TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 June 22, 2023 City Commission Chambers I. 12:00 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. - Lunch - Conference Room 901, City Hall, 300 Monroe Ave NW II. Business - 12:30 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM by Board Member Kyle Van Strien PRESENT: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al-Shatel ABSENT: Bersche, Jonker STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Laura Wahamaki, Sarah Behmlander, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from June 8, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Salim Al-Shatel YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al- Shatel ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Aaron Jonker C. Planning Director's Report Agenda items were reviewed. III. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Conflict of Interest None expressed. B. 1340 Monroe Ave NW - OPR for Density Requirements Address: 1340 Monroe Ave NW Applicant: Franklin North Monroe, LLC (Ray Warner) Requesting: Optional Plan Review approval for a modification of the density requirement in the TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood–Transitional City Center) Zone District to facilitate the phased development of a two- building mixed-use development with a shared parking structure. Zoning: TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood–Transitional City Center) Zone District Generated 6/27/2023 8:52 AM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 June 22, 2023 Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.14. Optional Plan Review Case Number: PC-OPR-2023-0047 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: July 8, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki introduced the request for Optional Plan Review approval for a modification of the density requirement in the TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood-Transitional City Center) Zone District to facilitate the phased development of a two-building mixed-use development with a shared parking structure. The project location is just east of Monroe, between Monroe and Taylor, south of Caledonia St. The site is the former location of Display Pack. The building is currently vacant. Existing conditions include several buildings that are connected and a gravel parking lot. The buildings are not in a state to be reused. The proposal is to clear the site for a new mixed-use development that includes two large mixed-use residential buildings, four stories, and between the buildings will be a multi-level parking structure for use by residents and patrons of the businesses. Ms. Wahamaki explained that to facilitate the development the site will need to be split into two parcels for financing reasons. The proposed project could be built by right if the parcel were to remain one. Because it is being split into two for the financing, one parcel will be Phase 1 and the second parcel Phase 2. The second parcel is slightly smaller. Although the building will mirror the building on the first parcel, because the site is smaller the density is greater than the parcel can support. Ms. Wahamaki advised that the 2002 Master Plan identifies this area as Mixed Use - Riverfront, directly adjacent to a mixed-use village center. To the north is Clearwater Place event venue. To the east, south and west are offices and light industrial. A steel treating company is located directly south of the site. Ms. Wahamaki related that Phase 1 is the northern parcel and will be developed first. The site will be slightly larger than 4.5 acres. The development will include a four-story mixed-use building with 260 residential units and a three-level parking deck that will provide parking for both parcels. Parcel two is the second phase and will be 2.7 acres in area. The proposed building will be four stories with 260 residential units. A portion of the parking deck will also be completed as part of Phase 2. The two parcels will be tied together through shared parking agreements and utility easements. Even though they will be separate parcels they will forever be tied together through these agreements and will operate as a single parcel. The split is purely to facilitate financing for the development. Ms. Wahamaki expanded upon the density. The requirement in the TN-TCC Zone District is 750 sq. ft. per unit, which is measured using the area of the parcels and half of the public right-of- way. The area of the two parcels together will support the proposed density of the project. At 5.6 acres, parcel one can support 327 dwelling units; 250 dwelling units are proposed. Twenty of the total number of units will be micro-units. The Zoning Ordinance doesn’t include micro-units in City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 June 22, 2023 the density count. Parcel two is 3.1 acres and can support 179 dwelling units. 250 units are proposed, which is why this request is before the Planning Commission today. Ms. Wahamaki displayed the layout of the site for general information. The request before the Commission today is limited to considering the greater density. Other proposed elements of the site meet Ordinance requirements and can be built by right. There is a large amount of greenspace proposed, exceeding the minimum requirements. Ms. Wahamaki related that the applicant has met with the Creston Neighborhood Association and the Association has submitted a letter of support with the hope that this project brings revitalization to the area. Don Schumaker was present on behalf of the request. He introduced the architect on the project, Tom Tooley. Mr. Schumaker related that they purchased the property from Display Pack eight years ago with the agreement they would give Display Pack some time to relocate. They tried for a long time to convert it to an office building with a major health care provider interested in the site before deciding to build new elsewhere. They made several redevelopment attempts and twice agreed to sell it to another local developer who was unable to secure financing. They discussed the need for residential units with the City and decided to get a team together to develop the site. They tried very hard to reutilize the existing building. However, it would cost 50% more to reuse the building vs. building new. Mr. Schumaker related that the center of the building will be the amenity section with a pool, pickleball courts, and other amenities. Tom Tooley, Ghafari Associates, expanded further on the project relating that the first floor of both buildings will be active use including a club room, lounge space, a small co-working space, and 2,500 sq. ft. in each building for retail. With respect to the financing, because the project is so large it is being split. It is also HUD financing. With HUD comes extra requirements which will include an under-slab vapor containment capture system and National green building certification. They have a sustainability consultant on staff that will be assisting them through that. The financing package results in a better building. Mr. Tooley invited questions. Mr. Van Strien asked how quickly Phase 2 will follow Phase 1. Mr. Tooley replied that they don’t have an exact answer. The goal is to finish Phase 1 and move directly into Phase 2. They have met with Design Team and are aware that depending on the timing they will have to treat the south façade of the parking deck because in Phase 1 they are essentially only building the first two bays. The third bay will be part of Phase 2. Mr. Schumaker added that if things go as they hope the plan is to start construction on the second phase as soon as the first phase is done. They feel there is significant demand and they believe the second phase will occur right as the first phase is completed. When they take the existing building down, they won’t leave a dirt lot. Mr. Tooley added that they don’t plan to take the building down until sometime during the winter, which helps with dust control. Construction is anticipated to last 20-24 months. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 June 22, 2023 Ms. Joseph related that at the last Planning Commission meeting they made recommendations to the City Commission to allow 5 stories by right in the TCC Zone District. The City Commission will consider that Ordinance amendment on July 11. Ms. Joseph asked if they would be interested in five stories. Mr. Tooley replied no. They are aware of the proposed Ordinance amendments. They considered four residential stories over a podium. They went back through the process and were able to bring it down. The benefit of that was that they could bring the building right to the street level vs. having a garage elevation. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Mark Balk, Hansen Balk, related that their business is located to the south of the subject site. They’ve had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Schumaker and they have been very transparent with their plans, which they appreciate. They are in favor of this type of development and anticipate it coming all around them. They have been in business since 1955 and have been at this location since 1980. Mr. Balk recalled when his parents moved the business to this location and there wasn’t a lot going on in the area. It is nice to see this change. However, they have considered what this looks like for their business. They have considered their options of remaining in this location or relocating. They tried to find another location but moving is not easy. The part about staying that concerns them is they want to be a good neighbor. They have tried to be a good neighbor during the 40+ years they’ve been there. The concerns that arise for them is that he would consider their operation heavy industrial, not light industrial. They have dozens of heat treating furnaces, make a lot of noise, and release some smoke at times. Their operation is 24 hours five days a week, 10 hours on Saturday, and 10-12 hours on Sunday as well. They have customers coming and going and suppliers delivering processing gases. Until they find an opportunity to move, they are concerned that residents will begin complaining about trucks coming in during the middle of the night, the smoke, and the noise. Mr. Balk imagines that if the subject development were there first and they proposed a heat treating facility next to it, it would likely be a tough sell. In the event they can’t find another location, he is concerned they won’t be welcome where they are. Mr. Balk offered their support and again expressed concern. They will do their best to be an outstanding neighbor to the proposed project but they need to run their business as well. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Mr. Schumaker responded to the comments. They too like to be considerate of their neighbors. He has seen residential projects develop on Market in a very industrial neighborhood without the center core amenities. It is the beginning of the gentrification of the neighborhood and it will be necessary to work together to ensure their residents are educated on what goes on there. They will know that moving in, so as not to be surprised. Mr. Schumaker feels it is just a matter of being good neighbors and working together. They will continue to communicate with their neighbors, work together, and find ways to make it a good project for everyone. Ms. Shannon asked staff if the river walkway across Monroe is completed in that section. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 June 22, 2023 Ms. Turkelson replied that it isn’t complete. She believes a grant was awarded from the State and that they are in the design development phase as well as the acquisition of the necessary construction easements. Her recollection is that it is anticipated to be complete in late 2024. Mr. Van Strien asked if Commissioners have any concerns about density here. Ms. Shannon feels it is a good transition use as they see Monroe expanding. They’ve seen North Monroe, south of Leonard, add a lot of housing. With what they know about the need for housing, this looks like a good way to repurpose a site that has been vacant for years. She has some concern related to the compatibility of industry next to the project but hopefully urban dwellers are aware of noise factors and will be acceptable of that because the other amenities will be very likeable. Ms. Joseph related that she is not concerned about the density here. As a whole, it could be done by right. It seems completely appropriate given the constraints on the financing of the project. In terms of the compatibility with industrial, they have seen with other developments that there is an understanding that industrial is an important use in the city and they don’t want to lose a lot of industrial land in the city. As the applicant said, residents will be made aware of what is going on and the industrial use should be operating in compliance of the Ordinance. Ms. Joseph is in full support. Mr. Rozeboom indicated that he is also in support. He asked that Ms. Turkelson explain why this is before them under Optional Plan Review, what other options were considered, and why OPR was the best fit. Ms. Turkelson explained that the Optional Plan Review gives the Planning Commission the ability to look at a project through the planning lens different than what a Board of Zoning Appeals may look at if they were to consider a Use Variance. It is intended to be a tool for the Planning Commission to think more broadly or wholistically where there may be a unique set of challenges, innovative design, special issues, public/private matters, etc. It gives the Planning Commission the flexibility to specifically look at site, building, and placement standards and consider whether modifications in light of special issues, for example, is appropriate. It is intended to be another tool to facilitate developments that are otherwise compliant with the Ordinance and consistent with the long- and short-range vision plans. Other tools were considered. Through the Board of Zoning Appeals a Dimensional Variance was considered. A variance has a very specific set of standards where one must demonstrate a practical difficulty. With the understanding of this project, Ms. Turkelson doesn’t feel that exists here. Another tool could be a Planned Redevelopment District (PRD), which has a different, lengthy process. Ms. Turkelson didn’t feel that was necessary considering the project, as initially presented and as otherwise conceived, does comply with the Ordinance. It didn’t feel like it fit the applicability requirements of the PRD as cleanly. Optional Plan Review felt like it allowed for the project to be considered through a similar lens as a PRD but keep it within the scope of authority of the Planning Commission. There are also agreements that tie the properties together so effectively the properties can’t be independent. They may be independently owned but they aren’t operating independently of each other. It felt that there was enough connectivity between the two parcels City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 June 22, 2023 that make it one development and she arrived at the OPR as a reasonable tool for the Planning Commission’s consideration. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Optional Plan Review request of Franklin North Monroe, LLC (Ray Warner) to modify the density requirement in the TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood-Transitional City Center) Zone District to facilitate the phased construction of a 520 unit, two-building mixed-use development with a shared parking structure at 1340 Monroe Avenue NW, for the following reasons: 1. The project will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the site will be developed so as not to impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property for permitted uses and the development will be designed to meet all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The project will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the project will support the intent of the Riverfront Area of the Master Plan with redevelopment of an underutilized property that will provide necessary high-density residential, associated parking, and a mix of other uses. 3. The project will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because this development will support the placemaking elements of the TN-TCC Zone District, specifically a mixed-use environment. 4. The project will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because onsite vehicle parking will be provided within a parking structure for residents and visitors and the building and parking structure setbacks will allow for additional greenspace, urban open space, and a dog park for residential use. 5. The project 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 intensity of the use is appropriate to its surroundings with access to multiple streets and public transportation and the permitted and planned uses are allowed within the TCC district and will not include any use which is detrimental. 6. The project would 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 development has been designed to enhance the walkability on all street-facing sides of the property and new sidewalks and street trees are included as part of the development. 7. The project will not significantly modify the basic standards of the Zone District to the extent that it adversely affects the established or future character of the neighborhood because, aside from the financing need to split the development into two parcels, the development could be built by right. 8. The proposed development will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable, because no original site features exist, as the development will occur on previously developed property and the project will result in increased greenspace and tree canopy. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 June 22, 2023 9. Public or private infrastructure and services already exist and are adequate to support the proposed development. 10. The project would not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the use will encourage other investment in the area and the project will help meet the demand for affordable and market rate housing. 11. The project will provide urban open space, or other amenities that serve a public purpose because the proposed urban open space area is large enough to provide opportunity to allow for public space gathering. 12. The request is necessitated by a condition related to the site or structure, and is not a means to reduce cost or inconvenience because the request is necessary due to the need to split the parcel for financing, otherwise the development could be built by right. 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 project 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 agreements appropriate to allow cross access, shared parking, and any shared utilities, recorded with the Kent County Register of Deeds, shall be required prior too the issuance of LUDS permits. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 June 22, 2023 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al- Shatel ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Aaron Jonker C. 201, 225, 233 & 301 Market Ave SE - Amphitheater Address: 201, 225, 233 & 301 Market Ave. SE - Amphitheater Applicant: Grand Action Foundation 2.0 (Kara Wood) Requesting: Approval of a +/-12,000-seat outdoor amphitheater with alcohol service, and a streetside plaza with mobile food vending and outdoor activities. Events will be conducted until 11 p.m.; event breakdown may occur until 4 a.m. Zoning: TN-CC Traditional Neighborhood –City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.9.15. Mobile Food Vending 5.9.22. Outdoor Activities 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0046 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: July 8, 2023 Ms. Turkelson introduced the Special Land Use request to consider a 12,000 seat outdoor amphitheater. There are other aspects of the request that necessitate Special Land Use and Planning Commission approval including the sale of alcohol, a streetside plaza along Market, as well as mobile food vending and other outdoor activities. Ms. Turkelson noted that the application has been written broadly in terms of the nature of the uses. With a project of this scale and scope the intent was to ensure there was some flexibility in terms of how big the streetside plaza is and where the alcohol or vending uses might take place in order to provide some flexibility so as the development gets further into the architecture. The nature and impact of the use is understood but the specificity by which the Planning Commission traditionally reviews an application is a bit challenging when considering a project such as this. Ms. Turkelson recalled that this same approach has been used for several other developments in the city, such as the Downtown Market. It has proven to be effective and useful. Kar Wood, Executive Director of Grand Action 2.0, explained that they are a non-profit organization that works on high profile economic development projects in the city collectively with their partners. There are a lot of partners involved in this project, most importantly the City of Grand Rapids, with the ownership of the property, and the Kent County Grand Rapids Convention Arena Authority. They have been working alongside partners working toward the designs and request before the Planning Commission today. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 June 22, 2023 Executive Architect Bill Culhane, Progressive AE, provided a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that this project has been in the public view for quite some time. He provided some history relating that in 2021 there was a joint alliance between the City, County, and Grand Action that hired Populous, a planning firm, that partnered with Progressive and did some community engagement and long term planning and ideation around this 31 acre potential development. The consideration today is related to the 10.5 acre amphitheater but he feels it would be good to look at that. The development that Populous looked at in 2021 goes from Wealthy to Fulton and its primary focus was the area between Market Ave. and the river. During that time Populous and Progressive met with 25 different stakeholder groups, engaged in four other larger scale community engagement activities, and looked at what this development could be over the course of the next 30 years. One of the things that was necessary to get the property in a state of development was a relocation of the 13 ft. diameter Market Ave. trunk sewer. Approximately 25 years ago something similar was done on Monroe when the trunk sewer was relocated from under the Hall of Justice, Police Department, and the DeVos Performance Hall parking area. For the land to be developable and be unencumbered by that large area they needed to get that out of there. Although it wasn’t part of this project, it was part of the vision of creating an opportunity on this site. Mr. Culhane displayed an image of the site, commonly known as 201 Market Ave. There is a salt dome at the northwest corner of the site and City maintenance and operation services are on the site. The study that came out of the initial Populous planning study identified this 10.5 acre site, located just south of the Market Ave./131 exit as a location for the amphitheater. They also identified potential future housing development to the south beyond Wealthy and the private properties north of 131 as potential mixed-use development opportunities. With respect to the 10.5 acre amphitheater site, some of the early images had the amphitheater facing south and west. They began to look at how that might impact the community, some of the residences to the south and the west, and also the area around the salt dome was significantly underutilized in that design and planning scheme. They were turning their back on the river a bit and trying to fit it into a triangular shape around the 131/river connection. What they determined was that it was really underutilizing that land and opportunities. By rotating the amphitheater, not only do they turn the potential noise disturbance from the Roosevelt Park neighborhood and neighborhoods to the southwest, they also were able to open up the land in the northwest corner. Mr. Culhane referred to the image of the site and identified the location of the building/stage house and fixed seating area. He also identified the lawn seating area. The project has 7,000 fixed seats and 5,000 lawn seats. Outside of the lawn seating area there is approximately 2.2 acres that will be part of the property transaction. That area will be developed as an open green space. Mr. Culhane identified the location of the primary access to the river from the Market Ave. public right-of-way. They are opening that up and creating an opportunity to connect with the future riverwalk that is currently being planned. They have designated 50 ft. along the river that would be retained by the City for the development of the riverwalk and in conjunction with the pedestrian connections they are proposing it would provide free, clear, and equitable access to the river for everyone. Mr. Culhane identified the location of the connection to the river on the south side of the proposed project. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 June 22, 2023 Mr. Culhane acknowledged that there were some concerns about rotating the amphitheater to the north; what will the sound do. They hired a firm to perform an acoustical analysis. They put together a virtual model of the architecture of the amphitheater as well as the topography and surrounding architecture of the area and did a 48-hour base line sound study. The low end of the sound in that area is approximately 48 decibels and the high end is 73 decibels, which is an average decibel reading of 66 decibels in the area. Mr. Culhane identified the location of the sound mixing board station. They took the stage house and created a 100-decibel sound source based on musical performance. They measured the sound level at the mixing board and then took the sound levels at various points of the site as well as in the area. Mr. Culhane described the environment relating that the lawn seating goes up 40 ft. above the stage with a security fence and landscaping at the back of the lawn seating area. He displayed a graphic displaying the higher decibel readings, which are contained within that berm. There are some levels that reach into the 72-77 decibel reading, which is similar to the sound of a hair dryer or shop vac. Outside of the venue the decibel readings drop significantly into the 62-72 decibel range. Upon reaching the expressway there is a real change in the decibel readings. The expressway acts as a buffer. Mr. Culhane explained that the only thing that really mitigates or stops the lower frequency sounds is mass. They are fortunate to have the mass of the berm and mass of the expressway, which do a nice job of mitigating the overall sound levels leaving the amphitheater property. North of the expressway, or even across Market Ave., the decibel levels are into the green levels, which are significantly reduced noise levels outside the main amphitheater. Mr. Culhane related that, since the community engagement efforts with Populous, they have also done community engagement with Rosetti Architects in 2022 and Progressive AE recently completed community engagement with eight different groups; 2 business organizations, 5 residential associations, and the DGRI business group. They are generally hearing similar concerns related to parking. A 12,000-seat amphitheater next to a 12,000-seat arena could potentially generate 24,000 people coming into this area. They’ve done a study and parking analysis and noted that within a 15-minute walking radius there are 18,500 existing parking spaces available. They’ve had conversations with Mobile GR and The Rapid and have discussed ways that they can reduce the amount of vehicular traffic that comes to the amphitheater for any given event. They are encouraging people to utilize the existing 18,000 parking spaces. If they were to calculate their parking contribution to the area it would be 12,000 divided by 3 for roughly 4,000 parking spaces that would be utilized by the amphitheater. Potentially, on dual even nights, another 4,000 spaces would be utilized by the Arena, which remains within the available 18,500 spaces. Mr. Culhane related that the parking shown on site is minimal. It is the amount of parking that would be needed for operations, not for general employees and staff. They are currently showing 116 parking spaces on site and not providing parking for events but rather encouraging people to utilize existing parking. Mr. Culhane stated that the next thing they looked at is the mobility and how people would arrive at the site on any given night. They’ve considered many different scenarios of people coming early and partaking in dining, shopping and other activities downtown as well as people leaving the concert afterwards and going to restaurants, bars, or other establishments. Mr. Culhane displayed the potential mobility routes noting that the pink line shows the updated Dash route, City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 June 22, 2023 which goes directly down Market Ave. There are two planned stops, one on the west side and one on the east side of Market Ave. making Dash lots 7, 8 and 9 viable options for people coming to the amphitheater. Mr. Culhane commented on the community engagement. In conversations with neighbors and businesses the goals of the design have been to embrace the location. The location is currently covered with steel and asphalt; an industrial based use in a prime location in the city taking up valuable river frontage. They wanted to open that up to the public and create an opportunity for people to access the river in a meaningful way. They wanted a world class entertainment venue and wanted it to be more than an entertainment venue. Some of the architecture in the community, such as the Arena, Convention Center, GRAM, and other pieces of architecture are iconic in the sense that they have drawn a spotlight to Grand Rapids, including a lot of the work that has been done on the Medical Mile. Another goal was to contribute to the vibrancy and continued growth of the city and also to create a sustainable asset, something that the community can be proud of for the next 50 years. Mr. Culhane related that some of the other elements that came forward were free, clear, and equitable access to the river; opportunities for local, minority owned, pop-up businesses and growth in those areas. From some of the earlier discussions related to the 31-acre site there were goals of fulfilling some of the housing needs within the City of Grand Rapids, connecting to the trail networks, providing the river as a destination for all, and creating multi-generational spaces. Mr. Culhane provided a recap stating that the amphitheater would have a 12,000-seat capacity, roughly 50-54 ticketed events per year, anticipating 300,000 visitors per season. Some of the economic benefits include $7 million in annual wages, nearly a half million dollars in economic impact over the next 30 years, and an additional 480 jobs, which are conservative numbers. Ms. Joseph noted that one of the requirements outlined in the Mobile GR memo related to the traffic analysis was a trip generation analysis. She asked if that has been done. Mr. Culhane replied that he connected with Ms. Zeller last week and discussed the trip generation analysis. Should the outcome be favorable today, she advised that could be submitted to Planning afterwards. Ms. Turkelson added that Mobile GR is asking for a trip generation analysis. However, it is not in the context of whether this should be an allowable use or not. It is more that it sets a baseline for what the trip generation will be for this development so that as they see future phases build out there is more information they can utilize to assess what infrastructure changes or modifications might be needed. Staff didn’t believe it was necessary for the Planning Commission’s consideration but they do believe it is necessary for understanding future phases. Ms. Joseph noted, with respect to coordination with MDOT for the proximity to the Market Ave. exit, that they have met with the Grand Region planner. She would assume there will have to be additional conversations. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 June 22, 2023 Mr. Culhane agreed. Their initial conversation with MDOT centered around some of the team’s desires to know what their plans were. Certain people would love to eliminate the Market Ave. exit. MDOT has even identified that in their long-range planning. However, five years ago they said ten years and just last month they said ten years again. Therefore, it is in the long-range planning. Mr. Culhane stated that they talked to MDOT about two other things; exiting during concert events and coordinating that with MDOT and Mobile GR. The other concern was lights from the venue potentially distracting drivers on 131 or lights from 131 coming in and potentially interfering with a show. Currently 131 is at an elevation of 632-634. The top of the berm is at 640 with potential landscaping on top of that. Therefore, they are eliminating and reducing light distraction to drivers. That is a firm stance of MDOT. Ms. Turkelson added that there are clearly additional reviews and conversations that need to take place as part of this project, which is not dissimilar to other large-scale developments that take place within the city. This is one approval process they must go through but if the Planning Commission doesn’t find the use to be appropriate then how or why do they have the other conversations. Ms. Joseph felt they provided a good summary of the engagement in terms of who they talked to. She wondered what the results of the contact with direct neighbors was, such as those that live in the Market Ave. apartment complex. Mr. Culhane stated that the first group they met with was the neighbors in the Roosevelt Park neighborhood, predominantly south of Wealthy. Their primary concerns were truck routes. Mr. Culhane noted that Taylor Swift travels with 22 semis. Her show has a lot of traffic. They were concerned with what route the semis would be taking because a considerable amount of traffic already comes from the existing uses on the site. They were assured that the trucks and staging would not be going south of Wealthy/through their neighborhood. Mr. Culhane stated that they also met with the Downtown Neighborhood Association and some of the concerns they had were the number of people that may be coming into Grand Rapids, not necessarily from a vehicular sense but from a pedestrian sense, and how that might impact some of the neighborhoods. They met with both the Heartside Neighborhood Association and Business Association. The business owners were very enthusiastic about it and looking for long term opportunities to connect and partner with the amphitheater, not only to get people to the amphitheater but to get people from the amphitheater activities to their businesses. The neighborhood association was concerned about the amount of pedestrian traffic and the length of time that pedestrian traffic might be in the area, as well as parking. In that neighborhood, at the end of the meeting, they committed to continuing to work with them to alleviate some of their concerns. Mr. Culhane identified the location of the restrooms in the northeast and southwest buildings. The neighborhood association explained that if someone enters a public park after dusk to use a pubic restroom they could be arrested. They encouraged making the restrooms more accessible. Although this won’t be a public park, it is the intention of the Convention Arena Authority to make the space open and operational during non-event times. One of the comments they had was if someone needed to use a restroom, if open to the public, that access without going into the park would be better for them. Mr. Culhane explained that they have agreed to continue to work with them to influence some of the planning and elements around the periphery. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 June 22, 2023 Mr. Culhane noted that the core of the amphitheater is very technical and has very stringent requirements with respect to acoustics, sound, and lighting but some of the amenity buildings on the periphery provide an opportunity to allow them to help shape the interactions. Ms. Shannon asked if they had an opportunity to look at other cities with an urban amphitheater such as this. She noted that the proposed is intended to close by 11:00 PM and asked if that is consistent with other amphitheaters. Mr. Culhane replied that 11:00 PM is early compared to other cities that have downtown urban amphitheaters but it isn’t unheard of. The intent is to conclude by 11:00 PM taking into consideration that there are areas outside of their control such as lightening, weather, and technical difficulties. Mr. Culhane provided an example of a major accident blocking the exit to Pine Knob. In that instance they postponed the show a half-hour until the majority of the guests were able to arrive. They would ask that some of those situations be taken into account but it is their intent to conclude by 11:00 PM. Mr. Culhane related that the most likely comparison is the Ascend Amphitheater in Nashville. It is on a river, next to an expressway and in downtown Nashville. They are a venue that does conclude their shows around 11:00 PM. Ms. Shannon noted that she has been to a number of concerts that have started later than anticipated. She asked if there is a way to control some of those things. Mr. Culhane replied that one of the biggest things they have to their advantage is that the majority of the traveling shows will have somewhere to be the next day. What they’re told is that they need to get the show started and concluded on time because they need to break down, be on the road, and be at their next venue the next morning. That is the biggest thing that influences the timing of the show. They received some feedback from an amphitheater in Indianapolis relating that over the course of two years they’ve had two shows that went past the time. It is a business and schedule based on getting in, getting entertainment going, and getting out due to their next obligation. Ms. Turkelson stated that hopefully the staff report reflected, given the uniqueness of the use, that they understood that events would typically complete by 11:00 PM but they also understood there would be some fluctuation due to circumstances beyond their control. They were trying to make sure they were supportive of some flexibility but also have some boundaries. Dr. Wallace asked about the public meeting that recently took place and what outcomes they took from that. Ms. Wood related that the public open house was held on June 12th with approximately 100 participants throughout the course of the two-hour event. There was a short presentation given upfront with opportunity for community members to engage on specific topics such as traffic, parking, the site plan, etc. Similar concerns and questions came up as to what Mr. Culhane has already shared. There wasn’t anything outside of those topics that were raised. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 June 22, 2023 Mr. Culhane offered to provide a document outlining all of the questions from all of the community engagement meetings. Mr. Al-Shatel asked if there are any plans for the vendors to be present on non-show days. He pictures Red Rocks Amphitheater in Colorado or a public space on non-show days where people can go to hang out as a tourist attraction. It may assist small businesses to set up with people going and trying some food and small shops. He recognized that in some of the public comment; making it more inclusive for small businesses. He is happy to hear it will be open to the public on non-show days. Mr. Culhane identified the plaza area and demarcation between event and non-event spaces. He noted the outdoor dining area with shade canopies. Underneath the canopies are tables and chairs for outdoor dining experiences. The line of ticketed event day space and non-ticketed event space was identified. Ticketed individuals could come in during an event and dine in the area and be part of the concert but not be in their seats; they could move back and forth between the dining area and the amphitheater. Mr. Culhane identified the extended line of security returning back to the building and out to the top of the hill where there will either be a security fence or a masonry wall. As the development of the amphitheater evolves and they consider potential need to mitigate sound, they continue to study whether that will be a landscaped area with fence or a landscaped area with a hard wall, which would help to mitigate concerns with sound. Mr. Culhane pointed out that the area on the back side of the berm is anticipated to be lawn area where children could play or people spread out blankets and sit. That area will be designed and accessible as a public park. It will be managed, maintained, and monitored by the Convention Arana Authority. Mr. Culhane identified the road required by the Fire Department for fire access. Rather than just provide an asphalt drive as required, they will make it a wider area to support a 22,000 lb. fire truck and open it up to food trucks to create activity space. Additionally, there is room inside the plaza area for potential food trucks or vendors. During non-events those areas would be open to the public and accessible. Activities and events would be coordinated through the Convention Arena Authority. Ms. Turkelson noted that that is an example of how the request was noticed for mobile food vending but not for an exact location on the site in order to provide the flexibility, understanding there is a desire to have the spaces activated and used. Ms. Shannon recalled that one of the goals is to have access to the river with different opportunities. She asked if there is potential here that will open the river up to such activities. Ms. Turkelson replied that, generally speaking, there wouldn’t be access to the water at this location. There is a 50 ft. strip of land along the river that will be retained by the City to develop the riverwalk. There is an expectation that there will be access over this parcel to the riverfront. Tim Burkman, City Engineer, explained that there will be a 50 ft. strip retained for the river edge walkway. Two of the objectives are to enhance access to the river and increase flood protection, which are two competing/conflicting interests. The design is considering those objectives and goals. They will look for ways to increase opportunities to access the river, certainly much better than what is possible today. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 June 22, 2023 Mr. Rozeboom asked how drop offs will work. Mr. Culhane agreed that moving people in and out as quickly as possible is important. He referred to the main entry plaza stating that they anticipate that is where the majority of drop offs would take place. They have also accounted for potential Uber drop offs along Market Ave. They anticipate that anyone entering the facility from the west side will be pedestrians or scooter type users. They have accounted for private bikes and have discussed providing a bike coral that would likely be sponsored by a local business. They also have six locations for the mobility scooters and bikes to be parked, charged, and utilized by others. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Halford, resident of Plaza Towers, stated that he is in favor of the project overall. However, in the Grand Rapids Press article it talks about how the venue was rotated 180 degrees to face north. Doing so was designed to project more sound toward downtown where less residential housing is. Mr. Halford argued that isn’t true. Part of this project envisions putting in 1,500 residential units in the Charley’s Crab area and the Amway surface parking lot, which the amphitheater would point directly at, in addition to Plaza Towers, JW Marriot, Amway Grand Plaza, and Bridgewater as the sound moves north. Another thing that was talked about was sound. There was to be a 3D rendering of the sound provided, which has not yet been provided. With respect to the berm, the amphitheater is 2 ft. above the S-curve. How the S-curve will block sound is questionable when the amphitheater is above it. Transportation and drop-off is also a concern. Market is a one-lane street. There will be congestion going each way in front of the amphitheater. With respect to engagement, Plaza Towers residents were not contacted regarding this until the public meeting held on June 12th. Mr. Halford doesn’t believe that 100 decibels is accurate for concerts; it is low. He would like to see the amphitheater events end at 10 p.m. for a year and if all goes well then grant them until 11 p.m. Low frequencies travel a lot further than high frequencies. Lucas Leverett, member of the West Grand Board, related that he is not speaking on behalf of the Board. He is a fan of the proposal but it needs a little work. Mr. Leverett related that he was born in Nashville and his family has been involved in the entertainment industry for a long time. In Nashville they hemmed and hawed about their amphitheater his entire adult life. He is happy to see Grand Rapids moving it along. He was there for all of the fallout about sound levels and was there to personally witness showdowns between police and promotor security at the street level, having fights over who belonged where. There is a murky process and lack of transparency in Grand Rapids with basically everything resulting in a number of concerns for him. While they may not be concerns for the Planning Commission, they are concerns that should be heard. A lot of it is about keeping ASM and the CAA under control and in franchising the citizens. These are general topics. A lot of it is being discussed by their neighborhood board as well as other organizations and groups. Parking needs to be more thoroughly planned and a commitment for an on-site adjacent ramp along the way during development needs to be agreed upon for completion no later than when a soccer stadium is added. Currently the parking is being presented in a vacuum with no expressed concern for simultaneous events which impact all the neighborhoods and nearby over-runs, especially if Dash is successful as a park and ride option; City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 June 22, 2023 the neighborhoods become the parking lots. This needs to be the first in a line of partnerships between public transit and all large venues to mitigate the lack of parking. Vital Streets and The Rapid tend to do things in a vacuum that don’t really work with other things. Mr. Leverett suggested they need to seize the opportunity for vast equity, such as a small ticket premium to be directed toward housing and other concerns. Imagine $12,000 per event being raised; over half a million dollars a year with just a $1 per ticket premium. Priority should be given to hiring short- and long-term employees from inside the city limits, preferably those that can use transit or walk. Legally binding commitments need to exist that the walk and park will always be kept open and promoters cannot force them to be closed to the public during concerts. The venue also needs to be a ticket freedom venue and kick the Ticketmaster monopoly out of the equation and require no mandatory use of Ticketmaster. Mr. Leverett hopes that these concerns can be discussed along the way. He asked that the Planning Commission table the request as there are far too many questions. He feels there should be further engagement and a community benefits agreement. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Mr. Culhane apologized to Mr. Halford as he did tell him he would provide a 3D analysis of the sound prior to today. They met on June 8th and talked about sound. Mr. Culhane noted that some of the buildings identified by Mr. Halford are between a ½ and one mile away from this venue. The sound attenuation is going to drop significantly to levels of less than 45 decibels, which is soft speech. With respect to parking and the number of pedestrians downtown, they feel they have considered simultaneous events. There are 18,500 parking spaces within a mobility radius of less than 15 minutes. Ms. Joseph recalled Mr. Halford mentioning the difference between low and high frequencies. She asked how that was incorporated into the study. Mr. Culhane explained that lower frequencies tend to travel further, which is where you get the bass and vibration. The only thing that stops lower frequency is mass. The mass of the hill is equivalent to filling 200 dump trucks a day for 100 days; that is the amount of earth that will be imported into this site to create the berm and it will be high enough to absorb a significant amount of the sound. Mr. Culhane recalled that while discussing the floor plan he indicated that the 100 decibel reading was at the mixing board, which is greater than 100 decibels at the stage area. Mr. Al-Shatel asked if the highway is above the amphitheater. Mr. Culhane explained that the highway also acts as a mixing area. Some of the sounds from the highway, especially during rush hour, will exceed 80-90 decibels. Mr. Al-Shatel clarified that his concern was the distraction for drivers and not so much the sound. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 June 22, 2023 Mr. Culhane indicated that the berm is higher than the S-curve so you won’t be able to see into the venue from the S-curve nor will lights escape the venue and distract drivers on the S-curve. That was a study required by MDOT. Ms. Shannon recalled when the Van Andel Arena was built and there was an agreement to hire a number of people from the Heartside District. Given that the Convention Arena Authority runs both, will that agreement be included in this or are they using the same hiring facilities? Are these new jobs or are they jobs augmented through the Van Andel Arena. Mr. Culhane explained that the Authority that would run, own and operate this is the same Authority that owns and operates the Van Andel Arena and DeVos Place Convention Center. The human resources, hiring practices, and community engagements would be with the owner/operator. He would imagine that they would continue their same hiring practices. Ms. Turkelson advised that hiring practices and jobs would be outside a land use decision. Ms. Shannon expressed her understanding. However, they did mention the economic benefit and jobs. Mr. Rozeboom noted that Grand Valley’s parking facilities are shown on the map as included in the 18,500 available parking spaces. Mr. Rozeboom was not under the impression that Grand Valley shared their parking. Mr. Culhane related that they’ve had preliminary conversations with Grand Valley about potentially partnering because of the proximity. While not part of this project, there is a long- term plan to create a bridge across the river that would land on the GVSU property. In the 50 ft. of property to be owned by the City, the bridge was included as a potential in the future. Grand Valley’s parking included in the count was less than 3,000 spaces. If unable to reach an agreement the available supply would drop from 18,500 to 16,000, which significantly exceeds the potential 8,000 spaces per dual event. Mr. Van Strien asked why 105 decibels was chosen as the baseline for the sound analysis. Mr. Culhane replied that rock and roll music, the loudest of all music, is typically at that decibel level. He believes there is a National OSHA regulation about sound exposure of 105 decibels. Mr. Van Strien asked if that will be written into contracts with acts. Mr. Culhane replied that it is a standard part of contracts Ms. Turkelson added that it is also part of the application and testimony for this project that that is the baseline expectation. Therefore, that would be one of the enforcement components should there be an issue needing to be investigated. Mr. Rozeboom asked if the modeling included a wall on top of the berm or landscaping. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 June 22, 2023 Mr. Culhane replied that the modeling currently doesn’t include that. That is something they could add to mitigate and modify the sound. Mr. Culhane responded to Mr. Williams again stating that the typical rock band show is at 105 decibels, which is information from industry standards. He agreed that theoretically it could go above that but when going above 100 it becomes uncomfortable. Participants begin to feel discomfort not only in their ears but physically. Very few concerts would exceed that over a period of time because it isn’t healthy over a 2-3 hour concert. Ms. Turkelson suggested the Planning Commission keep in mind that the sound study is part of any potential approval from the Planning Commission and it is expected that if this is the information provided, that is the standard they would be held to especially as it relates to impact on adjacent properties. Dr. Wallace invited Mr. Halford forward requesting he keep his comments brief. Mr. Halford related that the University of Michigan Health states that rock concerts average between 120 and 129 decibels. Mr. Williams related that he did a quick Google search also and got the same answer, which was why he asked that question of the applicant again. Mr. Van Strien clarified that while that may be the case, what they would be approving is a more limited level. Dr. Wallace asked what would happen if a constituent were to lodge a complaint. Ms. Turkelson related that the Environmental Services Division enforces the Noise Ordinance. The City also has a sound engineer consultant that can help provide technical analysis of the sound from various uses. If there is a concern about sound the City does have decibel readers, although they don’t measure all aspects of sound, and Environmental Services does the enforcement. If it is found that the issue exceeds internal capacity of expertise and enforcement then they have the sound consultant they can utilize to help determine whether there is a violation of the Special Land Use or Noise Ordinance. Ms. Joseph asked if the new Noise Ordinance will list specific decibel rates related to this type of venue. Ms. Turkelson replied that that hasn’t been determined as of yet. That would be a Code of Ordinance under the authority of the City Commission. It is acknowledged at this point that the sound ordinance would not support an amphitheater use in that it would be far more limiting and wouldn’t be a tool they could use for enforcement because of the nature of this use and the regulatory structure of the current Noise Ordinance. That is in process and she would expect that is something the City Commission would consider in the coming months. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 June 22, 2023 Mr. Hoeker related that that is his understanding as well. Their discussions at this point are focused more on hours than decibels. As Ms. Turkelson stated, it may not be administratively feasible to impose particular decibel limits on a venue like this in this location. Ms. Shannon stated that enforcement is one of her concerns. When they’ve had other cases before them they’ve been told there isn’t the equipment or ability to measure those decibels. How would this differ? Ms. Turkelson agreed that in the past they have been challenged with Noise Ordinance enforcement, which is the reason they engaged the services of a sound consultant. That has provided the expertise needed when it comes to sound, impact and enforcement. Ms. Shannon recognized that that will change procedures on the investigation and not rely on the police to make the finding, but rather the Environmental Services Dept. Ms. Turkelson replied that the sound consultant was not brought in specific to this project; it is a completely unrelated situation where they found themselves needing additional expertise for sound enforcement. They have that tool that would be available if there are particular concerns or issues with this venue. They are better equipped today than they have been in the past to address noise complaints. Mr. Hoeker explained , generally speaking, with decibels it is a highly technical endeavor to measure them. In an urban environment, with all of the surrounding noise, that just complicates the analysis. It may be easier to control events by time vs. by decibels. Mr. Rozeboom recalled that the applicant made it clear that the on-stage sound could be as was presented by Mr. Halford but the applicant stated that at the mixing board it was at a different level. He felt they explained the two different numbers. Mr. Rozeboom agreed that regulating it by time is likely better than by decibel levels. His only real concerns relate to drop-offs. The experiences he has had at venues like this is that there are always a lot of people arriving in a short period of time. He can imagine it working well with a lot of space. Around stadiums, roads get shut off so that the roadway can be used as pedestrian space. He has a hard time imagining it here. He isn’t saying that he doesn’t believe it could work but he has a hard time picturing it, particularly with the off ramp from 131 being right there. Mr. Williams indicated that is a concern for him as well. He recognizes they are doing things to mitigate the sound. This shouldn’t be a quiet space. Music is an experience and people should be able to go to a concert venue like this and really experience it. That being said, it sounds like there are standards and expectations but there is no strict recourse if the noise is higher or residents downtown are hearing it. He doesn’t feel they will intentionally do that and provide a free show but there is still no stopping that and he doesn’t want to see police officers walking around with equipment trying to measure it. The sound remains a concern, as well as traffic. Mr. Williams stated that he goes to the Planet Fitness there and it is a very good street right now but he wouldn’t want to be driving on Market or trying to park to go to Planet Fitness during the time of an event. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 June 22, 2023 Ms. Joseph compared it to an event at Van Andel Arena. No one wants to drive down Ottawa or Fulton when an event is happening there either. Mr. Williams countered that Fulton is 2-3 lanes and Market is not. Ms. Joseph recalled that they anticipate drop off on the east side of the site. She asked if there is a curb cut or bulb out situation to manage the Uber or Lyft scenario. Mr. Culhane replied that Market is the only place to drop off. The expressway is to the north, adjacent City property to the south, and the river to the west. They have had conversations about potentially closing Market during an event. They haven’t gone to that level of operations yet in working with Mobile GR but they are providing drop off along the only street adjacent to the property. The plan, and the communication plan, they would enact with the City of Grand Rapids is one of parking in the 18,000 spaces and walking to the event. They know that people will drive to the event and want to park at the front door but to mitigate that they are looking at opportunities. The operational aspects of that haven’t been worked out yet but Market is the area where they have an opportunity to get cars outside the flow of traffic to drop people off. Depending on how that plays out there could be an opportunity to close or reduce traffic in that area and redirect traffic off of the Market Ave. exit to go straight and not allow them to turn right. Ms. Shannon recalled when the Van Andel Arena was being discussed and the biggest point of discussion was to locate it downtown or out in some corn field like the Palace in Detroit. Parking was a major issue. The beauty of putting it here is that getting out of the Palace, which is closed now, takes an hour or two because there is nowhere to go. There is one parking lot and one expressway entrance. Downtown the beauty of it is that it stimulated all the growth of restaurants and other things to do before and after a show, which dispersed the number wanting to get out of downtown quickly. Ms. Shannon feels this is an incredible opportunity and asset for our town. She agrees that parking is a concern but she would rather see that environment downtown than what it was 40 years ago. Overall, it is a very complex project and she appreciates the work that has gone into it. There are questions but sometimes you have to take the step with the hope that enough detail has been addressed to be able to manage it. When going to an event at the Van Andel there are police helping to manage traffic. She is sure those kinds of plans will have to be put in place. Mr. Rozeboom related that he was expressing concern about dropping off and picking up and not about parking. He also noted that this is an edge and it is hard to make a river a scene. That is different where even the arena has four sides and you can go four directions. Here you can go in two or maybe three directions. He is intrigued by the idea of connecting across the river, which could really help that. Josh Naramore, Mobile GR, explained that, as it relates to pick-up and drop-off, there is a lot of the administrative that the Planning Commission would be approving. Mobile GR has a good track record of working with developments, Van Andel Arena being the prime example. Uber and Lyft didn’t exist when the Arena was built so everyone was dropping off. There is no designated pick-up/drop-off zone at Van Andel Arena currently. Those operational City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 June 22, 2023 considerations were made afterwards when they began to figure out how they operate. The landscape of that has changed dramatically. This is somewhat different with the constraints of the river, which is the beauty of it in a lot of ways. Part of that is looking at the configuration of the street network that is adjacent and how people would exit off of the Market exit and traverse on Cherry. Then there is Williams that heads back in a different direction and Bartlett, which will be a new improved intersection that will be able to access the site. It will be a signalized intersection that will allow you to go in both directions onto Market. A lot of this is developing an operational, traffic management, and special events management plan for any development, which is what they do. They do that not only for these types of fixed venues but also for any special event that is programmed. The Pride Festival had 30,000 people downtown and they were able to mitigate the impacts. That is an operational challenge vs. what the fixed location is going to be doing. When it comes to pick-up and drop-off, Mr. Naramore wanted to be very mindful, that that is why they didn’t require a traffic impact study. This will be non-peak trips that will be dispersed across the entirety of the City because it doesn’t have on-site parking and doesn’t have a residential component. However, they need to put that flag in there for the applicant as they have additional conversations with MDOT because they likely won’t favor having a drop off location near the interchange. Part of the Special Land Use application is denoting that they do need to designate specific drop-off/pick-up locations and how it will be operated. That is more on the traffic management side after the development is approved, is constructed, and operates. Ms. Turkelson added that the signalized intersection at Bartlett will have a cross walk that will be improved. Mr. Narmore agreed. They have already installed the new and improved crossing at Williams. It doesn’t have the flashing beacon but it is proposed to be installed. They haven’t put it in because they don’t know what building is going on the other side. The underground utilities have been installed so the structure can be placed as soon as the development comes on line. Ms. Turkelson related that there were a lot of conversations when working on the redesign of Market Avenue. There was a very intentional decision to prioritize pedestrians. Ms. Turkelson noted that the scale of the street has changed dramatically. It is one lane in each direction with a center turn lane and improved pedestrian crossings. They did that because they knew they wanted to facilitate a good mixed-use development and make sure there was pedestrian connectivity. Pedestrian connectivity was prioritized over making sure vehicles can maneuver easily through Market. In general, those are good urban design practices that were followed. Mr. Naramore concluded his comments stating that although it isn’t like Van Andel that has streets for cars on all four sides, it has pedestrian access points on all sides of the venue. This will be much more of a pedestrian focused entity, which is to the benefit of all the other businesses on the other side of the location because there are more people to patronize them. Dr. Wallace stated that she has the same concerns but she also thinks that because it is new it is somewhat of a wait and see situation. They don’t exactly know the intent of people traversing to a not yet built location. People tend to figure these things out. This is a space that is underutilized. This proposal is purposeful. The availability for public comment has been exhausted by having the public meeting; seeing the results in the packet was empowering. She City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 June 22, 2023 feels that people are generally supportive. She is somewhat surprised there weren’t more present today for public comment but that likely speaks to the outreach efforts; they’ve had an opportunity to be heard. Additionally, this is a big city and these are the sort of improvements that make it a destination for those that may not live here. Dr. Wallace is in support of the project. Mr. Al-Shatel indicated that he is also in strong support. He appreciates the work that has been done with the safety concerns as it relates to expressway traffic. It also appears with the diversity and focus groups that there was effort to get as many people’s opinions as