Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

My concern here is the headwater creek. I don't know what welcome everyone. It's 5:30 and start our meeting now. We'll begin with a pledge of allegiance. Will you still please stand and join us? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Thank you everyone.

First item on the agenda tonight is approval of the agenda. May I have a motion and a second? So moved. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes. oppose say no. Agenda is approved. Next on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the February 10, 2026 meeting. Are there any additions or corrections? If not, may I have a motion and a second? Motion to approve. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes.

Opposed say no. The minutes are approved. Next on the agenda is public comment on non-aggenda items. So, we're at the point we can comment on non-aggenda items. Agenda items we'll talk about later. Please come to the podium and state your name and address before making your comments. And please address your comments to the commissioners. And please remember this is time for comments only, not a questions and debates. Would anyone like to make a comment on the non-aggenda item? Please come to the podium.

Hi everybody. Um I'm Judy Fry, former mayor. Once a mayor, you still always like to get involved. So here I am. Um I'm just introducing myself to you because I'm working with Mary Durst, your historian, and some other just talking and discussing um how we could have a history museum. Oh, I'm sorry. Do you want me to start over? Thanks, Doug. Yep. No, I'm okay. You're good.

Okay. Anyhow, we don't um Mary's is pushed because the museum room over in the library is so stuffed with things and stuff that she doesn't know what to do with it. And so, we're looking at where we might store it, but how can we have a better and a history museum that's more open to the public? Um, so, um, I've already talked had a meeting with Shay and the the, um, system manager and some of the developers in town and we're just looking for ideas. So, if you have any thoughts on where it might be or where it would go or what it might look like, just let me know. I'm Judy Fry. I live on 2011 San Lou Southeast. And Miriam, nice to meet you and talk to you on the phone.

Thank you. Anyone else like to make a comment? If not, we'll move on. Close public comment and move on to the next agenda item. Next on the agenda is a public hearing on the land division request for 250 Plymouth Road Southeast division into five residential lots. We'll begin with an introduction and a presentation by zoning administrator Jay Giani. After that, we'll hear from the builder developer. We'll clarify if we have any commissioner questions and then we'll open the public hearing and then we'll have more debate. You're up, Jay.

Good evening, Madam Commissioner. So, as mentioned, tonight we're having a public hearing regarding the property at 250 Plymouth, um, more colloally known as the former Brookby Estate. This is kind of an overview of what the request is entailing. Um, for those that are not familiar with the site, the land you see here is currently one single parcel. Um, highlighted by uh the Brook Mansion in this in what is being listed as lot number two in this concept. So this area here, the proposal is to subdivide this property into five single family lots um while retaining the mansion on a dedicated lot. lot number two in this case. Um the other four lots would be vacant lots um buildable um as single family residential lots. The property is currently zoned R1 and would remain zoned R1 if this is approved. Um I'll let the applicants talk a little bit more about uh the concepts and um their thoughts behind this. Just to go over our sort of standards of review, um you have in your packets sort of a worksheet that goes over the different standards of review for a land division. This does require planning commission approval because it involves more than two lots being created. So this is why this coming is coming to the planning commission tonight. Um but going through the standards of review really quickly. Um the lots as proposed here would all be conforming to the width and area standards in the R1 district. Um there would be adequate access for public utilities capacity for utilities to serve these lots. The lots as proposed here are generally similar in shape and size to other lots within 500 ft of the property. Um there's a table in the app in an appendex to this materials that compares this to other lots. Um when discounting some non-standard lots such as properties owned by Aquinus and Blit um the lots area and width you know all

fall within the range of other lots within the neighborhood. There's a mix of small lots, large lots, rectangular lots, square lots. So, we feel this arrangement, you know, is complimentary to what existing development is like in this area. Um, as far as flood plane goes, as mentioned, there is very little flood plane in this area. Um, the only thing that has been identified by uh FEMA um is the area along the Fisk Lake channel on the eastern boundary of the site. Um beyond that um most of the lots have all been configured so that there is ample upland away from Fisk Lake and the inlet where development can occur well above the water level for the lake in any flip plane that does exist here. Um again the lots are all arranged so there is easy access from at least one side on all lots. So no concerns found with any access to these lots. Um the size and orientation these lots uh we feel these can all be developed without requiring any additional approvals such as variances. We did note in standard number six there's a standard where planning commission can make reasonable conditions as an attachedment to any approval decision. Uh we have listed two that are common to any kind of land division request here in the city which is uh compliance with legal descriptions and surveys that are submitted with this plan and the transfer recording of the relevant deeds with the Kent County registers of deeds within 90 days. We do note that on the property currently uh there are also addition to the mansion two outbuildings along Robinson Road this area generally here that span between lots the proposed lots four and five. Um to avoid any potential non-conformities with those buildings in relation to this pro subdivision. We would recommend an additional condition that if this is approved that these out buildings be demolished to remove any potential non-conformities before the lots are recorded. Um, so before turning it over to the applicants to discuss this in more

detail, we happy to answer any questions about process procedure or anything about our analysis as well. It's Do you have any questions for Jade? Hi Jay. Um, if this were to me this looks like a five lot subdivision. Um, if this was if their plan had a meandering road that was in it that that ended in a culde-sac, would we require traffic studies or how would we approach this in a different way?

Possibly. And I would say something of that nature would fall under more of a site plan review versus a land division. Um, and as you may recall when we looked at Eller Lane a couple years ago, there was, you know, additional standards that related to traffic, circulation, access, and things of that nature. um this just being a straight land division because it's not creating any new streets or anything like that. We feel this is the better vehicle for reviewing this proposal. It's Jay the lot to the east of lot five that's a different residence that's not part of this. Was that part of this original parcel home was built there like 10 years agoish? Do you know if that was parcled out of this?

Yeah. So there is land and let me get this other I'll show this other area here. So, this kind of shows the topography, but um this land over here to the east of the inlet was at one point in time part of the Brookby estate as well. Um I don't remember exactly when, but that was parcled off at some point in the past. So,

hey Jay, on um item five, you talked about um the established front yard setbacks and um basically made a comment that it can be um it doesn't have to it doesn't apply to to this and I was just wondering if you could expound upon that a little bit more. Yeah. So, just to clarify, that statement really just applies to the lots on Robinson. And that's based on the fact that um because there's such a variation of lot sizes and depths. Um it would just be very difficult to find a mechanism to use that standard that would treat all these lots, you know, fairly unequally. Um there is a lot that's next that's on the east side of the Fisk Lake that goes, you know, all the way back to lake here. There's also a lot here that's roughly just this size comparable to what lots three and four would be. So

what about what about Plymouth? Can So So you're saying it basically we can't count the actual Brookby B house as a lot for the lot on Plymouth. I would say you could do that because those are a little more standard, a little more consistent in their setbacks. So how does that work on a corner lot then? So I know right now we you view both sides as as a front yard setback. So would that mean that Plymouth would have to be a greater RBL than Robinson or how how how does that play out?

