TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 January 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 A. Call to Order - 12:30 p.m. PRESENT: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Bersche, Wallace, Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Tyler Kent, Elizabeth Zeller, Laura Wahamaki, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from January 12, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon C. Planning Director's Report  Agenda items were briefly reviewed.  Training - Mr. Al-Shatel related that he attended the Michigan Association of Planning Virtual Housing Conference yesterday. He found the discussion on multi-family vs. single- family development interesting. Ms. Turkelson related that Paul LeBlanc will be coming in next month to provide training to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The City of Wyoming and Plainfield Township have been invited to participate as well.  Ms. Turkelson advised that one of the requirements of the Redevelopment Ready Committee is for the City Commission and Planning Commission to have a joint meeting, which will be scheduled in the near future. Mr. Rozeboom pointed out that a joint meeting is recommended by the APA and, since he began serving in 2013, it hasn’t occurred. Ms. Turkelson suggested the agenda will likely include a presentation of the 2022 Annual Report, Master Plan updates, and other key Planning topics. Generated 1/30/2023 9:05 AM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 January 26, 2023 III. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Conflict of Interest Mr. Van Strien related that one of the partners on the 260 & 282 Leonard St. NW project is Indigo. He partnered with Indigo on a different project. He has no interest in the subject project however. Mr. Van Strien responded to questions indicating he has no knowledge of the project that other Planning Commissioners wouldn’t have access to and he has no financial interest in the project whatsoever. Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Mr. Al-Shatel, finding that Mr. Van Strien does not have a conflict of interest. Motion carried unanimously. B. Change of Agenda Order C. 260 & 282 Leonard St NW - Mixed-Use PRD Address: 260 & 282 Leonard St NW Applicant: West Leonard Development, LLC (Joseph Elias) Requesting: Approval for a new Planned Redevelopment District to facilitate the construction of a 10-story, mixed-use building with approximately 140 dwelling units and structured parking. Zoning: TN – TCC Traditional Neighborhood – Transitional City Center Requirements: Article 7 Special Districts 5.7.06. Special District – Planned Redevelopment District 5.9.20. Multiple-Family Dwellings 5.12.08. Site Plan Review Standards 5.12.12. Planned Redevelopment District Case Number: PC-PRD-2022-0112 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Planned Redevelopment District Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Turkelson related that the applicant has requested a postponement to the March 9, 2023 meeting to allow them additional time to refine their project. Staff has no objection to the request. Mr. Van Strien invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Mr. Al-Shatel, to postpone the request to the March 9, 2023 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 January 26, 2023 RESULT: TABLED OPEN [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon D. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Floodplain Overlay District Applicant: The City of Grand Rapids Planning Department Requesting: Approval to update Section 5.8.05. Floodplain Overlay District (OD-FP) in compliance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. Requirements: 5.8.05. Floodplain Overlay District (OD-FP) 5.12.10. Zoning Ordinance Text and Map Amendments Case Number: PC-TXT-2023-0001 Staff Assigned: Kristin Turkelson Type of Case: Text Amendment Effective Date: City Commission approval Mike Staal, Engineering Dept., introduced the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to update Section 5.8.05. the Floodplain Overlay District. The changes in this Section include an update to the flood insurance rate maps that FEMA has just completed. It also cleans up some of the old language that FEMA no longer uses. For Kent County, FEMA is at the end of the map modernization project. They have been working their way across the country modernizing the maps. The current maps were done in 1982. The changes are largely due to land use, new precipitation data, and updates in modeling technology. The new flood insurance rate maps have the 100-year flood plains that are approximately 7% less than they were in 1982. In the Grand River there is approximately 18% less area of floodplain than there was in 1982. Mr. Staal explained that the changes are necessary because the City is a participating community in the National Flood Insurance Program, which enables property owners in the participating jurisdictions to purchase flood insurance through that program. Without the City’s participation, flood insurance would only be available through private insurance carriers at rates described as extremely high. He explained further that the City’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program is conditioned upon an agreement between the City and Federal government to adopt and enforce the Floodplain Management Ordinance that reduce future flood risks. In turn, the Federal government makes the flood insurance available. Mr. Staal related that earlier this week the City Commission adopted changes to Chapter 32 of the City Ordinance. All changes to the City Ordinance are needed before February 23, 2023 in order to maintain the City’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Mr. Rozeboom noted that under the definition for base flood it says a flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. He asked who makes that determination. Mr. Staal replied that it is determined by FEMA. There are a number of calculations that they use. They take hydrology and flow into consideration, put it into a computer model and determine what areas are anticipated to be inundated by flooding. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 January 26, 2023 Mr. Rozeboom clarified that a developer wouldn’t be calculating that. Mr. Staal agreed. The maps are generated by FEMA. By adopting them into the City code it makes them the official maps that have to be used. Only FEMA has the authority to update the maps through their processes. Mr. Staal added that someone can submit a request, with supporting engineering documentation, if they believe their property is not in the floodplain. If they have solid engineering reasons to back up their claim then FEMA will amend the maps accordingly. Ms. Joseph asked if something like that happened whether the proposed Ordinance would cover those changes or would it require another update to the Ordinance. Mr. Staal replied that the way the code is written it adopts the maps by reference. Any changes that FEMA makes are included in that. Mr. Al-Shatel asked if the private insurance rates are double that of FEMA rates. Mr. Staal replied that the rates are going to be determined by the insurance company depending on the property and the risks involved. The National Flood Insurance Program is approximately $700 annually. He doesn’t have a feel for what the private insurance may be but when talking with the State and Federal officials the words they used to describe it were “extremely high”. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Al-Shatel MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Commission approve the proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, because the proposed text amendment supports Objective 3 of the Master Plan to identify and preserve sensitive environmental resources and valued natural areas. 2. The proposed amendments will enhance the functionality or character of the future development in the City because the amendment will assist in the reduction of flood losses and minimize the high costs associated with flood disaster areas in the City 3. The proposed amendment will protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the required updates will help delineate areas in which potential flood losses may occur. 4. The proposed amendments are needed to update the original text because these required updates will guarantee the City’s continued participation in the NFIP program. SUPPORTED by Mr. Rozeboom. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 January 26, 2023 RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Salim Al-Shatel SECONDER: Paul Rozeboom, Vice Chairperson YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon E. 2160 Celebration Dr NE - Residential Building Address: 2160 Celebration Drive NE Applicant: Victory Development Group, LLC Requesting: Approval of a Major Amendment to the approved Celebration Village development to construct a five-story mixed-use building with up to 250 dwelling units. Zoning: SD-PRD Special Districts - Planned Redevelopment District Requirements: 5.7.06. Special District - Planned Redevelopment District 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Planned Redevelopment District Case Number: PC-PRDA-2022-0113 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Major Amendment to a Planned Redevelopment District Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Zeller introduced the request for a Major Amendment to the Celebration Village Planned Redevelopment District. The PRD is located on the west side of the East Beltline, just north of Knapp St. The amendment is requested to facilitate a project that wasn’t originally anticipated in the approved PRD. The applicant is proposing the construction of a new, five-story, mixed-use building with ground floor commercial, covered parking, and up to 250 dwelling units. The proposed changes to the plan require Planning Commission consideration and City Commission approval. Ms. Zeller provided background relating that the PRD grew out of the North East Beltline Joint Development Plan of 1998. The Plan recommended a development in this location, such as what was approved. The development was approved by the City Commission in May of 1999. It exemplifies the intent of the North East Beltline Joint Development Plan to concentrate commercial development at a walkable pedestrian scale at this location. Ms. Zeller noted that there have been a number of amendments to the Celebration Village development since its inception. Recent relevant amendments include a 2020 amendment for a new 107 guestroom hotel of four stories. Ms. Zeller identified the location of the approved hotel. Originally, a hotel was anticipated on the subject site. In July of 2022, the City Commission approved an amendment to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Chili’s restaurant into two new buildings. Ms. Zeller related that the subject site is approximately 3 acres in area. There is an elevation increase of approximately eight feet from the northeast to the southwest. The site is currently all greenspace but was always anticipated to be a development site. Nothing has ever been constructed there other than the street parking along Celebration Dr. and Main St. and a drive City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 January 26, 2023 along the eastern portion. Ms. Zeller displayed the site plan and identified the subject site. The original development plan anticipated two buildings of two stories with mixed-use retail and office uses. However, the plan does indicate that a four-story hotel would be an option. As previously noted, the hotel was approved in a different location. There is a Master Deed and Reciprocal Easement Agreement throughout the development. Staff has not been given access to those agreements. The applicant’s representative has indicated that the project is an allowable use within the recorded Master Deed and the project doesn’t negatively impact any existing easement of record, although staff has not seen those documents to confirm that. Ms. Zeller displayed Google street view images of the subject site and surrounding sites. The existing site layout plan and the proposed site layout plan were also displayed. Ms. Zeller further described the proposed project. The ground floor is proposed to include 85 covered parking spaces. Renderings of the south and west elevations were displayed. A five- story building is proposed. Residential is proposed on level two and above. The ground floor will include commercial space, particularly along the west elevation. There are also storefront windows along a portion of the south elevation. The upper floors will be a mix of studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom residential units. The final mix has yet to be determined. The applicant presented floor plans that show 232 dwelling units. However, the applicant is requesting the latitude of up to 250 dwelling units. Ms. Zeller explained that the original development plan and approved Ordinance did not include residential as a permitted use or as a use on this parcel, hence the request for a Major Amendment. Because of that, there is no way to calculate density across the entire development. However, Ms. Zeller did provide a density calculation for the 3 acre site; 232 units equates to approximately 75 dwelling units per acre. As a comparison, the TN-TBA and TN-TCC Zone Districts allow up to 58 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Zeller reiterated that the 75 units per acre doesn’t take into account the entirety of the PRD. Ms. Zeller related that the building is being proposed appropriately located to the exterior lot lines. It is oriented toward the abutting streets. The commercial area is at ground level with appropriate entrance orientations. Ms. Zeller referred to the east elevation noting the interior drive between Hopcat and the former Chili’s building, which would provide the access to the covered parking. The upper floors would primarily be visible from the East Beltline. The north elevation would face an internal drive and an existing car wash. Ms. Zeller displayed the south elevation noting the continuation of the ground floor storefront windows and the upper level residential. Ms. Zeller pointed out that there is an inconsistency in the rendering and the proposed elevation. There are garden units on the lower level taking advantage of the grade change. When looking at the south elevation, there appears to be an additional row of windows which Ms. Zeller believes to be the garden units. However, those windows are approximately 7 ft. above grade. The Planning Commission should consider the appropriateness of the south building elevation for this addition to the development. A significant amount of windows at the ground floor is desired in walkable, TN, neighborhoods, which is what is present on the opposite side of Main St. In general, the Planning Commission should consider the ground floor treatment all the way around the building to ensure it is compatible with what is desired in the development. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 January 26, 2023 Ms. Zeller commented on proposed building height. As previously mentioned, the original plan indicated two stories for the building originally proposed but it could be four stories if it were a hotel. The Planning Commission should consider those changes relative to the originally approved development plan. The theater was allowed to be 50 ft. in height with the IMAX portion permitted up to 60 ft. The applicant’s conceptual plan proposes five stories and approximately 64 ft. in height. That could vary depending on the final plan. The Planning Commission should consider the appropriateness of the proposed height. The original development plan doesn’t specify any particular materials. However, all buildings were to go before the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan Review. The Celebration Dr. and Main St. buildings are primarily brick and masonry. The general PRD regulations in the Zoning Ordinance require buildings in PRDs be at least 75% brick, face brick, stone or cast stone. High quality materials on other exposed exterior surfaces are encouraged. The exterior materials proposed are metal panel as the primary material, glass, brick masonry, and concrete masonry. The proposed colors are as shown on the rendering but have not been finalized. The Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed materials, specifically the metal panels, meet the PRD criteria for building materials and whether they are appropriate with respect to the remainder of the development. Ms. Zeller addressed parking. The number of parking spaces in Celebration Village was based on the proposed mix of retail, office and theater uses. Residential use was not contemplated. Based on the complementary nature of the mix of uses, the parking requirement was reduced by approximately 28% of what was required at that time. The original development plan for the subject site specified a 182-space surface parking lot, which should be considered with respect to the Master Deed and how the development was anticipated to work. Even though the surface parking lot was likely anticipated to primarily support the adjacent