TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 September 28, 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 - beginning 12:30 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM by Board Member Kyle Van Strien PRESENT: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Joseph, Wallace, Al-Shatel STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Laura Wahamaki, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker, and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from September 14, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Paul Rozeboom, Vice Chairperson YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Laurel Joseph, Adrienne Wallace, Salim Al-Shatel C. Planning Director's Report · Ms. Turkelson provided an update on the Master Plan process relating that in coming weeks they will finalize the dates for the next round of Community Master Plan engagement. It will be the evenings of November 14, 15, and 16. They will follow the round one format, which will be one meeting in each ward. · Ms. Turkelson related that the October 12th agenda is full. The public meeting will begin at 12:30 with the first half hour dedicated to an update provided by the Master Plan consultant, Planning Next. They will provide an update on the results of the round two engagement, where the process is at, and what the next steps will be. They’ve also been asked to expand upon what can be expected when the adoption phase is begun to receive some feedback from the Planning Commission on how best to roll that out. Mr. Van Strien provided an introduction to the meeting noting that there are no items of business or public hearings on today’s agenda. There will be an opportunity at the end of the meeting for public comment. There will not be a public hearing on each of the discussion points. III. Discussion of Potential Text Amendments pertaining to Housing Policy A. Discussion of Text Amendments for ADUs and for Unrelated Occupants Generated 10/4/2023 7:22 AM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 September 28, 2023 Ms. Turkelson recalled that a joint meeting was held between the Planning Commission and City Commission recently to discuss changes that could be made in the near future vs. waiting for the Community Master Plan to be completed and implemented. There is a sense of urgency to provide more housing, more quickly. Ms. Turkelson also recalled that an update was completed on the Housing Needs Assessment and quantified the number of units that are needed in the city; 14,000 by 2027. Zoning reform is a popular conversation among planning circles, both at the national and state levels. There are a number of tool kits that can help guide what types of changes could result in additional supply. In the State of Michigan we are pretty limited as to how affordability can be impacted. While it can be incentivized, the Rent Control Act restricts requiring it/inclusionary zoning. Therefore, the focus is on how to add additional supply. Mr. Kilpatrick has presented previously to understand that correlation and how it has a greater impact on affordability. Ms. Turkelson recalled that there were some agreements during the City Commission discussion. There is an understanding of the need for housing at all price points and all housing types. They agree that an incremental approach is best and know that zoning reform itself is not going to solve the housing shortage. There are other tools that need to be, and are being, considered by the City through this process. This is one important aspect because zoning helps contribute significantly to the housing shortage they are experiencing today. Ms. Turkelson noted the guiding documents. The 2002 Master Plan, which has been amended a number of times over the last 20 years, has helped shape the current policy. All of the current conversations align with the policy even from 2002. As mentioned, 14,000 units are needed, which averages 2,800 units per year. Since 2015 there has only been an average of 538 new units per year. Many of the housing types being produced currently are the large format multi-family development of 20 or more units. The intent is to look at why this is happening and how zoning could potentially be amended, soon, to be able to support some smaller scale infill development. Based on best practices and experience, staff is suggesting to begin the conversation by looking at the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) requirements, considering a more streamlined process, modification to some existing requirements that are seen as obstacles for a number of new ADUs. There have only been nine new accessory dwelling units in the last decade. Another consideration is looking at the number of unrelated occupants. Currently, under the definition of family, no more than four unrelated adults are permitted to occupy a dwelling unit. There may be some opportunities to consider an increase to that number. Ms. Turkelson added that there are three additional topics of conversation they will be having in the future: group living uses and whether there is a more tiered approach that could be considered to allow some small scale group living; consider ways to support small scale residential infill such as allowing duplexes by right on major streets (Link or Network Residential streets); considering parking requirements. Ms. Turkelson asked that the Planning Commission focus the discussion today on Accessory Dwelling Units and unrelated occupants. The other three topics will be discussed at the October 12th meeting. If there is data that would be helpful to inform a future conversation/decision, staff would welcome that input in order to be prepared with that data. Ms. Turkelson related that there has been a dashboard created to gather and provide information, which will be shared with the Planning Commission. Next steps, following discussion, include staff developing red-lined City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 September 28, 2023 Ordinance amendments for consideration at a future meeting, which will likely be late October or early November. A future public hearing would be the opportunity for discussion and receiving public input. Once dates are established, letters will be sent to all neighborhood and business associations informing them that these discussions will take place. The hope is that by the end of the year, or early January, the Planning Commission’s policy recommendations would go to the City Commission for final consideration. Mr. Rozeboom noted that in the big picture they have identified what the issues are in Grand Rapids. They know housing is an issue in many cities. Is there anything particularly unique to Grand Rapids? Ms. Turkelson suggested Housing Next respond. Brooke Oosterman, Housing Next Executive Director, stated that the critical housing shortage is a national issue. What they are seeing in Grand Rapids is that we are largely built out. They are also seeing some trends of continued population growth, which is not occurring around the state. In most other areas of the state, they are projecting a decline. There is also household growth occurring. Those trends, alongside under-production, cost increases, and being largely built out, are some of the unique factors Grand Rapids is facing. Ms. Turkelson began the discussion on Accessory Dwelling Units. In 2015, the ADU requirements were amended when the Great Housing Strategies effort took place. The most significant amendment at that time was about process. Previously, all ADUs were Special Land Uses requiring review and approval by the Planning Commission, including an application fee and developing plans. The process was modified to allow for a Qualified Review. If an application was received, the Planning Department sent out a letter of receipt to all property owners/occupants within 300 ft. It effectively related that staff received an application and if you have any concerns or questions, and you would like a public hearing, to let staff know within 15 days. If such a request was received, it was re-noticed and scheduled before the Planning Commission. If no request was received for a public hearing it proceeded as a staff level review. What that tells the applicant is to do your due diligence and communicate with your neighbors. When neighbors hear from the City first, it sets an adversarial tone because there is automatically skepticism and