TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 May 11, 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 Vice Chairperson Paul Rozeboom PRESENT: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Van Strien STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Laura Wahamaki, Sarah Behmlander, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from April 27, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kyle Van Strien, Susan Shannon C. Planning Director's Report  Agenda items were briefly reviewed.  Ms. Turkelson related that the next round of the Master Plan community engagement will begin next week. The Neighborhood Summit will be held on 5/20/23 with basically identical sessions as offered at the 5/18 meeting.  Ms. Turkelson related that she has put forth the Planning Commission’s request for a joint meeting with the City Commission for a housing policy discussion. City Commissioners have also expressed that it would be good to make sure they’re aligned.  The 2nd meeting in May will be a short agenda with two important Ordinance amendments for the Planning Commission’s review; the Grand River Overlay and Downtown Height Overlay Districts and an amendment to the Billboard Exchange Program. III. Planning Commission Discussion beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Conflict of Interest Mr. Jonker recalled that he previously expressed a potential conflict of interest related to the Godfrey agenda item. He suggested he do the same today. Generated 5/16/2023 8:42 AM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 May 11, 2023 Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Ms. Bersche, finding that Mr. Jonker has a potential conflict of interest related to the Godfrey agenda item. Motion carried unanimously. (Note: Ms. Shannon was not yet present) B. 34 N. Division Ave. (a.k.a. 30 N. Division Ave.) - Multimedia Sign Address: 34 N. Division Ave. (a.k.a. 30 N. Division Ave.) Applicant: Grand Rapids Civic Theater (Bruce Tinker) Requesting: Approval of a +/-59 sq. ft. multi-media sign as part of the marquee sign located on the northwest building façade facing N. Division Ave. and Library St. NE. Zoning: TN-CC (Traditional Neighborhood- City Center) Requirements: 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use 5.15.10. Changeable Copy Sign 5.15.12. Multi-Media Advertising Signs Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0032 Staff Assigned: Sarah Behmlander sbehmlander@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: May 27, 2023 Ms. Behmlander introduced the request of the Civic Theater for a multi-media sign to be installed on an existing marquee. The property is within the City Center Zone District. It is adjacent to a parking lot, mixed-uses, and a residential condominium association is kitty corner from the site. Ms. Behmlander identified the parcels owned by the Civic Theater. When staff began conversations with them it was suggested that they combine the parcels. Ms. Behmlander doesn’t feel that is imperative for the consideration today but it is something for them to consider in the future. Ms. Behmlander identified the location of the existing signage at the corner of Division and Library. Part of the marquee has an electronic message center portion. They would like to make the entire sign panel facing Library St. a multi-media sign. There would be no changes to the projecting sign. Minor face changes are proposed on the other elevations of the marquee. Ms. Behmlander explained the difference between an electronic message center and a multi- media sign. Multi-media signs have an increased intensity in the graphics on the screen. However, it is regulated under the same requirements as any other electronic sign, which includes a limit on brightness levels, when it can be fully active, when it needs to be dimmed, and there are certain manufacturing specifications that will be required. Ms. Behmlander related receipt of a letter from an adjacent condominium, the Fitzgerald building on Library. They were initially opposed to the proposed sign. Ms. Behmlander’s understanding is there have been some issues with glare in the past. Ms. Behmlander offered to reach out to the condo association and explain the enforcement process and sign requirements that are in place. She deferred to the applicant to speak to any mitigation they plan to do. Ms. Joseph asked if the graphic is comparing the existing sign to the proposed sign in terms of size. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 May 11, 2023 Ms. Behmlander clarified that they would be taking out the old face and installing the multi- media sign. Kevin Carlson, Valley City Sign, related that a small portion of the project is to update the subject sign face with new technology. They will be removing the existing static message and replacing it with a longer dynamic message center. Rather than having what is basically a 50/50 split, the entire north face will be one message center. It would be an additional 29 sq. ft., which remains under the 50% they are permitted. The total will be 59 sq. ft. and they would be permitted 86 sq. ft. The theater will utilize the message center to display their events, school classes, etc., which is no change from what was previously done on the existing message center. It is simply newer technology and a cleaner look. Mr. Carlson explained that all of their signs will be updated, refreshed and painted. He doesn’t anticipate any additional impact on the community. The message center is capable of auto-dimming. They can program to auto-dim at night and shut off at midnight. Mr. Carlson feels they can address any issues with the neighbors. If it is too bright they can dial the color down. All of the sign square footages are staying the same. Mr. Rozeboom asked the intended hours of operation for the sign. Nadia Skidmore, Civic Theater, replied that their intent would be to have the sign on during business hours as well as into the evening on show nights and when there are special events. They also have what they call “dark days” at the theater when there are no performances and they would not have the sign operating in the evening. Typically, their programming is over by 11 p.m. with the last guest leaving the building at approximately 11:30 p.m. Performances are generally Wednesday through Saturday beginning at 7:30 and also on Sunday afternoon. Mr. Rozeboom invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Joseph indicated that she is comfortable with the request especially since the total signage square footage isn’t increasing. It will be a nice update of the signage. She appreciates their intent to adhere to the Ordinance so that the sign isn’t operating between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. and that they will also have dark days. Ms. Joseph offered her support. Ms. Turkelson explained that from an enforcement perspective it would be difficult to monitor or tie an approval to the dark days. While that may be their intent, and appreciated, it wouldn’t be feasible to enforce. Ms. Turkelson would prefer that the Planning Commission consider the hours of operation. Ms. Behmlander added that the zoning of the subject property and the residential property is City Center. The sign ordinance states that if you are adjacent to a residential zone district you adhere to the 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. off hours. Ms. Behmlander feels it would be within the Planning Commission’s purview to impose that condition even though it isn’t within or adjacent to a residential zone district. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Grand Rapids Civic Theatre (Bruce Tinker) to install City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 May 11, 2023 a +/-59 sq. ft. electronic multi-media sign on the north side of the existing marquee sign at the northwest building corner of 30 N. Division Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed sign will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the City Center Zone District is intended to promote entertainment and artistic and cultural uses. 2. The proposed sign will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed sign will reinforce and support a diverse range of uses in the City Center Zone District; the proposed sign will be scaled, sited and architecturally designed in a manner consistent with the character and development within the area; and the proposed sign will increase pedestrian interest and promote walkability. 3. The proposed sign will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because the sign will be appropriately oriented on the site and the sign will be operated in accordance with display regulations that protect the affected neighborhood. 4. The proposed sign will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive glare or visual clutter because the proposed electronic sign will not operate at a brightness level greater than the manufacturer’s recommended levels and the proposed sign will comply with the light levels and display regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The proposed sign will safeguard the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public because sign placement will not interfere with pedestrian travel and vehicular movements. 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 5 May 11, 2023 2. That the proposed sign will comply with all operational requirements of Section 5.15.10. Changeable Copy signs and the Electronic Center Requirements Agreement, including display regulations, light levels, and permitting requirements. 3. That this approval shall have immediate effect. 