TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 October 26, 2023 City Commission Chambers I. 12:00 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. - Lunch - Conference Room 901, City Hall, 300 Monroe Ave NW II. Business - 12:30 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM by Board Member Kyle Van Strien PRESENT: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Swem, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker, and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from October 12, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Swem, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Jonker C. Planning Director's Report · New Planning Commissioner, Brian Swem, was welcomed and introduced. · Agenda items were briefly discussed. Ms. Zeller related receipt of new correspondence as of this morning that has been added to the packet. · Ms. Turkelson provided a brief update on the Community Master Plan work. III. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Conflict of Interest Mr. Jonker related a potential conflict related to the 563 Jefferson Ave SE agenda item. He and his wife have contributed to AYA for years and provided funds toward the purchase of the subject lot. Mr. Swem also related a potential conflict related to the same agenda item. He is employed by Pure Architects who is working on this project alongside AYA and he is personally working on the project. Generated 10/31/2023 6:52 PM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 October 26, 2023 Motion by Ms. Shannon, supported by Ms. Joseph, finding that Mr. Jonker has a potential conflict of interest. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Dr. Wallace, finding that Mr. Swem has a potential conflict of interest. Motion carried unanimously. B. 834, 836, 840, and 846 E Fulton St - Vehicle Repair Facility Address: 834, 836, 840, and 846 E Fulton St. Applicant: Community Automotive (Richard Zaagman) Requesting: Approval to expand an existing vehicle repair facility. Zoning: TN-TBA (Traditional Neighborhood – Traditional Business Area) Requirements: Article 6. Mixed Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.40. Vehicle Repair 5.10.05. Reduction in Parking 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0083 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: November 11, 2023 Ms. Zeller introduced the Special Land Use request of Community Automotive. The property is located on the edge of a TN-TBA (Traditional Business Area). There is low-density residential to the west and the south. The Fulton St. cemetery is located across Fulton to the north. Since its establishment in this location in 1975 this service facility has received several variances and Special Land Use approvals. In May of 2012, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning of two residential properties from LDR to TBA and approved expansion of surface parking to support the repair facility use. The rezoning was approved by the City Commission and the parking area was constructed. On May 23, 2013, the Planning Commission approved a request for a 2,016 sq. ft. building expansion with the addition of 4 new service bays with a mezzanine. Ms. Zeller believes that the buildings current location, fairly close to the southerly lot line, was facilitated through variance when the building was constructed. Ms. Zeller clarified that the Planning Commission is considering Special Land Use approval for the expansion of a vehicle repair facility. If the Planning Commission is amenable to the request, Final Site Plan Review will be conducted by staff. The project will also need a variance. Ms. Zeller described current site conditions. It is improved with a two-story building of approximately 6,300 sq. ft. and surface parking. It consists of four separate parcels. Because the site is bisected by an alley, the properties on either side of the alley cannot be combined. The two properties that front Fulton are within a Neighborhood Enterprise Zone, which prohibits them from being combined with the properties behind them. There is a deed restriction in place to memorialize that the parking goes with the Community Automotive operation. Ms. Zeller displayed a slide of the existing building, the previous expansion, and the addition being considered today. The existing site plan was previously approved by the Planning Commission. It included a perimeter fence and landscape buffer. The fence wasn’t approved at the lot line. The City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 October 26, 2023 fence is on the inside of the landscape buffer, which somewhat appears to be part of the neighboring residential properties. As part of today’s request, the applicant is asking to move the fence to the perimeter and have the landscape buffer on the inside. Ms. Zeller related that there are some non-conformities on the site; the surface parking in front of the building. There is also a non-conforming pole sign. Neither are relevant to the discussion today. There were previously 36 exterior parking spaces approved, in addition to the interior spaces. There is no permanent trash enclosure on the property. The applicant is proposing a trash bin near the alley but not within an enclosure. Since at least 2006, there has been one or two shipping containers on site, located behind the building, that have been used for storage. They are located in designated parking spaces. Ms. Zeller explained that two additions are proposed; the service bay addition and a storage addition. The storage addition is proposed along Dwight. The single-story addition on Dwight is a 200 sq. ft. parts addition. Because there is a Required Building Line in the district, the addition can be allowed to go in front of the building if the Planning Commission finds the design of the building and the expansion appropriate. The second addition is proposed on the south side of the building. It will need a variance as it is proposed to be approximately 1 foot from the easterly lot line. It would contain 2 service bays bringing the total number of service bays to 14. The 2013 expansion approval included a total of 10 service bays. There are currently 12 service bays in operation. It appears that the 12 were approved with the building permit, which Ms. Zeller doesn’t have an explanation for. Ms. Zeller noted that there are other site elements to consider. The Zoning Ordinance requires an acre, or 43,560 sq. ft., for vehicle repair facilities. The total area of the properties being considered are approximately a half-acre. The Planning Commission allowed the expansion in the past. Part of the consideration today is whether the expansion is appropriate relative to the size of the property and its operation. The new service bays will face a residential property, which is another Planning Commission consideration as the Zoning Ordinance requires vehicle service bay openings be oriented away from any public street or residential Zone District. Because this is in a TN-TBA there is residential all around it. Additionally, because this is a corner lot it is considered to have two front yards along the street frontages and the rest of the yards are considered side yards. The minimum setback for buildings in a TN-TBA, where the property abuts ground floor residential uses, is 10 ft. As previously mentioned, the applicant is proposing a 1 ft. setback. If the Planning Commission is amenable to this plan, the applicant will need to seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. From a site layout perspective, the parts addition brings it closer to conformity with the requirements of the Zone District. However, it is important to look at the building and the use holistically. Ms. Zeller reiterated that a permanent trash enclosure is not proposed. Trash bins are proposed to be located at the south property line and would be visible from the public right-of-way. There is an existing 4 ft. wide gate to provide access for the property on Baldwin. The gate allows them to access the alley from the garage area. Her understanding is that the gate is only 4 ft. wide because the property owner has a motorcycle rather than a car. The Planning Commission should consider whether the 4 ft. gate will be adequate for the future. The plan proposes adequate green space and tree canopy will be calculated at permitting. Ms. Zeller reiterated that they propose moving the fence from the interior to the lot line/perimeter. It City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 October 26, 2023 is currently a 6 ft. high fence and the applicant is proposing a 6 ft. high fence. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to describe the floor plan. The minimum front transparency requirement in the TN-TBA is 60%. As stated, the property is considered to have two front yards. The north elevation faces Fulton. There are no changes proposed there other than the addition, which is further back. Views of each elevation were displayed. On the east elevation one existing window will be relocated onto the building addition. That elevation currently has approximately 40% transparency and there is no significant change to the transparency on that elevation proposed. Ms. Zeller commented on use considerations. The hours of operation are Monday - Friday, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. There are currently 15 individuals employed and, with the expansion, they anticipate adding two employees. The applicant has reported that in 2022 they had an average of 70 cars serviced per week and approximately 36-44 vehicles are on site throughout the day. The current start to finish time for car repairs is approximately 9 days. According to the application, the building addition is expected to reduce the duration of service time rather than providing the ability of the facility to add more vehicles to the service schedule. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss that with the applicant, particularly due to their dependance on off-site vehicle storage for vehicles awaiting repair and pick up. Owners are expected to pick up their repaired vehicles within 48-72 hours of completion. Ms. Zeller advised that parking requirements are based on service bays, number of employees, and office space. Staff calculated the parking requirement for the use, with the proposed number of bays, as 61 spaces. There are 34 parking spaces on site, in addition to the 14 service bays, for a total of 48. As proposed, on-site parking is deficient by 13 spaces. The applicant has indicated that 15 parking spaces are available in the Baldwin lot. Baldwin is a side street located to the south of the facility. There is a surface parking lot on Baldwin that was constructed after the building was constructed. LaFontsee Galleries is currently located in the building. At the time it was constructed it was a medical office and the additional surface parking lot was constructed for doctor parking. The applicant has indicated that they have a lease agreement to use 15-18 spaces for employee parking. Off-site parking is permitted, with a formal agreement. The Planning Commission should consider the distance to that parking. It should be within 300 ft. and the subject spaces are approximately 600 ft. removed. The formal parking agreement was not submitted so the Planning Commission may wish to explore that further. Ms. Zeller also explained that there are four tandem on-site parking spaces proposed. They’ve labeled them as overnight spaces. Ms. Zeller didn’t include them in the parking calculation because there are concerns about the ability to actually park four vehicles in those spaces. The spaces don’t meet the dimensional and maneuverability requirements. She suggested the applicant expand upon how those spaces would be accessed. There are also questions about the accessibility of some of the other spaces on the lot. It appears that the space furthest to the southeast would be challenging to access. These are not customer parking spaces but rather where staff will be storing vehicles. They likely have experience moving vehicles in and out but staff does have some questions about the ability to utilize those spaces. In addition, on the north side several of the spaces are in the clear vision area. It appears that several of the spaces extend in front of the curb cut and there are some concerns about the accessibility of all of those spaces. Ms. Zeller displayed a turning template noting that it is necessary to drive over other spaces to access the space they are showing as an example. Ms. Zeller summarized that the site plan proposed does not meet all the dimensional requirements. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 October 26, 2023 Ms. Zeller commented further on off-site parking. The use regulations for vehicle repair require that all vehicles awaiting repair or pick up shall be kept in approved parking spaces on site. Community Automotive has a very strong business but it doesn’t appear they are able to accommodate all their vehicles on site. Ms. Zeller’s understanding is that they have purchased the hair salon immediately to the east across Dwight and they have vehicles stored there. The hair salon is at least somewhat still in operation. In addition, the Baldwin lot that was constructed for the doctors, is used by Community Automotive for vehicular storage. They also include those spaces in their application. The vehicles are double parked and are clearly being stored there for the purposes of their operation. Ms. Zeller summarized that the issue at hand is that the site should be able to accommodate the entire use. Shared off-site parking is permitted among uses when there are under-utilized parking spaces. However, the storage of customer vehicles is a different use than employee parking. That is something that the Planning Commission should consider today. Ms. Zeller related receipt of letters of support from the two neighborhood associations; Midtown Neighborhood Association and the East Hills Council of Neighbors. A letter of concern has been submitted by the property owner immediately to the south on Baldwin. The fence is currently 5 ft. further to the north with the landscape buffer on his side of the fence. The applicant is now proposing that the fence be located at the property line. Ms. Zeller displayed slides noting that historically there have been vehicles parked into the sidewalk area. The installation of wheel stops has been included as a condition of approval for the spaces on the north side. There have also been enforcement cases in 2016 and 2021 relative to parking on the sidewalk. An image of the hair salon was displayed. The vehicles appear to be parked very neatly there but the number of available spaces for the hair salon use on the site is unclear. Ms. Zeller displayed an aerial photo as well as the previously approved site plan. Ms. Zeller summarized the request and identified key considerations as the ability of the site to accommodate the proposed use expansion given current operations and utilization of off-site parking lots, as well as the necessity of a dimensional variance for the proposed expansion. Ms. Joseph asked if the applicant was advised that it may be advantageous to seek Special Land Use for some of the other properties that they use for vehicular storage. She understands they don’t own the Baldwin lot. Ms. Zeller replied that as they discussed it, they talked about some of the issues associated with this request. They also advised the applicant that their use of those properties was not an allowed use. A condition of approval has been included that they seek approval for those uses. Mr. Swem asked that Ms. Zeller clarify the landscape buffer and fence arrangement and what the Zoning Ordinance intends. Ms. Zeller explained that the intent is to have a buffer. The landscaping will deaden some sound and provide a delineation between the uses. Generally, they see the fence on the outside. There have been occasions, this