people go on the defensive. In most cases that quelled fears and requests for Planning Commission public hearings. What the amendment didn’t do was to allow for ADUs to be by right or administrative staff review. Under the current requirements, for an application to be successful, there are requirements that must be met, including setbacks, lot size, and unit size. What they have learned through best practices is that there are a couple of requirements within the Ordinance that are creating a significant barrier for ADUs to become more prominent within the market; the owner-occupancy requirement and only allowing ADUs in association with a single-family dwelling unit. In order to be approved for an ADU, one of the units must be owner- occupied. Additionally, in the City of Grand Rapids, whole house short term rentals are not permitted. That is not part of the conversation they are currently interested in discussing. What that means is that an individual, whether an investor, landlord, or owner, cannot build an ADU or other unit and rent it out short term, less than 30 days. You can only rent a bedroom within your home. The proposed changes do not propose a change to the short-term rental policy; ADUs will not be allowed to be rented for short-term rental; they are only intended for long-term residential City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 September 28, 2023 use. Ms. Turkelson further explained that in order to have an ADU one must meet the minimum lot area for the Zone District. She explained that if it is a single-family home on a lot that doesn’t meet current minimum requirements for lot area and width, you don’t qualify for an ADU. Building heights are based on proximity to setbacks, 20-25 ft., which is a typical two-story sized structure. There haven’t been challenges with that and it seems to be consistent with what should be expected because building form and architectural character are also informed. There are also historic districts that have additional regulations that would continue to trump zoning and building code requirements. Currently there is a minimum floor area and maximum permitted floor area. An accessory structure that contains an ADU may be increased by 100% solely for the construction of a second floor unit, which facilitates above garage additions/conversions. ADUs are not permitted in a front yard. An ADU shall not exceed 40% of the gross floor area but in any case shall be at least 400 sq. ft. and not greater than 850 sq. ft. Ms. Turkelson related that she hasn’t seen a lot of need for change to those numbers, however it can be part of the discussion. The idea is that the ADUs are subordinate in size and accessory to the primary dwelling. In many cases there is a desire for generational housing and there isn’t a need for a larger dwelling that could accommodate more individuals residing in it and increasing the density of the property. There is also a requirement of no more than two bedrooms within the ADU. There is also a deed restriction required, which is an effort to control any potential conveyance of the ADU separately. The deed restriction also helps with an understanding of the utilities. As mentioned, zoning is not the only hinderance to ADUs. The cost of construction is high. There is also a State plumbing requirement that says a detached accessory dwelling unit must be served by a separate sanitary sewer line that must be constructed, which isn’t something within the City’s control. However, the City does have control over the water services. In the past, if it is a detached unit, they’ve required a separate water line. Understanding the related expense, staff is currently working with the Water Department to consider running an extension of water to the detached unit. The Water Department was comforted by the deed restriction requirement to understand whose responsibility it is. If there is a water issue in the primary dwelling and the water gets shut off, that means the ADU no longer has water either. Because of the issues the Water Department has with similarly situated circumstances unrelated to residential, Ms. Turkelson believes the deed restriction allows for a bit more control over whose responsibility it is, etc. If making it easier to develop ADUs, and make it so that it can be a non-owner occupied situation, will they see a significant increase in density, purchase by investors, and concerns about the lack of ownership and having more rentals? Mr. Kilpatrick was able to provide good insight into the market. Mr. Kilpatrick, Housing Next, explained that they often prefer to talk about zoning and economic development policy as dials instead of on/off switches. What has been proposed or brought forward as examples by staff is turning the dial one notch. It will not likely result in wholesale change across the city or a neighborhood; it is an incremental adjustment that makes it a bit easier to build some housing product. Given the way the market works, the cost of construction, financing, cultural proclivities, etc., what has been seen across the country is if you get 1-2% of property owners to adopt an ADU, that is a success. It will be movement in the right direction. Additionally, 1-2% in any given neighborhood is clearly not going to overwhelm the integrity or character of the neighborhood; it would be one every couple of blocks. That is likely the pattern that will be seen over the next several years. That is also important to keep in mind in the context of affordability. The aim is always more affordability but none of these solutions achieve the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 September 28, 2023 ultimate of any single one of them being affordable for everyone tomorrow. Each is an incremental adjustment that gets us closer. In order to achieve true affordability, they have to be paired with subsidies. The zoning is the foundation upon which to get more housing available to more households but the way to make it affordable is to pair it with a subsidy such as an economic development incentive, grant, or something else. What is important is that the grant alone doesn’t matter if there is no unit to attach it to. Therefore, it is necessary to be able to create more housing units and attach the subsidy to make it affordable. Mr. Ryan explained that in the context of the broader market what they are seeing is that there are a lot of people that want to live in particular neighborhoods and there isn’t enough housing to support all the people that want to live there. All of the proposed recommendations are small steps in the right direction that combined can become a solution. Ms. Shannon asked what a 1-2% buy in to ADUs could actually provide. Mr. Ryan suggested 200-500 ADUs across 80,000 households would be good progress. Ms. Turkelson added that another requirement to consider is the parking. Currently the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space in addition to what is required for the primary dwelling. That is another fairly significant challenge in terms of supporting the inclusion of ADUs in the neighborhoods. The creation of an additional parking space, especially in the Traditional Neighborhoods, doesn’t fit; there isn’t enough land to add another parking space, for a total of three spaces, on a traditional single-family lot. If it is alley adjacent it may be possible to come in off the alley and add a parking space there but that results in a decrease in open space and the green space of the lots, which are tradeoffs. Ms. Turkelson related that what they are seeing from best practices is to eliminate the parking requirement. It doesn’t necessarily mean someone can’t build a parking space but as a city we would be letting the market and the property owner determine what is appropriate and necessary. Mr. Van Strien asked if an existing property is non-conforming with the parking requirement would they have to add two parking spaces and the additional under the current ordinance. Ms. Turkelson replied no. If you have a non-conforming circumstance you can continue to support the non-conformity. She doesn’t anticipate requiring one to retroactively bring the entire parking situation up to code. Ms. Turkelson asked for dialogue as to whether the Planning Commission is generally supportive of some of the changes; allowing by-right or staff level review, eliminating the owner-occupancy and parking requirement, allowing ADUs to be constructed in association with something other than a single-family and what that might be, and feedback on whether the Commission is comfortable with the other requirements in place, such as the size of the unit, setbacks, etc. Mr. Jonker asked where the current minimum size requirement comes from. Tiny homes are typically under 400 sq. ft. A two-car garage may be 400 sq. ft. but many two-car garages are much smaller than that. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 September 28, 2023 Ms. Turkelson recalled that much of it had to do with not reinventing the wheel as to what ordinances seem to be working and what best practices are at the time. She isn’t sure there was a science to it as much as looking at the architectural form and making sure the architectural form and building elements are compatible with what is happening either in the neighborhood or on the property. When creating the requirements there was some concern someone might bring in a camping trailer and utilize that. There was concern as to whether that would be appropriate in a neighborhood. Ms. Turkelson’s experience is that if controlling for building form and architectural character is it necessary to worry about the size of it. Modular homes are being discussed and brought into this market. It wouldn’t be easy to pick a modular home, bring it in, and meet the architectural requirements. There would be changes expected and required, which continue to be a priority for the City. Ms. Turkelson feels they are controlling some of the concerns in other ways they may have thought they were controlling with the size limitations. Mr. Jonker agreed. They see studio apartments coming on line that are less than 400 sq. ft. Along with parking requirements, he feels it is market driven. He would be in favor of removing a minimum sq. ft. requirement for an ADU provided it meets building code. Ms. Shannon asked if the language would allow someone to convert a detached garage into an ADU. She understands there have been carriage houses in Heritage Hill that have been converted. Ms. Turkelson replied that historic districts are somewhat unique because there is the added layer of regulation. The short answer is it could, and it could today. However, if the garage currently serves as your parking supply that is required by the Ordinance, then you would need to be able to accommodate new parking spaces on your property. Mr. Van Strien expressed his support of what has been presented. He agreed with Mr. Jonker on either reducing or eliminating the minimum size requirement. He recalled from the discussion with the City Commission that it felt like this was a relatively easy one to understand and support. He would not want to open ADUs up to short term rental. That would contradict the goals for making these changes. Ms. Shannon agreed. It gets things moving in the right direction and has been successful in other cities. Ms. Turkelson added that there is still building code. If the unit is constructed within the primary dwelling/physically attached, her understanding is the building code would look at it as a duplex, which means they have to be fire separated. There are other requirements that will have to be considered. It sounds like there is some progress on the financing piece but traditionally you couldn’t include the rental income of the future ADU toward your construction loan, which is also an affordability issue. Those that don’t have access to the capital, or the wealth already, don’t have the ability to create an ADU. Mr. Jonker noted that the biggest impediments to creating ADUs seem to be things outside of their control. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 September 28, 2023 Mr. Williams explained that his concern is that people of color make up 20% of Grand Rapids. Is this helping or hurting communities such as that? He doesn’t know. The problem or answer isn’t here but he wished to raise the point. People that own a home should be able to do with their homes what they please and should be able to create ADUs to move families in. Mr. Williams loves the idea of aging in place. He isn’t sure if this even applies to the city broadly and if it is actually helping people who already can’t afford to live in the houses that they have or people who may not make a whole lot of money to be able to move into the city. He isn’t sure who this helps or hurts. Ms. Turkelson expressed her appreciation for Mr. Williams’ comments. She believes that any time we can eliminate barriers it is helpful, such as coming before the Planning Commission and all that that process entails. Ms. Turkelson added that the Planning Department is currently working on pre-permitted plan sets. They are currently focused on duplexes and fourplexes. It would make plan sets available to the community at either a greatly reduced cost, or free, that they are in the process of developing. They wanted to add the creation of pre-permitted plan sets for ADUs. That eliminates the cost of having to create a design because the plans would already be stamped by a design professional. They are starting to find ways to eliminate barriers that help the entire community. Mr. Williams agrees that any time a barrier can be removed that is a good thing. He clarified that his point is that the fix is already in. At this point in the game, his fear is that removing the barrier isn’t helping the population they intend to help. Yes, it is important to remove the barriers but what difference does it make at this point? He doesn’t feel we will be going in the right direction when we are already going in the wrong direction. Removing this barrier just helps speed that up. Mr. Jonker recognized that many of the lots in the city already have non-conforming issues, such as detached garages right on the property line. His understanding is that if someone wanted to put an ADU on top of or inside a detached garage that is non-conforming in its location they would still need a variance. He asked if there is a way to remove that requirement. Ms. Turkelson indicated that some of the hesitation is that if it is an existing garage and it is non- conforming in terms of setback it would now be adding a second story. The scale, massing and use now become significantly different. There are now people living there with windows that will have a different view into an adjacent property. Historically, there was some discomfort with that so the focus has been on if going above your garage it would have to meet the minimum setback requirements. You could still add an ADU to a basement or attic if the home could support it. If the Planning Commission feels they should look at setback requirements they could do that. Mr. Jonker understands the magnitude of that and what it may mean for a neighbor. Maybe there is some happy medium if the neighbors write letters of support and then not having to go through an entire variance process. His understanding is building code may not allow for windows on that wall because of the proximity to the property line. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 September 28, 2023 Ms. Turkelson agreed that if the structure is on the property line the building code will dictate how much transparency can be along that wall. You could make the argument, whether the building is 0 ft. or 5 ft., if that really matters in terms of feeling like you’re imposing. She believes it was more so about the scale and massing. Mr. Rozeboom stated that he supports the proposed changes. The city is largely built out. If the discussion was about greenfield development with water lines passing through two structures that would be a whole different situation. Grand Rapids is built out with infrastructure, lots, and platting, which is why he feels this is great; they are ready to get more nuanced in how they do things. There are some things they had to guard against in the past that aren’t relevant anymore. Ms. Turkelson commented again on the situation of a detached garage not conforming with the setback requirements. If a detached garage is non-conforming then going up in height would be increasing the non-conformity. Therefore, the second story would have to be notched in, which may not be visually appealing. Additionally, building on top of existing garages isn’t always possible due to the construction of the existing foundation, etc. In short, if a garage is non- conforming today, you