Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

on time. So then it was Chicago and like 8:30 last night vibrating

just a nift time. Welcome everyone. It's 5:30 and time to start our meeting. We'll begin with the pledge of allegiance. Would everyone please stand? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. First 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. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Next is approval of the minutes. Are there any additions or corrections? If not, may I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes from the April 22nd special meeting? Move to approve the minutes. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes.

Opposed say no. Minutes are approved. Thank you. Next on the agenda is public comment on non-aggenda items. Please note though that we'll have public comment regarding the introduction of the Gaslight Investors PUD later in the meeting. So if you have comments on that, please hold off. Please come to the podium and state your name and address before making your comments. And please address the commissioners. Remember this is time for comments only, not a dialogue or debate. Would anyone like to make a comment on a non-aggenda item? If not, please note we have no comments. We'll move on. Next, uh, Deputy City Manager Doug Lefay would like to recognize our city planning consultant, Paul Leblanc. Doug. So Paul will be retiring and he's been with us city for 14 years and in the industry for 55 years. Uh so we wanted to recognize uh Paul for his service to East Grand Rapids and the greater Michigan and national uh communities as well for his service. So Paul, if you join me, we have a certificate of recognition for you. Paul, do you have any words?

That's a lot of stuff. I'm speechless. Uh, thank you. U, I've loved working with East Grand Rapids. It's a great community, wonderful planning commission. superior staff and it's really been an honor to be part of your team. Thank you. Thank you so much, Paul. I've really enjoyed working with you. Thanks, Paul.

Next on the agenda is an introduction of the planned unit development phase one final plan for 515 Lakeside Drive Southeast Gas Light Investors. We're going to begin tonight with a brief legal update on the process by city attorney John Huff. John,

thank you. Um, several people have asked uh how this matter is up for consideration tonight when there's a lawsuit uh pending regarding this development. And the answer to that question is actually quite simple. The filing of a lawsuit does not automatically stay uh or suspend matters in dispute under some circumstances. In the circumstances here, there are no automatic stays that apply. Um though each case is unique and has to be reviewed on that basis. uh the items that are being appealed in the lawsuit uh do not provide for automatic stays and that is why we can proceed this evening. if the developer uh can make the decision and let me restate that in order to stay the case against the developer uh the plaintiff would need to seek a retaining order in the circuit court action and that has not been done. Um when the city uh was informed by Gasline Investors that they intended to proceed, um we passed that information along to the plaintiff's attorney. And that choice to proceed is the developer's choice, not the city's choice. Um the risk here is on the developer. Uh if a court subsequently intervenes or makes a ruling that's contrary to the developer's interest, the developer is the one who's spent the time, interest, and expense of proceeding.

The uh lawsuit in question has not had any meaningful activity since it was filed in November of last year and we don't anticipate any substantial activity uh before the end of the year because of the discovery period involved. Um the developer has decided because of that delay they were going to use that time period in which to pursue approval of the plans for the development and that is their right to do so. That's it.

Thank you John. Next is an introduction and presentation by zoning administrator Jay Jani. Following that, we'll hear from the developers and whoever else Jay has lined up. Jay, evening, Madam Chair and commissioners. So, as mentioned, um, following Mr. you know, legal update. We are here tonight to consider or to view an introduction for uh phase one of the Gasite Investors Planning Unit development project. Um as a reference point, I've shown up here on the screen, you know, the area of the entire site, um as well as what the area of the phase one site is. Um as mentioned here and as will be discussed, phase one is entirely residential in nature. Um it involves the construction of buildings F, G, and H from the approved concept plan. um which is three buildings for a total of 40 residential units. Um just as a matter of clarification, this is one fewer unit that was originally approved in the concept plan. Um however, because this is a reduction in use intensity from the original, um there is no need to do any further reviews or approval of the concept plan. Um beyond that, uh the same general location of the buildings is being retained. Um the general access points, the parking and the circulation of this area. um is generally the same as was approved in the concept plan last year. As mentioned, tonight is just an introduction. So there's no vote on any action or recommendation being requested tonight on the concept plan itself or the final plan itself, I should say. Um that being said, depending on the feedback that the you have as the commissioners based on what we present, what the applicants present, you do have the option of setting a public hearing date for a future meeting if you so choose at the end of this presentation and discussion.

We've noted in the memo what the different standards of review are at this point of the process. Um because this is a PUD, we're looking at not just uh site plan review standards, but also looking at general conformance to the approved concept plan and does this phase uh generally align with what was approved in the concept both from the plan itself and from any conditions that were um attached to that approval. We highlighted the memo kind sort of our summary of where we think the those standards sort of sit at this point in time. Um you'll note most of them we feel are already met. We've highlighted a few things that we think could require either some additional um clarification or information or in a couple cases maybe some information that hasn't been provided yet. Um to step through these really quickly um the first standard is if the site plan complies with all requirements uh of the zoning ordinance in this case again the site plan review standards and uh the approved beauty concept plan. Uh we generally find this standard has been met already. As mentioned, we're talking about the same number of buildings and same general size, location, orientation. The only meaningful change that we've have seen this in this case, as mentioned, is reduction of one residential unit. Beyond that, the heights of the buildings um align with what was approved in the concept plan. Um the orientation location also aligns with that. Um the parking provided in terms of quantity aligns with what was approved in the concept plan. We've also looked at table two and looked at what the difference uh conditions of approval were that were first proposed by the plan commission and then adopted by the city commission. Um most of those we found either are met as as proposed or are not applicable for this phase of development. Um for example um one of the standards being a comprehensive traffic, pedestrian, bicycle and mobility study. um due to the residential nature of this phase only um we feel that between ourselves and our traffic consultant that you know a full study of that breadth is not required at this point and I'll have our

traffic consultant Christopher Zold to talk more about that and the traffic aspects of this in a little bit um standard B the site must be designed in a manner that is harmonious to the greatest extent possible with the character of the surrounding area um again based on the concept plan in this we find this is met based on again looking at what these surrounding uses are a mix of other multif family developments, other more modern developments and other larger scale uh developments. Um again traffic in terms of traffic um I'll have Christopher Z from Progressive talk about that standard in a little bit in more detail. Um but getting into some of the design standards we talked about um we find that most of those are met at this time. Again, we've mentioned the parking provision is the same as was in the approved concept plan. One thing we have noted is that in terms of pedestrian access um one of the things, one of the key elements of the concept plan was a pedestrian pathway that connected all the way from Lakeside to Wealthy Street and through the entirety of the PUD site. In this phase of the plan, um there is that pedestrian path being developed from lakes from Reeds Lake and Lakeside up to the parking area to the south of building F, but at this point does not extend any further than that. Um so one thing that we encourage the planning region to consider is if this is sufficient to meet uh the criteria for this phase or if there should be some provisions or conditions to providing some sort of additional connections to the existing commercial development to the south. Um in terms of storm water management um we have noted that between us and our engineering consultant there is a adequate amount of existing stormwater infrastructure in place. It is noted that based on the design of the site uh the parking area would sit in a low area that has the potential to collect uh rainwater particularly in a 100-year storm event. One thing our consultant

has proposed or requested or suggested is to have um some additional outflow pipes connecting to existing uh city infrastructure to the to Reeds Lake via the uh water quality treatment infrastructure that exists in Collins Park. Um our understanding is that you know applicants are you know amendable to that revision but at this point in time you know that at this point in this time this is still a suggestion to be implemented in a future revision. Uh landscaping um you'll note in the packet there's extensive landscaping throughout the site and around all the buildings um in terms of quantity type and location and we feel this is substantial amount of landscaping for this type of development and the size of this development. um screening is not alphabetical because this site um only borders residential areas and this is only a residential uh development phase. So for that reason uh screening is not applicable in this case. Um lighting similar to landscaping we feel um in terms of the quantity types of lighting specified um is acceptable for this for this phase. utility service um as mentioned in the memo from Moren Brew um is expected to be more than adequate to serve this site particularly considering that this is a less intensely developed proposal compared to what was originally proposed in 2004 and also dating back to when Ramona Medical Center was present on this site. So based on the lower level of intensive development in this plan um it is felt that the existing utility infrastructure here can service this phase of development. Exterior uses um regarding machinery uh heating cooling units and etc. Um we have noted that some more information about this uh would be helpful for the final plan as for the most part this does not seem to be addressed in this concept. Um it is noted in terms of trash delivery that this would be all internal to these buildings with in the

in case of the town houses and buildings G and H. Um all trash would be expected to be handled within the garages and those units. Building F has uh dedicated spaces internal to the building to handle trash collection and pickup. Um so in terms of trash collection we feel that that is sufficient. Uh but more information about uh things such as air conditioner units or any other kind of exposed mechanical equipment. Um in terms of type, location and screening of that if necessary um would be helpful for the future. It's um in terms of emergency access um our public safety department reviewed the plans and did not see any issues with emergency access to the site. Um water and sewer and signs are the next two standards. Again, refill are not applicable because those are in terms of signage there is none proposed in this phase. So none applicable. Um in terms of water and sewer um again there's already existing water and sewer to the site and based on the level of development proposed compared to what has existed historically on the site we feel there is you know already sufficient infrastructure here that no additional is necessary. The last design standard relates to building design. We have noted that you know the design of the buildings as noted in the renderings um we feel is know complimentary to other developments that are nearby such as the apartments to the the east DNW plaza to the south and also referencing some of the mix of different architectural styles in the immediate guest village area. One thing we have uh questioned and encouraged the architect to look at more detail is the ground floor design of building F. Um you'll see in a little more detail when they make their presentation I'm sure but we have made some suggestions in terms of um things that can be done to that ground floor facade to make it a little more attractive particularly on the the parts of this building that are more open or focused to the public um on the south side in particular where it butts the parking on the south and where the future parking structure would be built

in the in the future. So as mentioned u one other thing that's worth mentioning is that

in the future what will also be necessary to provide if and when this makes it to the city commission is a formal PUD agreement that governs or the operation maintenance and overall upkeep of this phase. That is not something this plan commission necessarily needs to consider specifically. However, you are certainly uh free and encouraged to recommend conditions for this agreement in the future. Um we've identified a few things at the outset that could be considered. Um these include um references to have maintenance agreements for the public spaces or I shouldn't say public spaces but spaces that are meant to be utilized by residents. Um, in particular, we're referring to this area here to the north of building F where there is a dedicated uh outdoor space, plaza space and green space for residents of this phase to utilize. So, a maintenance agreement to m make sure this area is maintained um in perpetuity and to a level that is to the city's satisfaction. Um and also general statements about uh making sure that uh if there is a different ownership of this land in the future that any conditions that are passed um are automatically passed to them in perpetuity. One other thing that we've recognized um in terms of a potential condition that's not reflected here is uh noting um that if there's any updates to any easement agreements either with the city or with adjacent land owners um that that be negotiated and agreed upon before any development occurs. Um, so that is another example of something that could be considered as a condition. Um, so before turning it over to Mr. Zul to talk about traffic, um, we're happy to address any questions we have about the other, uh, summary we've put together so far. Can I just ask um I know you touched on it, but I was also scrolling through the packet trying to find the more lengthy explanation of the storm water

management current state and what has been either proposed by the developer or suggested by our consultants. Can you give a little more on the storm water? So, Natervelt has prepared their storm water management plan. So, the drawings by Neanderved is their proposal for the storm water. um our engineering consultant which is Halverson Engineering did their independent review of this. Um they generally agree um with you know the overall concept of how to manage the water on site. Their one recommendation and suggestion was to tie the overflow in the parking area to existing city infrastructure. Whereas their original plan would have connected to uh the existing stewards on Lakeside Drive. Um I could have Doug talk about that a little more detail as well.

Sure. So, um, there, you know, they do meet the criteria, uh, to the to the letter of the criteria. One of our concerns is that, uh, for the for the overflow at that type of a peak event. Um, the relief is right at the right ofway, which would then, um, the relief would then enter Lakeside Drive. Uh, we have an outlet adjacent between um, Waterfront Park there and the first home. Uh we actually uh rehabilitated and replaced uh that outlet pipe maybe two years ago. Um that's our only direct one we have to leak in that area and we know that if water can't get out there that it does it does pond in that area. So, uh, what we're what, uh, Halverson Engineering's recommended is, uh, to, um, have that, uh, have that storm outlet go through Lakeside and to day like that into a swale, um, and of course pre-treatment, um, into, um, the the wetland lake area there so that nothing is kept on the site itself in one of those types of rain events or in the streets. We want to make sure that that gets to the lake and we can be assured that it gets there. So if we like that idea that ends up being a condition of of approval or might have to be because at this point it's not this is an introduction. Um um we know that uh Halverson Engineering has spoke with um Native Engineering and um they they understand um had that conversation and we would expect to see that probably change by the next meeting. So um now however if that's different and we have uh that's my understanding and if what we see at a future meeting isn't that that's that's what we recommend as

now just note it and yeah we just wanted to note that part of the review and how we see that impacting the area both the private site and the public. Thanks. Yeah. Uh Jay I had a quick question. Um that last point about easements um could you elaborate on that kind of what the idea was behind that? Is is that related to the the north south uh bike way or or what's the idea there? You want that two nuggets?

