TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 February 9, 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, Joseph, Wallace, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Laura Wahamaki, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from January 26, 2023 Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Mr. Jonker, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of 1/26/2023 with one correction, which was made before the minutes were published. Motion carried unanimously. RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Aaron Jonker, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Williams, Al- Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Susan Shannon C. Planning Director's Report  Agenda items were briefly reviewed.  Mr. Jonker related that he anticipates the Commission will agree that he has a conflict of interest on the first agenda item.  Ms. Turkelson related that the Zoning text amendment for the flood plain overlay was introduced to the City Commission on Tuesday. The City Commission was also provided with an update on the Master Plan process in response to an agenda item that staff brought forward related to the Community Connector Program funding. The City Commission approved the supplemental funding, which led to the questions of where they are in the process. Ms. Turkelson related that she believes the consultant will be providing a formal presentation to the Planning Commission and City Commission in April.  Ms. Turkelson related that she attended the Chamber of Commerce this morning. The Housing Needs Assessment that was done for Kent County in 2020 has been updated providing new data they will be able to utilize during the Master Plan process. To no one’s surprise, the numbers have not gotten better. There continues to be a significant demand in Generated 2/15/2023 11:24 AM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 February 9, 2023 both the city and county. They have not achieved the supply they were hoping for. However, Ms. Turkelson felt proud because they highlighted the work that they’ve done relative to ground floor residential uses and lot width and area. They also touted the Master Plan process. Ms. Turkelson related that she also approached Housing Next and requested that they provide the Planning Commission with a similar report with more focus on Grand Rapids. That will likely be arranged for April also. She also asked that the presentation be provided to the Steering Committee to help them understand the critical need. Ms. Turkelson also gave some push back to Housing Next related to how the current message is all about supply. It isn’t an untrue message. However, in the Planning Dept. they’ve experienced a push from developers who’ve heard of the supply need. Supply and development can’t come at the expense of all other planning principals. Ms. Turkelson encouraged Housing Next to be mindful of how they message the need for supply. There is also a lot of focus on new infill development, which is important. However, when looking at price points where housing values are a bit lower, if they utilize all of the zoning reform tools to supply incremental development it will understandably result in individuals buying up the most affordable housing to either demolish it or convert it into duplexes or fourplexes. Ms. Turkelson is concerned about whether that is okay. There is no data to say what that might do. Mr. Rozeboom commented on the Steering Committee relating that he really appreciates the consultant working with the City on the way they are handling the data. There is a lot of data. The presentations have been right on with the audience. They are finding ways to make sense of it in ways that people in break-out groups can deal with. He doesn’t feel it is overwhelming, which it could easily be. Ms. Turkelson added that both Housing Next and Interface have a very interactive and graphic approach to how they communicate. Sidewalk Detroit, being a grass roots organization out of Detroit, brings a lot to the table to communicate some of the needs, especially with the Community Connector Program. Mr. Van Strien asked what other policies Ms. Turkelson envisions helping on the demand side of things. Ms. Turkelson replied that Zoning is not going to be the answer to this issue. A lot of individuals will want to focus on zoning reform. It is necessary to be mindful of the underlying plans and not compromise that. There are also a lot of issues with economic development incentives and with financing and bringing those sectors along. They heard from one developer that getting investment dollars and finances to make projects work is a huge hurdle. Ms. Turkelson added that another message they heard was that Zoning is the enemy for Accessory Dwelling Units. She agrees that there is room for improvement. One of the issues with construction loans is that you can’t count the future income from that unit toward your loan. Therefore, there is a gap in the financing. Someone has to have access to other capital to be able to do that. Mr. Van Strien pointed out that that was mentioned in the webinar yesterday. In the past, it was a line of credit, home equity line of credit, or capital one has on hand. They mentioned City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 February 9, 2023 that Freddie financing is available now. They also suggested, if there was an interest to implement ADUs in a community, to meet with bankers to determine where people could be directed and whether it is feasible. Ms. Turkelson agreed it is complicated. From her perspective, as a Zoning Administrator, she realizes there is a need for Zoning reform and code changes. Writing code isn’t easy and it takes experienced planners to understand how you make sure it is seamless throughout the code. Grand Rapids saw $450,000,000 of construction value last year. If they make it easier to develop or more permits to come through the door, who is processing that? The department isn’t getting a bigger budget to hire more staff. There are Building Inspectors that will be retiring soon and the Building Dept. is at capacity and has been for the last decade. You can’t just solve one issue without looking at a community and saying you have to provide the capacity internally to handle this. Bringing a new planner on, fresh out of school, isn’t going to be the sole answer. It is necessary to think more wholistically about some of these complicated issues that need capacity at all levels within departments. Mr. Jonker related that he has been involved in communities in the past where developer teams requested their fees be raised so the community could hire additional staff so they could actually get through the applications. The fees doubled and they hired three more engineers. It takes some time to work out. Ms. Turkelson stated that they have looked at that also. It is a balance because they try to look regionally at building department fees so it isn’t a disincentive to building in Grand Rapids. On larger projects the building permit fees are basically a drop in the bucket but it is the smaller projects where homeowners don’t want to spend $500 on a permit and do their projects without a permit or they go somewhere else because it is cheaper. Mr. Jonker feels that is fair but he feels you have to balance that against the level of customer service. If you’re going to build in Muskegon and it costs twice as much but you get the inspector when you need them it doesn’t matter in the bigger projects. He wouldn’t suggest raising fees for the small projects but the fees at the bigger project level could be tripled. D. Conflict of Interest Mr. Jonker related that he has a potential conflict related to the first agenda item. He is working with a tenant that is hoping to go into the building on Godfrey. It is technically on the subject site but not part of the proposed development. He will likely have a financial interest of some sort in the future. As a consultant working with a prospective tenant, there is potential for financial gain. Motion by Dr. Wallace, supported by Ms. Joseph, finding Mr. Jonker has a conflict of interest with the first agenda item; 620, 640 & 644 Chestnut Street SW, 835 & 943 Godfrey Avenue SW, and 700 Martin Luther King Jr. Street SW. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Jonker stepped out of the meeting. III. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 February 9, 2023 A. 644 Chestnut St SW, et al - Zone Change Address: 620, 640 & 644 Chestnut Street SW, 835 & 943 Godfrey Avenue SW, and 700 Martin Luther King Jr Street SW Applicant: 655 Godfrey Land LLC Requesting: Approval to rezone the subject properties from the SD-IT (Special District–Industrial Transportation) Zone District to the TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood–Transitional City Center) Zone District to facilitate future development. Zoning: TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood–Transitional City Center Residential) Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.12.10. Zoning Ordinance Text and Map Amendments Case Number: PC-ZON-2022-0110 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Zone Change Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Wahamaki presented the request to rezone the subject property from SD-IT to TN-TCC to facilitate a future development and reuse of the property for non-industrial purposes. The area to be rezoned consists of six former Norfolk Southern and CSX railroad parcels which together are approximately 2.4 acres in area and are substantially unimproved. The subject property is surrounded by properties also zoned for industrial use. The adjacent property to the east is 655 Godfrey. It is a large parcel that was rezoned from IT to TCC in 2018. Because the historical furniture warehouse buildings existing on the site are not suitable for todays heavy industrial uses, rezoning allowed for a greater variety of uses in those buildings. Allowed uses in the TCC Zone District range from residential and commercial to light industrial, which provides a transition in intensity from nearby residential to heavy industrial. Subsequent to the rezoning, the subject property is intended to be incorporated into the adjacent property at 655 Godfrey SW where a mixed-use residential and commercial development is proposed. The proposed development site plan was displayed. Ms. Wahamaki explained that, while the plan is not under consideration today, it provides an overview of what is proposed and why the rezoning has been requested. In the context of the site plan provided, the subject parcels will provide parking and traffic circulation. Ms. Wahamaki related that a letter of opposition was submitted this morning from an attorney representing business owners of neighboring properties to the west at 650, 655, and 631 Chestnut. There is some concern that the rezoning and addition of residential use in close proximity to the existing metal recycling facility would be incompatible. Mr. Van Strien asked if they anticipate seeing an application for the overall development. Ms. Wahamaki replied that if the rezoning is approved there will be a future application for some of the uses on the site. Some of the uses proposed in the project will be permitted by right and others will require Special Land Use consideration. Ms. Turkelson added that the Planning Commission saw the rezoning several years ago. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 February 9, 2023 Dennis Griffin, 655 Godfrey LLC, was present on behalf of the request. He explained that the subject parcels are generally remainder parcels from the original furniture factory. The subject parcels were railroad right-of-way that serviced the property for several decades, and nearly a century in some cases. It took several years to assemble the balance of the parcels and just recently they finally completed the purchases from Norfolk Southern and CSX. In order to combine the parcels for the future redevelopment, they are requesting these parcels be rezoned consistent with the parent parcel. Mr. Griffin stated that they understand the neighbor’s position completely. Their development approach is one of diverse uses. They appreciate the neighboring industrial uses. They actually own property to the north, which is zoned heavy industrial and is occupied by an industrial use. Mr. Griffin added that they understand there is a necessity for truck traffic and crane use and resulting noise. Their clients, in some cases, actually appreciate that grit and diversity. Therefore, they have no issue with it and wouldn’t expect that their residents would make a complaint. Their uses also provide a buffer space, which is a necessary fire lane that they can now provide behind the building, and parking spaces. Mr. Griffin stated that their intent is to come in peace and not to make a problem for neighboring uses. Ms. Turkelson asked if they have taken ownership of the parcels. Mr. Griffin responded affirmatively. Mr. Van Strien invited public comment. Attorney Thomas Amon was present representing the owner/operator of Beacon Recycling, which is located immediately to the west. He recalled that they were also before the Commission in 2018 and shared their concerns at that time. At that time, they heard similar testimony from the applicant; that they embrace the industrial nature of the area and things like that. From his client’s perspective, Beacon Recycling has extensive metal recycling operations on their site right next door. Promises can be made now but the concern is that placing housing and a restaurant immediately adjacent to his client’s property will result in complaints from the neighboring residents. His client was relying on this area to be industrial from the beginning and has invested heavily in this site and operations and has a great, flourishing business. Mr. Amon pointed out that there were other points in his letter, which is basically incorporating their letter from 2018. He doesn’t believe anything has changed in the Master Plan and that it still calls for this area to be continued industrial use. In this area in general, his client’s concern is that the same developer owns other properties here that are industrial at the moment. How long before Beacon Recycling is an island surrounded by residents and businesses that don’t want them there? Mr. Amon requested that the rezoning be denied. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Mr. Griffin responded to the comments. He again stated that they understand the concerns. It is genuine that they embrace the diversity of uses. As times change, they may even be a resource to Beacon Recycling. Mr. Van Strien asked that Mr. Griffin characterize the trend of development in the area in the past few years, considering he owns multiple properties in the neighborhood. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 February 9, 2023 Mr. Griffin explained that this entity doesn’t own or control other properties in the area. Mr. Griffin clarified that he personally has interest in other properties. The former Keeler Brass property is deed restricted to remain industrial. There was another property at Market and Godfrey that was converted and is now Box Board Lofts. It is a successful reuse with neighboring industrial and it seems to be leasing well. Mr. Griffin stated it is an overall trend with obsolescence in buildings and changes in technology. Certain businesses need to be in these exact areas, such as Beacon and others, but there is also a need for housing, which is one of the best re-uses for these multi-story, masonry, and heavy timber structures; to convert them to housing and mixed-use. Mr. Al-Shatel asked if there are plans in the immediate future for more housing in this area. Mr. Griffin replied that there are always plans for them as developers. They are always looking for the next appropriate project. This project in its own right is of a significant scale and is intended to have upwards of 400 housing units. That will be their focus for the foreseeable future. The Planning Commission engaged in discussion. Ms. Joseph noted that the property immediately east is already zoned TCC. The subject parcels would be incorporated into that. She feels it is appropriate to recommend extending the TCC zoning into this area to incorporate it into that potential project. Ms. Joseph also pointed out that light industrial uses are permitted in the TCC Zone District so it isn’t incompatible, in her opinion, with the other industrial in the area. Mr. Van Strien agreed. He suggested they likely made similar considerations when they rezoned 655 Godfrey to TCC. He explained that he asked the question about