the building and accessed from the alley. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 July 13, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki commented on density noting that the Master Plan considers the proposed density to be High Density; 15 or more units per acre. This project is proposing 52 units on the site. For comparison, in the TN-LDR Zone District, approximately 19 units would be permitted on this site. Ms. Wahamaki related that there are 32 on-site parking spaces proposed. Utilizing the Affordable Housing bonus for parking, 55 spaces would be required. The proposed is deficient by 23 spaces. The applicant is seeking a waiver to reduce the required number of parking spaces on site. Because residential homes are being removed, the curb cuts will also be removed resulting in some additional parking on the streets. Covered bike parking will be provided in the garage area and there is public transit within walking distance. Ms. Wahamaki deferred to the applicant to discuss their neighborhood engagement. When the case came before the Commission in February the Planning Commission tabled the decision based on the relationship of 210 Fairbanks with the rest of the property. The delay was intended to allow the applicant additional time for further neighborhood engagement. Staff has received letters of support expressing appreciation for the community engagement efforts and the subsequent design modifications incorporated into the plan. Tom Ralston was present on behalf of the request. He explained that the project is a joint venture with Dwelling Place. Mr. Ralson feels the letter from NOBL speaks to their community engagement. He is happy to answer any specific questions relating to the engagement. Mr. Ralston introduced Architect Lisa Miller to discuss changes that were incorporated as a result of their engagement efforts and in response to the incorporation of 210 Fairbanks. Lisa Miller, Lott3Metz Architecture, reiterated that they have incorporated the property at 210 Fairbanks into the site plan. With that there is a modified building footprint. They have been able to rearrange the footprint in a way that they could push some of the building structure to the northeast corner in turn creating some additional greenspace along the Coit Street frontage. The greenspace has the community space spilling out onto it. There is now an entry for the community space, which allows for some overflow into the public area. The modified footprint also shows a courtyard space that has been nearly doubled in width resulting in somewhat of a repetition of positive and negative space along Coit. The greenspace at the corner, at Fairbanks, also allowed them the opportunity to have an incremental transition of massing from the three story. They drop down a bit at the corner transitioning to the single-family homes to the north of the property. Ms. Miller pointed out that they’ve also added a community patio at the corner of the courtyard for tenant use. If there is an event in the community space, they are able to separate the entry from the tenant entry. The tenant entry is located a bit up Coit, which has the community patio adjacent, which is also adjacent to the courtyard. Ms. Miller offered additional massing comments. They are proposing a flat roof design. Previously they had a gabled roof. With that change they are reducing the overall height. She believes the former height was 44 ft. and the current plan is at 37 ft. including the parapet that conceals some of the rooftop penetrations and mechanical equipment. The flat roof is playing off of Coit School and there are other multi-family buildings in the neighborhood that have flat roof City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 July 13, 2023 designs. As the structure turns the corner at Coit and Fairbanks they have reduced the massing down the hill. They are pulling the third floor back to mitigate the effects of the grade change as it goes down the hill. Ms. Miller commented on materials. They are proposing an additional brick veneer with precast sills, brick detailing in a soldier course above some of the windows, they are creating a belt line with the accent brick color in a soldier course pattern and they have also incorporated some decorative brick detailing that is found on Coit School. The vinyl siding they are proposing will have an upgraded trim package with composite siding, rake boards, and detailing. They tried to apply the mixed materials in a sensitive manner so they can play with the scale in an effort to reduce the overall impact of the building on the block. Ms. Shannon stated that it seems to make sense incorporating 210 Fairbanks. She hopes that the negotiations were amicable and worked out for everyone. Ms. Turkelson stated that a lot of the detailing is critical to make sure it is compatible with the surrounding buildings. She asked what the level of confidence is that there won’t be changes, the loss of detailing, through the permitting stage. Ms. Miller replied that it is early on in the process but they have tried to be realistic about the application of materials and trying not to do something too complicated in the details/something easily found and replicated by the trades. Some things might be revised but they feel strongly about this design and incorporating the brick in select areas and using the vinyl siding as a back up material. They are trying to have a mix and be realistic about how much of that material they can actually afford. Steve Wooden, Dwelling Place, related that Dwelling Place has been working to develop affordable housing and support economic growth in neighborhoods for over 40 years beginning in the Heartside neighborhood and expanding to four counties in West Michigan. They’ve had the opportunity of being joint venture partners with Union Suites on five previous projects. One of the things he reflects on from the previous presentation to the Planning