Sure. So there from the um from the prior uh approval of this site and a uh a consent order agreement for Lakewood Hills redevelopment that that the city has. Um there's a combination of easements. Uh we just um if I can grab this. Well, I guess I can't for mine, but um grab it from John's. Um, okay. So, this particular um area right here, there's a a joint ingress and egress easement agreement between, um, Gaslight Investors and with Lakewood or Liquid Hills. And so, um, that needs to be there's been some conversation amongst themselves on how to maybe reformat that. And we just knowing that that's occurring we would just want to make sure that as part of this process that we have that that noted what those changes are and those easements are released etc.

Thank you. I I have a question generally about like um that the PUD agreement and what we can recom like what is in the scope of what we can recommend. Um, so for example, one thing that I was thinking about and I I guess my question is like at what point do we get into the nitty-gritty of things because I'm like looking at those two access points that go to shopping center road and I'm wondering can we put into the PUD agreement that there's some sort of like fencing or screening so that all those new cars lights aren't shining in the backyard of you know love it residents.

So at the outset there is a section of zoning ordinance section 5.48 48 that actually deals with what it needs to be included in the PUB agreement. So that sort of lists the baseline standards that have to be included. Um and there is also a catchall for things that are relevant to um that are reasonable based on the scope of development. Um so would something like that be appropriate subject matter? Um if I may, my suggestion is let's some Mr. result speak and let the developer present their present their plans and their vision and then as we progress through this process and um we'll look to address those type of issues. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. I had a question.

One of the planning commission recommendations or conditions was a fiscal impact study. Is that something that needs to be done now or is that not needed or done with a final PUD agreement to the city commission? I in general I think we would say again based on the scope of this phase it's probably not needed because again this is uh intended for market rate housing. Um our interpretation of that is that the fiscal analysis is more appropriate for the parts that would included the attainable housing which is not part of this phase. It's thank you.

Anyone else have a question for Jay before the next person? When when the PUD was voted on in 2002 or thereabouts, was the concept of a phase one and phase two considered? And is there any issue with the fact that there would be a phase one and a phase two? No. Um I mean what has been built thus far was considered phase one of that concept. But now since we have a brand new concept that's been approved for this this this site um that essentially negates that for lack of a better term. So now we're considering phasing based on what the new concept plan is. It's that agreement did call for for allowed phasing and anticipated phasing.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks Jay. Who's next? Um Christopher Z is going to be up next from Progress. Chris, please introduce yourself in case people don't know you.

Absolutely. Uh good evening commissioners. My name is Chris Zull. I'm the transportation practice lead with Progressive Companies. Uh appreciate the opportunity to uh have reviewed the traffic impact study that was prepared for this development. We had spent some time working with city staff and the uh developers consultant directly to make sure that we were doing uh diligence to make sure that we understood the process of the phase approach to the development and how the phasing worked with the study components as well. What has been completed is more than what would have been required if this development as presented uh just the 41 residential units would have come in on its own. uh the amount of trips that are being generated by that site uh is very small but we recognize that this is part of a bigger story and so we asked them to set this study up in a way that this phase could be built upon just like the development is going to further expand. Uh so the initial uh review of this phase of the traffic impact study is that they did more than what would be typical for a development of of this size that the phase one size. They did it in more detail including very specific information around pedestrians and cycling going beyond just the vehicle levels service and their understanding. They did a nice job representing the current conditions as it relates to uh the mobility components of the site and uh as a result uh as expected there's little to no impact uh with the addition of the 41 residential units that are being proposed. Uh and I'm very pleased with the approach that they've presented with the traffic impact study.

That's it. There's I'm certain the report the report was so long. That's why I asked. Anyone have any questions for Chris? So, just to be clear, this is just for this phase. If and when other components are added, it's back to the drawing board, new study.

So, not uh we're building upon the work that's already been done. Uh so this will serve as part of the background analysis. The report will get larger as we're adding in phase two. All of this background traffic will be included. Uh so the report is built to to expand. This is just maybe the first chapterish if you will of of the development. Okay? So like if if C and D come before us later, the scope expands adds on to that but it expands. We would presumably collect new data to complement that that's based on actual uses from FG and H that sort of thing. Correct. Okay.

Yep. And the same format, same methodology, you know, looking at all modes will be expected of of the future phases. While we're on that, uh, if phase phase one, you know, is working out for for us, right, with the traffic, but but let's say there's everything else, let's just say for purpose of discussion is phase two. Um, what if that requires some, you know, mitigation, some some efforts to to deal with some traffic issues? with the burden and this might apply to sewer, you know, sanitary sewer, storm, sewer, utilities, whatever. Um, the mitigation or the efforts to make things make things work would all fall on on the next phase, right? Is that what fa because because they're not going to redo phase one utilities or water or sewer or traffic?

Correct. and being uh the the intended developer phase one and phase two it's right all still the same uh the mitigation would come at the time of the intended impact so it's almost like and this isn't just for you maybe we could discuss this later it's a really big picture question which affects all of these all you know we keep saying well this is for phase one and we're good with phase one on this item we're good with phase you know one on storm sewer etc. Um, so then I'm wondering if something arises with phase two, uh, you can't get any, you know, extra, you know.

Yeah. So, like in terms of utilities, um, just as a reminder, this this site has has already has public utilities serving the site. So, um, the discussion there is a little bit different than than what is had in some of these types of development. Um we have already the actually in the concept uh phase did review um the number of units and everything that are proposed which is like their ceiling right from the concept plan in terms of public utilities and those it's sufficient for all of that. So, we're not anticipating um based off of um the studies conducted um prior approvals and prior uses that in terms of water and sewer utilities that uh there will be any change from the public standpoint uh which is a positive in terms of uh traffic if there's any mitigation that would be external uh to that site. um really no different than we do um as part of our normal business in the city uh for addressing any sort of concerns and um you know that at those point in times those types of things are addressed in the development agreement of who pays for what and why um those types of things. So there could be some just very maybe even adjacent to in the p on the uh public rideway. There could be some modifications that are close to phase one that are being generated will arise because of phase one plus phase 2 impacts.

Yeah. And it should that's you understand my

I do and and I I just want to note too that um this as everyone's aware in the community if you've been in that area this last year we did a pilot demonstration within the existing framework we had to work with for two uh smaller traffic circles um to sort of uh generate uh some community feedback and and some some change in that infrastructure. Um the city has been looking since the 1960s um at kind of looking at reorienting that area where we've got two intersections that are fairly close together. Um in terms of level of service, they operate well. Um we do track um near misses that are reported through official channels and you know that is an area where we where we do get those reported both for vehicles and pedestrians. So um we've looked at realigning Reeds Lake Boulevard um different ways etc. Um so that's something that even independent of this of this particular uh development project that the city has been looking at um for some time and continues to and we may um we we we have been looking at some different modifications again you're independent of this of this project too that u may move forward but certainly if there's some interplay there um that would be applicable as well. So there could be some impacts from what when phase two, let's call it phase two is being evaluated that may affect may require some modifications correct near phase one and the and this the way the streets are laid out or the traffic control devices or whatever.

So we shouldn't think that this is just phase for phase one is you know is has certain impacts of its own but they're not significant enough to make those changes at this point. Correct. Yep. As Mr. Zall noted from both the pedestrian cyclist and vehicles at this time because of the nature of this being residential um it's very low impact um in the scale of things. So we're looking at when we're looking at the the graded scale which I know if you're looking at like school grades is not doesn't doesn't seem great. Um but anything that's above a level service D and above is acceptable. Um and so that that threshold they're staying within that bandwidth. So, um, in terms of this phase, um, we don't see any sort of I think that's what what's being known is we don't we don't see any warranted changes.

Well, there will be flow coming right right to the to the south of building F, right? That's a that's a through connection right from so-called phase 2 down to Shopping Center Road, which then might affect some things that are happening at the intersection of Shopping Center Road and Lakeside Drive. Correct. And and that's that's just going to have to wait for the phase two traffic analysis. Correct.

Yep. So the trips that would be generated with phase 2 added with trips with phase one we result in the operation of shopping center maybe it needs a traffic signal maybe it needs a right turn lane. Whatever the future need is will be you know uh demonstrated at that time. Okay, that's kind of a basic kind of question of understanding this the phasing here, right? And then staying with storm water, I mean phase two is going to have to take care of its own storm water situation, right? I mean, we can't we can't won't be able to redo phase one storm water. Yeah, that's infrastructure, right?

Yeah. And that's generally a a separate um more delineated separate uh collection system area from prior developments that they would they would uh utilize. Mr. Zel, I just wanted to follow up on one quick thing. You said perhaps in the future we might need a right turn lane on Shopping Center Road. Uh if if there were more volume coming from like phase two is is that what you just said? Just as an example of a potential future mitigation. Is there is there room for it? Like are we all planned like is there room to put that in if they had to expand the road? I believe there is. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. So I I'm I think I know the answer to this, but so I'm not trying to be dense, but I also want to make sure that I that I hear the answer to this. So basically, the numbers that we would use to generate a change, like your right-hand turn lane example, they're not incremental. So we're not allowing 10% more traffic today, and then next time we're like, hey, it's only 10% more traffic every time we ratchet it up a step. It is a raw number, and if we achieve that number, then it's time to put in whatever mitigation is required, right? So the thresholds, right? um level of service is one of those measures. Q lengths and there's there's several factors that go into finding the right mitigation.

Just making sure because I reading the packet when I first saw this I'm like my gosh we put in a one paragraph condition that's like it's not necessary and I was like what do you mean it's not necessary? But then I'm reading it and realizing it's phase related. So just making sure. Thank you. And just to build on that, the preliminary PUD approval did contemplate by time everything things built out, everything has to work together. And um so to your point, we see this little you know incremental growth. At what point is the tipping point? That's um our um approval in October 25 contemplated this phasing and acknowledge that may not be needed ne now but if a future phase um um results in a requirement then that has to be addressed.

Thanks gentlemen. Any questions for Chris? Thank you Chris. Next we'll hear from the developer. would you please come to the podium and introduce yourself?

Just real quick, wanted to reintroduce myself. It's been a while. Uh Scott Weira, uh SW Real Estate Investment and also uh uh managing member of Gaslight Investors where we own the property. Um uh I'll have the the team is similar to what you've seen before. Uh Integrated uh Natervelt uh and then our traffic consultant Julie Kroll as well. And uh so we'll be uh you know, frankly, I would consider this the fun part of what we're doing. Um because when we were doing all the block massing and things like that, it's it uh it obviously lacks the creativity and the architecture and the fun parts and the details what really make this thing work. Um so just reintroducing myself. Um really excited to move this forward phase. I think we all know the the need and the demand for additional housing in the community. We're all aware of what's going on. So, uh, this is our our part in addressing some of that and, uh, uh, if we're able to move through the approval, then we would intend to start construction right away.