So that is based solely on what is designated as the front yard for the lot. So in the case of lot three that's corner lot here, the front yard setback only applies to the yard that is designated as the front yard. So for example, if lot three was deemed to have the frontage on Robinson, it would not be nothing on the Plymouth lots would affect the setback on on the Plymouth side for that lot. It's it would just be strictly based on the fronts on Robinson. In that case, it's okay. Thanks, J. Appreciate it. Can I ask a clarify on that same topic then? So then if the frunge for lot 3 is on Robinson, the setback on Plymouth is what? just our standard R1 sideyard setback or is that it'll be a streetyard setback in this case which is larger than a standard sideyard 24T in this case it's

got it Jay I have a quick question um there's a nice brick wall all along uh Plymouth and Robinson Road are you anticipating you know more curb cuts in uh for lots one three and four or certainly we would expect curb cuts for any lots that don't have them currently you're not going to reuse the existing drives or um I mean that would ult up to you know whoever ultimately purchases these slots. Okay. So that brick wall could end up going away or or

yeah um we should clarify that the wall as it stands is a non-conforming wall because it is right up against the property line and it's fully opaque. So technically as it sits it's legally non-conforming. So while it can remain in place, um there is no restrictions on, you know, modifying it or removing it at the same time. It's it's

And if I if I could add to with regards to curb cuts, uh that's that segment of Robinson Road is uh Kent County Road Commission uh um right away, 100% of it. So um the permitting for that would actually be through the Kent County Road Commission. Um they've indicated with us they have no opinion or or any concerns um regarding um permitting anything in that that stretch. So, just a related question on the the driveway. Um, there's no proposal for an easement across any of these lots to service the new ones. This would be each lot standing on its own its own curb cuts to Robinson or Plymouth. That is our understanding. Yes. Okay.

However, they could at depending on what they how they develop, they could record that independent of the city.

Yeah. I just was making sure it wasn't part of their plan. um those existing drives uh you know could in theory right serve as as access to all the properties and kind of a nice discreet way out the back um without requiring you know access direct access in Robinson Road for lots three and four. So that I mean I don't know if you know how much leverage we have here but that is something that if that was designed designed well I mean it already looks like it functions quite well for that purpose. Um there is a drive over over Coldber Creek. There's a little bridge. Uh once that property was separated off to the east um our properties um I'm wondering if there was any more you know need for that bridge is do we have any idea if it maybe that's controlled by deed deed restrictions or something uh what's happening

yeah that I'm not sure if it is again that would be another area that will fall outside of our purview to approve or review it. Yeah. uh do we have any any uh um power to to decide about the access once there's a lot right with on a public road right you really have no

I will say and I don't know the exact language but I believe there are in the ordinance that require a lot unless there's some other agreement to have at least one access to a street um I don't believe that the interior driveways that exist now would really qualify as a street. So, if the intent was to use that as the circulation, um I believe there probably would need to be additional either whether it be easements, e- restrictions or the like that would have to be accompanied with that. It's

right. Right. just seems like you could have kind of a a very uh high-end type uh somewhat exclusive, you know, development of five or four new homes where the the access is all internal and out and out uh out out to Robinson through the existing existing way. Not lot one, but but I'm thinking in terms of lots three and four in and two, three, four, five or

Well, well, two already has it, right? And one would have it on on Plymouth that wouldn't be a problem, but and five does. Five would, but it's mostly three. Three and four, right, are the ones that are kind of being sandwiched in. And I hate to see the loss of the wall and those cottages, but um you still could you could save the wall and go out the back way. um could be kind of cool. Just a suggestion for the developer. There's also some great issues there, right, with that bank. What any thoughts about that? That's quite a bank on Robinson, right?

Right. I think the what I'd go back to is um that's going to be another another agency that that's their property and they handle the process differently from us. So, we really we really can't weigh in on on what that would be. Um so the K County Road Commission will be the ones that permit what that connectivity is. Um and whether that's a requirement on their behalf that they require private easement as you know as was noted to to connect those a certain location or whether they'll um permit certain grades for the connection. So um for for those specific lots, it's it's outside of of what we're supposed to be looking at. I I could imagine a tremendous amount of grading and loss of loss of existing vegetation to make that work on three and four. Anybody else think about that? That huge bank that's along um I would say huge, but there's definitely a sizable bank along Robinson Road at lots three and four. I just hoping we can have something really creative and innovative here at, you know. Um

Jay, I have one um one other question. Uh in this scenario, lot one is the only one with direct lake frontage. Uh is the intention, you know, of the the developer to offer access to the other lot owners or or I'll I'll let them address that question and if that's not okay, it's

okay. I had a quick question about the flooding. Um uh Cold Brook Creek uh of course is the eastern boundary there uh goes under the road into I guess must be the topography or geology or whatever. So that flooding only the flooding happens on the Aquinus property apparently not not here this again this is based on the FEMA maps that most recent maps we have. So that's what that indicates it's Thanks Jay. We might have more questions for you later Jane the just for the record all these lots would be R1 considered R1 correct.

What would be the process uh for the record to to change that status? What would need to be done? So they would have to uh request a reszoning for any or all parcels to whatever zone or district they would want. um that requires planning commission in recommendation and city commission approval as is effectively a zoning amendment amendment to the zoning map at that point. I I I noticed in the history that um when when Sam Cummings bought the property in 98, uh the city voted to accept Cummings PUD plan to create a condo association between the four out buildings in the

Brookby uh property. Is that something that they could do now? Like as Sam was the owner and he had that I mean do you have any background on Yeah. So the short answer is no. um because while it received approval in whatever year it was, it was never acted upon. So that approval became voided and there was actually a specific act to reszone back to R1 at some point after that time to bring it back to R1 and out of the PUD. So while someone could theoretically propose a similar plan in the future, they would have to start the process over again at this point since it's

another option. Uh is it even option like PUD? what would be the pros and cons of a PUD if that would be possible? So, just kind of follow up on Chris's statement. Um, the PUD plan is wasn't that conceptually different in my recollection from this. The biggest difference I would say is that that plan intended to keep the out buildings as well. So, they tried to parcel those off into lots that didn't technically conform to R1. So, I believe and those that have been here longer than I have can confirm, deny, but believe that was the impetus for the PUD designation at that time. A condos would necessar a condominium would not necessarily have to be a PUD, right? No. So those are kind of two theoretical options which may or may not apply or the POD may not

Mhm. may not work.

Thanks Jay. Thank you. We'll now hear from the builder or developer. Before you start, can you let us know who's who and

All right. Uh, good afternoon. I appreciate everyone taking the time to to hear us today uh and hopefully vote on our proposal. I'm Ryan Whitmore. I'm one of the owners of Everstead Design, which is the company, the entity that uh we purchased the the Brookby mansion, the 250 Plymouth Road estate in. Um I also own Whitmore Custom Homes, completely separate business, but obviously the the goal is that we're going to build the homes on the lots that we're developing. Tom Leblanc, uh go ahead and introduce yourself. Yeah, I'm Tom Leblanc. Um thank you for your time tonight. I'm our the sales manager at Whitmore Custom Homes and have kind of followed the journey for what is being proposed to you tonight pretty closely. Um so happy to be here as well.