being one of them, where the relationships between the two uses are City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 October 26, 2023 such that the Planning Commission found it to be more advantageous or beneficial for the adjacent property owner to have the fence on the inside and landscaping on the outside. The issue with that is it presents some challenges for the property owner to maintain the landscape buffer. She believes the Planning Commission required it the way it is because of the relationship of the adjacent properties; all the houses are fairly close. Richard Zaagman, owner of Community Automotive, was present with Brandon Baar, partner/business manager, and architect Jay Miedema. Mr. Zaagman explained the reason they propose moving the fence to the property line. All of the homes around the property are rentals and they’re great neighbors. However, each time someone moves he is challenged with maintaining the buffer. He has to explain to each new tenant who he is and why he is on their property. It has been scary at times when he is walking around the property and someone is startled because they don’t think he belongs there. It would also be helpful to have more space inside the fence, especially with the addition being proposed, dumpsters, and storage. Mr. Zaagman also related that they aren’t trying to acquire more customers. They have a lot more than what they can handle. They are trying to handle what they already have. They don’t do any marketing anymore, other than their website. They have no need to bring in more customers. They are even trying to narrow the focus of what types of cars they work on to reduce the long- term parking. The nature of their business is that they work on very unusual cars. They are cars that aren’t necessarily daily drivers for customers. They have one currently that has been there about a year; an old Toyota Land Cruiser. They’ve likely put $50,000 into the vehicle over time but it takes months to get parts so the nature of the business requires some unusual storage. There are plenty of cars that come and go the same day but because of the unusual cars they sit there longer. Mr. Zaagman stated that they are trying to fix that problem by having more employees and they don’t have space for more employees, which is why they need the additional bays. Ms. Joseph noted that a letter of concern was submitted by the neighbor to the south related to the tree that is currently helping with the screening of the use. If the fence is moved, would that tree remain. Mr. Zaagman replied that the tree will remain. They aren’t removing any trees. There are some bushes that, for some reason, died in the last year. They haven’t done anything with them yet because they knew they were coming to this meeting. After getting the results of this meeting, they will address whatever landscaping is no longer green. Ms. Joseph asked if they did direct outreach to neighbors. Mr. Baar related that he walked as much as possible in the neighborhood. He spoke with three individuals. He isn’t familiar with who owns homes vs. who rents but he was able to talk to three owners. Mr. Rozeboom asked that Mr. Zaagman confirm their hours of operation. Mr. Zaagman replied 7 am to 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 October 26, 2023 Ms. Bersche asked if there will be any adjustments to lighting or if additional lighting would be added to the parking lot. Mr. Zaagman replied no. He feels the lighting is adequate. They may have some low-level lighting on the building addition, which would match what they currently have but no bright lights of any kind. Ms. Joseph asked if they would be prepared to move forward with the necessary applications to seek approvals for the vehicle storage that takes place off site. Mr. Zaagman replied yes, if that is possible. Mr. Baar commented further on the neighborhood outreach. The neighbor directly behind them has asked for a gate. Ms. Zeller indicated it was a 4 ft. gate but it is going to be a double gate that would accommodate a car going through. In their new drawing they are proposing the bigger gate go straight through so they have easier access. The neighbor requested it be moved and they are amenable. Ms. Joseph asked where the dumpsters would be located. Mr. Baar stated that they are on rollers and they’ve been able to tuck them between cars and the fence. They move them out for pick up. Mr. Swem asked if the addition will eliminate the need for the two storage containers on site. Mr. Zaagman replied affirmatively. The addition is proposed as a two-story. Any storage they have in the storage containers would go on the second level. Mr. Swem noted that the proposed service bays are considerably deeper than the rest of the bays they have. He asked about the need for that. Mr. Zaagman replied that the reason they propose the addition going into the setback is to match the depth of the existing bays on the west side. If they maintained the setback it would have to be cut in and the bays would be shorter. Mr. Swem explained that because of the existing stair in the bays just to the north of the addition it looked like there was some room to match the 4 ft. setback they currently have vs. the 1 ft. proposed. Mr. Zaagman stated that they are extremely crowded. The main building is very old and when it was built the cars must have been a lot smaller or people working in a small environment was more acceptable. Today they find, even with some cars being smaller, they need more equipment and employees. They are very crowded, which is why they are asking for that continued depth to match. The stairway blocks some of the depth of the adjacent bays but others have full depth. They would ask to be allowed that with this addition so they have room for equipment and space to walk between the equipment and the vehicles. Mr. Zaagman invited Commissioners to tour City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 October 26, 2023 someday if they like. Because of the age of the building, and partly because of the location, they are limited as to what they can do. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. James White related that he owns the property directly behind the project. Mr. White related that he has had work done at Community Automotive and he is a car guy so he is sympathetic to the presentation. He would disagree on a couple of small issues. When he first bought his house in 2005, he bought it because of its location, the neighborhood, and the grocery store down the street. He has a child with special needs and he was thinking about him down the road when he is trying to live on his own or with a caregiver. The home is being rented until he can live there on his own with some support. Mr. White explained that what he is concerned about is the view. The kitchen looks out onto the parking lot. The tree that is there is a pretty good buffer, which is why he was concerned about the tree not being removed. Mr. White stated that he isn’t trying to stop their growth but he would ask that they leave the fence where it is on the south side and he would gladly maintain the landscaping on the outside of it. When they received their previous approval, the compromise was to have the landscape buffer on the affected neighbor’s side, which turned out great. It is a better view now than it was. Moving the fence would create a very narrow abutment to the house; just a few feet. If it is difficult to maintain now, he imagines what it will be like if the fence is moved and there is no way to get back there. Mr. White again stated that he will happily maintain that area, if that is acceptable, as long as they don’t move the fence line there. Eva Sitek, 823 Baldwin SE, stated that Community Automotive is a great neighbor and she appreciates them taking care of the property across the street where the cars are parked. They also do a great job shoveling, plowing, and they even help her sometimes, which is fabulous. Ms. Sitek stated that she is also somewhat concerned about moving the fence. When they did the expansion a few years ago the conversation was to keep the one primary tree, which they’ve done a great job maintaining. She is concerned that once the fence moves that whoever owns the property in the future will take the tree down. Ms. Sitek also related that a few years ago she was concerned there could be noise issues associated with the expansion. She is pleased to say there hasn’t been a noise issue so she isn’t concerned about noise with the new expansion either. Ms. Sitek is in favor of them getting the variance they may need in the future for the parking. She would love to have them stay but she is a little concerned about the fence moving. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Mr. Zaagman stated that they can keep the fence on the south side where it is and the neighbor being willing to maintain that is great if that is allowable. They have no intention of removing any trees that are in good condition. It is just the bushes they will upgrade at some point because they died. Ms. Shannon feels the plan has demonstrated an effort to be up to date yet stay in the current location. It is a community asset. They are willing to work with the neighbors. Ms. Shannon would hate for them to have to move out of the city. They seem to be conscientious about working out a plan that suites the neighbors. She is in support of the expansion. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 October 26, 2023 Ms. Joseph stated that it is nice to have establishments like this in the city available to neighbors. She also sees it as an asset and recognizes the advantage of moving the fence out to help with the maintenance of the landscape buffer. She appreciates the applicant’s willingness to keep the fence where it is on the south side to help with the buffer for the direct neighbors. She suggested conditioning approval on removal of the shipping containers. Ms. Bersche referred to the plan noting the gate and dumpster location. They would be requiring a permanent dumpster enclosure and she isn’t clear on where that is proposed to go. Ms. Zeller explained that they haven’t proposed a permanent enclosure. Ms. Turkelson added that would be one of the conditions of approval the Ordinance would require. Because they have dumpsters and because they are proposing the expansion, it is typically used as an opportunity to bring the site closer to compliance. They can work with staff to figure out where the dumpster location is. If there is going to be a trash container on site, it needs to be properly screened. If there is an opportunity to move it indoors, that is something that could be considered as well. Dr. Wallace asked if there is a benefit to having the dumpsters on wheels and not permanently situated. Mr. Zaagman explained that the area they have stored them in the past tucks them out of view. The problem is when the trash trucks come in to get them, they are more resistant to having to pull them out. They pull them out themselves so they don’t get resistance from those drivers. Dr. Wallace asked why it isn’t a permanent space now. Is there a benefit to them being moveable? Mr. Zaagman replied they have to be movable. He wasn’t aware there was a requirement for an enclosure, which is the only reason there isn’t, but there certainly can be. Ideally, if they were going to have an enclosure it would be in the area where the new gate will go. They will have to figure out a different location for the enclosure and they would pull them out on the days that pick up occurs. He is amenable to having an enclosure. Mr. Baar asked if the enclosure has to be hidden. He identified an area at the southeast corner of the building where they could possibly locate it. Ms. Turkelson advised that there are requirements, including not being in a front yard so the area identified wouldn’t be an appropriate location. Those are the kinds of things staff can work through with them if the Planning Commission is comfortable with that. Mr. Jonker agreed with many of the comments made about the community benefit and keeping the business in the city. He likes the idea of keeping the fence where it is because the buffer is more valuable to the home dwellers than it is to the business. If the dumpster is in the back corner behind a 6 ft. fence, he feels that is just as good as an enclosure. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 October 26, 2023 Mr. Williams asked if the enclosure can be waived. If they are already rolling them out now it would likely be a more difficult situation when adding a gate on an enclosure. Ms. Turkelson replied that it is atypical for the Planning Commission not to utilize opportunities like this to bring a site closer to compliance. It is fairly explicit language in the non-conforming site element section of Article 3. There are options related to material screening requirements that are flexible. It requires a masonry enclosure and if there are thoughts that a less solid structure is appropriate because of its location, staff can work with them on that. However, Ms. Turkelson wouldn’t suggest it is appropriate to relieve them from the need to enclose, especially when it has been a consistent requirement of the Planning Commission historically. Mr. Williams explained that his home is a five-minute walk from the site and, when he has walked by in the past, he has thought about how they are already bursting at the seams. It is already over capacity. The theory is that the two new bays will give them spaces for two more employees but he questions whether that will pan out in reality. Adding the two bays may speed up the time but he questions whether that will be the case. Ms. Turkelson shared the same concern. Historically, they’ve not seen expansion alleviate some of the off-site storage that has been necessary. Clearly this is a well-supported business and an asset to the neighborhood it is in. What is problematic is the need to work within the space they have. The storage off Baldwin would necessitate a variance because the storage of vehicles awaiting repair is not an appropriate use in the residential zone district. While they are utilizing the space across the street, the storage of vehicles on the primary street in a Traditional Business Area has also not historically been considered appropriate. That would be a Planning Commission distinction as well. While they all agree the business is an asset to the neighborhood, they really need to look at their operational plan and utilize the space that they have. They clearly have more customers than they can address within the space that they have. Ms. Turkelson doesn’t know that an expansion will help. Logically, she understands why it should but they haven’t seen that historically here. Mr. Rozeboom appreciates the questions and thoughts there. In his experience looking at cases in the city of this type, there are a lot of operators that don’t come to the Commission; they just do it. Those that do come to the Commission are typically trying to solve the problems, which he appreciates. Mr. Rozeboom also feels it is the Planning Commission’s responsibility to try to set it up the best they can in case this operator eventually leaves and someone else takes over. They can’t just rely on good will. It needs to be documented in a way that is sustainable, including the required other variances and approvals. Ms. Joseph recognized there have been differing opinions on the fence. She asked where others stand on the fence location. Mr. Jonker feels it has a lot more benefit to the neighbors if it remains where it is and the landscaping is on the neighbors’ side vs. in the parking lot. If the neighbor(s) is willing to maintain it or accept some responsibility for that it feels better for the residents than moving the fence out and putting landscaping between a fence and cars that no one will ever see. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 October 26, 2023 Ms. Joseph recalled that they heard from the neighbor to the south that they are willing to do that. Dr. Wallace doesn’t feel they can rely on handshake agreements. It is nice they want to and she believes that they will but she wants to be sure the property owner knows they are ultimately responsible for the health and wellbeing of the fence and the landscaping. Dr. Wallace agrees with Mr. Jonker; the fence on the business side makes sense and it seems like an adequate use of landscaping vs. a hidden use of landscaping for a buffer. Mr. Jonker agreed. Along the property at 839, with the gate there, you aren’t coming around and walking up the driveway to maintain it, you can come in from the parking lot. If the homeowner is willing to explain to a tenant that that may happen from time to time then it would be a better use of the landscaping. He agrees there would need to be some type of arrangement between the two parties or at least a mutual understanding. Ms. Shannon stated that she agrees with Mr. White’s request but for the other part of the parking lot she does see a benefit of having some greenery amongst the asphalt and helping the business itself. The other sites have landscaping. For the landscaping to be along and inside the parking lot enhances/softens the look of the parking lot, which is why they require landscaping in a lot of parking lots. Mr. Jonker agreed. In the back corner no one sees it except the employee that goes back there to get the car(s). Mr. Zaagman explained that they are asking for the setback to be almost entirely removed on the new addition and they would like to maintain that request because of the size of the space they need. He suggested they may be able to split the setback all the way around so that both parties are benefiting. He again stated that they can leave the fence where it is for Mr. White. On the east and west sides perhaps they could put the fence in the middle so there is landscaping on both sides. Mr. Zaagman explained that part of the motivation for moving the fence is they would have more access to their parking. Ms. Shannon appreciates their willingness to do. She also appreciates Mr. White’s request, which is valid. In her opinion it would look better to have landscaping within the parking lot to soften the look of the business. Mr. Swem stated that he is indifferent to the location of the fence except for the already agreed to accommodation for Mr. White. Fences along property lines are prevalent in the city in residential neighborhoods so the idea that landscaping would be on one side or the other is a bit of a moot point. The point is having the landscape buffer and a fence to reduce the size of the landscape buffer. If there is an opportunity to accommodate Mr. White’s concern, it seems acceptable and he is indifferent to the rest of the fence. Mr. Van Strien agreed with Mr. Swem. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 October 26, 2023 Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Community Automotive (Richard Zaagman) for approval to expand an existing vehicle repair facility at 834, 836, 840 and 846 E Fulton Street, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will foster a strong economy by allowing for the expansion of an established local business and provide opportunity for growth of an existing service use business located on a major street, which supports a pedestrian-friendly street network (Objective SE-4 of the 2002 Master Plan). 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the proposed expansion has been designed to meet standards and requirements to the extent practicable with modifications permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because this will be an expansion of an existing use that has been in operation at this location for many years; the adjacent residential uses will not be negatively impacted by expansion of the use; and the building will be buffered from the adjacent residential use by a fence and landscaping 4. The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because all repair activities will be contained within the building; an effective buffer from residential uses will be provided by landscaping and a six-foot high fence; and adequate off-street parking is available. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare because excessive noise, glare, or visual clutter is not anticipated and any visual clutter will be mitigated by landscaping and other site and building improvements. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because this will be an expansion of a business that currently provides vehicle service and is supported by the neighborhood and business association. 7. The site design for the proposed use will occur on a previously developed site and will have minimal additional impact on the environment. 8. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or would be provided at no additional cost. 9. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the proposed expansion will result in continued operations of an already established business. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 October 26, 2023 i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated, and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. That damaged or wrecked vehicles shall not be stored on site for purposes other than repair. 3. That all activities shall be performed within the building, and all equipment, vehicle parts, tires and any other materials and supplies shall be located and stored within the building. 4. That a variance shall be obtained to allow for the proposed building expansion 1 ft. from the east lot line. 5. That wheel stops shall be installed in the parking spaces fronting Fulton St. to prevent encroachment onto the sidewalk. 6. An access gate wide enough for vehicle access shall be installed providing ingress/egress from the public alley to the residential garage at 833 Baldwin SE. 7. That a permanent trash enclosure shall be constructed. 8. That the landscape buffers may be reduced to the widths shown on the submitted plan and the fence may be located at the lot line, except for the south lot line. 9. That a formal parking agreement shall be provided to allow for the provision of thirteen off-site employee parking spaces. 10. That this approval does not include use of any other property for off-site vehicle storage in association with this repair facility. If utilized, separate zoning approval shall be obtained. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. Mr. Willaims suggested striking provide opportunity for growth of an existing service use business from the first finding. Dr. Wallace recalled that being the testimony as to the intent but the Planning Commission isn’t trying to manage the intake of their business. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 October 26, 2023 Mr. Williams suggested striking and adequate off-street parking is available from the fourth finding. Ms. Bersche suggested that applies to customers. Ms. Joseph added that they can’t park vehicles waiting for service or pick up on the street. Ms. Shannon asked if there is a way to expand encroachment onto sidewalks along Dwight. She noticed in some of the photos that they had vehicles parked on what appears to be the sidewalk along Dwight. Mr. Zaagman stated that he doesn’t know when that photo was taken. That was true quite some time ago; they used to park on the east side wherever they could find a spot, whether it was legal or not. They had quite a conversation with Mobile GR on what they could and couldn’t do and they arrived at a good solution. They were able to park on the street even though the approach is narrower than typical. It is narrower on their own driveway. They used to park on the sidewalk by the sign but they don’t do that anymore. There are some instances where a car might be parked temporarily between the sidewalk and street but that problem has been virtually eliminated. The question was called on the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Swem, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Jonker C. 648 Bond Avenue NW, et al - Surface Parking / Greenspace Address: 648 Bond Ave NW; 637 & 647 Ottawa Ave NW; 700 Ottawa Ave NW; 711 Ionia Ave NW Applicant: Corewell Health (Alan Kranzo) Requesting: Approval to construct stand-alone parking lots at 648 Bond and 637 & 647 Ottawa; and to use 700 Ottawa and 711 Ionia as greenspace until which time stand-alone parking lots are constructed. Zoning: TN-CC (Traditional Neighborhood– City Center) Requirements: 5.2.03. Alterations, Enlargements and Demolitions Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0084, -0085, -0086, and -0087 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: November 11, 2023 City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 October 26, 2023 Ms. Zeller introduced the request relating that it involves four applications that will be taken as one because they all have to do with Corewell Health’s Master Plan for their facilities in the Monroe North neighborhood. The request includes the demolition of existing buildings to facilitate construction of four surface parking lots. Two of the lots would be constructed immediately and Corewell Health is asking that a phased approach be allowed for the other two lots. In the interim, those lots would be used as green space. Ms. Zeller explained that demolition without redevelopment, or as green space, as well as the construction of surface parking lots in the City Center Zone District requires Special Land Use approval. Ms. Zeller displayed an aerial photo and recalled that on April 8, 2021, Spectrum Health, Corewell Health’s predecessor name, received Special Land Use approval for a free-standing, eight-level parking structure and a free-standing parking lot at 706 Bond. That parking was intended to support future office use at their proposed Center for Health Transformation and Innovation (now Corewell Health Place) located on Monroe between Trowbridge and Newberry. The parking garage was approved for approximately 420 parking spaces and the surface parking lot was approved for 100-150 spaces. The parking structure and office complex are under construction. Ms. Zeller explained that the proposed parking lots are part of the North Monroe Campus Master Plan for Corewell Health Place (CHP) and are intended to provide parking for employees of the development/redevelopment. Future residential developments that are part of their plan are expected to eliminate some existing parking lots and they are proposing the new lots to replace that. The approach is intended to facilitate building demolition and parking lot construction on the multiple sites at one time. Ms. Zeller noted that there are five parcels involved in the request. 648 Bond is a former Autodie facility proposed for demolition. The former Grand Rapids Radiator Hospital, Pristine Glass, Eastern Kille, and 711 Ionia are also sites under consideration. At this time, conceptual layouts have been provided. If approved, the projects will require LUDS permits and will need to meet all Zoning and Engineering requirements. Ms. Zeller displayed images of existing conditions. There are existing buildings at 700 Ottawa, 711 Ionia, 637 & 647 Ottawa Ave, and 648 Bond. The sites at 700 Ottawa and 711 Ionia would have the interim green space use. The sites border Ottawa and Division. At 637 and 647 Ottawa a new parking lot of 37 parking spaces is proposed. At 648 Bond, 122 parking spaces are proposed. Ms. Zeller displayed an image of the full build out relating that the parking lots on Ottawa and Bond would remain and in the second phase the 711 Ionia and 700 Ottawa lots would be constructed. Ms. Zeller explained that Corewell Health has submitted a parking demand study, which estimates the total parking demand for the Monroe North project to be 963 spaces at full build out, which doesn’t include any of the housing developments. At completion of phase one 989 spaces would be available and upon completion of phase two 994 spaces would be available. The proposed number of spaces is generally in line with the anticipated parking demand. Ms. Zeller pointed out that the City Center Zone District does not have a parking requirement. This is parking that they desire; it is not required. If parking is provided where no parking is required City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 October 26, 2023 there is a parking maximum, which is one space per thousand sq. ft. of floor area. 315 parking spaces would be the maximum allowed, which is one of the reasons they needed to provide the parking demand study. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to discuss the parking study and why it is they need the proposed parking. Ms. Zeller related that she received a letter from the Monroe North Business Association this morning generally supporting the campus Master Plan, which would include the parking lots. Staff has also received nearly 60 letters of opposition to the new surface lots, which have been included in the packet. Ms. Zeller summarized the request as Special Land Use approval for the demolition of existing buildings for the construction of new surface parking lots. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the possibility that anticipated buildings the proposed parking lots are intended to support may not be fully constructed. The Planning Commission should consider the extent of the need for parking and how the parking could be feasibly addressed through other means, how the parking addresses the goals of the Master Plan, the GR Forward Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. Finally, the phasing plan for two of the proposed lots as interim green space should be considered. It is possible that plans could change and construction may not occur there. Neighborhood concerns should also be considered. Ms. Shannon asked if the parking at the southwest corner of Bond and Trowbridge is parking for MSU. Ms. Turkelson replied that it is currently parking. She would be surprised if there weren’t future redevelopment plans but there is nothing currently under consideration. Ms. Shannon asked if the subject sites proposed for parking will be available to the public or only Corewell Health. Ms. Zeller’s understanding is the parking lots are intended to serve Corewell Health employees. Mr. Swem asked for clarification as to how Section 5.10.04.D applies in this situation, which seems to be what the parking demand study is surrounding. His understanding is that D is talking about maximum parking as it relates to required parking but, in this instance, there is no required parking, which is why F, in his mind, exists to set a maximum. Under F there is no means to increase the maximum. Ms. Turkelson explained that the intent is that it would apply in that there are no parking minimums but there are parking maximums. In the City Center Zone District it is explained below the table. The order of the Ordinance perhaps isn’t perfect but the intent was that if you are going to exceed the maximum permitted then there needs to be some evidence/information provided to the Planning Commission through the parking demand study that informs the Planning Commission to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it is appropriate to go above that maximum. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 October 26, 2023 Mr. Swem clarified that the language in F that says it shall not exceed a certain amount then goes back to D and gets to be exceeded by 20% or gets to be exceeded by even more than that with a parking study. Ms. Turkelson referred to part D, which says no parking shall exceed the maximum unless approved by the Planning Commission and based on a parking demand study. Mr. Swem agreed. However, part F says it shall not exceed, without any of that distinction. Ms. Turkelson suggested that it is the order when they added part F, as a result of the recommendations of GR Forward, which was to eliminate the parking allowances. There may have been an error in judgement of adding it to the end of the Section but the intent of that was to give an allowance. She clarified further that there are no parking minimums, which is the table. If you are going to have a parking allowance for the City Center Zone District then it is the parking maximum, which is F, and then it does go back up to D to say if you exceed the maximum then it triggers the 20% rule/accompanied by a parking demand study. The order is not helping with that clarity. Dr. Wallace asked what the hours of operation are for the professional buildings that the proposed parking would support. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant for a response. Alan Kranzo, Senior Director of Real Estate and Property Management for Corewell Health, noted that some Planning Commissioners are familiar with this project and may have been part of the commission in 2020. Mr. Kranzo wished to recap the progress they’ve made on this project to date to provide full context and how this fits within their overall Master Plan for Monroe North. Approximately 18 months ago they were before the Planning Commission and received approval to create Corewell Health Place in the North Monroe area. Previously they referred to the development as the Center for Transformation and Innovation. Since that was approved 18 months ago, they have changed as a healthcare system. They are now called Corewell Health, which is an important fact to note. They are a new healthcare system for the State providing healthcare for communities across the State. Mr. Kranzo explained that Corewell Health Place is a new 8-story tower connected to the renovated Brassworks Building. It includes two parking decks, a surface parking lot that will replace displaced parking. They were required during the original approval to complete a traffic and parking study. At that time his understanding was that parking count and plan was approved at that point in time as well. Later in the presentation they will demonstrate through an analysis that clearly outlines that they aren’t really planning to incrementally add any additional parking to the Monroe North area. Mr. Kranzo explained further that the new Corewell Health Place will be the home of approximately 1,500 team members. It will feature also a meeting space where up to 500 people can gather for education and training. Mr. Kranzo asked that the Planning Commission keep in mind that these are team members that were previously at other buildings across Grand Rapids. Now that they are a healthcare system for Michigan, by Michigan, they anticipate people traveling to this community and Grand Rapids from other areas of the State and spend time at Corewell Health Place. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 October 26, 2023 Mr. Kranzo spoke to their goals and objectives and why they decided to develop Corewell Health Place in the Monroe North area. They see the downtown area as vital to their growth as a healthcare system; vital in connecting Corewell Health to the community, vital in connecting their people that work near the medical center, and with people who are in support positions that will be at Corewell Health Place. Mr. Kranzo also noted that being downtown also allows them to be close to other educational opportunities and other bioscience and research happening on the Medical Mile and it will offer their employees and team members to help strengthen the economic vitality of the city. Mr. Kranzo noted that in early 2020 they began assembling and acquired approximately 10 acres of contiguous property for the development of the Corewell Health Place campus. This is a campus within an urban core. It is strategically placed here near the medical center, the Medical Mile, and the downtown Grand Rapids area. The site plan from 2021 was displayed, which they call their initial phase/phase 1. They are present today to share their vision and strategy for the next phase in the project. The new Corewell Health Place allows them to realign their team members. It was noted in 2021 that it is their intent to bring people from 26 different buildings across the greater Grand Rapids area to downtown Grand Rapids and Monroe North. Access to the campus will be from the east on Fairbanks. Team members will use various ways to get to the site but the main entry will be off of Fairbanks. Mr. Kranzo shared some of the progress they’ve made. They recently opened Brassworks, a building that is modernized and was built to support a flexible work place. Even before COVID they were anticipating they would have a hybrid workforce that would come to the site on any given day. They’ve created a modern, light-filled environment that will foster creativity and innovation. They are also excited about the proximity to downtown trails, walkways, restaurants and more. The City has a number of plans in place to continue to make investments and continually change the transformation of that neighborhood. One thing they do embrace is alternate modes of transportation. They’ve included a bike room where bikes can be repaired. They want to make sure they are embracing that and understand that all team members aren’t going to travel to the site in vehicles, which they encourage. Mr. Kranzo recalled the question regarding typical hours of operation. They are typically open from 7 a.m. until likely 6 p.m. However, because they are a healthcare system with physicians who are typically practicing during the day, it isn’t uncommon that they will be in the building evenings as well. Mr. Kranzo provided some context in terms of their Master Plan. He shared what they consider the next phase in the project. It is their intent to demolish two building in the northwest portion of the plan; 711 Ionia and 700 Ottawa. It is also their intent to convert that to green space. There was a question regarding whether it would be open to the public. They don’t intend to fence the area off. It will be a nice green space and people can walk through the space but it won’t be a space they intend to self-contain and control. Mr. Kranzo noted that they are proposing a Corewell Health Resident and Fellow housing project, which is driving the need to provide displaced parking and stay within the context of their parking capacity. As they continue to execute their original plan, they are now moving into the next phase of development and seeking City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 October 26, 2023 the Planning Commission’s approval for Special Land Use approval that will allow them to expedite demolition of existing unused and blighted buildings. The biggest thing they’ve learned on the existing project is that it is important to avoid rising construction costs and do things in sequence so they can help prepare sites for future development. It is their intent to prepare for that new resident and fellow housing project, which they are in the early stages of. The intent here is to demolish a few buildings with the intent of replacing displaced parking in anticipation of the new project. Included in this phase of the new project is the construction of housing that will be dedicated for Corewell Health medical residents and fellows to support their graduate medical education program. They currently have about 415 members in that program and they know that new development will not be able to support all those residents and fellows but it will certainly give them a great location near the healthcare center. There is a need for them to be conveniently located close to Medical Mile and the medical center. Mr. Kranzo stated that they hope this development will continue to revive the Monroe North area and they believe the increase in people traffic coming into this campus will benefit the downtown business district and provide new opportunities for businesses to establish themselves in this area. Mr. Kranzo invited John Casserly, Nederveld, to describe the phased plan and how they don’t intend to bring additional parking capacity to this area. It is truly their intent to be very conscious of how they are adding parking. It is very expensive to build a parking ramp space; $35,000- $40,000 per space. They are obviously very conscious of not creating excess parking and they certainly don’t want their parking to be pushed into the neighborhood and impact others who are generally trying to get to that area. Mr. Casserly, Civil Engineer, noted that there were several parking charts provided in their submittal. They’ve selected two in an effort to clarify where they stand now and what the end result would be after completion of the two residential housing developments. The April 2021 approved plan aggregated all the resulting surface and ramp parking spaces and they have a total of 994 parking spaces, which is close to being in line with the parking study that was approved for the Special Land Use at that time. Once they get into construction those numbers are likely to go down a little bit with the new lots. When they develop the resident and fellow housing, that will displace 166 parking spaces. Another residential development at 706 Bond will also displace parking, which will be replaced at 711 Ionia and 700 Ottawa. The net result at the end of the project would be 994 parking spaces dedicated for Corewell Health Place and Brassworks employees. The two residential developments would have self-contained parking appropriate to the number of units in those developments. Mr. Casserly stated that they really want to emphasize that they aren’t adding any new parking capacity in the end result since the approval from 2021. Physically they are new lots but they are replacing displaced parking. Mr. Kranzo also wished to emphasize that until a few weeks ago they were parking in the 648 Bond building. As that building is demolished their intent is to replace that with surface parking. It is very costly to try to manage the building and inside parking. In closing, Mr. Kranzo wished to emphasize that they have been very consistent with their original plans that the Planning Commission saw and approved a few years ago. As they continue to move forward, it is their expectation to be consistent with this site concept plan. He explained that they are currently in the midst of funding for the resident and fellow housing project. They want to be very prepared and ready to execute that project. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 October 26, 2023 Ms. Joseph noted from the slide that future projects will provide self-contained parking. She asked what future projects that refers to. Mr. Kranzo clarified that the concept design of the resident and fellow housing project will include self-contained parking within that building. If there are 150 units, and they anticipate the need for 100 spaces because some employees walk, that project won’t push a parking problem on another area. Mr. Kranzo stated he would not be in front of the Commission asking for more parking; they are going to create the appropriate capacity within that building to address the parking. The same holds true in the next phase of the residential housing. Ms. Shannon clarified that the 990+ parking spaces are to support what will eventually be 1,500 employees on site. Mr. Kranzo agreed. Ms. Shannon noted that more and more office space is becoming available because more and more employees are working from home. She asked how that affects this plan and how many of their employees actually come to the work place. Mr. Kranzo replied that traditionally they found that in most cases each worker had their own designated work space. That directly translated to a direct need for parking. What they are finding as they move to a hybrid workplace, where team members are coming to the site only so many days a week, that flexibility requires a flexible parking strategy. With that they are more engaged with their employees. If they know they have a day in which they will have the 500- person event center room full, they are in a situation right now where their employees can work remotely and they can ebb and flow and manage the capacity so they aren’t putting a strain on the neighborhood. Their concern isn’t having too much capacity because how much it costs to build it, their concern would be to manage the demand so they can stay within capacity. They now have the technology to do that, which is helpful. They will be able to monitor their hourly and daily parking count and adjust the demand accordingly and keep a good handle on their parking capacity against the demand. As they evolve and learn more about how a hybrid environment works, they don’t want excess parking. They want appropriate parking to support Corewell Health Place and they will adjust their development accordingly in the future. They have demonstrated that in the past and will continue to do so going forward. Ms. Joseph recalled from the presentation that they encourage employees to use other modes of transportation and that they would be providing inside bicycle parking and repair. She asked how providing this amount of parking encourages the use of those other modes of transportation. Mr. Kranzo replied that it really comes down to choice. They emphasize carpooling. They also encourage the use of bikes on days they can ride them. They also encourage alternate modes of transportation. Having a flexible parking strategy where not all members need to be there at the same time is also part of their approach. They may have people that work at this location that also work at the medical center and that is where they are encouraged by some of the things the City is doing in the way of switch back and making it safe for people to navigate to downtown or City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 October 26, 2023 navigate to the medical center. The worst thing they would want them to do is go to their car and drive up to the medical center and drive back. They are also looking for ways to better manage that so they aren’t putting so many cars on the roads. Mr. Casserly added that the 994 parking spaces provided are 75% of the employees anticipated at the facility plus the 500-person capacity event center. If everyone showed up at once they would have 50% of the parking available. It is a large number but there is a large capacity at these two buildings. While 1,000 feels like a lot, there are 1,500 employees plus the event center. Ms. Joseph also recalled from testimony that they now have the technology and flexibility to manage that so that not everyone is showing up when there is a 500-person event. Mr. Casserly agreed. Ms. Bersche asked in what way the subject buildings have been deemed unusable or blighted. Mr. Kranzo identified 750 Ottawa as a condemnable building they intend to take down. They want to make sure they are maintaining a safe community. 