couldn’t simply go up because it would be increasing the non-conformity. That could be changed if felt to be appropriate but the idea is you would have to meet minimum setback requirements. Ms. Turkelson concluded the discussion on ADUs. The Planning Commission will see a redlined version in November with another opportunity to provide feedback before the public hearing is scheduled. Ms. Turkelson turned the discussion to the number of unrelated occupants permitted in a dwelling unit. Currently, no more than 4 unrelated individuals can occupy a dwelling unit. She recalled that they discussed with the City Commission whether or not it would be appropriate to increase that count from 4 unrelated to something else. That something else is part of the conversation that needs to be had. Ms. Turkelson wouldn’t recommend going above 5 or 6 because when you increase that number significantly higher than 4 it is atypical in family size and there are other impacts that may be unintended consequences, such as parking or vehicle trips per day. The discussion during the joint meeting included acknowledging that the practice of a lot of landlords today is to rent by the room. If adding another room available for rent, the landlord can rent for more. Ms. Turkelson believes that is true. However, what she believes the focus was on is that there are a significant number of people in the community looking for places to live. If you can share a dwelling unit with what goes from 4 to 5 it opens up one additional bedroom to a person looking for a home. Presumably it would be opened up at a more affordable rate than if a person were to rent a unit by themselves. There are cost sharing benefits if you are splitting the rent and/or utilities across 5 or 6 people vs. 4. There are also implications, such as vehicle trips per day and potentially on street parking demand. Many communities have had this conversation, or similar, and have acknowledged that maybe zoning isn’t the best place to solely regulate these kinds of things. There are also nuisance ordinance, residential parking permit programs, and other tools the City has. Grand Rapids has a very robust, capable code enforcement team. When something similar was discussed in 2015 there was a lot of concern as to whether Grand Rapids had the resources to handle the current code compliance cases and would changing numbers like this result in more nuisance cases. Ms. Turkelson feels that is City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 September 28, 2023 speculative. What is the benefit and priority? The benefit is to open up what would be a cost effective way to house more people and the unit has to safely be able to do so; meet minimum life safety standards of both the Housing and Building Codes. This is likely an item many of the communities will wish to speak to and there will likely be some concern about it. Some research has been provided. Communities handle it across the board very differently and some communities don’t control it. Our market is different. We have universities in town and not all communities do. What are the impacts associated there? Ms. Shannon recalled the discussion with the City Commission and one Commissioner relating that they live across the street from a unit with 4 in it and constant parties and parking problems. Ms. Shannon isn’t as enamored with this kind of a tool to expand housing, at least until hearing more. How do they know how many unrelated people already live in a place? Ms. Turkelson replied that Grand Rapids has a complaint based system. If a complaint is received it is investigated. In many cases if it is unrelated individuals then it is most likely a rental property, which means it should be certified and there can be an inspection to go in and count the number of sleeping areas/beds. Mr. Williams related that the duplex he lives in was recently inspected and it was a big deal. Grand Rapids inspectors are on their job. Ms. Shannon noted that there could be unrelated couples occupying one sleeping area. It seems somewhat like policing lifestyle. Mr. Williams feels like the market will regulate that. If he has an unrelated roommate that wants to bring their significant other to live with them, it’s a no unless your significant other is paying rent as well. He doesn’t feel an inspector is needed for that. Ms. Shannon asked how this differs from being the owner of a single-family home and having 5 unrelated people living with the owner. Ms. Turkelson feels it goes back to trying to control for the intensity of the use. When you are living as a household you have systems and rules in place that help manage impacts. When you have unrelated individuals/roommates, you tend to have 4 or 5 people coming and going with different schedules and that results in a different impact than what you have as a family. Ms. Shannon stated that despite those consequences or philosophies she doesn’t see how allowing one additional person will make that big of an impact on the housing shortage. Mr. Kilpatrick indicated that the amendment likely wouldn’t result in a lot of homeowners or property owners that greatly expand the number of bedrooms they are renting as a result of this provision. There are a couple of non-profits whose economic model would be dependent on being able to allow for a greater number of adults in a shared housing situation. However, this is another incremental approach. It isn’t going to create a thousand units over night. It likely won’t create a thousand new bedrooms over ten years. If the change isn’t approved it wouldn’t be the end of the world but the more that can be added in, the more units they can get. Mr. Kilpatrick City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 September 28, 2023 suggested that bigger adjustments to the Zoning Ordinance likely require the Community Master Plan adoption first. Any opportunity to add significant housing to the city that isn’t available today likely won’t occur until after the Master Plan process. These are short term interim steps that don’t make a huge amount of difference but can make a difference for a couple of families that really need it. Ms. Bersche asked if there is data as to how many calls Code Enforcement has received on units exceeding four unrelated residents. Ms. Turkelson was sure that information is available and she will provide that information to the Commission. Mr. Van Strien recalled that one thing that came out of the joint meeting and from the presentations they’ve seen, is that this is a pretty easy way to quickly free up beds for people and to add to available housing for people. It is a low cost, low barrier way of helping people out. He is in favor of it and feels 6, or more, makes sense. The argument in a couple of the supporting articles comparing it to airlines was pretty compelling when it comes to parking. He feels the challenges people in Grand Rapids are facing are greater than the challenges of where to park a car. As was mentioned, having some of those district parking permit programs put in place will help. Other mechanisms can help alleviate some of those concerns of the residents of a community vs. those just coming in to park to walk to work or where ever it may be. Mr. Jonker indicated he didn’t have much to add. He also feels it would be a good change. As Mr. Kilpatrick said, it is incremental and increments can be significant in the end. It could be young professionals and not just college students having parties. There are large rental structures in the community that could provide more housing and provide additional options for those that don’t want to live in this type of setting because units wouldn’t be available otherwise by not allowing more per unit. He also agrees with the parking comments. Expectations will change over time. Ms. Turkelson asked the number Mr. Jonker would support. Mr. Jonker stated he could support 6. He doesn’t know that going to 5 would make sense. More than 6 may not be appropriate right now. Ms. Bersche agreed. She is comfortable with 6 as well. She was a young professional at one time in a big city and using public transit. The growth of Grand Rapids demands more housing. As jobs continue to increase here people are moving into this space as young professionals. They live among a group of people in the same situation. Ms. Bersche is also not very concerned about the parking situation at this point. Mr. Williams