TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 October 12, 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 beginning 12:30 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM by Board Member Kyle Van Strien PRESENT: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Laura Wahamaki, Sarah Behmlander, and Deputy City Attorney Phil Strom B. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from September 28, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon, Salim Al-Shatel C. Planning Director's Report 1. Adoption of 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule Motion by Ms. Joseph, supported by Mr. Rozeboom, to adopt the 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Community Master Plan Second Round Engagement Update Ms. Turkelson introduced Sarah Bongiorno, Planning Next, to provide a Community Master Plan Second Round Engagement Update. Ms. Turkelson related that the City Commission also received a similar presentation. Ms. Bongiorno recalled that she was before the Planning Commission in April with a First Round Update. They are pleased to return to provide an update on the second round, what they learned, and who they engaged with. Ms. Bongiorno indicated that she will also provide a preview of what is planned for the third round of engagement. Generated 10/20/2023 12:07 AM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 October 12, 2023 Ms. Bongiorno explained that the Community Master Plan is a 20-year planning horizon document focused on the physical development of the community. It addresses topics such as what is happening with the population, economy, housing needs and transportation. The Master Plan integrates solid technical analysis along with robust public input. The Master Plan is also the underpinning for a valid Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Bongiorno related that they are moving from round two engagement/phase three into the third round of engagement. Based upon community input they have been analyzing, defining and redefining the focuses for the Plan. They will be testing some of that in the third round. They are also planning a fourth round this spring as part of the adoption process. Ms. Bongiorno recalled that the engagement process has four rounds of equitable, inclusive, productive, and fun engagement for the community. It is important to note that they are at a pivot point in the engagement where they have been more generative and brainstorming, asking people for big ideas and open-ended questions to now being more responsive. They have taken the input and are now starting to frame up Plan frameworks and specific objectives. They will get to recommendations that the community will be invited to provide feedback on. Ms. Bongiorno stated that they are clear that this is self-selected and qualitative data but they have been very diligent in collecting demographic information from those that have participated in engagement so they have reflective and representative input that represents the larger community. They have also been focused on the topics that are within the Community Master Plan purview; physical development and land use. Ms. Bongiorno explained that they have created a Plan framework, which sets a community vision statement, community value threads that reflect at a high level what the community most cares about, and goal areas that are desired outcomes expressed in simple terms. The community goals are beginning to become the chapters of the organization of the Plan. Ms. Bongiorno called attention to the values, which came out of an organic input exercise in the first round. The values will be treated as cross-cutting themes throughout the Plan. While there will be recommendations organized into chapters, the values will be cross-referenced in thinking about how equity, safety, sustainability, culture, and vibrancy are represented and moving the City forward across the recommendations. They understand the values are very important to the community and will be sure their recommendations are hitting on all of them. Ms. Bongiorno related that some of the comments they heard back from the public on the vision statement was trying to find a way to include sustainability and the idea of environmental stewardship into the statement more strongly, because even though they know it is a very important value thread, it isn’t mentioned. Ms. Bongiorno indicated that they had a work session with the Steering Committee yesterday and they continue to take feedback on the vision statement, which will continue to be massaged as they move forward. Ms. Bongiorno commented on participation. They are pleased to relate that they have engaged over 1,800 people as of October 2nd. They have received some additional input since then and will update accordingly. Over 2,300 pieces of input have been collected. Engagement was conducted in a variety of forms in round two. An in-person workshop was the kick off to round City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 October 12, 2023 two in May. They also had a presence at the Neighborhood Summit event. Community Connectors were out in the community meeting in small groups with community members and doing “move and talks”, which were workshops conducted in the neighborhood, moving about, telling stories and looking at what is on the ground in the neighborhood today and what they’d like to see in the future. Community Connectors also conducted some one-on-one interviews with people in the community. City staff did a great job engaging youth through the different city youth camp opportunities. There was also an online survey and a number of the neighborhood organizations conducted pop-ups at different festivals and events taking place this summer. Ms. Bongiorno stated that they heard from people living in all three wards and the majority of neighborhoods. Ms. Bongiorno recalled from round one engagement that there was a gap in some of the demographics. She was pleased to report that they closed the gap in the African American community, which was very important. That was a goal and focus of the Community Connectors and Steering Committee. They also continue to engage the Hispanic and Latin communities. It is very important that the participants are matching the overall census data from the community. Ms. Bongiorno related that there were still some gaps in age. They were able to close the gap considerably with the under 18 group with all of the effort focused on the youth camps. The 18 - 24 group is elusive however. They are very difficult to reach in all communities they work in. They have been making a concerted effort and have made some good connections with GRCC and GVSU. They will continue to work on that with some more intentional strategies going forward. Ms. Bongiorno also recalled there was a gap in round one of those with a high school diploma or equivalent. They have closed the gap from 4% in round one to 13%, which is a move in the right direction. They will continue to be mindful of this with the Community Connectors and Steering Committee to ensure they are promoting, reaching out and communicating with people in these different demographics. Ms. Bongiorno related that the Creston neighborhood was most engaged in round two. There were several neighborhoods that didn’t have representation but they are still sorting through the information because they had several people that listed a street or intersection when responding to the demographic survey vs. a specific neighborhood. They are working with staff in an effort to geo-code those. Ms. Bongiorno indicated that the vision, values, and goals all ranked very well, averaging approximately 4.3 out of 5. Ms. Bongiorno reiterated that the vision will change in an effort to center sustainability more strongly in the statement. The value threads had good support from the community. The goals, which are shaping up to be the Plan chapters, ranked very well. The desirable development character goal ranked a bit lower than others. In reading some of the comments, Ms. Bongiorno believes that there was some misunderstanding as to what that means. Ms. Bongiorno displayed slides from the May workshop, which included engagement sessions on climate change, mitigation and adaptation, environmental justice and health, and the 15- minute community idea. People were interested in energy initiatives, solar for residential and being more energy efficient. With respect to transportation, they’ve heard a lot about making the City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 October 12, 2023 city car-optional; having choices for transportation. They also heard a lot about green space and wanting more amenities or recreation opportunities within parks. They also heard about equitable access to parks. From the environmental justice and health session they heard about air pollution, improving the quality of the tree canopy, looking at the de-invested communities and having an equitable approach to what is being done. There was also interest in an equitable lens on transportation and making sure all neighborhoods have access to the bus network and protected bike lanes. There was a lot of conversation around accessibility; making sure that all people in Grand Rapids can access parks and different parts of the community. Ms. Bongiorno explained that the 15-minute community exercise was a circle of an area and participants were asked to look at the area and how they could create a 15-minute community; getting to all your basic needs within a 15-minute walk or bike ride. Some of the things that came out of those group discussions were different types of housing (ADU, senior living, live-work, etc.). There was a lot of talk about more accessibility to the river and green space, more focus on pedestrians, more local access to food, more mixed-use along major corridors, and building sidewalks everywhere. Ms. Bongiorno explained that on the website they had a quick engagement survey, called The Magic Wand, that a number of the neighborhood organizations were able to distribute. Participants were asked what they would change in the city if they were able to waive a magic wand. Some of the responses were similar with respect to housing, public transportation, allocating more resources and support for the unhoused, improvement of infrastructure, engaging youth and more youth programming. Some of those things may be outside of the Community Master Plan process but they are gathering what people are interested in and they will be allocating it appropriately to other City departments. As part of the “move and talks” conducted by the Community Connectors, they did a walk audit. The routes were 45 minutes to an hour, walking around the community, and they were asked to look at what is on the ground. Ms. Bongiorno shared some of the things they recognized; housing, food access, green space access, parks and rec, mobility, and accessibility. They are in the process of collecting all of those routes to show on a map all of the places that people walked and tag those more specifically. They were also asked at the end to envision the future; what is present today, what are some of the issues you uncovered in your audit, and how does that transfer into thinking about the future of the particular neighborhood or corridor. There were similar themes about affordable housing, housing types, pollution and environmental aspects, and health equity such as having access to healthy food and recreation opportunities. Ms. Bongiorno explained that the move and talks kicked off with storytelling. Community Connectors invited local storytellers, local residents, to serve as storytellers in the “move and talks”. They’ve collected over six hours of audio that they’ve been transcribing and listening to. Some of the key things they heard from the stories were people talking about Grand Rapids’ history including red-lining and the impact of different things that shaped the physical and political forms of the city. They heard about the prioritization of people over cars and commentaries on affordability, housing and diversity. Ms. Bongiorno summarized the round two engagement noting that they are beginning to see some very strong themes they will be working with as they begin to write recommendations with staff. She invited questions from the Planning Commission; there were none. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 October 12, 2023 Ms. Bongiorno provided a preview of the round three engagement, which will be November 14, 15, and 16. They will be provided in each ward and participants can attend any session that is most convenient for them. All sessions will be held from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. and will feature the same input gathering activities. No matter which session is attended, participants will be able to give their input on a variety of stations focused on each goal area of the plan. They are also planning a special event to kick off each session. On November 15 they will host a community led panel discussion that the Community Connectors are helping to organize at the Center for Community Transformation. On November 16 they have secured Shane Phillips as a guest speaker to discuss housing. They are trying to line up another performance/art piece for November 14. More information about the events will be provided on the website. Community Connectors and neighborhood organizations will also be hosting Community Conversations. They are boots on the ground, out in the community, making sure that voices that may not attend the larger events are heard. There is a process for them to develop some critical questions they will pose to those out in the community. Ms. Bongiorno explained that they are continuing to analyze and understand all the input from round two to begin to write the recommendations for the Plan. Ms. Bongiorno invited Planning Commissioners to help spread the word that there is more opportunity for residents to provide their input. There are both printed and digital materials that can be distributed. Ms. Joseph asked that Ms. Bongiorno send Planning Commissioners the digital version of the information so they can put them out through their networks. Ms. Turkelson agreed to send the digital versions. They will also have cards available this afternoon for Commissioners to take and distribute. Mr. Van Strien asked Ms. Bongiorno if they feel they are still on track for an early 2024 adoption of the Plan. Ms. Bongiorno replied that they discussed that with staff yesterday. The next task for Planning Next is to map out from now through June 2024. They will work backward putting in all of the necessary requirements and meetings with the Planning and City Commissions. The goal is to meet the June deadline. Ms. Turkelson feels the only thing that may cause some angst is that State law requires them to have the plan released for public input and sit for 63 days. It is distributed to utility companies, adjacent jurisdictions, and the regional planning commission and provides adequate time for those entities to review and provide feedback. That is somewhat challenging when counting the remaining time before the June deadline. Another element that will be informing the schedule is how the Planning Commission feels it will be best for them to digest this. Is there a desire to be provided with a draft of the plan when it is drafted in its entirety or receive it chapter by chapter. Ms. Turkelson doesn’t believe it would be necessary to have a meeting dedicated to each goal or chapter to review, but that could also be done. She invited feedback on how the Commission would like to receive the Plan and provide feedback before considering it formally for the public release process. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 October 12, 2023 Mr. Van Strien suggested it will depend on how it is drafted. If drafting a chapter at a time he suggested letting them review them one at a time. It will likely be easier to digest and interpret and allow Commissioners more time. However, if they aren’t comfortable sharing a draft chapter until all chapters are drafted, then they wait. Ms. Turkelson felt that chapter by chapter would be fine. The framework will be flushed out further so it will be possible to understand the relationship to other chapters. Ms. Bongiorno felt that one thing that may be more difficult to appreciate are the value threads. If doing it chapter by chapter she suggested there should still be a review of looking at the entire draft and the value threads. That is one way they will be working with the Steering Committee to make sure equity, safety, etc. are clearly there and truly serving as cross-cutting themes. She feels digesting it a chapter at a time makes sense but she also feels there is a point where they look at the entirety, likely as a review of those values specifically because they will have already looked at the specific recommendations per chapter. Mr. Williams asked if it would be possible to get the information in video format, such as a YouTube video. Ms. Bongiorno replied that they have talked about that and how best to release this to the public. There is a fourth round of engagement that will occur before the 63-day release for public input. It is a lot for the community to digest and they have discussed a 2-3 minute video that highlights what is happening in the Great Neighborhoods Chapter, etc. She suggested they give that further consideration. Mr. Williams offered his assistance. Mr. Jonker asked if there is anything they can get regarding each topic and how the values were considered under each topic. Ms. Bongiorno felt that was a good idea. One recommendation might help uphold a couple of values. They have been talking to staff about an online Plan, something more dynamic than the printed version. If that is the way they move forward one would be able to read the chapters of the Plan or filter/sort by the values, which she feels would be a great way to review the Plan. Mr. Rozeboom recalled from their experience reviewing Area Specific Plans in the past that it is really too late to have much input. He would err on reviewing chapter by chapter vs. the entirety. III. Public Hearings beginning at 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter A. Conflict of Interest Mr. Van Strien related that 949 Cherry St. SE is next door to a business he owns. In review of the by-laws, even though he doesn’t have a direct financial interest, they say if you are adjacent to a subject property, it may be a conflict. Ms. Turkelson read that section of the by-laws for the Planning Commission. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 October 12, 2023 Motion by Ms. Bersche, supported by Mr. Jonker, finding that Mr. Van Strien has a potential conflict of interest related to the 949 Cherry St. SE agenda item. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Van Strien provided a brief outline of the meeting process. B. 840 Benson Ave NE - Residential Rehabilitation Facility Address: 840 Benson Avenue NE Applicant: 70 x 7 Life Recovery (Clay Reinking) Requesting: Approval to operate a residential rehabilitation facility in a residential zone district. Zoning: TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood-Low Density Residential) Requirements: Article 5 Residential Zone Districts 5.9.29. Residential Rehabilitation Facilities 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0072 Staff Assigned: Laura Wahamaki lwahamaki@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: October 28, 2023 Ms. Wahamaki identified the location of the property east of College and west of Eastern. It is surrounded primarily by low-density residential. To the north is the Grand Rapids Public Schools administration building where they park school buses. The Master Plan identifies the area in which the property is located as Medium Low Density Residential and the property to the north is identified as institutional. Ms. Wahamaki explained that the request is to operate a residential rehabilitation facility for up to 16 previously incarcerated men in the TN-LDR Zone District. Residential rehabilitation facilities require Special Land Use approval. The organization’s request to operate at this location falls under the definition of residential rehabilitation facility because it is adult residential care operated by either a government agency or private non-profit organization, with 24-hour care and supervision. The definition includes group homes/housing for ex-prisoners adjusting from being incarcerated to self-sufficiency. Ms. Wahamaki displayed an image of the house. It was constructed in the 1970’s by Kent County. It was purpose built for use as an adult foster care or group home setting. It has been in use as such. Because the Zoning Ordinance defines adult foster care separately from a residential rehabilitation facility, even though both are group living situations, it is considered a different/change of use that requires Planning Commission consideration. The building is a large, brick, two-story building. The property on which it is located is approximately 3/4 of an acre. It is primarily flat. The building looks very similar to several of the multi-family apartment buildings on the same street and on adjacent streets. There is a two-stall garage on the property, as well as surface parking. Ms. Wahamaki displayed an overhead view City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 October 12, 2023 pointing out the significant amount of green space. The rear yard is enclosed by a privacy fence. At the rear of the property, between the subject property and the property to the east, there is a significant grade change, which Ms. Wahamaki suggested adds to the privacy of the back yard of the property. Aside from some cosmetic changes, there are no building changes proposed as part of the request. Ms. Wahamaki displayed the floor plan noting that because it was purpose built for group living it doesn’t lend itself to multi-family or single-family use; it is intended to be used as a group home. There is a manager’s apartment on the west side of the building. The intent is to continue that use; an employee of the organization running the group home will reside there and help manage the property and the daily functioning of the home. There is a shared main kitchen, large dining area, large social/living room area, office, powder room and the managers quarters. The second floor has eight bedrooms, which are quite large at approximately 255 sq. ft. each. Each bedroom includes its own bathroom, built in dressers and closet areas and is large enough to accommodate two people comfortably. The home would not house more than 16 at one time. Ms. Wahamaki related that each resident must qualify for the program. She deferred to the applicant to provide more detail on how a resident qualifies, as well as house rules. The packet includes a document that lists all of the house rules that residents are expected to comply with while living there. With respect to parking, most residents are not expected to have their own vehicle. Based on the parking requirements of the Ordinance, nine parking spaces are required and there is room on site for eight vehicles. The applicant intends to stripe the paved parking area and there are two parking spaces in the garage. The Planning Commission may reduce the amount of parking required by the one deficient space based on the availability of on-street parking. There is on-street parking on both sides of Benson Ave. Ms. Wahamaki also deferred to the applicant to share details about their engagement with the neighborhood association and community members. Staff has received a letter of support from the Highland Park Neighborhood Association. The applicant also submitted letters of support from agency partners. Staff also received a letter of support from a neighbor in the community. Ms. Joseph clarified that there would be up to 16 residents in the program. She asked if any distinction needs to be made to allow for the fact that there will also be a manager living in the home. Ms. Turkelson replied that typically the resolutions indicate how many residents vs. staff would be residing on the property. Carl Gabriels was present on behalf of 70 x 7. He related that in addition to assisting them with their legal matters, he is also a volunteer mentor through their program. He has had the opportunity of walking with a number of previously incarcerated men as they try to navigate the ups and downs of reentering the community. Also present was the Chief Administrative Officer, Clay Reinking, Housing Director, Brook Bowman, and Board Member Nicky Edwards, who is also a sergeant with the Kent County Sherrif’s Dept. Mr. Gabriels expressed their appreciation for the Planning Commission’s time, as well as the time that staff has put into reviewing the application and creating the report. Between the narrative statement and the staff report, Mr. Gabriels feels the request for Special Land Use has been adequately presented. Nothing is going City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 October 12, 2023 to change about how the property is used, other than that it will have a different population. As the report indicates, the house was constructed in 1975 as a group home and has served in that capacity for nearly 50 years. 70 x 7 is requesting to continue the use as a group home providing structured housing to previously incarcerated individuals that are participating in 70 x 7’s reentry program. They understand that while the previous group home didn’t require Special Land Use, this one does. They are seeking that approval. As Ms. Wahamaki indicated, the building will be updated cosmetically but no structural or material changes to the site or building are intended at this time. 70 x 7 is excited about the opportunity of finding a home like this that is so unique and so perfect for its mission of providing stable and structured housing and wrap around services to individuals rejoining the community. Mr. Gabriels related that every year thousands of individuals are reintroduced into society from prisons. The numbers range from 8,000 to 11,000 a year in Michigan. The recidivism rate in Michigan last year was 22% and it has been in the 20’s for a few years now. A decade ago it was at 48%. Interestingly, when looking at brochures and pamphlets from that time, there was a start to recognize the need to provide wrap around services of stable housing, counseling, mentoring, support, and accountability vs. giving someone a bus pass and saying good luck. It isn’t just 70 x 7, there are other organizations such as the Michigan Department of Corrections recognizing these things and accomplishing the change from 48% to 22% recidivism. Participants in 70 x 7’s program have a recidivism rate of less than 5%. It is recognizing that people coming out of prison need the wrap around support structure to assist them in making the transition and becoming a successful participant in life. Mr. Gabriels explained that recidivism is defined as whether someone returns to incarceration within three years of being released. To turn those to positive, the general percentage for success is 78%. The percentage for success in 70 x 7’s reentry program is more than 95% success. 