So, thank you, sir,

Mike Corby. See if this works. Hold on. Uh, my name is Mike Corby. with integrated architecture in Grand Rapids and great to see you again. It's been a while. So, uh, you know, a lot has happened. Uh, I'm sure you guys have, um, witnessed, um, the, uh, the past few months, but just to kind of bring, um, you guys, uh, just briefly up to speed on where we've gone. I know Commissioner Schwarz has has had lived through most of it, so I'll try to be brief, but I think uh I think it's all been good. Uh this was the plan that was approved um last fall, and it's a little bit different than what what you all approved uh or at least recommended for approval um back in 2024. And really the the the big shift I think uh was were enhancements. um the centerpiece. We eliminated building E, if you recall, that was kind of uh at the terminus of the north south connection from wealthy and instead have have now replaced that with uh uh an open space that will be activated. We're looking at some sort of uh flexible commercial activities in that area as well. And uh the other kind of significant uh shift was our buildings C and D will be limited to no more than five stories. And I think the plan that you uh reviewed was uh seven stories. So just a quick uh update uh for you, but other aspects of the plan are still in place. So uh I Jay went through a good uh listing of kind of the standards. Um I

think just to touch briefly on a couple of the things that were brought up in in his report. Uh we are working in cooperation with the city on the storm water. Uh and just uh so you understand process-wise Natervelt for instance as they're engineering phase one they're engineering it with the entire phase development in mind so that uh we're not doing something for phase one that's going to have to be redone for future phases. So, I think the storm water issue um or storm water uh situation that we're dealing with is is just kind of up as as uh I think Jay said, it's something that will be helpful. It's not something that's required, but it's something that will be helpful and we're very cooperative to to work on that. The um I'm going to let Julie crawl because I know traffic and circulation are very important aspects uh for this project. uh after I conclude, she'll come up and maybe have some highlights for uh some of the the items in her report. So, uh the way I was going to uh progress through this is uh talk about the planning side of it first and then we'll talk about the architecture side of it. This is the phase one diagram. So, again, I'm going to highlight a few things that uh maybe were brought up earlier just for clarification. We are connecting let me connecting uh this phase one development to the current parking area there. Uh that is a gated parking area. So really is not uh going to be a throughway here. So even though we're making that connection, it really is just for the convenience of

access from the north. But as you can see, uh all of the elements that were in the originally approved plan are are uh kind of manifesting themselves in this phase. We'll have the start of the pedestrian and bike path here. We are creating uh 26 parking spaces here that will be uh kind of in place for uh future use mostly because we are going to be uh sufficiently parked with the parking that we're going to be providing uh for buildings F, G, and H within within that kind of courtyard area and obviously the connection to shopping center. So all of the kind of frontage elements on the north side of the site will be in place. The proposed area for parking here will be our staging area for phase one construction activities. Uh but the balance of this will be set up for um future phases. So, what I'm going to do is go through each of the buildings just uh to explain some of the thinking on these. Uh starting with uh building H. So, building H, as Jay mentioned, was originally designed as a 10-unit building. We are now proposing nine units. And really, the the shift was a very practical one. we just uh we were looking at the garages and the widths of the garages and just making sure that we had ample room uh for these types of units. Um so by making the garages a little bit wider, it it uh it had us uh reduce one of the units, but the configuration that you see there is is pretty similar to what was in the original approved plan. So these units are three stories in height, planned to be three stories in heights. These are also planned to be uh for sale condominiums or at least the intention

is for sale condominiums. So although we've identified that they might be up to three-bedroom units, uh the the potential purchasers of these units will have some discretion on the layout. So that uh even though we've kind of shown a a partic particular layout, there they may be subject to change. The footprints will not change, but the potential interior layouts might change. It was important that we had front porches, uh, front entryways along, uh, the right ofway along Lakeside. And you can see we've got a series of uh grade level landscaping as well as we've curated some different architectural uh uh terracing with landscaping as well as uh basically front porches to the units in in that on the along the lakeside side. The the parking for these units will be from the rear. Each unit will have two garage spaces and uh in addition have two kind of apron spaces. So each of the units will have four spaces that are uh dedicated just for their use. This is uh a quick indicator of kind of the unit uh demise, but we've, as I said, we've done kind of a sample layout here, but it it is subject to change. These buildings will also have in addition to the front porches, they'll have upper level terraces. building G and and I will say this about all the buildings and uh especially when I talk about building F in and Jay's earlier comments, all of these buildings are built on slopes. So, it uh it slopes down from uh east to west here. It

slopes down from south to north here, and it slopes down from uh west to east here. So with the with buildings H and G, we're able to kind of uh deal with that by just stepping the town home the town homes down. So we'll get some variation in reform just from that stepping. Uh and I'll talk about building F in a second. Building G is um again it's town homes. We are uh proposing them to be again potentially two to threebedroom uh units. There are seven units in building G, so that matches what was in the original approved PUD. The parking is similar to building H. Uh there'll be what we call tuck under parking from the west. Uh so there'll be two spaces for each of the units. And just as I mentioned with building H, there'll be uh we'll be terracing down from south to north uh along here. And I think some of the renderings better illustrate what what I'm talking about there for these two buildings. Uh as Jay mentioned, refuse will be um basically uh housed within their garage and then uh it'll be uh when it's uh taken, it'll be removed from the garage. So there won't be any refuse containers visible u or needing any screening. Uh the primary entrances for for building G are as well along the uh the new pathway and again it's uh it's a series of um kind of curated uh stepped landscaping as well as some porches. Finally, the third building and that's again a layout. The third building, building F is uh it's it's more of a stacked type of building. Uh it'll be one and

two-bedroom units. The uh because again of the slope along here, what we've done is we put the parking under the building. So we have we have a grade level entrance here. And the the reason we chose to put the the front door, let's call it, of this building here is because we see the the predominant traffic coming from the north from Lakeside. And so we really wanted the uh for both the visitors and the the residents that that to be kind of front and center. And again, because of the the nature of the the slope here, it really is difficult to to put there. And it it really we didn't feel was an appropriate spot along here anyway. So that's why we've got kind of the entry over here and it's a you'll see in the renderings it's a it's mostly a glass point of entry but residents will enter for all of these units will enter off of shopping center. This will be a gated uh point of entry. They will they will either pull into the lower level the grade level of building F and currently there's one space per unit in that. So there are 24 units in building F. So we have 24 covered spaces. Uh as I mentioned, building H has four spaces per unit available. Building G has two spaces per unit available. So we've met the requirement there. And then there are another 18 spaces available here for additional uh parking for residents or guests. Uh building F just to finish with that and then I'll come back. Building F is uh as I said it's more of a stacked type of situation. So, it's three levels of units above the lobby and parking. Uh we you can see that again it's a mix of one and two bedroom units with terraces. We do have a consolidated uh trash system. So, it's got a it's got a um trash shoot on each floor that then

deposits into a main level uh collection area and then it's uh removed from there. So, again, all the trash will be screened. The lobby here, as I mentioned, is along the west with kind of its own front porch. Um, very visible to uh to the west and to um to the north. The um so I'll I'll get into the aesthetics. I mean, our direction for the exterior was really um trying to stay uh modern and very kind of honor the actually the the the history of the site. The the the the early buildings uh the early medical buildings were more of a mid-century modern design. Uh so that heavily influenced what we're doing with with all of three of these buildings and we plan to continue that aesthetic as we as we look at future phases as well. So we feel it's fresh but it's still got a timeless quality to it and it uh and it has kind of a a nod to the kind of history of the site as well as as Jay mentioned the context there other the the beauty of East Grand Rapids I think is the is the diversity of architecture and there are a lot of modern or mid-century modern examples in the area. So you can see in the in the renderings a lot of emphasis on a lot of glass or fenestration uh durable materials combination of textures simplicity uh uh it's definitely residential it it's got uh balconies and terraces so uh in in building F for instance we again a very kind of mid-century modern um notion was to kind of uh put the building kind of on a textural all plinth. Um so, uh the garage is is down here and you can see the slope along that drive. Um so we're using a combination of some textured AR uh uh masonry as well as landscaping to kind

of highlight that that particular lane and then the main the main lobby is there. The other thing I want to note is all of the mechanical system uh any exterior mechanical units will be on the roofs of these buildings and we're actually showing all the renderings you see are showing them with with parapits that will screen uh those pieces of equipment. So this is a view from the west looking back toward building F and our point of entry here. So that will be the gated entry there and that's the lobby for building F in the front porch. You might just to clarify the screen units are on on F

on on the roof. The other the other ones are Yeah, the other ones uh will have compressor units. So they'll be on the roof, but they'll also be screened.

Uh so a view kind of working our way to the east around the site. You can see uh building G here. You're seeing kind of the south edge of building G. And again, these renderings aren't exactly representing the color, but um you got the feel that's building F kind of in the background there. So, actually from this vantage point, you're almost at the first level of units on building F. As you're kind of further east like this, you could start to see the the uh the pedestrian and bike path here and the front porches along the east side of building G. This is the this is the proposed pathway, the bike and pedestrian pathway. These are the front porches uh on the on the F units or on the Gunits. And uh the one thing I want to mention at least on the one easement that's related to uh the the land owner to the east is we've designed uh this so that we're completely on our property so that we're not needing to contend with that particular um easement agreement. So continuing around to the north, this is uh building G. And then as we as I work work northward, we're looking southward at building H. So again, um modern aesthetic um a lot of articulation um mostly to you know in terms of the the composition of of materials but also the the spaces. So you can see reference of some of the terraces that would be located at the different levels as well as the front porches. This is looking basically westward along our pedestrian connection that

will link to the pedestrian and bike path. Uh our material pallet is a familiar materials, brick and stone and uh accent metal and woodlike products, woodlike type siding. Um but the porches will have uh their own kind of um as I said curated uh terrace planters and uh and uh front porches basically. Again moving further west this is uh one of the crosswalks there. Uh shopping center drive is here. Here you can see building F in the background and you can see uh some of the uh westerly unit the units in building H. So uh we're really excited about uh this first phase of work and um it's been great to work together with you guys and the city council as well. Um we're here to get your reaction to our introduction. I would like to introduce Julie Crawl. She's from uh Fleece and Vanderbrink. She's just going to touch on some highlights for the uh circulation and the traffic. Uh as we know that's a pretty important aspect of this. So

thank you. We may have questions for you after that though. Okay, I'll be here.

Hi, good evening. Julie Croll with Lisa Mana Break. Um did you put the pictures in here? Here we go. Perfect. So, I just want to touch on some of the um the traffic study. As Chris mentioned, um the impact from this is relatively small. So, from a vehicular standpoint, um we there was enough capacity in the network to accommodate the trips generated by this. The other thing that we looked at specifically was the vehicles or the pedestrians and bicycles that would be generated by this as well and what infrastructure um would be recommended to accommodate those uh peds and bikes that we would see at these intersections. So on the screen here you see the pedestrian connections and the main locations for those pedestrian crossings are the ones that you currently have in place at the shopping center drive and the Reed Lake Boulevard where we anticipate um the majority of the pedestrians that would be um entering the network and exiting the network um would be crossing. One of the things that we noted was that um these rectangular rapid flashing beacons were installed um as part of your pilot project this last summer. When the roundabouts were removed, the RFBs, as we call them, uh remained in place. So, that was actually kind of nice because it actually improved the pedestrian safety as we evaluated at these intersections. So, um resulting in um pedestrian level service of A's and B's, which is which is excellent. So um we didn't have any additional mitigation measures that we were recommending at this time um to accommodate the trips generated by uh phase phase one. So that's all I wanted to add. Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh you you obviously saw in our application uh the comprehensive nature of the design. So I I'm not going to get into the details of the lighting plan or the landscape plan, but I think consistent with what was started with gas light buildings A and B, I think uh a lot of attention to doing quality architecture and uh the and quality design of the sites, including the landscaping and the lighting. So I think that's going to continue through obviously with with this phase and with the future phases of the of the PUD. So excited to kind of show you the first glimpse of of the next phase. Here to answer any questions.

Dart, you're on or we can go. Yeah. You have a question. I don't have any questions at the at the time. Give me a moment. Stuff we can talk about later after everything's done. We'll have discussion after public comment, but if you have any questions for them or clarifications. I I do have a question. Are we moving this way? Yes. You Oh, I thought we were coming. I didn't know. I didn't know what we were doing. I didn't want everybody to say no and then have them walk away.

So, I just have one clarifying uh request. If you get back up to building G where we can see the pathway. Uh let's see. This one that what appears to be a roadway that's actually not on the property of this development. Right. That's the the driveway to the condos to the east. Correct. Okay. We are we are providing some landscape there. There there is enough room for us to get some landscaping along our edge of property and their edge of property. But yes, that's the drive to the neighbor to the east.