Yeah, he's he's worked with the city on dozens of pro projects since he started with us in 2017. So he's got a lot of knowledge about the ordinances and he's far more knowledgeable than I am in some of that and he's my uh go-to for education. So um you know, I also want to say I'm I'm a direct neighbor of this. I'm not only an owner of the property now, but I live directly across the street at 255 Plymouth. I look across at this mansion every morning. I sit on my porch and I gaze at it. Um, you know, that obviously has something to do with the reason that I worked with three other partners, two of which are my brothers, to acquire the property along with our fourth partner, who is another direct neighbor, shares a property line with this property to the south. Um, you know, we we we love the way it looks. We love the wall. We love, you know, the way it feels to live where we live. When I bought the property, I imagined that it was going to look the same forever. Acquaintus owned it, and I just kind of assumed that they would upkeep it forever. And when they put it up for sale, uh, it it became very interesting to me and what was happening with it. And I know that there were a lot of people looking at it, many that were looking to do things that were not within the current zoning. uh other people looking, you know, at things that would require variances. Uh we simply just wanted to buy it, preserve the house, and develop something that completely fit the zoning ordinance that's in place currently. Uh we didn't want to bring anything to you that required debate or or you know, variance, I guess. uh we wanted to bring the most simple thing forward that we could that honored the tradition of the property and you know maintained what I as a neighbor value in the property and uh you know based on the conversations we've we've had with our neighbors they're actually very glad the ones that we know the ones that know me and the ones that know Lucas Jones who is the other owner I mentioned are happy that we have acquired it and can maintain it they they like the vision that we've got

for the property and you know having the vested interest I think is in the best interest of of everybody here. Um, we're happy to answer questions you may have. I don't know uh you know what what those might be and I'll do my best or Tom and I will do our best to answer whatever you would like to know. I have some questions. Um, so I just heard you mention that you um, you know, appreciate looking at the wall from your property. So, how are you imagining the wall remaining with this particular proposal?

Yeah. So, the bulk of it's going to remain. Lot one will have a curb cut. It's going to have to have an opening made in the wall. The intention is to maintain the wall um for lot one. Lot two is already existing. That's the mansion. Lot three is the corner. Our intention there is to come out most likely on Plymouth as close to the lot two as we can. That's the spot where the grade falls right in line with every other driveway along Plymouth and really doesn't cause any concern to us or you know we can meet the ordinance for the driveway access. Uh lot four and five will planned exit lot five will likely be in the same spot that it currently is. It's a natural right. I don't want to make another curb cut if I don't have to and it's a good natural spot to put it. And lot four will likely be as close to lot five as we can legally within the ordinance put it. And the the wall actually stops uh kind of halfway through lot four. I'm not exact location, but there won't need to be a disruption of the wall for a driveway. Assuming um the most feasible location is likely going to be on what would be the uh west side of that property line. So or east, I apologize. Uh so and there's no uh brick wall at that at that point.

Our intention is to integrate the wall with the future landscaping plan. So, not just, you know, a cut in the wall, it's going to look ugly. We're going to integrate it in. I mean, that's what we build. That's that's what we do. So, we're not looking to create something that doesn't portray the image that I, as a neighbor want, and that is me as a company owner want to portray.

Did um Thank you for that. Did you give any consideration to keeping the home, the existing home having water frontage? Um, you know, it's When I first saw this, I was like, "Oh, if I'm spending $2 million to buy this home and then probably another million dollars at least for renovations, the potential of having to look at someone's sideyard or backyard and not have that water frontage, I don't know. That that just that just popped into my head." And and you know, when you look around at the neighboring lots that have lake frontage, there are all these long skinny lots that meet at the lake. So this this to me is like kind of the lot two is kind of an outlier, especially for it being like the whole reason that this estate exists. So what was the thought process there?

Well, it it doesn't have to be the whole reason the estate exists. We're looking to divide it, right? So that's that house is separate. I have a house right across the street. I look at my neighbors, one of my neighbors is here. I I look at her yard. Um so it's really no different than that. I look at her sideyard. I look at my other neighbor's backyard. And I actually look at another neighbor's sideyard. So, it's no different than the other neighbors. The um just the way that it laid out and you know the way it's not it's on the corner, right? So, somebody's got to give or you have a bunch of non-conforming lots and I'm going to have to come to you asking for a variance which I don't want to do. So, the way for me to meet the variance or the ordinance requirements are to divide it the way I divided it. Yeah.

To have five lots. Correct. Yes. Yep. To do whatever we rightful to do. Yes. Yeah, I think there's some early consideration on like what a creative triangular thing might be that you suggested, but it is also more risk in our end to present something to you that just doesn't feel as standard. Um, and and there just seems there would have to be a lot more conversation, I think, on um are those lots meeting the the spirit of the of the R1 and and kind of the proposed uh shape that most slots in this area take. So, we feel that this was the most um somebody's got to it's got to get chopped up um in some way for it to uh make sense for us and the community. And so, this just felt like the most standard kind of outline for that,

right? Rectangular lots are desirable. You know, square corners, straight lines, that's what, you know, the city and the ordinance prefers. That's, you know, we definitely worked with the city to figure out how to best fit the ordinance and accomplish what we wanted to accomplish, which ultimately allows us to to try to preserve the mansion. That's what this allows us to do. Where do you see the home being positioned on lot five?

Uh, it's going to have to be closer to Robinson Road. The the land there falls off. So, there's a a null, if you will, that overlooks the low grounds, and that's really where the house is going to have to be. Nobody wants their house down where, you know, it's low ground. I guess you're going to want it up most likely where you can get a walk out basement would be the thought, which is going to push you up up the hill closer to Robinson Road. So, in theory, in response to Laura's statement that you might not have the home directly behind, but be pushed closer to Robinson, right?

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we we're trying to sell all three, right? We've got a or all five. Obviously, there are three that impact that. There's lot two, lot one, and lot five. And you know, we need to make lot five as desirable as possible as well. So, we need to, you know, do everything we can to try to put the houses where it makes sense so that lot five can preserve. So, you have lot lot two, I'm sorry. Yes. Lot two is currently on the market. Correct. Correct. Yes. Um, and so someone could buy that lot and then decide to buy lot five or lot I mean, sure.

Buy more. Correct. Absolutely. do more with that uh with this property after they buy it. So, do you have any So, you don't have any intentions of and I know you don't have to answer this, but to do anything with the mansion? No. I mean, we've publicly stated that our plan is to sell the mansion. We've had honestly amazingly good feedback and a lot of traction on that, which obviously that's the reason it sat for a while. People were concerned about it. We believed in it. We bought it, put our money where our mouth is, and it's it's looking good. I mean, we're seeing good traction on that piece of property as the house to preserve the house. And if you've had good traction on it, and I know you don't have to answer this, but it'd be helpful. Got no reason not to.

You know, why not sell it now? Um rather than even wait for this whole, you know, discussion is is really the intention to sell more of these lots with Yeah. I mean, I'm a home builder.