development trends in the area and the applicant mentioned the re-use at Godfrey and Market. There is also a park right across the street. The letter from the attorney mentioned the industrial development trends but not the development trends for them to consider in the Standards, which he feels are likely two different things. In general, this neighborhood has trended toward more residential or mixed-use in nature and less designated heavy industrial. Mr. Van Strien doesn’t know that that should threaten the neighboring properties, although he does understand their concerns about the potential for future complaints. He would hope a mixed use or residential developer adjacent to a heavy industrial use would take those things into consideration when developing their site plans, accommodating their tenants, and preventing conflicts. Ms. Turkelson stated that as a city they have been critical of losing their industrial land, tax base and places for employment. There is a very low vacancy rate of industrial space. From a Planning Dept. perspective, and partnership with Economic Development, they have been very critical about allowing industrial land to convert. This particular location involved significant conversation because there was also a desire to preserve the existing building and provide for an adaptive reuse project. Based on work they had done in the past, and working with the owner, converting this building to a manufacturing use or use permitted in the Industrial Zone District was actually very challenging. Therefore, they were considering how to allow for an adaptive reuse project that still allows for light industrial uses in order to preserve the building, which was City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 February 9, 2023 one of the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. Being mindful of losing industrial land is a very important and serious consideration that they haven’t been favorable to in the past. In this particular case, because it is the former rail lines adjacent to what is going to be a mixed-use, adaptive re-use project, it does make a lot of sense. Ms. Turkelson stated that she would never call it a trend to look to rezoning other industrial land without a significant pause as to what that means to the community. The analysis was done in 2018 and they will continue to do that moving forward when approached. The Planning Dept. is fairly consistently approached about what appear to be vacant industrial buildings and how easy it would be to convert it to a church, gym, or more housing. Staff has routinely said it isn’t appropriate. They are very critical and mindful of the overall objectives. She would not consider it a trend to continue to expand the TCC District in this location and certainly not without that critical analysis taking place. Mr. Rozeboom wished to acknowledge Beacon’s investment in their property. He uses that bike trail a lot and has observed over the years that they have invested a lot making that the best operation they could. Mr. Rozeboom feels the two can coexist provided everyone works together. Ms. Turkelson explained that future complaints would be taken on a case-by-case basis. If this is to include 400 residential units and residents complain about the nature of the industrial next door there really isn’t a whole lot of tools to mitigate for that. That is part of the responsibility of the resident and ownership when they move in. They are moving into an adjacent, active industrial district. Residents that move there should have that expectation. Complaints to the City likely won’t result in much enforcement action because there aren’t the tools to enforce against an industrial operator that is in compliance with their permits and the district in general. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of 655 Godfrey LLC (Ben Smith) to rezone 620, 640 & 644 Chestnut Street SW, 835 & 943 Godfrey Avenue SW, and 700 Martin Luther King Jr. Street SW from SD-IT (Special Districts-Industrial Transportation) to TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhoods-Transitional City Center) to facilitate use of the property for non-industrial purposes, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Zone District will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Future Land Use map, because the industrial designation by the 2002 Master Plan does not adequately address current development needs and this rezoning will support the Master Plan recommendation for the adaptive reuse of existing historic, multi-story, industrial buildings for a mix of uses. 2. The proposed Zone District will further the themes and objectives of the Master Plan, as well as any relevant adopted Area Specific Plans because as industrial uses move from industrially-zoned property, the Master Plan recommends reevaluation of the affected property’s land use designation to another appropriate Zone District. 3. The property to be rezoned can reasonably accommodate the requirements of the proposed Zone District, because the property will meet the minimum requirements of the proposed zone district. 4. The proposed Zone District designation is compatible with the existing Zone Districts in the neighborhood because the TN-TCC Zone District provides a transition in the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 February 9, 2023 intensity of the downtown development pattern yet allows for a greater range of land uses than would ordinarily be allowed in general neighborhood commercial locations. 5. The physical, geological, hydrological and other environmental features of the property to be rezoned are compatible with the full range of uses in the proposed Zone District because the rezoning will facilitate the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic and architecturally valuable structures. 6. The proposed Zone District or Neighborhood Classification will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the proposed zone change may encourage fuller utilization of the property in question, as well as surrounding properties. 7. The proposed Zone District is consistent with the trend of development in the neighborhood because commercial development has been moving outward from the City Center. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Williams, Al- Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Susan Shannon Mr. Jonker returned to the meeting. B. 2027 Eastern Ave SE - Alcohol Sales Address: 2027 Eastern Ave SE Applicant: Family Dollar Stores of Michigan Requesting: Approval to sell beer and wine for off-site consumption in association with an existing discount retail store. Zoning: TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhood – Traditional Business Area Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0004 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grand-rapids.mi.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: March 25, 2023 Ms. Zeller introduced the request of Family Dollar Stores for approval to sell beer and wine for off-site consumption in association with an existing discount retail store. The sale of alcohol for off-site consumption requires Special Land Use approval in the TN-TBA Zone District. Ms. Zeller noted that the subject site is zoned TN-TBA with a small portion being zoned MDR. Ms. Zeller doesn’t feel the dual zoning is material to this consideration as the portion of the site being discussed is wholly within the TN-TBA Zone District. Ms. Zeller identified surrounding zoning and uses. TN-TBA is located to the north at the intersection of Eastern and Burton. The general City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 February 9, 2023 area is surrounded by Low Density Residential. To the immediate south of the subject site is a smaller apartment complex zoned Mixed-Density Residential. To the west is the Dwelling Place proposed development that the Planning Commission reviewed some time ago. Ms. Zeller advised that the area is addressed in the Southtown Business Area Specific Plan. In the Plan, this site is identified as TBA Transition, which is intended to allow for a range of uses that might be found outside the commercial core, such as office uses. However, the site is already a commercial center. Ms. Zeller displayed an aerial image and identified the Family Dollar building. Little Caesars Pizza is located