Just making sure I'm seeing it correctly. Thank you. Maybe I'll just kind of clarify because there seems to be a discussion on the uh on the right now there's two drives. So, um kind of the history on that is when we used to use just that one drive that goes to the apartments. Now, it used to just connect directly south into gas light into our property. Um the uh the l the Lamre family that owns uh that apartment back 2002. Um John, you probably 2004

2004 um filed suit on that and uh relative to the use of that road, that easement um which we had and then as part of that settlement was that if either side develops their property, we would actually just split that part would be on my property, part would be on on theirs, and then that that's how that would function. What we chose to do um is not even use half their property. we just said, "Let's just put it all on our own property." So, um that's something that uh uh the city is um reviewing. I presented that to terminate the easement with that landlord uh with that property owner and uh and that but what we're doing is just to let them stay on their own property. We're just doing everything on our own. But and then so we're taking what would have been we just put our 10-ft sidewalk that pedestrian connector up and then use that as the way to bridge into to that uh to the the seven units on that side.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you. Quickly, if I could um following up on that, so you're looking at just a small strip of land very narrow landscape strip between the path and the and their drive. Yes. It'll have would not have a screen any screen like a that six foot fence that you have elsewhere would or for a future phase would not maybe you wouldn't want that but what are you think what is your what are your thoughts about how to so we are getting some shrubbery here that's the the landscape strip that we have and then it opens up to lawn about how wide is that roughly I think it's about 30 in okay pretty narrow in the scheme of things just to kind of

we wanted to get something vertical there. We'll also have some of our We don't have a lot of pole lighting over in this area here, but we will have lighting and landscaping in that strip. So, there will be an edge that's defined. So, it is kind of between the 10 foot path and and their drive uh with a narrow that's kind of a lot of pavement really right there in front of those front doors. It's yeah I mean if you if you look at it from that perspective but we we've

the the p porches are elevated. We've got basically um low kind of uh sitting areas uh on the porches and then we've got the landscaping the terrace landscaping the pathway and then another row of landscaping. So, and as that path uh goes northward, uh you enter um public property, the public rideway, uh those as that path continues towards Lakeside. Um who who's paying for that? Would that be some kind of agreement where they you're donating that to the city or the city will pay for that or how's that going to all work or the city? I don't think you require them by

with a fee, can you? So this is this is our property line edge here. Yeah. So you're talking about this portion. Yeah. All that stuff over there. Yeah. How's how's that? Yeah. This will be part of our project. Um, I think we've got this is going to be um ramped and then I think there'll be a few steps here, but it will connect into the two city uh or it'll connect into the city sidewalk, but this will be part of our project, but it'll be on in the public much like a normal

uh sidewalk kind of development. So that so that would generally be something that we would address um as in terms of who owns what. Similar to what we talked about for storm water infrastructure and where there's delineation points, we'll address that in the the development agreement. If you think a little bit um more in terms of traditional um development that you may see, if you think about um uh Elner Lane for example, that site condo development um that was approved several years ago, um that infrastructure that they put in sidewalks as required by the city um those were dedicated then to the city in the rightway. This will be a little bit um this would be constructed in the right of way um somewhat similarly if you think about it that way. Um but all these other details um when we talked about when Jay talked about at at this level with the planning commission in terms of what types of things need to be in the development agreement that the city commission would approve, we would we would note those uh similar like we would with site counter development if that makes sense.

That's the developer pay pay for that construction but then it over to the city. Right. what's in the rightway would be would be uh the city's responsibility going forward and any maintenance and would be the city's responsibility. Correct. Unless somehow that that's appro that's approached in a different manner by the city commission. But so we've designed the the pathways in terms of just slopes and things like that to meet city standards,

right? I'm more concerned about who's paying for it and you know how that would be worked out. Um, you can't require well an agreement. It's a mutual agreement, right? It's a contract that agreement would that they would pay for that. Yeah. And I think that that's require that's what they're development fees types.

Yeah, they're prop they're obviously they're proposing that. Now, if they didn't show any of those connections, that could be something that we could require, but they're showing those those connections to tie into our existing sidewalk and that trail network there. Um, but like I said, in terms of who's responsible for what's in the rightway, um, that's something that, uh, that we would more formally handle in the development agreement. However, uh, from other developments that we see, that's just a standard practice. Um, obviously with the PUB there's a little more on the table in terms of negotiating uh aspects of the PUD agreement, but that would be it's very typical um for what the city does. There's some walkways too that are uh split between the public and private there.

Yeah, we would we would certainly delineate those. It's pretty typical that um you're obligated the developer obligated to put the infrastructure in the right of way and then it's intaped by the city. So, Yep. Thank you, Mary. Just point of clarification. I I have a number of questions, but it's a sequence that we do have a public after the public hearing. We'll have more discussion questions. So, we could have the public hearing and then we can ask questions after that or should we be asking? Well, if you have questions for them, we should ask that now. But we'll have discussion among us after. Okay. I do have uh some questions. Laura's been waiting.

It's okay. Let's just keep going in order. That's fine. Um, building F, is that intended to be a condo or apartment building? Uh, it's designed, it's intended to be a condo, but it may that's that's the one building that might it's got smaller units, so it's possible that um some of them might be rented, but right now it's intended to be a condominium. And in parking uh for parking in in building G, is there's no parking outside of parking G? Is that correct? or is that where would be the parking in G

G there because of the the sight slopes this way. Um let me go to the floor plan of building G because it might be helpful to see. Oops. So building G, uh this is higher on this side of the site. So this is the east, this is lower. So, we're actually using the building almost like a retaining wall and you actually pull under the building from the west and you your parking spaces would be under the building. Under the building.

Yeah. So, your entry level is actually one level above this because the grades rise as you go to the east. So, it's if I drew a cross-section, parking would be down here. Entry level would be kind of maybe 2/3 up there. And then obviously uh as you saw in the rendering, the porches are a bit elevated and we did that intentionally again just so there's a little bit of break from the the uh pedestrian and bike path and the front porches of those units. Building F, uh if it's an apartment, would that parking be paid?

Would would the residents have to pay separately for parking? I no the parking uh the the space for the units will come with the with the unit. Yeah, it will come with it. It won't be separate. My my concern is that if it is paid then they would they would look to park elsewhere in the community. No, it'll it it'll be an amenity for the unit. Okay.

In fact, um one other thing I don't know if I mentioned there is a we do have an amenity here as well. kind of an outdoor patio area and green space that would be available to residents uh FG and H. Um that's an outdoor area. So there would be some common amenities on site as well. And then uh for the record, why are we doing this in stages now versus the initial plan was in one? What

I think the the PUD grimmit had always uh anticipated phases and I think there are time uh timelines associated with the approval staying in place. So we we um again we talked about this more with the city commission process but uh I think we identified at least three phases that the entire project would be built in. So, um, this it didn't necessarily say this had to be the first phase, but this obviously makes sense to to get our frontage set up, but, um, we had always anticipated phases. It has nothing to do with the litigation that's going on right now. It's just the phase.

Okay. Okay. M. All right. So, my questions are a continuation of the parking conversation. Um, so building F, I was looking at the units and it looks like a good mix of onebedroom and then also two and there's one threebedroom unit. There is right now. Yeah. So, excuse me. It looks you've got one parking spot dedicated for each of those apartments, right?

There's one dedicated and covered. There are others that are available. So, what does that mean by available? Like, if if I'm in building F and I'm renting out a three-bedroom unit, is it just, you know, like I I hope I park by 6:00 before I know my neighbors get home and try to get one of the carport spots or can we rent and reserve those? Uh, that's a good question. I think right now we we wanted to have one covered space. The And by the way, these spaces that are here are covered as well. They're they're the carport ones. Carports. Yeah.

So, I don't know. We've got not gotten into the details about how many spaces beyond the one that you'll be available, but not everybody needs two spaces. Our intent was to have spaces available for those that do. Um there are also, as I said, 26 spaces here uh available, at least in this phase. If you recall, uh in the overall plan, there's another row of parking that will be uh part of the south side of this new drive. So, um, we we're going to have much more than two spaces available per unit with the knowledge that that's probably not going to be necessary, but at least every every unit in building F has a space dedicated to it.

Okay. I guess I'm trying to, you know, I've seen in the memo and in in you talking about like how there's enough parking, you know, as we talked about in the overall PUD, but I'm trying to conceptualize this in a bigger picture because we also when we were talking about shared parking, there was going to be a parking garage. And so like that to me provided more flex. So, if we don't have that parking garage, which I understand is a phase and then we have those ungated spots um that I forget how many you said there. Like in theory, it does feel like enough parking, but I'm thinking about what happens if other people start parking in those spots for events or overnight for some reason.

Those are Yeah. like have you thought about um you know if if there are more I'm really thinking about F because H and G seem to have contained parking for what they need. So is there any thought to like if we're finding that folks living in F are spilling out into the community, could you then turn those other spots along that like drive on the back side of F, could you then mark those as reserved and give them to units? I just I'm trying to minimize the impact on the neighborhood.

Yeah. In addition to the 24 spaces that are under building F, there are 44 spaces available that are not um assigned specifically to a unit. So we have we've got a lot of available parking. But yes, I think in the event that let's say uh a three-bedroom unit wanted three spaces for instance, I think we certainly have the available parking to the south there. And so you could like actually assign it to them like a reserve spot.

That's possible. Yeah, I think we uh again, if if somebody's uh with the intent somebody purchasing the units, I think they're going to want to know that they have spots. Now, if those those might be available under some other arrangement, but yeah, I think we have I mean, we've got some ability to do that if we need to. Okay. Doug, is that something we can put is that something that goes in like the PUD agreement, something to that effect or Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Um I think you know the other the other the other piece to this too is when we get to future phases that's going to be the that's going to be the the public connection through. So we're not going to want that restricted. So I think in terms of assigning those spaces and I think what uh what was noted by Mr. Corby too is you the market is going to determine some of this too. Someone's not going to buy a unit if they don't have the spaces they want. Um they're going to make sure they get it um they get what they need too. So, um, we're not going to want to see that restricted, that space restricted for access just because that's the connectivity piece through the through the development. However, how they assign those on their private property, how they enforce that themselves, you know, that's another story. But I would I would imagine as he noted that somebody who's buying a unit and the number of vehicles they have, they're going to want to make sure they have something there. Doug, do the the spaces on uh Shopping Center Road for parking in Lakeside, are those do those allow overnight?

They do not. They do not. Okay.

I have a question if you don't mind. Um in this plan, your um your bike and pedestrian pathway kind of ends at the the end of uh the phase one area. Um, given the fact that phase 2 and three might come farther down the road, I was just wondering if it could be conceivable to continue that pathway on a temporary basis or or uh makeshift, you know, provide a way to get through there. Well, I mean, we're not planning to dedicate it in the same way that we will when it's fully built out, but I mean you if you're on a bike, you theoret you could bike through the parking lot um and come through here. So I think again just not putting that in place and having that disrupted in future phases but I think there is a condition in the timing of the phases that mandates that gets put in at a certain time. So we just it just it's it's a little cumbersome to have all that put in place for this phase. So there is a way for you to get there from point A to point from south to north or north to south. You can do that. It just won't be the dedicated path. But depending on the timing of the phases, it could kind of be a dead end for a few years.

Yeah. But again, the the timing on the phases um once each phase is the clock is ticking, I guess, at this point. So, I think the developers got the impetus to kind of keep things moving. So, this just happens to be the first phase that we're going to get in place and the the desires to continue to with future phases. Thank you. Hey, Mary. Hey, Mike. Where's a where if if people have a bikes in unit F, building F, where would they put bikes?

We're going to have some bike storage here. And then we've got in this area here some bike racks. Um suppose they could bring them to the unit, but we we we've got to maybe look at how we develop that. But I think we've got storage behind the parking spaces here. So if somebody has bikes that are personal bikes, they'll be able to store them as well in the garage. Mike, what's the what's the vision for delivery trucks? Are they coming into the gated area?

I think it's going to depend on the type of truck. If it's a larger vehicle, absolutely not. But if it's a it's a van type vehicle, it could. There's no obstructions vertically here, but I think a larger vehicle is not going to want to come in here. We did do some studies for a typical van to pull into here, back into here, and and do a kind of a three-point turn. So, certain size vehicles would be able to come into the courtyard. Other larger ones would not. Building G, they would have to walk around to the uh east side, right, to get to the front door to deliver a package, right?

For building G, yeah, there will be a doorway at this level. Um, but if if they're delivering it to the front door, they would have to come to the south here or they would have to work their way around. There is a stairway here that leads up to this level so they could get to the uh front entrances from that direction. How does how did trash how does it So, I know you talked about trash being picked up, but how does you have a trash truck which is quite large. Where where does that trash truck go? How does that work?

It will be able to come that's one of the analyses that we did. They will be able to come in and basically um pull into here back here and come out. So So the idea is the trash truck would go in there and pick up. Correct. And Naterville did an analysis on just the turning radi and things of that nature to make sure that that works. So on F is it anticipated that there might be multiple pickups a week? Uh, I don't know, Greg. Wait and see. Yeah. No, it's cool. It's going to go into a trash shoot area. I guess we haven't decided whether we do an impactor there to compress it. So that maybe the pickups are less frequent, but that's a that's a good question. Order.