Commission is that he believes the requirement to have them go back and do their homework was the right thing to do. It made the project better. The comparison between this proposal and the project to the south is that the renderings complement the surrounding uses and buildings. There is an intentional scale down to the lower density parts of the neighborhood. When looking at the site map and trying to summarize the question before the Commission he considers how this proposal is materially different than the proposal that was previously approved to the south and previously approved to the east. In a way, approving this PRD helps complete this block with this land use typology, based on the previous conversation around the housing supply needs and the desire to meet the housing needs in a way that is sensible, Mr. Wooden feels this application meets that threshold by making sure they are building in areas that are already dense around it, by building infill near like developments, by allowing for the step down, by completing the rezoning to include 210 Fairbanks, and to have design elements that complement and borrow from the existing built environment. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 July 13, 2023 Ms. Joseph requested hearing specifics about their engagement efforts. She recognized that letters of support were submitted but she is interested in hearing what they actually did. Mr. Ralston stated that the Neighbors of Belknap Lookout is a very well organized neighborhood association. They took their lead in moving the engagement process forward since February of this year. Part of that engagement was to have a presence at every neighborhood association meeting. In addition, they participated, at the direction of the neighborhood association, in their Tour de Food Truck event with a table that showed some massing and allowed for residents in the neighborhood to weigh in and complete a survey that gave feedback on the appropriateness of this use. The results of that survey were favorable. They also met with the neighborhood development committee who was briefed on the survey results and ultimately was not able to find this to be appropriate for reasons that will likely be heard in public comment. Ultimately, considerable effort was made. Mr. Ralston feels the Neighborhood Association President’s letter to that effect is indicative of the efforts they made. Mr. Ralston summarized that they had a neighborhood association meeting in January and presented. That same month they had a town hall style meeting at the site where they invited neighbors in accordance with the guidelines of the neighborhood association. They then had subsequent meetings each month with the neighborhood association board and participated, as invited, in the development committee meetings. Mr. Al-Shatel left the meeting. Ms. Turkelson asked Mr. Wooden to speak to Dwelling Place’s experience with parking requirements associated with affordable housing projects; what the need and demand is. Mr. Wooden replied that it always depends on the location but it tends to be lower than typical market rate housing. A proposal like this will likely see many tenants that are part of the ALICE (asset limited, income constrained, employed) population. They are individuals who are seeking a housing choice that may not require the use and ownership of a car. Mr. Wooden related that they own and operate close to 1,400 units of affordable housing throughout West Michigan and in some communities, especially those like this that are either in a downtown or in an adjacent neighborhood, those parking demands are far less than some of the properties that are more suburban and in more rural communities. In those they operate in downtown Grand Rapids or adjacent neighborhoods they have rarely had their parking lots completely filled. In some instances, if they are full, it is because they right-sized it based on the demands they expected to see because of the populations they anticipated serving in that instance. Mr. Wooden stated that he wouldn’t be surprised if the proposed parking lot is either filled or still has a vacancy rate afterwards. Ultimately, affordable housing seeks to provide a housing choice and that choice may be made by those opting to live in a more urban, walkable, transit friendly environment in exchange for having a car. Ms. Shannon asked how they allocate their parking spaces. Mr. Wooden replied that all properties are managed differently. Within the properties that they manage directly, parking is on a first come first serve basis. Sometimes parking is leased. When that is done it changes how the funding structure is created so most times it is simply first come City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 30 July 13, 2023 first serve. Dwelling Place has a housing community on the west side that is very similar in nature but a bit larger; Harrison Park Apartments. In that project they have the same ratio of parking spaces to individuals and while the parking lot is certainly used it isn’t at such capacity that it is negatively impacting the surrounding neighbors. A combination of street parking, that results from removing the curb cuts, and the comparably lower demand on car usage, that tenants who seek affordable housing tend to have. will ensure they are providing the amount of parking needed to ensure a healthy operation of the property. Ms. Turkelson asked if this is a 15- or 30-year LIHTC project. Mr. Wooden replied that while 15 years is the initial compliance period, all tax credit applications that go through MSHDA are required to sign on to at least 30 years. Points are eligible for properties that sign on for 45 years. Developers who seek to secure this funding tend to opt for the 45 years. Mr. Ralston added that they are doing 45 years. It is a compliance period of 45 years. After 15 years is when developers can seek new credits to finance renovations. Ms. Turkelson