4. The sign shall discontinue display between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Ms. Shannon was not yet present) RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kyle Van Strien, Susan Shannon C. 655, 835 & 943 Godfrey Ave SW; 700 Martin Luther King Jr SW; 620, 640 & 644 Chestnut St SW - Self-Storage Facility, Food Hall, Bar and Event Space Address: 655, 835 & 943 Godfrey Ave SW; 620, 640, & 644 Chestnut St SW, and 700 Martin Luther King Jr St SW Applicant: 655 Godfrey, LLC (Benjamin Smith) Requesting: Approval for uses associated with a proposed mixed-use development, including a food hall with alcohol service, live entertainment, outdoor seating, and a banquet facility; a restaurant/bar with outdoor seating, potentially associated with a distillery or brewery; programming on an outdoor plaza; and a self-storage facility Zoning: TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood—Transitional City Center) Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales 5.9.07. Auditorium, Theatre and Banquet Hall 5.9.12. Live Entertainment 5.9.22. Outdoor Activities 5.9.24. Outdoor Seating 5.9.31. Self-Storage Facilities 5.10.05. Reductions in Parking Requirements 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0028 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: May 27, 2023 Mr. Jonker recused himself and left the meeting room. Ms. Zeller explained that the subject site is occupied by multiple buildings. It is a former industrial site that is proposed for redevelopment. The redevelopment is proposed as a mixed-use City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 May 11, 2023 development called Factory Yards. The redevelopment will include renovation of a vacant, historic warehouse into apartments, approximately 65,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, a ½ acre public plaza, a food hall and event space, a restaurant/bar/distillery/micro-brewery, a self-storage facility, and a parking deck. A number of the uses are permitted by right; the commercial uses, residential units, and site elements such as parking lot landscaping. Certain elements of the proposal require Special Land Use approval: the food hall and banquet facility because of alcohol service, live entertainment and outdoor seating; the restaurant/brewery/distillery for the alcohol service and outdoor seating; programming on the outdoor plaza; and, the self-storage facility. Ms. Zeller recalled that the long north/south parcels, former railroad right-of-ways, recently came before the Planning Commission for consideration of rezoning. All of those parcels will be combined into one property. Ms. Zeller utilized the applicant’s video presentation to further explain the project. She identified a mixed-use building, self-storage facility, a fitness center, and a new multi-family building. The multi-family building is not under consideration today. Uses in the other buildings are under consideration. Images of the proposed outdoor plaza and arcade/walkway that will provide access to the restaurant/bar at the back were displayed. With respect to the Special Land Use, that consideration will involve the food hall, the Boiler House, and the factory storehouse, which is the self-storage. The food hall will be located along Godfrey. The food hall and banquet space will be approximately 22,000 sq. ft. in area, approximately 11 vendors, an anchor tenant, a full- service bar, a game room, and a stage. Outdoor seating is proposed in the areas shown in green and blue on the site plan. The area shown in blue will be a fenced in area for the outdoor patio. Ms. Zeller asked the applicant to address the area just outside the banquet room. She believes there is a desire for people to be able to walk outside with their beverages. The area on the north side of the building, next to the banquet facility, may also have alcohol. The food hall is proposed to operate until 11 p.m. Sunday - Wednesday and midnight from Thursday - Saturday. Outdoor hours of operation are proposed to cease at 11 p.m., seven days a week. In addition to the food vendors, the applicant intends to have special events in the food hall such as yoga, trivia nights, and limited live music. Live entertainment is intended to be accessory to the primary food hall use. There is a stage located between the event space and the food hall. The way it is designed is that it can be used for the event space or the food hall. There will be a single alcohol vendor in the food hall, which will also provide alcohol for the banquet hall use. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan and a draft rental agreement for the event space. Ms. Zeller related that the event space is approximately 2,500 sq. ft. in area and can accommodate approximately 200 guests. It will be managed by the food hall operator. The applicant indicated that there will be an overhead door for access to the outdoors but the door will be closed when there is live entertainment. The total occupancy between the banquet facility and food hall is approximately 700. Associated with the use is a proposed outdoor plaza of approximately ½ acre in area. The applicant is proposing a range of programming. The applicant included an attachment of the kinds of programming they are envisioning. The food hall and banquet hall operator will manage and program the outdoor plaza space. There will be someone on site during all events in the outdoor plaza or banquet hall. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 May 11, 2023 Ms. Zeller related that the former boiler house is approximately 3,300 sq. ft. in area and is proposed for use as a restaurant, bar, or microbrewery/distillery use. The estimated capacity is 119 guests. Proposed indoor hours of operation are Sunday-Thursday 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Proposed outdoor hours of operation are until 10 p.m. daily. Ms. Zeller noted that the boiler house is at the back of the building. The arcade/walkway will guide pedestrians to this location. Ms. Zeller expanded on the proposed self-storage use, which is approximately 40,000 sq. ft. in area and will occupy a portion of the former industrial building. The remainder of the building is anticipated to become a fitness/recreational use, which does not require Special Land Use consideration. The self-storage is contained within the building, which is required in the TCC Zone District. It is proposed to have key code access at three different points. There is an office with hours of 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday-Friday, and 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturday. An additional 10,000 sq. ft. of storage facility will be located within the historic five-story building. Use of the space is intended for residents of the building. Since the plans submitted are conceptual, the elevations are unknown. They are showing some windows on the office portion. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the office portion of the self-storage facility meet the transparency requirements of the TN-TCC Zone District. Ms. Shannon entered the meeting. Ms. Zeller commented on parking. Six parking spaces are proposed for those that need to access their storage units. In addition, there are three dock spaces; one at grade, one deck height, and one dock height. Based on the square footage of the self-storage facility, 50 parking spaces are required. However, it should be noted that the parking requirement is based on the drive-in type facilities where you park in front of your storage unit. The parking requirements don’t really fit the proposed indoor self-storage facility. The applicant is anticipating a need for six space plus the three loading spaces. Ms. Zeller also pointed out that approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of the facility is intended to serve residents and other commercial users of the development, which would decrease the demand for parking. Ms. Zeller clarified that the requested parking reduction relates only to the self-storage building. The development, as a whole, is proposed to have over 700 parking spaces. Staff will be able to address the parking requirement administratively for the food hall, banquet hall, restaurant, commercial uses, office uses and residential. Ms. Joseph recalled that the staff report mentioned the traffic impact analysis and specific recommendations related to pedestrian crossings. It said they would be implemented but it didn’t specify if that is already part of the applicant’s plan. Ms. Zeller explained that this is a larger development that will need some additional staff review. As part of that review, those things will be required. Mr. Al-Shatel asked if there have been any studies on the number of self-storage units needed. Over the last few meetings, the Planning Commission has reviewed several. Ms. Zeller wasn’t aware of any studies. She suggested the applicant may be able to address that. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 May 11, 2023 Mr. Rozeboom noted that the property to the west is an industrial use. There is green space shown on the edge of the proposed parking lot. He asked if the screening obligation is on this applicant to ensure they are screening whatever they don’t want to see of the industrial use. The concern would be that responsibility not be placed on the industrial user. Ms. Zeller replied that the developer of this project would not be required to put in screening along that edge. She deferred to the applicant to discuss what they intend. Ms. Zeller felt his question was similar to the discussion they had with the rezoning of the former railroad right-of- way. There could be impacts from the industrial users but the industrial users are in an industrial zone district and, as long as they are operating as approved, they may continue to operate. Ms. Turkelson added that the industrial operator would not be burdened with any requirements as a result of this development moving forward. Buffering and screening will all be part of the requirements of this applicant. They are still in more of a concept phase so they haven’t gone through all of the zoning requirements to determine if they have been met with the concept plan presented today. There is some screening required and it will be the responsibility of this applicant. Ms. Zeller related that she doesn’t know the number of storage units proposed. She deferred to the applicant to provide that information. Scott Magaluk, a member of the development team, responded to the question regarding demand for self-storage. He explained that they had a market study done prior to proposing this concept and there was significant demand in the neighborhood, especially given that they are expecting approximately 700 residents