Yeah. I think the uh the it being on the market the way it was with Aquinus 2, it is it's a pretty uh large estate that is an intimidating estate. Um I think we've actually seen uh in communication with you know the previous listing agent. We've actually seen a lot more conversation pop up around and excitement around uh the potential to purchase the workb mansion because it's not as intimidating of an estate to upkeep um once we you know if if we get this plan approved. So um I think that it is a net positive for the Brook actually um in that regard.

Yeah. And maintaining it and that's I mean the outbuildings were meant at servants quarters for the mansion, right? That doesn't that's not how people live anymore. So, um, you know, it it that's pretty much what we would need if you were going to maintain the 5.5 acres in a garden like estate, you know, on a single residence. So,

speaking of the gardens, um, what I know you've been talking about wanting to preserve the mansion. Um, there's the Olmstead Brothers garden off to the side, which, you know, I think in in my mind and the feedback I've gotten from, you know, in email and some from the community is that that garden is part of the estate. You know, it it it's a it's a package. It's what makes it special and historical. So when you are looking at dividing these lots um you know it's clear the intention is that that the the the walking garden and the whole visual is going to go away because lot one the split of lot one and two is on that wall. So what you know did you try to keep the garden were were there discussions about dividing the lot that way?

Uh no. Yeah. Yeah, I mean I can add a little bit of commentary to that in that um the as you mentioned there's a split down the kind of near their near the garden. Um ultimately what will be interesting to see how it plays out. It'll be up to ever purchase lot one is the short answer. Um but the uh front setback given the two neighboring houses of lot one is actually falling behind that garden. Um so there's still a good opportunity for preservation of um that garden even with a new home going in. Um but it's ultimately up to you know the homeowner um on that. But but part of that garden wall is in lot two. That is correct.

So they couldn't I mean someone on lot one couldn't keep it because it wouldn't be theirs. Oh we could move it move the wall. I mean it's in order to meet zoning we had to put the lot line where it is. We couldn't put it any closer to the mansion and maintain it to keep straight lot lines. We can't put a lot line there and and in order to meet zoning to fit five lots. Absolutely. Yes. Correct. Did you think about doing three or four lots when you were looking at dividing this up? We looked at everything from, you know, three lots to 10 lots.

Yes. And what we landed on was the the option that allowed us to come to you without looking for any variances, special use permits or anything such as that. That still obviously uh you know financially works out allows us to take the mansion and try to sell it and maintain it. So um lot one currently is the only lot with direct uh lake access. Do you plan to offer easements to the other parcels or or not currently? No, that would be between the neighbors, I guess, once they get in. We're not setting up a condo association or anything such as that to try to do that.

Um, you know, I've also I've lived in a house that had an easement with, you know, shared driveway and I not something I want to do to somebody. I don't want to force somebody to be friends with their neighbors if they don't want to be. So, I guess the short answer is no. Thank you. Yeah. Are you going to have any kind of a deed restriction? And I I don't know the legal term if this is a correct term or not. Um on lot two that the house has to remain that it cannot be demolished. Or are you going to leave that are you going to leave that up to the home buyer? That's our plan is to do that. That's our current approach. So there will be a deed restriction or something. I'm not putting that on the record that

so so so the answer is no, but it's a wish. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Yep. Is it not in historic? I thought it was in historic district. It's not. It's a national reg those can be removed. Those can be demolished. It makes it eligible for certain grants and things, but there's no protection. Right. Okay. Any anyone else have questions? I do want to say that there are a few examples in East Grand Rapids where the neighbors uh historically have been happy to cooperate, you know, with a with a shared waterfront access, you know, like a Yeah, we did we did talk about that.

I think people, you know, are are pretty cool about that actually in East Grand Rapids. U so it's a lot of history of that kind of thing where there's a shared waterfront access. I felt I felt you you presented that in kind of a somewhat negative way. You know, if some people really would like that and enjoy and enjoy sharing cooperatively something like that with their neighbors. It's a very neighborly community. Brian, do you have any questions? No, I'm good. Peter, I'm good. Thank you. Steve,

all set. Tom, Chris, thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you everyone. At this point, we'll open the public hearing regarding the land division for 250 Plymouth Road Southeast. We'll welcome public comment. Please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please address the commission and limit your comments to three minutes. Who would like to be first? Um, I'm um here as a 40 year old 40year neighbor of the property. Um, can you state your name under?

My name is Linda Hemskirk. I live at 227 Norwood Avenue Southeast. Thank you.

And I did receive a letter about this and so that's why I'm here. Um, I've been a long 40-year-old neighbor, 40y year neighbor and admirer of the property. Um, and as you said, the landscaping was designed by Frederick Lastead's sons and um to divide this landscape up into four lots. And I I thought it was four, but it's five for new homes. disregards the aesthetic, historical, ecological significance of the property. I'm against co I I'm against this co-opting of green space, especially on historical property. I've also heard that the small brick workers cottages will most likely be torn down, and this is equally disheartening. The property is designed as an English landscape. The architecture is unique to that period and is aesthetically and historically important not only to that property but to the neighborhood. And I'm asking to not allow these changes. Thank you, Linda.

Good evening. Uh my name is Chris Kner. Like Linda, I live on Norwood Avenue, 211 Norwood Southeast in Grand Rapids. Also received the letter since I'm within 500, I guess it's yards of the proposed development. Um, and I was grateful to hear Laura Schwarz mention the Olmstead name that didn't come up to that point and I was kind of amazed. Maybe for previous development of selling off the lot across the creek had it changed the parameters here, but that is an amazingly historic and unique property of this area of of the the city of East Grand Rapids and of the community at large. So I am well I was sort of disheartened that it was divided earlier. Maybe that changed change I say changes the viewpoint, but it is still an historic landscape, especially if you put in a house directly behind the blit house, which will obscure of course the view of the Mstead uh creek bed property. Um I would think that would lessen the value of the blahet house. I can sort of see some value in putting houses up along up along uh Robinson. That that sounds like a good idea. might be they might be put in there and still preserve some of the spirit of the landscape at large and I hope you will take that into account. Thanks much. One observation as a person who drives uh the area all the time of course is putting another access onto uh Plymouth right near that busy intersection is not a great idea. Thank you.

Thank you Chris. Next,

I'm Jack Pearson Smith and I'm here with my wife Susan. We live uh a couple doors to the uh east at 2050 Robinson Road. And um my question is, you know, this is about the parcels and the land and where the lines are. Is there another forum where there will be some renderings of of what kind of building structures are contemplated? We can ask the staff that after the public comment period. Okay.

Hi, my name is Elaine Cook. I live at 303 Plymouth Southeast directly across from the mansion and I have gone through it and I have tooured it and I have gone through the outbuildings which are in terrible disrepair and I have gone through the gardens which are also in horrible disrepair. Um it's very difficult to see what was originally meant by Olto's design. I I beg you go to go see the marsh that leads down to the grass thicket that leads down to the lake is very um thick and ridden with ticks. I won't let my kids go near it. And I I think that the image that everyone seems to have of this mansion is uh romantic and outdated. Thanks.

Thank you, Elaine.