next door, there is a surface parking lot, a former bank building that is now an office, and the businesses in the building to the north take access through the parking lot of the subject site. Ms. Zeller explained that the reason for mentioning the access for the building to the north is that there are a number of uses that share the parking lot that could be impacted by the use. The subject building is approximately 9,500 sq. ft. in area. The service area of the building is to the rear. There is no trash enclosure for the development. If the Planning Commission is amenable to approval, staff would recommend a condition of approval requiring a compliant trash enclosure. Ms. Zeller noted however that Family Dollar leases this property; they do not own the property. Ms. Zeller pointed out that the building and front yard parking configuration is non-conforming to current TN-TBA standards. Generally, TBA development would be closer to the street. Ms. Zeller commented on use considerations. The Family Dollar store current hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. and there are no plans to change hours of operation. The building has approximately 8,000 sq. ft. of retail floor area. Because it is located in the TBA Zone District, the street facing façade of the building is required to have 60% transparency. The building is currently legally non-conforming in that respect. Ms. Zeller displayed the floor plan, which included the location of security cameras. She identified the location of the proposed beer and wine display(s). A cooler is proposed to be devoted to cold beer and there is some shelving proposed for wine. Ms. Zeller also identified the location of the front door. Ms. Zeller related that the CPTED professionals in the Police and Planning Departments have reviewed the application and plans and have determined compliance with CPTED regulations. The CPTED review takes into account the visibility of the beer and wine from the cashier station and the visibility of the cashier station from the street through the window. Ms. Zeller displayed photos of the building pointing out that there may be issues with compliance in terms of window coverage. There are both CPTED and Zoning regulations relative to visibility through the windows, which is something the Planning Commission should consider. Recent site visits to the two Family Dollar locations in Grand Rapids that are currently selling alcohol for off-site consumption found a lack of compliance with conditions of approval relative to window coverage. Ms. Zeller displayed photos of the two locations noting that one site has coolers in front of the windows and one of the windows is covered, which is not in compliance. In the other location, coolers up against the windows is not in compliance. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 February 9, 2023 With regard to the subject site, there are several businesses within approximately 650 ft. that sell beer and wine; Roosevelt Market and Harvest Health. Ms. Zeller related that the applicant has submitted a relatively robust Operations Management Plan, as requested. They have identified security camera locations, training, and site management, all of which relate to CPTED and site security relative to alcohol sales. Staff requested information from the police department about calls for service to this location, which is typical for a package alcohol sales request. This particular address hasn’t had a significant number of calls for police service. Over the past year there were approximately 41 calls. There could be more calls from the adjacent businesses in the shopping center but the information provided was particular to the Family Dollar. Ms. Zeller expanded on the nature of the calls for service; one call related to shots fired and another, shoplifting. The police department didn’t find this to be an area of serious concern. With that said, Ms. Zeller related that a number of emails were submitted by residents in the area over the last couple of days, as well as from the Garfield Park Neighborhood Association, which described concerning activities observed in the parking lot and concerns that the addition of alcohol sales may exacerbate the activities there. Several letters also cite concerns about the concentration of establishments that sell alcohol within the immediate vicinity. The Garfield Park Neighborhood Association, as well as the Alger Garfield Neighbors Connection, have submitted letters. Ms. Zeller summarized that there is some concern by neighboring residents about the addition of alcohol in this location. Mr. Rozeboom asked if the CPTED report covers exterior lighting. Ms. Zeller replied that generally the exterior lighting is looked at. However, she believes they primarily concentrate on the interior of the store and the visibility. Ms. Zeller pointed out that the CPTED professional in the Planning Department goes out to look at every business that sells tobacco or alcohol. They will need to comply with lighting requirements if they don’t already. If they don’t fully comply now, they will have to. Ms. Turkelson added that parking lot/exterior lighting is part of the CPTED review/requirements. The requirement for addressing exterior lighting has a longer lead time because of the expense associated with upgrading parking lot lighting. Ms. Turkelson referred to the information provided by GRPD. She explained that one of the challenges with crime statistics is that when incidents are reported, they aren’t always tied to a specific address. Fortunately, the GRPD has been of great assistance and provided staff with information related to calls for service within 1,000 ft. There are several calls for service that related to incidents in the parking lot. That report likely accounts for a lot of the concern within the neighborhood; that there is quite a bit of activity occurring. Whether or not those activities are happening as a result of Family Dollar, or would be exacerbated by Family Dollar selling alcohol, Ms. Turkelson’s opinion is that is one of the pieces of information the Planning Commission needs to work through. Rob Hosack, Decisions Consulting, was present on behalf of Family Dollar. Mr. Hosack explained that the addition of beer and wine is really just an attempt to provide convenience to existing customers. They don’t feel this will attract additional customers as much as it will be a convenience for those that shop at Family Dollar routinely. Mr. Hosack advised that Family City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 February 9, 2023 Dollar has a very rigorous training program nationwide as it relates to internally training employees on responsible alcohol sales. There are also strict auditing assignments that are periodically done that utilizes an outside vendor that comes and tests the employees to ensure they are responsibly selling alcohol. Mr. Hosack stated that it is a nationally based training program and the software is proprietary and covers a number of things including the use of hand- held scanners, how to properly identify authentic forms of identification, trains the associates on how to politely and responsibly decline the sale of alcohol to someone not of age or someone visibly intoxicated. Most importantly, the training is very specific as to how Family Dollar can partner with local law enforcement agencies. Mr. Hosack clarified that there would be no liquor sales at this location if the Special Land Use is granted; beer and wine only. They don’t sell beer and wine at a discounted rate and do not sell singles. The area within the store dedicated to the sale of beer and wine is very small in relation to the overall square footage of the store. They have a zero-tolerance culture that has reduced the percentage rate of locations to less than .04 of 1% as it relates to potential violations. They also have a protocol for managers as it relates to doing visual inspections. Mr. Hosack stated that they are committed to the CPTED program. They were provided with information about the two stores that were not in compliance with respect to window coverings. Mr. Hosack assured the Commission that those work orders have been authorized. Jerry Barnett, Family Dollar District Manager, is also present. Mr. Hosack related that Mr. Barnett has secured an outside vendor to ensure the window coverings