70 x 7 is not the only organization achieving those results. There are other fantastic non-profits and faith-based organizations doing the same thing. Mr. Gabriels stated that this group home will allow 70 x 7 to provide stabled and structured housing to 16 previously incarcerated individuals. Stable housing is one thing and taking it up a notch is structured housing where there is a trained, employed, and a peer coaching certified manager on site who has been certified by the Michigan Department of Housing and Human Services. Sixteen beds isn’t enough to solve the problem when there are thousands being released each year but it is a start. For those sixteen individuals it can be a life changing event. Their success by getting a bed in this house jumps from 78% chance of turning their life around to more than 95%. Mr. Gabriels suggested that is good for them as well as the community and the neighborhood. Ms. Joseph noted that the managers apartment is a two-bedroom unit. She asked if there will be anyone else in the managers household other than the property manager. Mr. Gabriels replied that he believes the intent is there would not be any children residing there. It would simply be a manager and perhaps a spouse or partner. Ms. Joseph asked how many other staff will be going to and from the property. Mr. Gabriels indicated that the Housing Director would be one person that goes around to this and other facilities. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 October 12, 2023 Ms. Bowman added that she would visit the house regularly and intermittently mentors for each of the participants in the program would visit. They wouldn’t visit all at once. It would be scheduled, one-on-one visits. Ms. Turkelson expressed her understanding that the dumpster on site will be removed and replaced with roll off carts. Mr. Gabriels replied that that is the intent. Ms. Turkelson explained that if the dumpster is not removed the expectation is that it would be screened appropriately. She asked if any bike parking is available. Mr. Gabriels replied that there is a large amount of concrete in the back, inside the fence. That would allow for a significant amount of placement and security for bikes. Ms. Turkelson asked that Mr. Gabriels speak to the typical length of stay for residents and what are the procedures for when a resident moves in and when they graduate the program and move out. What are the hours and how does that typically happen? Mr. Gabriels replied that the average stay is 12 - 18 months. There have been instances where individuals have gotten their life together quicker and move on sooner than that. Ms. Bowman added that when an individual moves in she and the house manager would both be present and go through the rules that would have been communicated to them previously by their referring source such as a parole agent, probation officer, etc. They are also shown around the property. The first day there isn’t a lot of pressure because it is overwhelming to move into a new house with other people. They sit together and get to know each other with the peer based approach of this being their home and making them comfortable while making sure they have services in place for their life. They use an RCSI form that evaluates their needs. If they need an ID, they have scheduled mobile unit ID visits from the Secretary of State to their Grand Rapids location. If they need a job, they have a contract with B2 and if there are openings they can assist with that. Ms. Bowman explained that they identify their needs, loosely making their plan, without overwhelming them that day. Ms. Turkelson asked the hours that occurs. Could a resident move in at 2 a.m.? Ms. Bowman replied that her goal would be between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. but at times the Kent County Jail might release them at 7:30. She wouldn’t leave them wandering the community; they would take them in, which is unique about having an employee on site. They wouldn’t do it during the middle of the night. They have curfews so there won’t be a lot of coming and going. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Matt DeYoung related that he owns 810, 823, and 827 Benson, which are direct neighbors. He also owns 835 and 865 Grand, which are down the hill behind the subject property, and the eight City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 October 12, 2023 additional properties across the street on Grand Ave, which is a total of 52 apartments that can see the subject property. Mr. DeYoung stated that in the last 15 years he has owned and operated properties in the Highland Park neighborhood. Every tenant has had to pass a criminal background check that ensures every resident in the properties has passed a criminal background check. The proposal being discussed today goes 100% against everything he has done to improve the neighborhood over the last 15 years. Mr. DeYoung stated that he wouldn’t have invested the time and money into these properties, to improve the neighborhood, knowing this was even a possibility. Sixteen incarcerated men under one roof is dangerous and unsettling for his tenants. He has single moms and single females living on their own right next door. They wouldn’t have rented these apartments knowing the rehabilitation facility was right next door. Mr. DeYoung stated that he has to disclose to his tenants living within sight of this property of this rehabilitation center and who is staying there. Mr. DeYoung feels this will have negative impacts on his properties and the neighborhood. If his tenants feel unsafe, he will have to let them out of their leases. The Zoning rules are in place to protect property owners and should not be altered. They are asking to operate a small hotel for convicts. The men are not there for tax evasion or petty theft. They will be intimidating men walking around the neighborhood. It isn’t fair to those that were in the neighborhood first. Mr. DeYoung asked that the Planning Commission please not take their safety and peace of mind for granted. He stated that he is speaking on behalf of his 80 tenants and as the owner of the 52 neighboring units. It is his responsibility to look out for the safety of his tenants and it is the Planning Commission’s responsibility to look out for property owners. He asked that the proposal not be approved. Threshold’s Ministry was the previous tenant at 840 Benson and they weren’t a concern or threat to the neighborhood. Mr. DeYoung added that he believes in the goals and the mission plan; it is amazing. He wishes he was there to support them more but there has to be other places in the neighborhood in more of a commercial area where there aren’t already residents rooted there. People will move and they will be uprooted. Threshold’s Ministry was a great organization and the Christian beliefs behind both organizations are wonderful and he supports that. However, there are tenants living in his properties that are very concerned. Listening to the proposal alone is unsettling and people don’t like that. They are people coming directly from jail into this house and they can leave at any point. They aren’t being held there and then they are on the neighborhood streets. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Mr. Rozeboom clarified that these are individuals that have served their time and are members of our society. Ms. Joseph feels this property is ideal for this kind of use. It was built for a group use and the organization has included comprehensive policies and procedures for the operation of this home in their application. She isn’t concerned about the use and doesn’t believe it will have a negative impact on the property. Unrelated to land use, Ms. Joseph encouraged any neighbors that are notifying other neighbors about it to frame it appropriately and not fear monger. Ms. Joseph is supportive. Ms. Turkelson suggested it may be helpful if the applicant described some of their safety policies and procedures that are in place. It sounds like with their experience there have been incidents in the past and how they’ve responded or perhaps provide rates of incidents. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 October 12, 2023 Ms. Bowman explained that in their guidelines, if there is any criminal behavior they will be asked to leave. 70 x 7 will help them find an appropriate setting that is different than 70 x 7. Many of the individuals will be on parole or probation and they would be reincarcerated if they committed a crime. Ms. Bowman related that she has been doing housing for 9 ½ years in Grand Rapids and has managed 85 beds. One of the houses is in Highland Park, right around the corner from the subject house. There are ten men and it has remained safe based on the rules, structure, accountability, and support. They enforce the rules that are in the book. If someone begins violating curfew, they will talk to them and not in the sense of a dictator or rule enforcer but rather about how if they communicate that they will be here at this time, they need to be there. They are retraining the thinking to follow rules in the house because they have violated societies laws, which is why they are there. Most people leave before they do something like that and not onto the streets in the community; they go back to their original place typically. No one is going to be admitted that has alcohol or drugs in their system. They are drug tested upon entry and aren’t actively using alcohol or other drugs. They have everything in place to make sure that individuals can find a place of healing, follow a set of rules, and move forward in their life. Ms. Bowman explained that they also have a good neighbor policy through the certification process with the Michigan Association of Recovery Residenses. Individuals are held accountable to no loitering and other things because there is a stigma on this population already and they don’t want to contribute to that stigma. They talk about that openly and follow the certifying body’s good neighbor policy. They don’t sit on the front porch and smoke cigarettes. They have a fenced in back yard where someone can safety smoke and have a place to dispose of it. She tries to build a relationship with neighbors and invites them to come to her with questions and concerns. She wants them to feel safe and heard. Ms. Bowman stated that this is actually one of the best neighbors to have. They don’t drink, they don’t use, there is no loud music at night because there is an employee on site to ensure that doesn’t happen. Ms. Bowman acknowledged the fear expressed. However, the residents of the home have a lot to lose if they can’t stay. Mr. Williams agreed that people have served the time for their crime and are now reentering society. Places like this are good and the community should be thanking them for helping them reenter society in a positive way. Fear mongering won’t help anyone. If 80 people move out of the neighborhood because they are scared of sixteen people who were formerly incarcerated moving in, that sounds like a problem for those 80 people. Mr. Williams suggested that explaining to people what is happening is important. Also, the former inmates are also people. They are grown adults who, with the help of 70 x 7, can follow the rules and if they don’t there are consequences. They have been to jail and they know this. Mr. Williams offered his support. Ms. Turkelson suggested additional discussion about why this is an appropriate location for this type of use. She has heard about the importance of the use in our community but perhaps more specific to this location. Ms. Joseph noted that this is a residential use in a residential neighborhood. There won’t be any traffic impacts. They have sufficient parking. There is plenty of street parking to mitigate the one deficient space on site. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 October 12, 2023 Ms. Turkelson also noted that it is well connected to transit, just a couple of blocks from College Ave. Mr. Rozeboom feels the unenclosed dumpster is inappropriate and they have already addressed the fact that they will be taking care of that. Ms. Joseph suggested a condition of requiring dumpster screening if they do decide to utilize it. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of 70 x 7 Life Recovery (Clay Reinking) to operate a residential rehabilitation facility for up to 16 previously incarcerated men people in the TN-LDR Zone District at 840 Benson Avenue NE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will help maintain the number and variety of housing units to meet the diverse needs of existing residents, Master Plan Objective GN 3, and promote the rehabilitation and reuse of an existing building. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because parking area improvements are proposed to include striping and additional landscaping. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will be a continuation of multi-residential use of the property that has been already established for many years; the proposed use is anticipated to be a low-impact residential use; and an on-site property and program manager will have permanent residence on the property. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because adequate on-site parking will be provided, as it is anticipated that residents will not own their own vehicle and will utilize carpools and public transportation and existing site conditions, including the back yard privacy fence, will adequately screen and buffer neighboring properties from outside activities. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter because the program’s strict guidelines for visitors and guests will minimize the potential of excessive traffic and the proposed use is residential and the program will incorporate quiet outdoor activities, such as vegetable gardening, for residents. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the existing building, parking area, and fence are appropriately situated on the site and in compliance with the TN Neighborhood requirements. 7. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist and no additional burden is expected with the establishment of this use. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 October 12, 2023 8. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the intent of the program is to result in placement of financially stable, independent individuals that will contribute to the economic welfare of the City. 9. The proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all applicable State laws. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the testimony, 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 use shall accommodate no more than 16 residents at any one time, plus the house manager’s household. 3. That if a commercial dumpster is used it shall be screened as required by the Zoning Ordinance. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. Ms. Joseph suggested adding to Condition #2 “plus the house manager’s household”. She also suggested changing the beginning language from “previously incarcerated men” to “previously incarcerated people”. Ms. Bersche accepted the suggested amendments. The question was called. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 October 12, 2023 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon, Salim Al-Shatel C. 2200 aka 2078 E Beltline Ave NE - Veterinary Clinic Address: 2022 aka 2078 E Beltline Avenue NE Applicant: East Beltline Development, L.L.C. (William T. Mast) Requesting: Approval for a veterinary clinic within the Village of Knapps Crossing development. Zoning: SD-PRD (Special District—Planned Redevelopment District) Requirements: Article 7 Planned Redevelopment District 5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0078 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: October 28, 2023 Ms. Zeller presented the request for a veterinary clinic within the Village of Knapps Crossing. The clinic is proposed to occupy the site of the former Bravo restaurant, just north of the main entrance off the E. Beltline. The request is before the Planning Commission because, per the Planned Redevelopment Ordinance for this development, a veterinary clinic requires Special Land Use approval. Ms. Zeller explained that the site is zoned as a Planned Redevelopment District. It is also in the E. Beltline Overlay. For the most part, the East Beltline Overlay addresses building and parking setbacks, and landscaping. It also identifies this intersection of Knapp and the E. Beltline as a Town Center. Although it doesn’t address use, it does identify the area as a more concentrated commercial area. The subject site was originally identified as Building K and was originally developed slightly different than what was originally proposed; the building is somewhat smaller. It is approximately 7,000 sq. ft. It has an entry vestibule, a canopy, and at the rear there is a cooler. The site is nicely landscaped and there is an outdoor patio on the front facing the E. Beltline. Ms. Zeller displayed Google Streetview photos of the building. Ms. Zeller explained that the applicant originally hadn’t completed floor plans or elevations but those were received yesterday. They have been included in the packet and the staff report has been updated. However, due to the lack of time to review them, Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant for detailed questions. She noted that several enclosures are proposed. Two are proposed on the E. Beltline side in the patio area. They will be attached to exam rooms. They will be 6’ high, fenced in enclosures with a 9’ tall pergola. One enclosure is identified as an outside exam room and the other is outside comfort. On the interior side, there is a storage City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 October 12, 2023 building proposed to be attached to the building and a dog relief yard with the same design as the enclosures in the front. Ms. Zeller displayed building elevations noting that it is substantially the same as what exists today. There is a Planned Sign Program associated with this building and that is the signage that would be afforded the applicant. Ms. Zeller identified the location of the proposed enclosures and the storage shed on the elevations. With respect to operations, Ms. Zeller related that no circulation or parking changes are proposed. The use does not propose any boarding and no pet crematorium is proposed. The applicant has not submitted a waste removal plan as part of the application, which is something the Planning Commission may wish to explore. Hours of operation are proposed as 7:30 am to 6 pm and they anticipate 40 - 80 patients per day. Ms. Zeller displayed photos of other existing VCA facilities. She related that she has not received any public input. She deferred to the applicant to speak to their public outreach. Bill Mast, Visser Brothers, was present on behalf of the ownership of East Beltline Development. He stated that they are applying for Special Land Use because the use is defined as a personal service use. Mr. Mast has requested Special Land Uses in the past for hotels and liquor licenses where you can anticipate odd hours, late nights, outdoor music and other things that may be offensive to neighbors, which is likely why Special Land Uses exist. He has wrestled with this application trying to understand what it is about a veterinary clinic that may generate questions. Mr. Mast explained that they own the land surrounding on the east, north and south sides of the subject building. They’ve reached out to all of their tenants and received no objections, comments, or questions. To the west is the E. Beltline and Celebration Cinema’s development on the west side of the E. Beltline. Mr. Mast believes, based on aerial photos and the time he has spent on the site, that this building cannot be seen from a residence. Therefore, if veterinary clinics were offensive to residents, he doesn’t feel that would apply. Some of the things he tried to anticipate as to why it might be a Special Land Use are odors. This is not a boarding facility. It is also not a surgical facility; it is a vet clinic for checkups. There are over 800 of these clinics and they don’t board animals long enough to typically have them need to relieve themselves. It is rare that the relief area would ever be used. However, they will have one and it is drawn to replace the coolers that are currently on the back side of the building. It would be completely fenced in and they will use an astroturf type product for the animal industry called Tiger Turf. That would be used on the east side inside the enclosure. Mr. Mast stated that the building has been vacant for 3 ½ years since COVID and they would welcome this clinic. Restaurants are good tenants when they are there but they do tend to come and go. Pets seem to be somewhat recession proof. It would likely be a welcome traffic generator for the surrounding retail tenants. Ms. Joseph asked how trash and waste are handled. Mr. Mast replied that there is a commercial dumpster on the back. It is visible in one of the photos Ms. Zeller displayed. It is the dumpster that Bravo used. The development doesn’t impose hours for dumpsters but the applicant has related that they contract with a waste hauler that is already hauling waste from the center’s other tenants. Pick up will occur daily at the same time as other users within the center. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 October 12, 2023 Ms. Joseph asked what the outdoor comfort area is. Mr. Mast replied that he believes that is where a dog goes on a nice day when it is under sedation and it is recovering. Ms. Joseph asked that Mr. Mast speak to the fence materials of the enclosures on the front of the building and how they anticipate that working with the building design, architecture, and aesthetics. Mr. Mast stated that they have an interest in that because it is the front door to the entire development. The preliminary plans that they’ve shared include a wood pergola. If the fence material proposed isn’t appropriate, he would think that the ownership would reject it or require them to do something different. Mr. Mast stated he would welcome a condition from the Planning Commission that their final design be approved by Planning staff and/or the Building Dept. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Williams asked Ms. Turkelson why the use is a Special Land Use. Ms. Turkelson explained that when looking at how this Planned Redevelopment District (PRD) was originally created, the Planning Commission and City Commission determined that all future uses shall comport with the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) use table. When thinking about a TOD, this may not be the most similar to that style of development. Transit Oriented Developments are typically far more compact and do have a higher volume of density and residential in closer proximity. Having a veterinary clinic, which may include boarding by definition, and potential surgical stations, animal bio-waste and hours of operation in a denser urban area is typically a pause for looking to see if it is appropriate. Ms. Turkelson doesn’t feel those same conditions are present here. Therefore, the analysis may be simpler than what it would be in a typical TOD. Because of the condition of the PRD, the Planning Commission is obligated to go through the Special Land Use process and make that evaluation. Ms. Zeller added that veterinary clinics are Special Land Uses in all Zone Districts. Ms. Turkelson added that that is likely because there is a wide variety of activities that can take place at a veterinary clinic; it depends on the individual operator. Mr. Williams asked if the application includes the pertinent Ordinance Sections for the applicant to review. Ms. Zeller asked if he was asking if the applicant is aware of the Standards that need to be reviewed as part of a Site Plan and Special Land Use. Mr. Williams agreed and asked, for example, what Section 5.12.08. is. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 18 October 12, 2023 Ms. Zeller explained that the Special Land Use application includes all the Standards for the Special Land Use. It is included in the Commission’s packet. The applicant is to address all of them but not so much for Site Plan Review; that is incorporated by reference. Mr. Rozeboom feels, in this particular case, that this is meant to be a Town Center/Village Center type of location and he feels this use is compatible and would supplement all the other uses in the development. Ms. Joseph agreed. There is obviously plenty of parking. She is somewhat concerned about the fencing on the front and what that looks like. She would welcome staff to draft a condition to help ensure that it isn’t just a wooden fence on the front of the building. Ms. Turkelson suggested the front yard fence requirements could be applied where it must be a decorative or ornamental style fence, such as the aluminum pool style fencing. Ms. Zeller believes that what is proposed is wooden privacy fence. She would assume it is intentionally privacy fence. Mr. Mast stated that as the landlord they appreciate those concerns. What is drawn is their initial drawing that is submitted on the Special Land Use application. The implementation of those uses still has to go through LUDS or at least the Building Dept. He would welcome a requirement that the fencing be somewhat decorative, more than just what was shown on the picture on the back side of the Michigan facility. Ms. Turkelson agreed that what is shown would be atypical for a front yard fence that is so highly visible. Staff would definitely push for a decorative style fence. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of East Beltline Development, L.L.C. (Willaim T. Mast) for Special Land Use and Site Plan Review approval to establish a veterinary clinic at 2022 aka 2078 E. Beltline Avenue NE, 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 business district, will provide a mix of uses in a commercial area, and destination-oriented, high-intensity businesses and services with dependence on motor vehicles are anticipated in the Town Center location of the East Beltline. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the existing site layout and building elements were designed to meet the requirements of the Zone District. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will support the desired future character of the neighborhood by providing a variety of personal services and the use will complement other uses in the development. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 19 October 12, 2023 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because adequate parking will be provided and the building orientation will not change. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or odors because no boarding of animals will be conducted as part of this use; excessive noise is not anticipated; odors will be addressed by regular trash pickup and property maintenance, and; a pet supply store which welcomes animals currently exists in the shopping center and operates without incident. 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 hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the site design is not specific to the proposed use. 7. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services already exist or would be provided at no additional cost. 8. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the use will not place an unfair burden on City services and the use may encourage other investment in the area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. 2. That the proposed fencing be constructed of wrought iron or decorative aluminum. The use of landscape screening may be used to provide additional privacy or screening if needed. SUPPORTED by Ms. Bersche. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 20 October 12, 2023 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon, Salim Al-Shatel D. 340 State St SE - Theater Address: 340 State St. SE Applicant: Dog Story Theater (Jay Harnish) Requesting: Approval to establish a theater in an existing building. A parking waiver is also requested. Zoning: TN-TCC Traditional Neighborhood – Transitional City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.07. Auditorium, Theatre and Banquet Hall 5.10.05. Reductions in Parking 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Uses Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0080 Staff Assigned: Laura Wahamaki lwahamaki@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: October 28, 2023 Ms. Zeller introduced the request of Dog Story Theater to establish a theater in an existing building. A parking waiver is also requested. Theaters, or any type of assembly uses, require Special Land Use approval in the TN-TCC Zone District. The property is also in the Heritage Hill Historic District and any exterior changes would be subject to Historic Preservation Commission approval. The property is located at the corner of State and Prospect. It is approximately 4,500 sq. ft. in area and the building is approximately 3,600 sq. ft. in area. The area to be occupied by the theater is slightly less than 2,000 sq. ft. and a Chinese restaurant is located next door. There are a significant amount of windows on the building and an overhead door is accessible from the street. No exterior changes are proposed on the front of the building. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to describe the proposed change(s) to the back of the building that Ms. Zeller doesn’t believe is material to this request. The proposed change will need Historic Preservation review. Ms. Zeller displayed photos of current conditions identifying the alley and side of the building. The floor plan of the proposed theater was displayed showing the performance space, back of house, lobby area, and the overhead door that accesses a proposed storage area. They plan to have 68 seats initially with a future build out of 84. Ms. Zeller explained further that the proposed use is a performance space. Her understanding is that the space is leased to various acting companies and they will utilize the space for performances. Performances are generally on the weekends, Thursday through Saturday 7:00 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. There is no alcohol proposed other than proposed bi-annual fundraisers at which alcohol may be served. A related condition of approval has been included in the draft resolution. Ms. Zeller noted that there is no parking on site and the applicant is requesting a 100% parking waiver. Based on Mobile GR’s parking survey conducted in the spring of this year, there is City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 21 October 12, 2023 metered parking on the north side of State St. and on the south side it is unrestricted other than a loading zone. There are various other restrictions in other blocks. The survey indicates that there is very low parking utilization on the north side of the street and the south side has higher occupancy, up to 75%. Ms. Zeller related receipt of a letter from a resident on the block that pointed out the parking utilization. He didn’t express concerns about the use but did have some concerns about parking. Ms. Zeller deferred to the applicant to explain the findings of the comprehensive parking survey they have conducted, which she believes to be consistent with the findings of Mobile GR. Although they don’t have a formal agreement, the applicant has a relationship with Catholic Charities at 40 Jefferson to utilize their parking lot. Ms. Zeller summarized that there is parking availability in the vicinity and the area is also served by transit. Ms. Zeller related receipt of a letter of support from the Heritage Hill Association. Ms. Joseph asked if there are requirements for the trash. The photo displayed depicted three rolling dumpsters. Ms. Zeller suggested it may be challenging to construct a permanent enclosure on the site. In this case they aren’t proposing exterior improvements and the request may not rise to the level of requiring an enclosure. Additionally, the amount of anticipated trash generated by the theater would be relatively minimal. The existing containers are most likely for the adjacent restaurant. Mr. Rozeboom recalled an Area Specific Plan for State St. Ms. Zeller agreed that there is. The State St. Plan is not formally adopted however. There was a general recommendation for residential uses in this area, which would likely be relevant to any redevelopment. Jay Harnish, President of Dog Story Theater, was present along with Travis Williams of In Parallel Architects + Builders and realtor Duke Gray of Blu House Properties. Mr. Harnish related that Dog Story Theater has been around for 15 years. They had to close during the pandemic. The proposed is a storefront theater model. It is uniquely Grand Rapids in that it isn’t just its own theater company. Dog Story Theater doesn’t have its own theater company. They are a non-profit that provides access to a space for smaller theater companies to be able to put on shows, play writes to be able to produce their own show, actors and colleagues to do a show, etc. It offers an entry level to smaller groups that don’t have a lot of finances to start up. Mr. Harnish addressed the matter of trash relating that they will likely have rolling carts that they could put in the garage if necessary. They will do a lot of recycling. If anything they will have play programs. The concessions they will offer will be whatever they can get licensed for; likely candy or similar, which they have done in the past. Therefore, there won’t be a lot of trash associated with that. With respect to set building, most sets are already built and in storage. Those would be stored in the garage at this location. Mr. Harnish understands there has been a lot of discussion regarding parking. He anticipates the average occupancy to be approximately 50 people. Hours of operation were listed as 7:00 p.m. to 10:15 but shows will likely take place from approximately 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and people City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 22 October 12, 2023 tend to depart quickly. Actors and staff tend to arrive at 7:00 but the public doesn’t arrive until immediately before a show. Mr. Harnish explained that they had a relationship with Catholic Charities at 40 Jefferson SE. The people that go to Dog Story Theater are accustomed to walking to the theater because they didn’t have a lot of parking at their former location. The attendees are familiar with the neighborhood. He would also anticipate the utilization of Uber/Lyft by those going out for dinner and drinks prior to a show. Additionally, many of the younger performers use public transportation. Mr. Harnish doesn’t anticipate parking being a big concern. He has talked to the neighbors across the street and had a positive conversation about the potential of using the parking lot across the street for overflow or to at least get staff off the street to create more spaces. Mr. Harnish has also offered his AV services and use of their space for overflow. They are a non-profit that wants to work with other non-profits in the community and with their neighbors. Mr. Harnish deferred to Mr. Willaims regarding changes to the building. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Bersche feels this is a great use of the building and appropriate to the location. It is a very walkable area with plenty of public transportation. Ms. Bersche is not concerned about the parking situation. Ms. Joseph was in agreement. This is a small theater space. Those that attend theater at the DeVos Center walk many blocks to attend. She is not concerned about the parking. Their plan is laid out well. It will necessary for them to do the soundproofing inside. She is in support of the use in this space. Ms. Turkelson stated that while the State Street Plan is not officially adopted by the City it is a Plan closely followed by the Heritage Hill Association. In the letter they submitted to the Planning Commission they made a finding that they believe it does comport with their ASP, citing an encouragement of commercial and institutional development. The Plan encourages establishing the perception and reality that it is a clean and safe street and fostering a social environment targeted to nearby residents, employers, and visitors through the use of events, programs and developments. Ms. Joseph added, with respect to parking, that this is a walkable neighborhood and there are a couple transit lines nearby. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Dog Story Theater (Jay Harnish) to establish a theater in an exiting building at 340 State Street SE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will support the purpose and intent of the TN-TCC Zone District by contributing to a compact, transit-friendly, walkable, mixed-use environment. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 23 October 12, 2023 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the building is existing and substantially conforms with the TN-TCC Zone District site layout and building element requirements. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will be consistent with the desired mixed-use nature of the neighborhood and will provide a desired amenity in the area. The use will activate an underutilized building. 4. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the operator or their designee will be on the premises during events and entertainment will be fully contained indoors. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter because the timing of parking needs for the theater use will coordinate with existing low-usage periods of parking in the surrounding area and the applicant has indicated that appropriate sound proofing/baffling measures will be in place. 6. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because the proposed use will enrich the existing street front and encourage walkability by adding to the variety of uses in the vicinity. On-site parking is not available, and theater attendees will likely walk, utilize public transit, or find other means of transportation to the site. 7. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services already exist and no additional burden is expected with the establishment of this use. 8. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic welfare of the City because the use will activate a currently vacant building and encourage other investment in the area. The use is unique from and compatible with neighboring businesses. 