Hi. Um my name is Jennifer Mets. I live at 303 Brierwood, a block away. And um I happen to be a historic preservation consultant for 30 years and I know one of your members for 30 years very well as also. Um I uh I I just want to remind everyone that East Grand Rapids chose uh 15 or so years ago not to pursue a historic district ordinance. So we don't have that for protection of properties like this. That's the teeth. That's what can really protect a historic property. With that said, you know, here we are and it is listed on the National Register as you know. There's no protection for demolition of any feature of it. The whole thing could be wiped out. It could be taken off the National Register, delisted. It's a prestigious listing. So, for example, if Brook is the mansion itself is torn down, it could be removed by the National Park Service from the listing. So, just wanting people to be aware of of the status of that. The I did speak to a previous potential purchaser and spoke to the state historic preservation office. The entire property is considered part of the National Register sort of complex. It's not just the mansion. So, and the landscape is incredibly important. I mean, Olmstead Brothers, you know, we've got Central Park and properties all over the country. It's nationally national level significance of a landscape designer. So, it's not something to just kind of brush away. And I would urge I understand the complexity of a of a um an estate of this size. It's not easy. It's intimidating as the developers mentioned, but and that we don't have the protections. But I would urge just care and caution, you know, with what we have. This is incredibly important. It's not to be taken lightly. It's not just outdated. I've been through the mansion and the

property uh at the estate sale and I've lived there 30 years nearby. Uh it's concrete construction. It's in beautiful shape structurally. I think um the landscape we don't know enough about it. It would be it would take some maybe evaluation to see, you know, if there's some features that you could retain. It's about sight lines. It's an English landscape design that was meant to look like it wasn't designed. It's kind of like um Holine at Aquinus. The same thing that's designed to look like it's not really designed. So there are concrete edges on ponds and that's that's by design. So you have a sight line and a beautiful grove of trees that was not accidental. So that's just something I would urge um just care and thinking. Buyers are sophisticated. I think they'd enjoy those features to remain. Um and one other quick comment. Um there is a potential for an easement donation on the mansion. So you donate to a nonprofit and in perpetuity that easement would be maintained by the nonprofit uh somewhat protecting and it's a tax benefit. So that's some option that you could look into. So thank you. Thanks Jennifer. I'm Cynthia Burer and I live at 211 Norwood Southeast. Um, I am romantic about this. I knew Edith Blahett very well. I played concerts in in the main hall. Um, my family went to dinner there with my two little boys. It's a beautiful place and to buy it and want to keep it exactly the way it is from across the street is noble, but you don't know that it's going to stay that way. Whoever buys it could go in like

they do many really beautiful Grand Rapids homes. They go in, they paint the woodwork, they dismantle the wonderful bathrooms the way they are. They're It's not outdated. It's historic. And um I know you want to make money off of it and that's why you're dividing it into five different or five different areas, but somehow I think we need to look beyond tax taxes and making money off the property because it should be preserved the way it is. And those little houses, those little brick houses, you said people don't live like that anymore, but we're looking for small rentals for people. You know, one family, two small. We're looking for small housing. That's perfect. You go in there, you redo, you fix them up, you get them so they're livable and heat, you know, the heat and everything. But the people could live there and you could share the property, but there's no if you sell it to someone, there's no there's you're not secure in knowing that whoever buys that lot across here or there that they're not going to build. Is there any is there any um restriction on building a fivestory house or building a mid-century modern house that goes out everywhere or goes up. There's you have no restrictions. You think you might the people who own it think they might be building the houses but not necessarily. And what is

kind of irritated in irritating sorry is that you said lot two has already sold when this has been decided on. So how can you sell a lot when it's not been decided on? Thank you. Thank you Cynthia. Would anyone else like to make a comment at this point? If not, we'll close the public comment portion of this and bring it back up front. What we'll begin with first is answering Jack's question regarding renderings of the homes. Can staff ask answer that question?

Yeah, this is strictly a land division request. So, all we're reviewing is u division into these lots, five lots. It's

Thank you. And remember, commissioners, as we have discussion up here tonight, we're looking at standards of review. Would anyone like to start the discussion? I'll get started just in case. Um I I have a work obligation that starts at 7, so I hopefully can make it for the vote on this. But um you know, I want to thank everybody for coming to speak, also to the applicant. You know, I understand that properties have to sometimes change over time and we try to do our our best. Um, and as I go, you know, I would say I would love to keep it as is. I wish I had the money to do this myself. Um, so I can't make my decision based on the romantic feelings that I might have for the property, but I can make it um on the factors. And I I don't think in my mind it meets number three. I don't believe this five lot split is consistent or harmonious with the character of properties in the surrounding area. You know, may maybe there's another way to do it that would meet that standard. Um but as proposed, I do not think it meets the standards of three. I'll leave it at that.

I agree. Hey Jay, could I I played around with some graphics. So Jake, could you throw this up on that um on the overcast? So this kind of goes to your point a little bit, Laura, and I'm I'm agreeing with you on it a little bit. So this doesn't show up real well. I I tried to put as best I could and and I I put the five lots on there and granted they're not totally accurate, so they could be off by a couple feet, but you get the gist. So I was looking at kind of what you were saying. I don't think I agree. I don't think three it meets three it's not harmonious and um especially it's mostly lots three and four I think um that I feel are awfully small. So everything to the left of that blue line is R3. Everything to the right of that is R2. So, what's left in R1 that is small is that lot and there's a few down here. So, with that being said, these lots are quite small and I I don't feel like they fit in with the rhythm that's that exists in this area right here. So, that's that's my opposition to three. I don't think it fits in very well. Um, I also have concerns with lot three with having and you know how construction is going to be in East. It's they're going to maximize a lot the the buildable area as much as they can. To have a large house that close to Plymouth right here, I think really breaks the rhythm of Plymouth. Um almost the entirety of Plymouth, the houses are set back 50, 60, 70, 80 ft. So to have a building right there in the corner, 24 ft from the lot line just is totally breaks the rhythm and and is a

concern of mine. And and my assumption is because we have to assume the assume the worst case scenario is that all the walls will disappear, the fences will disappear, and the house will disappear. Um because that's there's nothing that is preventing that. Um and that's bothersome too, I guess. But that it just breaks the whole rhythm of that. And I think the number three, I agree with you, Laura. I I'll go next since the picture's up there. I was I was going to talk about 3A specifically. Um and now you both talked about three in general, so that makes this a little easier. When we when we talk about um consistency and lot sizing, this is obviously a very difficult place to figure out what you're comparing to from a consistency perspective. But, uh the table that we have in our packet includes a lot of Let's see if I can make this draw things. It includes a lot of these lots over here on Brierwood that are uh basically R3 sized lots. Not all of that is in technically in R3. I think the east side of Brierwood is actually R1, but the lot size is definitely the R3 lot size and the west side of Brierwood starts our R3 zoning, which is essentially our east town neighborhoods. Right? So this stuff, you know, if you keep going over here, these are 50 by 100, 65 by 90. the these are tiny lots by comparison, not tiny lots in general obviously, but um when we compare those to what's in the table, I think that that throws the averages, the median, and the mean off. I mean, that's those are those are very small lots. Uh what do they look like here? Just looking at the document. Yeah, like 0.1 acre. So, when we put that into the average, that's where we're ending up with some of these averages that are very low. But I think if you look at these, it's three and four that are probably different in size and consistency from the rest of the lakes

on or the rest of the stuff on Plymouth and around the lake. So I'm struggling with 3A very specifically as a criteria that I don't feel is met. Um I actually think 3B and 3C might be able to make the claim that are met, but I I can't find my way on 3A. Anyone else?