buildings, other users could easily drive in there and park. What is currently proposed is a covered parking lot with access from one side. Per the application, the spaces are to be for residents and guests. Ms. Zeller explained that she doesn’t know how the Master Deed or Reciprocal Easement Agreements address those things. Ms. Zeller suggested that is something that should be explored further. The proposal includes 163 parking spaces, 85 of which would be covered spaces for residents and guests, 39 existing street spaces and 39 new street spaces. Based on the Zoning Ordinance PRD requirements, which is the same as the Commercial auto oriented districts, 333 spaces would be required for the proposed uses. Ms. Zeller explained that she used the C District because, even though the development is internally walkable, it is on the periphery of the city. She would think that the nature of the general development is different than the TN Districts. Ms. Zeller explained that she also used the Mixed-Use Parking Coefficient for the combination of residential and commercial uses, which brought the requirement down to 277 spaces, which is a deficit of 114 spaces. The deficiency could be addressed by shared parking within the development. However, Ms. Zeller doesn’t know the details of the shared parking, which is something the Commission should explore further. Ms. Zeller added that this development is the most recent in a string of significant changes to the PRD since its inception. The Planning Commission may wish to require a parking demand study to determine whether adequate parking exists to support a shared parking waiver. Ms. Zeller noted that there is a significant amount of bike parking proposed within the covered garage. However, to technically meet the parking reduction allowed for the micro-units, there City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 January 26, 2023 should be an enclosed bike storage room, which could be a condition of approval if the Planning Commission wishes. Ms. Zeller related that the applicant has had a traffic study completed, which has been reviewed by Mobile GR. It was also reviewed by MDOT, which has jurisdiction over the East Beltline, as well as the Kent County Road Commission, which has jurisdiction over Knapp St. in this area. The conclusion is that there will be some increased delays as a result of the development, which could be addressed by signal timing changes. With respect to stormwater and water quality, development of this property has always been anticipated and is accommodated in existing stormwater infrastructure. Standard engineering and stormwater and water quality requirements through the LUDS process will apply. Ms. Zeller indicated that if the Planning Commission does offer a favorable recommendation, staff recommends including the originally approved signage, which is 1.5 sq. ft. of signage per linear foot of street frontage. They could return for a Planned Sign Program if they wish. With respect to neighborhood input, the Northeast Community Action Association submitted a letter offering support for the addition of the residential use. They have identified areas of concern as parking and traffic circulation within the Celebration Village development; access to and from the East Beltline; and management of contaminated stormwater. A letter of support was also submitted by Housing Next due to the need for housing within walkable communities. Staff also received a letter, and amendment to that letter, from Ben Muller Realty Company on behalf of entities neighboring the subject property. Concerns expressed in those letters include that the residential use was not originally contemplated; the proposed number of parking spaces being inadequate; the proposed amount of greenspace is inadequate; the building height is not appropriate in this location; and the proposed changes require approval from the co-owners of the condominium association and Celebration Village developer, which hasn’t occurred. Ms. Zeller concluded her presentation identifying key considerations:  Appropriateness of the proposed use and site changes to the approved PRD.  Potential parking impacts associated with the uses at this location.  Whether a parking demand study should be provided prior to the Planning Commission making any formal recommendation.  Whether the design of the north, south, and east ground floor elevations support the pedestrian-oriented environment envisioned by the original development plan.  Whether the proposed building materials are consistent with the existing and desired character of the development.  Whether the Master Deed and easement documents should be provided prior to the Planning Commission making any formal recommendation. Mr. Van Strien recalled from testimony that the theater was limited to 50 ft. in height and the IMAX 60 ft. He asked if it was limited to that or is that simply what they proposed. Ms. Zeller replied that it was on the development plan/requested by the developers. It becomes a requirement because it is associated with the adopted Ordinance that references the plan. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 January 26, 2023 Ms. Turkelson added however that the Planning Commission has the authority to recommend changes to the plan. Ms. Joseph asked that the contaminated stormwater mentioned in the letter from NECAA be expanded upon. Dan Tabor, City of Grand Rapids Project Engineer, related that this area of Knapp, the Celebration development as a whole, and the Knapps Corner development go to a regional pond. The regional pond isn’t contaminated but it has been impacted by salt. Overall, the issue in the general region is that there is a lot of salt from parking lots, the East Beltline, Knapp, and general traffic. The detention system that serves the region has been impacted by that salt. Over the years the City and other partners have put a new water main in the area to address concerns with wells that were impacted. The City is working with regional partners to make modifications to the detention system. With respect to this site specifically, it was always intended for development so the system capacity is there to manage that. The proposed plan, with the covered parking, is preferable to the previously anticipated large surface parking lot. The large surface lot would have gotten a lot more salt. With this being a covered parking system, per City and Building Codes, the internal drainage will actually go toward the sanitary sewer system vs. the storm system. Mr. Tabor explained that the car run off from snow melt, etc. is not considered rain water so it would go to the sanitary sewer system where there are related processes and permits. As proposed, having the covered parking vs. the surface parking is preferable from a water quality standpoint. As originally approved, there were water quality treatment devices that handled the system as a region. With the challenges of late, with the recent developments such as the hotel and modifications to the PRD, they are also requiring on-site treatment. Ms. Joseph asked if the subject site will be required to provide the on-site treatment. Mr. Tabor responded affirmatively. He added that with the development being predominantly roof top and some parking along the side streets, there will be a lot less salt impact than as previously approved. Mr. Jonker recalled from the staff report, with respect to height and building materials, that it seems to say that the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t allow for certain things they are asking for. He asked if those are things that the Planning Commission has the latitude to permit. Ms. Zeller replied that the Planning Commission does have that latitude. The Planning Commission has allowed alternate materials depending on the location of the development. Jack Barr, Nederveld, addressed the parking. He explained that their client has been discussing the project with JD Loeks. His understanding is that the parking located to the northwest of the subject site is free for them to park and that is where any excess parking would occur for the proposed use. Mr. Barr indicated that Ted Lott, Lott3Metz, would address building elevations, façade, and materials. Mr. Van Strien indicated that he wasn’t able to determine from the floor plans whether all levels of parking are covered. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 January 26, 2023 Mr. Lott clarified that there is only one level of parking and it is fully covered. There is a courtyard in the building at the covered parking level that will be an amenity space for tenants. Mr. Van Strien asked that Mr. Lott clarify the question related to the garden level and the inconsistency mentioned by Ms. Zeller. Mr. Lott explained that the issue is ultimately that they are in schematic design for the project and trying to determine how some of the elements will work. They are still evaluating whether they can fit those apartments in both from a Building Code and functionality standpoint. They have some flexibility there to be able to address transparency concerns along that elevation if that is a concern of the Planning Commission. Mr. Lott stated that he doesn’t have any problem if they were to specify a transparency requirement there. As far as what the use is in that location, they are still determining the size of mechanical units and where they will go, how they are addressing amenity spaces, and how they are addressing the retail requirements of the project imposed by the seller. Mr. Van Strien asked that Mr. Lott speak to the need for the garden level. The change in grade appears to be approximately 1 ft. Mr. Lott again stated, given the state of the project, they haven’t fully come to terms with how the grades will affect the elevations. When looking at the elevations and renderings they are perceiving the building as primarily on flat land. They aren’t to that level of detail yet. The garden level was an idea of how they could get more housing on the site. They continue to work through whether it is actually feasible. They have some significant Building Code issues they have to work through and he isn’t certain it will work. From a Planning Commission standpoint, it will either be housing, amenity space, or retail space. It won’t be outside of the bounds of the uses being considered. They have the ability to accommodate transparency concerns if necessary. Mr. Lott clarified for Mr. Van Strien that the courtyard would be a level above the garden level. Ms. Turkelson asked if the garden level units is what accounts for the range in units proposed. Mr. Lott replied partly. It is also a question of properly fitting in what the developer feels is best to bring to the market in terms of type of units. Ms. Joseph clarified that the range of units would theoretically have to fit with the same footprint as what is proposed. The logical conclusion is that they would eliminate the larger units and provide more of the smaller units. Mr. Lott replied that that is certainly a possibility but the location of the project specifically suggests that more three-bedroom units would be appropriate. In the breakdown of units, they are proposing 14 three-bedroom units, which has been a focus of theirs at this location. It is about trying to anticipate what the market condition is rather than trying to cram more units in. Ms. Joseph asked that Mr. Lott expand upon the courtyard amenities. There isn’t a lot of other green space proposed or parks nearby. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 January 26, 2023 Mr. Lott related that the courtyard is anticipated to be a green amenity space for tenants, outdoor gathering space, a place for one to take their dog. It will be open to the sky/elements. Exactly how that works hasn’t been determined but it is intended to be a place where tenants can go outside on-site. Ms. Joseph asked that Mr. Lott speak to the material choices and potential flexibility. Mr. Lott explained that, as an architect, what he looks at on a site like this is how very eclectic it is. It is a strip mall culture and there is a variety of materials, regardless of what was intended by the PRD. There is also a variety of architectural styles. When they began looking at it, it was to try to create a proud, appropriate building for the environment, which is what they feel they’ve done. As far as the specific materials, they are open to other suggestions. The Planning Commission has approved the metal panel material on the west side for the Meijer project; the office building on the north side of Meijer. They are proposing the same metal panel here. If there is a strong feeling about that, they can try to accommodate it. He feels very differently about the way this strip mall development is vs. the way a city neighborhood would be in terms of matching materials or trying to defer to something. Mr. Van Strien asked about the recommended parking demand study and the potential for shared parking in the lot to the northwest. Mr. Lott stated that he feels that this whole site is parking. Secondarily, no matter how the parking need for this site is defined, the parking provided here still falls within the bounds of what could be approved by staff for a 50% reduction. Mr. Lott stated that they are within lines of intent for parking in other parts of the city no matter what the Zone classification would be. Given the fact that there is all sorts of adjacent parking, if they need to formalize an agreement he would suspect they could work on doing so. He doesn’t know what they are going to understand from a parking study at this point. It isn’t a neighborhood condition where there is a significant density and significant restriction on things like street parking. Mr. Lott also feels it is important to point out that the overlap from the uses is going to be different as well. There are commercial functions with a primary focus during the day when people aren’t at home. When people come to park at their apartment they will be able to walk to the services on the site. He appreciates that it isn’t intended as a Transit Oriented Environment or that the idea of this isn’t a walkable community but it ultimately is if housing is placed there. The residents can walk to any of the banks, restaurants, retail establishments, etc. Those are things they aspire to as a community that they are able to take advantage of here. He doesn’t know that more parking solves that problem. Ms. Turkelson asked if the applicant team wished to speak to the Master Deed questions that were raised. Mr. Lott stated that he doesn’t quite understand Mr. Muller’s concern in this respect. If there are condo association issues those will have to be worked out at the condo association level and he doesn’t feel that should preclude a Planning Commission decision on whether it is appropriate or not. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 January 26, 2023 Ms. Turkelson agreed that generally a Master Deed is a civil matter. However, given how this was developed and the fact that it is a planned development, having some sort of understanding that this development can work within those Master Deeds would be helpful for the Planning Commission to understand. Jeff Royce, Victory Development Group, LLC, added that they are in the process of reviewing that and will also have legal review to ensure they are meeting all of the requirements of the Master Deed. Ultimately, the goal is to create this development that fits in with all of the other current uses. Mr. Royce indicated that he isn’t prepared to speak on all of the specifics in the Master Deed but they are definitely addressing everything. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Mark Ansara was present representing the Loeks family. He explained that the Loeks family is selling this property to the developers. Mr. Ansara related that he has worked with the Loeks family for many years and they’ve always envisioned this site to be a mixed-use development. They wanted to do it on their own for many years but they have a lot going on with the development downtown. They are working in conjunction with the developer and working very closely on building materials, the parking, and the aesthetics of the property. They are in full support of this project. With respect to the parking, Mr. Ansara explained that he was involved in the sale of the property for the hotel that is going up now. The Chili’s building is down and site work is being done there as well. A couple of years ago when the Loeks family modified their theaters and took out the smaller seats and installed stadium seats it resulted in less seats. Therefore, their parking requirement is much less. They have been favorable to the developer, the hotel, and neighboring tenants in terms of cross-access use and easements for parking. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Ms. Turkelson felt Ms. Zeller’s staff report accurately summarized areas where staff was requesting more clarity. Ms. Turkelson suggested the Commission consider traffic and parking, the ground floor elevations, whether a parking demand study is required, and some clarity on the Master Deed. Parking may be the only issue outstanding in terms of technical aspects of the Ordinance as it relates to what is required and what is being provided. Ms. Turkelson appreciates what the site looks like and the amount of surface parking but whether there are rights to use that parking, whether a shared parking agreement is in place, and bike parking are aspects for the Planning Commission’s consideration. Ms. Turkelson clarified that she didn’t hear from testimony how they would be earning the parking waiver requested. Her recollection is that they are 114 spaces deficient. Some of that could be accommodated through bike parking. It seems to be implied that shared parking would satisfy the remaining parking but that assumes no other Zone District parking requirements were utilized. Ms. Joseph clarified with the applicant that all of the white material on floors 2-5 is metal panel. Mr. Lott agreed. It is intended to be concealed fasteners and smooth panel with the size to be determined. They used the same material on the building to the north of the Meijer project on the west side. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 January 26, 2023 Ms. Joseph noted that the entire façade is not metal panel in that development. Mr. Lot indicated that 60-70% of it is. If there is a concern about materials, they can address that. Mr. Van Strien feels the proposed provides a good mix of uses and that the development will be a nice addition to Celebration. The applicant’s statements about this being exactly what we want to see here is likely true, making it more walkable with people living there. He recalled similar sentiments with the hotel and some of the other developments in the area. To the west is some higher density residential that also supports the businesses here. In the end it may reduce some of the auto-oriented demand. It will add people to this district but it may reduce some of the people traveling into it if there is a built in customer base for all of the businesses within the development. Mr. Van Strien indicated that he doesn’t have an interest in seeing the Master Deed unless staff does. He feels they can work that out and it shouldn’t weigh in on the decision for whether this is an appropriate use or not. Mr. Van Strien is pleased that they are amenable to providing transparency on the south elevation. He is comfortable allowing for some flexibility since they don’t know for certain yet what the use will be there. Ms. Turkelson stated that she wasn’t sure if there was potential for the south side of the ground floor to be parking. Mr. Lott indicated that is not the intent. The intent is to have the south façade be a contributing façade to the overall development. They specifically didn’t want to put parking there. The direction they’ve been given from the seller is they want that street to be as close to a retail street as possible, which is what they are trying to do. Mr. Van Strien clarified that they agree that, as shown, the south elevation isn’t contributing necessarily. Mr. Lott replied that that is a different question and they could argue about that but the bigger point is that if the Commission feels it requires glass, they are happy to provide it. Mr. Van Strien stated that he doesn’t feel strongly about requiring a shared parking agreement. If others would like to see that it sounds like the neighboring property owner is amenable to working something out with them. Ms. Turkelson advised that the Ordinance indicates that in order to reduce the parking they have to earn that and it can be earned in a variety of ways; shared parking may be one of the ways. They have to demonstrate how they are solving for the parking. Mr. Van Strien asked if the reason they can’t just say there is an abundance of parking in the area is because it isn’t public street parking. Ms. Turkelson didn’t dispute that there is an abundance of parking in the area. She isn’t sure what rights they have to that parking and she doesn’t know enough about the on-street parking to know whether those are shared or dedicated/reserved for the development. Those could likely be considered similar to on-street parking, which is one of the waivers that could be applied presuming they aren’t dedicated spaces. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 January 26, 2023 Ms. Joseph believes that the spaces surrounding the site and on the subject parcel were included in Ms. Zeller’s calculations. Mr. Lott indicated that they are happy to provide a parking agreement. Ms. Joseph noted that they didn’t discuss covered bicycle parking and whether that should be required. She isn’t sure that providing a lot of bicycle parking as part of this development actually does much because, other than biking around the development, there aren’t many places to bike from this location. Mr. Jonker indicated that he generally is not in favor of adding more parking in developments as a rule. This isn’t a downtown location. They are providing 84 spaces for 250 units. He would disagree with the assertion that the uses aren’t conflicting from a time of use perspective. When he goes to a movie there it is sometimes difficult to find parking in the lot that is intended to be shared here. The difference here is that someone living in the core city may not have to own a car whereas here he feels it will almost be necessary. The Village is walkable but, generally speaking, there aren’t many transit options. Mr. Rozeboom agreed. He noted that they see this fairly often with PRDs, where they start out with unified control and then they sell parcels. The Planning Commission is then left with figuring out how to enforce it so it all works together. He isn’t extremely worried about the parking situation as they are all very likely motivated to want to solve it together but he agreed that the actual plans should be documented. Some parking here will likely be restricted to certain users but the Village idea was set up that it would not be restricted. He would be comfortable with staff review of the parking agreements. Mr. Rozeboom agreed that the use is excellent for the Village. He isn’t particularly concerned about the proposed height given the height of the other buildings and the uses that are proposed. The density across the whole Village is appropriate, although it may be excessive on the parcel itself. With respect to building materials, they aren’t especially attractive to him but he would defer to the expert design team on that. Ms. Joseph asked if Mr. Rozeboom was stating that the developer should work with staff to ensure that high quality materials are part of the plan or he would defer to the applicant to make the decision. Mr. Rozeboom replied that he doesn’t know why they couldn’t just ask that the Ordinance be met, which is 75% of the materials being high quality brick, stone, etc. Then there would be no question. Ms. Turkelson explained that metal paneling has come a long way since the Ordinance was written. They have routinely accepted metal panel of this type to be considered equivalent/high quality. It sounds like the architect is willing to provide some additional materials, whether that is masonry at the base or something else. Ms. Turkelson felt staff could work with the architect on that. She would be somewhat hesitant to say that the proposed material would not be considered high quality because it has been routinely accepted. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 January 26, 2023 Mr. Rozeboom understood. He added that he appreciates the comments about how the Village has developed and he agreed that it is eclectic. However, he doesn’t see a lot of other metal panel there. He would be very comfortable with staff working through that with the developer. Mr. Al-Shatel agreed. The applicant should work with staff to use the highest quality materials. They should also provide the parking agreements. He understands and agrees that residents can walk to the other businesses in the Village but, based on the location, he feels most residents will need a car. Otherwise, he is excited about the development and its proximity to grocery stores and entertainment facilities. He feels it is a great use. Ms. Joseph agreed that the use is good here. She would definitely want to see more transparency on the south elevation or at least breaking up that wall a bit, depending on how the final design works out. Ms. Joseph expressed some concern about the greenspace. She understands that the final plans haven’t come together for the courtyard, and what it will be in terms of an amenity, but there really isn’t anything walkable in that District as far as recreational outdoor space. She would encourage the applicant to consider that and provide something that will be an outdoor recreational amenity for the residents. Otherwise, Ms. Joseph is comfortable provided the applicant is willing to work with staff to address the other things also. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Victory Development Group, LLC, for a Major Amendment to the Celebration Village Planned Redevelopment District to facilitate construction of a five-story mixed-use building at 2160 Celebration Drive, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because all elements of the design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to topography, the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property, and the type, size, and proportions of buildings. 2. The mix of uses, density of development, and design of the proposed PRD are consistent with the Master Plan and the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance because the addition of residential use supports the Master Plan recommendation for mixed-use centers that incorporate housing, shopping, jobs, and services. 3. The proposed PRD amendment will ensure efficient development on the property and will result in a logical and orderly development pattern in the neighborhood because the proposed building siting and design are consistent with surrounding and desired development. 4. The proposed development will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood and adjacent properties because the addition of residential will enhance the vitality of the development; the proposed building design and materials meet the characteristics important in Planned Redevelopment Districts; and the project maintains the neighborhood’s unique character, enhances its walkable scale and reinforces its sense of place. 5. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed development on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through the provision of adequate parking and documentation of shared parking agreements, attractive architecture, and City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 January 26, 2023 appropriate building orientation and entrances; and through thoughtful pedestrian and vehicular connections. 6. The proposed development will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future adjacent uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic or noise because the uses are not anticipated to result in significantly increased traffic and the proposed building will incorporate adequate transparency and façade variation. 7. Connections among buildings, uses and amenities within the property will be provided via existing driveways and new and existing sidewalks. 8. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or will be provided at no additional public cost, and will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because all stormwater associated with this development will meet requirements for detention and water quality. 9. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the project will result in improved vitality within the development and the development will result in additional tax revenue. 10. Wherever practicable, the proposed development will provide amenities, including but not limited to, park and recreational facilities, urban open space, and non-vehicular connections that serve a public purpose because the development will include an interior courtyard for use by residents. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. 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 site be permitted the 25 square foot ground sign specified in the original development plan, and that each tenant be permitted wall signage of 1.5 square feet per 1 linear foot of street frontage with a limit of one sign per tenant, with modifications permitted via Planned Sign Program amendment. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 January 26, 2023 3. That the south building elevation shall be modified to incorporate additional transparency, with final review and approval by the Planning Director. 4. That the applicant provide a shared parking agreement to the Planning Director prior to issuance of the LUDS permit. 5. That this approval shall take effect upon City Commission approval. 6. Elevations shall include additional building materials to closer align with the Building Element requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Turkelson stated that she is in concurrence that the Master Deed is a civil matter. It is the responsibility of the development team to have that resolved and for them to work that out. SUPPORTED by Mr. Al-Shatel. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon F. 802 Bridge Street NW - Ground Floor Office Address: 802 Bridge Street NW Applicant: RSB Properties of GR, LLC (Ross S. Bacon) Requesting: Approval to establish a real estate office on the ground floor in the TN-TBA Zone District. Zoning: TN-TBA (Traditional Neighborhood – Traditional Business Area) Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-use Commercial Zone Districts 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2022-0117 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: February 11, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki introduced the request for approval to establish a property management office on the ground floor of an existing building in the TN-TBA Zone District. She explained that ground floor office uses require Special Land Use approval in this Zone District when located within 20 feet of a front lot line abutting a Neighborhood Business or Urban Center Street. Ms. Wahamaki identified surrounding uses. To the north is a vacant lot and an apartment building. To the east is a two-family home. Directly south is a single-family home and to the west is a TBA Zone District with the building in that direction housing an event planning and floral design shop. Ms. Wahamaki advised that the Master Plan Future Land Use Map identifies this area as Medium Low Density Residential Use. The site is included in the WestSide Area Specific Plan established in 2015. It identifies the area as a Traditional Mixed Neighborhood. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 January 26, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki displayed a slide of the Master Plan Map noting that the property is surrounded by what is identified as medium-low density to the north, Traditional Business Area to the east, and it is west of the Neighborhood Center at Bridge and Stocking. The area identified in red is the Traditional Business Area, which includes the greatest intensity of use with retails shops, restaurants, and higher intensity use. As you travel west toward the subject location there are more homes, businesses and institutions co-existing; the intensity of uses diminishes as you travel west. In this area it is expected to respect the historical storefront character of buildings and it is encouraged to maintain a vertical mix of uses. Ms. Wahamaki noted that the building on this site does have a vertical mix of uses. The ground floor is office space and the second floor is a two-bedroom residential unit. Ms. Wahamaki explained that there is currently a building permit and LUDS permit in process for this application. The extent of the Planning Commission’s consideration today is limited to the use. Any building or site plan issues can be addressed by staff at the permitting level. With respect to the use, Ms. Wahamaki related that they anticipate having two full-time employees that will work in the office Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. There is an expectation that there will be weekly meetings and daily meetings with additional staff who may come and go. In terms of parking, when a change of use occurs it is necessary to consider the parking requirements. In this case, based on the previous use, the parking requirement was higher than the proposed use. As a result, a parking waiver is not necessary. There is parking available on-site as well as on the street. It is also on a major transit route. Ms. Wahamaki identified key considerations as the appropriateness of a ground floor office use in this location and any neighborhood concerns that may be expressed. Ms. Wahamaki related that the applicant has submitted copies of the project description, which was given to and signed by adjacent property owners. A letter of support was submitted by John Ball Park Area Neighbors. The applicant had nothing further to add. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Joseph feels the use in this location is appropriate based on how the corridor moves from business to residential. This is a fine transition. Based on the fact that they have building and LUDS permits in process, she has no questions related to those aspects. The Commission was in general agreement. Mr. Rozeboom added that this location is at the edge of the TBA where it intersects both LDR and MDR. He suggested that matters because the whole idea behind TBA is to have commercial working together. With this being on the edge he feels it is appropriate. Ms. Joseph added that she appreciates that the apartment on the second floor will remain to maintain the vertical mix. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 January 26, 2023 Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of RSB Properties of GR, LLC (Ross S. Bacon) to establish a property management office on the ground floor at 802 Bridge Street NW, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will support the Westside Area Specific Plan’s designation as a Traditional Mixed Neighborhood by retaining a combination of both residential and non-residential uses. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the proposed on-site paved parking area and landscape improvements will bring the site closer to conformity with Zoning Ordinance requirements and access is immediately available to sidewalks along each street. 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 it will support the desired mixed-use character of the neighborhood. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the existing building is appropriately positioned on the site and is consistent with the requirements of the TN-TBA Zone District and on-site, street parking, and transit are available. 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, or visual clutter because anticipated office traffic will generally be low, consisting primarily of employees. 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 hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the arrangement of the proposed building and site are intended to encourage an active street environment. 7. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the use is not anticipated to create nuisances or needs that will require additional City services. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 January 26, 2023 iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. SUPPORTED by Mr. Al-Shatel. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon IV. Planning Commission Discussion A. 19942 : Discussion of Area Specific Plans proposed as part of the Community Master Plan The City of Grand Rapids is creating a new Community Master Plan (CMP). As part of the scope of work, three Area Specific Plans (ASPs), one in each ward, will be developed. City staff, the CMP consultant team, led by Planning NEXT, and the CMP Steering Committee have identified three areas of the city for this work. The three areas are being presented to the Planning Commission for review and input. Background Planning staff, in consultation with the consultant team, originally identified five areas for ASP consideration based on department’s daily work and Planning Commission cases. Staff and the consultant team brought these areas to the Steering Committee’s November meeting for their consideration. The Steering Committee provided comments that helped select the location in each ward, which can be found on the attached map. The limits of the areas identified on the map are a starting point and may evolve through the process. First Ward City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 January 26, 2023 For the First Ward, the Butterworth area was selected as it has residential areas zoned industrial, no unified vision, a traditional business district, and boundaries near Grand Valley State University, downtown, and the river. An additional area considered for the First Ward was the area west of the Grand River bound by the river, I-196, US-131, and Ann Street due to questions about what building heights are appropriate in the area and a lack of an overall vision. Using an equity lens, the Steering Committee consensus was that the Butterworth area was a better selection as more vulnerable populations live there and could benefit from planning work. Additionally, the consultant team said that building heights in the area not selected could still be studied as part of the overall planning process. Second Ward For the Second Ward, the Creston neighborhood was identified as the neighborhood association has been requesting an Area Specific Plan for several years. Creston features proximity to the river, increased development pressure, and long corridors along Plainfield Avenue and Monroe Avenue that could benefit from visioning. Due to Creston’s long-standing request, a second area was not considered for the Second Ward. Third Ward For the Third Ward, the Southtown neighborhoods were selected. These residential areas were not focused on by the Southtown Business Area Specific Plan and yield many Planning Commission cases. Additionally, development in the residential areas could better fit in with the existing character and non-profit Seeds of Promise and Grand Valley State University have identified 180 lots for small, infill development. The other area considered for Ward 3 was the 28th Street corridor. Staff and the consultant team thought the whole corridor would be too large to consider, but that a portion of it could be identified for an ASP, with the recommendations made for that section replicated for the other portions of the street. The Steering Committee preferred the Southtown neighborhoods over the 28th Street section, again by using an equity lens like they did for the First Ward selection. Request The CMP Steering Commission is requesting the Planning Commission’s review of the proposed areas of study. Ms. Turkelson provided the Planning Commission with an informal update on the Master Plan process and requested concurrence specific to the recommended Area Specific Plans. She recalled from the scope of services that there will be formal reports from the consultants. Ms. Turkelson explained that part of the round one engagement, which is getting to know the community and understanding priorities, will include launch parties. There will be one launch party in each ward, although it will not be specific to each ward. The intent was to make the launch parties convenient for the community. Ms. Turkelson distributed information on the launch parties to the Planning Commission and encouraged them to take more and distribute City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 January 26, 2023 them to their respective networks. She explained that the Steering Committee provided input on the locations and event times. It will be a family friendly event. Separate child care is not going to be provided but there will be activities for children. The Steering Committee also vetted the activities that will be taking place at the launch parties. Ms. Turkelson stated that running concurrent with the launch parties is a virtual option for those unable to attend in person. Ms. Turkelson also related that separate from the launch party engagement activity there are a variety of public engagement strategies for this process. They are aware that there was disproportionate participation in the 2002 Master Plan and those that have been routinely marginalized in the community did not participate and their voices were not incorporated into the process or the recommendations. There has been a lot of concern about whether the outcomes of the 2002 Master Plan benefited the entire community. They have created a Community Connector Program, which is something similar to what was done with the GR Forward Plan and when they started the Master Plan process through the Neighborhood Facilitation Program. She explained that they have 21 paid Community Connector positions. Along with the Community Connectors there are 11 Neighborhood Associations or Organizations that are also going to serve in a similar capacity. They will be launching community conversations, which will run alongside the launch parties. The Community Connectors are being trained and provided with a Meeting in the Box, facilitation training, and looking to them to lead within their respective networks to solicit the feedback desired. Ms. Turkelson explained that the positions aren’t paid like salary positions. It is intended to support individuals that are already active within the community, to supplement the work they are already doing. There is also a budget that can be used for food if they were to hold a party or meeting. Ms. Turkelson noted that the process brand that was selected is “A Bridge to Our Future”. All of the future design elements associated with this process are