Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's my seat. Oh, that's your seat. Yeah, so it's sitting.

No, no, it's fine. It's like, whoa.

Yeah, no, I have that.

It's like, how in the world, right?

I sort of, you know, like, changed my mood.

In case we have a glitch.

It's not doing good.

You laugh at me with all my stuff, I'll spread it out.

You are ready.

You are prepared. Time flies.

Definitely a quality of life. I mean, quality of life.

Welcome, everyone. It's 5.30 and time to start, believe it or not, our last meeting of the fiscal year. I don't know about you, but the year has flown by. We'll begin with standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Will you please join us?

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 everyone. 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. Thank you, agenda is set. Next on the agenda is approval of the minutes for the May 12th, 2026 meeting. Thank you for the staff for preparing these. These were kind of lengthy this month, so thank you. Are there any additions or corrections? If not, may I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes?

Motion to approve the minutes as written. Second.

All those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed say no. Minutes are approved. Thank you. Next on the agenda tonight is public comment on non-agenda items. Please keep in mind, if you're here to talk about Gaslight Investors, we'll have time for that later in the evening, but right now it's for non-agenda items. Please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record, and address your comments to the commissioners, and please limit your comments to three minutes. Thank you. No comments? Hearing none, we'll move on to the next part of the meeting. Thank you. Tonight we'll have a public hearing for the planned unit development phase one, final phase for 515 Lakeside Drive Southeast by Gaslight Investors. Mike Roth, do you have an update for us first?

I do. Thank you.

Everyone, Mike Roth is on the city attorney's team. Thank you. Yeah.

I'm the attorney primarily handling the litigation that's been filed against the city. And I want to give an update that could help provide some context to tonight's proceedings. First of all, I'd like to address why are we here and why are we proceeding with this hearing? And I want to clarify that the existence and the filing of the lawsuit does not in and of itself serve as a stay for the developers request that the Planning Commission consider its final PUD plan. There is no stay provided for under city ordinance, nor is there a stay provided for under Michigan statutory or case law. So there's no legal basis to stay moving forward with this proceeding. Moreover, the lawsuit itself does not address the specifics of the final plan that is in front of you tonight. the lawsuit is rather narrow and constrained in what its scope is. And what the lawsuit deals with is whether the city properly handled two different petitions that were submitted to the city. So it's more of a procedural issue than it is an issue relating to the specifics of this plan. And we are navigating through the Kent County Circuit Court on those issues right now. We are in the middle of a process called discovery. Discovery is going to continue at least through August 26th of this year. At the end of discovery, we anticipate that one or more parties will file dispositive motions with the court. Well, they'll say to the court, these are the facts and based on these facts, when you apply it to the law, we win and this is why. The deadline for those motions is September 16th of 2026. And we anticipate the court Conducting hearing hearings and ruling on that motion beginning in on those motions beginning probably in October So that's that's the timeline for the case. I would also note That the request from the developer came in while the lawsuit was pending and while there was no obligation for my office to advise the plaintiffs group in the underlying lawsuit of the developers request I did pick up the phone and I did notify plaintiff's counsel because I felt that transparency was important. And I advised plaintiff's counsel with a proviso that you can take action if you want to try to stop this. I'll leave it up to you. That's not up to the city. And for what is apparently the case, the plaintiffs decided not to take any action in response to us advising them that the developer wanted to proceed with this hearing. So that is the reason why we are here today. Any further questions?

Thank you, Mike. Anyone have any questions up here for Mike? Thank you, Mike.

Thank you.