My only comment was for for specifically lot three. Um, and someone mentioned it in the in the comments section. If there's a driveway that's going to go onto Plymouth, um I would like to have some sort of say in making it as far away from Robinson in Plymouth intersection as possible to um avoid any stacking issues there. The the other thing maybe that I I am struggling with that this is um I know it's a lot split but a lot split is like taking one lot and making it two. This is taking a lot and making it five. I almost want to see a coherent coordinated plan about like will what will happen if we do this lot split is that each individual lot will be sold off and each individual house will have its own unique personality. and they might not and and you know they might not be a it might not be a coordinated coherent plan of all the new architecture that's going to be there. So I would like it to be more of a site plan review versus a lot split. Um that would be my comment. Go ahead.

Uh, I was pleased to hear that if if there was going to be a driveway for lot three, it would be uh as far on Plymouth as far south as possible. Um, I mean, that would be the hope of the of the developer. uh lot four as well, the driveway being as far to the east as possible and lot one the driveway being to as far to the south as possible. So that that uh makes me feel better about issues with access on Robinson Road for lots three and four. Um also the the uh consideration of preserving as much of the of the wall as possible. I'm assuming that um a proper mason will come in and finish off where you cut through the wall so it doesn't look so it looks nice. Um but I do have uh I am also hung up on har a harmonious uh issue there of uh lots three and four uh being um you know not even harmonious within within this own development. Um and uh as has been pointed out um seems to not be harmonious with the character around around the lake and across the street um on Plymouth. So I I'd feel a lot better if it if it was four lots instead of five that we're going to end up with. Um I also wonder about the idea of a condominium of you know just looking at this thing um where you would have some common areas and with deed restrictions preserving the walls and and so on and so forth and maybe having some kind of shared access to the to the lake and just making this a really classy high-end condominium where where instead of just kind of splitting it off and just kind of letting it rip where you

are. um you know have a variety of of styles of housing and uh and kind of you know squeezing it in and making sure everybody's got their their their own private lot which you can't have with a site condominium. Um but it's like you know maybe maybe there's some really interesting opportunities that could be really creative. Um, so I don't know if there's a whole another approach to this that that could be uh pursued or a couple of other ideas. Doug, did you want to address that?

Sure. A couple just a couple things. Um just want to you know appreciate a lot of the the feedback and comments being made but um confer conferring with uh city attorney Huff. You know we do have some concerns how we're drifting away from what the focus is supposed to be which is lot splits not site plan review um locations of driveways those types of things are not what we're supposed to be reviewing. So we just want to caution everybody um that we really need to stay focused on what is at hand. We all probably have personal opinions. I probably do myself too, but we have to remain focused on what the request is and make sure we treat the applicant in accordance with those. Thank you.

Um I I having listened to you, Doug, uh I I do have concerns about number four and just what all those driveways uh potentially do with with the public roads. It's very busy intersection there. I'm not quite sure how that all works. um and and the extent to which we can or cannot consider those, but um I do potentially see a a negative there. So, okay. Yeah, we do we do follow industry standards for those locations. And in fact, uh the home at the the corner um across the street would be the I think it's 901. Maybe it's the um the be the northwest corner there. Their driveway access used to be right into the intersection. And when we reconstructed that street um due to Ashtto and MMUTCD standards, we had to relocate that. So we had to work with the neighbor to let them know we could no longer allow for that. So we had to work with them. So um I just want you all to know that we we wouldn't just let them put a drive access point where they where they want to, you know, we have to review that in in accordance with safety standards that are there that are really not debatable in terms of my perview or any of your perviews.

Yeah. As far as the sub lot area, particularly lots three and four, I just wanted to clarify and just mention too that while they may be smaller than the other lots that are under consideration here, they would not be the smallest lots in this area. Even when you take out the section of Brierwood that falls within this 500 ft radius. Um those lots are roughly point4 to.5 acres. Um there I mean there are other other lots that we identified that are within or close to that dumper. So in terms of the question about whether those lots are harmonious or not, I just wanted to clarify that those would not be the smallest lots within this bubble. They would still be within the range of the areas that we've identified here. It's anyone else Any further discussion before we ask for a motion?

Yeah, I I'll just say for the record, I I I really struggle with this. Um, I think uh we would all love to see this building preserved, but the reality is these buildings have fallen in disrepair over the years and multiple people have taken attempts to try to um fix them, whether it was Sam Cummings or Aquinus or others along the way. So, they have fallen in disrepair and I I think certainly in my my lifetime, I' I've seen buildings torn down and we we regret that. Um, I do think there's a better way to split up these lots. I I I think I would be in favor of splitting the parcels. Uh, I don't think um I don't think the layout that I see in front of us is the ideal split. So, again, I go back to note three. I just don't think it's harmonious with the lot splits. So,

so Doug, when you're talking about we're looking at standards of review of review, which we all understand, but harmonious, I think we're all looking at the lots being harmonious with the other lots within the same thing. Are you saying we can't look at that?

No, I mean, you certainly you can and I think, you know, looking at the table that's provided to you, that's something that you can utilize. Um, I think if you look at um prior lat splits that were more recent uh that were referenced here with uh the properties directly to uh the east of the of Cobbrook Creek there that were part of the parent parcel. You can see that there's uh both a a almost a flag lot that was approved and also a smaller uh lot to accommodate one of the cottages at the time. So I do think that's something to consider. However, it's your perview and how you interpret that. Um, you know, depending whatever the decision is, that may or may not be beneficial to um the city.

Thank you.

Is anyone comfortable making a motion? Like nobody likes to make a motion to deny something. I know. Um I just want to clarify that before we make a motion. So if we were to Does the motion include a statement of We have what? There's like six standards, but three has A, B, and C, which is always odd to me. So there's really 1 2 3 4 5 six seven. There's eight standards, but they're numbered 1 through six. Do we make a motion and indicate which standard we're using or is that just part of our reason for voting on emotions?

I think we've captured, you know, from comments, you know, that that number three standard seems to be, you know, kind of the prevailing wind out there. So, we've we've taken notes, the meeting's recorded for the record. Um, typically we in order to have a clean motion, we just request that because it it's approved because it meets all the standards or not approved because it does not meet all the standards. Okay. All right. I would would we help out the applicant if we nudged him to ask for tableabling. He doesn't ask for that. We do, right?

Well, I'm trying to put I'm trying to we we're almost there, but we're not right. So, if the applicant wanted to ask us to table something and come back with uh a different plan, would that be um better than us straight up denying this? You certainly can do that. We've done that in the past where where something has been tabled and then uh it it affords an opportunity to perhaps modify without a new application. Right. Right. Right. Correct. So if it's denied then what's the process? They have to start all over again. Correct.

