TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 August 10, 2023 City Commission Chambers I. 12:00 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. - Lunch - Conference Room 901, City Hall, 300 Monroe Ave NW II. Business - 12:30 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM by Board Member Kyle Van Strien PRESENT: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Joseph, Wallace, Al-Shatel STAFF PRESENT: Tyler Kent, Elizabeth Zeller, Laura Wahamaki, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker, and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from July 13, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Susan Shannon, Board Member SECONDER: Paul Rozeboom, Vice Chairperson YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Laurel Joseph, Adrienne Wallace, Salim Al-Shatel C. Planning Director's Report · The Planning Commission retreat will take place on 8/24/23 and will focus on housing policy. The meeting will take place in City Commisssion chambers. · Mr. Kent related that there have been a number of letters/emails submitted regarding a potential project adjacent to Huff Park. At this point, the Planning Dept. has not received an application. There have been conversations with the developer to discuss the project. The developer has also had conversations with the Neighborhood Association. They were supposed to follow up with a meeting with the Neighborhood Association last week and that didn’t occur. Staff continues to receive emails and information from neighbors that are opposed to the project. Those emails will be shared with the developer as well as the Planning Commission. The correspondence will be included with packet information should an application be submitted. Mr. Kent explained that some of the emails have referred to development occurring within the park. There is no plan for any development in the park. · Mr. Kent related receipt of correspondence from Steve Fridsma regarding infill development discussed at the joint City Commission/Planning Commission meeting last month. · Mr. Kent related that a Master Plan Steering Committee meeting was held yesterday. They touched on infill development and the understanding that there will be pressures within neighborhoods regarding infill development. As part of the engagement process there will be Generated 8/16/2023 10:57 AM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 August 10, 2023 discussions on scale and architecture of buildings, green space, etc. as they work to address the housing needs in the city. · Mr. Fridsma was present for the Planning Commission business meeting. He related that he wrote the Planning Commission on 8/1/23 and then listened to the entire 7/13/23 public meeting. It is possible that MLive misrepresented some of the discussion. The article talked about infill developments as large as six units being exempt from the Special Land Use process. Mr. Fridsma believes that that size of development can work in a low-density district but he also believes it can be very disruptive. Mr. Fridsma stated that he trusts the Planning Commission more than he trusts developers. The Planning Commission knows what else is going on in the city, they know the Zoning Ordinance well, and what other bodies are looking at in terms of traffic, utility infrastructure, etc. A six-unit development, without Planning Commission Special Land Use consideration, seems too large. Mr. Fridsma feels it makes sense to bypass the Special Land Use process if someone lives on a double lot and wants to build a duplex next door to them, or a triple lot with two duplex units or accessory dwelling units. However, six 3-bedroom units and/or multiples of those could be up to 40,000 sq. ft. of development. Mr. Fridsma related that he is an architect and developers can be extremely cut throat. If given the leeway, they will take it as far as they can. Mr. Fridsma trusts the Planning Commission to do what is best for the city vs. someone motivated by the profit. He believes there may be a way to define a smaller size development than six units for bypassing the Special Land Use process. · Mr. Kent related that the Master Plan Steering Committee went well last evening. They discussed scale and architecture and how some of those standards are in place but this may be an opportunity to expand upon the design standards to complement the existing built environment. Those are things that will be discussed further over the next couple of meetings. Mr. Rozeboom added that the other topic discussed was the economics of the city; how many people live and work in the city, live in the city and work outside of it, etc. There are 30,000 that live and work in the city and many times more come from outside of the city and work in the city. Mr. Kent added that 7% of the land in the city is zoned SD-IT, which is something else to think about as they see the adaptive reuse of some of the buildings. Does it make sense to do that in every case? · Discussion took place regarding the reuse of office buildings for housing and the amount of vacant office building space. · Agenda items were briefly reviewed. 1. Correspondence regarding potential development near Huff Park 2. Correspondence - Steve Fridsma City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 August 10, 2023 III. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall Mr. Van Strien provided an introduction on the process of the meeting. He related that the rumored potential development adjacent to Huff Park is not on today’s agenda as no application has been submitted. There will be no public hearing on that matter today but anyone present regarding that potential development that wishes to comment may do so at the end of the meeting. A. Conflict of Interest None expressed. B. 1935 Breton Rd SE - Conditional Rezoning Address: 1935 Breton Road SE Applicant: Grand Rapids Retail Management LLC (Jordan Chapman) Requesting: Approval of a conditional rezoning agreement to facilitate construction of an urgent care facility in the NOS (Neighborhood Office Service) Zone District. Zoning: SD-NOS Special District—Neighborhood Office Service Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.11. Conditional Rezoning Case Number: PC-ZON-2023-0052 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Zone Change Effective Date: City Commission Approval Ms. Zeller introduced the request for approval of a Conditional Rezoning Agreement to facilitate construction of an urgent care facility in the NOS (Neighborhood Office Service) Zone District. Ms. Zeller explained that the NOS Zone District is often adjacent to residential zone districts and the regulations for site layout, building elements, and uses reflect the proximity to residential. Ms. Zeller noted that Breton Village Mall is located across the street from the site. The subject property is currently unimproved. The building formerly on the site has been demolished. Ms. Zeller provided some background relating that the site was previously improved with a Chase Bank branch. The Planning Department received a site permit/LUDS request for improvements on the site for a medical office building. Because medical office is a permitted use, the demolition was allowed. Staff later received plans for a building permit and realized the proposed was an urgent care facility, the same urgent care company that the Planning Commission considered in the Celebration PUD, which was a major amendment. As in the Celebration PUD, the urgent care/clinic use is not a permitted use in the NOS. Staff and the applicant discussed several options for moving forward. One option considered was rezoning to Commercial. Breton Village Mall, across the street, is zoned C. Staff didn’t find that to be the best course of action. If rezoned to C, any use in the C Zone District could be allowed. Everything on the west side of Breton is NOS and staff didn’t find C to be appropriate. NOS uses are less intense uses than would be allowed in the C District. The adjacency to residential is also a consideration. However, the proposed urgent care use is not too dissimilar from a medical City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 August 10, 2023 office use. Therefore, staff didn’t find it inappropriate for the applicant to pursue a request for a Conditional Rezoning. Ms. Zeller explained that the Conditional Rezoning agreement proposed by the applicant would also allow for any other use that would be allowed in the NOS Zone District. Ms. Zeller also explained that the outstanding items identified in the staff report have been resolved and incorporated into the agreement. The final agreement indicates that the specific medical clinic use as proposed by the applicant is what would be allowed. The rationale for that is that a medical clinic could be interpreted to have a range of uses and there may be some medical clinics that have a higher intensity of use or might result in a number of people waiting outside for an appointment, which staff didn’t find to be appropriate for this location. There were also modifications to ensure the building and site would be developed in conformity with the NOS site layout and building element requirements. The agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s office and is supported in its current form. Ms. Zeller related that the site layout has been approved and a LUDS permit has been issued. It meets all of the NOS Zone District requirements. The building, as proposed, looks very similar to the development the Planning Commission considered for Celebration. However, in order to meet NOS requirements, some minor modifications will be necessary to the height and parapet. Those are things that the applicant can work through with staff. Ms. Zeller stated that the Eastgate Neighborhood Association has been advised by staff of this request. At this time staff has not received any input from them. Mr. Van Strien clarified that the agreement has been updated to include Ms. Zeller’s recommendation to include the building layout and building elements. He asked if it would be necessary to include those recommendations as conditions in the resolution. Ms. Zeller clarified that it is covered in the agreement and no additional conditions would be necessary. Mitchell Harvey, Stonefield Engineering, provided some background relating that they submitted for preliminary approval in April 2022. They received the LUDS approval in September 2022. Throughout that time, they showed a medical office on the site plan, which is consistent with what they typically do for this user; WellNow Urgent Care. They’ve built WellNow facilities in Lowell, Plainwell, and Portage and on those plans they put medical office because that is how it was treated. When reviewing the Zoning Ordinance, they felt this user was within the medical office designation, which is under the Commercial section of the table. Medical clinic was within education/institutional so they didn’t feel that fit the proposed use. Mr. Harvey clarified that they have always planned to develop a WellNow Urgent Care here and they were not trying to switch anything out. He believes the original elevations submitted actually showed the WellNow. Mr. Harvey explained that WellNow does routine check-ups, treatment of minor injuries, physicals, COVID testing, cold and flu treatments, etc. They do not provide any overnight stays and no surgeries are performed. On their website it says that if experiencing an emergency to call City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 August 10, 2023 911 or go to the nearest Emergency Room; WellNow is not an emergency service center. It is more similar to a medical office where one makes an appointment for services. Mr. Harvey stated that they feel the WellNow user is consistent with the area. There is an office building to the north, a bank to the south, the commercial shopping center to the east and to the south, across Burton, is a dental office. They feel their use is consistent within that corridor. They also feel the proposed will be complementary to the area. With respect to the site plan, Mr. Harvey related that they have designed the building to meet all other Ordinance requirements. The front of the building is placed near the street to maximize the space between residential further to the west and north. The site will be significantly landscaped. They are proposing ten new trees and over ninety new shrubs of various species across the site. They feel they will be beautifying the site with a very good development. Eric Starck, Miller Johnson, stated that they have been working with Ms. Zeller for months and when they learned that this was being classified as a medical office they were concerned. They have another in a neighboring municipality they are working on and that is also be classified as a medical office. In discussion with Ms. Zeller there were a number of options in the Ordinance they could have pursued. However, this may be somewhat of an unclassified use; it is between medical office and clinic. They considered a Use variance request and rezoning to C because of the proximity to Breton Village Mall across the street and the fact that they aren’t adjacent to residential. None of those options felt like a good compromise. They saw the Conditional Rezoning as a win win situation. The agreement restricts them to the medical service/medical office and those uses permitted within the NOS Zone District. There is a medical office component here, which creates the confusion about what they are and where they fit. Mr. Starck stated that arrived at the Conditional Rezoning option with the hope that it provides the Planning Commission with enough tools to ensure what they do there is WellNow and nothing else other than what could be permitted in the NOS District. Mr. Rozeboom asked about hours of operation and anticipated traffic. Mr. Harvey related that the hours are 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. They work primarily by appointment so the trips will be spread out vs. having a big spike at certain times of the day. In general, this medical user isn’t a big traffic driver. Mr. Van Strien noted from the application that it states approximately 4-6 vehicles an hour; 38- 40 patients per day. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Shannon feels that the proposed use is a good fit and that the Conditional Rezoning works well. She is happy to see a vacant site being redeveloped. Mr. Jonker asked, should the property change hands, if the Conditional Rezoning stays with the property. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 August 10, 2023 Mr. Kent agreed that it does run with the land and the conditions of the agreement remain in effect. Mr. Hoeker added that the agreement will be recorded. Mr. Van Strien expressed his understanding that the agreement would allow for an urgent care facility or any uses permitted in the NOS. He feels the proposed is consistent with what is in the area and the use will likely generate fewer vehicular trips than the former bank, particularly during peak hours. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Grand Rapids Retail Management (Jordan Chapman) for approval of a conditional rezoning agreement for 1935 Breton Road SE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Zone District and Conditional Rezoning offer: consistency with the Master Plan Future Land Use Map because the area is designated as a Neighborhood Center, intended to serve residents in the vicinity; will provide reasonable accommodation for growth and development, and; is consistent with the NOS Zone District because the applicant has voluntarily offered a conditional rezoning agreement which would subject the property to certain conditions and restrictions, limiting future use and development on the property. 2. The proposed new Zone District is compatible with the Zone District(s) and Neighborhood Classification(s) in the neighborhood because the site and building will be designed to reflect NOS Zone District site layout and building element requirements and the conditional rezoning will allow the property and surrounding area to retain the benefits of the current NOS zone while adapting to complement the existing medical and medical-adjacent uses in the vicinity. 3. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the establishment of the use on the property will further develop this hub of economic activity, providing local residents with essential services conveniently located near their homes. 4. The proposed Zone District and Conditional Rezoning will bear a reasonable and rational connection and/or benefit to the property to be rezoned because the proposed use is not dissimilar to medical office use, which is permitted in the surrounding NOS Zone District. 5. The proposed Zone District and Conditional Rezoning will result in a better development than would have been likely if the property had been rezoned without a Zoning Agreement, or if the property were left to develop under the existing Zone District because the building was vacant for a significant amount of time prior to the applicant’s interest in this property. 6. The proposed Zone District and Conditional Rezoning are necessary to allow the rezoning to be approved because, given the zoning of the surrounding properties, rezoning of the subject property would be inappropriate without conditions as offered by the applicant. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 August 10, 2023 SUPPORTED by Ms. Shannon. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Laurel Joseph, Adrienne Wallace, Salim Al-Shatel C. 1058 Butterworth St. SW - Zone Change Address: 1058 Butterworth St. SW Applicant: Spitzley Group, LLC (Patrick Spitzley) Requesting: Approval to rezone the subject property from the SD-IT (Special District–Industrial Transportation) Zone District to the TN- LDR (Traditional Neighborhood–Low Density Residential) Zone District to facilitate future development. Zoning: TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood – Low Density Residential) Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.12.10. Zoning Ordinance Text and Map Amendments Case Number: PC-ZON-2023-0059 Staff Assigned: Laura Wahamaki lwahamaki@grcity.us Type of Case: Zone Change Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Wahamaki presented the request to rezone the subject property from SD-IT (Special District-Industrial Transportation) to TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood-Low Density Residential) to facilitate development of the property for residential purposes. The property is on the edge of the SD-IT District and is bordered by LDR and TBA is across the street. The Future Land Use Map has designated this area as Industrial. There is no Area Specific Plan for this property at this time. However, there is a proposed Butterworth Area Specific Plan as part of the new Community Master Plan that is in progress. The properties for that proposed plan have not been determined nor have the future uses for that area. Ms. Wahamaki noted that there are active industrial uses to the south and west. South of the property is the Kent County Recycling facility, which is an active industrial use. There is also quite a bit of residential in the LDR Zone District. To the west of the property there are some homes in the IT District. The subject property is slightly over 5,000 sq. ft. It is 50 ft. wide and approximately 100-116 ft. deep. The property to the west is a commercial building that was constructed up to the property line. The corner of the residential home to the east is on the property line. Based on the information Ms. Wahamaki was able to find, it would appear the subject parcel was never developed. The original plat map was displayed. The property in question is approximately 40 ft. deeper than originally platted; half of the property to the south was acquired. It was originally platted to be residential, which is consistent with the development in the area. Ms. Wahamaki displayed the Sanborn Map noting that the three residential homes to the east are included on the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 August 10, 2023 map and the subject property had not been developed. As mentioned, the property is vacant with some mature trees on site. A watermain was put in place in 1917 that is likely still there. It is unclear whether it was ever connected but the site is potentially ready for development. Improvement to the watermain may be necessary to ensure it works properly and doesn’t contain lead, should the property be developed for residential purposes. Ms. Wahamaki related that the property is undersized for any industrial use. Many of the industrial uses require a minimum size and the site is small for any kind of industrial use. If rezoned it could be developed into a single-family home by right as it meets the minimum requirements. If a two-family is proposed it would require an Administrative Departure for lot width and area and Special Land Use review and approval. The property owner has reached out to the John Ball Area Neighbors and they have submitted a letter expressing no opposition to the rezoning. Two additional letters were submitted by neighboring property owners that are not opposed to the rezoning but have some concerns about future development on the site. Landon Bartley was present on behalf of the applicant. As mentioned, the property is currently industrially zoned but is undersized for industrial development. Therefore, it cannot be reasonably used as zoned. They considered applying for a variance but because of the adjacent residential properties, and in conversations with John Ball Area Neighbors and SWAN, they determined rezoning would be a better solution. The property cannot be, and never has been, developed industrially as zoned. As to the Master Plan, the Future Land Use Map is painted with a broad brush and the industrial designation also includes all of the houses to the east in the LDR Zone. Although the request may not be specifically supported by the Future Land Use Map of 2002, the current conditions warrant the rezoning and additional residential development. Mr. Bartley indicated that he did see the letters that came in from neighbors. He spoke with Mr. Sak this morning and it sounds like his concerns relate primarily to parking. Mr. Bartley also reviewed the letter from the Lutz’s and noted the concerns about mature trees and the root systems and how developable this property would actually be. That is certainly something to be considered but at this point they are interested in the zone change to residential to facilitate residential development, whether single-family as permitted or a two-family with Special Land Use approval and Administrative Departure for lot size and width. They hope that the Planning Commission will recommend approval to the City Commission to change the zoning. Once residentially zoned they will look into constructing a residential structure in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, including parking, setbacks, tree preservation and at that point they will take a deep look to make sure it would actually be feasible. Currently it can’t be used because of the size of the property and the industrial zoning. Mr. Van Strien referred to the satellite image asking if that remains the current condition with the vacant yard to the southeast and shed or garage immediately to the east behind the houses. Mr. Bartley agreed that those are current. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 August 10, 2023 Mr. Van Strien noted that both of those properties are zoned IT, including the garage that is likely used in association with the residential properties. Mr. Bartley explained that it is somewhat of a T-shaped property to the east. It is split-zoned. They talked to JBAN and one of the board members suggested it would be great to combine the adjacent property and the property to the south on Fransman and do multi-family, which was a nice suggestion but not in the scope of this request. Ms. Shannon asked if the property to the west is in use. Mr. Bartley replied that they don’t believe it is in use. They haven’t seen any activity at the property any time they’ve gone by and they haven’t been successful reaching out to the property owner. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Bersche noted that the property to the west is considered industrial and will remain industrially zoned. It is almost the same size, if not smaller, than the subject parcel. She asked why this property is considered too small to be industrial. Mr. Van Strien replied it is the history. Ms. Shannon found it interesting that it was originally platted as residential. Mr. Kent replied that the property to the west is an existing non-conforming use. Ms. Bersche noted that when going by it is difficult to understand the size of the property from the front. Ms. Shannon agreed. She thought it looked smaller than it does in the packet information. The Planning Commission has had a lot of discussion about the need for housing. The site is appropriate for housing and likely would never be used for industrial and hasn’t been used for industrial. She supports the rezoning. Mr. Van Strien addressed the concerns in the letters. While parking may be a concern, the homes owned by the author of the letter don’t have off-street parking. He isn’t certain that should inhibit a private property owner from doing something on their property because of the lack of something on someone else’s. With respect to safety and the aesthetics of the neighborhood, new infill helps and more people in the neighborhood helps. Therefore, he isn’t concerned about that. Mr. Van Strien is supportive of the request. Mr. Jonker expressed his support. If the property were used industrially, it would likely result in more parking challenges than a one- or two-family home. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 August 10, 2023 Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of the Spitzley Group (Patrick Spitzley) to rezone 1058 Butterworth Street SW from SD-IT (Special Districts-Industrial Transportation) to TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood-Low Density Residential) to facilitate development of the property for residential purposes, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Zone District will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Future Land Use map because the industrial designation by the 2002 Master Plan does not adequately address current development needs and this rezoning will support the Master Plan recommendation 3.3 Great Neighborhoods for providing a choice of neighborhood types and encouraging continuous neighborhood reinvestment. 2. The proposed Zone District will further the themes and objectives of the Master Plan, as well as any relevant adopted Area Specific Plans because Objective GN 3 promotes increasing the number and variety of housing units, allowing for new housing products and a range of housing types within all neighborhoods. 3. The property to be rezoned can reasonably accommodate the requirements of the proposed Zone District because the property will meet the minimum requirements of the proposed zone district or development and the property is undersized for any industrial use and has never been developed for industrial purposes. 4. The proposed Zone District designation is compatible with the existing Zone Districts in the neighborhood because adjacent properties are zoned TN-TBA and TN-LDR and this rezoning will extend the Low Density Residential district that is already developed. 