Next, we'll begin with an introduction and presentation by Zoning Administrator Jay Gianotti. After that, we'll hear from the developer and then have initial Planning Commissioner comments before the public hearing comments. Jay, you're up.

thank you madam chair and commissioners so tonight we are here after the explanation for mr roth for the formal public hearing for phase one of the guest side investors planning and development final plan this was introduced at our last meeting last in may This is a reminder overview. I'll leave most of the nitty-gritty details to the applicants to go into more details about the design. But just to give an overview of what we're talking about again, we're talking about phase one, which is more or less confined to the 515 lakeside parcel. It would be entirely residential in nature with 40 residential units housed in three different buildings and supporting parking, landscaping, and other amenities provided within that of those areas. At the last meeting, I know I did a very brief summary of what the standards of review would look like at that point in time. The applicants have made some minor revisions to certain details of this plan. However, as you notice, the plan as a whole, at least in terms of the site layout, is essentially the same as it was last month when this was introduced. That being said, with the new information we've received and having more time to digest everything, we have prepared more formal analysis of our opinion about the standards of review. I'll try and go through those as quickly as I can. in terms of whether the city feels they are met, could be met, or if there's more information that may be necessary in certain cases. First off, if the site plan must comply with all the standards of the zoning ordinance and all applicable requirements, this one we feel is met. Looking at the plan as a whole, it generally conforms to the layout and function of the concept plan that was approved last October. In terms of the buildings themselves, the design, layout, size of them, and heights of them, Again, generally conform to what was in the approved concept plan. To take some examples, this is Building F, which is the four-story building on the south side of this phase. That was allowed to be up to four stories tall and 57 feet in height. As designed here, this building meets those standards. Building G, which is the building on the east side, this is allowed to be up to three stories in height and up to 35 feet 8 inches. Viewed from the rear, because this is the part of the building that would be built into the hillside on the east side, this would still, we feel, meet the 35-foot maximum that was allowed for this area. And building H, this is broken up into two parts just because of how long this building is. But this is the building on the north side of the property. Again, looking at the rear and based on how the building has stepped from top to bottom, our analysis finds that this building would meet the height requirements set out in the PUD agreement and the approved PUD concept plan. There's also several conditions that were proposed by the Planning Commission. There's a table in your memo materials that goes over this in more detail. The summary for now is that we have found that all relevant conditions are either met or not applicable to this phase of development. Standard B is that the site must be designed in a manner that is harmonious to the greatest extent possible with the character of the surrounding area. We find that this standard is also met considering there's multiple other multifamily developments along Lakeside Drive, including the Lakewood Hills Apartments and the Lakeshore Condominiums. The design of the buildings compares fairly to Lakewood Hills. You see this picture here. The buildings as opposed in this plan are of a more modern style of construction. If you look next to Lakewood Hills, we find that, you know, that is a similar type of construction that is complementary. If you look in other areas around Gatside Village, there's other buildings of this type. For a couple of examples, we've looked at the areas on the south side on Croswell. These are some modern style duplexes that were developed. Even single family house of a more modern design. So examples of this type of building design are found in multiple places in Gatside Village. So this is certainly, we feel, be a complimentary addition from a design standpoint. And also the orientation of the building, for the most part, the townhouses in particular, have their frontage on streets or pedestrian ways, which we feel is appropriate for more heavily urbanized areas such as this. Standard C is about minimizing the hazards to adjacent property. Again, we find this standard is met. Primarily, there was a traffic study that was performed by the applicants by Flace and Vanderbrink and reviewed by our own third-party consultants as well. Both found that the plan would have acceptable traffic levels of service with the development of this plan, so very minimal impact to vehicular traffic and safety. Getting into the various design standards, first is traffic circulation in terms of access, location, and number of entry points to the site. We feel this standard could be met. First and foremost, with regards to parking, again, what's provided in terms of location and number appears to align with the concept plan that was approved. This would also include the first portion of the north-south pedestrian path that would connect from Lakeside Drive to the north through the site to Wealthy Street to the south. There's also questions about trash collection, whether there's ample room for that. The applicants did provide additional drawing that would show sort of the circulation and how a trash vehicle