And they have to show some significant difference to be reconsidered. Um I'll leave it up to either Mr. Long, Mr. Hoff whether your comments if that is a significant enough change to be reconsidered in a new application or not. It's it's or if tableabling is maybe the more preferred option in this case. It's so then can I make a motion to table this decision and have the applicant come back with something that's a little bit more harmonious with the lot size of the surrounding Fisk Lake properties. Something along those lines if that's something that they would want. It's hard to know.

Well, we have to be careful that we're not providing guidance and we're not I mean you're not implying a yes vote. You can't do that. Right. We're clearly we're all have issue with the harmonious nature of the lot split. So I they're just expressing trying to summarize that as the issue to table it. Do we have to have a reason to table? No. Would you prefer if we just vote up or down?

Um I would prefer you ask the applicant whether they want you to vote on this as presented. Okay. Can we call the applicant to the podium? I guess I'm going to ask this panel to look at the data that's been provided and the fact that we're we're looking to split something that meets the the um master plan. And it meets the current ordinance and it seems to be that the data that the experts have provided shows that it uh it meets the the requirements. Um, so

yeah, I mean my only clarification I guess to uh any anyone of the uh zoning department would would generally just be as it regards to uh point number three that seems to be under discussion. It does not uh my understanding is it's within 500 ft. So, uh, it seems like a lot of the discussion has occurred narrowing down that and I don't know if that's kind of a standard operating procedure to look at it from a different perspective. Um, but it it the clearly states 500 ft. And so I think that uh in fairness to this, the conversation has been around a lots that are a lot less than 500 ft away. And I do think um you know the 0.5 and point4 acres as Jay mentioned um is uh there there are other lots there. So I I'll I'll leave it to kind of Ryan's perview here, but that's my commentary on it is that's the only of all the commentary that's the only one that kind of made me kind of peak and um wondering a little bit about is how that plays into account. Yeah, I guess my perspective would be that a point 4 and a.5 acre lot is actually very very large in East Grand Rapids. You know, I live across the street on 6 in the 6 range. Um, never thought of myself as having a small lot, but um, you know, it looks small on a map that's showing all of Fisk Lake, I guess. I'm trying to figure out where it is. Yeah.

Yeah. Just for reference, I mean, this is a very, very rough drawing, but this is roughly what a 500 foot radius for this request would look like. And it's also, I think, important to note that there were it was actually three lots that were split off of this previously, which are those flag lots that are are some that we're comparing this to that were approved.

And in addition, Jay's analysis analysis in that application considers Norwood, Norwood Avenue. In my analysis, um, in section three, I don't consider the Norwood lots. I show you the lots that we're actually considering um and in those uh with those specifications considered um excluding Norwood even um so I'm going against my own 500 foot rule but I showing that there is a lot of congruency um between the median size um and the width to depth ratio of these lots

I would also caution the commission that while harmonious is one of the standards that you're taking into account here. This is not the same kind of harmonious discussion you had about the PUD. Um, this person owns this land. We have size requirements for lots in the A1 district. All these lots equal or frankly all exceed that that lot size. So we're talking almost the harmonious is an overlay that requires them to have a larger lot size than what the zone district requires. Uh I think that's a tenuous position to take. We we certainly took we were trying we are trying to create something that fits the zoning. We we took that. We certainly respect the fact that um you guys have been put in a lot of bad positions to have to being asked to make decisions with the PUD, the larger gas light PUD. That certainly went into our our thought process as we came to you with something that meets the letter of the law that you guys are asked, you know, you've asked us to meet. um you know so yeah that's that's you know as a resident uh you know one of your constituents I guess I'm I'm also asking you to look at it from the the law that we're here to

anyone have any questions for them while they're at podium. Hey, John. Um, this might go towards a harmonious, I'm not sure, but a lot of the existing houses there are have completely different setbacks than what our zoning ordinance allows today. So, when I look at what's there today, where the houses are in relationship to the street to the sidewalk is different than what any house that goes in these five lots can be. So that to me is not harmonious with the surrounding properties.

I understand that argument and I'm not going to say that you're wrong, but I'm also going to tell you to be careful because I'm not confident that you're right. Understand that. That's why I'm talking to you, John. Thank you.

Thank you. taking is not making a reckless decision. Right. Right. Maybe turns the heat down a little bit and maybe something possibly might come back that we like better but or feel is less is more harmonious. But that would be up to the developer, right? But there's no harm in tableabling it. I mean, you could table it and ask us to report back to you on the breadth of the authority that these terms provide to you.

I'd be open I'd be open to that. Yeah, I think that makes sense. So, I would like to make something. I'll move to table this. I already did. Did you? I'm sorry. No, that's okay. I like yours better. Can you provide that feedback to them now? Mr. Um I'm sorry. What's your question? Are you able to provide that feedback to them currently so we don't have to wait?

I I would like to take a closer look at this issue before making a final ruling on it. Um I'll do that promptly. Um, but I think that's safer for everybody to make sure we get it right. And uh if if in fact uh it's entitled to move along as you proposed it, I will say that. And if in fact they commission has a right to uh put restrictions on that, I will say that and that I'll do that promptly enough that there would be time for u you to react to that if necessary. And may I ask one other question as it relates to the process. Um if I believe there's a uh ordinance that within the process of the planning commission um not that I would ask for any more of your time but in respect to what you just said about providing prompt feedback uh there is a note about having kind of standard meeting to review something. Is that on the table as part of this postponing if you'd like so that it doesn't have to be tabled for uh two months? Is there a consideration that could be thought through there?

We certainly we certainly can look at that um to look at having a special meeting um depending on time frames and what we have on the docket for future meetings. And the next meeting would normally be next month, right? Correct. So, I made a motion. Did you second it? I Well, you made I thought you were saying, "Can you make a motion?" Okay. Okay. Someone second it. It's a non-debatable motion. Is there any further discussion? There can't be. Table's done, right? Once you get second,

you have to vote on the motion. The table without discussion. We do not have to vote. We do vote. We vote. Yeah, that's why I said I thought before every vote we had to further discuss. No, in fact, you can't. That's what motion to table does. Y Okay. So, we have a second. Okay. All those in favor of tableabling it say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All those opposed say no. No. Motion's td. Thank you. Next on the agenda is the planning commission 2025 annual report by commissioner or zoning administrator Jian.

Good luck. Thanks Laura. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. Um, I'll try to go through this quickly since um, I'm sure most of you already aware of the work you've done over the past year. But just to refresher, this is a requirement of the Michigan Planning Enabling Act that we prepare an annual review.