It's a little bit like how we handle commercial. You know, we'll have to just go based on use where you just get up the frequency. Yeah. It's it's designed that we could put to um carts in there. So, if one is full, they can move that and put another cart in there. So, with all those nice windows, is there going to be anything on the condo docks as far as restrictions or whatever, so people don't have sheets hanging in the windows or anything like that? the corner sheets. Well, I there there obviously will be HOA uh attached to this, so I think that would be part of those kinds of

And then the planters that you have, the cement planters, are those meant to be planted in? Yes. And those will be have the proper drainage and such so that the material doesn't spall or anything from the water freezing and thawing. Correct. We talked about those actually. Again, that would be something that the HOA would kind of regulate just so that again, I think each uh people are going to choose to live here understanding that there's going to be a certain kind of aesthetic that's maintained. I think so, we're trying to make sure that gets curated through the HOA.

Yeah, I think it's very nice feature having those things in the porches and such. It makes it more community friendly. Any further questions before we have public comment? Well,

um on shopping center, I know this is just generalized uh uh d, you know, the information on here is generalized, but along the shopping center road, you know, it's showing like some parkway trees, but it one question would be, you know, would that be paid for by the developer or by the city? But related to the earlier discussion about the potential for a right, you know, an additional lane being added there, how finished will will that, you know, the curb and gutter and parkway be, you know, that for this phase if it may end up needing to be widened just kind of what's the flow on that? You think

if you uh in the report that Julie, Miss Crawl did um and I think uh was maybe talked about too by the city uh there is a clear vision there that we need to maintain with the driveway. So um our plantings are are set up to try to uh follow suit with the recommendations there. But you know if if we need to do it, there's room to do it as as as Mr. Zel said. So it it may tear it up. It may require a new curb put in place and some paving. So, um, we understand that. So, that could be something a detail to put in our agreement perhaps beauty agreement or maybe or maybe

Yeah. And certainly certainly during construction we deal with this with literally every single residential property too where um we have that on our uh we have we have standard specifications and if if curb is damaged, sidewalk, etc. before we issue occupancy, all those things have to be replaced. So that's more of a um something that we do. Um in terms of rightaway trees, we allow um uh with development, similar we discussed uh prior to sidewalk. We require uh trees be planted. We maintain them. We certainly appreciate some property owners who take better care of the rightway trees than others. Um and if if that uh shopping center has to be widened, that's going to be dealt with as part of phase two overall analysis and approval process there. Uh on Lakeside, uh maybe I don't know if that parkway is wide enough, but it could be for additional trees along there, parkway trees. That's something we could unless you're not seeing that as part of a part of the development agreement. You're seeing as more of a standard practice

if if more landscaping like that's you know something you want to see. I mean this that's well there are trees there are trees already along our landscape plan shows what's in place. Yep. Currently these are the current street trees here. Yeah. I'm thinking about and then we're our all of our landscaping is uh closer obviously on the south side of the sidewalk. Yeah, I'm talking about parkway as on the as you continue uh eastward on lakeside that area where the pathway here jocks. Yep.

If there could be something that could be considered for additional parkway trees along there like max out literally max out the number of parkway trees could be something that might be nice. However, whatever mechanism that would that would be drive.

Anything else? I I I do have Jay alluded to uh a potential condition on building F with the backside of it with um just kind of the aesthetics of it. Maybe you can clarify that as the

So I mean at this point just as a matter of rule um at this point there aren't really any conditions per se we're asking for. I mean anything that's being talked about as you know comments requests it basically just no requests like a future revision or iteration of of the plan. And I think what I've talked about in terms of that building F uh design, it would fall under that just something that could be looked at at a future revision of the plan. It's not a condition per se at this point. It's it's okay. And then uh lastly uh on building G, you know, we we've really I think as a commission have talked about that walkway as a really important feature. If I'm in building G and I'm looking out and I see that walkway, I I don't think I would want a lot of pedestrian traffic going through there or that being do would they have as an owner would they have rights to restrict that if we approve that?

I think I think that's their property, you know, like it's it's not technically their I mean it's like a front sidewalk. It's it's a more near urban setting. I think it's not unusual. I think the thing that we intentionally did was we raised the entry points for those so they're not at the same level as the the walkway so that there is a separation there. And as I mentioned earlier, they're these the porches that we've put there. We've got some landscaping in front of them and then these have a um a wall that's tall enough to sit on. So again, they're I think folks that you know are are going to be attracted to these are folks that understand that that relationship. So

So legally they wouldn't have any influence over that's like the public sidewalks on Bagley, right? Like it's a town houses with a sidewalk in front of them. It's an amenity. It's not but it's not. It'd be weird for someone to come out on the sidewalk and tell me that I think what we going through the going through the process of the concept plan the the idea was that that this this will be open and available to the public outside of certain things like we talked about with some of the internal streets which is um it's open and available to the public outside of things like construction maintenance activities etc. So th that certainly would be tied into um like those other aspects into the development agreement

and within the preliminary PED approval there are specific conditions in regards to um codifying access things of that nature to prevent just what you're describing that um either the condo association or the whoever says oh I'm going to look to block that the development agreement will be clear in regards to that's not allowed. Okay, that connectivity path is something we've been talking about master plan from even years ago. People have wanted that connectivity. Correct. I think to Mike's point that those six or seven units along there, it's going to be the type of buyer who likes the urban edge.

You know, that is going to be normal. They they're elevated. They still have their privacy, but the cool part is it's walkable. It is right out. So, it is a specific buyer very clearly. Thank you.

If you could have more width there, that would be uh desirable, but apparently that the drive uh to the to the east will no longer you'll no longer have control over half of that to use as additional landscaping space or to move the walkway a little farther eastward. But you indicated that that things have changed in regard to that drive. Yeah, I think, you know, again, we're going to get some vertical landscaping there, so that edge will be defined. Um, but um the pavement that's there will be there. Yeah, thank you, Mike.

Uh reactions just in general? Are you from the commission? Got into a lot of technical questions, but are you okay? Paul, is there anything you'd like to add? Your last chance last meeting. Supposed to

Well, I I told Doug that I would uh continue to uh provide whatever assistance I can until uh phase one is actually approved. Uh so somebody else doesn't have to come in and try to figure it all out. Uh so this probably won't be my last meeting. Um, but I did have a couple questions. Um, very detailed, but um, as I look at the the site plan, uh, I wondered where you're going to put snow storage, if you've thought that through at all because it looks like most of that area is paved or landscaped. And um, I think that's something that that should be considered. The other question I had was, if I understand correctly, in building F, you'll have trash shoots that and the trash will end up in a dumpster down in the the parking garage. How does that get emptied? Uh you've got parking in front of that whole side of the building. Um

yeah, there uh it'll dump into a a mobile dumpster that'll be in a room and then there's the access is actually from the outside and you don't go into the parking garage to get to that. So there's a doorway on the north side of that. I don't know if I'm still active, but it looked like there were parking spaces all along that north side. Mike, the floor plan shows it really well. Yeah. Yeah. So there are not this is where the trash room is and it would be it would go directly outdoors. This is that um courtyard area. So all of these the trash would not ever come into this space. It would go directly outdoors.

Okay. So maybe to help on that. So what we talked about is then where do you bring it? You know, type thing. So, we've talked about kind of at on trash day at the north end, excuse me, the east end of that could be a a spot, but there is a sidewalk that was intended to run all along the uh the north side of F and the east side of F and any of that area could be staged for that. A lot of the existing phase. Now, we have areas, but then really the trash companies are trying to coordinate how they Okay. So, those are not massive dumpsters that you have to wheel down the sidewalk. Okay, they're mo somebody will manually move them, roll them uh to the spot.

And then F and G is just like how we all now pull your trash outside and they come pick them up. H and G H and G. Yeah, but um I'm sorry. F will be a large maybe a larger mobile type mobile. Uh correct. You know, snow removal obviously that's going to be something that we have to work out. We are contemplating potentially snow melt, but otherwise it would be a typical commercial kind of situation where you've got if they've got to remove the snow from the site, then they'll they'll do that. So, there aren't a lot of places to to plow it into. So, I think we we understand that challenge and it's something that they're used to.

Just a quick followup question on the trash for G&H. is the expectation that the like uh like the same type of garbage service that we use for our residences would service G&H town homes. So they would um they can't pull in or can they would need to park on like shopping center road or the backside? No, a tra a truck waste hauler could pull in to the courtyard area if that's what you're asking. Yeah. Okay. and and as I said, Natervelt worked out the turning radi to make sure that they could get in back up and and get out. Okay. So that they don't that we don't have to take any of the the carts um onto the public rights away. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll now welcome public comment. Please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please address the commission and limit your comment to three minutes. and we will be watching that. As a reminder, public comment is not a dialogue or a time for debates. This is not a question and answer session and questions will not be responded to. You may also direct your comments or questions to the staff or commissioners outside of the meeting via email. And as always, please be kind, courteous, and respectful. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Judith Baxter. I'm an East Grand Rapids resident. I live on Hall Street. Please free of my voice. I'm still fighting an upper respiratory. I came here because the gaslight village, the gaslight development is on the was on the planning commissioner agenda. I came here with a couple of comments after listening to the meeting and the presentations by the developer and the city staff. What I'm hearing here is the city staff is very pro-developer. I almost feel that my Mr. Lefay, Mr. Jamati and the city manager are all speaking on behalf of the developer. It's nice to see the developer, Mr. Wera, and his staff here today speaking up for themselves for a change. I think it's important that somebody up here has to represent the city, the residents of the city of East Grand Rapids, the city of East Grand Rapids residents have had to have their voices heard by filing a lawsuit against the city that was joined in by the developer. And that is uh I think not a representative form of government that we expected as residents of this community. Our voices are not being heard. They have to file have to file a lawsuit to be heard means that the city residents do not believe their voices are being heard. They do. They believe they are disenfranchised from this process and they believe that there things are going on behind closed doors between the city and the developer leading to a rapid approval of this project um despite their opposition to the project. For the citizens to file a lawsuit on behalf of responsible development means there is a significant number of citizens in this community who oppose the massive size of this development, the height of the buildings and as they indicated in their opposition that once the concept plan is approved that city loses a lot of that authority. But I assume from the comments that I've been hearing from city staff on behalf of the developer and the city commissioners discussing planters and trees that that's not being

heard. I encourage the planning commission to have a public hearing on this so at least the residents can be heard. And I don't mean a public hearing where there's a little email sent to people within 100 ft of the surrounding gas light property. I leave a communitywide notice of a public hearing so that the city and the residents can be heard. It's about time the residents were listened to in this community for this project. Thank you very much. Thanks, Judith.

Good evening. David Decker, 925 Bellclair. I'd like to place a document here. Could you please turn the camera on? So, this is the question that was answered by Mr. Huff at the beginning of the meeting. Um, but I'll read it. This is uh an article from November 25th, and it has uh some text that was spoken at the city commission meeting. Residents lawsuit halts Gaslight Village Development Plans in East Grand Rapids. City Attorney John Huff said, "The city is going to let the legal process run its course." And the quote from the transcript from the meeting, "From this point forward, any public discussions of this matter by the city will be in a courtroom until this matter is resolved. The project itself itself is on hold u during the uh pending of the litigation unless the court rules otherwise. And this project will not appear on a city commission agenda again until the court reaches its decision. So it was um a bit of a surprise um when this came out and um I appreciate the fact that uh legal explanation was provided at the beginning of the meeting. It would have been helpful perhaps if that had been included with the packet that came out and I look forward to um being able to review it in a bit more detail. Um, but I think these words um have consequences and um I appreciate the planning commission taking a a look at these these words as were spoken and um what was planned by the city at that time. So, in the little time I have left, I just also would like to address why did residents file a lawsuit? It's a darn good question. The city commission

ignored a valid uh Michigan Zoning Enablement Act protest petition. Simply put, that protest petition signed by greater than 20% of the land owners surrounding the proposed development could not stop the development. The protest petition just raised the bar for approval. Five city commissioners rather than four had to vote to approve. If a project has substantial community support, that's an easy bar to achieve. It's a way of building consensus in the community. October 18th of 2004, um, city attorney John Huff, this is per the city commission minutes from 2004, reported that protest petitions had been filed and the 5:1 vote met the supermajority requirement. That city commission in 2004 approved the ordinance allowing the development. In 2004, they had built consensus in the city commission and in the community. The 5 to1 vote was indicative of that. Today, we all want development in Gaslight Village. Let's build consensus in the community for a plan that's compatible with the existing character of Gaslight Village and the city's neighborhoods. And that starts with a concept plan that the city commission would be willing to a vote and to approve with five members. And I think that's a good consideration for the planning commission to take. Um, and that's exactly where this needs to go is right back to a concept plan. Thank you.