5. The physical, geological, hydrological, and other environmental features of the property to be rezoned are compatible with the full range of uses in the proposed Zone District because existing mature trees on the property are located near the property boundaries and could potentially be preserved upon development due to the setback requirements. 6. The proposed Zone District or Neighborhood Classification will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because public facilities already exist and rezoning will encourage investment for future development on vacant property that has never been developed. 7. The proposed Zone District is consistent with the trend of development in the neighborhood because residential uses already exist in the adjacent TN-LDR Zone District, as well as on nearby properties within the SD-IT Zone District. 8. The property to be rezoned was improperly zoned or classified when this Chapter was adopted or amended because the property does not adequately meet the current needs of industrial users and the property was originally platted for residential use. SUPPORTED by Mr. Jonker. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Aaron Jonker, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Laurel Joseph, Adrienne Wallace, Salim Al-Shatel City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 August 10, 2023 D. 330 Covell Ave SW - Banquet Facility and Restaurant with Alcohol Address: 330 Covell Avenue SW Applicant: Mines Golf Club, LLC (Chris Sobieck) Requesting: Approval of a banquet facility and restaurant with alcohol sales and outdoor seating in association with an existing golf course. Zoning: SD-OS Special Districts - Open Space Requirements: 5.7.03. Special District - Open Space (SD-OS) 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales 5.9.12. Live Entertainment 5.9.24. Outdoor Seating Areas 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0061 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: August 26, 2023 Ms. Zeller introduced the request of the Mines Golf Club for approval of a banquet facility and restaurant with alcohol sales and outdoor seating in association with an existing golf course. The subject parcel is 330 Covell SW. The golf course occupies 4-5 parcels. The subject property and the property to the north are in the City of Grand Rapids. The remaining parcels are in the City of Walker. The existing clubhouse and pavilion are in the City of Grand Rapids. In 2017 the Planning Commission granted approval of on-site alcohol sales and consumption for the clubhouse with an outdoor patio and pavilion, as well as alcohol cart service on the golf course. That was the last time the project was before the Planning Commission. Ms. Zeller couldn’t recall an OS project consideration since then. Ms. Zeller explained that the golf course is under new ownership and the new owner is proposing these improvements. Ms. Zeller related that a banquet and restaurant venue of approximately 16,000 sq. ft. is proposed on the subject parcel. The lower level will provide storage for golf carts, restaurant refrigeration coolers, staging, mechanical and waste collection management. The existing clubhouse on the site will remain. The outdoor pavilion will be demolished and replace by the proposed project. Ms. Zeller displayed the proposed site plan. The banquet venue is to be used for typical assembly events such as weddings and meetings and will have a capacity of 260 seats. Originally the application indicated a closing time of 12:30 a.m. The applicant has submitted a lease agreement and that indicates midnight with clear out time of 12:30 a.m. The hours of operation can be clarified with the applicant. The staff report indicates that an operation plan and facility agreement had not been provided. Since writing the report staff has received the agreement and it does indicate operational aspects. Staff is satisfied with that. The restaurant will have seating for 79 patrons. Ms. Zeller asked that the architect clarify the number of seats in the three-season room when he presents. The restaurant operating hours are until 10 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday and 11 p.m. Thursday through Saturday. Ms. Zeller also asked that the applicant confirm the latest hours of operation of the outdoor seating. The construction of the facility would result in approximately 65 new employees, in addition to the existing 47. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 August 10, 2023 Ms. Zeller displayed the proposed building elevations. The west elevation will face Covell and the parking lot. The west elevation should have 40% transparency and that requirement is not met. The Planning Commission should consider whether the transparency is appropriate. Ms. Zeller encouraged the Planning Commission to consider the windows that have been incorporated, the uses behind, as well as the south and east elevations. The south elevation faces O’Brien and there is outdoor seating proposed along that side. There is a significant number of windows on that elevation. The east elevation faces the golf course and is all windows. There are service areas on the north elevation. Materials proposed are shingle style composite siding, cultured stone accents, and an asphalt shingled roof. Ms. Zeller commented on site layout relating that the Open Space Zone District requires a minimum front setback of 25 ft.; it is not a build to line, it is a minimum setback for the building. That setback also applies to the parking lot. A significant portion of the parking lot is located within that setback and it can remain where it is. Anything new would need to meet the 25 ft. setback. Ms. Zeller explained that, based on her lack of recent experience with the OS District, she misread the regulation and originally interpreted it with no parking in front of the building. That is not the regulation in the OS District; parking can go in front of the building but no closer than 25 ft. to the lot line. Ms. Zeller explained that she is mentioning it because there may be an opportunity for some slight modifications to add some additional on-site parking to the south. She suggested that option remain open to the applicant should they wish to do that. Ms. Zeller recognized that there are some trees and shrubs along the west elevation but it doesn’t fully comply with the parking lot landscape screening requirements but it is fairly well landscaped. Ms. Zeller doesn’t believe there is any landscaping on the south. Staff would ask that a condition of approval be included for the parking lot be brought closer to the parking lot landscaping requirements. She noted that she neglected to include that in the resolution. Ms. Zeller addressed parking. There are currently 82 parking spaces on site that serve the existing golf course operation, including the club house and pavilion. The applicant has a gravel parking lot across the street, which is also on the golf course property but in the City of Walker. That area is used for overflow parking and there are approximately 54 spaces there. To the northwest, also on the golf course property, is the maintenance building. The applicant estimates an additional 70 parking spaces along that drive that could be used if needed. As proposed, the new construction would require 146 parking spaces. That doesn’t include the existing golf operation and the club house. The Zoning Ordinance doesn’t have a parking requirement listed for a golf course. Ms. Zeller suggested they look at it as the 82 spaces that are there now are sufficient for the existing operation. The Planning Commission should consider whether, with the off-site parking that will be available through valet parking for events and the different times of operation, whether there will be adequate parking for the uses. Ms. Zeller related that she has asked that the applicant speak to that. He has indicated he has a two decades of golf course and country club management so he will be able to discuss how he plans to operate the use, as well as when the peak demand times are anticipated. Differing peak times of uses is something that can be taken into account when considering the adequacy of parking. With respect to neighborhood outreach, Ms. Zeller related that the applicant didn’t include anything in the application but did convey that he has had discussions with neighbors. He will be able to comment on that. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 August 10, 2023 Ms. Zeller identified key considerations as the appropriateness of a new banquet facility and restaurant, with outdoor seating and alcohol, in the OS Zone District as well as the adequacy of parking for those uses. Ms. Shannon asked if there is a restaurant there already. Ms. Zeller replied that there is a club house, which she believes has a grill. She deferred to the applicant to provide additional detail. Mark Tomasek, Architect, explained that the three-season room is not included in the outdoor seating count. Sheet C-1 has all of the information that includes the three-season area seating, restaurant seating, banquet seating and the outdoor seating. When the project first began, Mr. Tomasek didn’t realize that half of the property was in Grand Rapids and half in Walker. He has worked with Walker’s Planner about the parking. They are showing there are 70 cars that can park along the road to the maintenance building but they could get twice that amount of parking if parking on both sides of the street. The gravel parking lot across from the golf course will eventually be paved. There is no dumpster on site. That will be organized in the basement and then shipped off to the maintenance building. All of the employee parking will be near the maintenance building. They have received approval from Walker for all of the parking they are currently showing on the Walker side of the property. With respect to the front elevation, when you are inside the building the view is to the golf course. The windows on the front are in the bathrooms, placed up high so that you can’t see into them. There are also three windows into the kitchen. On the other end of the building is the bridal suite/lounge, the room off of the banquet facility. Mr. Tomasek stated that the landscaping suggestion of Ms. Zeller shouldn’t be an issue; they can provide additional landscaping between the parking lot and street. Chris Sobieck, Mines Golf Club managing partner, related that he has been a part of Grand Rapids since 2001. He was the manager and one of the partners at Thornapple Point before purchasing the Mines. In comparison, they had 175 parking spaces at Thornapple and a slightly larger building setting. When purchasing this course, the first thing he did was count the parking spaces. Since the purchase they’ve added 20 spaces in the gravel lot across the street with the intent of expanding that further. They believe they can achieve 25 additional spaces there knowing that the sweet spot is in the 170-175 space range. They currently park all of their staff on site but once this is completed they would move the staff parking off-site. Mr. Sobieck stated that they are committed to the city. They are a unique facility. Not many cities have a 100 ft. elevation, best-use property that is a golf course and stay a green space in the shadow of the city like they are. They are committed, which is why they want to upgrade this. The west side lacks banquet space and this would help ease that concern. Additionally, it isn’t a risk as much as a restaurant or banquet center that is stand alone because they have the golf that supports that. It also provides them the ability to provide all year employment vs. seasonal. They believe it will add to Grand Rapids. Mr. Sobieck related that they also have a driving range that they have been investing in. They are adding a short course that has already been seeded and will open next year for all of the new people that have come into the game. Five high schools and Davenport University utilize the course. They are committed to growing golf, which has become extremely popular since COVID. It has brought a lot of new people to the game. They don’t know how City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 August 10, 2023 long that will hold but adding this building will give them the ability to host more events, giving them more staying power. Ms. Shannon clarified that the proposed is for a restaurant and banquet facility; they are not one in the same. Part of the restaurant is outdoor seating. Mr. Sobieck agreed. Ms. Shannon asked if all uses (golf course, restaurant, and banquet facility) were accounted for in the parking calculations. Ms. Zeller clarified that the golf course was not included because the Ordinance doesn’t have a parking requirement for that. The calculated parking was for all of the new uses. Ms. Shannon asked Mr. Sobieck if he feels comfortable they have enough parking if all uses were occurring at one time. Mr. Sobieck replied that they would have a full parking lot when everything is occurring. His main concern when purchasing the course was parking and their plans to manage it properly, which is why they propose valet parking. They will initiate complimentary valet parking once they get to a certain capacity. They will know in advance when they will have capacity issues and they will manage that with valet parking to help ease any concerns. The worst thing for them would be to have people come in and not be able to park and leave. They will make sure that is clearly posted that they have the space to take cars and bring them back. That is their plan for full capacity and they hope to have that problem. Mr. Jonker asked if the parking near the maintenance building is on West Elm St. Mr. Sobieck didn’t believe it has a name. It is a service drive. He identified the access to the maintenance building. They also have an area they mow and currently use at times for staff parking. That would also be an option for additional staff parking, provided Walker is comfortable with that. They would like to add 30 spaces there as another close parking option. They wouldn’t be parking on any residential street. Mr. Jonker recognized that if he were to come there to golf, he could pull over on O’Brien and park on the shoulder. He asked how they avoid parking along O’Brien and Covell. Mr. Sobieck replied that is something they would have to manage. They’ve had it happen on a very infrequent basis over the last two+ years. They’ve asked them not to park along the street in those cases. It isn’t convenient or easy parking. Mr. Jonker commented on the front transparency. He understands the desire to highlight the course. If visiting for a banquet or the restaurant you will want to sit on the course so the back of the building becomes the front. Because of the layout, the architect has chosen not to have the hallway like there is at Thornapple that goes from door to door, where windows could be located. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 August 10, 2023 He asked if there is a possibility to flip that. The west side is a pretty prominent view as one is driving down the road. Mr. Sobieck replied that he feels it is appropriate as proposed because they will landscape in front of the building. They don’t want a big blank wall. There are three windows in the kitchen and they could add more. The same with parking, they don’t want to over-park the site. No one wants to see a sea of asphalt. This is a neighborhood golf course and they are trying to fit the proposed development into the neighborhood. They want it to look appropriate as well and they are very conscious of that. Mr. Sobieck stated that the proposed is actually similar to Thornapple with a similar set up. When you walk in the bathrooms are on both sides, higher windows in the bathrooms, and the kitchen off to the side. It is almost the same layout and the proposed has more windows facing the road than Thornapple. Because of where they are trying to locate the different uses, it would be difficult to add windows on that side. If acceptable to the Planning Commission, he would prefer to landscape it. Mr. Jonker noted that the submitted landscape plan just shows sedum in that area, which would not provide any kind of screening. Mr. Sobieck clarified that they wouldn’t do that. He believes that was a quickly thrown together plan. He suggested hydrangeas, flowering crabs, and other things. He would be happy to come back with a plan if necessary to make sure it gets the desired look. That is easy for them to do. They’ve added flowers and a clock already. Mr. Sobieck responded to Ms. Shannon’s question regarding food service in the existing club house. They are eliminating that as a food service point. That building will serve as a golf shop, offices, and restrooms. They are eliminating what he believes is a 60-person capacity food service and 120 capacity pavilion and replacing it with the proposed. What has been referred to as a three-season room is more of a covered patio. In the original plan it wasn’t covered but they chose to cover it for protection from the elements. Ms. Bersche asked that the hours of operation be clarified. Mr. Sobieck stated that it is unlikely the banquet facility will be open at 11 a.m. However, if they have a request for a 200-person meeting beginning at 8 a.m. they would accommodate that. They also don’t anticipate the restaurant being open until 11 p.m.; this is not a bar. They are requesting those hours for flexibility. Ms. Bersche summarized that the banquet facility functions would end by midnight with the facility vacated by 12:30. The restaurant would be open 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday and 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. Thursday through Saturday. Mr. Sobieck agreed noting however that he doesn’t anticipate the restaurant will be open until 11 p.m. Those are the requested hours just to provide flexibility but he doesn’t favor his staff being there at 11. He would anticipate 10 p.m., which tends to be a normal closing time for restaurants. Mr. Sobieck also clarified that the outdoor seating hours would be consistent with the restaurant hours. The restaurant itself is rather small and they are promoting the outdoor space. He anticipates this will be a popular lunch destination. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 August 10, 2023 Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Brian Bogard related that he lives two houses down from the golf course. He is opposed to this project because when the sale of the golf course occurred a couple of years ago they immediately went to being open 7 days a week. The hours gradually get longer, longer, and longer. Even in the winter, with snow on the golf course, if it is a decent day there are people out there golfing. Every now and then there is the Caddy Shack horn. When that is blowing 5-8 times, that is disturbing; they can hear it next door. The applicant feels parking is the biggest problem. Mr. Bogard suggested that he is going to be the biggest problem because he believes the biggest problem is going to be noise. In theory the banquet facility will close at midnight and the restaurant 11 p.m. Weddings go on and on with blaring music. The site is in a ravine, which will enhance the sound until who knows what hour. Mr. Bogard realizes the operator is trying to run his business but this is a very residential area. This is not a good fit for a banquet venue. There will be noise all the time. Mr. Bogard clarified for Mr. Van Strien that he lives two houses to the north of the golf course. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Mr. Sobieck responded to the comments stating that they want to be respectful to the neighborhood. His ultimate plan is to live to the north where they have additional lots that are undeveloped. He understands the concerns and they will respect them. They will not go beyond any of the hours they’ve requested, which isn’t different from how they are operating currently. If there are any concerns in the future, they would certainly address them. Ms. Bersche asked if there are any plans for outdoor entertainment or music as part of the banquet facility or restaurant. Mr. Sobieck replied that they would like to have acoustic entertainment on a Thursday night. However, if not permitted they wouldn’t do that. People like to come and listen to music on a patio. It wouldn’t be anything loud and it would face south where there is no development. Mr. Kent asked Mr. Tomasek to speak to sound proofing the building itself. Mr. Tomasek stated that keeping the doors closed would be the sound proofing. Additionally, the location of the building is at the south side of the golf course. The north side is quite a distance away. There are two houses on O’Brien that are the closest to where the club house will be. Any sort of noise would project off the back of the building towards the golf course. Directly to the east is the highway and on the other side of that is John Ball Park. The northern neighbors are quite a distance away, hundreds if not a thousand feet away from where they are proposing the building. Mr. Kent asked the applicant if there is any way to control the Caddy Shack horns. Mr. Sobieck replied that he doesn’t know what the neighbor is referring to; he hasn’t heard any horns. They don’t sound off any noise. The golf carts are currently equipped with GPS and they do all of their messaging through that system so as not to have any additional sound. He added City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 August 10, 2023 that by putting this building in they will convert from gas carts that make sound to electric carts that make no noise. They will actually be decreasing the sound in the area by making that change. They plan to do that the year following the completion of the building. The Commission engaged in discussion. Ms. Bersche understands the concern about noise. She also understands that as part of running a golf course these types of operations are influenced by more demand for events, restaurants, and places for people to relax after golfing. She feels the applicant has thought through a lot of the concerns. Ms. Bersche is comfortable with the proposed hours but is open to discussion on hours of operation. Mr. Van Strien indicated he is comfortable with the proposed hours. Ms. Shannon noted that the banquet facility and other activities are at the southernmost corner, which should minimalize the travel of sound to the north. Mr. Jonker stated he is comfortable with the hours of operation and the overall proposal. Per his previous comments, he would like to see the parking lot landscaped and screened better. Mr. Van Strien stated that he is in support of the use. The location makes sense as there is a buffer between most of the residential in this area. It is a nice amenity for those that already come to the golf course. The golf course itself is a great amenity for the west side. There aren’t many golf courses left and the area has lost several in neighboring municipalities. It is important to try to keep them and if this is a way the community can support this business that is good. Mr. Van Strien also feels it is an amenity he’d like to see in the city vs. neighboring areas. Ms. Bersche wished to discuss the live entertainment outdoors. Mr. Rozeboom suggested permitting non-amplified. Ms. Zeller related that the notice did include live entertainment. However, the application itself didn’t talk about outdoor live entertainment. Because it was included in the notice, she feels the Commission can consider it. Mr. Hoeker agreed. Mr. Van Strien stated that he is comfortable with the non-amplified outdoor live entertainment. If that changed in the future and they wanted a DJ outside then perhaps they should come back for that. Mr. Williams asked what is meant by amplified vs. non-amplified. Is a mic and speaker considered amplified? Mr. Kent suggested anything powered by electricity would be considered amplified. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 August 10, 2023 Mr. Sobieck explained that they will have speakers within the building for background music, as well as in the outdoor seating area. They don’t intend to have rock concerts; it is more atmosphere music. When he worked for Watermark, they had an acoustic guitarist on Thursday nights. That is what they would like to do. Mr. Williams asked if they have speakers playing both inside and outside would that be considered amplified if there are speakers outside even though it is just background music. Mr. Van Strien feels it is a difference between a conversational level of noise vs. entertainment. He doesn’t have an issue with house speakers built into a structure that you’re intended to be able to have conversation over or for those being utilized for an acoustic guitar and singer. He wouldn’t favor bringing in extra amps and equipment. Mr. Kent recalled that the Commission has allowed amplified sound/speakers on patios in the past. Ms. Zeller suggested a condition that any music or amplified sound on the patio shall not be heard above the ambient sound of the surrounding area. Mr. Williams feels that is vague. There is an adjacent freeway and a lot of open space with the golf course. Background dinner music is understood by most but he feels there is a lot of uncertainty as to what it could be. Ms. Shannon stated that she isn’t too concerned about it. The Commission has considered speakers in much more urban areas than this. They aren’t going to want a rock band when people are having dinner. Given the size of the space she feels it will limit the amount of sound you would want in operating that space. Mr. Williams asked what the recourse for residents would be if they did bring in a rock band. Mr. Van Strien suggested using the condition suggested by Ms. Zeller, as well as the testimony of the applicant regarding their intentions. If there is a complaint, they can go back to this discussion and the findings of fact that this is what was intended. If it becomes more than that they have that for enforcement. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Mines Golf Club, LLC (Chris Sobieck) for a banquet facility and restaurant with outdoor seating and alcohol service in association with an existing golf course, at 330 Covell Avenue SW, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will support the vitality of the local economy by encouraging investment and consumer spending. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 August 10, 2023 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the site layout and building elements have met the requirements for the SD-OS Zone District. 3. The proposed uses will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood because this use will be consistent with the desired character of this area. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use will be minimized because the provision of adequate parking, including valet operations when necessary for large events and anticipated times of full capacity. 5. The proposed uses will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, and glare because entertainment associated with the banquet use will be fully contained indoors and any outdoor entertainment will be limited to ambient levels. 6. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the conditions of the Special Land Use approval will limit nuisances that require police or code enforcement actions. 7. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, it is demonstrated that the area is underserved by the proposed use and that the proposed location for alcohol sales will demonstrably be an asset to the neighborhood because there are no other such facilities in the immediate vicinity and banquet facilities and restaurants are commonly associated with golf courses and country clubs. 8. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the operator or their designee will be on the premises during events. 9. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will minimize or eliminate negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the applicant has procedures prepared so that the use will be operated in a manner that has the potential to minimize or eliminate negative secondary effects on the neighborhood. 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. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 August 10, 2023 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 banquet facility events shall cease by 12:00 midnight and the facility vacated by 12:30 a.m. 3. That the restaurant will operate 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday, and 11:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. Thursday through Saturday. 4. That outdoor seating will end by 10 p.m. seven days a week. 5. That music and dancing incidental to a private event may be permitted, but there shall be no events or ticket sales to the general public at which admission is charged at the door. 6. Live music shall be limited to ambient levels outdoors. 7. That the operator or his/her designee shall be on the premises during all events. 8. That the event space may accommodate up to 260 individuals, subject to occupancy determination by the City’s Building Official and applicable building and fire codes. 9. That an Indoor Events License shall be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. 10. Parking lot landscaping shall be brought closer to current standards, subject to staff approval. 11. Landscaping shall be installed in front of the building, where there are no windows, to mitigate for the lack of transparency. SUPPORTED by Ms. Shannon. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Laurel Joseph, Adrienne Wallace, Salim Al-Shatel E. 747 Leonard Street NW - Package Alcohol Sales Address: 747 Leonard St. NW Applicant: Leonard23 Inc (Shazad Singh) Requesting: Approval to sell wine and beer for off-site consumption in association with an existing 24-hour convenience store and vehicle fueling station. Zoning: TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhood – Traditional Business Area Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales and Consumption 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0055 Staff Assigned: Laura Wahamaki lwahamaki@grcity.us City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 August 10, 2023 Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: August 26, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki presented the request for approval to sell wine and beer for off-site consumption in association with an existing 24-hour convenience store and vehicle fueling station. The subject site is at the northeast corner of Leonard and Alpine. The 2002 Master Plan designates the area as Commercial - Traditional Business Area. The Westside Area Specific Plan identifies the area as a Transition Gateway, intended to strengthen existing development patterns and encourage new areas of intensity. The property is in the TBA Zone District and is surrounded by TBA Zone Districts. Ms. Wahamaki displayed an aerial image. Located to the southwest is Walgreens. There is a bar directly to the east. The building to the south, across Leonard, is occupied by the neighborhood association and other businesses with residential above. The site plan as it exists was displayed. There are no site changes proposed. The building will remain as it is. It consists of a single-story convenience store, two vehicle fueling canopies and a pole sign with a small landscape island is located at the southwest corner of the site. There is no dumpster enclosure on the site. The Planning Commission may consider including a condition of approval requiring a permanent trash enclosure to be incorporated as approved in a LUDS permit, should the Planning Commission be amenable to approval. An image of the outside of the convenience store was displayed. Ms. Wahamaki displayed the proposed floor plan for the addition of the alcohol use. Ms. Wahamaki related that the parking requirement for a retail store in this zone district is based on square footage. In this case, six spaces are required. The site appears to accommodate the required parking. Ms. Wahamaki explained that part of the alcohol use considerations is the location of the cash register; it must be visible from the entrance. Per the floor plan, the cash register is located at the back of the store, which isn’t necessarily typical. However, in this instance, because of the large amount of windows at the front of the store and the fact that the cash register and counter are on an elevated platform it actually provides the best visibility not only for the store but also provides good visibility to the area outside of the store. The CPTED police officer has visited the site and the interior of the store. He has reviewed the proposed floor plan and agrees that while the setup doesn’t necessarily meet what is typical, it is ideal for the store. He is comfortable with the floor plan. From the register you can see over the display racks and shelves between the register and the front windows. Ms. Wahamaki noted that the store is a 24-hour operation. If approved, alcohol sales would be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. It would meet the State requirements for alcohol sales. At the register there is protective glass that can be closed for the safety of employees. Ms. Wahamaki identified the space proposed for alcohol sales/display; two doors of the cold vault near the walk-in cooler that will be dedicated for beer display. There are two smaller coolers in front of the windows at the front of the store also proposed for alcohol display. The coolers at the front aren’t tall. They block a small amount of the windows but not more than 25 %. The store has video surveillance cameras in place both inside and outside. There is a large screen in the store and customers can see that they are on camera. Staff will be trained for City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 August 10, 2023 alcohol sales. The cash register is a point-of-sale system that requires an ID be scanned to complete the sale of alcohol and staff is directed to routinely maintain the property. There are two other establishments within 1,000 ft. of this site that also sell alcohol for off-site consumption; Walgreens and Ralphs Food Market to the east. It is expected that those purchasing alcohol will be customers already going there for gas and other convenience store items. The applicant has met with the West Grand Neighborhood Association. The Association has submitted a letter of support with a list of suggestions for the applicant to make some improvements on the site. They have already made quite a few of those improvements. The windows are relatively clear. The applicant understands they will need to meet the CPTED for visibility and window coverings. The applicant has added some landscaping to the small island around the pole sign. The Planning Commission may wish to consider adding a condition of approval that the landscaping be maintained. The applicant has added parking lot striping to the site as well. Mr. Jonker referred to the photo displayed noting that it appears some of the windows are currently somewhat obscured. He asked if there will be additional coolers added to that space and whether they would similarly obstruct the windows. Ms. Wahamaki replied that it is her understanding that what is currently in front of the windows are the coolers intended for the alcohol display. She deferred to the applicant to confirm that. She also clarified that they will need to meet the CPTED requirements related to window covering, which are stricter than the Zoning Ordinance. There would be an annual inspection. The CPTED officer and specialist in the Planning Dept. didn’t have any immediate concerns about those coolers. Upinder Kaur, the applicant’s sister, was present on behalf of the request. Ms. Kaur stated that they are a gas station/convenience store located at the intersection of Leonard and Alpine. Mr. Singh is the store manager and is also present. They have two cashiers at all times with a third being Mr. Singh, who manages and runs the store. They recently installed a bullet proof counter top for their cashiers’ safety. They also have an alarm located under the registers for any kind of urgent help. Their main priority is customer and employee safety. They have made various changes inside and outside of the business such as new camera systems with high-definition surveillance to capture any blind spots inside and outside of the building. There is also a TV at the front entrance that helps the cashiers see what is going on inside and outside. Having the TV also helps attract the right customer base, which helps to reduce trouble since everything is visually monitored. They believe that the market base they attract comes from how they portray their look from the outside. They have done parking lot repairs that include patching, sealcoating, and restriping, as well as arrows that guide customers in and out of the parking lot. They have no parking signs painted at the front of the building so the cashier can see out the windows clearly. Another change they’ve made is to remove all window signs as well as cooler removal. All the windows are uncovered at this time. They have 100% ID check signs, as well as signs that say no underage smoking or drinking. The cashiers check ID 100% of the time and must scan IDs before selling to anyone. The POS system has all of those abilities. Ms. Kaur City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 August 10, 2023 related that they are present asking to use two existing doors of the cooler vault for beer and wine along with a stand-alone 3-door cooler that will accommodate variety packs and all beer suitcases. They have been in contact with the West Grand Neighborhood Association to learn of any changes they desired for the business. They believe they are satisfied and happy with the changes they’ve made, hence their letter of support. Mr. Van Strien noted from the application that they’ve received conditional approval for the SDM license from the MLCC. He asked what conditions were set as part of that approval. Mr. Singh replied that their conditions relate to underage selling. They must have signs up. All the employees, including himself, have had to go through compatibility testing. They have certificates indicating they are compliant with MLCC code. They have all passed those tests at this point. Anyone they hire cannot sell alcohol or cigarettes until they pass that test. All employees at his 38 stores have their certificates. The MLCC also requests pictures of their POS system to ensure they ask for ID 100% of the time. You could previously neglect the system and bypass that step but there is no way around that now; you must scan ID. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Rozeboom recalled that not too long ago the Planning Commission was hearing a number of these types of requests at each meeting. They were so frequent that they would identify the area of beer and wine display compared to the size of the store to make sure they weren’t giving any particular store preferential treatment. In that context, this seems very much in line with what they’ve approved in the past; a very ancillary part of the operation as constrained by the two doors and two small coolers. Mr. Rozeboom expressed his support. Ms. Shannon agreed. She likes the openness of the windows. There don’t seem to be a lot of obstructions making what is occurring inside very visible. Mr. Jonker stated he has no reservations about the request. Mr. Singh wished to add that they will have a dumpster enclosure scheduled for installation in September. That was the earliest available date. Mr. Kent advised the applicant to submit the LUDS permit prior to installation of the dumpster enclosure. Ms. Bersche expressed her appreciation for the efforts they’ve put forth, per the Neighborhood and Business Associations, in terms of what was asked. Mr. Rozeboom MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Leonard23 Inc (Shazad Singh) for approval to sell wine and beer for off-site consumption in association with an existing 24-hour convenience store and vehicle fueling station at 747 Leonard Street NW, for the following reasons: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 August 10, 2023 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will support the vitality of the business district by continuing to provide a mix of uses and strengthen existing development patterns and intensity at an intersection identified as a Transition Gateway, as recommended in the Westside Area Specific Plan. 2. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the 24-hour convenience store and vehicle fueling station are already established at this location and the addition of package alcohol is not expected to impact the existing use. 3. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because adequate parking will be provided; landscaping will be incorporated and maintained on the site where practicable; the building entrance is oriented to allow for maximum visibility on the site, and; CPTED Design Principles have been incorporated. 4. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, glare, and visual clutter because the addition of package alcohol sales is expected to be an amenity for existing customers and an increase in traffic is not anticipated. 