You move them out, please. So again, this is a requirement that by the national that we prepare an annual review of all the activities that planning commission has considered over the past year. Um so just to go over this really briefly, uh we've met seven times in 2025. Majority of these meetings were devoted to the master plan update. um at least four portions of at least four of these meetings were devoted to that. Um in the interim there were a few site plan reviews and other reviews that happened. Um one of them involved Grace Episcopal Church uh with their new rain garden and associated reduction of their parking lot. Um there's also um the Calvin University football stadium foot spaces two and three also approved and also the introduction and planning public hearing for the upper vertical expansion of parking ramp number two. Um that one was not fully resolved in 2025. That one took into 2026 before that one got a vote to approve. Uh beyond that again most of the work that the commission has done related to the master plan update um which you know again reached its final draft state at the end of 2025 and move forward for final consideration in 2026. One other invest a couple other things that happened. Um there's obviously also some lingering guest site investors work that the planning commission did related to a formal PUD amendment um to go along with their updated concept plan that was considered by the commission in September and ultimately approved by the city commission um in October. There was also one administrative review uh with the water tower at Woodlon Avenue. um that was by AT&T to add a backup generator to the site for for safety reasons.

Uh beyond that, it was a fairly light year for other requests. There were no resonings. There were no zoning amendments in 2025. So, pretty light year for those types of things. Um, in terms of variances, um, even though the planning commission doesn't hear variances, we do make note of what items do come up in case there are some things that, you know, may be worthwhile for the planning commission to consider in the future. In 2025, there were five variances that the ZBA heard. Three of those were denied. Two were approved this past year. One was related to the accessory building area for in a rear yard in conjunction with a house expansion. Um, in this case, this happened to involve a lot that was very oddly shaped, that was very narrow in its rear yard. So, that was deemed to be um a practical difficulty in and of itself based on the unusual lot shape to uh approve that variance. And as I mentioned with Greece Episcopal Church, there was also a variance heard related to lot coverage because even with the reduction of the parking lot, they were still technically over their allowable lot coverage. So, that variance was granted by the ZBA to allow that. Um, a couple other things that happened at the city commission level. Um, at the beginning of 2025, the city commission approved the establishment of a brownfield redevelopment authority. Um, I tried to give a very very high level summary of what that means. Um, at this state, this has not been actually formulated at this point, but the enabling legislation to permit that to be formed at some point in the future has been established. And there was also an approval for a new parking study in in around Gasside Village that was approved in February. Um beyond that again most of the year I would say was devoted to master planning and the gas side village or gasside investors PUD. Um are there any questions from any of the commissioners about this report and activities in 2025?

Anything for Jay? Thanks for the gather. I have a couple comments about about the uh annual report in general. The state law says that uh not only would you have an annual written report to the body, it's our our report is being presented to the city commission, right? That's the eventually. Yes. So, this is being provided to you first and eventually will go to the city commission for them.

Uh status of planning activities which you always do an excellent very very comprehensive job. I really appreciate how well that's laid out and concise, but it's it's uh it's exhaustive but concise. Uh but also should include recommendations regarding actions by the legislative body related to planning and development. Now, we just approved or recommended a master plan that's full of such recommendations. So I think we're we're good for for for that right now. But I do think that that we should, you know, think of that as a natural part of the annual report that it would include any recommendations that we might come up with. So maybe a year from now, uh have a a working session where we talk about, you know, how things are going, how things are going, implementation on the master plan, prioritizing various things, and who knows what else we might want to come up with. And then you would have that again in a 20 28. And then in 29 that would start a one-year clock to get the master plan if we want to do it within five years. Right? So if we want to adopt the new master plan in 2030 that would be the ideal, right? Instead of the kind of that extended fiveyear fivey year plus process that we went through. So uh and at that point in the 29 uh annual report uh uh state of Michigan uh through the redevelopment ready program is suggests that that might be a perfect time for like a joint meeting to talk about where we want to go with the master plan update where meet with the city commission and go through but we are presenting our recommendations to them. they give feedback and uh and that's in that way the planning commission is outfront with you know thinking about what the next master plan would look like rather than being at the end of that process. We should really be at the forefront of it. We may not get everything we want, but it really is more customary for for the planning commission at let's say in uh at the annual within the annual report

in 2029 where we make our recommendations and then it could there could be a joint meeting and then we could be off to the races. Of course, there's always budgetary considerations. You can't always get everything you want. But uh we should not be at the receiving end of deciding what the scope of the master plan. we should be the ones proposing it and then feedback from staff and the consultant and this leg legislative body would then perhaps modify that. So that's just uh kind of a vision I I have to kind of following follow best practices and stay within the uh um letter of the of the uh enabling legislation regarding the annual report. Okay, two cents worth.

Thanks Jay. Thank you. Next on the agenda is report of the city commission. Doug, do you want to do that report? Sure. Um, Laura left you.

Sure. That's all right. Um, so a couple things uh coming up um on the next city commission agenda. Um this the the city and um East Grand Rapids public schools have been uh working together over the last several years to look at different parking uh solutions regarding the high school project coming up. where you may have seen a communication before spring break from uh the schools where we've uh worked together uh from a uh really working together with some of our street contracts that we have that are just starting underway uh to uh save some funds uh for the school district um to uh address temporary parking um at the uh currently the the track field there. There'll be I think about a net uh gain of 18 spaces. So that will cover about 2 years of construction uh for the temporary parking. So there won't be less, there'll be a little bit more than what we have. And then um there will be discussion at the next meeting about some different parking options um that are being kicked around between the city and the schools uh for discussion with the city commission. The school board will be having those discussions too and seeking uh community feedback on some of those more longer term solutions uh to address parking. Um beyond that, we're also in budget season. We've been in budget season, so you'll be seeing um um those on the agendas coming up, too. Uh the city just started our um uh yard waste and now food scraps composting service. That has changed. We are taking additional materials now for the most part. Regulations have not changed to make it really simple. Just you can add a few different things that our composter can handle. uh we are still maintaining um our uh drop off site for uh items that our composter that does our larger scale cannot do. So we're providing that uh again to try to make it easier for the for the the community to participate um in that service and that again is no no additional cost. It's covered in in the property taxes.

So u you can put out you know whether you put out five bags or two bags or one container etc. Um we're maintaining that to the extent um that that's uh remaining the same for the most part other than additional material can go in. Um we do have that all that information on our website if you just if you just did a search in our search bar of composting you will take you right to all the rules and regulations. We also developed an FAQ to help with some of the questions we've been receiving to try to help people understand residents understand how that service works. Uh and then we just started this week uh um road and utility construction. So, we've started our phase one work, which is uh road construction with some some utility work um uh on Oakwood and Beachwood between Lake Drive and Woodcliffe, that area. And then also a section of Bonell from Lake to Mary. Um that's our phase one for for that work. We start and finish that work before we start other phases. We do have four phases uh to do this summer. So, we try to start and finish before we start other areas so we don't have so much torn up in the city. Um, and then we have uh some substantial utility work taking place that'll be starting here on Cambridge from MLK to Lake Drive. That'll be uh water main replacement. Um, and pretty extensive uh um road construction there too for it's not quite a complete reconstruct but pretty close to it. So, um u but the general pattern will be the same. It'll still have its center boulevard, all those things. we're just going to be replacing a lot of curb and things that have been damaged over the years. Um so those are kind of the big ticket items that that I'm aware of or what we're up to um at the the city commission level and city level um at this time.

Thanks Doug. Our next meeting is scheduled for May 12th. Next is adjournment. Would anyone like to make a motion? So moved. Second. Support. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. All those in favor say no. Meeting adjourned.