in the building. Additionally, Oxford Lofts recently opened down the street and it has 171 units. Mr. Magaluk commented on the plaza space, green space and how it interacts with the food hall and the concept they are proposing. Mr. Maguluk displayed an image of what it will look like on a typical day. The main drop off point is anticipated to have 5- 10 minute parking where an Uber driver will drop someone off or a DoorDash person would come and drop off food to the residential lobbies adjacent to the plaza. Another image was displayed depicting a winter carnival scene. They imagine once a quarter, or depending on the food hall programming, being able to close off the plaza for full programming of the site. An event may be a summer movie night, winter carnival, or spring flower day. They don’t expect that to be every weekend. The bulk of the programming will take place inside of the food hall or in the green space. The plaza will connect to the arcade space that goes through an existing building that will open up and go back to the Boiler House. The Boiler House was the original heat source for the building when it was constructed in the early 1900’s. It is rather unique with 20’ ceilings. It is a large open building and they are trying to retain as much of the character of the structure as possible. There is a courtyard at the back that is tucked away creating a secret garden feel that they are hoping to tie into that space. Mr. Magaluk commented further on the food hall use. The intended use is a hyper-local concept. They would be looking for local food entrepreneurs to operate individual vendor stalls. There might be a taco concept, pizza concept, etc. There will be a single bar vendor that will serve alcohol for the food hall space as well as the event space. They are hoping to program that with a Friday night acoustic band or a yoga night to drive traffic to the food hall, get people excited, and be an amenity for the residents of the building as well. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 May 11, 2023 Mr. Magaluk provided additional information on the alcohol use. He identified the location of overhead doors. The blue area is what they intend to be a fenced outdoor space that would allow alcohol use in that location. The remainder of the outdoor space will be outdoor seating. On the plan, the banquet space has a roll up door and they are imagining that could be roped off or cordoned off during a cocktail hour where patrons could go indoors or outdoors. Once live entertainment starts, they would bring everyone inside so it isn’t disturbing any neighbors. The event space is 2,492 sq. ft. and they imagine events being bridal showers, corporate events, etc. that wouldn’t be a long, all day, large crowd event. Mr. Rozeboom asked about the parking study they’ve done that determined they need six spaces for the storage facility. Mr. Magaluk related that they looked at comparable storage facilities in the area. He identified the access points that will be code access. They anticipate that someone will drive up and the green parking spaces would be where someone would park to drop off a single box, not a move in or move out space. The move in or move out spaces would be those identified in blue and gray dock locations. From a parking perspective they looked at comparable sites and they are relatively limited in parking for the quick drop off events. Mr. Rozeboom asked if they would intend to expand the storage facility if the gym/fitness portion of the development didn’t work out. Mr. Magaluk replied that that section of the building is approximately 20’ high. They are trying to find a gym or fitness user because it is a unique space that could accommodate a use such as rock climbing, basketball court etc. If those don’t work out they would look at potentially expanding the self-storage but they understand they would need to come back to the Planning Commission for that consideration. Mr. Rozeboom asked if they have any concerns about there being an active industrial use adjacent. Mr. Magaluk replied that they are currently engaging landscape architects. They don’t have a finalized landscape plan. There is green screening along that section of the building now. They do plan to provide appropriate screening along the industrial use. They recognize that their residents will want screening and they will do something that is appropriate. Ms. Joseph stated that she understands the concept of having live music inside. She asked if they plan to have amplified sound or performances in the plaza or the outdoor spaces. Mr. Magaluk replied that if they did it would likely be during one of the infrequent/quarterly events. They understand they would have to seek approvals for an outdoor event in that space. Mr. Magaluk responded to Dr. Wallace further explaining the outdoor areas. The area shown in blue will be fenced to keep the alcohol in a contained area. The bar space with the outdoor door would lead to that area. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 May 11, 2023 Ms. Turkelson added that the LCC also has requirements. It has to be a defined area but not necessarily a fence. It may be a rope or planters or something else to delineate the space. Mr. Magaluk added that they will work with their landscape architect to design something that is attractive and enhances the site. Mr. Rozeboom asked what neighborhood outreach they’ve engaged in. Mr. Magaluk replied that they’ve done quite a bit of outreach. They’ve been working with the Hispanic Center, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Roosevelt Park Neighborhood, and Habitat for Humanity. They’ve tried to keep everyone informed as they’ve been moving along. They’ve had the most engagement with the neighborhood association. Mr. Rozeboom opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Grant Bowhuis, Beacon Recyling, related that his business is next door to the subject site. One thing that concerns him is Chestnut St. in general. There are hundreds of trucks up and down the street. The proposed development has 700 parking spaces and if the main access is onto Chestnut that is a disaster waiting to happen. It is a dead end road and Mr. Bowhuis feels that should be considered. Noise can obviously be mitigated but he definitely has huge concerns with Chestnut and the subject development. Mr. Rozeboom closed the public hearing. Mr. Magaluk identified the drive off Chestnut. There will also be a drive off of Godfrey. A lot of the retail patrons and self-storage component will park off of Godfrey, as will the future new residential building. The Chestnut curb cut is an existing access. They would love to work with the neighbors. They want to ensure the site is safe for everyone on the street. Ms. Turkelson noted that Mobile GR provided a traffic impact analysis. She isn’t sure if a concern came up about one of the primary drives being on Chestnut, but she can follow up with Mobile GR to learn whether they have any concerns with the proposed layout. It will likely be a situation where there is a mix of traffic and the future tenants of the proposed development will have to be cognizant of all users in the area, as they would anywhere else. The site plan hasn’t been finalized with all of the pertinent review. Conceptually, it appears to meet all of the requirements but hasn’t gone through the final permitting stage. Mr. Rozeboom added that it isn’t unusual for the City to reassess traffic patterns after a development like this happens. Ms. Turkelson clarified that they would typically try to anticipate whether any changes are required. Most changes that would occur post development would be related to signalization and timing of signals. Once permits/approvals are given, the City wouldn’t go back and tell them to remove the curb cut. Something egregious would have to be at issue for that to happen. Ms. Shannon asked if the major road to this area is Wealthy. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 May 11, 2023 Mr. Magaluk clarified that the major roads are Market and Godfrey. Mr. Rozeboom recalled that the packet included a site plan for the property across Chestnut. Mr. Magaluk clarified that that site plan is being finalized now. They aren’t seeking any approvals on that at this point. Ms. Joseph asked how many storage units there would be. Mr. Magaluk replied that it is currently programmed at 419. Ms. Zeller mentioned that in the first floor of the five-story, on the west side of the building, it will be geared more toward smaller units, 5 x 5 or 5 x 10, for the residential tenants. Ms. Joseph feels the project is very exciting. The mix of uses has a lot of potential to make this site activated and vibrant. She is comfortable with the alcohol uses and the hours they are proposing are consistent with other locations in the city and shouldn’t have negative impacts on nearby residential. She is also comfortable with the parking waiver for the self-storage. In looking at the site plan there is a significant amount of parking. She understands there will be a lot of residents there. Perhaps in the future they can get by with even less parking if people are using transit and other modes of transportation. Ms. Joseph is also comfortable with the self- storage. It is completely contained in the building and seems to make sense with the number of residents that will be there. Dr. Wallace expressed that her concerns have been alleviated. There is a lot of self-storage in the market. She recently read that if every person in the US stood in a self-storage unit there would be plenty of self-storage units still left. Dr. Wallace is comfortable with the parking waiver and trusts that the plan will work out. Ms. Shannon feels it is complementary to the park across the street. She hopes there is enough parking for the park and this area. The proposed project adds to the neighborhood immensely. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of 655 Godfrey, LLC (Ben Smith) for uses associated with a proposed mixed-use development, including a food hall with alcohol service, live entertainment, outdoor seating, and a banquet facility; a restaurant/bar with outdoor seating; programming on an outdoor plaza; and a self-storage facility with a parking waiver, at 655, 835 & 943 Godfrey Ave SW; 700 Martin Luther King Jr SW; 620, 640 & 644 Chestnut St 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 Master Plan recommends the adaptive reuse of existing historic, multi-story, industrial buildings for a mix of uses and the 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 site elements are designed to promote safe and efficient movement within the site and at its access points and all elements of the site design are harmoniously and City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 May 11, 2023 efficiently organized in relation to the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property, and the type, size, and proportions of buildings. 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 range of proposed complementary uses will support the planned character of the district and, as additional residential units are being constructed in the vicinity, there could be a need for the self-storage use. 4. The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because the proposed self-storage use will occur in an existing, completely enclosed building located at the rear of the site; the hours of operation of the alcohol uses will cease by midnight, and, the outdoor plaza and most of the outdoor uses will occur along the street. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter because the use is located on a major street; the property is already improved with existing buildings; and the uses are anticipated to be patronized by residents of the development. 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 food hall, banquet, restaurant/bar, and outdoor plaza uses will activate the street. 7. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the proposed uses will provide new investment in the area and will bring an underutilized property back into productive use. 8. 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. 9. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the proposed hours of operation are reasonable relative to the proximity of the proposed residential uses. 10. The uses as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions and the use may encourage other investment in the area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 May 11, 2023 iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. That the hours of operation of the food hall and banquet facility shall be: a) Indoor:  Sunday-Wednesday, 7:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.  Thursday-Saturday, 7:00 a.m. - 12:00 a.m. b) Outdoor:  Sunday-Thursday, 11:00 a.m. - 11:00 10:00 p.m.  Friday-Saturday, 11:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m. 3. That events in the outdoor plaza shall cease by 10:00 p.m., Sunday- Wednesday, and 11:00 p.m. Thursday-Saturday. 4. That the hours of operation for the proposed restaurant or bar or microbrewery/distillery use in the former boiler house shall be: a) Indoor:  Sunday-Thursday, 11:00 7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. midnight.  Friday-Saturday,11:00 7:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m. midnight. b) Outdoor: Until 10 p.m. daily. 5. That the following conditions shall apply to the self-storage facility: a) That no commercial enterprise or activity shall be operated from the storage units. b) That no storage of combustible or flammable liquids or fibers, or explosive or toxic materials shall be permitted. c) That the office portion of the self-storage facility shall meet the transparency requirements for the TN-TCC Zone District. d) That the building and site shall meet the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 175- Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Ordinance. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. Ms. Turkelson suggested that the indoor hours for the restaurant/bar were likely listed as 11 a.m. based on the application. However, she suggested offering them some flexibility should they desire to serve breakfast. Additional discussion took place on hours of operation and Ms. Joseph offered several amendments. Supported by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Mr. Jonker recused himself on this item) Following the 2400 43rd St SE agenda item, Ms. Joseph wished to amend the motion further: That the indoor hours of operation for the proposed restaurant or bar or City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 May 11, 2023 microbrewery/distillery use in the former boiler house be until midnight daily. Supported by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [7 TO 0] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel ABSENT: Kyle Van Strien RECUSED: Aaron Jonker E. 2400 43rd St. SE - Natural Features Setback Reduction Address: 2400 43rd St. SE Applicant: Woda Cooper Companies, Inc. (Alex Keller) Requesting: Approval to reduce the required 75’ wetland setback to 25’ to facilitate the construction of two multiple-family affordable housing developments. Zoning: MON-C Modern Era Neighborhood– Commercial Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.11.06. Natural Features 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0034 Staff Assigned: Laura Wahamaki lwahamaki@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: May 27, 2023 Ms. Zeller presented the request for a reduction to the natural features setback. Ms. Zeller recalled that on January 28, 2021, The Planning Commission granted Special Land Use approval for the Breton Grove Apartments, which was to be developed in the northeast portion of the site. The Ordinance has changed some since then. At that time they requested approval for ground floor residential in the MON-C Zone District and ground floor residential is now allowed. Therefore, that is not part of the equation any longer. The Planning Commission also granted encroachment into the natural features on the site; wetlands. One of the conditions of approval was that a formal wetland delineation analysis be conducted. At the time of Planning Commission consideration, the approval was based on a conceptual plan. As part of that analysis, it was found that the wetland areas on the site were more expansive than what was previously anticipated, resulting in additional encroachments into the protection area. Ms. Zeller stated that the site is approximately 7.5 acres in area and is located in the MON-C Zone District. There is residential development to the north, office to the west, and to the east is a shopping center. On 44th St., to the south, are a range of commercial uses. The site has a lot of wetlands. It also has a private road. The users to the south have an easement for use of that private drive. There is also a water main on the site within a City easement. Therefore, 40 ft. from the westerly lot line is unusable; it is encumbered. Ms. Zeller displayed a slide of the wetlands on the site. When previously before the Planning Commission much of the wetlands at the front weren’t known of. Ms. Zeller displayed a slide of the proposed lot division. There will City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 May 11, 2023 be one residential development on the eastern portion and one on the western portion. Today it is one lot. Ms. Zeller displayed a slide of the existing wetlands and the proposed buildings. On the eastern portion of the site, Area A, there are wetlands that will be filled, which can be permitted by EGLE. The natural features buffer of 75’ applies to wetlands on the site. Once they are filled, the buffer isn’t applied. The consideration today relates to the wetlands that will exist after the State permitted wetland fill. Ms. Zeller displayed a rendering of the easterly building and the western building will be similar. The development is intended as affordable housing and will utilize Low Income Housing Tax Credits from the State. Ms. Zeller noted that the parking lot and entry drive are proposed to be where there are currently wetlands. Those wetlands will be filled. Ms. Zeller explained that for the easterly building the applicant is asking for encroachments into the required 75’ wetland setback, but not within 25’, which is not allowed. All of the proposed development will be outside of the minimum 25’ setback. Ms. Zeller identified the 50’ setback area noting that there is some development within that area and even more of the parking lot is located in the area between 50 and 75’. The Planning Commission is considering the encroachment into the 75’ buffer and whether that is appropriate. Ms. Zeller related that Phase I will include a parking lot with 55 spaces, a ground entry sign, a trash enclosure, bike racks, and a tot lot playground, all of which will encroach into the 75-foot protection area to some extent. The Planning Commission should consider whether the plan meets the protection area reduction requirements, which were included in the staff report. Phase II, the westerly side, includes the previously mentioned drive and a 20’ easement for public utilities. Therefore, the applicant is pushing the building as far west as possible in order to construct an 11,000 sq. ft., 36-unit residential building. A portion of the parking lot and the ground sign are to be within the area between 75 and 50’ from the wetland edge. The detention basin is to be located up to 25’ to the wetland edge. The Planning Commission can grant the requested reductions. Encroachments should be to the least extent possible and the natural features and existing site topography should be incorporated into the design as much as possible. Ms. Zeller related that Dan Tabor, Stormwater Project Engineer, is present should the Planning Commission have questions. Ms. Zeller is unaware of the applicant’s neighborhood outreach efforts. A letter was received from a neighboring resident expressing concerns about the development disrupting and displacing animal habitats existing in the wetland area. Dan Tabor, Stormwater Project Engineer, explained that in review of the site and the wetland study provided by the applicant, there was a significant area of wetlands that were identified. In the wetland documentation they noted that they were wetlands but nothing of a