Thank you, David. Hi, I'm Jerry Anderson, uh, 435 Edgeir Drive, an East Grand Rapids resident. Um, a couple of thoughts occurred to me that this caught me by surprise also. Um, first, my observation of of this body, and I I watch you more on YouTube than I do in person, your celebrities. um is that you tend to be insightful, thoughtful, critical, informed. You do a wonderful job at what your job is. And the only situation where I haven't seen that be true so far is on this development where suddenly the questions dried up and there seemed to be an instant consensus that the biggest project in East Grand Rapids history was just fine and we we take care of any any details later. So I encourage you to be your normal cautious insightful selves as this goes through uh future phases. Um an example of that is that we heard during the preliminary uh approval of this that traffic was fine now in Gaslight Village. traffic is going to be fine in the future in Gaslight Village and that we don't have to worry about it when this comes in. The same is true for parking. Parking is fine now. Parking will be fine in the future according to our studies and we don't have to worry about it. And yet at the last commission meeting, we heard that the city is considering a bond proposal of millions of dollars to increase parking for Gas Light Village because there's a

consensus that there is a problem with parking. We need to get our ducks in a row. Is there a parking problem? And if there is, let's deal with it now, not later. Is there a traffic problem? I know we heard today that another 380 or so traffic trips going through what's already one of the most dangerous intersections in East Grand Rapids is not going to cause any problems at all. I encourage you since I don't have the opportunity to be very critical and question um question those sorts of studies. Uh the last thing I'd like to ask is that this is probably the least objectional phase, objectionable phase as far as the residents have been concerned. Phases two and three in the parking garage have just have caused a lot more discussion. I think that you and we are entitled to see all three phases. I know it needs to be built in phases cuz it's a very big project, but you should be able to see the details of phases two and three and the parking structure and to see how phase one fits in and connects with them before you give approval on phase one. It's one big project. You should be able to at least look at pictures of the whole thing before approving uh any part of it. Thank you.

Thank you. I usually hunch over at this thing, so I guess that's what I'll do again today. My name is Scott Damon. My residential address is 625 Bridge Street Northwest. I'm here with my interest at 435 Lakeside. I wanted to start with that I as well was surprised that we're at this point now. Um my understanding was city commissioners were not supposed to be speaking on this topic during the litigation. Maybe commissioner Schwarz can clarify that. But I now look at this as a situation where city commissioners are free to interact with their constituents on this topic. Um I wanted to thank the commissioner for your salient first set of questions. I appreciate those. Those are very relevant to the discussion. related to the residential. I personally support the market tax generating residential, but I also look at things. I think I had this opportunity living out in Colorado where there were irregular properties that had challenges of development. And quite frankly, I was really excited when the developer was going to bring the first proposal through, but it was rather disappointing when I saw that the plans were old, generic, and and quite frankly underwhelming. Um, I look at like a modern vision of we have the residential opportunity. There's a lot of reasons why the residential works here, but then we think about green space and I would love to see the non-residential areas turned to green space. I think we could have our current retail thrive. I think we could now not have to write $20 million plus in in payback checks to the developer the way this is tracking for the tiff and we could have a city-owned green space. That's what I look at as a modern vision for this

community that would really fit the character and be a community enhancement and I think you'd see a lot of people backing that. to close. Um, I did spend time when I lived out in Colorado on planning, so I understand your position. I appreciate your position. I was at the county level. I think we there's some great expertise here that really understands nuances and details, but we also have to look at this thing outside the boundaries. I think sometimes these presentations get hung up in talking too much about all the details and we forget about the impact a quarter mile, half mile by a mile out on the community. And that was really the most disappointing part that I saw through the whole negotiation of the concept plan. The developer itself, I trust the developer to do a nice job. It's their asset. They're their outcomes based. They're going to make it happen. But the developer does not have much of a care about what happens outside the boundaries. And I want everybody to understand that this development has the potential for a cost tax burden, a traffic increase, a noise increase, and a crime increase. All those things are set to occur. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Scott.

Anyone else? If there are no further public comments, we'll turn the discussion back up here. Thank you. If could I could I speak to something just momentarily? I'm wondering if perhaps u Mr. Huff would like to win as well because it sounds like there may be some um concerns about transparency and what can and can't be spoken about publicly. And so I and other commissioners have been cautioned to speak very carefully about pending litigation. It's in the interest of the city. Um, so all I will say is that the litigation is about two specific issues. It's about a protest petition and a right of referendum. And that is not the topic before us tonight. That is why I am here and able to speak and able to consider this. As Mr. Huff said earlier, um, the developers are taking a risk in bringing this before us. If that litigation results in a judge saying that um the developers do not have rights to proceed, they will have um wasted their own time, effort, money as well as ours. What um so I just wanted to be very clear on what I am speaking to and what I'm not speaking to. I will not be speaking about the um heart of the matter of the litigation. I will be speaking to to the extent I speak about what's in this packet which could be irrelevant in the future. That's all.

Thank you, Laura. I appreciate that. Uh I let me add to that that um Commissioner Schwarz is correct. Um the lawsuit does not challenge the preliminary site plan approval. It does not challenge a substance of the project. Instead, it challenges two causes of action, the protest petition and the right of referendum. And that is those two subjects are not being discussed tonight by this commission nor should they be discussed by this commission at any point.

Thank you. I I wonder, you know, like I live on love it, you know, the whole concept of that being a green space, public, you know, a public space, you know, I think is appealing to a lot of the residents, but I wonder if the developer would want to comment on the practicality of that. You're an owner of that space. You pay taxes on that space. you know, the the residents who would argue that that should be public property, green space. I'm wondering if you have any comments on that and it's fine if you don't.

Staff, is that okay for them to respond? What's your thought? I think I think it's up to them. They don't have to. I'm not I'll try. I'm not sure I understand the question. You you own that property. You know, I think a lot of res talking about the phase that's in front of us or we talking about something. Let's talk about this phase. Like I think a lot of residents feel like this is, you know, community property that we're we live in East Grand Rapids and and we should have a right to decide, you know, what's in that property. I heard someone mention green space. Um just the practicalities of that being green space. Do you have any comments or

I I guess I don't relative to that comment. I mean, we we're we're blessed living here with lots of parks and green space and trails. So, I don't think you need to have green space next to the green space. Um we've got two parks right across the street. Um beautiful lakes and and uh and our path. So, I think the idea of what we're doing is, you know, very clearly this is private property. Um but we're trying to develop consistent with what we just got approved. Um and uh we're we're addressing the uses just like what we do with anything. You know, what are the needs of the community u you know from an investment side that we're going to address with our you know with our investment. So, um I think we uh as part of the overall project that connectivity was important um and and we're certainly willing to address that and we have um we we signed the uh preliminary site plan approval agreement and I think we all know what was was in that and what was a part of that. Um, this is a phase. Um, and it was, uh, kind of to your earlier question, it was very much anticipated even when our original was, it was a phase and we were allowed to to do this in phases. So, we're trying to address this, um, start here and, uh, um, but yes, uh, along we have a walkable community and we're trying to reinforce that and I think these urban edges and what we're trying to do and and that's just a term, right? you know, that's proximity to homes to the to the uh to the infrastructure um is is is great. I mean, I love that that type of thing. I love the walkability of our community. So, we're trying to reinforce that and give more units. Um the other thing we're doing is we're even trying to now are these inexpensive? No, these are these are market rate product, but there are three different types of market rate product and that was intentional. So, the town homes uh along Lakeside are larger um you know,

probably in the luxury category. Uh the uh the the the town homes that go up the uh the urban sidewalk uh and the connectivity throughout the project is a different product. It's a little smaller. Um you know, I I happen to love those buildings. Um you know, kind of a hip urban edge. It will be a certain type of buyer. Um and uh um and then the building F uh being a little more vertical, smaller units, one, twos, and threes. Um again, a different type of buyer. Uh and so we're trying to address all three of those uh with what we were addressing in the first phase. But in terms of uh you know, green space, per se, no, I think we have lots of that. And I think we need to have good landscaping and good aesthetic. in in the 20 or so years that you've owned that property, has a community group, has the community ever come to you with a uh proposal to buy that property to convert it into a green space?

No, but it's never been for sale. So, I in fairness, but no, the answer is no. But we've never looked to sell this. Okay. So,

anyone else have a question for Scott while he's up? No. Thank you. Thank you. Just a process question. So, as I understand it, our options tonight if if to move this forward, we would recommend that this would go to a public hearing with conditions, right? That is the

Jay, would you reiterate those steps? So the only official decision that you might be estimated on is to set a public hearing. Um you know again we're not really asking for conditions at this point but certainly you know any comments feedback that you give will be taken by us and by the developer um to make revisions as they see fit and present whenever the public hearing is h is scheduled. It's the oppos.

So so the question I think the feed the feedback that Mr. Corby was looking for earlier is do you like it or not? I mean, is this kind of fundamental as that? Is the um um what's been presented? This is the first time you've seen the architecture. Um is it something that um you know something that as the planning commission you're looking at going yes, no, uh org we have concerns or all the above. So um so there is that kind of a process here. Again this is the first time you've seen ar actual architecture um on these buildings. So your opportunity to opine on this and I think and correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Corby that kind of feedback of are we on track and and whatnot

or we can ask for additional information or revision. Y let's start discussion.

I I guess I do have a question for the property owner. um we know or for Mr. Corby, we So, I've got this. I realize you don't have it up on your screen, but I have the like the phase one site plan on my screen. Um, and I and there's the common walk path that we've talked about a few times. Perfect. Thanks. Uh, right along here. And then we talked about how, you know, someday that connects all the way through and we've got ourselves uh this great pathway through the development, but for now, we're basically saying to people that you can I'm drawing I'm drawing circles. Cool. We're we're basically telling people you can kind of meander through the driveway and get yourself out to the other. That's the that's the approach for now. Is that what you're proposing?

Yeah. I mean I obviously I understand your question very clearly. Um we present the first phase. That's the only thing we're addressing. We're trying to to match exactly what will happen in the future. But phase the the additional area where B and C and the uh incubator uh area are aren't being developed and they're actually used for parking. So, it has a current use that's going on. And so, um, that would also get completely disrupted, uh, if we were to put in some temporary thing because one, it would eliminate all those spaces, uh, along that west side, but it' also have to get ripped out, um, because when we build the buildings, they would that that all within that area. Yeah. Okay.

So, it is kind of like, you know, kind of that sidewalk to nowhere. Understood. Um it's it's significantly better than it is today. Um and that's not always the right answer, but it it uh it does start the process. It gets people up into the site. Um and for now, will there still be gated parking in this? The intent is to control it the same way. Yeah. Accessed from down here maybe. Where how do they how it's the only difference if you think of it that way is right now they would kind of curl in and go out our property along in front of where G is. Yep. They're just going out this way now. So, being gated, it's not changing the traffic flow or the intensity or anything. The way it is today is the way it is today. Okay.

Is there actually a physical space for like a cyclist uh or somebody on another mobility device to get through the gate? You know what I'm saying? There I ride there all the time actually. Uh right. Kind of. Um, it's gated. So, um, there is, you know, you can't drive a car because it's gated, but yes, I walk through there every single day. And somebody can cycle through there right now. It's wide enough. The gate doesn't go all the way. Nope. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Questions, comments, discussion? Want me to start? Sure. I'll dive right in. Sure. Appreciate that.