distinguished from the project because the project itself may or may not have a different brand. Mr. Van Strien asked what role Planning Commissioners should play in the launch parties and future engagement events, if any. How engaged should they be or are they just observing? Ms. Turkelson replied that Commissioners can be fully engaged. The Enabling legislation allows for sub-committees of the Planning Commission. It isn’t a conflict of interest to participate in the process and then vote on the project. Mr. Rozeboom is the liaison to the Steering Committee. He is allowed to provide input and fully engage with the Steering Committee and also be a voice through the decision-making process. Mr. Van Strien asked if that is also the case for Area Specific Plans that will be part of the project. Ms. Turkelson replied that Commissioners can be engaged. Staff has similar challenges and tries to take a bit of a back seat because they have the perceived authority within the community on all things planning. They really want the community to lead the conversations but it does help to have Commissioners or staff to provide some additional structure or relate experiences. Ms. Turkelson concluded the Master Plan update relating that all of the presentation material and information being provided is being provided in both English and Spanish. They are hoping to City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 January 26, 2023 have translators with the ability to speak other languages at the meetings. Unfortunately, it isn’t feasible to provide all of the information in more than the two languages. However, that isn’t to say that in the future that the final plan itself couldn’t be translated into another language should funds be available. Ms. Turkelson recalled that as part of the Master Plan Request for Proposals they included the intent of completing three Area Specific Plans. The Creston neighborhood was pre-determined. Several years ago Creston was asking for an ASP and, at that time, the Planning Dept. informed them they were just about to start a Master Plan and they were asked not to embark on an ASP because the plans need to align. There were some significant staffing transitions immediately thereafter and then the pandemic, which unfortunately delayed the start of the Master Plan process. Therefore, they wanted to hold to their commitment to Creston, which is why the Creston neighborhood was pre-selected. Ms. Turkelson explained that the goal of the Planning Dept. was to select one ASP per ward. The ideas were vetted with the Steering Committee. The ideas came out of conversations with staff where they are seeing a lot of development pressure or uncertainty for how things should be treated. The general Master Plan sometimes doesn’t provide a lot of guidance for certain areas of the city so it can be challenging when investors or development groups come in asking for input. Ms. Turkelson related that there were two areas considered in Ward 1. One area considered was Front St. on the west side of the river, somewhere between 6th St. and Ann St. The second area considered was the Butterworth area. The boundaries of the ASP will be part of the process. Ultimately, Butterworth was felt to be the desired recommendation to the Planning Commission. The reasons being there is a lot of development opportunity; it is a mish mash of uses including industrial, residential and commercial. It is an intriguing area with no defined vision for it. The proximity to GVSU’s downtown campus was also a factor. Mr. Van Strien noted that as the boundaries are currently mapped for the Butterworth area it cuts off before the Coke plant. He suggested the boundary should extend west to the south boundary of the zoo. Ms. Turkelson agreed. Ms. Turkelson reiterated that for Ward 2 the Creston neighborhood has been selected. There may be some additional funding through the Corridor Improvement Authority. However, they are confident they can provide Creston with a useful land use plan. If there are elements they would like to embark upon, such as a retail study, those may be additions they could afford to do that would help guide some of their investments. They could also do that at a later date. Ms. Turkelson displayed the general boundaries for the Creston ASP. With respect to Ward 3, Ms. Turkelson pointed out that there have been a large number of cases that have come before the Planning Commission in the Southtown area. The Business Area Specific Plan was obviously focused on the businesses themselves. There are a lot of opportunities for infill development on vacant lots. It is also thought that through these planning processes they are able to educate, increase capacity, and build leadership within these communities, which they feel could be a benefit as well. When thinking about the Southtown City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 January 26, 2023 neighborhoods, Ms. Turkelson suggested thinking about it as the donut around the Business Area Specific Plan. All of those residential areas weren’t really considered or planned for as part of the BASP and they know that as they see new investments and developments taking place on the business corridor that it will cause development pressure into the neighborhoods. There are concerns about displacement and gentrification as they experience rising property values. The desire is to manage that in the best way possible. There may be other tools identified through the process that may also help. With the way the current Ordinance is structured, if they don’t do a better job of planning in some of these areas that are ripe for impact, they risk displacement and losing existing housing stock. They wish to understand how the current policies and future policies impact these neighborhoods. Ms. Turkelson related that they also considered 28th St. for Ward 3 and whether the corridor could benefit from having an ASP or corridor plan. Ms. Turkelson feels the answer is yes but perhaps not the same level of priority that they feel the neighborhoods have in the 3rd Ward. Ms. Turkelson summarized that those are the recommendations from the Steering Committee and the Planning Department strongly supports the recommendations. She asked for the Commission’s concurrence that they are comfortable with the areas selected. Mr. Rozeboom suggested Ms. Turkelson reflect on some of the questions he heard from the Steering Committee: Why do the ASPs at all and why isn’t this being done everywhere? Ms. Turkelson responded to the first question indicating that staff finds the Area Specific Plans extremely valuable and her hope is that the Planning Commission does as well. Having that neighborhood level plan and understanding the boundaries of residential vs. commercial and where a parking hold line should be are extremely specific recommendations within the plan that can be used in making decisions. It is also a very good tool for staff when meeting with developers and investors. The ASPs tend to have a level of detail that is very easy for staff to communicate. The plans are a benefit to staff but also benefit the development community. Ms. Turkelson responded to the question of why not everywhere. Resources would be one reason. The ASP process takes a tremendous amount of engagement at a neighborhood level that is more focused, with intentional detailed questions or data that needs to be looked at. She also isn’t sure that every area of the city needs one. Some of the neighborhoods are fully intact and they aren’t seeing a lot of development pressure. There are a lot of transitions that are expected or would be obvious and there aren’t a lot of large swaths of open land for development to occur. It isn’t always necessary to get to the level of an ASP that the Master Plan couldn’t already cover. She provided the example of neighborhoods on the far northwest side. They don’t see a lot of infill development occurring because it is largely established. There are pockets of open areas where they see development interest but that in and of itself wouldn’t warrant an ASP. Additionally, where they tend to see the most development pressure is closer geographically either to industrial or commercial areas because that is where they see the most transition occurring. Those are also where the transit lines are so there is a greater level of impact that could occur with Transit Oriented Development. The Commission expressed no objection to the areas being recommended for the Area Specific Plans. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 January 26, 2023 V. Public Comment VI. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 3:05 PM