9. The proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all applicable State laws. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 24 October 12, 2023 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 events shall cease by 11:00 p.m. daily. 3. That the operator or their designee shall be on the premises during all events. 4. That the theater may seat up to 84 individuals, subject to occupancy determination by the City’s Building Official and applicable building and fire codes. 5. That alcohol use shall not be permitted except during private fundraising events held biannually as permitted by the Temporary Use Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. That an Indoor Events License shall be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. SUPPORTED by Mr. Jonker. Ms. Turkelson suggested consideration of striking “held biannually” in condition #5. The City’s temporary use events are more permissive and it seems like an unnecessary restriction. Ms. Joseph amended the condition accordingly. Supported by Mr. Jonker. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Aaron Jonker, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon, Salim Al-Shatel E. 724 Wealthy Street SE - Parking and Outdoor Seating with Alcohol Address: 724 Wealthy Street SE Applicant: Živio LLC (Denis Duratovic) Requesting: Approval to eliminate two on-site parking spaces to expand the outdoor seating area and establish an outdoor bar with alcohol service in association with an existing full-service restaurant. Zoning: TN-TBA(Traditional Neighborhood-Traditional Business Area) Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales 5.9.23. Outdoor Seating Areas 5.10.05. Reductions in Parking Requirements 5.12.08. Site Plan Review 5.12.12. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0071 City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 25 October 12, 2023 Staff Assigned: Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: October 28, 2023 Ms. Zeller introduced the request of Zivio restaurant. The restaurant has been in this location for several years and was preceded by another restaurant that was established in 2017. At that time the Planning Commission granted Special Land Use approval for outdoor seating and a parking waiver. The current restaurant is asking to expand the outdoor seating area by installing an outdoor bar for alcohol service. To facilitate that expansion, they would be eliminating two of the on-site parking spaces. The request being considered by the Planning Commission is an expansion of the alcohol use and reduction of the parking. Ms. Zeller identified the location of the property in a TN-TBA Zone District. It is also within a historic district and any outdoor changes will require Historic Preservation Commission review. The applicant is aware of that requirement. Ms. Zeller displayed the floor plan and site plan that was approved in association with the original restaurant on the site. There were 24 outdoor seats, 4 parking spaces and a trash enclosure. Originally there were no parking spaces; the site was all grass. The applicant wishes to remove two of the parking spaces and install a vintage RV for alcohol service and additional seating. The original approval was for 24 outdoor seats and the applicant has only been seating 16 guests outside and they want to expand to 24. The number of people seated outside won’t increase but the area will. Ms. Zeller suggested the larger issue might be the permanent fixture of the RV for alcohol service. Ms. Zeller explained that the approved hours of operation from the previous use are until 9:30 p.m. weekdays and 10:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday. The current use closes at 9:00 p.m. both indoors and outdoors. The applicant is proposing a 6 ft. high fence. Ms. Zeller reiterated that the outdoor changes will be subject to Historic Preservation. Ms. Zeller displayed a photo of the outdoor seating area during the winter when it wasn’t being used. She noted that the parking area is accessible from the City parking lot. A condition of approval imposed on the original approval was the execution of a license agreement to utilize City property to access the parking area and trash enclosure. That agreement didn’t get fully executed and recorded. The applicant has been working with Mobile GR on executing that agreement. It may have already gone to City Commission and if it hasn’t, the agreement will be soon. Ms. Zeller summarized that two of the existing four parking spaces are proposed to be removed. There is an adjacent parking lot as well as a lot across the street. There is also on-street parking in the neighborhood. The proposal also includes expansion of the outdoor patio and addition of the RV for alcohol service. Denis Duratovic, co-owner of Zivio, was present on behalf of the request. He felt Ms. Zeller provided an accurate description of what they’d like to do. Mr. Duratovic invited questions from the Commission. Ms. Joseph asked for more detail on the RV to be utilized for alcohol service. Mr. Duratovic related that they bought a 1967 Dodge Travco from California, brought it to Michigan, and retrofit it into a full service bar. It has full electric and plumbing inside and it will City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 26 October 12, 2023 be attached right to the building. Each night they empty it out. The reason they desire a fence is to prevent any attempts at breaking into it. People have tried to pick the lock just because it is exposed. They haven’t used it this season and it has been empty the entire year. Ms. Zeller displayed the site plan at Ms. Joseph’s request. Ms. Joseph asked where on the site it will be located. Mr. Duratovic explained that in the photo it is parked north/south and that is how they intend to leave it. The front will be toward the north. He clarified that the electrical and plumbing will be attached to the building. Mr. Rozeboom asked the status of the licensing agreement with the City. Mr. Duratovic stated that he has been in contact with Mobile GR. When they went through the title company it wasn’t fully transferred over and they just learned about that when they began this process. It is a matter of just finalizing that with them. Josh Naramore, Mobile GR, added that it was reviewed by the Mobile GR Commission at their most recent meeting and it is tentatively on the City Commission agenda for approval at the October 24th meeting. They have been happy to work with the property owner on clearing that up. They are taking over all licensing agreements from the Planning Dept. into their department related to their facilities. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Janel Rye, structural engineer in the Grand Rapids area, expressed her full support. It is encouraging to see parking converted into more of a mixed-use pedestrian friendly area. A lot of discussions in previous proposals have been around car dependency and car parking. It is obvious that there is a lot of good public transportation and bike infrastructure around this area. She would encourage the Planning Commission to approve this and consider the walkability and pedestrian impact this proposal would have on this neighborhood. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Ms. Joseph feels the request is completely appropriate. It is two spaces of four that she can’t imagine were utilized heavily by patrons of the restaurant given the public parking lot directly adjacent, as well as across the street. There is also transit on the block. Generally, people know that if you are visiting this district you are parking on the street or in a lot. She doesn’t feel people really expect on-site parking at a specific restaurant in this area. Ms. Joseph expressed her support. Mr. Van Strien agreed that it seems to make sense. He doesn’t have a problem with it. Ms. Bersche agreed. It is a great addition and something unique to the community. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 27 October 12, 2023 Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Zivio LLC (Denis Duratovic) for approval of the addition of an outdoor bar and a parking waiver in association with an existing full-service restaurant at 724 Wealthy Street SE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will support the vitality of the local economy by encouraging investment, diversifying the economic base, and expanding employment opportunities and will provide a mix of uses in a commercial area. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the outdoor seating is proposed to be situated to not interfere with efficient pedestrian circulation. 3. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed changes will not materially affect the operation of the outdoor seating area, which has been operating without incident. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use will be minimized because the alcohol service and seating areas will be appropriately landscaped and buffered from nearby low-density residential uses and adequate parking and alternative forms of transportation are available within the district to support the demand. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, smoke, odors, glare, or visual clutter because outdoor hours of operation will be limited and consistent with other outdoor uses in the vicinity and no outdoor food preparation is proposed. 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 no changes are proposed to the existing building along Cherry St. Wealthy St., which is already located at the sidewalk and the proposed changes to the outdoor seating area will contribute to the vitality of the district. 7. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or would be provided at no additional cost, and will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the site is currently improved with public infrastructure and reliance on additional public services is not anticipated. 8. 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 excessive code enforcement actions, given the proposed scale, hours, and location. 9. 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 will be unique as compared to existing uses in the neighborhood. 10. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the scale and hours of operation will inherently limit the intensity and impact of the use. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 28 October 12, 2023 11. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will minimize or eliminate negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the use is relatively small in scale. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated, and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. Ms. Joseph suggested changing Cherry St. to Wealthy St. in finding #6. It was likely a typographical error. Ms. Bersche accepted the amendment. Supported by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon, Salim Al-Shatel F. 949 Cherry St SE aka 955 Cherry St SE - Wine Bar Address: 949 Cherry St SE aka 955 Cherry St SE Applicant: Chateau Grand Rapids LLC (Chris Swart) Requesting: Approval to establish a wine bar with outdoor seating, alcohol sales for off-site consumption, and a parking waiver. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 29 October 12, 2023 Zoning: TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhoods – Traditional Business Area Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts 5.9.05. Alcohol Sales 5.9.24. Outdoor Seating 5.10.05. Reductions in Parking 5.12.08. Standards for Site Plan Review 5.12.09. Special Land Use Case Number: PC-SLU-2023-0081 Staff Assigned: Laura Wahamaki lwahamaki@grcity.us Type of Case: Special Land Use Effective Date: October 28, 2023 Mr. Van Strien left the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Wahamaki introduced the request of Chateau Grand Rapids for a wine bar and café. The property is a through property between Lake Dr. and Cherry St. just west of Diamond Ave. It is located in the East Hills Business District and is also in the Fairmount Square Historic District. Ms. Wahamaki displayed an overhead view of the property, which is in a Traditional Business Area Zone District. The Master Plan identifies it as a Traditional Business area. Ms. Wahamaki provided context relating that to the north is Congress Elementary across Lake Dr. There is residential surrounding the business district on all other sides. Ms. Wahamaki displayed an image of the property, which includes the large three-story building as well as the two single-story suites flanking it on either side. The proposed use would occupy the single-story structure to the east side of the property. The former use of the space was a retail store. Ms. Wahamaki displayed another image of the property noting that no substantive changes are proposed to the exterior of the building. Any of the changes that have been proposed have been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, including signage for the building. Ms. Wahamaki displayed views of the site from Lake Dr. and from Cherry St. Parking was addressed. Ms. Wahamaki noted that part of the request is for outdoor seating and a parking waiver. The site has one parking space at the rear of the building. The applicant is proposing to remove that parking space and utilize the approximate 400 sq. ft. area for outdoor seating. They would seat up to 12 people in the outdoor area at Lake Dr. Ms. Wahamaki clarified that the Special Land Use request is for the alcohol use, the outdoor seating, and the waiver of parking. The use proposed is for a wine bar and café. It is unique in that in the morning hours it will specialize in craft coffee and pastries with small menu items. Later in the day the focus will be more on serving specialized wines. There is no live entertainment proposed. Ms. Wahamaki displayed the proposed floor plan. It will undergo substantial renovation to convert it from retail to a bar. The left side is the Cherry side and as you go through to the back room there is a lounge area leading out to the Lake Dr. entrance. It is the intent of the applicant to utilize both exterior doors from both Lake Dr. and Cherry St. to have two active entrances into the bar. There will be sales of wine for off-premise consumption but it is not the focus of operations. Wine available for purchase will be displayed behind the bar. The City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 30 October 12, 2023 requested hours of operation are 7 a.m. to midnight daily. There were no hours of operation proposed in the application but generally, in the area, other outdoor seating hours in the vicinity go until 11 p.m. daily. The Planning Commission may consider what hours are appropriate for the outdoor seating area. There are several other establishments in the vicinity that sell alcohol. The proposed use is unique in that they will also be focused on small menu items, as well as coffee. Ms. Wahamaki advised that, for the Zone District and use, 18 parking spaces would be required. The applicant is requesting a waiver of all 18 of the required parking spaces. There is public transportation and on-street parking in close proximity. The applicant presented to the Uptown Corridor Improvement Authority Board and East Hills Business Association and can provide more details about that. Staff has received a letter of support from the East Hills Business Association. No other correspondence has been received at this time. Chris Swart, partner in Chateau Grand Rapids, thanked Ms. Wahamaki and the Planning Department for their work on this case. He feels Ms. Wahamaki accurately described their request. Mr. Swart invited Planning Commission questions. Ms. Joseph asked that he describe how the outdoor seating area will be laid out or function. She is somewhat confused about the dual entrance and how it works with that seating. Mr. Swart explained that what they envision on the patio at the back is some combination of communal picnic tables, some bistro style seating, landscaping, lighting, and safety precautions including security cameras. They will likely add some concrete to resurface the area for safety purposes. There will also be some other decorative touches. It is meant to be a very dynamic outdoor patio for guests to enjoy and also for it to be an entry point to the building off of Lake Dr. They acknowledge they have great frontage on Cherry St. but one of the things they wanted to accomplish with this project was to be one of the first, if not the first, to do something to activate Lake Dr. Ms. Joseph asked if there will be any screening of the area or separation from the sidewalk. Mr. Swart replied that at most it would be soft landscaping to frame it in. They are continuing to develop the plans with their architectural team. They have the interior fully flushed out but continue to work on the exterior plans. Ms. Joseph asked how that will work with the trash receptacle. Mr. Swart replied that they have permission from the landlord, that owns the entire building, for their trash and recycling bins to be positioned adjacent to existing receptacles so they won’t be right next to guests. Mr. Rozeboom clarified for the record that the receptacles will be toward the current carts that are located on the property adjacent to the west. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 31 October 12, 2023 Mr. Rozeboom asked about the alcohol for off-site consumption; container sizes and plans for that use. Mr. Swart indicated that the container sizes would be 750 ml wine bottles only. They don’t mean to be a wine or liquor store of any sort. They would just like to have the flexibility to have those sales and not have to come back for that in the future. Guests would pay the same price they would pay if they were enjoying it on-premise. If there is a bottle they can acquire for a guest that they can’t purchase at Meijer, they would like to be able to do that for their guests. Ms. Joseph asked if the use is subject to CPTED because of the sales for off-premise consumption. Ms. Zeller suggested that given the hours of operation and the fact that the sale of alcohol for off-site consumption was accessory to the primary use, staff didn’t pass it through CPTED review. Ms. Zeller added that they would be happy to do so. Mr. Rozeboom asked the applicant if they would be comfortable with limiting the outdoor seating hours to 11 p.m. Mr. Swart expressed that they are amenable. Mr. Rozeboom noted that they received support from the Business Association as it relates to parking. He asked if that was with full understanding that they are requesting a full waiver of the 18 required parking spaces. Mr. Swart replied that he isn’t sure they included the full packet for the Special Land Use application for them. They did review and present their plans, which included the fact that they would be converting the one parking space into outdoor seating and that there is no other parking affiliated with the business. Mr. Swart feels it was implied but not a direct statement to them. Mr. Rozeboom opened the public hearing and invited public comment; there was none. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Joseph finds this to be an appropriate use in this district and that it will add to the vibrancy of the district and extend the hours of the district. It isn’t the only alcohol use in this area so she isn’t concerned about impact on the neighborhood, including the school. She doesn’t believe there have been any issues related to the school and the alcohol uses in the area. The main entrance is oriented away from the school property. Ms. Joseph is also comfortable with the parking waiver as there is plenty of on-street and district parking, bike parking, and transit. They also want to encourage people walking through the district. Mr. Rozeboom pointed out that one of their considerations is an over-abundance of similar alcohol related establishments. He asked how Ms. Joseph feels about that. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 32 October 12, 2023 Ms. Joseph finds the proposed unique compared to the others in the area, especially since they will be focusing on wine and coffee. The others are different. Ms. Bersche stated that she appreciates that there is a bit of a lull in storefronts on the Lake Dr. side. She would appreciate having some people sitting on the Lake Dr. side rather than only on Cherry. Mr. Rozeboom asked if the testimony is sufficient in terms of plans for the outdoor seating since there aren’t any submitted plans. Ms. Turkelson felt that the Planning Commission could defer the site layout plan to City staff and it would be reviewed as part of the permit process unless there are some specific concerns. What she heard was that some additional landscape screening would likely be installed, which she believes the MLCC would also require to contain the alcohol consumption area. It isn’t a significantly sized patio, there is an understanding of what the hours are, and no live entertainment. Therefore, she feels staff can take care of the details if the Planning Commission is comfortable with that. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request of Chateau Grand Rapids LLC (Chris Swart) for a wine bar with outdoor seating and the sale of wine for off-site consumption, at 949 aka 955 Cherry Street SE, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will support the vitality of the local economy by encouraging investment, diversifying the economic base, and expanding employment opportunities and will provide a mix of uses in a commercial area. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.E. because the design of the existing building is consistent with the standards for the Zone District and the outdoor seating is proposed to be situated to not interfere with efficient pedestrian circulation. 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, in addition to operating as a wine bar, the proposed use will also be a café that offers food and craft coffee, which is unique to other businesses in the area and the use has the support of the neighboring businesses and the business association. 4. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use will be minimized because the entrance doors on both Lake Dr. and Cherry St. will be utilized, activating both street frontages of the building. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, smoke, odors, glare, or visual clutter because the business will typically be open no later than midnight and outdoor hours of operation will be limited and consistent with other outdoor uses in the vicinity. 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 City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 33 October 12, 2023 otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because no changes are proposed to the existing building along Cherry St, which is already located at the sidewalk, and the proposed outdoor seating area will activate the property at Lake Dr. and support the pedestrian environment. 7. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or would be provided at no additional cost, and will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the site is currently improved with public infrastructure and reliance on additional public services is not anticipated. 8. 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 excessive code enforcement actions, given the proposed scale, hours, and location. 9. Given the character, location, development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood, it is demonstrated that the proposed location for alcohol sales will demonstrably be an asset to the neighborhood because, as proposed, the use will be unique as compared to existing uses in the neighborhood and the combination of proposed uses, which include a craft coffee bar and café in addition to the wine bar, will be an amenity to the neighborhood, unique from other businesses in the vicinity. 10. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the scale of the operation will inherently limit the intensity and impact of the use and the proposed hours of operation are consistent with other establishments in the vicinity. 11. Adjacent or nearby parks, playgrounds, religious institutions, or schools will not be adversely affected because the sale of package alcohol is not the primary focus of the business and is anticipated to be purchased by patrons visiting the tasting room, and not generally by walk-in visitors. 12. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will minimize or eliminate negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the use will be relatively small in scale and the operation is expected to be in compliance with the CPTED Ordinance. 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 34 October 12, 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 the hours of operation are limited to midnight daily indoors and no later than 11 p.m. outdoors. 3. That package alcohol sales is accessory to the primary wine bar use and shall be consistent with the general operating hours of the business. 4. That the area of package alcohol display shall be consistent with the submitted floor plan and testimony, specifically display shelves located behind the bar. 5. That the use shall comply with the requirements of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Ordinance. SUPPORTED by Ms. Bersche. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Mr. Van Strien did not participate in the discussion or decision) RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [5 TO 0] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Bersche, Joseph, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon, Salim Al-Shatel RECUSED: Kyle Van Strien IV. Site Plan Reviews A. 100, 221 & 251 Michigan St. NE - Planned Sign Program Amendment Address: 100, 221 & 251 Michigan St. NE Applicant: Corewell Health (John Fragomeni) Requesting: Approval for an amendment to an existing Planned Sign Program. Zoning: TN-CC Traditional Neighborhoods - City Center Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts Article 15 Signs 5.12.14. Optional Plan Review 5.15.08. Planned Sign Program. 5.15.12. Signs in Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts. Case Number: PC-OPR-2023-0073 Staff Assigned: Sarah Behmlander sbehmlander@grcity.us Type of Case: Site Plan Review Effective Date: Immediate Mr. Van Strien returned to the meeting and identified the final request as a Site Plan Review. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 35 October 12, 2023 Ms. Behmlander presented the request for a rebranding package that Corewell Health, formerly known as Spectrum Health, is bringing forward for sign upgrades. The properties under consideration are 100, 221, and 251 Michigan NE. As part of an organizational rebranding, all of the signage that is associated with the Medical Mile campus (displayed on the screen) is being reinstalled to align with their current branding. Because some of the signs are larger and some are new it requires a Major Amendment, which is what brings them before the Planning Commission. Ms. Behmlander displayed a diagram showing the number of signs that are installed on buildings, as well as the number of way-finding signs. Working with the group to comb through the signs to determine which needed to come before the Planning Commission has been a month- long process. There are just a few of the signs being considered by the Planning Commission such as going from a sign of 165 sq. ft. to a sign of approximately 185 sq. ft. to facilitate the new brand, as well as a location identifier and a building identifier, all of which would be in conformance with the Zone District requirements. However, this is much larger than what was previously installed in this location. In addition to that there is upper level signage proposed at 221 Michigan, which will be a new part of the Planned Sign Program. To facilitate signage on the new ambulatory building upper wall signage is proposed facing the north elevation. There was also some language in the packet about a ground sign. That sign is located outside of private property and is in the public right-of-way. Therefore, a discussion with Engineering and Traffic Safety, as well as Planning staff, will look at the requirements and the appropriateness of that sign. Ms. Turkelson explained further that there is a way-finding plan that has been approved for Michigan St. so that particular sign will be reviewed in accordance with that plan that is already in place. Ms. Behmlander reiterated that all other signage related to this request has been reviewed and meets the current conditions of the Planned Sign Program. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s consideration today is to determine whether it will result in a more attractive and aesthetic setting, if it improves the way-finding for the new building as well as facilitate the rebranding, and whether or not the Planned Sign Program substantially furthers the Purpose and Intent of Article 15. Alan Kranzo, Senior Director of Real Estate for Corewell Health, stated that this is very important for the healthcare system. They have a countless number of patients that access the medical center on the Medical Mile and they certainly want them to be able to get to where they need to go quickly. Having a level one trauma center, as well as the children’s hospital, and allowing those patients to be able to find Corewell Health, which is their new brand, is important. The desire was to make sure the signage fit well within what the requirements are and yet allow for their patients to find the services they need to as quickly as possible and park as close to their services as they can. Ms. Turkelson clarified that two of the signs proposed are on the new ambulatory building. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 36 October 12, 2023 Mr. Kranzo agreed. They are constructing a very large new ambulatory building that will include outpatient neurosurgery, organ transplant program, and the residency clinics. Two of the signs will go on the new building they intend to open in 2024. Ms. Turkelson added that the building is significantly larger than what was previously in its place. Mr. Kranzo agreed. It was previously a two-story building and housed their HR team. They didn’t have any patient care in that location. Now that there will be a very significant amount of outpatient care there, they want to make sure patients know it isn’t part of the hospital but a very important aspect of the campus. Mr. Van Strien acknowledged that it is a rather unique use in the city. Looking at past cases such as this, they tend to understand the need for people to find their way around easily, passing by on foot or by vehicle. Ms. Joseph agreed. The new signage proposed is not significantly larger than the sign it is replacing and obviously a new building will need new signs. She is supportive. Mr. Rozeboom agreed. It seems very appropriate. Ms. Bersche MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the request of Corewell Health (John Fragomeni) for an amendment to an existing Planned Sign Program within the greater Corewell Health Medical Mile campus, for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed Planned Sign Program amendments would result in a more attractive aesthetic setting, improved safety, provide more convenient identification for planned users, or other similar purposes, because the proposed amendments will allow for signage already generally permitted within the City and would allow for adequate and effective signs for identification and appropriate commercial speech. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the location and/or physical characteristics of the applicant’s property or the needs for identification are unique when compared to other similarly situated parcels in the same Zone District and in the same vicinity because new signage is necessary and appropriate for new construction associated with the Medical Mile expansion as well as to facilitate the rebranding of the hospital group. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed plan substantially furthers the Purposes and Intent of Section 5.15.01., because the proposed amendments would take into consideration building scale and massing and pedestrian presence so that the signs contribute to the streetscape and aid in creating a sense of place. 4. The applicant has demonstrated that approval of the Planned Sign Program amendments would not create any adverse impacts on one or more properties in the vicinity because the proposed amendments reinforce and support the character of the surrounding commercial district by taking into account building scale and massing, and nearby travel speeds; balance the need and right to communicate with needs to promote City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 37 October 12, 2023 orderly communication, promote community aesthetics, and prevent a proliferation of signs and sign structures that can be confusing and distracting, and; will ensure that signs are located, designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a way that protects life, health, property and the public welfare. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project: 1. Standard Condition Set A. Approvals: i. That the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated, and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and/or as amended in this resolution. ii. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes. iii. That this approval does not include any proposed signs, and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. iv. That a Land Use Development Services (LUDS) permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. v. That any expansion of the approved Special Land Use requires an additional Special Land Use review and approval by the Planning Commission. vi. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all State laws. vii. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member SECONDER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon, Salim Al-Shatel V. Planning Commission Discussion VI. Public Comment Janel Rye commented on the Community Master Plan. Over the past 10 years she has lived, traveled, and worked in Germany, sometimes as a tourist and other times as a US Diplomat. One thing she appreciated in Germany, which is absent from her home town of Grand Rapids, was the high level of equity and mobility. Everywhere she traveled around German, over 30 cities, she used a combination of public transportation, walking and bicycling. Ms. Rye related that she took local and interurban trains with people from all walks of life and abilities, from kids going to school, elderly neighbors visiting friends, blind citizens buying groceries, and company executives going to meetings. She often wonders if Grand Rapids were to invest in protected City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 38 October 12, 2023 bicycle lanes, as well as higher modes of public transportation such as light rail trains, would it become a more equitable city to live in and perhaps draw a wider talent pool. After housing, transportation is often the next highest expense in a household. Since the urban plan of Grand Rapids and many surrounding counties is quite car dependent, car ownership can be a debilitating expense for poorer households. Residents shouldn’t feel like they are living behind a pay wall. Ms. Rye suggested thinking about all the families in West Michigan who can’t afford to buy a car. How many kids are missing out on opportunities for internships and their first jobs because they can’t travel to them? Ms. Rye explained that she brings this up because transit and land use go hand in hand. The former is not successful without good changes in the later. You cannot surround bus or train stops with sprawling development based on conventional zoning, which separates infrastructure by use and not by form. If the City were to secure funding and support for light rail trains from the forty-four billion dollars allocated to rail projects in the 2021 infrastructure bill and if the land use policies were to remain the same after implementing that she suggested thinking about the various users of light rail and try to put oneself in their shoes. You could be traveling by foot, potentially with a cane or walker, bicycle, knee scooter, or wheelchair. If you were an elderly person in a wheelchair, how would you get to your destination if you had to roll past seas and seas of parking lots, across a seven-lane road, after exiting a train station. That is not the way roads are built nor cities are zoned in the Netherlands where her great grandparents are from, which is a very equitable city for elderly citizens. Ms. Rye pointed out that behavior is not a fundamental constant of the universe; it comes from the things we build. It is telling what a city prioritizes by what infrastructure exists. Ms. Rye encouraged The Rapid and the City of Grand Rapids, both currently in the midst of their 20-year Master Plans, to work together and take steps forward to make Grand Rapids a more safe, equitable, and healthy community for everyone. Mary Fritsema, 2036 Joan Ave. NE, agreed with Ms. Rye’s comments regarding the need for improvements in public transportation. She also supports the concepts underlying the proposed Zoning Ordinance changes to increase housing and density. However, she has two serious concerns with changes under consideration. First, she has concerns with allowing the potential for more than six total units for infill development. She acknowledged that she may not have a complete understanding of that proposal. Secondly, her primary concern is regarding the potential unintended effects of allowing infill development by right. How do you ensure that the change doesn’t get abused by developers who are arguably those who are most likely to have the resources to do this kind of development. The question was raised at the last Planning Commission meeting but Mr. Kilpatrick didn’t address that particular concern. Her primary concern is with eliminating the requirement for being owner-occupied. She could see perhaps expanding it to include immediate family occupied but expanding it to just anyone, including developers potentially with outside funding from outside the community who may not have an investment in supporting the local community, has its pitfalls. Ms. Fritsema sees this potentially clashing with the main values of equity and culture. She sees it first hand as someone who has been concerned with the potential for development along the south border of Huff Park. She lives in that neighborhood and they see upfront what is happening with the properties that have been purchased. The buildings are being rented presumably until the developer can buy up enough properties to fully implement their plan of putting in 30+ luxury condos. Ms. Fritsema stated that removing the barrier of a $2,000 fee doesn’t really help individuals who want to be able to do private infill development. Maybe figuring out a way to do some interest free financing may City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 39 October 12, 2023 encourage this to be used in the way she believes it is intended so that people who have the potential for affording it could possibly do that. Considering most people can barely afford their mortgage, let alone groceries, she sees that as potentially very prohibitive. VII. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 3:25 PM