feels 4 seems low but he feels 6 seems high. He would support 5. He too was a young professional living in Grand Rapids. He lived in Heritage Hill, worked downtown, and caught the bus but he still bought a car. He can’t imagine not having a car even if he doesn’t use it frequently. It will be parked somewhere. To the community’s point, parking will eventually be an issue. There will be circumstances where you have people living in homes that don’t have City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 September 28, 2023 cars. However, young professionals, unrelated, living together will be able to afford a car and they will buy one. Mr. Van Strien feels that is where the programs come in. If there is some cost to having a car, whether the cost is you have to walk further to get to your house or you have to pay for a monthly parking permit or something, that alleviates it. Housing opportunities shouldn’t be limited for the sake of cars. You go to bigger cities where parking was an issue 10-20 years ago, those things start to level out where young professionals decide they don’t need a car, at least not near their home. There are other opportunities to have a short-term rental car, car sharing, etc. and that is where the market starts to take care of things. There are programs in place in Grand Rapids to help protect the residents of neighborhoods with parking constraints. Mr. Van Strien feels it is more important to take care of housing than parking. Ms. Shannon clarified that she didn’t mean to stereotype college students as partiers. Young professionals do that too, as well as married people. Having lived in Seattle, being a professional making decent money, she found it was so expensive to park a car anywhere and it takes so much time. They have great public transportation and she got rid of her car. Grand Rapids isn’t there yet. It is easy to get around the city and, despite what people think, inexpensive to park. Mr. Rozeboom also feels this is going in a good direction. He quoted former Planning Commissioner Tom Koetsier who was in the housing market. He always said if you want to know what’s going on with affordable housing look at the amount of couch surfing going on. Ms. Turkelson summarized that most are comfortable with a change from 4 to 6 occupants. She felt staff could provide some additional data on parking utilization and perhaps some additional transit information. She also heard a request to better understand the number of complaints of unrelated occupants that are received. She asked if there is anything else that may be helpful to help better understand and recommend the decision. Ms. Shannon stated that she agrees to raise the number to 6. Mr. Williams asked if there is a cost from landlords for cars to park on a property. Ms. Turkelson replied not from the City but that could be a management tool that they use; charging additional for a parking space off-street. Mr. Williams asked if there is a limit to the number of cars you can have on a property. Ms. Turkelson replied yes. Currently a single-family home would require two parking spaces. There is a maximum number, which she believes is three. You can’t overpark your site; no more than 20% above what is allowed. You can’t park a car in anything other than a parking space, such as the back or front yard, which is where the nuisance code comes in. B. Other Potential Amendments Ms. Turkelson wished to discuss future conversations so that staff can provide what the Planning Commission will need or find helpful to make a decision. The next three discussion points will City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 September 28, 2023 be in the group living requirements, small-scale infill development, and review of parking requirements specific to single-family homes. With respect to group living for policy change, the focus is on rooming and boarding houses, single room occupancy (SRO), and transitional shelters. Group living includes a variety of other uses, such as nursing homes. The focus will be on the long-term residential uses of the larger category. Currently only rooming and boarding houses, which has an owner-occupancy requirement, are permitted as a Special Land Use within the Low Density Residential Zone District. SROs and shelters are not permitted in the LDR; they must be in a different zone district. One of the thoughts for discussion is starting to distinguish between small, medium, and large group living uses. If transitional shelters might be okay in a residential zone district maybe it is subject to Special Land Use and maybe only if the transitional shelter can accommodate no more than six individuals. Or maybe if it has 1-4 it could be permitted by right and if it is 5-12 beds then Special Land Use. The point being that there are ways to break this apart to consider smaller scale group living uses that might be considered, even with Planning Commission review, but to allow them to take place within LDR Zone Districts. The Planning Department has seen an increase in the number of small-scale requests. Conversions of former churches for example. Many of the non-profits that are doing more supportive housing are looking for ways to allow for more flexibility, more residential style living, with a need to have more than four people live in a home. With respect to small scale infill, there is a lot of opportunity. This topic is thinking about duplexes and tri- or fourplexes. When thinking about residential there are definitions for single- family, duplexes/two-family, and multi-family. Multi-family is a broad category; everything from three units and above. Ms. Turkelson was looking at it to say what if multi-family small is defined as six or less and multi-family large as seven and above, creating tiers, and what if they allowed for smaller scale multi-families to be permitted on some of the higher volume residential streets; Link Residential or Network Residential streets? What if they were to eliminate or reduce lot width and area requirements? Currently, multi-family is only permitted on lots that have at least 90 ft. of frontage. If you look at how the city is traditionally platted, and the make up of the lots, there aren’t many, if any, 90 ft. frontage lots available for redevelopment. That means you will see acquisition and consolidation. If you’re going to do that then you need a lot of units for that to make financial sense. Some of the existing requirements are almost forcing the larger scale multi-family developments to exist. The missing middle style and small-scale multi-family developments aren’t being proposed because of these types of requirements. Ms. Turkelson would like to take a greater look at that. Perhaps it only makes sense now in the traditional neighborhoods because of proximity and access to goods and services and supporting neighborhood business districts. Maybe the mid-century and modern era conversations wait for the Master Plan. With respect to the Link Residential and Network Residential streets, that is where she would like to go with the Master Plan as well; tying the land use patterns to the transportation network. When you think about what a Link Residential street is, there is a definition for that and they know exactly where they are and they are mapped. Ms. Turkelson indicated she will provide a link so that the Planning Commission can begin scrolling through the city to get a better City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 September 28, 2023 understanding of what types of streets are Link or Network Residential streets. They tend to be higher volume streets and they support higher density residential, which was intended with that. Ms. Turkelson also indicated she would provide a link to the dashboard that has been created where you can choose your own “what if”. What if we were to do this, what would that potential impact or yield be? You can change the dials and better understand that. She has taken a broad brush approach to introduce the topic but it could be nuanced further. Ms. Turkelson provided the example of permitting two-family dwellings by right on those two street types. They know how many properties are zoned residential on those street types. If every one of those converted, which is infeasible and unlikely, that would yield 14,000 new units in the city. That is a strong tool they can use. What if they said it was a fourplex and you could see the number