5. 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 adequate transparency will be provided and the building and site layout are not proposed to change. 6. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions. 7. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, it is demonstrated that the area is underserved by the proposed use and that the proposed location for alcohol sales will demonstrably be an asset to the neighborhood because, as proposed, the use is expected to be an amenity for existing customers, which is unique compared to other establishments in the vicinity offering package alcohol for off-site consumption. 8. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the addition of alcohol sales will not materially change the operation of the store. 9. The use, as proposed to be operated by the applicant, will minimize or eliminate negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because an adequate operations plan and training will be in place; the operation is expected to be in compliance with the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Ordinance and the applicant has already implemented property improvements suggested by the West Grand Neighborhood Association that include elements of landscaping, security, property maintenance, visibility, and accessibility. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 August 10, 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 area of alcohol sales shall be consistent with the submitted floor plan; being two (2) doors of the cold vault and two (2) additional small coolers. 3. That a LUDS permit shall be obtained to include a permanent trash enclosure to be constructed and placed in accordance with Sec. 5.2.13. of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. That the use shall comply with the requirements of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Ordinance. SUPPORTED by Mr. Jonker. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Paul Rozeboom, Vice Chairperson SECONDER: Aaron Jonker, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Laurel Joseph, Adrienne Wallace, Salim Al-Shatel F. 2480, 2492, 2500 & 2520 Lake Michigan Dr. NW - Multiple Family Development Address: 2480, 2492, 2500 and 2520 Lake Michigan Dr. NW Applicant: Covenant Living Communities & Services (Randy Gross) Requesting: Approval to construct 18 new duplexes (36 units total) for independent senior living. Zoning: MON-LDR (Modern Era Neighborhood–Low-Density Residential) Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.9.06. Attached Single-Family Dwellings 5.9.20. Multiple-Family Dwellings 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 August 10, 2023 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0049 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: August 26, 2023 Ms. Zeller explained that Covenant Living of the Great Lakes is a senior living community that offers a continuum of care for its residents. Residences range from independent senior apartments to assisted living and skilled nursing care. The applicant is proposing their next phase of development on the adjacent three parcels that will consist of 18 duplex building for a total of 36 dwelling units and expansion of a surface parking lot. Ms. Zeller explained that for the purposes of this analysis and publication, she called this multiple-family because they are on separate parcels, they are independent living, and there aren’t any common services for the entire campus on these parcels. Because there is no assisted living or any of that group living type use, she felt it was easiest and more straight forward to call it multiple-family development. The assisted living and skilled nursing are also Special Land Uses but his has been addressed through the lens of multi-family. Ms. Zeller related that the property is located in the MON-LDR (Modern Era Neighborhood- Low Density Residential) Zone District. The entire campus is approximately 38 acres. The three parcels under consideration are approximately 10 acres. Located to the north is low density residential and Shawmut Hills School. There is a residence immediately to the east and condominiums, a church and low density residential further east. Ms. Zeller displayed the proposed site plan. The units are to be arranged around common courtyards. Underneath the courtyards will be stormwater detention vaults. Internal drives are proposed that will lead to the garages for each of the units. The buildings are oriented inward toward the courtyards. The parking lot shown to the south was approved in 2013 as a Special Land Use. Subsequent to Covenant purchasing the subject parcels they received approval to demolish the existing single-family home on the lot. In addition to the residential units, a new parking lot is being proposed to include 24 parking spaces. The existing retirement community consists of 189 independent living units, 63 assisted living units, and 37 skilled nursing units. Ms. Zeller displayed an aerial photo noting that the subject property is significantly wooded, especially at the back. There were homes at the front and that area is clear. It also contains a ravine at the back. The site plan does not encroach into any steep slopes. Ms. Zeller explained that the areas identified in red are also steep slopes but they are manmade slopes from previous grading. Ms. Zeller displayed the tree survey, which identifies all of the trees on site by number and their condition. The tree survey shows over 833 trees in the area proposed for development. The surveyor included a number of trees on the adjacent property. Of those trees, approximately 305 are identified as being in poor condition and 84 trees are dead. Those are trees the applicant could remove at any time. Ms. Zeller displayed a slide showing the tree line and area where all of the trees will be removed. All trees within the shaded area are to be removed. A number of trees on the former home site City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 August 10, 2023 are also proposed to be removed. Ms. Zeller explained that the tree survey identified a number of trees that were recommended for preservation based on their uniqueness, the species, their quality, or their size. There were 100 trees on the site recommended for preservation, 64 of which are in the area of disturbance/removed as part of the development. There are six trees around the edges that Ms. Zeller isn’t certain whether they will be removed or not. Ms. Zeller noted that she highlighted the trees proposed for removal that were recommended for preservation. There are also other high-quality trees that will not be removed. Ms. Zeller explained that the Tree Preservation requirements establishes that trees are a resource that should be protected if possible. They are a site asset and help with stormwater. The Tree Preservation requirements state that all efforts shall be taken in site design to preserve healthy trees. Additionally, trees off-site should not be damaged. Ms. Zeller noted that a number of trees near the lot line are proposed for removal. Ms. Zeller asked that the Planning Commission consider whether all reasonable efforts have been undertaken in the layout of the site to avoid unnecessary removal of trees as well as the extent to which the layout may affect trees on the adjacent property. She asked that the applicant speak to the steps they’ve taken. The Zoning Ordinance allows for payment in lieu if a lot of trees are being removed and can’t be replaced on site or work with the City Forrester to plant them elsewhere in the city. Those are things to explore in greater detail. Ms. Zeller noted that a retaining wall is proposed, which will be 20 ft. in height at its highest point. The applicant is staying out of steep slopes but some fill will be necessary to ensure a level construction surface. The Zoning Ordinance directs that retaining walls should be no more than 3 ft. in height and should be tiered. That isn’t always feasible. They discussed with the applicant whether that would be possible. The applicant can speak to that further but her understanding is that what is being proposed will minimize further encroachment into the tree line, which is something that should also be explored. The Planning Commission has the discretion to grant a retaining wall of the proposed height provided there is no detriment to neighboring properties and, due to topography, natural features, lot configuration or other site-related issue that the requirements cannot be satisfied. With respect to traffic and site circulation, all improvements are proposed to be private; private roads and sidewalks. The entrance to the new phase of development would be off of a private street. The applicant would be responsible for the construction and maintenance. The applicant had a traffic study prepared, which was reviewed by Mobile GR who concurs with the findings of the study. There will be very little or no impact on the street network and any impact would be on the site itself; a few seconds increase in the delay to access Lake Michigan Drive from the private road. Ms. Zeller commented on stormwater and sedimentation control. Because of the slope robust measures will be necessary to protect the slopes from erosion and pollution. The applicant’s engineer is aware of that. Due to the number of trees to be removed, additional stormwater storage may be required for the site. The applicant is aware of that. Ms. Zeller displayed the floor plan. Every unit will have a two-car garage providing on-site parking for each of the units. The parking requirement will be satisfied/exceeded. The buildings are designed to meet the MON-LDR standards. Proposed building materials are fiber cement lap City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 August 10, 2023 siding with board and batten elements, as well as stone veneer trim. Transparency requirements are met/exceeded. Ms. Zeller related that the applicant has provided a summary of neighborhood engagement, which was included in the packet. A letter has been submitted by the owner and resident of the adjacent property to the east. Ms. Zeller identified the location of the house and its proximity to the proposed development. It is fairly close to the lot line, which is something the Planning Commission may wish to keep in mind. Ms. Zeller summarized the key considerations as impact to the tree canopy, the retaining wall, and impact on the neighboring property. Randy Gross, Vice President of project development, related that he has worked for Covenant Community Living and Services for 13 years. He explained that his job is to improve the lives of seniors through building facilities. As explained, the proposed is a development of 36 duplex units/18 buildings. Covenant has been around for over 100 years with locations in 11 states; 15 communities like the subject community, which are continuing care retirement communities. A resident may come into the community and be fully independent and as you or your spouse needs more help you can still be in the same community. Mr. Gross stated that they provide several options for all levels of care and this new product provides one more option. Covenant has been in Grand Rapids since 1998. They began with buildings A - E, town center, pool, and restaurants. There are 63 assisted living units, 37 skilled nursing units and some assisted living memory care units. They have 189 independent living units currently and the proposed project would provide an additional 36. The reason for expansion is to provide another option for seniors. Sometimes when people come into their communities they are living in a house and don’t want to come directly into an apartment so this provides one more level, more like a home. It is all on one level and they have a garage vs. an apartment with a garage underneath. This phase will add more outdoor living experiences for the residences with the parkways and walkways through the community. This will also improve the community’s edge. There are six other continuing care communities in the area and they all have this product, which Covenant doesn’t have currently. It will also improve the financial sustainability of the entire campus. Generally, they like to have the community with 300 independent living units, or close to that. This will get them closer to that number and help them support the staff, attract better staff into the community, and provide better financial sustainability within the campus. Mr. Gross related that prior to COVID they met with the City to discuss their plans and then everything was put on hold. They came back to the plan and have done the traffic study, tree survey, steep slope studies. They held a neighborhood meeting and also met with their residents informing them of the plan. They made some modifications to make the plan more walkable. They’ve also collected some neighbor concerns. On 6/13 they met with neighbors and the biggest concern was expressed by the neighbor to the east that currently has a view of a forest where they will now be developing. They are very sensitive to that and will do all they can to buffer her property from theirs to make it as painless as it can be. They heard issues of noise that they’ve addressed, which are mainly dumpster pick-up times and noise from employees. There were also some concerns about traffic, even though they’ve done a traffic study. It may be City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 August 10, 2023 necessary to meet with the City to determine if it makes sense to revisit the timing of the lights to the east and west to ease the turning movements into the site. Steve, Progressive AE, displayed an aerial view of the site noting the location of the neighbor to the east. He explained that they included the house on