are removed and merchandise within the store is relocated from in front of the windows. Ms. Joseph wished to clarify that they aren’t proposing any changes to the building or site. Mr. Hosack agreed. Ms. Bersche asked if the dumpster enclosure is something the store would be willing to provide. Mr. Hosack replied affirmatively. He added that he had a conversation with Ms. Hoffman of the Garfield Park Neighborhood Association and was unaware she had taken a position on this request. Mr. Hosack explained that he provided a number of documents to Ms. Hoffman that he had hoped would provide assurances as to how serious Family Dollar is as it relates to the responsible sale of alcoholic beverages. Ms. Joseph asked if they engaged in any outreach with those that live close to the store. Mr. Hosack replied no. He sent letters to the neighborhood and business associations and improvement authorities. They didn’t reach out to individual residents. Mr. Hosack responded to Mr. Van Strien indicating that they didn’t receive any feedback from the business association. Ms. Turkelson noted that the application was signed by an individual from Seymour Square Shopping Center but the application lists Realty Income Properties 18 LLC as the owner. The property records indicate the owner is Seymour Square. Ms. Turkelson asked for clarification. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 February 9, 2023 Mr. Hosack explained that the inconsistency was brought to his attention and he refiled a document in response to that. It was a clerical error on their part. The individual that signed the application is the authorized agent for the ownership. Ms. Zeller advised Ms. Joseph that she directed the applicant to work through associations and organizations for outreach because it is more difficult to do individual outreach in apartment complexes and the adjacent property is rental property. Dr. Wallace appreciates they have taken the initiative to correct the transparency violations at the two stores mentioned. She asked for assurance that the requirements will be adhered to in the future and that one instance of it being remedied isn’t followed by non-compliance. Mr. Hosack replied affirmatively, explaining that is one reason he invited the district manager here today. There had previously been some issues that Ms. Zeller shared about the predecessor to his company not doing a great job of putting together an application that was responsive to the City’s requirements. They have been very deliberate about doing that. Mr. Barnett understands that the City is very committed to making sure that this happens responsibly. There will likely be some direction given to store managers very specific to window coverings and the CPTED requirements. Mr. Hosack would be happy to provide a copy of communication between them, as their counsel, to Mr. Barnett reminding them of what the requirements are and their commitment to the City and Planning Commission. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Joseph expressed concern about the compliance issues. There is evidence from other locations and, although they have been given assurances, there is a pattern of non-compliance. Ms. Joseph is also concerned that there are no proposed site changes to increase the amount of transparency on the front wall; it is nowhere close to meeting the requirements. They have heard from the neighborhood association and another collaborative of residents about issues here and assertions that approval of this would exacerbate existing issues. Ms. Joseph is not in support. Mr. Williams agreed, for the reasons stated. With respect to the beer and wine sales in general, he is comfortable with that because no one says let’s go to Family Dollar to get their beverages for the Super Bowl. Consumers would definitely be people already shopping there. What he finds to be the most serious issue is the lack of compliance. Until they see positive changes he is firmly against this request. The people of the neighborhood deserve to live in a nice and beautiful neighborhood just like anywhere else in the city. Mr. Hosack clarified for Ms. Joseph that they have already authorized a work order to correct the transparency issues. When she asked if they intended to make any alterations, he thought that was specific to things like land disturbance activities or that they were going to increase the size of the building. When they were made aware of the concerns about the windows and transparency, they immediately conversed with Mr. Barnett and those work orders are in effect and will likely be completed within a week or two. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 February 9, 2023 Ms. Joseph clarified that they currently have three windows and a huge blank wall. The requirement is 60% transparency. Even when removing the coverings on the few windows that are present that doesn’t bring them anywhere close to meeting the transparency requirement, which concerns her. Mr. Hosack expressed his understanding. Mr. Al-Shatel indicated that the letters from the public are concerning. It doesn’t sound like an approval would benefit the business much in terms of sales and it is more so just convenience for customers. Mr. Al-Shatel noted the presence of another liquor store just around the corner. He would like to respect the opinions of residents in the area. They don’t want to see beer and wine sales in this location. Mr. Van Strien referred to the standards for alcohol sales noting that it is hard to argue that the neighborhood is underserved by the use, considering there are two other take out options within 1,000 ft. and a couple more within a half mile. Per the testimony of neighbors in their letters, and the associations in the area, combined with the police reports, Mr. Van Strien feels they’ve already seen some negative secondary effects that could be exacerbated by this and that haven’t been addressed in the past. Therefore, he has concerns about that getting worse. Compliance in the past at this and other locations is also concerning. Ms. Turkelson advised that there have been compliance issues at multiple other stores and specifically some owned by Family Dollar. However, when talking about compliance issues, she advised the Commission to remain focused on this particular store. Mr. Rozeboom indicated that he doesn’t necessarily have a problem with the proposed use. It is ancillary to the other shopping that is done there. He does struggle with the lack of transparency, in addition to the compliance issues. Ms. Turkelson added that she would be uncomfortable with any condition that requires the addition of transparency because, particularly with convenience stores, there have been challenges with the addition of windows without it resulting in coolers being in front of them. If there was something felt to be necessary, and the applicant were willing, she would prefer it come back to the Planning Commission for review of the façade and floor plan. Those things are always challenging in a store that is as compact as this. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission denies the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Family Dollar Stores of Michigan for approval to sell beer and wine for off-site consumption in association with an existing discount retail store, located at 2027 Eastern Ave. SE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will intensify the commercial use at a location intended to act as a transition between the core TBA area and the adjacent residential areas and will not preserve the quality of life for residents and visitors. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 February 9, 2023 2. The proposed use will not meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the site is not designed to comply with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, nor are upgrades proposed. 3. The proposed use will not be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because this use will not be consistent with the desired mix of uses in the neighborhood and the sale of alcohol may negatively impact the quality of life in the neighborhood and surrounding residential uses. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use will not be minimized because the location of the building at the rear of the lot may encourage loitering or other methods of impeding pedestrian traffic. 