of potential units that could yield? If starting to turn those dials, it is important to understand what that would look like and also understand that some of the changes need to work in concert with other changes. If not accepting conversions of existing single-family homes on those street types then allowing duplexes might not make sense. If they don’t allow for a reduction in parking requirements on those certain street types or in the traditional neighborhoods the lots aren’t big enough to allow for conversions. There is no point in doing one if not prepared to do the other. Ms. Turkelson commented on the parking requirements. In order for this to make sense and these changes to work together, she feels they have to be prepared to at least look at reducing parking requirements in certain circumstances or maybe in all circumstances, which is part of the conversation. Talking about an incremental approach might be more appropriate to look at, take a step back, and look at the impact and whether it was a good thing or not and then consider additional changes. Ms. Turkelson explained that she focused on the TN districts because of access to goods and services, the bike infrastructure is coming along, they are walkable neighborhoods, and many of them are served by or have good access to transit. Ms. Turkelson indicated that those conversations will take place in October and she will provide the links mentioned. She asked what else the Commission is interested in having. Staff has been doing research and will continue to do so on best practices and zoning reform ideas and share those articles with the Planning Commission. There are also some good podcasts available. Mr. Rozeboom felt it might be nice to know what adjacent municipalities are doing. Ms. Bersche asked if there is another city that is similar in size and demographics that we can look to for what they’ve done. Ms. Turkelson invited Commissioners to email her with any other requests for information. The discussions will take place in October with the goal of getting feedback and putting together a policy recommendation for the Planning Commission’s consideration and to hold a public hearing at that time. She is trying not to go too fast yet continue to move forward. Mr. Van Strien thanked Ms. Turkelson for the resources provided for today’s meeting. He noted that there is correspondence included in the Commission’s packet. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 September 28, 2023 IV. Planning Commission Discussion V. Communications A. Correspondence regarding potential policy changes for ADUs and unrelated occupants B. Correspondence regarding potential development near Huff Park VI. Public Comment Coleman Barr, Neighbors Development and Grand Rapids resident, thanked the Planning Commission for considering these changes. These changes were needed over ten years ago. The proposed changes the Commission is entertaining will barely make a difference on anything. The impact will be insignificant compared to the need. Currently, over 90% of the properties in Grand Rapids have the exact amount of units or more than what is allowed on them. The fact is that the problem is very understated. Something that is very upsetting is hearing the comments that there are other things besides zoning that are getting in the way. He doesn’t believe the impact zoning is having is really understood. We are already maxing out properties and doing the maximum of what is allowed. The only way to create more units is to buy several units, knock them down, and replace them with a bigger building. That is why the city is only seeing that type of development . Mr. Barr would hope that the Planning Commission would entertain doing everything being considered today plus getting rid of maximum size for ADUs and adding so much more to what is allowed to be done because this isn’t even scratching the surface. It is basically making another change where Grand Rapids will fall short on the goals. Mr. Barr commented on the proposed amendment to the number of unrelated individuals per unit. He doesn’t like the way young people in society are being talked about. We wouldn’t speak about our seniors or different demographics of people in this way. Young people are important and should be considered as well. Jim McClurg related that he has a lot of experience as a homeowner in Heritage Hill living in a dense neighborhood, a homeowner with an ADU for many years understanding the benefits and drawbacks, as well as being a business owner labeled a developer by the City. He understands how difficult it is to develop properties quickly and economically. There are a number of things working against people in the city to do it right, effectively, and quickly as is necessary. Mr. McClurg stated that he respects this process and is pleased that Grand Rapids is taking it seriously and looking at it from every angle. There are people that residents trust to guide this process; it is very well done. However, some of the problems they have ahead are the same problems that will exist in the future, which is trust. As Mr. Williams brought up, there are marginalized people in the city that could be easily taken advantage of if you don’t have either the time, capability, or will to keep your ear to the ground. If you have your head down working, you don’t have time to come to a process like this. If we aren’t communicating very clearly with people that are immediately affected by things, and even expanding the 300 ft. radius, then people are being left out of the process. Mr. McClurg related that they have been a victim of that City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 September 28, 2023 both in their businesses and personal life. People have been allowed to do things that are just outside that 300 ft. radius of his properties so he didn’t receive communication that he would have liked to. Mr. McClurg feels the Planning Commission needs to be aware of unintended consequences when there is poor communication and lack of buy-in from everyone. Mr. McClurg suggested caution as it relates to unintended consequences and that the process goes above and beyond and has a more robust communication structure so everyone has an opportunity to have a voice. Jeremy Zupko, Heritage Hill resident, commented on the proposed increase from four to six unrelated residents within one residential unit. He feels more thought needs to be given to that. A one-bedroom house isn’t an appropriate place for six unrelated occupants. He asked that the Planning Commission please consider including something about the number of bedrooms. The proposed amendment creates opportunity for abuse and an improper situation in terms of the capacity of the unit to support that. Mr. Zupko also commented on the proposed parking amendments. Parking is going to be an issue just because of the nature of Grand Rapids. Like Mr. Williams said, if you can afford a car you will buy it and park it somewhere. Parking management is necessary to deal with some of the issues. That management doesn’t necessarily have to be City required parking for the structures but management of the on-street parking and management of overall parking to make sure it is available for the residents. Obviously, supporting public transit is also important. Mr. Zupko stated that he would love to see new multi- family and other structures be built but with bus shelters available at nearby stops to encourage that kind of use. There is a desire for improved public transit in Grand Rapids. Attaching a requirement for bus shelters to new multi-family units may be a good direction to approach. Eon Smith, Heritage Hill resident, related that he was the first to do an ADU in Missoula, MT in 2015. What he learned was that making the investment with an unknown return is very difficult. There was a bureaucratic inertia within the city of Missoula because they didn’t have the experience to give the investor good feedback. He doesn’t believe there have been a total of a dozen ADUs developed since 2015. The problem is that you don’t know what your taxes are going to be. No one tells you that you will have a different address. There was no coordination between departments. One department tells you you are in compliance and another tells you you aren’t and you have to spend more money to come into compliance. Mr. Smith feels the idea of allowing both units to be non-owner-occupied