their drawings after completing the topo survey. It falls almost perfectly in line with one of the courtyards between the units. He also pointed out that there are two ring roads that go through the development. The east portion of the ring road is primarily for fire department access. It isn’t anticipated that residents would use it because there is no real convenience for them to use it. They will come off the main entry street onto the street their unit is on and pull into their driveway. For them to continue down the street and access that easterly north/south road would be inconvenient. That road was designed for fire department access. Steve stated that his point is that the neighbor won’t see a tremendous amount of traffic, if any at all, on that road. The east west roads are off-set enough that there shouldn’t be much of any car lights shining toward that house as they pull down the road. It is also their intent to preserve as much vegetation as possible. The tree removal plan Ms. Zeller shared showed going to the east property edge. They have since scrutinized the road design, the grades of it, and the trees throughout that zone and feel comfortable they can save some of the higher quality trees along that buffer. The intent would be to save as much as they can along that east property line and then enhancing it as much as possible through a robust landscape plan. Steve stated that Ms. Zeller did a good job explaining the tree survey performed by an outside consultant. They did identify trees that they defined as worthy of preservation. He doesn’t believe there is anything that is spelled out in the Ordinance that way. That was their interpretation through size and health. It is their intent to follow the canopy requirements spelled out in the Ordinance. They will have a very robust landscape plan and ideally, they would meet the tree replacement requirements fully on site. They are proposing the retaining wall on the south end to help preserve the ravine as much as possible. Ms. Zeller was correct in that if they begin to tier the wall that eats further and further into the slope, including additional tree removal and potentially getting into some steeper slopes. The wall is called an MSE (mechanically stabilized earth) wall. It is vegetated on the face of the wall. There won’t be a lot of opportunity to see it because it is high on the home side and low as you go down the ravine. It should blend in nicely with the existing vegetation of the ravine. Even if someone were on the other side of it or down on the other property looking toward it, it won’t stand out as a block or concrete wall because it will blend nicely as a green wall. Steve identified the existing north south road that runs through the development with the private roads running off of it for the new development. There will be public utilities so there will be easements over those. There will be a nicely enhanced courtyard between the fronts of the units with front porches facing each other to create the feel of a walkable community. Steve explained that there are concepts for different unit types that could be somewhat interchangeable depending on how sales go. The intent would be that there is a mix of different unit types and aesthetics. Jose Montalvo, Architect with THW Design, explained that the three main drivers of the layout is to create a new and additional living opportunity on campus and provide additional variety for how residents can join the community; creating a walkable community; provide a variety of unit types. Mr. Montalvo related that they have created four different unit types and they are all combined differently to provide variety and create a dynamic residential feel as one walks down the street. In some cases, the units are reverse plans and in other cases they are totally different City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 30 August 10, 2023 plans but they are all based on an open concept both for accessibility for the age group and the fact that it is a very desirable living arrangement. Mr. Montalvo displayed an example of two units adjacent to each other. For each combination colors would be different. Materials would be consistent to provide a continuous thread throughout the overall community. Individual units will be recognizable very easily. Mr. Montalvo stated, with respect to the neighbor to the east, they would be located roughly aligned with one of the courtyards. That, plus anything they can do to better buffer or separate will be helpful. As Steve stated, the easterly north/south path is more dedicated to emergency personnel if the need arises. Ms. Shannon asked the distance to the house to the east. Mr. Montalvo replied from the easternmost face of the easternmost unit it is approximately 52 ft. to the property line and the house is approximately 15-20 ft. from the property line for a total of approximately 70 ft. Between that there would be a 20 ft. landscape area from the eastern edge of the road to the property line. Ms. Bersche recognized that there will be a lot of tree removal. It is estimated that approximately 68 of the 100 trees identified will be removed. How many new trees will be going in? Steve replied that their intent is to comply with the canopy requirements and ideally on their site. Ms. Bersche noted that there are programs to put trees back in the community. She asked if they would be amenable to that. Steve replied that he believes that is a possibility but ideally, they would like to place them on this site and make it feel like it somewhat does now, and provide for a buffer for the property to the east. Mr. Gross added that if they cannot fit the trees on their site, they would be amenable to payment in lieu. Ms. Bersche asked where the stormwater vaults will be discharged. Steve explained that there will be underground chambers. They are an arch shape with an open bottom for water infiltration. There are three separate distinct watersheds within this development and they’ve placed each of the chamber systems under the park space between buildings. Those three systems are then combined and eventually discharge south toward the ravine area which is where all the stormwater outlets today. As Ms. Zeller mentioned, they will need a robust soil erosion and sedimentation control plan. He anticipates they will have an energy dissipate structure at the end, prior to the discharge, to ensure they don’t have any erosion issues in the future. Ms. Bersche noted that there will be a lot of added concrete and a lot of tree removal. She asked if that will double or triple the amount of stormwater to come out. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 31 August 10, 2023 Steve replied that they did the stormwater calculations per the City’s requirements and they have enough space. He agreed it is dense but there is a lot of pervious area within the development/park space. They are trying to maintain smaller roadway widths and the driveways aren’t excessively long. The stormwater impact, based on the impervious area, is what he would expect from a development like this. He understands there is some concern from the City Engineer regarding all the tree removal and they will work with the City to identify that impact and account for it. Mr. Kent stated that this is a great design that he would hope they can show to other developers in the future with the courtyards and missing middle type of housing. Regarding the site design and functionality of the southern drive, he asked if they anticipate trash trucks using that street as well. Steve replied that he would anticipate trucks utilizing that eastern loop to get through the neighborhood. He believes that trash pick up will be individual carts like any residential neighborhood. He would also anticipate once a week pick-up. Mr. Kent asked about snow removal/storage and whether there is a way to buffer the curve where the adjacent home sits on an angle. He is concerned with headlights shining into the side of that home as cars turn and use that drive. He asked if there is an opportunity for a berm to try to mitigate some of that. Steve replied that on the neighbor’s side of the property line is a mature evergreen line. He would expect they can also plant evergreens along that edge and do whatever they can to provide year-round screening. There is 20 ft. from the edge of the road to the property line which should provide more than enough space for snow storage. Mr. Kent suggested anyway they can buffer the drive to the east property would bode well for the project as well as the adjacent property owner. He asked if there will be a fence atop the retaining wall due to the height. Steve replied that the MSE wall has a rail system that is integral to the structure of the wall. He would anticipate a black vinyl fence on top of the wall. There is approximately 20 ft. of green space between the top of the wall and the drive where they can provide landscaping. Mr. Kent agreed it would be a good idea to provide a buffer there in case someone hits the wrong pedal. He added that if there is any way to keep some of the mature trees on the site to reduce the impact that would also be beneficial. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Ruth Parbel, 2436 Lake Michigan Drive, related that she is the neighbor to the east and the only neighbor affected by this development. She has been a resident here for 27 years. She related that she measured today and there is approximately 40 ft. from her front stoop to the tree line that will be between them on her property. Ms. Parbel stated that her main concern is the road running parallel to her. They can say it is only for emergency vehicles but it will be utilized City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 32 August 10, 2023 daily. Covenant Way Road appears that it will end up casting headlights directly into her living room window. Snow plowing and trash removal are also concerns. It is an extremely private, quiet area. She also wonders about transient people. They do see homeless people occasionally and she has seen homeless people living in the yard that they are going to develop, although not lately. How this will impact her property value is also concerning. It is a very private, beautiful spot that most would find desirable. Bob Krieger related that he lives to the west on Thorn Ridge Ct. He stated that he built his home there 35 years ago. At that time, it was all green space in his back yard. When the original project was proposed there were meetings. It was 1998 when they began development and through the years that they’ve been there all the green space disappeared with all of the different style of living they offer. The assisted living units are in his back yard and they constantly have headlights shining into their living room and family room windows. A couple of times during the week the trash dumpsters are emptied early in the morning, waking them up some mornings. They regularly hear fire trucks and ambulances coming into the parking lot and they see the flashing lights in their house. All of that was not proposed when they first built these structures but through the years that is what has happened. With respect to the new proposal, Mr. Krieger thinks it is sad to see all this green space and trees go. There is going to be a lot of traffic in and out of Lake Michigan Drive. It was stated that traffic was not going to be a problem but all the people that will be living here obviously are going to be using Lake Michigan Drive. There are already many accidents there and that is the only entrance. He feels that is something that should be considered also. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Mr. Jonker asked if they considered backing the duplexes up to the house to the east and moving the access road up to reduce the amount of pavement. Mr. Montalvo replied explained that the shape of the site allows for certain things for efficiency and for accommodating the park concept they have. If they were to rotate it, it would be more of one long park, which would render the site very inefficient. Mr. Rozeboom asked if they would consider making the loop road one-way along the eastern edge. Mr. Montalvo didn’t see a problem with doing that. The question would be whether a fire truck would need to respect that or not. Those using the roads would most likely be those that live in the units. They are expecting very little traffic of any sort. Ms. Shannon acknowledged that we would all like to maintain as much green space and trees. She feels that is balanced well. Ms. Shannon is particularly concerned about the one neighbor that is closest and that everything be done to maintain as much of the vegetation that separates her property from this and block headlights. On the other hand, there is a real need for more housing in the community. This will help with the shortage there is. These communities are a healthy way for people to retire and have community in their later years at every stage of the way. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 33 August 10, 2023 Mr. Van Strien stated that initially he didn’t care for the liner road along Lake Michigan Drive either. He asked that the applicant talk about what that experience from Lake Michigan Drive will be like. There is a huge grade change there so there is a large concrete wall along that elevation but as you get closer to the main entrance it does somewhat level off between the old driveway of the home that was there. People will be looking at the backs of the units and a road on the northern edge. Steve agreed that there is a very large wall along that whole stretch, basically from the driveway and extending east down Lake Michigan Drive. From that perspective he doesn’t believe there will be visibility for anyone driving down Lake Michigan Drive; they aren’t going to see up into the development because of how tall that wall is. However, someone pulling into this site will see the garages for those first few units. The small area of visitor parking at the north has been removed from the plan so it will just be the road coming in and the garages of the first few units will be visible along that drive. Some of the nicer trees they can save are along that frontage that had been around the former house. Mr. Van Strien asked if they will be leveling the grade between the site’s driveway and just to the east of the former home’s driveway. Right now, it seems consistent where the retaining wall is but drops down and is consistently level with Lake Michigan Drive between the two drives. Steve replied that each of the drives to access the units is a fairly steep slope up. It all sits up on somewhat of a plateau before it drops again. As an engineering team they tried to grade the site in a way that balances earth work, preserves trees, and limits the amount of disturbance as much as possible. Ms. Zeller displayed the grading plan. Mr. Van Strien explained that his concern is, when coming from the west, you will be looking at the backs of the homes with a street running parallel to a street. The aesthetics of that don’t sound great. Increasing the amount of landscaping that is currently there would be critical. Steve replied that they do have an opportunity to increase that. Mr. Van Strien clarified that he doesn’t want to see that road. Steve expressed his understanding. Mr. Gross felt that was a good point. They can add some architectural detail to the garages also for a nicer appearance as you come in. Mr. Rozeboom asked if there will be visitor parking somewhere. Steve replied that each unit will have a two-stall garage so the driveways could accommodate visitor parking. They are adding 24 parking spaces in the parking lot to the west. There is also an existing lot with some continuity with sidewalks. They also added a crossing at each roadway. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 34 August 10, 2023 There is also a lot further south where they anticipated accommodating visitor parking. The roads are too narrow to provide on-street parking. Mr. Van Strien noted that they have discussed the disturbance of the trees and the adjacent property owner and Lake Michigan Drive edges and how those are buffered. He asked if Commissioners have any concerns related to the use. Ms. Shannon again recognized the shortage of a variety of housing types and this helps to address that. It is hard to take out what has been a wooded area when people have been used to that. However, it sounds as though they are trying to be a good neighbor and add the buffering needed. Overall, the use is definitely something they need more of. Ms. Bersche agreed. She feels there is a good faith effort to work with the community around them. She hopes they can get some more of the trees back in there, keep the stormwater clean and at a minimum. She also feels the need for this type of housing outweighs some of those concerns currently. Mr. Jonker stated that overall, this is a great development and much needed. He remains concerned along the east property line. There is a 20 ft. retaining wall going in along the ravine so they can get more units in and it is graded right up to the east property line so they can put the road in. He wondered if there was a possibility for another retaining wall along that line but that would involve relocating the storm sewer outlet. He encouraged, as they go through the plan review process, that they think about minimizing disturbance along that area rather than just doing a 1 on 6 slope and grading up to the property line, which necessitates tree removal. If there is a way to relocate that second system outlet that goes out along that road then a small retaining wall there would save a 20 ft. buffer with no grading. He feels there may be a solution there to minimize that disturbance. Mr. Kent recalled that there was some discussion about tree replacement but no consensus was reached. He asked if the Commission is looking for a dollar amount or number of trees to be replaced elsewhere or somewhere else on the site. Mr. Van Strien stated that if they can handle it on site, he would be happy with that. He would leave it to the discretion of staff during the final process. Mr. Jonker asked what the options are if they don’t replace them on site. Mr. Kent explained that there is a payment in lieu plan or they can work with the Parks Department to place trees elsewhere in the community. Mr. Jonker was comfortable with staff assessing that if they can’t replace them on site. Mr. Kent wished to clarify that there is a new parking lot being incorporated on the west side. Steve agreed. It will be adjacent to the existing building and will have 24 spaces. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 35 August 10, 2023 Mr. Kent asked the plan for landscaping on the western edge there. Steve replied that the intent would be to provide landscaping along that parking lot. There is an existing detention basin and it is fairly heavily wooded along the west property line. He doesn’t believe there is much of a view for anyone but they certainly would try to interject some landscaping around that parking lot. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Covenant Living Communities & Services (Randy Gross) to construct 18 duplexes with 36 total units for independent senior living at 2480, 2492, 2500 and 2520 Lake Michigan Dr. NW, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will: meet the underlying intent of the MON-LDR (Modern-Era Neighborhood - Low Density Residential) Zone District to create, maintain and promote a variety of housing opportunities for individual households; support goals outlined in the Master Plan “Great Neighborhoods” chapter that are supportive of the provisions of housing types other than single-family detached residential, including a) GN3: Provide a broad range of high-quality housing choices, b) GN3a: Maintain and increase the number and variety of housing units, c) GN3b: Allow for new housing products, and d) GN3c: Arrange for a range of housing types within all neighborhoods; and help meet the goal of the Age-Friendly Grand Rapids Action Plan to provide an opportunity for high quality of life for people of all ages. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the residential use is at an appropriate density for the size and nature of the site; elements of the site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to the size and character of the site and the type, size, and proportions of buildings, and; natural features including notable mature vegetation and topography will be incorporated into the site design to the maximum extent practicable. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the project provides a unique character for senior housing by enhancing its walkable scale and reinforcing its sense of place and the site plan addresses the existing built environment by appropriate location of building types and orientation relative to adjacent properties. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because adequate landscape buffering will be provided to shield neighboring property from glare from vehicles and homes; the buildings and entrances will be appropriately oriented on the site, and; adequate parking will be provided. 5. The proposed uses will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, and visual clutter because the age restricted housing is anticipated to create less noise and activity than a similar single-family development and the traffic study has determined that the development will have minimal impact on the roadway network. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 36 August 10, 2023 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 private roads and internal sidewalks will connect the new duplexes to one another, the rest of the campus, and to Lake Michigan Drive. 7. The proposed use will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable, particularly where the natural features assist in preserving the general character of the neighborhood because additional vegetation will be added to buffer the development from adjacent property; the design of the proposed retaining wall will facilitate retention of on-site trees, and; development will not affect steep slopes. 8. The health, safety, and general welfare of the public will be maintained because public infrastructure already exists, and additional private infrastructure will be constructed and maintained by the applicant. 9. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the additional units will contribute to the tax base and the private infrastructure will be maintained by the development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated, and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. That the perimeter landscaping along the north and side lot lines shall, at a minimum, meet the landscape buffer requirements of Section 5.11.12.D. for the MON Neighborhood Classification. 3. That a plan illustrating tree protection and root protection zones, and methods and details for protecting existing vegetation during construction, shall be submitted as part of the LUDS Permit. SUPPORTED by Ms. Shannon. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 37 August 10, 2023 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Susan Shannon, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Laurel Joseph, Adrienne Wallace, Salim Al-Shatel IV. Planning Commission Discussion V. Public Comment Mary Fridsma related that she and her husband have lived in the second ward for 27 years and have shared a border with Huff Park and the uniquely biodiverse wetlands and cattail crossings nature preserve for 22 years. She wished to share her concerns about protecting Huff Park from the environmental impact of potential condo development along its south border, which was a concept presented by the developer at the April 5th meeting of the Creston Neighborhood Association Land Use Committee. She, along with a host of neighbors that enjoy time at Huff Park would ask that the Planning Commission maintain the current zoning designation of LDR without a Special Use Permit or zoning change that would allow greater density along the borders of Huff Park. The nature of the neighborhood is nature and many residents consider themselves stewards of the park. Ms. Fridsma provided examples of how they ensure the preservation of the wetlands and the park. Using various LLCs, the developer has purchased eight lots on Knapp and Joan along the south border of the park. He is now approaching people to buy homes along Ontario and Knapp, in effect depleting the stock of affordable starter homes. He is repairing houses and, rather than flipping and selling them, he is renting them, which the neighbors infer as buying time potentially until he can buy enough properties to proceed with a larger development. Ms. Fridsma understands that her concerns may appear to reflect a Not In My Backyard mindset. She is supportive of sustainable, well-planned development that provides affordable and diverse housing options, especially when accessible to public transit. In this case, her voice is joined by numerous neighbors who have written to the Planning Commission, dozens of neighbors that spoke at the neighborhood association meeting on August 2, and over 5,700 signatures that joined an online petition. It is as if they are saying “not in Huff Park’s backyard”. The trail is a wonderful, almost wilderness experience that could be ruined by heavily visible development along a prominent ridge that is very close to the trail. Ms. Fridsma stated that she doesn’t oppose all options. The developer certainly has the right to build within LDR guidelines approximating the existing adjacent lot sizes, home sizes, and deep backyards, which are harmonious with Huff Park and which would allow for 4-5 single-family homes. Ms. Fridsma stated that they are proud of the green city initiatives in Grand Rapids that promotes a humane and sustainable atmosphere. She asked that the Commission help them find ways to protect this precious urban green space, a vital natural resource that contributes to the beauty, health, and well-being of the vibrant city. Nicole Smith, resident on Ontario adjacent to Copper Rock’s purchased property also adjacent to Huff Park. She understands that the developer’s formal plans have not been presented but it is important to note the strong community opposition to the tentative plans ahead of time. Ms. Smith is opposed to a potential Special Land Use permit in the future being granted to Copper Rock Construction on the 9 or more properties he has already purchased adjacent to Huff Park City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 38 August 10, 2023 due to the area being zoned for low density on the present and future Grand Rapids Land Use Maps. Ms. Smith stated that she understands the housing strain in the city. She supports affordable housing and smart growth planning in cities, which more favorably supports sustainability and quality of human life. She also believes that further and better initiatives of public transportation need to be discussed and executed before approving of high density, luxury housing like this instance. Smart growth takes strategic city planning as well as restricting or preventing large scale developers from being able to dictate what city-scapes look like. Decimating the land closely surrounding green spaces like Huff Park with high density luxury housing would have multiple negative impacts to residents, the neighborhood, and the rich biodiversity of the park. VI. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 4:35 PM