TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 March 23, 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: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Rozeboom, Wallace STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Laura Wahamaki, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from February 23, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Paul Rozeboom, Adrienne Wallace C. Planning Director's Report  Ms. Zeller drew the Planning Commission’s attention to letters of support that were submitted late and distributed to Planning Commissioners for their review.  Ms. Turkelson advised that the planning consultant for the Community Master Plan will provide an update at the 4/13/23 meeting. They will be in town that week to report to the City Commission and for a Steering Committee meeting on 4/12. She also related that the launch parties were all fairly-well attended. Surprisingly, there hasn’t been a lot of participation in the on-line engagement. The second round of engagement will begin mid-May. The Neighborhood Summit is an event with great citizen participation and they will have three tracks at that event; environmental justice, climate mitigation/adaptation, and general land use/transportation.  Ms. Turkelson also advised that Housing Next will provide a Housing Needs Assessment update at the 4/13/23 meeting.  Ms. Turkelson advised that there will be text amendments proposed related to building heights in the downtown and the billboard exchange program.  Ms. Turkelson related that staff anticipates 201 Market being on the May 25th agenda, which will be a significant agenda item. 1. 555 Leonard St NW - Extension Request Generated 3/28/2023 9:05 AM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 March 23, 2023 Ms. Turkelson shared a request for a 6-month extension for 555 Leonard St NW related to the supply chain, construction costs, and interest rates. If granted, this will be their last opportunity for an extension. If there is no permit in place by November, it would be necessary for them to reapply. Motion by Ms. Shannon, supported by Mr. Al-Shatel, to grant a six-month extension. Yeas: 6. Nays: 0. Abstention: 1 (Van Strien). Motion carried. III. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Conflict of Interest None. B. 4 E Fulton St - Ground Floor Office Expansion Address: 4 Fulton St. E Applicant: 4 Fulton, LLC (Ryan Engen) Requesting: Approval to expand an existing ground floor office use within a Targeted Commercial Corridor in the TN-CC Zone District. Zoning: TN-CC Traditional Neighborhoods – City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.8.07.D. Targeted Commercial Corridor 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0015 Staff Assigned: Laura Wahamaki lwahamaki@grcity.us. Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: April 8, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki introduced the request for approval to expand an existing ground floor office use within a Targeted Commercial Corridor in the TN-CC Zone District. A Targeted Commercial Corridor is the implementation of the recommendations in the GR Forward Area Specific Plan where a range of ground floor active uses are encouraged, including retail, restaurants, small offices, and services such as gyms. The Targeted Commercial Corridors are subject to the land use regulations applicable to the TN-TBA Zone District. In the TN-TBA, Special Land Use approval is required for ground floor office uses located on an Urban Center Street. In this case, both Fulton and Division are Urban Center Streets. Ms. Wahamaki identified surrounding parcels as also being within the TN-CC Zone District. Monument Park is located to the north, 20 Fulton East Apartments is located to the east with vacant retail ground floor space within that building. To the south is the former Dodd’s records building, which is vacant. There is also a convenience store with some residential above. To the west is the former UICA building, which is currently vacant. The subject building is located at the southeast corner of E. Fulton and S. Division. The site is approximately 7,919 sq. ft. in area and is improved with a two-story building that was constructed in 1949 and was originally designed to be six stories. Davenport intended to occupy City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 March 23, 2023 the upper floors of the building and lease the bottom two floors for commercial and office use. Although the Zone District and Area Specific Plan encourage retail use of the ground floor, this specific building was actually designed for office use. When looking at the windows that front both Fulton and Division, they lean more toward office use than traditional neighborhood retail. Ms. Wahamaki related that the applicant is an architectural firm that has occupied the building since 2014. In 2016 they expanded and requested approval from the Planning Commission to occupy approximately 20% of the ground floor for their expanded office use. That request was granted by the Planning Commission. They continue to grow and are asking to occupy 100% of the ground floor of this building. Ms. Wahamaki explained that currently there is a retail clothing and shoe store occupying the ground floor. The retail store will vacate the building and the expanded office use would move into that space. In 2014 the architectural firm had 22 employees and currently has 81 full-time employees and 7 part-time interns. They currently occupy approximately 80% of the building. With respect to the exterior of the building, the retail store has blocked the windows to provide space for their window displays of retail items. If approved and office use is granted in the front portion of the building, the items blocking the windows will be removed and the transparency will be restored. Ms. Wahamaki explained that the main entrance at the corner of Fulton and Division is intended to remain locked. Currently the office use utilizes the entrance on Division as their main entrance and that will continue to be their main entrance. Ms. Wahamaki referred to the floor plan noting that at the northern-most portion of the building is where the office work stations will be located. She identified the location of a conference room, flex space, and collaboration areas. They’ve located the reception desk near the elevator, which is also near the door they currently use for those entering and exiting the building. It is Ms. Wahamaki’s understanding that the door on Division remains locked and is opened when clients or guests need to enter. With the reception area near the door, they can easily allow access and it is convenient to the elevator and conference rooms. Ms. Wahamaki indicated that there is no proposed change to the general business hours, which is 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday. Twenty-four employees are anticipated to occupy the new office space. Ms. Wahamaki related that the applicant has engaged in some neighborhood outreach. They recently attended a Heartside Business Association meeting. Staff received a letter from the Heartside Business Association citing both concerns and support. Ultimately, they remain neutral on the request. A letter of support was submitted by the Grand Rapids Chamber. A letter from a neighboring resident cited concerns that if office use is granted on the ground floor of this prominent building it could potentially prevent any future retail use at this location. Ryan Engen related that he is the building owner. He explained that he currently has two tenants in the building, both of which have short term leases. His concern is that if this request is not approved both will move out and there will be another vacant building, which obviously isn’t good for him but also not good for the city. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 March 23, 2023 Ms. Joseph asked, regardless of what happens today, if the retail tenant is proposing to move at this point. Mr. Engen replied that they have approximately two years left on their lease. They are owned by a private equity company in New York with approximately 250 stores throughout the United States. He called and informed them that TowerPinkster would like to expand and asked what they thought and asked if they would be willing to move out early. The response was that they are currently closing their Portage store and Grand Rapids would be an outliner store for them. They would love to stay through tax season and be out before summer. Mr. Engen was asked to put that in writing but wasn’t willing to do that until receiving the approval to expand TowerPinkster. Mr. Van Strien asked if this was precipitated by the need of TowerPinkster to have more office space vs. not having a tenant in that retail space. Mr. Engen agreed. They are growing and his belief is that if they don’t have room to expand here they will have to look elsewhere. Ms. Turkelson asked if there was consideration given to allowing for the corner entry to remain open. Ben Rambadt, TowerPinkster, replied that there was internal discussion while putting the application and floor plan together. They discussed the corner at Division and Fulton for the entry piece but one aspect is security at the elevator lobby near the reception desk so there is visibility of anyone entering and exiting the building as well as adjacency for ADA accessibility for any of their clients or staff entering the building. The proposed main entry is adjacent to the elevator vs. if they enter at the corner, which would result in them having to traverse through the office space to get to the elevator to go to the second floor or basement. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Ms. Turkelson felt it was important to look at the context of where this is in the district; located across the street from the park, the police department, and the UICA building. Considering the synergy of retail at that intersection and the fact that it is a challenging intersection for pedestrians, if the Planning Commission were inclined to support the use the rationale of what is already happening at this location is important even though there is a desire for a retail node here; there are some challenges because of the current condition. Mr. Jonker asked if this were to move forward and become an office would there be any challenge to convert back to retail. Ms. Turkelson explained that it wouldn’t need approval to convert back to retail use. It would likely require building permits but there wouldn’t be any use issues. Mr. Van Strien indicated that, in general, he doesn’t like to see office space in a Targeted Commercial Corridor like this but he has considered the fact that it is already somewhat of a City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 March 23, 2023 dead corner with the adjacent properties, which isn’t great for the center of the city unfortunately but there were a lot of decisions made in the past that have made that a bit more detrimental. If this were further south on Division, or further northwest on Monroe Center, he would likely feel more strongly about it. He doesn’t have a strong opinion on it at this intersection. Ms. Shannon agrees that this has always been a difficult intersection and she doesn’t recall retail in that location, other than what is currently there, for a very long time. It was formerly the Junior Achievement building. The most challenging aspect of the intersection is having the police department that has no windows other than for the Secretary of State. On Bridge Street, where she lives, there is a smaller office use in the middle of restaurants that she likes to pass by because they display some of their projects, which is interesting to see. That may be something to consider for this use. It adds to the interest of the streetscape. Finally, she feels that keeping the employees here helps to create more demand for retail, particularly in the vacant UICA building which seems to be having problems being repurposed. She would hate to see this number of employees relocate to the suburbs and not add to the vitality of the city. Ms. Shannon indicated that she is in support of this project. Ms. Joseph related that she has some reservations about losing an active retailer at this corner. It is a desired use there but she also understands the comments that have been offered. Ms. Joseph stated that she is very discouraged that the main entrance will not be on the corner. She feels it is a missed opportunity. Ms. Turkelson advised that that is an element of their proposal that the Planning Commission doesn’t have to accept if they don’t find it appropriate given the requirements and plans in place. How they resolve it would be up to them of course. Ms. Turkelson does appreciate the accessibility concern. It does appear that both entrances would have to remain open in order to provide barrier free access. With respect to the interest of the windows, in the past the Planning Commission has required mitigation for lack of transparency through the use of art. There are currently display windows and the Commission could continue to require some element of a display within the windows since the business will only be open until 5 p.m. An approval could require something beyond looking into a working space. It would be up to them to figure out how to satisfy that condition. Mr. Van Strien feels that removing the existing display walls is actually nice for this stretch of sidewalk. Currently you can’t see in or out so he feels that actually helps with pedestrian walkability, safety, and comfort, which is positive. He doesn’t know what they would display other than what Ms. Shannon mentioned. Ms. Shannon stated that she is pleased that the doors are staying. They add a dimension of welcoming. The fact that the corner entrance wouldn’t be in use doesn’t bother her. Other than employees there likely isn’t a lot of traffic in and out. Ms. Shannon related that she volunteers at the YWCA and there back entrance is two doors down. Their entrances at the front and back have to be unlocked by someone inside for security reasons. There are some security issues in the neighborhood but the more activity there is, the better that is. Ms. Joseph noted that there is a ramp into the doors at the corner. She suggested that there may be options to make that work. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 March 23, 2023 Mr. Van Strien asked the architects present if what is shown as shaded on the floor plan is new space they would build out and what is not shaded is existing conditions they already occupy. Mr. Rambadt referred to the floor plan and noted a division line going from the entry near Division and wrapping around the back side of the elevators. To the left of that line everything would be new in terms of office space, conference room, and work station areas. The items in the area that would remain as is are the existing ramp and two existing restrooms. Everything else within the space would be new in terms of finishes, work stations, etc. Mr. Van Strien clarified that there is a grade change inside the building, which is what the ramp services. Mr. Rambadt agreed. If you enter at the corner and desire to access the elevator you would go through the work station area, down the ramp and would be at the flex space near the reception desk. They would then have to take another smaller ramp down to the level of the elevator lobby. Mr. Van Strien clarified that it wouldn’t be as simple as moving along the west wall to get to the elevator; it is more of a maze. Mr. Rambadt agreed. Mr. Jonker asked if the doors are currently locked if someone were to visit during office hours. Mr. Rambadt replied affirmatively. The doors are locked throughout the day. The receptionist on the second floor has camera visibility or clients call ahead to let them know when they will be entering so they can be let into the building. Mr. Jonker asked, once the space is built out, if they will be hosting clients on the second floor or will clients be seen in conference spaces on the lower level. Mr. Rambadt replied that the conference room space on the lower level will serve for clients. They also have conference space in the lower level and on the second floor. It is more of a matter of availability of the conference rooms and for what size of meeting that would take place. Ms. Bersche explained, from her experience being on a knee scooter for 3 months, that you want the simplest, most accessible access to the elevator. Mr. Jonker stated that while it is disappointing to lose retail in that location he would agree with some of the previous comments that it is a very challenging place to walk as a pedestrian. He feels he can support this request as proposed. While disappointed in the loss of the retail, the problem is likely larger than this one building. Ms. Joseph asked how they address that in the Master Planning process. There is adjacent vacant space. How do they encourage retail if that is what is desired if removing the one active retail spot. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 March 23, 2023 Ms. Shannon noted that the UICA building will be a difficult building, for several reasons, to repurpose. She recalls requiring that the first floor have retail. Parking is another issue for this location. There has to be people that are also working daily in the area to support the retail. Downtown is struggling with more and more people working from home. Ms. Turkelson recalled the GR Forward work and the conversations about the Targeted Commercial Corridors and the other designations. They talked about encouraging ground floor active uses and small offices were included in that. From a zoning perspective and codification of the plan, it is either required or not. The code doesn’t express a preference or encouragement; much of that is market driven and also supported through other efforts such as through the Chamber or DGRI. They were looking at how to utilize their tools to encourage and the zoning implementation strategy chosen was to allow for ground floor offices to be considered as Special Land Use. It encouraged pausing to evaluate it. In this particular location, unfortunately there isn’t the infrastructure in place that is present in other TBA corridors because of the streets and what is happening around it. Not all of the Targeted Corridors can be treated the same, which is the reason why the Special Land Use process is in place; to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Turkelson noted that there have also been a lot of changes in the market and how people function and operate in the city, which is different than when the Plan was adopted. Mr. Van Strien stated that he feels it is important to protect the retail corridors. Further south on Division and along Monroe Center are more conducive to active retail because they have on street parking where you can more easily drop in. He is comfortable with this proposal. Improving the transparency is a big improvement that this will bring. Ms. Shannon MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of 4 Fulton, LLC (Ryan Engen) to expand an existing ground floor office use within a Targeted Commercial Corridor in the TN-CC Traditional Neighborhood-City Center Zone District in an existing building at 4 Fulton St. E., 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 purpose of a Targeted Commercial Corridor to provide continuous mixed-use street frontages; the proposed use will support the expansion of an existing business; and, GR Forward supports the diversification of uses along Division Avenue, including office uses. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the use will occupy a building that was originally constructed for office use and the renovation will restore building transparency through the original windows. 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 reinforce the intense development pattern of the Zone District and maintain a viable use in a historic building because the existing conditions, including lack of on-street parking, its location at the corner of a six-lane intersection, and its shared placement at the intersection that includes the police department, a public park and the vacant UICA building supports flexibility in the nature of the uses, specifically a small-scale office use. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 March 23, 2023 4. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because use of the building as proposed could bring vitality to this area of the neighborhood, creating a character conducive to a pedestrian-oriented environment. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the use will encourage other investment in the area and people employed in the expanded office will have the opportunity to patronize nearby businesses. 6. The proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all applicable State laws. 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. The applicant shall work with staff to utilize display windows, to the extent possible, displaying goods and services to add interest and vitality to the streetscape. SUPPORTED by Mr. Al-Shatel. Mr. Williams suggested, in light of the discussion involving the space across the street and future uses, that this resolution could impact that. He wondered about the language in point 4; that the building, as proposed, could bring vitality to this area of the neighborhood, creating a character conducive to a pedestrian oriented environment. Discussion during the deliberation was that this does not help to create a pedestrian oriented environment and that this corner is not pedestrian friendly. Mr. Williams asked if that is language they wished to include in the resolution. Additionally, for point 3, the rationale was that it will reinforce the intense development pattern of the Zone District and maintain a viable use in a historic building. Discussion involved the fact City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 March 23, 2023 that this is an area targeted for commercial/retail. He asked if they wish to include that language also. Ms. Shannon recalled from testimony that it doesn’t sound like the existing retail is going to be there much longer regardless of what action is taken today. Therefore, to have the space occupied with traffic coming in and out is at least adding more people to the area, adding to the pedestrian activity. Ms. Turkelson suggested replacing point 3 with “The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment, because the existing conditions, including lack of on-street parking, its location at the corner of a six-lane intersection, and its shared placement at the intersection that includes the police department, a public park and the vacant UICA building supports flexibility in the nature of the uses, specifically a small-scale office use.” Mr. Van Strien suggested to address point 4 that by removing the display walls and creating more transparency where you can see in and out of the building, it may improve the pedestrian- oriented environment. He also understands the point where a retail use is more active and may be a better pedestrian experience in general but perhaps not the existing conditions vs. what is being proposed. He appreciates the scrutiny on the language; it is important. Ms. Shannon amended the third point as suggested. Supported by Mr. Al-Shatel. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Paul Rozeboom, Adrienne Wallace C. 435 28th St SE - Demolition without redevelopment Address: 435 28th St. SE Applicant: Michael Yaldo Requesting: Approval to demolish a self-service car wash facility without a replacement use in preparation for future redevelopment. Zoning: MON-C Modern Era Neighborhood – Commercial Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.2.03. Alterations, Enlargements and Demolitions 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0009 Staff Assigned: Laura Wahamaki lwahamaki@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: April 8, 2023 City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 March 23, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki presented the request for approval to demolish a self-service car wash facility without a replacement use in preparation for future redevelopment. She explained further that the applicant purchased the property in 2021 and intends to sell it as ready to build to suit. Special Land Use approval is required if no site plan has been approved for the reuse of a lot Ms. Wahamaki stated that the Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Mixed Use - Commercial. It is auto-oriented. There is a mix of retail, service and restaurant uses in the area. It is surrounded by Low-Density Residential to the north. To the east is a drive-through fast food restaurant, to the south is an auto dealership in the City of Wyoming, and to the west is an auto service and tire center. The property is located on the north side of 28th St. between Eastern and Madison. It is just under an acre in size. It is currently occupied by a self-service car wash building, vacuum kiosks, and it is paved with concrete and asphalt. There are light poles, a transformer, a sign and catch basins. The applicant has indicated that all of the existing improvements on the site will be removed and the site will be graded and grass will be planted. The southwest corner of the existing building is non-conforming relative to the minimum 10 ft. side yard setback requirement. A small portion of the corner of the building is encroaching onto the neighboring property. The site is accessed through one curb cut that was required by MDOT to service two properties; 435 and 425 28th St. There is also a joint driveway agreement between the two properties to facilitate continued access onto both sites. Should all the improvements be removed, a driveway would need to be constructed to allow continued access for the tire center next door. Ms. Wahamaki related that the applicant has also been informed that any new construction shall be required to fully comply with any storm water management requirements. Mr. Van Strien asked if demolishing the building and grading and seeding the site would trigger additional storm water requirements in the future. Ms. Wahamaki replied affirmatively. Any new development will be expected to fully comply with the Ordinance requirements. If the site remains as is, there is some flexibility with bringing it closer to conformity with requirements; there is a bit more flexibility built in. Ms. Joseph asked if there are maintenance requirements. If they remove all of the improvements, grade and seed, then what happens? Is there a requirement to make sure it is in reasonable condition until development occurs. Ms. Wahamaki replied affirmatively. They would have to ensure there is no trash or litter and that the grass or weeds not grow above what Code Compliance permits. In the past year there have been some Code Compliance cases on this property and the City has had to go out and maintain and mow. When that happens, the City does the work and bills the owner for the work that has been done. Michael Yaldo was present on behalf of the request. He related that he lives in Macomb County, which is 2.5 hours away. He has other property closer to his home and this location is too far away to maintain it. He comes once a month to clean up trash and he has reached the point where he feels the site takes too much energy for nothing. He put a sign up for a while that said build to City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 March 23, 2023 suit and had a couple of people look at it but, unfortunately, people look at it and see a car wash. He feels he needs to clear the site and market it as a 1 acre site. Mr. Yaldo explained that he let the previous owner run it for a while and shouldn’t have. She didn’t watch it very well and a lot of equipment was stolen. It also resulted in a large water bill that he was responsible for. Because of the distance, it makes it difficult to maintain and he doesn’t want his properties to have violations for any reason. Mr. Van Strien asked if there are any underground tanks or just water and sewer lines. Mr. Yaldo replied that it should only be water lines. Mr. Van Strien clarified that they will be removing any infrastructure that exists before grading and reseeding. Mr. Yaldo replied that he is working with a local business and has paid them half the cost. He is just waiting for approval. Mr. Van Strien clarified that he just wants to make sure that the site is clean for redevelopment. Ms. Turkelson noted that a condition of approval has been included that all surface improvements such as pavement, lighting, signs, structures, and subgrade infrastructure, including utility connections and storm water facilities be removed so that the site is ready for redevelopment. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Joseph feels the request makes sense. It gets the site ready for redevelopment and that will provide new opportunities to improve what is on the site and ensure the building is no longer encroaching on adjacent property. It will also be required to adhere to current Ordinance requirements. Ms. Joseph is in full support. Ms. Shannon agreed. Clearing the site will make it easier to redevelop it. Ms. Bersche stated that from an environmental standpoint, the location of this facility and the neighboring property being an auto service center, there will likely be contamination on this property. When demolishing a parking lot there could be some exposure and potential for exposing contaminated soil to the air. That should be considered during the demolition phase. Ms. Turkelson related that staff has been working with the storm water engineer who will ensure all necessary City and State permits are secured prior to the demolition to prevent environmental issues. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Michael Yaldo to demolish a self- service car wash facility without a replacement use in preparation for future redevelopment at 435 28th Street SE, for the following reasons: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 March 23, 2023 1. The proposed demolition will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed demolition will support the Vital Business Districts objective of the Master Plan to encourage the restructuring of commercial development on 28th St. and the vacated, graded site will provide reasonable accommodation for growth and development. 2. The proposed demolition will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the site will be rehabilitated and stabilized with appropriate landscape material as required if redevelopment does not begin immediately after demolition. 3. The proposed demolition will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed demolition will prepare the site for future redevelopment consistent with current zoning, Master Plan designations, and surrounding uses. 4. The proposed demolition will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future adjacent uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, glare, and visual clutter because the removal of the vacant structure will mitigate potentially dangerous conditions of an unmaintained building on the site and will improve the health and safety of the neighborhood. 5. The proposed demolition will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable, particularly where the natural features assist in preserving the general character of the neighborhood because there are currently few natural features on site and the proposed use will temporarily add greenspace to the area. 6. The proposed demolition will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the demolition will reduce the possibility of calls for emergency services or code compliance issues associated with a vacant structure. 7. The proposed demolition will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all applicable State laws. 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. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 March 23, 2023 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 plan submitted for LUDS permitting shall indicate: a) That all surface improvements (e.g. pavement, lighting, sign, structure) and subgrade infrastructure (e.g. utility connections, stormwater facilities, car wash associated infrastructure) shall be removed; b) That the property shall be stabilized with topsoil and grass seed, or other appropriate vegetative material; c) That the curb cut providing ingress and egress to 425 28th St. SE will remain intact and a shared driveway plan to fulfill the requirements of the Joint Driveway Agreement shall be submitted at permitting. SUPPORTED by Mr. Al-Shatel. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Paul Rozeboom, Adrienne Wallace D. 400 (aka 404) Ionia Avenue SW - Bar Expansion Address: 400 (aka 404) Ionia Avenue SW Applicant: Fifteen Two, LLC d/b/a House Rules (Brian Beaucher) Requesting: Approval expand the capacity of an existing bar. Zoning: Traditional Neighborhood-Transitional City Center (TN-TCC) Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales 5.9.11. Entertainment 5.10.05. Reductions in Parking Requirements 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0018 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: April 8, 2023 Ms. Zeller recalled that on August 11, 2016, the Planning Commission approved an application to establish a new bar with live entertainment in association with a retail store selling wine, beer, and distilled spirits, along with a waiver of parking requirements. Ms. Zeller indicated that the business has been in operation since the previous approval. At some point they rebranded the business to House Rules and they wish to expand into an adjacent vacant retail space to increase the floor area and occupancy. Because of the extent of the expansion, as well as the parking waiver, Special Land Use approval is necessary. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 March 23, 2023 Ms. Zeller identified the location of the use in the former Klingman furniture factory on Ionia. The building has some parking for the residential uses located there but there is no on-site parking for any of the commercial uses. There is a large, City-owned parking lot nearby as well as some on-street parking, although not right in front of the establishment. Ms. Zeller recalled that the use was approved as a bar and a retail store. The original intent was to have beer tastings and education classes with an opportunity to purchase beer to go. At some point the coolers that were installed were removed and the seating expanded. There is one linear cooler remaining. Ms. Zeller displayed an image of current conditions of the interior space identifying seating, cooler and the bar. The plan is to demolish a portion of the bar and expand with additional seating and white boxing for a future kitchen. The floor area will increase by approximately 1,200 sq. ft. and the seating capacity will increase from approximately 98 to 149. The proposed hours are consistent with the previous approval; operation no later than midnight. The business will continue to offer beer and wine to go. The cashier area is compliant with requirements. Currently, there is no kitchen and no immediate plan to add the kitchen. Ms. Zeller explained that the expansion is one aspect of consideration as is the additional parking waiver request. The location is right outside of downtown but not in the downtown. There is no parking requirement in the CC district downtown but there is a parking requirement in the TCC zone district. In 2016 the Planning Commission granted a waiver for the eleven parking spaces required for the use. With the proposed occupancy, 37 spaces are required. A full waiver is requested. As previously mentioned, there is a nearby City parking lot and there is a parking lot across the street associated with the Downtown Market. There is on-street parking as well as public transit. There are a number of establishments in the vicinity that allow for on- and off-site consumptions of alcohol. Ms. Zeller related that there has been no correspondence received related to this request. She deferred to the applicant to elaborate on any neighborhood engagement they’ve done. Brian Beaucher was present on behalf of the request. He recalled that he was before the Commission approximately 6 years ago requesting approval for what was called Craft Beer Cellar. That store was focused on essentially a party store combined with a bar. Patrons could come in and have a beverage and buy a six pack to go. The concept was originally a franchise and he has rebranded it as something independent. Their concept combines three basic things. They continue to be a full bar including cocktails, beer and wine. They are also a retail store with board games and a lounge where patrons can play the games, enjoy a beverage and get beverages to go. Mr. Beaucher explained that even though they are a bar, they are 100% family friendly. Half of their cooler doors are non-alcoholic beverages. They were formerly 100% alcohol offerings. They also have a mocktail menu and are not completely focused on being an alcohol establishment. The current seating is approximately 98. On Saturday they turn away a lot of customers that can’t get in. They do a lot of on-line reservations with people hanging out for approximately 3 hours. The kitchen is something they would love to have in the future but it likely won’t transpire for another year or so. They are seeking the approval to do that in the future. Mr. Beaucher stated that they love being a part of the community. They’ve been in the building for 6 years and it has been great. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 March 23, 2023 Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Van Strien suggested that this shift likely alleviates any of the concerns that were raised at the time of the previous approval. He is glad to see it has been successful and that they’ve been able to evolve and make the changes they need to. At the time there was discussion about this potentially becoming a liquor store in the future. Obviously, that isn’t what it has operated like. This moves it even further away from that concept. It is a positive change and great that it is active. Ms. Joseph agreed. This is an excellent project. She has visited the establishment a couple of times and really enjoyed herself. She congratulated the applicant on the concept they’ve created here. She is excited about the expansion and is in full support. Ms. Shannon agreed. Ms. Turkelson recognized that there are a lot of changes happening in this neighborhood as well as on the other side of S. Division. They are seeing a lot of great changes happening in this specific neighborhood. Ms. Shannon indicated that she has observed that as well. The need for parking is likely reduced because a number of the patrons are probably walking from within the neighborhood. Ms. Bersche agreed that it is great to see an expansion of an established operation with local owners. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Fifteen Two, LLC d/b/a House Rules (Brian Beaucher) to expand the floor area and capacity of an existing bar, along with a waiver of on-site parking requirements, at 400 (aka 404) Ionia Avenue SW, 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 vitality of the local economy by encouraging investment, diversifying the economic base, and expanding employment opportunities. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because interior improvements to the existing building will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property or uses. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the expansion is consistent with the existing use on the site, which has been operating without incident. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the building and its entrance are appropriately oriented on the site and adequate on-street and district parking are available. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 March 23, 2023 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, smoke, odors, glare, and visual clutter because all activities will occur indoors and the hours of operation cease prior to midnight. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the proposed expanded use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity and will contribute to the walkability of the zone district. 7. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions and the use will encourage other investment in the area. 8. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, it is demonstrated that the area is underserved by the proposed use and that the proposed location for alcohol sales will demonstrably be an asset to the neighborhood because the use is unique as compared to existing uses in the neighborhood. 9. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the use will result in peak hours of use that are similar to other uses in the vicinity. 10. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the existence of residential uses within the same building will inherently limit the intensity of the use and the use will close by midnight. 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. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 March 23, 2023 2. That except as amended by this application, the conditions of approval associated with the August 11, 2016 approval shall remain in effect. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Paul Rozeboom, Adrienne Wallace E. 942 Front Avenue NW - parking waiver Address: 942 Front Avenue NW Applicant: Stellar Hospitality Grand Rapids LLC (Jimmy Asmar) Requesting: Approval for a parking waiver for a new hotel with the sale of alcohol for on-site and off-site consumption. Zoning: TN-TCC Traditional Neighborhoods – Transitional City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.10.05. Reductions in Parking Requirements 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0014 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: April 8, 2023 Ms. Zeller presented the request for approval of a parking waiver for a new hotel with the sale of alcohol for on-site and off-site consumption. Ms. Zeller recalled that this project was before the Planning Commission on November 4, 2019, and the Commission approved the parking waiver that is under consideration today. It is the same exact project but it didn’t move forward within one-year of approval, potentially related to COVID, and the approval expired. Therefore, the applicant is present with the same request today. Subsequent to the 2019 approval, the applicant has also incorporated the sale of beer and wine as an amenity to guests, which is also part of the Planning Commission’s consideration today. Ms. Zeller identified the location of the property along the river in the TN-TCC Zone District. It is the former location of a Ryder truck facility. To the south is Grand View Place, which is residential apartments, and to the north is a light industrial use; an equipment wholesaler. There are other commercial, light industrial, and industrial uses in the facility. Ms. Zeller noted that the site is just over an acre in size and is currently all paved. Proposed is a five-story, 111-room hotel; Staybridge Suites. The hotel is permitted by right in this zone district. The TCC zone district permits 4-stories and a fifth story as a bonus, provided certain provisions are met. The applicant will be pursuing one of those bonus provisions for the additional story. The hotel would require 84 parking spaces and 37 spaces are proposed; a deficit of 47 parking spaces. There are a number of waivers that can be used to reduce the amount of on-site parking. In this City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 March 23, 2023 case it would be on-street parking. The applicant estimates approximately 7 parking spaces immediately in front of the site. Ms. Zeller noted that there are bike lanes along Front St. in both directions and on-street parking is only permitted on the east side of the street. Public transit is also available nearby on Scribner and on Turner. It is somewhat of a walk to reach Turner but The Rapid would consider it to have excellent service. The applicant will be providing two electric vehicle charging stations and covered bicycle parking that likely wouldn’t be utilized by hotel guests but may accommodate employees. The applicant is also proposing shuttles. While the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t specifically mention a shuttle, it does allow reductions for van pooling spaces. Ms. Zeller suggested the shuttles could serve the same type of purpose. The applicant also mentioned in their submittal that most of the time guests tend to arrive in pairs and may occupy two separate rooms if they are business travelers, which is the target market. Ms. Zeller explained that using those elements, the Planning Commission could reduce the required amount of parking. Ms. Zeller related receipt of a letter from Wolverine Coil and Spring, located a couple of parcels to the south. They expressed concern that if there isn’t enough parking on site guests at the hotel may be tempted to park in their lot and guest vehicles would be towed because they operate on three shifts. A letter of support was submitted by the West Grand Neighborhood Association. Ms. Zeller explained that the applicant is also requesting approval for alcohol service. Hotel amenities include a restaurant, a rooftop patio, and a convenience store, all of which are intended for use by hotel guests. The restaurant will not be open to the general public. It will serve breakfast and dinner with beer and wine service available at dinner hours. The hotel store will also offer beer and wine for purchase. Justin Longstreth, Moore & Bruggink, was present on behalf of the applicant. He related that this is the same project that was before the Planning Commission in 2019. Following that approval they moved forward and received a LUDS permit and were prepared to break ground in February of 2020, when everything changed due to COVID. It has only been recently that the owner is ready to re-engage the project. The