All right. Mike, I'm going to answer your question that you had before you left the podium before. I like the design. It looks good. Thank you. Um, your team did a good job. But few few comments. Um, a lot of these, Mike, are just for the next time you come. Um, please make sure the renderings in the landscape plan align. Um, I've noticed that you have extra trees in the renderings and uh, while that hides things, if it's not in the landscape plan, then um, they don't exist. So, it'd be great if you could make those match. Um, and and I know you're aware of this, Mike. Um, electrical meters, water meters, gas meters, where are those going to be? How are those going to be dealt with? Just make sure that you address that next time you come cuz that's going to be extremely important to me. Uh, same with condenser locations. they're all going to be on the roof, then it's not a big deal. Um, venting for furnaces, etc., are those going to be horizontal, or are they going to go vertical? Again, just make sure that that's addressed next time. Um, building F is an enclosed parking garage, which does require circulation. So, where's the vents for that, and how is that going to be accommodated? Um, cuz that's obviously a feature that we're going to have to see. So, I I want to see it in the building. um finishes. I know it's a stone like woodlike. Uh the next time you're here, I'd like like to actually know what that's going to be. Um you have concrete finish on some of the planters. What is that finish? How's that going to be dealt with? I would like more information on that. Um balcony materials, just details, just more stuff. Um, I I don't think I need to tell you everything because you and I speak the same language. Um,

other than that, I do I am not totally comfortable with the first floor of F. Um, and I'd like to kind of open this up to the commission, too, and how they feel about it with that masonry wall on the on the south side. Um, and with the lobby, the lobby's focused mostly to the northwest. Um, I guess I would just like to see some something more there. Um, I understand you're doing your best. You have uh masonry. Uh, you're trying to you're trying to modulate it, which is great, but is there any more you can do maybe with planter boxes or something? I I I don't know. um to break it up more uh cuz for that first 10 feet or so it's just a solid wall um along the entire southside and that it's not the most welcoming thing. Um another thing too I guess is just connectivity from especially building F to DNW to the future development. It kind of turns us back to it. So if I'm living there I have to go north to go south. I don't know if there's any way to is there a back door that they can, you know, I want to encourage people in building F to go to the south as opposed to having to go north and then wrap around.

Can I speak? Yeah, please. Yeah, I mentioned briefly there is a way to get east through building F to a stairway that leads to the south. Yeah. No, I see that. I see it on the on the on the on the uh east side there. That little passageway. You have to go east and then you can go south. But you don't have to go north. We have to go north out the door. Then you have to go east and then you go south. Yeah. You you can come to the lobby and go right. There's a way there's a there'll be a doorway here. You can go right to that and then go out. So, you won't have to go north and then loop around if that's what I think you're referring to.

Greg, are you saying you want to go out of the parking deck straight? Is there an opportunity for me to go? Right now, it looks like the only way I can go out is through the lobby or the stairway on the north side. Those are my two options to exit the building. Elevated units. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I see. So, so I'm leaving on the north side of the building regardless and then I have to do this long walk to get to

you either come down the stair here and you go out that way or you come down the lobby and you go that way. So, if you're headed this way, you're going to be going the only the the main circulation area is on the west. So, you would have to you would have to go through the parking lot to get to that stairway, but just asking you to look at it. Yeah. Um, and even the lobby, can I can I go south out of the lobby? Is there any possibility? I don't I understand I understand what you have and why that's that answer right now is no, Greg. I can't do that. Just because of grades basically it's starting to ramp up mail room and kind of the stuff for the residents in that lobby area.

But Scott, you know, anything and everything can change and move. That's what that's what we do for a living. I think we just we saw problems have feedback on if you have ideas on that open open to that idea if if Mike pays me maybe um yeah other that that's the only thing just south the south face of that main floor it's it's

it's solid it's a solid wall. Um we've we've looked at maybe we wrapped some of the transparency around. So we we've got some things to kind of address that, but it is the this small part of the site has got so much so many challenges with grades and the town homes. It's easy obviously to resolve because we can step them. But I think we've we've really looked at building F pretty intently to try to make sure that we can we we played out that scenario. if you're living here and you want to go to to gaslight, um how do you do that? That's that's what kind of precipitated that stairway there so that you come out, you've got the ability to not have to go necessarily around the building. So, um

earlier version, we had that being more open, meaning it was, you know, then we decided it probably be better to have climate uh controlled spaces in there. So, at one point it was more of an open understood. As a pedestrian, they'll walk in on that sidewalk. It's It's a big solid masonry wall and I don't like walking along big solid masonry walls. Um, so all I'm saying is please keep make it less boring. Don't don't assume this is a final thing. It may be, but don't assume it is. Please keep playing with it. That's

Brent and village. Don't you have some metal gridward work type screening or like trellis and don't you have some different things to give it a little architectural interest or columner plantings?

We've got plantings along the south. We've actually added some canopy trees in here. They're not as visible through in this plan, but we've we've tried to address the the streetscape and it's it's not unusual in these environments where you've got some situations where you don't have all storefronts open. So making sure that edge is there I think is important for walkability. Getting some canopy there is important for walkability but you know um again we've got the slope so that creates some challenges alone and and because building up is more of a stacked unit. So we we'll look at it. Can you break up that wall instead of all being the same texture and color break it up that way? We actually have the if you look in the elevations, we

a lot of times in a mid-century modern uh application, you'd see just a continuous texture. We actually took some of the we propagated some of the detailing from above down so it breaks up the wall. Thank you,

Jay. I'm sure we have more discussion. I have a couple of thoughts. Uh earlier uh Greg mentioned uh bicycle parking and you responded that you feel they they could uh in building F they could park their bicycles in the garage, but that was seemed like you it wasn't you weren't 100% sure about that. So maybe if we coming back, you know, make sure that that's clear that they would be able to covered. Yeah, I I thought Greg was referring to um

resident. We're talking about resident bicycle parking which would not be outside that it it would be secure correct or covered long-term bike parking, right, for the residents. Yes. And that was also a reason why we decided to condition the parking so that if people we we gave them storage areas so we made the the building's wide enough that you've got enough room for your car and then enough room for storage um basically in front of your car. And that storage, what would the the design of that storage be? would that would be like a cage or something that would actually protect the Yeah, we haven't even gotten into that level of detail yet, but just enough room there. You've got So, you've got the width of your parking space in about four feet.

But for for it to be long-term secure bicycle parking for the residents, it would need to be some type of uh layout, right? Such as a cage or something that would actually provide security for them. Well, the entire garage is secure. So, if you aren't if you don't have access into the garage, then you you wouldn't be able to get in there. So, it's, you know, I live downtown. It's the same thing with with my building. Nobody can get into my garage besides the me or my other residents. The other residents. Yeah. Um Okay. And then visitor bicycle parking. You mentioned by the lobby entrance there could be some racks for visitors. Correct.

And um I'm hoping that those would comply with the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professional Standards, APBP. Yes. So there would be a place to support the bike frame in two places and uh I don't think we have that requirement in in uh East Grand Rapid Jet in our under our zoning. We we can show the actual um device. So

then I was also wondering about visitor parking for um H andG again BI when I say bicycle I also mean other microobility devices right so I could just picture a lot of traffic going back and forth from throughout it's a you know the community will be uh you know people leaving here you know walking and cycling and using other micro devices and people arriving here so it's kind of a back and forth I can just see this being a real kind of u having a lifestyle where that that kind of thing is happening right a lot. So um the idea of visitor parking for psych bicycles or micromobility devices of other kinds where do where do you think that um those folks could park for like G and H they're visiting their friends there?

If it's somebody visiting I'm I'm going to guess they're going to probably put their bike in the back or something. Yeah. They're not going to put their bike on the on the front porch. So that that's very count town homes. You typically aren't providing additional storage of bikes out in front. But so I would I do agree with you. We do have some room um you know in here for so if we need to provide some additional parks bike storage. Just think about that. Yeah. When you come back. And then another thing the um sidewalk along shopping center and lakeside. We talked about a little bit of that earlier but uh the standard is five feet the standard.

Correct. And I'm wondering if uh because this will be such an it already is such an active area, right, with pedestrian and uh activity that uh maybe maybe we could think about six feet or 7 feet or 8t something that's a little a little more generous given the nature of of this area. Such a extremely active area for walking and running and cycling. Again, I don't know the mechanism for that what would be, but it's something I'd really like to see evaluated, please. That's all I have, Laura.

Okay. Um, just a just a couple things. Um, I do really like the three categories of of types of residences. I think that's a really good idea. I think it serves our community well. Um and and hopefully it shifts some demand in existing neighborhoods um so that uh we just have different options for everybody. I I think it's good. Um I would for next time um I would like to have more thought on the dedicated parking question that I had. If you guys could think about how that might play out if um folks in building F need to have like reserve spots. Um, and then on the finishes, um, this is a, you know, I like the mix of brick of brick and wood. I think the mid-century design plays well with the neighbors, um, the nod to the original building there. So, it looks to me like G and H have a little bit more of like traditional materials and the the brick, like it looks like a more standard brick. Is that right? Those town homes.

Yeah. Yeah. Um, so and then it looks like F is a little bit more modern and and personally I like all of that. What I'm thinking about is the next step of C and D and wondering if you have thought about this at all. You know, we have like buildings A and B that are existing a bit more like traditional brick and then we have this being a different vibe altogether. So, what happens in those middle buildings and how do we make it make sense?

Um, the short answer is you'll see, but we've thought we've thought we've thought about that already. So, uh, you know, working for Scott, you can't help but start to explore architecture. So, um, we're excited about unveiling those when the time is right. But I think there is a consistency which you mentioned. You know, the buildings A and B have a lot of brick. They have some metal accents. um they've got some detail to them. You know, we're talking about uh a similar pallet, maybe in a more um modern um you know, direction, but the pallet it's got some similarities in a sense. So, um I think the the idea was that uh the new phases will still have some personality. And I think uh um I'm actually not joking when I say we're excited to to show you building C and D when when the time is right because they are I think um I think they're going to bridge uh between uh the the two phases A and B and and this phase very well.

Okay. I think we're open to it anytime you want to share those. Okay. I'll check with the boss. That was my only comment. Okay. What are everyone's thoughts? Are we generally favorable want to consider a vote to set a public hearing or this thoughts?

Yeah, I mean I think we've all laid out some things that we'd like to see teased out. I don't know if the my my concern would be I don't want to call for a public hearing and have that happen before they're able to consider all of our comments and come with something that's more ready for public discussion. Doug, you want to address that? I guess I'll defer to Yep. They're saying they can. So, um and just a reminder, too, the at the public hearing for some reason everything's not there uh for for action. You of course there doesn't have to be a vote at that meeting. That's just the the formal requirement. So by setting that at next month's meeting, even if at that meeting if you feel ready to go, you can. And if you don't, we can continue as well.

Yeah. I just want to make sure we have public discussion about something that's as close to what we're talking about as we can. I think we're comfortable that the time frame uh to to to make those type of changes, all of these topics are things we've been talking about for the last five months. So, we're we're nothing's surprising us. Um everything was intentional, but obviously we want your feedback and I think that's what we're trying to get. So, okay, Doug, from a process perspective, um if we do a public hearing next time and just whenever we approve it, it goes to the city commission next. Does it ever come back to the planning commission? Not this phase. Okay. Got it. Phase two would or would just Okay. the phase one.

So that that is whenever it leaves the planning commission, that is our time to talk about materiality, flow, traffic, all those things. Got it. Okay. I would be in favor of suggesting a public hearing. I think, you know, I think these guys have heard, we've said our comments and I don't think we need I mean, they've heard it. If they don't address it, then that's on them. And u I would agree with Commissioner Mitchell. I'm not sure what else we I mean we've said what we are interested in. We will see it at a public hearing when we can actually respond to it and I don't know what else we would be waiting for other than answers to the questions we've posed.

Exactly. Wouldn't it be nice though for the public to for us to have more of a um see the kind of maybe there'll be some revisions and some tweaks that then it would come back to us for us to review and then uh um you know that the public hearing will be relative to to an a more uh you know a reversion of this that that would reflect right our concerns we brought brought up or or don't we see don't you see a problem with that? Let me clar the public hearing is here right planning commission public.

So um we have a a practice in East Grand Rapids of allowing public comment and public in the same as a public hearing anyway. In many other jurisdictions, they might not even offer the public any comment for like a meeting like this evening. It's strictly for the planning commission to work with uh amongst staff um consultants and the developer. Uh so we already have a practice of being very open and uh collaborative with the public. Um so the formal public hearing is a requirement as part of the process to call it a formal public hearing. However, every meeting we take public comment um anyway. So, um, just because we have the formal public hearing at the next meeting does not require approval at that meeting or vote up or down. Um, it's when you're whenever you're ready.

And how do we notice that? Does that go on like the water mailers like that kind of stuff? We use all of our platforms for for those types of things. So, it's it's typically in mail um with water and sewer bills, uh, social media, uh, website, um, uh, East Express, e newswsletters, those types of things. So, we try a variety of our of our different platforms to get that out. Um, we know that people are inundated with information, so sometimes um it's challenging, but we use every platform at our disposal uh to try to get the word out as best we can. This isn't the 300 foot radius notice.