is a good idea. If he had had that, when he sold his property, he likely would have made a decent return on his investment. It turned out he made a terrible return because they did require owner-occupancy of one of the units, which caused issues. Mr. Smith commented on density. Living in Heritage Hill, one of the things he is concerned about is they pay a compliance tax; it costs more to get things done in Heritage Hill because of the historic preservation requirements. He is concerned about whether making investments will be a good investment with only 30% of the community being owner-occupied. When he hears about non-owner-occupancy it makes him wonder whether people will want to continue to invest in the neighborhood. If the incentives for landlords to have more single rooms are increased, will it create an incentive for people to take these beautiful old houses and turn them into rental properties or discourage people from restoring them to the single-family homes they once were? City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 September 28, 2023 Leslie VanBecker related that she and her husband, Ed Clifford, have lived in Heritage Hill since 1977. They now own four properties; their single-family home and three rental properties. They receive offers in the mail every week from investors wanting to buy their houses. They’ve worked long and hard for years to rehab their properties from slums to beautiful properties. They’ve worked toward ridding their neighborhood of crime, sometimes at the threat to their own safety, and bad absentee landlords. On the block that they live they own their single-family home and a five-unit apartment building constructed in 1910, which was built as a multi-family. That property has no driveway and no off-street parking. Ms. VanBecker related that she has spent hours calling 311 to try to resolve their trash problem because there isn’t room for 5 trash cans and 5 recycling bins on the strip in front of the house. The cans have been knocked over when they attempt to put them on the outdated mechanical lifts. A mansion across the street has been converted to ten apartments. That building also has no off-street parking. The parking at the end of the block is hugely congested. There are also two- and three-unit buildings on their block that also have no off-street parking. There is already high density in Heritage Hill and they also have, within a block of their house, treatment homes. They also have buildings that were supposed to be single-family and have been given a pass to be three units and one of those units has 9 people living in it. Ms. VanBecker stated that they already have density in Heritage Hill. She would like the Planning Commission to consider the historic neighborhood. They have unique problems and concerns. She asked that they also consider the large financial payments from increased tax revenue and the unique and priceless cultural gift of restored homes and an integrated neighborhood that this neighborhood has given the City of Grand Rapids. These priceless gifts can be easily lost by many of the proposals being considered. Barbara Hekhuis, Heritage Hill resident, expressed her concern that a lot of people don’t live in the city and don’t live in the other areas that have become very dense. There are areas of the city that are already dense and when you make blanket changes allowing for six unrelated individuals per dwelling unit it exponentially impacts those areas that already have multiple numbers of units. If there is one house on a block that is rental and you go from four to six residents it likely isn’t felt on the block. However, on her block there are four houses that are duplexes currently. They try to keep the density down as owner-occupants and out of respect for neighbors because of the parking. If she were to put the number of residents in her units that is allowed it would put 8 people parking on the street and that amount of parking isn’t available. If the number is increased to six per unit, that would result in 12 people parking on the street, and that is only one house. There are four duplexes on the block already. Ms. Hekhuis suggested the Commission needs to consider the impact it will have on areas that are already dense. She suggested that if an area is already dense that it be limited to four unrelated individuals per unit because these areas don’t have the electrical infrastructure to handle more use, much less water, sewer, and other things. Many of the buildings are old and not built to handle the noise situations. It could really complicate things. Ms. Hekhuis asked that the Planning Commission please consider looking at different areas of the city differently. Nancy Beckwith, 264 Paris SE, related that she and her husband bought the house in 1975 because the neighborhood was red lined and because, for personal reasons, her husband was unable to get a mortgage. The only reason Heritage Hill has the boundaries that it has is that they could only take control of a certain size of area. They had to pay for an architectural survey in 1969 by themselves, which is why it has the boundaries it has. It isn’t that other neighborhoods City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 September 28, 2023 within the center city were not worthy of historic preservation and protection, particularly Baxter. Ms. Beckwith indicated that she is somewhat confused as to who these houses are for when speaking of group homes, ADUs, and the homeless. She related that the house across the street from hers is owned by American Realty, who has 500 rental units in Grand Rapids. He tells his tenants of the single-family home regularly that four unrelated adults is what the code says but that they can have six occupants. They don’t come here to live with bicycles; they have cars and they have guests over. Ms. Beckwith stated that she has called in about the situation and nothing happens. She has also called about getting the grass cut and the response from the person at American Realty was that they do what the City tells them to do. Ms. Beckwith recommended being cautious with ADUs because you can get a container helicoptered in and dropped in your back yard. Those things should be kept in mind. Anyone that has lived in Heritage Hill for any length of time is plagued with people wanting to buy their properties. There are a lot of investors that will cram as many people into the houses as they can and wont care what the City says about how many are permitted. Ms. Beckwith encouraged the number to remain at four. Sara Lachman, Heritage Hill resident, encouraged the Planning Commission to consider the creation of an overlay zone or amendments to the current protections of the historic district that would allow for sustained protection. The Heritage Hill district is roughly a 37-block area. It is listed in the National Register of historic places as of 1972 and the district was established two years later. It remains one of the largest urban historic districts in the entire country. In 2017 the City heralded the district as representing one of the largest and finest concentrations of American architecture of the 19th and 20th centuries in Michigan. It is commonly cited by travel articles as a key attraction to Grand Rapids and the Wall Street Journal has recognized it and featured the remarkable nature of the neighborhood. Notably, the American Planning Association identified Heritage Hill as one of the Great Places in America. After 180 years, Heritage Hill stands as one of Grand Rapids’ gems. However, while the historic district reflects Grand Rapids’ pride, rich history, and its founders’ triumphs, it also reflects a cautionary tale. Within the neighborhood are pocks of poorly laid plans and scars of the City’s self-inflicted wounds. The historic district contains approximately 1,300 structures with more than 60 architectural styles. Most homes were built between 1840 and 1920 for single-family residences. In the 1930s and 1940s developers turned many of the homes into apartment buildings. In the 1960s developers rapidly began converting a great number of large houses into multi-unit residences and office buildings. Just prior to receiving its protected status, based on several urban renewal projects with municipality support, private development plans had developers slated to level 75% of what is now the historic district. By 1968 wrecking balls were