possible. Mr. Al- Shatel is also happy to see this going into the downtown area to attract more people. With respect to how people will get there, Mr. Al-Shatel related that he personally doesn’t like going to big sporting events and concerts because he doesn’t like the crowds. For those that are interested they are willing to park and walk and are accepting of that situation. He feels those things will sort themselves out. Ms. Joseph agreed with the previous comments. One thing they haven’t discussed is the alcohol sales. She feels it is completely appropriate in this location for this venue, even when events aren’t occurring and they have the food court area open for dining. They have an alcohol management plan and she isn’t concerned about that either. People will figure out the parking and walking. The City has great staff and City departments to work on special events and make it happen. This development is completely different than the case approved nearby on S. Division. However, similar to that, they have to try these things to see if the infrastructure put in place works and how people can change activities and behaviors. This is an awesome opportunity. Mr. Williams agreed with the comments offered. This is a very good use and he likes the location because it is downtown. People can stay and patronize the businesses. Mr. Williams is interested in seeing what is eventually done with traffic. He appreciates the comments, which did alleviate a number of his concerns related to traffic. However, he believes there will be somewhat of an issue going through there because it is only two lanes. As previously stated, people will figure out how to get there without having to drive there. Overall, Mr. Williams is in favor. Mr. Van Strien feels this is a very important piece of the vibrancy puzzle for a city like Grand Rapids. He is excited to see this. He understands the concerns about congestion and parking, although parking isn’t necessarily one of their considerations in this area. The impact of this number of visitors is. While the location presents some challenges because of the proximity to an off ramp, it is also the perfect space for this; on the river, along a green space, and next to the highway. There are a lot of reasons this makes perfect sense for the city. Mr. Van Strien invited Mr. Leverett to offer another very brief comment. Mr. Leverett advised the Planning Commission to be aware who the real boss is when talking about decibels and everything else. Nothing they can do is going to change this boss. Ms. Joseph added that she is very excited about the public access easement to the river, providing open access to that asset. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 June 22, 2023 Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Grand Action Foundation 2.0 (Kara Wood) for approval of a +/-12,000 seat outdoor amphitheater with alcohol service, and a streetside plaza with mobile food vending and outdoor activities, at 201, 225, 233, and 301 Market Ave. SW, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will help actualize several of the goals of the GR Forward Downtown and River Action Plan, including: Goal 1.4 Enhance neighborhood access to the river; Goal 5.1 Expand arts and cultural events and temporary programming to further activate the public realm year-round. The proposed use is the type of major cultural institution that is appropriate for the City Center Zone District and will support the purpose and intent of the City Center Zone District as an interesting and fun place to eat, socialize, and listen to music that the downtown intends to attract. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the site is a redevelopment of an existing site and as such will be brought into conformance with all site improvement provisions as required per the ordinance; the site has been arranged to provide both pedestrian access and emergency access to the river’s edge; and the site lighting will be installed per the city ordinance and will not impede the vision of drivers on public streets, including US-131. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the linkage in the Riverwalk to be provided by this development will support the pedestrian-oriented environment desired downtown; the project will redevelop a current industrial site for a use more appropriate for the City Center Zone District; and the amphitheater will draw development south of Fulton into the southwest quadrant of the city. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through the placement of buildings, structures and entrances, as well as the location of screening, fencing, landscaping, buffers and setbacks and the proximity to transit and considerable parking infrastructure within a 15-minute walk. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, glare, or visual clutter because pursuant to the submitted noise study, the existing freeway will act as a noise buffer for areas north of the project, and the bulk of the noise generated by the venue will be directed upwards by the lawn seating berm and dissipate over the river; most attendees to events will not be arriving to the venue in personal vehicles; and lighting will be directed away from nearby residential and commercial uses. 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 existing site is largely unwalkable and provides no public access to the river’s edge. The proposed site will transform the space between the public right of way on Market Ave. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 June 22, 2023 and the river’s edge and provide multiple enhanced access points to the river. This project will greatly increase walkability in the neighborhood and provide a far more pedestrian oriented environment. 7. The building and site area required for the proposed use will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because the existing site is largely impervious, and the proposed design will significantly increase both the green space and tree canopy. 8. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or would be provided at no additional cost because the existing water main in Market Ave. is undersized from a fire protection standpoint for a project of this size. As such, it is anticipated that the existing water main will be upsized at the developer’s cost. This will benefit both this project and future development on these riverfront parcels. Additionally, other public facilities available to the site are largely sufficient for the proposed project. 9. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because this project will create significant economic opportunities for the city and surrounding neighborhoods. By attracting largescale events and performances it will stimulate local businesses, restaurants, hotels, and shops. 10. 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 the downtown amphitheater is a unique use for Grand Rapids and West Michigan as a whole, and alcohol service is intended as an amenity for patrons of the performance venue and outdoor plaza. 11. The sale and consumption of alcohol on the premises will promote economic growth in a manner consistent with adopted goals, plans or policies of the area because the amphitheater is a catalytic project that is projected to bring $7 million in annual wage earning and $490 million in net new economic impact over the next 30 years and the amphitheater will bring vitality to an underutilized portion of the city’s downtown, expanding activity and commerce along Market Avenue and enhancing quality of life for residents and visitors. 12. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because, although alcohol will be available for purchase at the venue, the main attraction will be the music and entertainment and well-managed venues that serve alcohol are appropriate in a downtown setting. 13. Adjacent or nearby parks, religious institutions, and schools will not be adversely affected by the proposed use because other than a dog park located across from the venue, no other parks, playgrounds, religious institutions, or schools are in the immediate vicinity. 14. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any, or minimal, negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because events will generally end by 11 p.m. and the operator will employ the same security contractor currently utilized at Van Andel Arenda and DeVos Place. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 June 22, 2023 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. That the building plans are approved in concept and are subject to final site plan review. 3. That, subject to the amended Noise Control Ordinance: a) Events shall typically occur between 9:00 AM and 11:00 PM (subject to weather and schedule delays), with the venue cleared of guests by midnight, and b) Event breakdown shall conclude by approximately 2:00 AM, with all vehicles having left the facility by approximately 4:00 AM. 4. That mobile food vending on the outdoor plaza shall not include outdoor cooking due to the proximity of the street. 5. That the following shall be required prior to the issuance of the LUDS permit: a) The applicant shall work with the Police Department to ensure that all operational issues are addressed. b) A trip generation analysis shall be submitted to Mobile GR. c) The property shall be divided as proposed. d) The portion of Bartlett and Williams Streets within the development site shall be vacated, unless an encroachment agreement has been obtained. 6. The applicant shall continue to work with the City to evaluate potential sound/noise resulting from the use and implement any necessary mitigation measures through final site and architectural design to the extent necessary. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. Mr. Williams asked about condition #4; that mobile food vending on the outdoor plaza shall not include outdoor cooking due to the proximity of the street. He asked if that is an Ordinance. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 June 22, 2023 Ms. Turkelson explained that outdoor cooking itself would be a Special Land Use. Typically, what they find is that when there is outdoor cooking there is smoke and different impacts to surrounding uses. Food trucks are typically warming and not grilling with excessive smoke. The question was called. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al- Shatel ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Aaron Jonker IV. Site Plan Reviews A. 2135 E Beltline Ave NE - Planned Sign Program Amendment Address: 2135 E. Beltline Ave NE Applicant: Grand Rapids Retail Management II LLC (Gabe Schuchman) Requesting: Approval for an amendment to the Celebration Village Planned Sign Program. Zoning: SD-PRD Special District – Planned Redevelopment District Requirements: Article 7 Special Districts Article 15 Signs 5.12.08. Site Plan Review Procedures 5.15.08. Planned Sign Program 5.15.13. Signs in Special and Overlay Zone Districts Case Number: PC-SPR-2023-0044 Staff Assigned: Sarah Behmlander sbehmlander@grand-rapids.mi.us Type of Case: Site Plan Review Effective Date: Immediate Ms. Behmlander introduced the request for an amendment to the Celebration Village Planned Sign Program. The specific site is the former location of a Chili’s restaurant. In May the Planning Commission reviewed signage for one of the two new buildings being constructed in this location. In review of the original Planned Sign Program for the development, no signage was designated in this area. The text language of the Planned Sign Program designated that signage follow the requirements of Knapp’s Corner, which allowed tenants to have 25 sq. ft. of wall signage in the front and 25 sq. ft. of signage in the back. Ms. Behmlander recalled from the May signage approval that the Planning Commission approved several wall signs on the urgent care building but chose to forego the ground signage and a south elevation wall sign that was deemed to be unnecessary or inappropriate for the development. For the subject building the Planning Commission will be considering signage for a Starbucks as well as a future tenant space just north of the Starbucks location. The applicant is requesting wall City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 June 22, 2023 signage on the south elevation, which would face the internal drive of Celebration Village, and signage on the north side as well as a small projecting sign above one of the customer entrances. Uniquely, they are also proposing four mobile order pick up signs that are proposed to be attached to the support beams of the canopy. In terms of the canopy and building, those have already gone through the approval process with the Planning Department. Ms. Behmlander suggested the Planning Commission consider why the signs are proposed to be placed on the beams and the ground clearance of the signs, which are relatively low considering an 8 ft. ground clearance is typically required over a right-of-way and 14 ft. of ground clearance over vehicular areas. In terms of appropriateness of the sign package, it is generally in line with the Planned Sign Program. The only exception is the proposed small projecting sign and the four smaller mobile order pick up signs. At the inception of the Planned Sign Program, mobile order pick ups weren’t established. Ms. Behmlander suggested the Planning Commission consider the changing times and the way that people interact with retail stores. With respect to the future tenant space, staff was not provided a sign package. Therefore, Planning staff recommends approving what is in line with the Planned Sign Program, which is 25 sq. ft. at the front and rear of the building. If the Planning Commission wishes to consider something different, she has also provided the appropriate sizes within the East Beltline Overlay District. She suggested discussing with the applicant what signage they might need but also what kind of tenants they are considering for that space. Greg McDade was present on behalf of the request. He explained that Starbucks is fairly specific with their signage and it is fairly standard across the board. It is something that increases their brand presence. Mr. McDade explained that they have taken into consideration limiting the amount of signage that is on site. Most of the signage is limited to the east and south elevations and they made a great attempt to keep the signage within the constraints of the Overlay District. Overall, they feel the signage on the Starbucks building will add to the overall look of the development and beautify the streetscape. With respect to the additional tenant space, Mr. McDade related that they weren’t able to put together a signage package for that space. They don’t have a tenant in line for that space currently. Based off of where they landed for the urgent care building, they feel it makes sense to sign the east and west facades of the building. When a tenant is secured, they will be sure they are aware of the signage they are afforded. Ms. Joseph noted that sign C is shown at less than 7 ft. above the sidewalk and they are typically required to be 8 ft. above. She asked the rationale for that. Mr. McDade believes that they didn’t want to go too high up on the building based on where the brick is and how the building is constructed. He suggested they can take it back and take another look at raising the sign if that were to be a condition of approval. Ms. Joseph also asked the need for that sign since there is already the large main entrance sign there. Why is the projecting sign necessary? City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 June 22, 2023 Mr. McDade replied that if you drive on the western side of the development that is where that sign would be somewhat visible and provide another view of what is there. Ms. Behmlander added that when drivers are on the west side of the building they will be able to see it but if you are on the East Beltline or coming into the drive there is a decorative wall around the patio making it somewhat difficult to see where the actual customer entrance is, albeit you can still see the logo from the street. Ms. Joseph referred to the mobile order signs and asked the reason they need to exceed the maximum sign height and why they have to be illuminated/lit. Mr. McDade explained that the mobile order signs are to denote where to pull up and to enhance the circulation and flow of the site. The illumination of the sign is for when it is dark and to make it clear where patrons should be going for pick up. Ms. Joseph explained that she understands the rationale of having mobile order spots. She asked why not just on a pole in front of the parking space so they could be considered incidental to other signage. They are currently proposed affixed to the canopy and they are also higher than the maximum allowed. Mr. Van Strien asked if Ms. Joseph prefers something on a post vs. something more built into the architecture. He feels the proposed is a better solution than just a metal sign post. Ms. Joseph misunderstood how it didn’t conform to the Ordinance. Ms. Behmlander clarified that the ground clearance requirement typically applies over a public right of way. This is unique in that it is internal to the development. It is a sidewalk just to facilitate pedestrians going from their car to the front door. In a way it’s not necessarily not meeting code but she wanted the Commission to think about it and determine if they would prefer to see a post with a sign. Mr. Rozeboom appreciated the clarification as he was confused about the mobile pick up signs. Ms. Behmlander indicated that they would be incidental if they weren’t illuminated. Because they are illuminated, they need a sign permit. Mr. Van Strien feels an internally illuminated sign looks nice. The qualify of the sign matters in this case and he feels it is better on the columns than just a post. With respect to the projecting sign, a number of zone districts allow for a wall sign and a blade sign on the same elevation. Ms. Turkelson pointed out that the blade signs are typically to denote where the customer entrance is, which is why both are allowed. Ms. Joseph commented on the future tenant space. She agrees that signage on the east and west sides are appropriate. She doesn’t feel a sign on the north façade is necessary because it is an internal alleyway. They denied the one on the south side of the urgent care for the same reason. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 June 22, 2023 Ms. Behmlander recalled that the Planning Commission approved two wall signs at 68 sq. ft. and one at 36 sq. ft. for the urgent care space. Ms. Joseph feels that based on the size of the tenant space and what they are considering for the Starbucks that it potentially makes sense to keep with the 25-35 sq. ft. allowance. Mr. Van Strien agreed. Mr. Rozeboom stated that he isn’t opposed to the blade sign in general. However, at 6’ 8” and sticking out 2 ft. from the wall makes him somewhat uncomfortable. There is a reason for the 8 ft. clearance rule. Ms. Turkelson agreed. It is an accessibility concern. Whether public or private property there should be clear access underneath the sign. Mr. Rozeboom stated that if it can’t be at the required 8 ft. because of the architecture it should at least be higher than 6’ 8”. Mr. McDade agreed to take that back and look at raising it. Ms. Turkelson added that the sign is also 5 ft. tall. There are some design considerations and choices that could be made to increase the clearance. Mr. McDade clarified that the blade sign is 2 ft. tall. Mr. Al-Shatel MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Grand Rapids Retail Management II LLC (Gabe Schuchman) for an amendment to the Planned Sign Program of Celebration Village for a new building to be located at 2135 E Beltline Ave NE, for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed Planned Sign Program amendments would result in a more attractive aesthetic setting, improved safety, provide more convenient identification for planned users, or other similar purposes, because the proposed amendments will allow signage typically permitted by the underlying East Beltline Overlay District and allow for adequate and effective signs for identification and appropriate commercial speech. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed plan substantially furthers the Purposes and Intent of Section 5.15.01., because the proposed amendments would protect the need to promote new businesses within the Celebration Village development. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the approval of the Planned Sign Program amendments would not create any adverse impacts on one or more properties in the vicinity because the proposed amendments: · Will ensure that signs are located, designed, constructed, installed, and maintained in a way that protects life, health, property and the public welfare. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 30 June 22, 2023 · Reinforce and support the character of the surrounding development by taking into account building scale and massing, and nearby travel speeds. · Balance the need and right to communicate with needs to promote orderly communication, promote community aesthetics, and prevent a proliferation of signs and sign structures that can be confusing and distracting. 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 Ms. Shannon. Ms. Turkelson recommended the following conditions: 2. The north tenant bay signage shall be no more than two (2) signs at 25 sq. ft. each, permitted on the east and west facades. 3. The blade sign shall be elevated to the greatest extent possible to provide maximum clearance for the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Al-Shatel amended the motion to include the recommended conditions. Supported by Ms. Shannon. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 31 June 22, 2023 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Salim Al-Shatel SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Al- Shatel ABSENT: Kristine Bersche, Aaron Jonker V. Planning Commission Discussion None. VI. Public Comment None. VII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 3:46 PM VIII. Resolutions