Well, for this for this project, as a reminder, we've requested a 1,000 foot radius. You requested a 10,000 foot radius for notices for this project, which is what we've honored in the past for this project. It's which which ex exceeds the state law requirement. Yeah. But then also are we like kind of exceeding that also by doing the mailers and the social media. Correct. Yes. We've never had a practice of meeting the bare minimum for anything. Um it's both. Correct. Okay.

So in our the next packet, right, that would be that would go out and the public would be able to see that. And how would that look different than this tonight? how it would be. The developer would try to accommodate our comments, but we've also had a a variety of potential conditions, right? There were some suggested before tonight, but then there's there may be some other potential conditions that have been you guys similar to to other types of development. Uh again, you would see uh refinements u from a recent middle by the developer and and their team. Um you would see additional analysis based off of comments and suggestions this evening from staff and consultants um including um more refinement on potential um conditions of approval that would go

some more suggested conditions and yes and so forth. So the public would have a chance to review that and then we would also be reviewing it to see if we feel like you you know our concerns were captured. You don't see a sequence issue there, right? It's just getting more information from more feedback from the public. Yep. And then we'll react to it and the public will react to that. Correct. And and you're ready when when you're all ready. That's up to you guys. So it's not a one and done. It's a one and maybe. Correct. Right.

Yep. My my suggestion is for the um for the public is you and I've been other uh you know with the concept plan where you know we spend a lot of time asking questions and pontificating and and that sort of thing but the public you know had to wait for a a while like it'd be nice to just let the public you know have an opportunity to kind of weigh in as as soon as possible you know for that public hearing rather rather than, you know, spend, as an example, an hour and a half or two hours asking questions. So, we've done that occasionally. We switched it up.

I was going to say, having sat through a few of these, I think there's pros and cons to both. I know I think if maybe we want to, you know, we staff can talk about it, but like limit the presentation time. Um, but I think it's always helpful to do have some sort of info sharing from up here before public comment just in case it answers some questions that people might have brought. I I think that's good. But, you know, I've seen, you know, hearings where it's been an hour and a half before public. I've been in Yeah, I can think of one in particular. So, I I just think in fairness to the public that, you know, keep

I agree with you. I I agree with you. I just don't want to like do away with any amount of presentation before comment. So, great. And I think I would just add to with our communications, we do uh for those that are not able to attend the meeting but want to be heard, you know, we do provide our input at eastgrum.org um to um so that's just another way for for folks who maybe are unavailable when there's the public hearing. U we can make sure we add that in our communications as we've done with other topics too. So if they're just not be able to be here for whatever those reasons are, they can still be heard. Make a motion.

Would someone like to make a motion regarding a vote to start a public hearing? Uh I'll say that one more time. So I'm making a motion to set a date for a public hearing. For us to vote on Okay. To vote on to set a public hearing. Second for or what? So let let's let's amend that to u make that for our next regular PC meeting which is June 9th 2026. You guys can be ready by then. So we had a a motion and a second. Who is the Who is the second? I I don't know. I thought Okay. Okay. We have Mitchell and Mets.

Any further discussion? All those in favor of having a public hearing at the June 9 um planning commission meeting say yes. Yes. Yes. Oppos say no. Motion carries. We look forward to seeing the updates that you do. Thanks everyone. Next on the agenda is a city report of the city commission by Commissioner Schwarz.

Thank you. Um, so two two big topics. Um, we passed a U mobility ordinance. So that now um covers things like, you know, you have to wear a helmet if you're under 18 and on a a mobility device. Um, prohibiting the use of mo mobility devices in the Gas Light Village area. So park it or walk it. Um, you know, riders on a mobility device. You're limited to the number of riders that the device is meant for. Um I can't summarize all of them. I don't know Shay if you want to jump in on that, but that goes into effect I believe tomorrow.

Yeah. Uh I believe um the effective date is going to be tomorrow. Um again as Commissioner Schwarz noted this was for micromobility devices, ecooters, ebikes, etc. Um with the evolution of technology, we had a gap in our existing bicycle ordinance. So we've updated that. Um, as the commissioner noted that um, and this is actually a provision of state law that we're allowed to require people to walk their devices within downtown areas um, for us Gas Light Village. So, we actually have signage that prohibits uh, bike riding or you sometimes sidewalks.

Yeah, on the sidewalks. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes. On the sidewalks. Um but um we are in the process of securing some additional uh new signage uh to account for the microobility devices. Um this is a three-phased approach that we're or three-pronged approach I should say. First is setting the regulatory structure. We're now moving into the education phase and enforcement. We are going to take a u positive reinforcement approach this summer. Uh all I think all of you have seen our bike cadetses that we have during the summer. that's going to be a focus for them um during the summer to um help um promote appropriate behavior. We are working with the schools on uh providing for educational opportunities um with them. We're still fine-tuning that. Um we have scheduled or will have in June a new updated um educational video that we'll share with the public, the schools, etc. So we are um taking this kind of three-prong approach to um um ensure that everybody has a safe environment.

Can I ask a quick question on the uh micro is an ordinance you said micro so how does it differentiate between like class one ebikes and e motorcycles and those because those are lots of both of those obviously out there right now. Yeah. Part of that is dictated by state law. Uh and so you're required to be licensed under state law. You would not be under this ordinance. So I can the numbers straight on the on the class bicycles, but that and there's also some um speed limit things that were relevant to it. So things that are capable of going over those speeds are not going to be regulated by this ordinance.

And we didn't get into the the difference between class one, class 2, etc. It's more of your behavior needs to adhere to these standards. And as it comes to the speeding question is I think speeds must be deemed appropriate. Right? There's Attorney something I bet you. Yeah, we we took large

large chunks of this ordinance from the city of Grand Rapids. We spent a lot of time on theirs. And the problem you have, Brian, as you well know, is this is such a volatile area. The minute you start putting numbers in, the ordinance is out of date, you know, a month later because they've got new classifications, they got new power levels, and so forth. And so what we're trying to do with the best we can and and encourage people, as Shay said, to to be courteous and careful. And um that's really what we're aiming at.

I uh for quite a while, uh maybe even a couple decades, uh the riding the bike was not allowed by ordinance on the sidewalks, but it wasn't signed prop, you know, as far as I can recall. And I appreciate when the signs went up, they were instead of just being like a red circle with a bike with a D line for it's kind of a very polite message, you know, to please walk your bikes. So, we we love to have um you ride your bikes to Gas Light Village and and to to bring your bikes down here and to even have your bikes on the side, but just just walk them while you're on the sidewalk. And I I appreciated the tone of the signs that went up um when when you those the latest version or maybe they were the first ones in a long time or maybe you have some thoughts.

Yeah, those were the first ones in a long time and we have we have some revised ones I think you'll like even more I hope. Fantastic. Uh should be I think we'll have them uh installed next week. The old those old school signs are pretty negative, you know. Sure. Yeah. Is it only restricted in the central business district? Correct. Correct. So they can people can ride ebikes on sidewalks elsewhere. Correct. Correct. There uh I guess over time maybe there may be additional areas here or there that might be added. Right. That's a possibility. Right. Yep. This is the the first step. You know it's been what's the traditional location but it may be appropriate to review. Are you adding bike racks like on the perimeter of

we do and that'll be part of the messaging piece um to give us sort of a preview into the signage. will have uh messaging that talks about um park or walk your wheels, those types of things, and we'll make sure that those that those locations that we have racks in close proximity. All right, any other questions on that one? Okay, the second item um is the um the proposed potential parking deck. I don't know if everybody has heard about this in in some form.

Um, but this came about as a result of the schools doing their renovation project and we're talking about the lot on on Bagley. Um, given given their needs with the new construction and things that they thought they might be able to do in the initial plans not being able to pan out, the discussion turned to putting a parking deck on Bagley, a a twostory deck. This is like so abbreviated, but um the twotory deck would basically um accommodate their existing or it would equal their existing parking capacity combined with the other lots that will exist after renovation. So, um conversation came to the city to say, "Hey, if we're building this parking garage, um do you want to go in on it? Is there is there room for collaboration here?" So, we've been talking for months um conceptually about what that might look like. And right now, the sort of recommendation of sorts coming out of the subcommittee of uh city folks and school folks was let's see if a three-story deck makes sense. Um and so that could be open to the public throughout the day. Um accommodate the school parking needs for, you know, kids as well as teachers. I don't know exactly what that mix would be. It's so early in the discussion. Um and the the conversation would be how you know do do we want this? And as we've talked in the past, you know, we we have this these studies that say, hey, we have enough parking in gaslight. But if you're um lazy like me, you feel like a lot of times there isn't enough parking. And that's um something that's teased out in in these conversation was okay a lot of people in East would prefer a level sorry I always block you out um prefer like a level of service day and um rather than having to walk you know

whether you're parking in my neighborhood or parking along Lakeside wherever. So if we were to put in this parking deck um a three-story parking deck what would that give us? And that could give us the level of service a that a lot of folks are um wanting to see. You know, it's a little extra capacity for sporting events. It pulls hopefully some cars off the road that might be circling a bunch of times. It's it's an opportunity. It's not a it's not a mustave, I don't think. Um but it's an opportunity. So, what we're looking to do is set up some public engagement sessions to see what the public's appetite for this would be because it does require us taking on debt. Um, this is something that I think the majority of city commission I think would be um comfortable only doing through a a debt millage, not like trying to pay for it with existing funds or, you know, shift shift around things. There's still a lot of unknowns, but that the idea would be that um potentially if we felt comfortable enough by the beginning of August as a city commission, that's the timing that would be required to put it on the ballot as a question to the public in November. And that timing would keep the schedule on track for construction to provide the lease disruption. Doesn't mean that has to be our timeline. um doesn't mean we'll actually put it on um the ballot, but just to give an idea of where we are in this in this conversation, if you've heard about it or if you haven't and and what might be coming and I believe Mr. Charles has an update on perhaps public engagement sessions.

So, we've identified uh three specific dates, May 27th, June 23rd, July 22nd. Um we started our social media push today. the schools um shared those dates with their parents um also today. So we're words getting out in regards to that. The approach that we're taking based on feedback is May 27th is kind of why are we even having this conversation? Why deck? What did you look at? Things of that nature. Coming back then on the 23rd with um design ideas, options, what it would look like, things of that nature. also addressing some feasibility questions, looking at some challenges that have already been identified um by transitioning from a service lot to a deck. And then July 22nd, we're targeting to have kind of a okay, this is what we're talking about, uh type community conversation with the community. Um that said, uh the city and schools have agreed to split the cost on some um design work that's needed to get this um to that final point. So, it's about $180,000 worth of design work that we'll be incurring. Um, if at some point during that design process, a fatal flaw or something comes up that this isn't going to be this isn't a great idea or something arises, um, the um the professionals that have been engaged, this is done on a time and material contract. So basically if we get to 4 weeks from now we suddenly find something that oh this this won't work we can um shift gears and look at other solutions. So um separate from that um city commission's requested uh some additional conversation around parking the entire parking system um not just how this deck would look um but how do we handle all things parking around Gaslight Village. Commissioner noted we have a ton of data, lots of counts um

that um we'll be able to share with the commission. We'll be engaging some some of our professionals. Mr. Zol will probably be part of that conversation talking about shared parking environments. Um parking for a downtown is very different than parking out um on 28th AB in front of your favorite restaurant. So there are um so having that conversation to help um um help the commission understand kind of the total picture in regards to that and then the financing conversation also um what are those opportunities do we um um if there's not a millage what would it look like things of that nature and we'll have that conversation with the commission.

Thank you. Sounds like a question. He told Bill school uh school district property, right? That would not be subject to local zoning. So, it would not in no way would any part of that come to the planning commission. So, correct. Technically, for better or worse. Yeah. Now, we did have a lot of uh good feedback on the on the blotch site parking deck. Some good good design suggestions came from this group. Um I think the the message I don't back up a step the design engineers um that have been engaged actually were the ones who worked on the blog campus so they know what we're going to be asking for

and as the the conversation happens at city commission you all are very welcome to come comment email reach out to me we can grab coffee whatever the shuttle buses that are going around that's all due to the the construction correct Correct. Okay. All right. This That's temporary though, right? Correct. That's all for me. Anything else from staff? Go down my street. Our next regular commission meeting will be June 9th. And next is adjournment. All those in favor say yes. Oppos say no. Meeting adjourned. Thank you everyone.

Did we get a motion? I moved. We second. Okay. All right. We got it. Cool. Don't worry about I'll be in Europe in June. So I I will be in Europe for June. So I won't be here in Europe for the month. Wow. Like three months most. My daughter's on study abroad. We just dropped her off this weekend. She's in Paris. Everybody Grand Valley