5. The proposed use will 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 current site layout is not conducive to a pedestrian-oriented atmosphere, and no site changes are proposed that would bring the site more closely into compliance with the intent of the Zone District. 6. The proposed use would be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the use may result in nuisances that will require police or code enforcement actions. 7. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, it is demonstrated that the area is not underserved by the proposed use and that the proposed location for alcohol sales will not demonstrably be an asset to the neighborhood because this area has existing outlets for alcohol sales for off-site consumption and the addition of this alcohol use will result in a concentration of such uses in the neighborhood. 8. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is not compatible with the neighborhood because concerns have been expressed by several nearby residents and the local neighborhood association about the proposed use and nearby residential uses may be negatively impacted by the concentration of alcohol sales. 9. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will have negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the applicant has demonstrated a lack of adherence to Zoning Ordinance transparency and CPTED visibility requirements at this location, which may result in diminished ability to deter criminal behavior. SUPPORTED by Ms. Bersche. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Van Strien left the meeting and Mr. Rozeboom introduced the final agenda item. RESULT: DENIED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Williams, Al- Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Susan Shannon City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 February 9, 2023 C. 55 Leonard St NW - Alcohol Sales Address: 55 Leonard St NW Applicant: Family Dollar Stores of Michigan Requesting: Approval to sell beer and wine for off-site consumption in association with an existing discount retail store. Zoning: TN-TCC Traditional Neighborhood – Transitional City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0005 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grand-rapids.mi.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: March 25, 2023 Ms. Zeller presented the request of Family Dollar for approval to add the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption in association with an existing store. The sale of alcohol for off-site consumption in the TN-TCC Zone District requires Special Land Use approval. Ms. Zeller recalled that a similar application was before the Planning Commission in 2018. It was approved at that time along with three other Family Dollar locations that received approval. Two are currently in operation and this location and another had conditions of approval that required site upgrades. The applicant never pursued those and the approvals expired. Ms. Zeller identified the location of the subject property at the northwest corner of Leonard and Monroe with the Grand River immediately to the west. The site is legally non-conforming with parking in the front and the building pushed toward the back of the site. The area is surrounded by TCC zoning and there are a range of uses including industrial uses to the east, the City’s Development Center to the southeast, and a fire station across the street to the south. The subject property is approximately 32,000 sq. ft. in area and is occupied by a building of approximately 9,000 sq. ft. Ms. Zeller related, with respect to the Master Plan, that as part of the River Restoration Project, construction of a riverwalk is planned along the Grand River adjacent to the west side of the subject property. Ms. Zeller was unable to speak to implementation of the River Restoration Project/riverwalk plan. Ms. Zeller displayed a photo of the subject building. In the TCC Zone District, the required front transparency is 60%. The building is likely non-conforming but there is a significant amount of transparency on either side of the entry door. The windows are currently covered with signage, which is not compliant with CPTED and Zoning regulations. Ms. Zeller displayed the floor plan, which included the location of security cameras. She identified the location of the door and the cashier’s location next to the door. Ms. Zeller also identified the proposed locations for beer and wine display along the south wall. The applicant has submitted a relatively robust operations management plan that outlines training and operations. The store is open until 10 p.m. and hours are not anticipated to change. Because City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 February 9, 2023 of the current window coverage, the cash register would not be visible from the outdoors, which is required for the sale of alcohol, as well as for the CPTED ordinance. Ms. Zeller related that there is one other business in the immediate vicinity, Tuscan Party Store, selling alcohol for off-site consumption. It is approximately 450 ft. away from the subject site. Ms. Zeller advised that staff has not received any letters of concern from members of the community. This particular location isn’t within the boundaries of a neighborhood association; it is just outside of both Creston and West Leonard. Staff did notify those groups but didn’t receive any input. The Grand Rapids Police Dept. and the Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) have reviewed the application and have expressed some concerns relative to the addition of alcohol in this location. There are a significant number of calls for service to this location. Incidents include shop lifting, disorderly conduct, assault, harassment, trespassing and others. Ms. Zeller related that there were approximately 100 calls associated with this location specifically. Seven of them were for traffic. Even though there were 100 calls this is the only business right there so if there was something occurring in the immediate vicinity someone may have called from that address or used that address as a descriptor. Not all of the calls had to do with this business but there were still a number of calls associated with this particular business and this site. The concerns expressed by HOT and members of the police department included other alcohol outlets in the vicinity as well as other outlets within a mile. The police department expressed concern about the availability of alcohol at other outlets. They feel there would likely be an uptick in shoplifting if alcohol were approved here. Ms. Zeller also noted that there are two substance use disorder facilities within 1,000 feet of the subject location; one on North Monroe and the other on Ionia. It is unclear if the location on Ionia remains in operation. However, HOT expressed concerns about the existing impact of alcohol on the unsheltered population that congregates and lives in this general area. Ms. Turkelson observed that the staff report states that the City of Grand Rapids CPTED specialists in the Police and Planning Departments have reviewed the applications and plans and have determined compliance with CPTED requirements. She asked for clarification. Ms. Zeller believes they were looking at what is in the plan; the floor plan and operations plan. The plan itself is sufficient. However, the CPTED inspection report found that this location is not in compliance. The windows are covered and she believes there were also some other property maintenance issues identified. Ms. Turkelson advised that the inspection report was included in the packet. It appears there are 8 or 9 issues that are non-compliant. Mr. Rozeboom asked the status of the trash enclosure. Ms. Zeller replied that should the Planning Commission find it appropriate to approve this request, staff recommends a condition of approval to construct a trash enclosure. Ms. Turkelson added that a trash enclosure was not constructed following the previous approval. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 February 9, 2023 Mr. Rozeboom referred to the minutes from 2018 where the applicant explained that work orders have been put in for the required trash enclosures. Apparently, just because a work order is placed it doesn’t mean the work actually gets done. Ms. Turkelson related that it did not get done and her recollection is they did not receive permits to have it approved either. Mr. Jonker also noted from the minutes that apparently beer and wine were already being sold when they made application for the Special Land Use approval. Ms. Zeller agreed. Beer and wine sales commenced prior to Zoning approval. In their defense, they received State approval/a liquor license and they commenced sales. That has stopped. Rob Hosack, Decisions Consulting, was present representing Family Dollar for this request as well. He related that the deficiencies found at the time of the inspection have been completed, including removal of the window coverings. There may be some paving delays related to the weather. In response to the Police Department’s comment regarding an uptick in shoplifting if alcohol sales are introduced, Mr. Hosack wished to include in the record that they are unaware of any empirical data or a data source that could be tied to or shown to support that. It may be their experience or a hunch of the officer or staff person that provided the comments but Mr. Hosack doesn’t believe there is any data or study that specifically speaks to that. They feel that with the operations management plan, including the security cameras and some of the suggestions made, that their plan is acceptable. There may just be some existing conditions that need to be changed related to CPTED. Mr. Rozeboom didn’t believe it was the police department that suggested an increase in shoplifting. Ms. Turkelson agreed. She believes it was the HOT team. Ms. Zeller clarified that it was actually someone from GRPD. Ms. Joseph asked if the applicant could address the fact that there was a work order put in for a dumpster enclosure and it was never done. Mr. Hosack stated that he was not associated with Family Dollar at the time. Jerry Barnett, Family Dollar District Manager, explained that they had a number of stores within the city limits that did mistakenly begin selling beer and wine prematurely. They pulled the product immediately and he believes the office then realized they hadn’t done their due diligence in securing the necessary permits. Family Dollar pulled back on many of the things they wanted to do in 2018 until they actually had a good grasp on everything they needed to do before coming back before the Commission. Ms. Joseph pointed out that in 2018 the Planning Commission reviewed the request it was approved. The documentation from that meeting indicated that Family Dollar was already working on a dumpster enclosure. That wasn’t actually the case. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 February 9, 2023 Mr. Barnett replied that he wasn’t able to speak to that. Ms. Turkelson recognized the relatively high number of calls for service. There are also 8 or 9 issues of Crime Prevention (CPTED) non-compliance and significant concerns expressed by the GRPD and the Homeless Outreach Team. She asked how they would reconcile that for the Planning Commission. Operations and crime prevention plans have been submitted yet there are still what she would consider fairly serious issues associated with this property. From an operational perspective, what should the Planning Commission think of that? Mr. Hosack replied that if there is a contact person at the Police Dept. that they need to sit down with and provide a contact chain they would be happy to do that; establish enhanced communication or anything they think might be beneficial. Their operations management plan gets them to a point where there are visual inspections that are routinely done, among other things. However, if there are certain other activities that they feel would be beneficial, they would be happy to develop a plan more specific than the operations management plan. Ms. Turkelson clarified that the store operator hasn’t met with GRPD. She asked if it didn’t strike them as concerning that there were a significant number of calls for service? Mr. Hosack replied that he isn’t sure they were aware that there were a significant number of calls. If he or Mr. Barnett were aware of that they certainly would have reached out to the police department. From 2018 and forward he isn’t sure there was any way for Family Dollar to be aware of the fact that there were a significant number of calls to the police department. If that is something they need to check on periodically, or make a periodic information request to the police department as a matter of business, they are agreeable to doing that as well. Mr. Rozeboom opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Dr. Wallace expressed that it is concerning to hear that none of the plans so far have been proactive in addressing any of the concerns that have been formally and informally brought forth. While she doesn’t run a retail establishment, she would imagine she would be concerned about police calls to her address for the sake of safety in the neighborhood and safety of employees. It seems to speak to a pattern of business operations, which is something for the organization to consider. Dr. Wallace appreciates that they seem to be interested in taking the necessary steps moving forward but so far that hasn’t come to be, between 2018 and now. That creates reservations about approving this request now. There are a lot of issues here. Ms. Joseph recalled that she was on the Planning Commission at the time of the 2018 approval. She is grateful for Mr. Rozeboom catching that about the dumpster. It is a good point that a work order doesn’t necessarily mean the action will be taken. Ms. Joseph is also concerned about the number of calls for service to this location and the concern expressed by the Homeless Outreach Team. She has qualms about adding alcohol sales to this location. With respect to the Master Plan for this area and riverfront mixed-use, this doesn’t really align with that either. Additionally, they aren’t proposing any upgrades to the site to bring it closer to compliance. She City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 February 9, 2023 isn’t convinced that they would actually adhere to the condition of approval related to bring the site closer to compliance. Dr. Wallace added that they also have strict review standards for alcohol sales or consumption. She doesn’t feel most of those standards are met. Dr. Wallace encouraged Planning Commissioners to review those standards, included on the second page of the packet. Mr. Williams stated that he didn’t hear this explicitly but, in his experience, whenever they start talking about alcohol sales in crime ridden neighborhoods, those crime ridden neighborhoods are black and brown and then they prevent alcohol sales or beer and wine sales in those black and brown neighborhoods because there is crime there. Mr. Williams doesn’t feel it is fair to do that or equate that. Obviously, this is a community where they want businesses and residents to work as a community to prevent crime but he also feels it isn’t the responsibility of any one business or any one resident to prevent crime. That is why there is a police department. At least as far as the conversation about crime, and whether or not alcohol sales are appropriate here, he vehemently disagrees with putting that in one conversation. They shouldn’t be preventing law abiding people in a neighborhood from experiencing something that everyone else’s neighborhood gets to experience just because there happens to be crime there. With respect to the calls for service, those calls aren’t necessarily to this location. There is no way of knowing if the calls were to this location. Assuming that they were, Mr. Williams would agree that it would be something for the business to be concerned about and to figure out how to operate differently to address that. But to make one business responsible for the prevention of crime is too large of a task. With all of that said, Mr. Williams would also oppose this request because of lack of compliance. A dumpster enclosure is pretty simple and if they say they are going to do it and it doesn’t get done in four years that is concerning. He suggested they come into compliance and then maybe come back. Ms. Bersche related that she read through the standards and stopped at number one; the area is not underserved. There are other businesses in which you can buy