rampant throughout downtown Grand Rapids. Many found the destruction of city hall as an egregious mistake and an alarm for the protection of the Heritage Hill district. Ms. Lachman noted that she has provided the Planning Commission with a short summary of statistics about the historic district and its already increased density as it compares to other neighborhoods. Doug Meeks, Heritage Hill resident, stated that many of the considerations being discussed could affect the neighborhood. He asked that the Planning Commission do what is in the best interest of the city. He suggested something they should look at before making decisions is what is being called a housing crisis. He finds that language dog-whistley. No one has talked about the fact that the City of Grand Rapids lost 1% of the population last year. There are things other than the one report that show a movement from people living in the city to moving out to other districts of the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 September 28, 2023 county. While there probably is a crisis, he echo’s Mr. Williams’ position about affordable housing. What is being proposed with these changes is changing things for people that already own homes. When considering affordable housing it is housing for people that don’t have homes and aren’t capable of purchasing one in order to create intergenerational wealth. That is what should be discussed in terms of affordable housing and what has been discussed for the last two hours is 1,200 units, possibly, over a ten-year period. The crisis being talked about is that supposedly in the next five years 14,00 units are needed. Mr. Meeks feels the Planning Commission should consider the fact that there are certain times that ADU situations can be very destructive. If a property owner is going through foreclosure, what rights does the occupant of the ADU have? He suggested this is opening up unintended consequences. Beth Boerman, Heritage Hill resident and realtor, commented on the issue of raising the number of unrelated adults per unit from four to six. In her experience, investors look for a four- bedroom, two bath home. They then put in four people. If they can’t find a four-bedroom they will buy a two- or three-bedroom and stack two people in a room. If the number is increased from four to six it will just be letting landlords pack more people into a house. The rent won’t go down, it will go up just for more people to share the expense. Ms. Boerman doesn’t feel the problem will be solved. Heritage Hill is already a high-density area with a huge parking problem. She welcomed Commissioners to visit particular streets that are completely packed all day and night, partly because there are already rentals. When you have four in a unit there are four cars and they have guests resulting in the need to park eight cars. If the number is increased to six people per unit it will result in ten to twelve cars to deal with. Ms. Boerman asked that the Planning Commission consider that. If they feel the need to increase the number from four to six, she would hope they would look at parts of the city that are already extremely dense and already have a lot of rental properties and make an exception in those areas. Dane Gates, Grand Rapids for Affordable Housing Coalition, related that they advocate for the residents of the city that are 0-30% area median income, the most marginalized residents in the city. She is pleased to be a part of the conversation today. There is a housing crisis in the nation affecting everyone. In addition to making changes fast, it is important to do them well. Ms. Gates stated she is very compassionate about the unhoused. Who is at the table for this conversation matters. She wishes the Planning Commission was a more diverse body so more voices could enter in. Ms. Gates stated that she is a strong advocate for equity. They advocate for the fact that housing is a human right; a person should have a decent place to live. Housing is also a social determinant of health. The nation is in crisis and it is time for everyone to take responsibility to do their part to right what has occurred. Matt Overman related that he lives across from Garfield Park and owns 523 Lyon in Heritage Hill. He finds it crazy that landlords are so bad. It sounds like Heritage Hill is being represented here today. It is a strong neighborhood and they are advocating for themselves, which is helpful. As someone who owns property in Heritage Hill and hopes to reside there someday, he loves that. At the same time, if talking about housing in Grand Rapids and how expensive it is, any housing added is going to help lower costs in the long run. Supply and demand will be what they are. If supply keeps going down and demand keeps going up investors will be the only ones who can afford housing, which is horrible. Increasing housing in some way will result in housing being more affordable and not only investors buying. Mr. Overman feels there is a balance. With City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 September 28, 2023 respect to the proposed changes, they are all good ideas and implementation is huge. Mr. Overman suggested that as parking is reduced with the addition of bike lanes it is only going to make things worse. Either the parking has to go or the bikes have to go. Liz Bracken, Heritage Hill resident, asked that the Planning Commission strongly consider the parking issue. As noted, the trash collection situation is abysmal. She never would have imagined having to call the City twelve times in eighteen months about her trash. She understands the City’s limitations. She puts the cart where it is supposed to be and cars come along and block it and it can’t be picked up. It is the same with emergency services. Parking is very tight on both sides of the street where she lives and she has seen emergency vehicles unable to pass through because of the way cars are parked, especially during the winter months. As the changes are considered she feels there should be consideration given to the bigger infrastructure pieces that also impact that. Lisa McManus, Heritage Hill resident, related that she does some work with Oakdale Neighbors and knows that a lot of people that live in that community rent houses. She would ask that the Commission reconsider their stance on owner-occupancy for ADUs. She is concerned that those rental houses could all add an extra unit in the back if the owner doesn’t have to reside on site. She sees that as very negative for the families that live there now; packing more and more people onto the same property. Ms. McManus asked that the Planning Commission consider not making a density situation worse by allowing landlords to add extra units without having to live there. Kara Phillips, Heritage Hill resident, stated that she doesn’t know that ADUs are necessarily addressing the need for affordable housing. She fears that one of the unintended consequences of some of these changes could be moving the housing market from a home owner market to a rental only market. She fears it makes it much more enticing for investors to come in. People are currently moving back to city centers and this is potentially just a profitable land grab. Cities, neighborhoods, and communities benefit from home ownership. Anything that can be done to encourage home ownership, at all levels, needs to be focused on for the long run so that there is greater equity and a strong, committed contribution to the city and the neighborhoods at large. Reed Taylor, Heritage Hill resident, related that his wife bought her home in 1984. At that time it was a dangerous neighborhood. He feels he is in a room with people who have been in Heritage Hill for decades and have worked really hard at the goal of making Heritage Hill a true historic district. Part of that is home ownership. Mr. Taylor is very sensitive to the fact that the desire is to create places where people can live and they want to be a part of that. Is it also possible to preserve what is unique about Heritage Hill. There are people that have worked for decades to restore structures, make them something special, and be very proud of it. Mr. Taylor hopes that the critical objectives can be fulfilled while at the same time honoring what Heritage Hill is; it is unique. He suggested trying to preserve that and get the housing needs met. VII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 2:40 PM