explained that the reason for asking that question is that she believes that affordability and the populations this will be serving is important to understand. It is a long-term commitment to an affordable housing project that speaks directly to the parking demand answer. Mr. Wooden added that even though Dwelling Place is a junior partner they are a very active partner. When they are involved in an affordable housing project that is exclusively Dwelling Place’s, it remains affordable housing. They intend to make the same commitments with affordable housing that they help to develop as joint venture partners. Preserving affordable housing in the community is part of their mission, which also includes building affordable housing that they intend to keep. Ms. Joseph asked if affordable housing projects are prohibited from leasing parking spaces. The applicant responded affirmatively. Ms. Joseph asked how they can ensure that the design details don’t change and/or who approves any changes. Ms. Turkelson replied that typically Planning staff has some latitude to allow some changes, provided it doesn’t materially impair the decision making of the Planning Commission. She explained that she specifically asked that question because, in her opinion, with a building of this scale, and she has offered comments on other similar projects in this neighborhood, the architectural design and quality of materials is critical to a project being appropriate for, in this case, the Belknap neighborhood. With the development to the east the Planning Commission had a condition of approval that said no architectural changes were permitted without the review and approval of the Planning Commission. That is an atypical condition but certainly one that may be appropriate. As Planning Director, she would be very reluctant to authorize changes without the Planning Commission’s consideration for buildings of this scale in a neighborhood. Ms. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 31 July 13, 2023 Turkelson explained that she deliberately asked the question to plant the seed for the Planning Commission to determine how much latitude they would want Planning staff to have in authorizing changes associated with materials and architectural design. Mr. Jonker related that he has been involved in several LIHTC developments where parking has been rented separate from the housing. Is that not the case here? Mr. Ralston replied that they will not rent the parking spaces. They will do their best to assign parking spaces. They anticipate that they will have an excess amount of parking based on their other properties. They will handle that in conjunction with their management team. Ms. Turkelson stated that she believes it also depends on whether the parking is financed as part of the LIHTC package. In some cases, the parking component is financed separately, which allows for greater flexibility of leasing. It doesn’t sound like that is the case here. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Alan Potus related that he lives 2.5 blocks from this proposed development. Mr. Potus related that Angelica, resident on Clancy, who spoke previously had intended those comments to be in opposition to this project. She had to leave to tend to her grandchildren. Mr. Potus related that he also serves on the development committee of the NOBL Board, although he is not here in that capacity. As part of that process he made a point of listening to the developers, neighbors, and to give this a great deal of thought. He recognizes that this should be an easy decision. He was present for the earlier discussion about the need for housing and the need for affordable housing. However, he feels there are two important barriers to consider with this project. If this is approved there will be two, contiguous, large, 52-unit affordable housing units. Mr. Potus believes that as a society they have figured out that contiguous housing units for the lower income invites bad outcomes. He believes that is important to consider. The second barrier he sees is density. There are two 52-unit developments, side by side, for a total of 104 units on a total of 1.3 acres, which equates to 80 units per acre. There has been reference to the project to the east that is known as 221 Trowbridge. That project has 66 units on a nearly identical footprint as the two buildings in this project. If this is approved, it will be 57% more dense than 221 Trowbridge, the market rate apartment complex behind it. With all of that said, Mr. Potus encouraged the Planning Commission to give serious consideration to those two barriers. Dan Miller, 123 Newberry, expressed strong support for the project. He has done a walk-thru of the currently under construction Union Suites 1 project. It was impressive with a variety of unit sizes which he believes will attract families as well as individuals. There may be some children residing in the project, which would be a benefit to Coit School. There is a park kitty corner from the development that is very nice. Coit School is right across the street. Mr. Miller stated that he and his wife walk downtown from their home and these units are a bit closer so they are also within walking distance of downtown, which he also feels speaks to the likelihood that some people won’t need to rely on cars. The number 11 bus goes down Lafayette right behind the project. Mr. Miller feels it will be an asset to the neighborhood. It is dubbed low income housing, which means people that earn a wage in Grand Rapids by working full time but can’t afford housing in this city because it is getting so expensive. Everyone is dealing with the problem of City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 32 July 13, 2023 homelessness. It is better to make sure people have a place to stay vs. addressing people after they become homeless. This project creates a possibility for those working full-time but struggling to find a