711 Ionia is an old welding metal building. When you think about Corewell as a healthcare system, they believe there are much better uses for that piece of property and that location. They know the community has a significant need for additional residential housing and they think it makes a lot of sense to repurpose that building as an example as they transform the neighborhood from a historical industrial area to an area that is vibrant and can drive economic development for the city. Ms. Bersche asked if environmental impacts of some of the historical operations have been addressed. Mr. Kranzo replied that it has been addressed. As they’ve been speaking with their demolition expert, they’ve had some environmental concerns that they need to address in order to maintain those as a safe place, which is part of their plan. They’ve been partnering with the City and Planning Commission to make sure they follow that. They are also working with EGLE and others to ensure they are maintaining those as safe environments. Dr. Wallace asked if the event center will be open to the public for reservations or only for Corewell use. Mr. Kranzo replied it has not yet opened. This last month they’ve learned a lot just opening Brassworks. He feels they first want to understand their own needs and make sure they are clear on what that looks like. Initially, the answer is no because they do anticipate it being used a lot for their own healthcare system. Dr. Wallace asked if Mr. Kranzo could speak to why the parking wouldn’t be open to the public after their peak time/6 p.m. Mr. Kranzo replied that they haven’t decided yet on their long-term strategy about how those parking ramps will be used long term. That is something they will want to continue to evaluate City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 October 26, 2023 and see how it fits with the needs of the neighborhood. Initially, they want to get their head around their parking demand and their needs, as well as the hours of operation. Mr. Swem recognized that the 994 spaces are important to this development. He asked why they’ve chosen to develop the remaining 300+ spaces as surface parking lots instead of another structure that is closer to the development. Mr. Kranzo replied that the cost to build a ramp has gone up 30% over the last couple of years. They are recommending surface parking to allow for flexibility. In thinking about the initial capital investment to build a ramp, if they decide to do something more meaningful in the way of development, they have that flexibility. Perhaps there is a need for additional residential housing then, from a cost perspective that is an easier decision. They certainly want flexibility where not all their parking is invested in parking decks. It seems to make sense if they need to move in a different direction in the future. Mr. Swem referred to the application where it states that demolition of five buildings and creation of two new surface parking lots and two green spaces will increase land values. He is curious how that action increases land values. Mr. Kranzo replied that they are looking at this as a long-term development plan. This is intended to pave the way for long-term development so they are thinking about the addition of the resident and fellow housing project and any additional residential. He suggested if you look at that as incremental projects that may not be the case but he is obviously looking at it as a long- term development plan and that is what that is trying to say. Ms. Turkelson asked when 649 Ionia and 648 Ottawa come off line as parking. Does it come off line upon completion of the new surface parking lots or when the fellow housing becomes a project that is submitted for permits. Mr. Kranzo replied that lot will come off line when they build the resident and fellow housing. To that point, they are ready to execute on that as soon as they receive appropriate funding and they believe that is in the near future. They already have the development plans but haven’t submitted those yet because they want to make sure they have the appropriate funding before they submit that for approval. Ms. Turkelson stated that would be 166 spaces in addition. She asked if they would be comfortable with a condition of approval that that lot come off line within one year of completion of the other parking if the Planning Commission was inclined to support this approval. The goal is the development of the resident and fellow housing but zoning is not kind in terms of temporary uses so what if that development doesn’t occur or takes longer than anticipated. Mr. Kranzo stated that is directly related to 648 Bond. 648 Bond, which is a building they intend to demolish, was an active location for parking up until a couple of weeks ago. It would cause concern for having enough capacity if they were to take 649 Ionia and 648 Ottawa off line. It is an old Autodie building that is highly inefficient in terms of how it is parked. By taking that City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 October 26, 2023 building down and creating a more efficient surface lot they would have to factor that 117 into that number. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Kenma Estopera requested a delay in the decision on this case. When considering the neighborhood effects he feels it would serve Corewell Health to have a bit more time in reviewing the neighborhood effects regarding compatible, harmonious and appropriate, existing planned character and uses of the neighborhood, potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use, the proposed use being detrimental, hazardous or disturbing to existing or future adjacent uses or to the public welfare, and the proposed use not being adverse to the walkability of the neighborhood. With a little bit of research, he understands that the Monroe North Business Association was the only body that was engaged. DGRI, DDA, and the Downtown Neighborhood Network were not engaged. A delay would allow time for Corewell Health to go back and due their due diligence. He has also not heard about a Good Neighbor Plan but isn’t sure whether that is required in this case. With respect to the support from the Monroe North Business Association, he wished to emphasize that that is a business association and not resident focused. He is not requesting a denial necessarily but rather a delay to allow Corewell Health to go back and engage with community partners. He would request the delay to avoid an appeal process, which residents would band together to pay for. Christina Colby, NOBL Executive Director, noted that there was no letter of support or opposition from NOBL because, to the best of her knowledge, the developer didn’t reach out to them. NOBL would love to talk to Corewell. As Grand Rapids continues to grow, it is essential that developers engage with the residents. The desire is for developments are considerate of and supported by the community. The growth desired for Grand Rapids, the Monroe North Business District, and the Belknap Lookout Neighborhood is vibrant, walkable, connected, and livable. Surface level parking lots don’t provide that. The footprint that Corewell Health has here is very large. Isn’t there something more that can be done with this land that is beneficial to the community at large, and not just Corewell. Ms. Colby requested the matter be tabled until Corewell conducts some adequate community engagement with residents and other stakeholders in order to collaborate and accomplish outcomes that align with the future they all want for the future of Grand Rapids. Andrew Carley, Strong Towns Grand Rapids Outreach Director, was present on behalf of the organization and their members. They understand there is a parking need but this request is excessive. It goes against the GR Forward Plan. It is bad land use. Parking lots are not valuable land use; they tend to decrease values. Surface lots don’t move forward the GR Forward Plan, Michigan Street Corridor Plan, the Monroe North Plan and fails to provide multi-modal transit within the Grand Rapids area. Parking lots do not fit Vital Streets, Safe Streets, and increased car traffic kills more pedestrians. There are also another 20,000 parking spaces within walking distance. Their parking study fails to identify everything on the other side of the freeway; Government Center ramp, Perrigo ramp, and DeVos Hall. Mr. Carley stated that the Monroe North Business Association is not representative of the residents of Grand Rapids. It is the only association they reached out to. Therefore, they failed to meet residents’ demands and engage with residents in a meaningful way. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 October 26, 2023 Laura Cesa, resident of Ward 2, related that she doesn’t have a car and enjoys biking down Monroe Ave. particularly because of its low traffic volume. She believes that adding additional surface parking to this development would be detrimental to the bike-ability and walkability of this neighborhood. Her opposition to the construction of these surface parking lots has been well documented in her letter and the nearly 60 letters from community members. The development is clearly not in line with the City’s stated and published plans for the Monroe North neighborhood. In her opinion, she doesn’t believe this should be approved. Ms. Cesa welcomes Corewell Health’s investment in the area and their proposal to build housing for their residents and other developments that do align with the GR Forward Plan. She also understands that this would bring more people to the neighborhood, which is a good thing both for work and living. However, the construction of surface parking lots is not the appropriate response to increased traffic. Ms. Cesa suggested to Corewell Health that rather than investing in surface parking lots they might rather invest in public transportation and alternative modes of mobility in the community. Janelle Rai expressed her opposition to this plan as it doesn’t help the city move toward balanced transportation. Balanced mobility is a long-term goal. Countless people in Grand Rapids have worked toward making balanced transportation a reality. Ms. Rai is present to support and advocate for that meaningful work and dedication. She would like to help the goal of balanced mobility become a reality. The Bicycle Action Plan of 2019, the South Division Corridor Plan of 2019, the Vital Streets Plan of 2016, the GR Forward Downtown and River Action Plan of 2015, the Michigan Street Corridor Plan of 2015, the Monroe North Area Specific Plan of 2007, the City of Grand Rapids Master Plan of 2002, the North East Beltline Plan Joint Development Plan of 1998, and many more cannot be dismissed. It isn’t just Corewell Health who is invested in Grand Rapids. Everyone involved in the studies and plans took great care and thought to discern how investments in the city could improve it. The Plans span 25 years. Parking induces demand. This plan will flood downtown with car traffic and exacerbate congestion. It isn’t safe to walk, bicycle, or roll in a wheelchair in a downtown filled with cars. It isn’t safe to drive a car in heavy congestion either. Jane Jacobs has reminded us that it isn’t safe to take eyes off the street, replacing shops and restaurants with the emptiness a parking lot brings. Ms. Rai opposes excessive parking, especially within a downtown area. If there is a desire to attract and retain talent, she asked that initiative is shown to achieve balanced transportation. Young people want protected bicycle infrastructure. They want passenger rail and walkable, transit-oriented development. They are tired of consistent opposition to transportation options other than personal cars. The number of students studying abroad has grown steadily over the last 25 years and half of the trips were to Europe. They’ve seen the good infrastructure we are missing. They want policy makers to create as good of an environment here. It is necessary to stick to long term goals of balanced transportation set forth in many studies and Plans developed in Grand Rapids over the last 25 years. Alexa Rastaman, resident of Ward 2, stated that as Corewell Health and the City of Grand Rapids look to recruit the next generation of talent, they want vibrant, dense, and walkable urban areas. There is competition to attract graduates that are also considering Boston, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and other healthcare hubs that have far better public transit and non-motorized infrastructure. Corewell Health has the means, national recognition, and opportunity to lead City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 October 26, 2023 positive change for the city, making Grand Rapids a top choice city for potential hires. Surface parking lots will not make this campus competitive. Ms. Rastaman urged them to consider the young people who dream of working in healthcare and want to do it in a livable, walkable city that they’re dreaming of. Hugh Williams related that he lives in the immediate neighborhood. He thanked the Planning Commissioners for the work they do. Mr. Williams explained that he is not objecting to how they run their business but his issue is in what manner. He asked how many parking spaces were at the 26 previous locations compared to this location. Are we really expecting that the new neighborhood is going to absorb all that parking? Will that increase demand for the spaces on the street? What happens when everyone shows up on the same day? What’s the plan? Mr. Williams understands that the public comment has been in opposition to parking but he is thinking vertical. If you look at the existing ramp they have, architecturally it is ugly so he understands their resistance. Their objection is based on cost per parking deck space. The other speakers have addressed other social prices, not money. Mr. Williams urged the Planning Commission to think about those. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing and invited the applicant to respond to comments. Mr. Kranzo wished to go back to Ms. Turkelson’s question and provide additional clarity about what it would mean if they were to build parking at 648 Bond and 647 Ottawa. Because they have the technology and capability to manage and monitor parking, they would not be opposed to using data and analytics because they want to be responsible and provide adequate parking for their employees and campus visitors. They wouldn’t be opposed to taking 648 and 649 off line if it made sense. However, they don’t want to do that and be remiss and then push that parking into the community and impact others. Mr. Kranzo also wished to emphasize that they understand that they don’t want to put additional surface parking in where it isn’t necessary. It is possible that 700 Ottawa and 711 Ionia may be green space for a period until they know what the right development is; that is their intent. The only thing that would push them to put surface parking there is if a residential house project were to displace other surface parking. Does that mean that 700 Ottawa and 711 Ionia might be great locations for a new residential house? Absolutely. Mr. Kranzo wished to bring those two points up to make sure the Commission understands that they are listening and hear the community. They don’t want to create additional parking where it isn’t necessary. They have a good handle on their parking demand, which is why they are demonstrating that in the near term they would create green space that provides walkability. They would be willing to consider taking parking off line but would use data to inform whether that makes sense or not. Mr. Van Strien asked that Mr. Kranzo respond to comments regarding a lack of outreach to associations other than the Monroe North Business Association. Mr. Van Strien understands this has been a long-term process and they’ve had rounds of engagement but is it possible that maybe some of the more recent activity hasn’t been brought to groups such as NOBL, Creston, or DGRI. Mr. Kranzo recalled that when they brought this plan forward previously, they received support from DGRI and the DDA and they were actively engaged with NOBL. His last conversation with City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 October 26, 2023 NOBL was approximately 4 months ago. Obviously, there are some new groups they haven’t connected with but it has always been their intent to try to provide feedback and get response from neighbors in the community and have that input help drive the appropriate development plan. Dr. Wallace suggested it seems to be a bit conflicting in the sincerity of saying you are listening to the constituency but simultaneously not bringing them into the fold of the next generation of the development plan. Dr. Wallace would imagine that the population near or around has changed since the beginning stages of the development. Out of respect for the community, Dr. Wallace feels that is incumbent upon the applicant to take that initiative. She is