building and site layout are the same. The only difference in the request today is the sale and consumption of alcohol on site. That was an aspect that would likely have come before the Planning Commission previously. The reason it was separated is that they were trying to obtain the minimal amount of approvals that would allow them to begin construction at that time, which was the parking waiver. In discussions with staff regarding this request, it was determined best to present the entire request at one time. Ms. Joseph recalled from the minutes that there was a lot of discussion about the parking situation and what could be done to help ensure the businesses in the area aren’t impacted. She asked if they have explored shared parking agreements or considerations for valet parking. Ms. Joseph is pleased that they will be providing shuttle services. She asked if there will also be any incentives to discourage guests from driving and encouraging the shuttle use; what proactive measures are proposed to ensure the provided parking is sufficient. Mr. Longstreth believes that prior to the previous approval the owner did have some discussions about shared parking agreements, which may have coupled with the shuttle. He doesn’t know if those conversations have gone cold because of the amount of time that has passed. However, ride sharing is much more prevalent than it was in 2019, which is what they are looking to to off-set City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 March 23, 2023 some of the on-site parking needs. Mr. Longstreth doesn’t know if they have explored paid parking but they have explored the ride sharing, some of the other reductions, and the fairly close public transit. Ms. Shannon asked the number of employees that will be present during the day. Mr. Longstreth replied approximately 4-5 during any particular shift. Mr. Al-Shatel asked if they have any forecasting on anticipated occupancy. Mr. Longstreth replied similar to other hotel uses; 60-70% occupancy is considered full. Anything beyond that is a bonus. Mr. Al-Shatel noted that 60% of the 111 rooms equates to 70 occupied rooms. If guests share vehicles that would equate to approximately 40 cars. If staff is walking or riding bikes, that occupancy would fill the parking being provided. Mr. Al-Shatel expressed some concern with respect to parking. Mr. Jonker asked why the connection to the apartment parking lot. Mr. Longstreth replied that that was an agreement reached between this developer and the Grand View Place development. At the time that agreement was put into place he believes there was some uncertainty about whether there was going to be a connection from the hotel out to Front and whether or not all of the traffic for the hotel would have to come in through the Grand View Place site and then cycle through. Knowing the layout of the hotel now, with the single drive out, the connection to the south likely isn’t necessary but it isn’t anything that either of the owners have considered in terms of removing the existing easement that is in place. Mr. Jonker pointed out that if there is a parking deficit the odds increase that someone at the hotel would park in a residential parking space. Ms. Turkelson recalled that was a Planning Dept. issue when the residential development first came into play. At the time it seemed like there would be a lot of connection between how this parcel would expand and develop. She would agree that the connection may not make as much sense at this point. It may make more sense to forego that connection. Ms. Joseph added that by eliminating the connection it would allow for a few additional parking spaces on site. Ms. Turkelson asked the breakdown of anticipated guests at the hotel. The supplemental memo seems to imply that the hotel is traditionally used for business travelers. Mr. Longstreth suggested the business traveler occupancy would likely be more than 50%. The average stay for a guest at this hotel is anticipated to be between 3-5 days. Mr. Al-Shatel asked why the restaurant at the top wouldn’t be open to the public. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 March 23, 2023 Mr. Longstreth replied that it could be nice but he believes the concern with that is the impact on the parking if open to the public and people are driving from around the city,. He believes that the restaurant itself will be on the ground floor. There is a rooftop patio area but there won’t be any alcohol sales or food served there. It is just a location for hotel guests to be able to look out over the river. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. David Davis, resident of Grand View Place, related that Grand View Place is a low-income housing community and there are a lot of problems there already with alcohol being a big source of a lot of the problems. It isn’t unusual for the police to be at Grand View Place at least once daily. Mr. Davis doesn’t feel this is the proper location for this type of hotel and that eventually it could turn into a slum hotel. As a resident he feels he has a whole different insight than the Planning Commission has. It is a small area for a hotel. One acre makes it very limited. With respect to parking, from Wolverine Coil and Spring up to the subject property, there is limited parking during the day. That will limit street parking in that area. Mr. Davis recalled that the original request was for a 10-story building and now it is down to 5-stories but they could still have 100 guests resulting in a lot of cars. Mr. Davis doesn’t believe they can provide the necessary parking because there are other businesses in the area that utilize street parking as well. There is also semi traffic in and out of Wolverine Coil and Spring. Wolverine Coil and Spring expressed strong opposition to the previous request. Vos Glass also made a strong argument against this hotel. After this Commission approved the request, Vos Glass moved out to Kentwood. He doesn’t know what the new business will be in that location, or the number of employees, but they have been doing a lot of work inside. If they have a number of employees, that could result in parking problems for their employees also. It is approximately 4 blocks to the Dash Bus and you have to cross the Sixth St. bridge. The Dash Bus is an excellent source of transportation but he questions whether guests at the hotel would walk that distance. The transit available on Scribner is about 1 ½ blocks away and provides transportation to Standale. If they want to go downtown, they have to access public transit on Turner, which is approximately 4 blocks away and requires one to go through a tunnel under the expressway to get to Turner. When utilizing the tunnel, it is regularly littered with trash and garbage from vagrants that tend to seek shelter there. Mr. Davis related that they have also had problems with vagrants camping out on the subject site. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Mr. Longstreth addressed the public comment related to hotel guests and where they might travel. He suggested they would likely utilize Uber or Lyft services. Ms. Joseph clarified that the hotel will be providing free shuttle service to where ever guests need to go. Mr. Longstreth replied that he believes that is the case. Mr. Williams clarified further that basically the hotel will have its own Uber service. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 March 23, 2023 Mr. Longstreth replied essentially. It will be a shuttle, not an Uber. He believes that service will be available to guests for where ever they want to go. Ms. Turkelson recalled from the supplemental information that there will be two shuttles. One is a dedicated airport shuttle and the other is for local use and transportation that is available to the guests of the hotel. Mr. Van Strien noted that, with the existing condition next door, they have the parking lot built in such a way that there isn’t an existing pass between the two sites. He asked Mr. Longstreth if it is necessary to have that cross access between the two. Mr. Longstreth replied that it isn’t necessary. Ms. Joseph recalled that it was tricky when this was discussed in 2019. She believes there are methods to make it work. She doesn’t know that Route 7 is a compelling argument. She considered the Dash Bus also and recognized that it is a long and sometimes cold walk but it is a great service. If people are coming here for business purposes and need to get downtown, that is an easy way to do so. If the hotel wants to be successful, they will have to figure out the parking. She encouraged them to explore paid parking and valet service, to discourage people from renting a car, if parking is going to be an issue and to strongly advertise the availability of the shuttle service so guests know what is available to them. Ms. Joseph does believe it can work and she is generally supportive. Ms. Shannon related that this location isn’t too far from where she lives. There isn’t a lot of traffic and she would hope that development of the site would reduce the amount of vagrancy and misuse of this vacant site. She feels a hotel is a good use. This neighborhood is transitioning and they don’t want to lose any of the business in the area. This use will likely augment that. The idea of having shuttles helps her consider the reduction in parking. Ms. Joseph added that she works just south of Sixth St., on Front. MDOT is north of Leonard on Front so she travels this stretch often. She can confirm that there are big trucks that travel this area and the businesses are something to consider. There are parking restrictions to allow for the right turning movements for the semi’s, which is another reason she is comfortable with this. Ms. Joseph asked if everyone was in agreement that the connection to 936 Front should be removed from the plans. There was general agreement. Mr. Van Strien suggested that can increase the parking. He also noted that the residential development to the south is an island currently. A hotel, which is quasi-residential, will help enhance the residential vibrancy and active use in this area. Ms. Joseph added, with respect to the alcohol use and sales, her understanding is that both of those elements are for the hotel guests and not a store for the general public. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 March 23, 2023 Ms. Turkelson agreed that it is intended for hotel guests but because of the liquor license laws the State wouldn’t allow them to restrict alcohol sales to hotel guests. While it isn’t intended to be open to the public, technically it would be. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Stellar Hospitality Grand Rapids LLC (Jimmy Asmar) for Special Land Use approval of a reduction of on-site parking and the sale of alcohol for on- and off-site consumption in association with a new five-story, 111- guestroom hotel at 942 Front Avenue 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 allow for off-site parking to support a development in a manner that is consistent with the Master Plan and will meet the requirements for the requested parking waiver through the provision of on-street parking, transit, alternative vehicle parking, bicycle facilities and shuttle service. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the waiver will encourage quality development consistent with the goals of the Master Plan. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the facility lot will have adequate parking to meet the anticipated demand. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because there is a significant amount of on-street parking in the area, alternative transportation is available nearby, and transportation will be provided by the hotel. 5. The proposed uses 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 the proposed shuttle service will reduce the amount of traffic to and from the site. 6. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, it is demonstrated that the proposed location for alcohol sales will demonstrably be an asset to the neighborhood because, as proposed, the use will be unique as compared to existing uses in the neighborhood and alcohol sales will be limited in nature and ancillary to the hotel use. 7. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions. 8. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the sale and service of alcohol consumption is intended as an amenity for hotel guests and not for the general public. 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 City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 March 23, 2023 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 other than the waiver of parking as described in the application and the proposed height bonus, the building and site shall meet the requirements of the Zone District. 3. That plans for the building and LUDS permits shall identify the bonus provision to be used to facilitate an additional building story and identify all elements of the bonus structure that will be provided. 4. That the connection to the parking lot at 936 Front Ave. NW be removed from the plans and supplemented with additional on-site parking and the landscape plan shall be amended to increase greenspace in that location, including trees. SUPPORTED by Mr. Al-Shatel. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Paul Rozeboom, Adrienne Wallace F. 433 Leonard St NW - Excess Parking Address: 433 Leonard St. NW Applicant: Thrice D LLC (Dan DeVries) Requesting: Approval to exceed the required number of parking spaces by more than 20% in a surface parking lot to be associated with a new retail building Zoning: TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhoods - Traditional Business Area Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.10.03. Off-Street Parking Design Requirements 5.10.04.D. Off-Street Parking: Space Requirements Maximum Parking 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0010 City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 March 23, 2023 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: April 8, 2023 Ms. Zeller explained that the applicant intends to demolish the former Lanning’s restaurant and construct a new building to house DeVries Jewelers. Although the retail use is permitted, the proposed amount of parking exceeds the Zoning Ordinance requirements by more than 20%, which requires Special Land Use approval. The site is currently mostly paved. However, it will be a wholesale redevelopment of the site and, when sites are redeveloped, they are supposed to meet current Zoning requirements. Ms. Zeller related that the subject property is located in the area addressed in the 2015 WestSide Area Specific Plan. As part of the WestSide Plan, a parking hold line was established. Within that area it is acknowledged that parking may be needed to support the existing and proposed businesses in the business district. The proposed parking lot is within the parking hold line. If the Planning Commission concurs with developing parking there, it would comport with the recommendations of the Plan. Ms. Zeller indicated that the site is approximately 30,000 sq. ft. The building is currently at the corner of Leonard and Broadway. A beautiful new two-story building is being proposed. For the amount of retail space proposed, 15 parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing 59 parking spaces. The way the parking lot has been designed is that there would be approximately 21 parking spaces closest to the jewelry store. The remainder of the parking is somewhat separated. That additional parking is intended to support other businesses in the neighborhood. According to the application, as well as a letter of support that explains the rationale for the request, the parking is intended to support a new business in the neighborhood; an architectural firm that is intending to locate in the three story building across the street where the Shade Shop is located. The Shade Shop will remain and Pure Architects is proposing to occupy the second floor and eventually the third floor. The parking lot on that site has four tight parking spaces and, per the application and letter of support, additional parking is needed. They intend on leasing parking from the applicant to support their use. Additionally, just to the south of the current Shade Shop property is a banquet hall. The banquet hall received Board of Zoning Appeals approval to locate there. They are finding that they need additional parking. They have already been leasing parking on the Lanning’s site and wish to continue to do so. Ms. Zeller pointed out that there is a public parking lot to the east. Brann’s Restaurant has their own parking lot and to the north of that is a City parking lot with approximately 50 spaces. Ms. Zeller referred to the site plan relating that the applicant has worked with staff on different changes to the plan. The desire was to have as few curb cuts on Broadway as possible. It has been limited to two curb cuts on Broadway and three curb cuts on the alley. There is circulation within the northerly parking lot. A landscape buffer of 10 ft. is required and a landscape buffer of 7.5-8 ft. is proposed. There is an existing solid wood fence on the subject property. Ms. Zeller related that she discussed increasing the buffer with the applicant’s designer. However, if the buffer is widened, an existing utility pole would be within the egress lane. If the Planning Commission finds that the wider buffer is necessary, the egress could be closed off and additional parking spaces removed to facilitate interior circulation but the number of parking City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 March 23, 2023 spaces would be reduced. As shown, the plan doesn’t fully meet the landscaping requirements. At permitting, staff would anticipate receiving a plan that meets all the requirements. Ms. Zeller related receipt of a letter of support from the West Grand Neighborhood Association, which was received after the packet was already published. James Lewis, architect, and David DeVries were present on behalf of the request. Mr. Lewis related that they have been working on the redevelopment of the Lanning’s site for a number of years and have gone through a number of iterations of what could go here, including residential. DeVries Jewelers has been an institution on Leonard St. since 1901 and have been in their current location since 1965. They are now looking to develop a new store and continue the legacy of the business on the street. DeVries