place they can afford to live in. They can live close to a school, park and downtown and in a very pleasant neighborhood. Elianna Bootzin, Neighbors of Belknap Lookout Executive Director, related that this is her last meeting with the Planning Commission as the Executive Director of NOBL. Ms. Bootzin confirmed that Mr. Ralston has come to a lot of meetings and they appreciated that they interacted with neighbors at the Tour de Food Trucks. The NOBL Board was unable to take this item up as they didn’t have a quorum on Monday so there is no official position. Ms. Bootzin stressed that the communication from the Chair was submitted as her personal opinion. Bailey Tuczak, 210 Fairbanks, wished to comment on what transpired after the last meeting and communication with Tom and Nick. They went back and forth for a while and it was all very cordial and clear. It resulted in getting an option agreement signed. Ms. Tuczak wished to vouch for the good faith they showed in doing what they said they would do in terms of her house. Now that she feels invested in City government, after the last meeting and the two-hour discussion prior to this meeting, she offered her comments regarding the Planning Director’s recommendations discussed by the City and Planning Commissions. She feels that adding specific data with the new technology available would be incredibly helpful in addressing comments and concerns and when presenting recommendations such as that. Ms. Tuczak offered to send a list of the tools available. Skyler Korndyke, 716 Coit, stated that her home is four houses down from the proposed new building. Ms. Korndyke expressed her adamant opposition. She has felt no community involvement living four houses away from this major complex going up. She was not invited to the food truck event, did not know about the meetings as there were no flyers. Ms. Korndyke doesn’t feel that the materials in the building under construction were what was predicted in the past. Parking is also an issue. This is a Low Density Residential district but with this high density development they will see less parking available. Since she relies on street parking alone this will likely eliminate all of her parking options for her home. Ms. Korndyke stated that she bought her home six years ago under the assumption that this is Low Density, a good neighborhood, that it doesn’t have apartments and in the last couple of years multiple apartment buildings have gone up within two blocks of her home. She believes over 125 units have been added in the last two years. Ms. Korndyke doesn’t feel the zoning should be changed. Instead, she suggests creating more greenspace in the area, additional parking, or both. Ben Korndyke stated that he is totally opposed. Other than Mr. Miller, he doesn’t think there is a neighbor that is for it. Mr. Korndyke recommended that at the very least the Planning Commission table this, if not turn it down. There were a lot of things promised in Phase 1 of this project such as setbacks, siding, greenspace, playground and none of that came to fruition. It is all about the low-income tax credits; it isn’t about supplying housing for people that need it. An approval would put 104 units into a low-density residential neighborhood. They don’t fit the criteria. It doesn’t meet the setbacks for low density residential and doesn’t meet the parking requirements, even with a reduction in the requirements for affordable housing. It doesn’t meet the greenspace for low density residential zoning. They don’t know about the exterior finishes. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 33 July 13, 2023 They already have a major parking problem in the area and have already gone to having to pay for parking, which basically means they can’t have friends over because they don’t have a parking permit to park on the street. Now they are going to add another 104 units. Mr. Korndyke stated that Alan made a very good point about clustering these projects next to each other and the problems that creates. Mr. Korndyke feels the developers have acted in bad faith at the very least. There has been no outreach. They have attended some of the meetings but Mr. Korndyke heard that they show up in force and it is intimidation. He believes there were 11 in attendance at the food truck event. They had no knowledge of it at all and live four houses from the project. They have never been contacted by mail, email, text, or in person. Mr. Korndyke hopes that the Planning Commission turns this request down and make them give the space back to the community in terms of the historic home value that they have, instead of letting them sit vacant and run down and become a blight on the neighborhood. It would be nice if they fixed them up. James Lewis, 105 Newberry, expressed support for the development. He feels they’ve done a very good job of meeting the intent of the Area Specific Plan. The Plan calls for higher density residential here and specifically references projects that are high density in the Heritage Hill area. He also feels they’ve done a great job in terms of architecture and design. If it doesn’t become an affordable housing project now it is likely that in two years it will become a non- affordable, market-rate, larger apartment building. It does a great job of locating density near a major employment center. Mr. Lewis related that he did a search on available jobs at Spectrum and there are approximately 1,000 jobs open right now for people making $35,000 a year at that location and residents could walk to work from this development. Mr. Lewis stated that he only has street parking and has never had a problem parking at his house. It does get busy at times but he attributes that more to the park. Mr. Lewis related that he was at the last NOBL Board meeting when there wasn’t a quorum and he believes the project would have gotten support based on the comments the Board was making. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing and invited the applicant to address comments raised during the public hearing. Mr. Ralston recognized that there was a mixed review. He apologized to those who felt they weren’t engaged and expressed his appreciation to all that took the time to attend today. They hope the Planning Commission finds favor with the project today. Ms. Joseph recalled that there were some traffic concerns expressed by residents. She asked how assessments for traffic calming happen. Mr. Ralston shared that they had a traffic study done that was approved by the City’s Traffic Safety Dept. Mr. Korndyke countered from the audience that that was for Phase 1, not both phases clustered together. Ms. Zeller added that Mobile GR received the traffic study that was done for the first phase. The applicant did discuss the need for an additional study for this phase of the project and Mobile GR City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 34 July 13, 2023 was able to utilize the results of the initial study and didn’t find any traffic improvements were necessary. Ms. Turkelson added that Traffic Safety Engineers do review the projects and certainly there would be an evaluation of what, if any, modifications would be necessary. There is ongoing analysis both in the early stages for the trip generation of the concept of the project but also during the permitting stage. Ms. Joseph asked how a resident would bring concerns to the City’s attention after the fact. Ms. Turkelson replied that most of the concerns are routed through the City’s 311 system, which is good because it is tracked and requires follow up. Those concerns would be routed to Mobile GR for evaluation and a determination whether modifications to the City’s infrastructure would be required. Mr. Williams asked if there is any data or information on this neighborhood or street already where there have been concerns through the 311 system. Ms. Turkelson felt Ms. Bootzin may be able to respond since she represents the association and may have more direct contact with Mobile GR on that issue. Ms. Bootzin related that they submitted a traffic calming request at least a year ago and they have said that they will do something but the neighborhood doesn’t know what yet, or when. Ms. Turkelson stated that if there is additional information that is needed they can have Mobile GR come to the next meeting and provide additional detail. Planning staff does route the plans as they are received. Based on their review, there were no additional traffic calming measures necessitated by this project. They don’t look solely at this specific development but they do look at its impact on the neighborhood. Of course, reasonable minds will differ. Engineers look at what the warrants are/what improvements are warranted based on specific standards. Mr. Williams stated that he definitely trusts the minds of the engineers. If there is a case where neighbors or neighborhood associations are requesting traffic calming measures does Mobile GR weigh the request more than the data may be telling them is needed? Ms. Turkelson didn’t want to speak for the Mobile GR process. That information can be provided however. If it is relevant to this project, she would suggest tabling. If it is a general question about their procedures when receiving inquiries as to whether traffic calming measures are warranted, staff can provide that follow up. Mr. Williams expressed his appreciation. For him the question is a bit of both, this project and a general interest in knowing what the process is and how they take neighborhood feedback into consideration. Ms. Shannon stated that when this project was before them in February she wasn’t supportive. She didn’t feel there was enough greenspace, the architecture didn’t seem to fit, and there wasn’t City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 35 July 13, 2023 enough community space. Additionally, the 210 Fairbanks property was overshadowed by the development. Ms. Shannon feels they’ve brought back a proposal that has checked off the boxes of the things she recalls the Commission brought up and this is a much better proposal. Ms. Shannon understands the concerns of the NOBL neighborhood; it is a beautiful neighborhood. She feels the opportunity for the linkages between Coit School and this property and bringing families into the neighborhood, with the amenities of the beautiful parks, will benefit the residents of the development. Ms. Joseph expressed appreciation for the applicant taking their comments to heart. She reviewed the site plans from the previous submittal and feels this is a much better design. It is more compatible with the surrounding architecture and playing off the school. She also appreciates them addressing the massing issue of leaving a single-family home on an island of multi-family on this block. Ms. Joseph offered her support. Mr. Williams stated that overall he is in favor of the project. One of the comments that stood out to him from the public comment relates to density. 52 units are proposed adjacent to multi-family development. The Master Plan is apparently calling for this and it makes sense being where it is. When you have low income and high density, in his neighborhood they call it the projects vs. apartment buildings. That is concerning to him. However, low income doesn’t mean no income. People with low income are not inherently bad people and should not be distinguished from others. In that context, it should not be implied that bringing mixed or low income persons into any neighborhood somehow diminishes the value of the neighborhood or the character of its people. Mr. Jonker added that the idea of low income has changed quite a bit. When he bought his first house 20 years ago he would have qualified for this housing but he was able to purchase a house. Now, people who qualify for this cannot purchase a house in this city, which is another issue. They are talking