disappointed that hasn’t occurred. It isn’t often the Planning Commission gets 60 letters in opposition to something. That signifies a disconnect in the communication with the public. She would hope that future efforts for any Corewell project should assume that is the appropriate way. Ms. Shannon expressed her appreciation for the letters and testimony of the public. She agrees with the desire to move forward to have a walkable and bicycle friendly city. She doesn’t see surface parking lots in this plan. As a former economic development professional, a surface parking lot in downtown is a development waiting to happen. What she sees in the plan is a plan to accumulate land so that Corewell Health can make this campus downtown instead of what in many cases would be moving to the suburbs where they could build all the surface parking they wanted at much less expense. Ms. Shannon also sees the transition of a neighborhood that was industrial, was not pretty to look at, was not necessarily walkable or safe, and didn’t have a beautiful park along the water front. She sees a plan that is updating for the jobs of the next generation of workers as they see industrial jobs decline. In her opinion, this is a transition that will also meet the needs of folks that came forward. The downtown is quite walkable and entertaining. The waterfront projects are exciting and she believes this project will add to that growth in a way they bring jobs, science, and medical uses to the city vs. out in the middle of nowhere. Ms. Joseph agrees with and supports the overall development and investment that Corewell is making in this neighborhood in terms of the buildings they are constructing and the jobs they are assembling here. However, based on the testimony, the company values related to flexibility and technology and encouraging the use of other modes of transportation contradicts this request. The Commission has heard from them that the residential developments that they are proposing will contain their own parking. This request is extreme when the development hasn’t even happened. It seems they are preemptively assuming instead of seeing what will happen if they do encourage the use of other modes. This neighborhood has great infrastructure for bicycles and the Dash route runs along the corridor. Ms. Joseph stated that she is not in support. Mr. Swem agreed with Ms. Joseph. When looking at projects like this they need to look at plans that were made ahead of them. This is his first time on the Planning Commission and wants to respect decisions made by the Commission and the City in the past. The Michigan Street Corridor Plan is encouraging shared district parking and ramps instead of surface lots to reduce the land area being used for parking and the Monroe North ASP says very similar things. They also ask for things like liner buildings. Even if you have surface parking, they don’t want it on the sidewalk; they want a dense urban experience. Along those lines, it is surprising that in 2021 City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 October 26, 2023 the proposal did show plans for liner buildings and for aligning with GR Forward, the Michigan Street Corridor Plan, and the Monroe North ASP but in this proposal none of that exists. These lots are just shown as brand new surface lots with no liner buildings. Mr. Swem stated that this is a difficult discussion because he also appreciates the investment going in this neighborhood. It is easy to worry about where the cars will go but his attitude is, like Ms. Joseph said, the development isn’t done so let it lie with the 650 spaces they have in parking ramps and let it break. He doesn’t understand what the problem is with leaving some of this infrastructure in place and waiting to see what happens instead of just building a 1,000 parking spaces because we think we need them. Ms. Joseph agreed. She added that when they approved the plan in 2021, they had the same parking calculations, and the study, in front of them and they approved 20% more than the maximum that would have been allowed in the parking deck alone. Mr. Williams stated that, like others, he appreciates the investment here. Having 1,500 employees here would be great, as would the housing for the residents and fellows. However, adding more parking lots here isn’t a good idea. It doesn’t make it seem walkable or like a living community. It isn’t great for bicyclists or someone wanting to visit the waterfront in this area. It doesn’t fit the character and neighborhood that is desired here. Ms. Joseph added if they are only occupied during the day. At night they are just empty parking lots and who wants to walk by them. Mr. Williams agreed. He shared that most of his employment has been downtown and parking wasn’t downtown but was connected via the Dash. He wonders if that might be a solution here; to utilize parking elsewhere for residents and employees and utilize a mode of public transit to reach the site. Ms. Shannon argued that the Dash lots are going away. She reiterated that, in her opinion, a surface lot is not going to be a surface lot in a viable downtown. What she finds appalling about the map is that MSU owns two different lots and the County owns a lot. They don’t know if those lots will be developed. At least with Corewell banking this property there is a plan for future development. Creating that campus will revitalize and hopefully make the other surface parking lots more valuable as development sites. Ms. Shannon sees this as a progression and not that these will be surface parking lots forever. Mr. Joseph argued that they could be if this request is approved. Ms. Shannon stated that, from an economic development standpoint, the value of that property is going to come up. We are competing with the suburbs for these kinds of jobs where they can build parking a lot cheaper. She suggested they must put their faith in it. They look at what Corewell has done on Michigan hill and how they’ve managed that and where there are parking ramps and so much investment, that is what is driving job creation, the need for more housing, etc. in this city. For a healthy city to compete in that way they must have faith that they aren’t going to use it for surface parking forever. Not many times do they get an applicant that says they only need half of the projected parking. 1,500 employees and 500 event goers is 2,000. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 October 26, 2023 Hopefully some of the subject sites will be converted to buildings and parking ramps. She has faith they will do that or sell the property at a better market value than it is right now for new development. Ms. Joseph argued that they’ve also seen that they have been able to use alternatives in the past. They have had agreements with the transit system and bused their employees from other places when buildings were under construction. Ms. Joseph doesn’t feel it is unreasonable to ask them to investigate those options before demolishing four blocks of a neighborhood. Mr. Williams agreed. However, in this particular case, he doesn’t have a lot of faith. If parking lots are developed, parking lots will be here. With respect to bringing jobs here, everyone wants to bring jobs here. These are job relocations so it isn’t 1,500 new jobs, which is also great. He agrees that this is a progression. The disagreement seems to be which way they want to go. He isn’t in favor of progressing this way. He wants this neighborhood to continue to be livable, to continue to be walkable, and he also wants those unused blighted buildings to go away so that people do feel safe walking. He doesn’t feel that the parking spaces will do that. Mr. Williams does feel the overall project is great. Ms. Turkelson suggested taking a step back and that the Planning Commission keep in mind that these are parcel specific requests. It may be worthwhile considering whether it is all or nothing. The Planning Commission does have the ability to pull the request apart if that helps. Mr. Jonker echoed the struggles expressed by other Commissioners. He also understands Ms. Shannon’s comments. They can show attractive pictures and propose this and that but those aren’t in front of the Planning Commission so it is hard to decide based on what they might do in the future. For him, the biggest issue at this point is hearing them say they want to listen to the community but not doing any community outreach at all. He isn’t a fan of surface parking lots. They go against many planning principles. Mr. Jonker understands that the parcels can be considered separately and it could be that one or two of the items could move forward but he would at least like to see community engagement first before he would consider any of that. Mr. Van Strien recalled someone mentioned the MSU and Kent County properties. One of the challenges they face is that they have no say in what happens there. Those could be surface parking lots forever. They do have some say in what happens on these other properties, which makes this all the more important in a district where there are already surface lots that could remain surface lots forever. Personally, he has evolved over time with respect to how he views surface lots in the downtown. He has come to understand what Ms. Shannon mentioned about a surface lot being a future development site. There is some truth to that but at the same time you don’t want that to come at the detriment of an entire district. At the same time, he is weighing the fact that a number of these buildings are obsolete so he is trying to consider each of the parcels and what the proposal is for them. Green space is proposed on some as an alternative to what the building are now, which he doesn’t feel is inappropriate. The GR Forward Plan and goals of DGRI were invoked in 60 letters and he thinks the fact that DGRI hasn’t weighed in on this phase is telling. Mr. Van Strien feels it would be important for them to know from them, NOBL, Creston and other stakeholders what their thoughts are. As far as he is aware, DGRI was supportive of the Brownfield developments in the past but hasn’t seen or had a chance to weigh City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 October 26, 2023 in on these in a meaningful way and it would be important for them to do so. Mr. Van Strien would like to find a way for this to work because this is an institution and they can consider the size of a development or the unique nature of what they are proposing in their decision making. It isn’t a cookie cutter decision they are making so it is important to contemplate the economic impact that a development like this will have. Mr. Van Strien would like to find a solution that works for everyone. He wouldn’t be inclined to outright deny if they think the applicant can work with the stakeholders to find something that is more appropriate here and perhaps provide the Planning Commission with a better understanding of what the phasing might look like. What he is hearing is that perhaps the rest of the Commission isn’t of the same mind. Mr. Rozeboom related that he worked in this neighborhood for 20 years, until last year. There were railroad tracks behind the Brassworks Building and the park wasn’t there yet. Western American Mailers had trucks coming in and out, which is now Embassy Suites. The tool and die shop was pounding away producing parts 24 hours a day with people parked everywhere and sidewalks that had no barrier free accommodations. It was all haphazard with vacant, obsolete buildings and others being used for different things. When he does a compare and contrast, he would say this plan is a huge step forward from what that was. There have been a lot of things done in the meantime but what they are striving for is everything that the Plans cover, which are all good. They have an institution that is trying to invest and build a campus and they’re trying to address things that people care about. Mr. Rozeboom agreed that the engagement was a big miss. He would suggest adding The Rapid to the list of stakeholders. He would like to hear more about the collaboration between Corewell Health and The Rapid on moving a lot of people around the city. Mr. Rozeboom does believe that these are a phased approach. Everything about this is intermediate. They don’t know the future but they’ve put together plans and they are trying to work them. Mr. Rozeboom feels there could be more engagement. He agreed with Mr. Van Strien that he wouldn’t want to outright deny and there could be a way to approve but he feels they need more. Ms. Shannon related that she lives downtown and is very empathetic to wanting green space. While she has a beautiful view of downtown, she also has a view of the west side and an ugly expressway, which she would prefer be underground. There are better things you can do to better engage the neighborhoods surrounding downtown. She can also see the huge Y and GVSU parking lots and huge Dash lots that are now empty all the time because people are working from home. Thankfully they are going to build a soccer arena there and hopefully other development will happen. Ms. Shannon clarified that she is not a proponent of surface parking lots to any degree and it is a reason she lives downtown because she would rather see buildings, entertainment, and work places than a surface parking lot. Ms. Shannon reiterated that this is a development process to bring a lot of good jobs and housing downtown. Ms. Joseph agreed with Mr. Jonker that she would not want to pick this apart parcel by parcel without hearing more from a robust engagement effort. At the very least, she would propose tabling. Mr. Kranzo expressed his appreciation for the feedback. He related that they certainly aren’t interested in building surface parking lots, which is why this plan demonstrates green space in the area where 711 Ionia and 700 Ottawa is today. They want a phased development plan and City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 30 October 26, 2023 have demonstrated that they’ve made significant investment in this area because that is where they want to be. They want to be near the medical center, the Medical Mile, and downtown. Mr. Kranzo recalled the comment about liner buildings. With residential housing they want flexibility in this development plan to create it. They’ve missed an opportunity to show that but there’s a reason why they set the parking deck back. They have concepts that show that they could have liner buildings that go all along Ottawa and on the south side of Newberry to continue to drive economic development in this area. Mr. Kranzo feels they may also have missed an opportunity to be a little more specific on parking. They aren’t intending to bring more parking on line. For example, could 648 Bond and 647 Ottawa be green space initially? He believes it could as long as the lot where they are showing the proposed housing could be done in a way that they could phase this accordingly. The parking demand study, based on data and analytics, clearly demonstrates what they anticipate their parking demand to be based on their hybrid workplace strategy with a large event center. Mr. Kranzo emphasized that they have tried to create flexibility in the plan and it is their overall intent not to overbuild. They’ve also created walkability by creating a portion of Bond that is vacated because they truly do support a walkable campus. Mr. Kranzo concluded his comments relating that on a weekly basis they must deal with graffiti, garbage being dumped in alleys adjacent to these blighted buildings, and they do have a desire to clean the neighborhood up. As they get into the winter months, he believes there is a huge benefit to do something and get these buildings demolished and, at a minimum, get green space in place and begin that movement toward that continued development of the neighborhood. Mr. Kranzo feels that would mean a lot as they consider the continued development of the