beer and wine. With respect to the adverse effects on parks, she is thinking ahead to the bike path and development along the Grand River. Reflecting back on the 2018 list of items that never came to fruition, she is also hesitant to approve. Mr. Jonker echoed the comments of Mr. Williams. He can’t say for sure but, when and if this area gets redeveloped and there are parks, paths, picnic areas, and locations for people to put in their kayaks and if a specialty style deli with high end food products wanted to locate here he doubts the conversation will be about increased crime or the sale of packaged alcohol. Mr. Jonker believes what they are dealing with is a store that does a service to the homeless population that does exist here. He feels they need to be aware of that. He experiences that in his own neighborhood with neighbors that are frustrated about a store but would likely welcome a similar store with higher end products. However, he would also agree that at this time the lack of compliance on some relatively simple things makes it hard to support the request. Mr. Al-Shatel felt Mr. Williams brought up a great point. He doesn’t want to blame the business for the calls for service. His concern is more with the lack of compliance from 2018. He also wishes to respect the concerns of the police department and the anticipated increase in shoplifting. He would not be in support of the request at this time. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 February 9, 2023 Ms. Joseph stated that she appreciates Mr. Williams’ comments and those of other Commissioners. She clarified that she wasn’t blaming the business for the crime in the area. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission denies the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Family Dollar Stores of Michigan for approval to sell beer and wine for off-site consumption in association with an existing discount retail store, located at 55 Leonard St. NW, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use does not align with the Master Plan’s designation of this area as riverfront mixed use; it will reinforce an existing auto-oriented use that is incompatible with the compact, transit- friendly, walkable intent of the TN-TCC zone district, and; have the potential to negatively affect the character and quality of the planned Riverwalk Trail adjacent to the subject property, and; 2. The proposed use will not meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the site is not designed to comply with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance nor are upgrades proposed. 3. The proposed use will not be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because this use will not be consistent with the desired mix of uses in the neighborhood and the sale of alcohol may negatively impact the quality of life in the neighborhood. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use will not be minimized because the location of the entrance relative to the parking lot is not characteristic of the TN- neighborhood and may hinder walkability and the addition of alcohol may exacerbate negative secondary effects that are already present in the vicinity. 5. The proposed use will be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, and visual clutter because the ads and visual clutter currently on the windows of the property obscures visibility and are out of compliance with CPTED requirements. 6. The proposed use will 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 current site layout is not conducive to a pedestrian-oriented atmosphere, and no site changes are proposed that would bring the site more closely into compliance with the intent of the TN-TCC Zone District, and the use may encourage loitering or other means of impeding pedestrian traffic. 7. The proposed use would be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the location is already experiencing a high demand for services in the area use may place an unfair burden on other City services as the location is already overburdened with a high demand for services in the area. 8. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, it is not demonstrated that the area is underserved by the proposed use and that the proposed location for alcohol sales will not demonstrably be an asset to the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 February 9, 2023 neighborhood because this area has existing outlets for alcohol sales for off-site consumption. 9. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is not compatible with the neighborhood because this area has existing issues with alcohol-related nuisances and the addition of this alcohol use may result in an increase for calls for police service and this property’s close proximity to licensed substance use disorder facilities may not support efforts of those trying to maintain recovery. 10. Adjacent or nearby parks, playgrounds, religious institutions, or schools may be adversely affected because a future Riverwalk Trail is planned to be constructed adjacent to the west side of this property. 11. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will have negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the applicant has demonstrated a lack of adherence to Zoning Ordinance transparency and CPTED visibility requirements at this location which may result in diminished ability to deter criminal behavior. and the use may cause an increase in loitering, shoplifting, disorderly conduct, assault, harassment and other incidents already prevalent in the area. SUPPORTED by Ms. Bersche. Mr. Williams recommended:  Striking “the use may cause an increase in loitering, shoplifting, disorderly conduct, assault, harassment and other incidents already prevalent in the area” from point 11.  Striking “and the addition of this alcohol use may result in an increase of calls for police service” from point 9.  Striking Point 7. Ms. Turkelson asked that Mr. Williams express what his concern is with point 7. Utilizing the information provided by the GRPD, which are calls for service specific to this location, relatively speaking it is high. Mr. Williams agreed and acknowledged that. However, he also agreed and acknowledged that there is no empirical evidence that the addition of beer and wine sales here would exacerbate that. That is unknown. Additional discussion took place and the suggestion was to amend point 7 to read: The proposed use would be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the location is already experiencing a high demand for services in the area.  Striking “the sale of alcohol may negatively impact the quality of life in the neighborhood” from point 3. Ms. Joseph amended the motion as suggested. Supported by Ms. Bersche. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 February 9, 2023 RESULT: DENIED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Williams, Al- Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Susan Shannon IV. Planning Commission Discussion Ms. Turkelson advised the Commission that the discussion on the final motion is exactly what they like to see. The resolutions are drafted based on what staff believes they know with the information provided. It is very welcomed and helpful when there is conversation that facilitates change to the resolutions. Mr. Jonker stated that he appreciates staff preparing the draft resolutions. What he gets concerned with when reading a motion is that they are creating a level of specificity that helps in the future. However, many of the same reasons for denial could be used if a brewery development were proposed across the river. Mr. Rozeboom asked Ms. Turkelson if it is important to address each of the standards. The resolutions are structured to address each of them and he understands that they need to consider them all together. His understanding is that it is okay to omit particular standards if they don’t apply. Ms. Turkelson agreed, if they aren’t applicable. The Planning Commission is required to follow the standards but if there are standards that aren’t applicable to the type of case being reviewed then it is appropriate to omit the standard. However, it is not appropriate to ignore a standard simply because they aren’t able to come up with something to address it. V. Public Comment None VI. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 2:46 PM