about school teachers, firefighters, etc. Mr. Jonker noted that 5 blocks away there are million dollar home listings in this same neighborhood. He doesn’t particularly care for the architecture but that is subjective. Architecture is an art form so it is difficult to comment on that too much, although he does feel it has improved dramatically. He would agree with the comments that the project has improved overall quite a bit. It is a difficult project in a neighborhood that is changing and, in the end he feels it begins to help solve a need in the community. It does follow through with some of the Master Plan and ASP recommendations. Mr. Jonker offered support. Mr. Rozeboom also offered support. He appreciates the design changes, in particular getting rid of the sloped roof. Some seem to assume that because it is residential it needs to have a sloped roof but that isn’t necessary. The over-concentration is something to think about. The over- concentration of anything can be a problem. He doesn’t feel like this is an inappropriate level of any one thing except maybe an over-concentration of single-family so in that sense, this helps. He would be in support. It is also not adding those units to vacant land; it is replacing what is there, which is seven homes, so it is an addition. Mr. Van Strien recalled that one of the public comments was that the apartment building behind this is market rate and there is also a mix of income level housing developments in this City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 36 July 13, 2023 neighborhood. Therefore, he doesn’t feel this leads to an over-concentration necessarily just because there are two next to each other. It likely adds to the diversity of income levels in the neighborhood, which he believes is desirable. While this does increase the density, many of the amenities that exist immediately adjacent to it help support the density and the density supports those amenities. He feels it is a good fit. Mr. Van Strien feels Mr. Wooden’s point about the Planning Commission pushing back on the initial proposal and it leading to a better development is accurate. This is much better than it was before. The Planning Commission saw their engagement, although not perfect, it was better. Overall, he feels this is a good thing for the neighborhood and city. Mr. Williams stated that he is generally supportive. He would also be in favor of tabling this for the transportation discussion. To the point regarding community outreach, it was better this time around but he takes issue with a neighbor four doors away not having been contacted. Ms. Joseph doesn’t feel this is an over-concentration of multi-family in this neighborhood. It fills out this block nicely and there are appropriate transitions to the single-family homes that are near it. The fact it is close to a high frequency transit line and walkable to downtown, the medical district, school and park support each other. Ms. Joseph wonders how other Commissioners are feeling about what type of approval they would want to see if things change in materials or architecture. Should it come back to the Planning Commission or rely on Director approval? Ms. Turkelson explained that the staff approval will always be in place. When and if there is a request for a building permit for this development, the Plan Reviewer would look at what was approved and if there are discrepancies they have a conversation as staff as to whether or not those changes continue to be supported by the Ordinance and whether it would materially impair the Planning Commission’s decision. Based on what she has heard today, the architecture is important and the Commission appreciates the changes. Therefore, if, for example one of the wings were proposed during permitting to change from brick to vinyl siding her position would be that that materially impairs the Planning Commission’s decision. If the cornice changes from 12 inches to 6 inches, staff would have the discussion as to whether that remains appropriate. Ms. Turkelson related that she will be very hesitant on the extent of changes she would be comfortable with at a staff level. However, that is subjective because that is at the discretion of staff planners and what they think. If the Planning Commission doesn’t want staff to have that discretion, she would suggest a condition be added to say that any architectural changes would require site plan approval from the Planning Commission and they would have to come back. Mr. Jonker indicated he would support that. Ms. Shannon feels that a big part of the improvement they see is the brick and she wouldn’t want that to change. It adds character to the building. She added that while this is a beautiful neighborhood the site is very blighted. By approving this they are replacing some of the blight that could be negative for the neighborhood. Mr. Rozeboom understands it is difficult for staff to determine where the line is. The packet includes the elevations, which are very clearly noted such that if there were deviations from those notes that would be clear. Things that aren’t noted would likely be minor discretionary City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 37 July 13, 2023 decisions. He thinks it could work to add the clause that it is approved per the architecturaly noted elevations. Ms. Turkelson reminded the Planning Commission that they are making a recommendation to the City Commission for final consideration. With respect to the traffic calming discussion, Mobile GR did do an analysis and review the plans and were comfortable moving forward as presented. However, given the discussion, the Planning Commission may wish to consider adding a condition that Mobile GR provide input on whether additional traffic calming measures may be necessary and that input be provided prior to City Commission consideration, meaning that City Commission would hear the Planning Commission’s questions and have Mobile GR’s expertise weigh in prior to them making a decision. That would be another layer of intentional review that could be considered in lieu of tabling. Mr. Williams was supportive of that direction. His interest was in knowing what the process is for people in the community when they make a complaint and what weight that has in a decision regarding mitigation. Ms. Turkelson indicated that staff can provide a response to that interest at a subsequent meeting. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Union Suites (Thomas Ralston) to rezone 210 Fairbanks Street NE, and 628, 636, 638, 644 and 646 Coit Avenue NE from the TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood-Low Density Residential) Zone District to a Planned Redevelopment District to facilitate construction of a 52-unit apartment building with a parking reduction, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because all elements of the site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to topography, the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property and natural features and site topography are incorporated into the proposed site design to the maximum extent practicable. 2. The use, density of development, and design of the proposed PRD are consistent with the Master Plan and the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the proposed development will increase the number and variety of housing units in the city; will support the intent of the Belknap Mixed Housing district to provide housing opportunities which address changing needs and different life stages while promoting neighborhood diversity; reflects a building type appropriate in the Belknap Mixed Housing district; and will result in a density appropriate for this area of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed PRD will ensure efficient development on the property and will result in a logical and orderly development pattern in the neighborhood because the proposed setbacks of the building respect and are consistent with the surrounding development and the proposed buildings will be placed at the RBL, re-establishing the street wall. 4. The proposed development will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed building design and high-quality City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 38 July 13, 2023 materials meet the characteristics important in Planned Redevelopment Districts and the project maintains the neighborhood’s unique character, enhancing its walkable scale and reinforces its sense of place. 5. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed development on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through the provision of adequate parking, alley access, removal of three existing curb cuts, attractive architecture, and appropriate building orientation and entrances. 6. The proposed development will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future adjacent uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter because parking will be provided at the rear of the site and accessed from the alley. 7. Connections for pedestrians and vehicles are provided via the alley for vehicles and by walkways from the street to the building for pedestrians. 8. The proposed development will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because the proposed development will respect the grades on and near the site and adequate greenspace and stormwater detention will be provided. 9. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or would be provided at no additional cost, and will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the subject property is located in close proximity to public transit and major streets and is currently served with public utilities and the applicant will be responsible for the construction of any infrastructure improvements necessary to support the development. 10. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the proposed development may encourage future development in the area and the scale and design of the proposed development does not place an excessive burden on services currently furnished or may be required by the City. 11. Wherever practicable, the proposed development will provide amenities, including but not limited to, park and recreational facilities, urban open space, and non-vehicular connections that serve a public purpose because the development will maintain significant greenspace for the visual relief of nearby residents. 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 39 July 13, 2023 iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. That no setback shall be less than five feet. 3. That a cross-access easement agreement for the trash enclosure shall be required prior to closure of the LUDS permit. 4. That signs shall be governed by the rules and requirements for residential zone districts. 5. That this approval shall take effect as required by the City Commission approval in accordance with Section 5.12.12.G. of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. That changes in materials and architectural elements deviating from what is noted in the submitted elevations shall return to the Planning Commission for site plan approval. 7. That Mobile GR provide input on whether additional traffic calming measures may be necessary and that input shall be provided prior to City Commission consideration. SUPPORTED by Ms. Shannon. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Adrienne Wallace, Salim Al-Shatel V. Planning Commission Discussion None. VI. Public Comment Mr. Korndyke expressed his disappointment in the recommendation of approval for the Union Suites project. The density of 104 units is ridiculous. The past actions of the developers has not been truthful. Mr. Korndyke asked that the Commission think about how high densities of this level will affect 60% of the zoning in the city. VII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 4:48 PM