is excited to build their new store. They have owned the subject site for approximately 15 years. They are trying to get the retail space built, occupied, and running while preserving the ability to potentially redevelop the back half of the site at some point in the future. During this process Pure Architects approached them. They were interested in buying the Shade Shop building and there is no real parking on that site. Because they have the space for the excess parking it seems like a good fit for both operations. As noted, the Broadway Avenue events center is already leasing space on this site and it remains necessary for their business to continue to have access to parking in the neighborhood. Mr. Lewis explained that one idea they have been considering since the application was submitted is moving the parking just a bit closer to the existing fence. It is currently proposed at 7.9 ft. away and the power pole is very close to the drive aisle. They are thinking it may be better to have a bit more buffer for a car making that corner. They would like to request that the landscape buffer be reduced to 5 ft. If not, he believes they can seek an administrative departure later. They would make up the green space in the center landscape aisle between the northern and southern parking lots. With respect to the City owned parking lot, Mr. Lewis stated that there is some discrepancy, based on his understanding of who owns what. His understanding is that the Brann’s lot is the northern lot and the City lot is the southern lot. The City lot has 36 parking spaces and Mr. Brann doesn’t wish to lease anyone his parking spaces. Ms. Shannon asked if the alley is one- or two-way. Mr. Lewis replied it is two-way. Ms. Shannon asked if it would be more efficient to have all of the parking access from Broadway vs. the alley. Mr. Lewis replied that one of the proposals was to have three curb cuts on Broadway and the Planning Department felt it would be better to have only two. They wanted to be able to circulate in the northern most parking bay back through the alley. Ms. Zeller clarified that ideally all turning movements should occur on the subject site. It would not be desirable to have vehicles going out onto Broadway and turning back into the site. Basically, that movement is being allowed in the alley. Ideally, there would be one curb cut to the alley and one to Broadway. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 March 23, 2023 Ms. Shannon recalled that they had considered residential above the retail space. This seems like a lot of site for just a two-story building. She asked why they decided against it. Mr. Lewis replied internal family politics. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Turkelson wished to discuss the applicant’s request to further reduce the landscape buffer at the north. She recalled from the Area Specific Plan discussion and creation of the parking hold line that those buffer areas were important to maintain because it provides the separation between a parking lot and the adjacent residential. At the time that the parking lot on the other side of Broadway was considered, which necessitated the demolition of an existing structure, the Planning Commission had robust discussion about the need for that additional landscape buffer. She would be hesitant to state that they would support a decrease in the buffer zone to the north. Additionally, limiting the access points on Broadway is important because the Bike Action Plan has Broadway as a bike community route. Ms. Shannon stated that she is very pleased that DeVries Jewelers is staying on Leonard St. She is also very pleased with the design. To finally see this site redeveloped will be an asset to the community. Ms. Shannon stated that she would be reluctant to decrease the landscape buffer any further. She was disappointed not to have seen a landscaping plan in the packet. Ms. Turkelson explained that the Ordinance has fairly specific criteria for what is required for a landscape plan. At this stage in the development, staff has typically deferred that review to the Plan Reviewer knowing that the Ordinance is fairly specific as to the types and amount of plantings required. It goes back to trying to have the Planning Commission stay focused on whether the use is appropriate. Mr. Van Strien commented on the curb cuts. If there are going to be curb cuts he feels they are more appropriate in the alley vs. Broadway for the reasons staff mentioned but also because most pedestrian traffic will occur on the street/sidewalk and not in the alley. He feels it is more important to limit car movements along the street than the alley where you are accustomed to having a garage driveway or other driveways every 50 ft. or so along the alley. Mr. Van Strien agreed that it is a great design and he is happy the building is getting flipped so the parking is masked behind the space. The City owned lot has unlimited curb cuts; two onto Turner and no curb at all into the alley so cars can do what they want. He feels what is proposed is better. He is in support. Ms. Joseph agreed with the comments offered. She feels the argument for supporting other businesses with the excess parking is compelling and will help ensure employees aren’t taking up the on-street parking that residents of the neighborhood use. Ms. Turkelson also finds it helpful that they aren’t losing any existing structures. Many of the conversations they’ve had about increasing parking on the south side of Leonard have been very challenging because it resulted in the loss of structures. There has been a lot of conversation about accommodating the need for parking, especially for businesses on the south side, that City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 March 23, 2023 didn’t jeopardize existing structures. This accommodates that nicely because it is currently a paved surface. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Thrice D LLC (Dan DeVries) for Special Land Use approval to exceed the required number of parking spaces by more than 20% in a surface parking lot associated with a new retail building, at 433 Leonard St. 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 parking expansion supports the purpose and intent of the TN-TBA Zone District to accommodate vehicles at an appropriate level, while still emphasizing the importance of pedestrians and public transportation in the built environment and the proposed parking lot will be located within the parking hold line as established by the WestSide Area Specific Plan. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the parking lot will be designed to meet all standards. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood and adjacent properties because adequate parking to meet the proposed parking demand will be provided and a parking lot currently exists in this location. Additionally, the proposed parking will support the needs of other properties within the district that are further constrained by the development patterns and the proposal does not result in the loss of existing structures. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through adequate parking lot screening and landscaping. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses because the proposed parking lot expansion is not anticipated to result in excessive noise, glare, or visual clutter. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because appropriate site improvements will be provided to facilitate safe and efficient pedestrian circulation and the proposed parking lot screening will help re-establish the street wall. 7. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the City because any new infrastructure will be provided at the cost of the applicant. 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. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 March 23, 2023 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 green site elements (green space and tree canopy) and parking lot landscape requirements (screening, buffering, and interior landscaping) shall be provided consistent with the standards of Article 6 and Article 11. 3. That the width of the landscape buffer along the north property line may be permitted as shown on the submitted plan. SUPPORTED by Mr. Jonker. Ms. Turkelson suggested for point 3 that Ms. Joseph add points about how the proposed parking will support the needs of other properties within the district that are further constrained by the development patterns. Additionally, how the proposal does not result in the loss of existing structures. Ms. Joseph AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THOSE POINTS. SUPPORTED by Mr. Jonker. The question was called. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Aaron Jonker, Board Member YEAS: Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Paul Rozeboom, Adrienne Wallace IV. Planning Commission Discussion Ms. Shannon suggested inviting general public comment at the beginning of the agenda vs. at the end. Assistant City Attorney M. Hoeker indicated he would look into that option for the Planning Commission. V. Public Comment None. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 March 23, 2023 VI. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 3:12 PM