special or unique characteristic. The surrounding area is heavily developed but it remains a wetland area serving a stormwater function. There are competing interests between environmental protection and affordable housing, both City priorities. In terms of what the applicant is proposing, if the Planning Commission finds this encroachment appropriate, he recommends that the applicant be required to use native plantings, vegetation and other items in the repairing areas next to the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 May 11, 2023 wetlands to soften, reduce and eliminate as many potential impacts as possible from this development and maintain as much natural feature protection and natural stormwater management processes as possible. Mr. Tabor agreed with Ms. Zeller that the wetland fill process is a State process. His understanding is the applicant has been going through that permitting process. Mr. Tabor’s understanding is that, if not already approved, it is fairly far along. Ms. Bersche noted the trash enclosure is located within the 75’ setback area. Mr. Tabor doesn’t believe that has specifically been addressed but it could be an appropriate condition of approval. Mr. Jonker asked about mitigation of the wetlands they will be filling. Mr. Tabor explained that that would be under the authority of EGLE. When filling in wetlands the typical rule is a 1/1 mitigation whether it would be on this site, adjacent, or within the watershed. Ms. Joseph recalled the recommendation included in the staff report regarding native plantings and, for Phase II, special attention to native plantings and infiltrative practices. Ms. Joseph asked what that would entail. She also asked if they have everything in place to ensure stormwater is being managed with the parking lot. Mr. Tabor explained that they are a lot further along in detailed design review of Phase I than Phase II. They are working under a new Stormwater code and utilizing infiltrative leaching basins. It is a very detailed design. They were close to approval of that before these things came up resulting in the applicant having to come back to the Planning Commission. Phase I has been engineered and there is a comfort level there. In terms of Phase II, there is a stormwater detention pond on the east side of the site. They would be looking for not only the detention pond but a bottom infiltration trench or enhanced drain infrastructure so it isn’t just a surface level detention pond. Juston Longstreth, Moore & Bruggink, stated that the site plan is very similar, if not the same project the Planning Commission considered two years ago. Mr. Longstreth related that they do have an approved permit from EGLE, which was a lengthy process. They are providing mitigation in accordance with their permit for the area on site that they will be filling. He believes the ratio is 1.5/1 and that will not be done on site; it will be the purchase of off-site credits. Mr. Rozeboom asked about the dumpster location. Mr. Longstreth related that there won’t be any stormwater runoff that directly sheets from the dumpster pad into any of the wetland areas; they are capturing that in the on-site stormwater system. The stormwater requirements that are in place now requires pre-treatment prior to discharge. Any of the run off would be captured in the stormwater system and cleaned before discharging to the wetland areas. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 May 11, 2023 Mr. Rozeboom opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Shannon recognized that this is a difficult property to develop. Given the work that has gone into the plan and the fact that EGLE has approved the permit, she feels comfortable approving the request and adding affordable housing without sacrificing the environment. Ms. Bersche offered her support. She is comfortable with the change in the setback knowing that they aren’t dealing with a significant amount of endangered native plants or anything like that. This is a heavily developed area and a lot of those wetlands are probably already being impacted in other ways. This might actually help clean up some of that area. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Woda Cooper Companies, Inc. (Craig Patterson) to reduce the required 75’ wetland setback to 25’ to facilitate the construction of a multi-phase affordable housing development at 2400 43rd St. SE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because elements will be incorporated into the development to minimize negative effects of the built environment and potentially enhance the existing wetlands. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because natural features and site topography are incorporated into the proposed site design to the maximum extent practicable. 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 adequate landscape screening will be provided and native plantings will be restored in the natural features buffer. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because buildings, structures, and entrances will be appropriately oriented on the site. 5. The proposed development will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because the development will occur as far away from the natural features as possible practicable and the development will occur in an area of the site most appropriate for development. 6. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services already exist or will be provided at no additional cost. 7. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the proposed improvements do not require additional investment of public funds; the use will encourage other investment in the area; the use will enhance property values; and, the use will put a vacant property into productive use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 May 11, 2023 i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. That the proposed buffer area be restored with native plantings, as recommended by the SEMCOG manual for low impact design. 3. That the storm water management system proposed as part of Phase II of the development be designed with purposeful attention with a focus on native plantings and infiltrative practices to address its function as a riparian buffer. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. Mr. Williams questioned Standard 5, that the development will occur as far away from the natural features as possible. That is obviously not the case. He suggested striking that portion. Ms. Bersche amended “possible” to “practicable” MOTION CARRIED. UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kyle Van Strien F. 2525 28th St. SE (f.k.a. 2682 Breton Rd. SE) - Conditional Rezoning Address: 2525 28th St. SE (f.k.a. 2682 Breton Rd. SE) Applicant: Prizm III LTD (Matt Berger) Requesting: Approval of an amendment to a conditional rezoning agreement for property fronting Breton Rd. The amendment would allow the construction of a parts warehouse/office and employee City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 May 11, 2023 parking for the Berger Chevrolet dealership in lieu of greenspace. Zoning: SD-NOS Special District—Neighborhood Office Service Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.11. Conditional Rezoning Case Number: PC-ZON-2023-0033 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Zone Change Effective Date: City Commission Approval Ms. Zeller introduced the request for an amendment of a conditional rezoning agreement. In July, 2016, the City Commission considered a recommendation from the Planning Commission to rezone 2682 Breton Rd. from NOS to MON-C. The conditional rezoning, voluntarily offered by the applicant, was requested to facilitate the combination of the subject property with the Berger Chevrolet dealership property to replace greenspace lost upon paving for additional inventory storage on the main dealership property. The home on the Breton property was demolished, the property was landscaped, and the lot was combined with the Berger Chevrolet dealership property. The applicant is now requesting an amendment to the conditional rezoning agreement to facilitate the expansion of the parts warehouse on the main Berger Chevrolet dealership site onto the property that is subject to the conditional rezoning agreement. Ms. Zeller identified the location of the parts warehouse at the northern part of the Berger property. There is Low Density Residential preventing them from going further north. The property to the west is a combination of NOS and two conditional rezoning agreements. To the south of the subject property is The Tennis Connection, which was also a conditional rezoning agreement and that property can only be used as agreed upon in the conditional rezoning agreement. Ms. Zeller again stated that the parts warehouse is at the north and they need to expand that space. They are asking to expand the warehouse west, onto the property encumbered by the conditional rezoning agreement. They are asking to amend the previous conditional rezoning agreement to allow for the expansion of the parts warehouse, along with some office space and a parking lot for employees. The green space that is currently there is proposed to be eliminated and a new parts warehouse, office, and parking lot constructed. As previously mentioned, the original reason for requesting the conditional rezoning agreement was for greenspace. The applicant has also purchased 2770 Breton Rd., which is a former dry cleaner. They propose to demolish that building and install an electric vehicle charging station. That property is zoned commercial and gas stations are a permitted use in the C zone district. Therefore, the charging station would be a permitted use. The applicant purchased the 2770 Breton parcel to attach it to their main property to offset the greenspace lost on the northern property. They will still be somewhat under meeting the greenspace requirement. The C Zone District requires 15% green space and they are just below 10%. They won’t be adding any green space but they won’t be going any lower. Ms. Zeller provided information on the proposed setbacks; 14’ to the north and 10’ to the south, which is consistent with what would be required in both the NOS and C Zone Districts. However, because this is a special consideration, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to determine whether the minimum is appropriate or not. The front setback is significant at City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 May 11, 2023 approximately 95’. The parking lot is proposed in the front in the MON-C Zone District, which is permitted. They are also proposing a significant amount of landscaping. There won’t be a rear setback because of the lot combination. With respect to parking, approximately 18 of Berger’s existing 80 employees will relocate to the new facility. Seven parking spaces will be located to the west of the building in the front yard. Based on the office portion only, parking appears to be inadequate. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to expand on their parking arrangements. Building elevations were displayed. The façade facing Breton is designed to be residential in appearance with horizontal viny siding, face brick base, sloped roof, and other residential building features. The warehouse will be clad in vertical metal siding. The addition is approximately 32’ in height closest to Breton Rd. The site slopes down toward the east, with the building higher where the addition meets the existing building. Ms. Zeller displayed an image of 2770 Breton where they propose demolition of the former dry cleaner for additional green space for the overall campus and the electric vehicle charging station. Ms. Zeller concluded her presentation noting that the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Commission. Ms. Zeller responded to Ms. Shannon clarifying that approximately 6,500 sq. ft. of the addition will be for additional parts storage and approximately 4,200 sq. ft. for the office portion. She also clarified that they will be incorporating the site at 2770 Breton into their property to offset the greenspace lost on the subject property. It won’t all be green space but there is a substantial amount of greenspace remaining on the 2770 parcel. That parcel will also be occupied by an EV charging station, which is not under consideration by the Planning Commission. Ms. Turkelson clarified further that there is no net loss; it is a reallocation or reorganization of the greenspace. Bob Nolan, Warner Norcross & Judd, was present on behalf of Berger. He summarized that they have 9.45% of greenspace now. They are out of warehouse space because the industry has changed; they need to be EV (electronic vehicles) and they need space for them. They are hearing that their parts inventory supplies will have to go up 30% over the course of time. Therefore, they need more space. There will be parking nearby for those working in the office/warehouse but they also have more than enough parking for the other employees nearby. They know they have the condition and voluntarily offered it for green space so they found a dilapidated building, likely dangerous, and they will scrape that site and it will become an EV charge park, landscaped like a park. They are currently at 9.45% and the greenspace will increase to 9.49%. It is a trade. They are relocating their greenspace within the dealership property and still maintaining the condition. Mr. Nolan stated that the charge park will be an attribute for the people in the area and not just their customers. Mr. Rozeboom asked if the charging station will be open to the public. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 May 11, 2023 Mr. Nolan responded affirmatively. Mr. Rozeboom opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Joseph feels the request is reasonable given their need to grow and the site constraints. Ms. Joseph appreciates that there won’t be a net loss of greenspace. Dr. Wallace agreed. She expressed concern for what may be next; where will they go next. Matt Berger stated that on their existing campus they anticipate their inventory being a bit smaller, which will possibly allow them to add onto buildings. There is a possible body shop addition in the future. He explained that they also have a 4 acre parcel on 29th St. that they use for staging vehicles. They sell a lot of patrol cars and fleet vehicles and at times there are 200- 300 on the lot so that is a great location for that. They do have some expansion capability but they are fairly land locked. They feel the proposed expansion will serve them for the next ten years. Dr. Wallace asked for an explanation of the parts warehouse. Mr. Berger indicated that in their parts operation they sell approximately 45% of the parts in southwest Michigan supplying independent repair shops, mechanical shops, and body shops; everything within about a 100 mile radius. In addition to growing the business into the electronic vehicles, the need for the parts expansion relates to the huge cross over between all of the internal combustion engine vehicles and all of the new technology. The parts inventory is going to have to be very broad. They may not have a lot of everything but they will have to carry a lot of things, including the batteries that can weigh 2,000 - 3,000 pounds and are very large. They anticipate some of that being in the new warehouse area. Ms. Shannon stated that she is supportive and happy to learn about moving toward electric vehicles. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Prizm III LTD. (Matt Berger) of a conditional rezoning agreement to construct a parts warehouse/office and employee parking on the portion of 2525 28th Street fronting Breton Road (formerly 2682 Breton Road SE) to support the Berger Chevrolet dealership in lieu of the previously approved greenspace on the property, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Zone District and Conditional Rezoning Offer is consistent with the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance because the Future Land Use Map of the Master Plan designates this area as Commercial and the rezoning will provide reasonable accommodation for growth and development. 2. The proposed development will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed building and use will represent an expansion of a City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 May 11, 2023 business already established in the area and the Breton-facing side of the building has been designed to reflect the office and residential nature of the area. 3. The proposed development will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because adequate landscaping and setbacks are proposed and the conditional rezoning agreement voluntarily offered by the applicant would subject the property to certain conditions and restrictions, limiting the future use of, and developments, on the property. 4. The proposed development 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 parking lot will be appropriately landscaped; a limited number of employees will be using the parking lot; and, the conditional rezoning agreement protects nearby residential properties from potential adverse effects. 5. The proposed use 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 the site was previously improved with a house before it became green space/has no remarkable environmental features. 6. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the Conditional Rezoning Agreement will support an existing business as it transitions to future needs. 7. The proposed Zone District and Conditional Rezoning will bear a reasonable and rational connection and/or benefit to the property to be rezoned because the expansion of the parts warehouse to the subject property is practical given its location. 8. The proposed Zone District and Conditional Rezoning will result in a better development than would have been likely if the property had been rezoned without a Zoning Agreement, or if the property were left to develop under the existing Zone District because, given the residential zoning to the north and the conditional rezoning agreement in effect on the property to the south, the subject property would not likely redevelop into a viable development. 9. The proposed Zone District and Conditional Rezoning are necessary to allow the rezoning to be approved because, given the zoning of the surrounding properties, rezoning of the subject property would be inappropriate without conditions as offered by the applicant. 10. The proposed Zone District and Conditional Rezoning are clearly in the public interest, as compared to the existing Zone District and considering the site-specific land use or conditions proposed by the applicant, and the benefit to the public as a result of approving the Conditional Rezoning and Zoning Agreement does clearly outweigh any reasonably foreseeable detriments there, because the use facilitated by the agreement will support the transition to environmentally friendly vehicles. 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 23 May 11, 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 the submitted site plans and building elevations shall be incorporated into the Conditional Rezoning Agreement. 3. That this approval shall take effect as required by the City Commission approval in accordance with Section 5.12.11. of the Zoning Ordinance. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel, Jonker ABSENT: Kyle Van Strien G. 412 Lafayette Ave SE and 409 & 415 Prospect Ave SE - Zone Change Address: 412 Lafayette Ave SE and 409 & 415 Prospect Ave SE Applicant: Wealthy Prospect, LLC (Ryan Schmidt) Requesting: Approval to rezone 412 Lafayette Ave and the rear portion of 415 Prospect Ave from the TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood Low-Density Residential) Zone District to the TN-TBA (Traditional Neighborhood-Traditional Business Area) Zone District, and to rezone a portion of 409 Prospect Ave from TN- TBA Zone District to the TN-LDR, to facilitate development of a mixed-use development. Zoning: TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood-Low Density Residential) TN-TBA (Traditional Neighborhood Traditional Business Area) Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.12.10. Zoning Ordinance Text and Map Amendments Case Number: PC-ZON-2023-0037 Staff Assigned: Laura Wahamaki lwahamaki@grcity.us Type of Case: Zone Change Effective Date: City Commission Approval City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 May 11, 2023 I. 300 & 316 Wealthy St SE and 406 Lafayette Ave SE - Ground Floor Office Address: 300 & 316 Wealthy St SE and 406 Lafayette Ave SE Applicant: Wealthy Prospect, LLC (Ryan Schmidt) Requesting: Approval to establish ground floor offices in a future mixed-use development in the TN-TBA (Traditional Neighborhood- Traditional Business Area) Zone District. Zoning: TN-TBA (Traditional Neighborhood – Traditional Business Area) Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-use Commercial Zone Districts 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0036 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: May 27, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki related that the subject project is proposed south of Wealthy, between Lafayette and Prospect Ave. It is a large mixed-use office and residential development comprised of six parcels that will ultimately be combined for the project. It will include townhomes, new commercial buildings to accommodate office space, and single-family residential homes. There will also be apartments included as part of the project. Ms. Wahamaki identified surrounding uses. To the north is Mary Free Bed, to the west a school, and residential to the east and south. The Future Land Use Map designates the properties as medium low density residential, adjacent to mixed use and downtown. There are mixed intensity uses directly adjacent to the site. The property is located in the Heritage Hill Historic District and is subject to Historic Preservation approvals. The project was presented to the HPC on May 3. The HPC oversees and approves site plan, building footprints, setbacks and massing, parking lot location, landscaping, and fencing. The HPC will also ultimately approve building materials. Therefore, those items are not for Planning Commission consideration today. The Planning Commission is considering the uses, whether the parking provided is adequate for the proposed uses, and landscaping that would be finalized at permitting. The HPC approved the site plan and massing. Ms. Wahamaki displayed one of the elevations of the project showing the townhomes and commercial building on the corner. Ms. Wahamaki explained that to facilitate this new development the Planning Commission is considering rezoning some of the properties, a request for ground floor office use in a TBA Zone District, and a parking reduction. All of the other items will either be approved by right or approved by the HPC. Ms. Wahamaki explained that the applicant is requesting to rezone 412 Lafayette and the western portion of 415 Prospect from TN-LDR to TN-TBA. The other rezoning request is to rezone the southeastern portion of 409 Prospect from TN-TBA to TN-LDR. Ms. Wahamaki displayed the zoning map noting what is currently TN-TBA and TN-LDR. The proposed rezoning is a readjustment of the zone delineation. Part of the reason for the requested rezonings is to allow for the building and parking all to be situated in the TBA Zone District while the single-family homes will be in the LDR Zone District. On the site currently zoned TN-TBA there is a home City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 May 11, 2023 that will be moved to the vacant lot at 415 Prospect. The home will be renovated to be a single- family home. The proposed rezoning helps to facilitate locating a single-family home in the LDR Zone District and, at the same time, allowing this project to be built by right in the TBA Zone District. Ms. Wahamaki stated that ground floor office is proposed as part of this development. She identified the parcels that would be occupied by two commercial buildings that will be constructed to allow for the ground floor office. The commercial buildings would be within the TBA Zone District and Special Land Use is required for ground floor office within 20 ft. of a major urban street. Wealthy Street is considered a major urban street. The properties slated for the commercial building development are currently vacant. There is a billboard located on one parcel. The intent is to have the billboard removed. The applicant is in negotiations with the billboard company for the potential removal. However, the buildings have been designed to be constructed even if the removal of the billboard is delayed until the lease expires. Ms. Wahamaki stated that a two-story commercial building is planned mid-block with a three- story commercial building at the corner of Wealthy and Lafayette with apartments above the corner office space. Surface parking is proposed behind the townhomes with one-way ingress to the site from Prospect and one-way egress onto Lafayette. Based on the shared uses of the apartments and office space, a mixed-use coefficient is used to calculate the parking requirement for the shared uses. Based on that calculation, a total of 15 parking spaces would be required and 9 are proposed; a deficiency of 6 parking spaces. There are private garages provided for the townhomes. The parking provided for the townhome use meets the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Those spaces were not included in the parking calculation because they are private garages. The Planning Commission may reduce the number of parking spaces required based on a number of factors. Those that apply in this case are the fact that Wealthy Street is served by transit. There is also parking available on Wealthy. Ms. Wahamaki deferred to the applicant for more details about the project as a whole. Ms. Wahamaki summarized that the Planning Commission is considering the rezoning, the ground floor office use, and the parking waiver of 6 spaces. Ms. Wahamaki related that the applicant has done extensive community engagement. Letters of support have been submitted by the Heritage Hill Association and Housing Next both citing excitement for the project and the need for additional housing. The project will act as a buffer, to the existing LDR to the south and east, from the more intense uses to the north and west. The Planning Commission is asked to consider the appropriateness of the rezoning requests, Special Land Use consideration for ground floor office, and the parking reduction. Ryan Schmidt, Indigo Design & Development, was present along with architect Greg Schmidt and Steve Ruis. R. Schmidt related that they have been working on this project for a very long time. They put the property under contract nearly a year ago and have gone through an extensive amount of neighborhood engagement and HPC review, as well as working with Planning staff to get to this point. R. Schmidt explained that this site has been long vacant and underutilized. He City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 May 11, 2023 and Mr. Ruis have personal connections to this site under prior ownership where they assisted the previous owner with some of the land assembly. Mr. Ruis is a direct neighbor across the street from the proposed development. G. Schmidt is also a Heritage Hill resident. R. Schmidt explained that they believe strongly in townhomes as a product type that is appropriate for this type of setting that is a transition between more of the commercial uses and the traditional residential neighborhood. R. Schmidt stated that there are a hundred versions of this site plan that their team has studied leading up to this point. They’ve worked with the City on understanding the best ingress and egress for the site. Obviously, being in a historic district is a factor that takes a lot of care and attention to ensure they are following the guidelines and honoring the spirit of why the district was created. R. Schmidt explained that the site currently has both LDR and TBA represented. He referred to the zoning map and identified the location of the TBA district. Ironically, 409 Prospect is in the TBA zone district and the parking lot in front of it at Wealthy and Prospect is on the 409 Prospect lot. They have been working with staff on what may be a better solution to accommodate a mixed-use development they feel is very needed in the community, as well as properly zone the single-family homes on standalone residential lots vs. connected to a commercial parking lot. R. Schmidt stated that the rezonings proposed is an effort to clean up and accommodate the different uses on a site that is somewhat irregular in shape and use. The house move has been approved by the HPC. They will be relocating the house at 406 Lafayette to the vacant lot at 415 Prospect. They were very careful in the placement of the home with the shared driveway, which is very similar along that face of Prospect. With respect to the Special Land Use, R. Schmidt stated that Mr. Ruis and his wife own retail establishments on Wealthy. They understand the importance of retail along the corridors but they feel that this is a bit of an island disconnected from the very healthy and vibrant Wealthy Street retail corridor to the east and some of the retail activity near Wealthy and Division and along the Division corridor. They don’t feel that retail will be successful in this location. It won’t have the natural draw and they don’t feel it is the appropriate land use for this location. However, they want to promote a mixed-use development even though they could do all ground floor residential and wouldn’t have to bring forth the Special Land Use request. R. Schmidt explained that there has been a slight change in the plan since it was submitted. The office space went down from 4,700 sq. ft. to 3,950 sq. ft. That does have an impact on parking because of the multiplier. The net impact is one less space they are asking for a waiver on. There is an abundance of on-street parking that they intend for the clients and customers of the office space to use on Wealthy. Those spaces are metered and are never used because there isn’t a use for metered spaces there currently. They are also on the bus line. There are 8 on-street spaces in front of the property on Wealthy and 1 adjacent to the TBA section on Prospect; 9 on-street spaces directly adjacent to the property. They hope that will be factored into their request. They also expect a rotation of users. R. Schmidt clarified that there won’t be an apartment component to the development. This will be an ownership project; condos for sale in townhome or flat arrangements. R. Schmidt clarified the matter of the billboard. They have a tentative agreement with Outfront Media and they believe that the billboard will be removed. If not removed, it does actually inhibit development of the site. They have designed it in a way so that the two-story building will sit where the billboard is today. If the billboard is not removed, that building couldn’t be built until the billboard lease expires. They are hopeful that the billboard will be removed. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 May 11, 2023 *Ms. Bersche left the meeting. Steve Ruis added that the change to NOS was important to the neighborhood. Parking is always a concern. A straight retail use in that location raised questions early on whereas the office plan was met with a lot more positivity. Given that there is no one present for public comment, that is likely why. R. Schmidt stated that the engagement has been very positive. They’ve been in front of the HPC three times and the neighborhood land use committee four times and countless direct conversations with adjacent neighbors. They have received very positive feedback, including at the HPC. Mr. Rozeboom understands the point about not doing retail and office instead. He recalled R. Schmidt stating that it was important to them to do mixed-use. Mr. Rozeboom asked why. R. Schmidt replied for the character of the city and an important corridor like Wealthy. While he agrees with the ground floor residential in TBA because it has helped them and others develop properties with the correct mix of commercial and residential built in. However, he thinks it is important to respect Wealthy Street as a mixture. The design they’ve brought forth didn’t just place one behemouth over the block. They’ve tried to break up the architecture and represent it in different ways so that it looked a bit more organic. It will all be built as one project but they didn’t want it to be just one aesthetic that covered an entire block. For community sake, for walkability, for ground floor activation, he feels an office use is better than a residential door that is shut all of the time. Dr. Wallace asked how the refuse will work in the development. R. Schmidt replied that it can be handled through a dumpster but they are proposing individual units have their own trash can in their garage. They did that in other locations and it has worked well. Residents are responsible for bringing their containers out. On a site such as this, the turning radiuses to get a trash truck in is very difficult. The rear of the commercial space has a trash room. Each unit will have an area to dispose of their trash and it will be brought to the street. They have also started conversations with private haulers that could potentially do a private dumping if bringing carts to the street becomes a challenge as opposed to getting a full dumpster truck onto the site. Mr. Rozeboom opened the public hearings for both agenda items and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearings were closed. Ms. Shannon feels this project will complement the neighborhood, clean up some eyesores, and this is a great way to infill the development that is occurring up and down this street. Ms. Shannon complimented the applicants on being able to assemble property in a neighborhood, work with a billboard company, and go through Historic Preservation. Ms. Joseph also offered her support. The zoning request is reasonable given the site plan and cleaning that up to have the zone districts assigned properly based on the development. Ms. Joseph is also comfortable with the office uses given the testimony and the location of the site. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 May 11, 2023 General office makes sense there. Ms. Joseph is not at all concerned about the parking deficiency. There is a great transit line there and they are very near the center city. Mr. Rozeboom added that with the office use on the ground floor the design is retail-ish. The look and feel is appropriate for TBA. Ms. Turkelson added that across the street is a large institutional use that isn’t terribly active on that frontage and there is a clear change in the land use patterns going from west to east and transition into a residential area. Often times office is considered a good transition. Ms. Turkelson feels it would be a difficult market condition for a retailer to locate here but it also serves as a nice transition given the land use patterns and uses around it. Ms. Shannon stated that she would expect that Mary Free Bed and St. Mary’s would be supportive as well. Trying to recruit medical staff is daunting and having this kind of amenity nearby can help them in that regard. Ms. Shannon MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Wealthy Prospect, LLC (Ryan Schmidt) to establish ground floor offices in a future mixed-use development in the TN- TBA (Traditional Neighborhood - Traditional Business Area) Zone District, and a parking waiver at 300 & 316 Wealthy St. SE and 406 Lafayette Ave. SE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the development will provide a transition between adjacent low-density residential and higher intensity commercial and institutional uses, as recommended by Chapter 10.4 of the 2002 Master Plan and the orientation of the ground level office storefronts facing Wealthy Street is proposed (10.4.2. Master Plan). 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E., because the proposed development and commercial buildings for office use will restore the street wall on a currently vacant site and proposed surface parking will be located to the rear of the buildings. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed office and residential uses support the desired mixed-use character of the neighborhood. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the existing building is appropriately positioned on the site and is consistent with the requirements of the TN-TBA Zone District and on-site, street parking, and transit are available. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter because anticipated office traffic will generally be low, consisting primarily of employees. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 May 11, 2023 arrangement of the proposed building and site are intended to encourage an active street environment. 7. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the use is not anticipated to create nuisances or needs that will require additional City services. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Ms. Bersche left prior to the vote) Dr. Wallace MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Wealthy Prospect, LLC (Ryan Schmidt) to rezone 412 Lafayette Ave. SE and a portion of 415 Prospect Ave. SE from the TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood - Low-Density Residential) Zone District to the TN- TBA (Traditional Neighborhood - Traditional Business Area) Zone District, and to rezone a portion of 409 Prospect Ave. SE from TN-TBA to TN-LDR Zone District, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Zone District changes will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Future Land Use map because the rezoning will facilitate the development of higher density residential on a major corridor which will provide a transition between the primary business frontage and adjacent single-family housing. 2. The proposed Zone District changes will further the themes and objectives of the Master Plan, as well as any relevant adopted Area Specific Plans because the rezoning City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 30 May 11, 2023 for this development will support Objective GN 3 in the Master Plan, allowing for a range of housing types within the neighborhood. 3. The property to be rezoned can reasonably accommodate the requirements of the proposed Zone District because, in addition to the proposed rezoned area, property already zoned TN-TBA is part of the proposed mixed-use development and the restored single-family homes will be located in the TN-LDR Zone District. 4. The proposed Zone District designations are compatible with the existing Zone Districts in the neighborhood because other properties with TN-TBA zoning are located immediately adjacent to the subject parcel and a viable use can be established in a manner that preserves the existing traditional character of the neighborhood. 5. Adequate public facilities that will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public already exist or will be provided at no additional public cost. 6. The proposed Zone Districts or Neighborhood Classifications will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the proposed zone changes may encourage greater utilization of the subject properties, by providing additional housing density as well as adding commercial uses to serve the neighborhood. 7. The proposed Zone District is consistent with the trend of development in the neighborhood because the rezoning will adequately support the adaptive nature and demand of properties along a commercial zone district and the reorganization of zone districts will support development that will provide a transition from higher intensity to lower intensity uses. 8. The property to be rezoned was improperly zoned or classified when this Chapter was adopted or amended because the intensity of uses in the surrounding area has increased since the 2007 comprehensive Zoning Map Amendment. 9. Rezoning the property as proposed would not negatively impact the condition of any nearby parcels currently zoned TN-TBA, especially considering vacancy rates, current per-square-foot lease or sale rates, and other impacts because the rezoning and development of the property would encourage investment in the district. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Ms. Bersche left prior to the vote) IV. Planning Commission Discussion None. V. Public Comment None. VI. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 3:46 PM