neighborhood. Mr. Van Strien asked Commissioners how they feel about tabling. If inclined to do so, they should be specific as to what the expectations are. Ms. Shannon agreed, she would want to know what the expectations are; that they don’t build parking or that they engage with the community? She is ready to vote in favor. Ms. Joseph stated that she would like to see more engagement with stakeholders, the community, DGRI, The Chamber, The Rapid, NOBL, etc. She would also like a better understanding of what a potential phased approach could be related to what Ms. Turkelson said in terms of parking lots coming on line based on others going off line. They clearly need to engage with the neighborhood more based on the number of letters of opposition that were received. Mr. Jonker agreed with Ms. Joseph. He asked how they look at a larger development like this that has phases that aren’t before them for consideration but will likely be coming in the future. How do they handle them. There has been repeated mention of the buildings being blighted but the reality is that most of them were fully occupied and operational before Corewell bought them. Whether they were pretty or not is another story but they weren’t just sitting there vacant. He understands that assembling property is a long ordeal and it takes a long time to do development. Now there is property that they don’t have a use for currently that they just want to turn into green space. He struggles with that and understands the struggle as a developer to manage that. He would like a better understanding of that from staff in the future. How does an entity like Corewell buy a parcel that they know they might want in the future, not have a current use for, but also not want to maintain it. It may also not be desirable to see it razed with nothing City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 31 October 26, 2023 in its place. Mr. Jonker would love to see neighborhood engagement; residents and other stakeholders mentioned. He doesn’t believe that 50-100 years from now they will be talking about parking in the same way. He isn’t a huge fan of building parking decks either but if they are built, he believes they should be built with the ability to be converted to other types of uses in the long run. He doesn’t necessarily want to encourage more driving. A comprehensive look at how transportation can work in a development like this would be something he would like to see going forward. Ms. Shannon understands the desire for neighborhood engagement. It would be good to understand whether the blighted building will remain if they don’t build the parking lots. The applicant already owns the land. Is that what they want to see in the interim; blighted, obsolete buildings. Mr. Jonker replied no, they’ll have to maintain them as any owner of a building would have to do. Ms. Shannon argued that they aren’t going to look better even if maintained. She feels that is an important point to consider. Ms. Joseph related that she works in transportation planning. All of the models are built to input more people and more development and it just spits out cars; it doesn’t account for behavior change at all. It will just show catastrophic congestion whereas, in reality, people can make different choices and the models don’t account for that. She doesn’t know that that has anything to do with what is expected from them if the request is tabled but she wanted to provide that information that the models don’t account for people’s behavior change to other modes. Dr. Wallace asked Mr. Kranzo if they were to build surface lots and they have their 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. work day is it off the table that that wouldn’t be open for free parking. Could that be a discussion point they take back? Mr. Kranzo agreed that it could be a discussion point. He recalled it was mentioned earlier and it was heard and can definitely be a discussion point. Because they haven’t activated the campus yet and are still under construction, they don’t understand what kind of behaviors can be changed; that is all open. Dr. Wallace also suggested providing full picture information. It feels like they’ve been talking about some future things that the Planning Commission has no knowledge about. She doesn’t feel that Corewell is a bad actor in this situation but the Planning Commission deserves some answers and the public deserves some conversation. Dr. Wallace believes there are other solutions that may be able to be folded into this to make it more mutually beneficial. Mr. Kranzo related that they are more than happy to provide more detail as needed. He asked that the Planning Commission provide specific requests for information. Ms. Turkelson summarized what she has heard from the Planning Commission: an expectation of additional engagement with stakeholders including The Chamber, Mobile GR, The Rapid, DGRI City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 32 October 26, 2023 and NOBL; a desire for more clarity on the phasing - what comes on line and what goes off line and a time line. Ms. Bersche agreed she has an interest in the phasing/time line. Is the green space anticipated to be there for three years, ten years? What does the phasing look like as it stands now? Ms. Turkelson advised that the Ordinance does have language around the phasing relative to how long approvals remain in effect. One of the challenges with this is that Zoning is not the most favorable to temporary uses. While Corewell and staff can spend some time putting time lines around this, there aren’t any guarantees if it doesn’t happen. While operating in good faith and expectation that they would execute as they’ve said, there’s not a tool to make them follow through with construction of a building. Ms. Turkelson appreciates the desire to have that information. However, she cautioned the Planning Commission on making any decisions around it. Mr. Swem asked if it is possible to condition approval on, for example, 648 Bond and 647 Ottawa that they need to have an approved LUDS permit or approved building permit for the housing before they can commence demolition of the buildings. They would be giving them approval to move forward but contingent on the approval of the project it needs to move forward for. Ms. Turkelson agreed that would be a possibility. Mr. Van Strien stated that while Corewell has tried to build in some flexibility for themselves and might view or project that as a positive thing. However, as the Planning Commission, their responsibility is to find some certainty in what will be seen in a neighborhood. Any certainty that can be provided for the Planning Commission, citizens, and stakeholders would be very beneficial. Ms. Turkelson advised it would be necessary to table open and she would work with Corewell’s team and the currently anticipated Planning Commission agendas. There is only one meeting in November and December and public hearings are anticipated for text amendments. The case would be re-noticed when it can be heard. Ms. Joseph suggested this is a great time to engage with The Rapid as they work through their Transit Master Plan. Ms. Joseph MOVED TO TABLE OPEN to allow time for additional engagement with stakeholders including DGRI, Mobile GR, The Chamber, NOBL, The Rapid, residents and business in the neighborhood as well as to provide additional information on potential phasing options and contingencies. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. YEAS: 8. NAYS: 1 (Shannon). MOTION CARRIED. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 33 October 26, 2023 RESULT: TABLED OPEN [8 TO 1] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Swem, Joseph, Wallace, Williams, Jonker NAYS: Susan Shannon Mr. Van Strien advised those present that, due to time constraints, the Planning Commission may not get through the text amendment discussion. However, the presentation is available on line and those present to comment will be afforded an opportunity at the end of the meeting. D. 563 Jefferson Ave SE - Two-Family Residential Address: 563 Jefferson Ave SE Applicant: AYA Youth Collective (Jonathan Van Keulen) Requesting: Approval to construct a new two-family dwelling. Zoning: TN-LDR Traditional Neighborhoods – Low-Density Residential Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.9.06. Attached Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0092 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: November 11, 2023 563 Jefferson Ave SE Ms. Zeller introduced the request to construct a new two-family dwelling. The request is before the Planning Commission because two-family structures in an LDR Zone District require Special Land Use approval. The property is currently vacant and has been vacant since at least 2006. Ms. Zeller related that the structure is proposed as two-stories. The ground floor will consist of one one-bedroom unit with a porch on the front. A portion of the ground floor is also devoted to the second unit. The kitchen, living space, powder room and laundry facilities for the four- bedroom unit are located on the ground floor with the four bedrooms with en suite bathrooms on the second floor. Ms. Zeller related that, except for lot area, the site plan meets all of the minimum requirements for the Zone District. A two-family dwelling is required to have a lot area and lot width that is 30% greater than the median average of those respective measurements for all single-family dwellings in close proximity. The lot width meets that requirement. The median of the block for lot area is 7,600 sq. ft. and the subject lot is approximately 6,755 sq. ft., which is approximately 900 sq. ft. too small to meet the minimum requirement. Ms. Zeller recalled that a text amendment passed within the last year allows for administrative departures for vacant lots if the lot meets the minimum requirements for the Zone District, excluding the median, which was the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 34 October 26, 2023 case here. The applicant applied and staff has already granted that administrative departure. If the Planning Commission concurs that this lot is appropriate for a two-family, the lot size requirement can be considered met. Ms. Zeller commented on the Required Building Line. The dwellings on the east side of Jefferson are set back significantly further than the ones on the west/subject side of the street due to a City utility easement that runs next to the sidewalk. The applicant is proposing to set the structure back consistent with the setbacks on the west side of the street. Technically, the setback is supposed to be the median but there is a significant difference so the applicant is asking to have it in line with the properties on the subject side of the street. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine whether that is appropriate or not. The side and rear setbacks meet all of the requirements. Ms. Zeller displayed building elevations. The building design is somewhat unusual. Rather than having a front porch that is in front of the building it is actually recessed; it is not intended to stick out in front of the building. The front is the primary entrance and there is a secondary entrance ramp on the side, as well as a door out to a patio/deck. The entry for the second floor is on the north side. There is a secondary entrance off the deck. Ms. Zeller advised that three parking spaces are required with a maximum of four spaces allowed. The applicant is proposing a 20 ft. wide driveway accessible from the alley, which will be large enough to accommodate up to four vehicles parked in tandem. Tandem parking spaces are not ideal in a two-family situation. The Planning Commission could approve it as proposed. Alternatively, the applicant could work with staff to provide side by side parking. The proposal appears to meet the greenspace requirement. There is some perimeter fencing proposed that appears may be in the clear vision area at the corner, which staff can work with the applicant on. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to discuss their neighborhood outreach. She identified key considerations as the impact of the two-family home on the desired character of the surrounding neighborhood and compatibility of the proposed structure with the architectural character of the block and neighborhood. Kurt Reppart was present representing Collective Ventures, which is a new real estate company that will focus on small scale and affordable housing. Also present were Lauren Van Keulen, CEO of AYA Youth Collective, and Angie from Pure Architects. Mr. Reppart stated that they believe this two-family project is a unique solution to the pressing needs in the city around youth homelessness. As Ms. Zeller mentioned, they have applied for an administrative departure to allow a two-family to be built on this vacant lot in the LDR neighborhood. Mr. Reppart believes the project is an interesting example of the discussion the Planning Commission will have next around small scale developments. The subject property is located between two very large multi- family housing units. The one to the north is a four unit and the one to the south is a large two- unit. The site isn’t exactly in the S Division Area Specific Plan but it is adjacent to that corridor. Mr. Reppart related that he was part of that group as a City Commissioner. They really care about affordability and the building of new housing units. They also strongly encourage building City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 35 October 26, 2023 on vacant land as to promote development without displacement. Therefore, he would suggest the proposal aligns with the S. Division ASP. Another aspect of the project is that AYA Youth Collective has demonstrated that they can build these small-scale projects with greater than 75% minority owned contractors. Collective Ventures maintains that same commitment. They believe this project will be built by people that live in that neighborhood. Mr. Reppart related that he personally did the community engagement for the project. He works part time for Wellhouse, located just around the corner. They spoke with their tenants that live near this project as well as some of the stakeholders. He also knocked on every door in the immediate neighborhood and spoke to nearly every neighbor on Jefferson and received unanimous support for the project. Tim, who lives a few doors away, said anything they do for the youth they support. There are Dominican Sisters that live across the street who have lived in their home for 20 years and looked at this vacant lot the whole time. No one he spoke with ever recalls a structure being on this site. Mr. Reppart also related receipt of a letter of support from Pastor Joe Jones at Brown Hutcherson Ministries, which is kitty corner from the site, and John Glover, the Executive Director of Wellhouse who has 17 houses in this neighborhood with a very similar model and approach. Lauren Van Keulen, CEO of AYA Youth Collective, related that they support youth ages 14-24 who are experiencing homelessness or housing instability throughout the county. They have a drop-in center located on State St. and they currently have nine homes, most of which are duplexes where they have a house mentor that lives on site. The house mentor would occupy the lower unit of the proposed dwelling and youth would reside upstairs. Ms. Van Keulen stated that they have over a 90% success rate for youth exiting into stability once they move out of the AYA housing program. It is non-time limited meaning they support youth for as long as they need. The youth that would reside here are between the ages of 18 and 24 based on leases. That entire process has been vetted across the city and in a variety of other departments. Ms. Van Keulen related that they recently received some HUD funding to specifically prioritize housing for this population of individuals experiencing homelessness in the county. Ms. Van Keulen recalled some concerns that the home would be useable and saleable for other uses. She is very confident that that is the case as they have looked at selling some of their other properties and haven’t seen any issues with that. Ms. Joseph asked the reason for the recessed porch design. She also asked if there are other covered entries. Angie, Pure Architects, explained that they looked at the recessed porch to have something unique but also fitting with the character of the existing urban streetscape. They understood the Zoning Code to require that the main entry be on the street facing side and then any other entries or porches could be on the back or sides if they were respecting the required setbacks. All the entries are covered. The mentor unit has a recessed back deck and recessed front porch. The four-bedroom unit for the youth has a covered deck space with a more traditional canopy roof style covering. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 36 October 26, 2023 Ms. Joseph feels the use is completely appropriate in this location. She is comfortable with the solution for the Required Build Line and having it line up with the houses on the same side of the street. She is somewhat confused about the choice for a recessed porch vs. a traditional porch but she is open to what others think about that. Ms. Bersche agreed that she also questioned the recessed porch. She doesn’t know how it fits with the other style of homes adjacent to it. Other than that, she is comfortable with the project. Ms. Van Keulen interjected that they are happy to work with staff to amend the porch design if that is something of interest to the Planning Commission. Dr. Wallace asked if they are amenable to talking through the parking situation with staff. Ms. Van Keulen responded affirmatively. Mr. Van Strien agreed that it is challenging to visualize what the recessed porch may look like. He suspects it will be similar to what balconies look like on some of the newer buildings in town where part of it is recessed and covered and part of it is open air. He understands the idea of it. Building a traditional enclosed porch isn’t typical of new construction and many are open air but covered and then become enclosed, which he doesn’t think they want. He understands the idea and isn’t opposed to it; it is just difficult to visualize. Mr. Rozeboom suggested that besides the aesthetics of it there is the way it functions. He suggested they care equally that it functions as a porch, which usually has a wall in front and not wide open the entire way. Usually, you can see visually in three directions and not just one. Ms. Joseph agreed. Mr. Van Strien asked if staff is comfortable working through amending the design with the applicant. Ms. Turkelson related that staff had some similar conversations and expressed concern as to whether this architecture was reflected in the neighborhood. They also felt that was somewhat subjective on their part and that if it was the desire of the applicant, it could be a discussion point for the Planning Commission. Ms. Turkelson feels it will be a relatively easy fix to modify the front design and build a more traditional porch that is more consistent with the traditional neighborhood it is in. They were also open to it in earlier meetings with staff. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of AYA Youth Collective (Jonathan Van Keulen) for Special Land Use and Site Plan Review approval to construct a new two-family dwelling at 563 Jefferson Avenue SE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the development will increase the number and variety of housing units within the city and a new two-family dwelling City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 37 October 26, 2023 at this location will support the recommendation of the South Division Corridor Area Specific Plan for an increased density and slightly more intense development. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the site has been harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining structures and the proposed building is appropriately aligned with the Required Building Line (RBL) of the structures on the same side of the street of the surrounding block. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed building is consistent in scale and orientation with what is desired in the TN neighborhood classification and the proposed use will result in a density appropriate for this area. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the proposed off-street parking area will meet the requirements of the zone district and the perimeter fencing and landscaping that is proposed is residential in scale and will enhance the character of the neighborhood. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, and visual clutter because vehicular access to the property will be from the alley and this will be a residential use in a residentially zoned area. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the proposed building setback will be consistent with properties on the same side of the block and the placement of the house, entrances, and rear yard parking reflects a pedestrian-oriented site. 7. The proposed development will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because the proposed plan incorporates planting of new trees to mitigate the loss of existing trees necessary for the development of the property. 8. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services already exist or will be provided at no additional cost. 9. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the provision of additional housing will promote social stability and increase the number of residents who will contribute to the local economy. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated, and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 38 October 26, 2023 iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. That the paved off-street parking area shall be reconfigured to allow for three side-by- side parking spaces accessible from the alley. 3. That the porch on the east façade be modified to project in front of the structure consistent with the architecture of adjacent structures. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Mr. Jonker and Mr. Swem did not participate in the review or vote) Mr. Jonker and Mr. Swem returned to the meeting. Discussion of Potential Text Amendments pertaining to Housing Policy Mr. Van Strien advised that they would be postponing the discussion on potential text amendments related to infill housing, parking, and group living. The Planning Commission was amenable to starting the meeting early on 11/9/23 to hold the discussion. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [7 TO 0] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams RECUSED: Brian Swem, Aaron Jonker IV. Discussion of Potential Text Amendments pertaining to Housing Policy A. Discussion of Text Amendments for Infill Housing, Parking, Group Living Mr. Van Strien advised that they would be postponing the discussion on potential text amendments related to infill housing, parking, and group living. The Planning Commission was amenable to starting the meeting early on 11/9/23 to hold the discussion. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 39 October 26, 2023 B. Other Potential Text Amendments V. Planning Commission Discussion - None. VI. Public Comment Lisa McManus, Heritage Hill resident, related that she has been following the Planning Commission discussion on the potential text amendments. Ms. McManus is concerned about Heritage Hill because their Master Plan goal is to reduce or maintain current population density. A lot of their residential area is in a Low-Density Residential designation. The Grand Rapids Master Plan defines low density as 1-4.9 housing units per acre. Heritage Hill has never achieved low density residential although they have been working at it for years. Many of the people that attend the Heritage Hill meetings are those that have purchased houses as preservationists and turned the houses from multiple units back to single family, something no developer would ever do. As a preservationist you look at the community differently. Ms. McManus asked that the Planning Commission look at the proposed text amendments and put some kind of guard rails on them for high density, particularly old historic areas. The houses in Heritage Hill were built from 1850 to pre-WWI. They are being looked at by the community as places for group homes and other applications they weren’t built to accommodate. Ms. McManus asked that they really pay attention to increasing the number of unrelated adults per unit, which could make a big difference in Heritage Hill. She also asked, since they already have a lot of group homes, if the distance between such homes could be doubled. That could help Heritage Hill not have to take the additional burden. Andrew Carley, Strong Towns GR, stated that the plan for producing affordable housing in Grand Rapids has his full support. It follows every best practice in getting affordable housing within the Grand Rapids area. There is currently a shortage of 39,000 units, which will stunt economic growth. Grand Rapids could be one of the first cities in the State of Michigan to have a very good, very thought out, very well researched affordable housing policy and a footprint to get there. It is necessary to act now, not later. We are already behind and falling 5+ houses behind every day. That is 5 people not moving to Grand Rapids because they can’t afford it. Mr. Carley offered support for having multi-family units by right, reducing parking minimums, and increasing the number of unrelated adults per unit. These follow all the latest best practices on achieving the missing middle homes and affordable housing within the Grand Rapids area. Grand Rapids could be a national blue print, we just have to get out of our own way. Nathan Biller noted that he submitted a long, detailed letter. He stated that he also supports all the proposed text amendments; they are all needed. Mr. Biller shared that he also participates in Strong Towns. He recalled the discussion on Accessory Dwelling Units indicating that he believes he owns a lot that he would love to build an ADU on. When he looks at it, he believes he would only be able to do a 12 ft. minimum because of the height requirement, which he believes was decreased from 25 to 20 by right unless it follows the setback for a primary structure, which most would not. From the discussion on ADU’s it sounded like the intent is to allow them to be built by right. He would love to do that but he feels the height requirement should be reconsidered. With respect to the small infill development, the prior case with people having to ask permission to build a duplex seems ridiculous. We are in a housing crisis. Commissioner O’Conner suggested allowing duplexes by right on every lot. There is precedent. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 40 October 26, 2023 If you look at Minneapolis it is amazing what they have accomplished. This is an opportunity to share in that and there is already a City Commissioner advocating for that. The Planning Commission needs to press everyone else. Mr. Biller agreed with eliminating parking requirements. He feels for Heritage Hill as there are beautiful homes for but it comes down to who do you want to design for. Is this a city designed for people or a city designed for cars? People should always be elevated above cars. Mr. Biller shared a quote from Denver Urbanism regarding eliminating minimum parking requirements. They show that you can build a two-stall garage in the place of a small 850 sq. ft. apartment. How do you decide what that is. They say “the moral argument would ask whether two empty cars have a greater right to limited space in the city than two people. The social argument would ask whether two empty cars would provide more energy, community, dynamism to a city than two people. The fiscal argument would ask whether two empty cars provide more tax base to the city than two people.” Mr. Biller asks why this is even a debate. He encouraged the Planning Commission to press forward. Michael DeMaagd-Rodriguez related that he lives in Heritage Hill. He explained that his comments are largely in response to public comment he heard in previous meetings. In those comments he heard two recurring assumptions. The first assumption is that an increased variety of housing options within an existing neighborhood will burden that neighborhood with an increase in undesirable behavior or nuisances. At its core, this assumption imagines that home owners are better neighbors than renters. Anytime people live near each other there are possibilities for conflict or inconvenience. However, the management of behavior is not the purpose of zoning. There are other mechanisms, formal and informal, that do this better including to have relationships with your neighbors. The second assumption that comes up often is that the physical presence of increased variety of housing options may cause harm to the existing neighborhood character. This assumes that homogonous, detached, single-family and owner-occupied houses with an overabundance of private parking are the preferred housing model. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez instead encouraged the Planning Commission to consider that attainable housing options that can accommodate a variety of income levels, life circumstances, mobilities, and preferences is actually more valuable for a stable community. He asked that the Commission remember that most of us have been, are, or will be tenants in buildings owned by others. Without the creation of additional options, where will we go? Furthermore, Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels it is unethical and unsustainable to preserve only the privileges of those who have ownership of homes at the exclusion of those who cannot or choose not to. Unfortunately, current zoning inhibits the meaningful addition of increased housing options. As an illustration of this, within the 200-300 block of Prospect SE approximately half of the historic structures are single-family homes and the other half are purpose built, small scale multi-unit homes. Almost all of those multi-unit structures, and a few of the single-family homes, are non- conforming with respect to current zoning regulations. If lost they could not be rebuilt. In the twelve years he has lived there he has never heard anyone express that the desirability or character of their block is in peril due to the gentle density. Quite the contrary in fact; it remains a lovely, walkable, and human scaled place to live. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez invited the Planning Commissioners to visit and see for themselves the natural integration of small-scale multi-unit housing is entirely compatible with historic single-family homes. Mr. DeMaagd- Rodriguez added that his block is hardly alone. Neighborhoods throughout the city are filled with useful housing models that can’t be replicated under current regulations. Mr. DeMaagd- City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 41 October 26, 2023 Rodriguez thanked the Planning Director and staff for the thoughtful, detailed information that has been compiled. He has reviewed it all and is in full support of the proposed amendments. Mr. Van Strien closed the public comment portion. Ms. Turkelson noted that staff has sent a lot of information to Commissioners with the hope that they had an opportunity to read it prior to today. If anyone feels there is information missing or additional information that would be helpful in providing direction, she asked that they let staff know prior to the next meeting. A. Correspondence regarding potential text amendments B. Correspondence regarding potential text amendments VII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 4:55 PM