could maneuver through the interior of the site. This would show that there is ample room for that to safely occur. We didn't want to bring up three points, and some of these were also raised at the introduction last month. The first part, as I noted, is that the north-south path would essentially terminate in this area of development. So essentially it would stop more or less with building F and G and would not go any further south than that at this time. I know there were questions at the time if it was possible to still do some sort of temporary path that would go all the way to Wealthy Street, and we think there is still a possibility for that with the understanding that obviously this is Temporary, not the final provision for this, according to the concept plan, but on a temporary basis, particularly if there is a delay of whatever sort in terms of development of future phases, still potentially an opportunity to have some sort of temporary path in the interim if necessary. Second point was about the closeness of the north-south path to the Lakewood Drive Apartments entry drive, which is the area up here. Looking on the screen, it's this area. It would be on the top of this rendering here. Here. So this version of the rendering does add some ornamental grasses in this area between the path and the driveway. We did note how there is a potential for some more permanent type of barriers, such as a curb, a knee wall, or a fence that could provide some additional separation and safety for pedestrians and residents here. Third part relates to the area to the south of Building F. There are sidewalks and pathways proposed in the area on the north side of this street, but nothing on the south side of this street. In discussing with our planning consultants, it was noted that there could be an opportunity to do a similar type of treatment on the south side. None of the concept plans reflect this at this time. However, there could be the possibility of amending the originally approved PUD agreement that would require a similar type of treatment in the future. Again, depending on the timing of development on this area, which is currently devoted for construction staging and other buildings in the future phases. On a similar note, you may notice that this construction staging area has still remnants of the parking that was used for the older Motor Medical Center. We would recommend a condition that would require the eventual removal of that pavement and a restoration of this area if there is significant delays in terms of future development after this phase. Stormwater talks about whether there's sufficient stormwater detention and drainage for the site. Again, we feel the standard could be met. As a general rule, the overall lot coverage we find is less than when this was the home of Ramona Medical Center. So from that standpoint, there'd be less stormwater to be managed or run off to be managed with this phase compared to what was here historically. The stormwater management that was submitted does add some additional pipes and storm sewers particularly in this middle area here where this would be kind of a low area. One thing that we have discussed with the engineers both ourselves and our consultants was to add or not to add but to modify the discharge of this from Lakeside Drive to Reeds Lake itself. We understand they have verbally agreed to this however the actual plans themselves have not yet been updated to reflect that change. So that would be something that we would request to be done if that's the case. For landscaping, we find this standard is met. There's very few trees in the existing landscape that is currently on the site, so certainly the landscaping that is proposed here would be much more extensive in quantity and variety compared to what is there currently. We also noted in this circle here a common area for residents of this development to use, lawn area and some paved area patio space for different types of usage as well. And I mentioned the buildings, particularly buildings G and H and also F as well, are a step to the greatest extent possible to try and preserve the existing topography of the land. So minimal changes to the existing topography to build these buildings. Screening where non-residential uses about residential uses is not applicable here because this is a residential only phase. So this one would not apply in this phases. For lighting, the standard may be met. This is an extensive lighting plan proposed here with a different mix of lights, including pole lights, bollards, wall sconces, for both pedestrian areas and the buildings themselves. Two things I should say we would recommend. First off, an overall photometric plan to ensure that there is adequate lighting, both within the development and for along the streets. One thing that is potentially missing here is lighting on or adjacent to Shopping Center Drive on the west side. For utility service, we feel the standard is met. There are already underground utilities here from when the site was previously used. Our consultants have reviewed this past year the current status and capacity of these utilities compared to what was originally proposed in 2004 and found that the intensity of this development is less than that. So by extension, the provision of utilities onsite currently would be sufficient for this development phase. For exterior uses, basically dealing with exposed storage area, mechanical units, machinery, et cetera, having them screened to the extent possible, we feel this is met. This is something that the applicants did address in this iteration of the plan, specifically calling out that any mechanical units like air conditioners would be roof-mounted, not at the ground level. And as we mentioned previously, the trash collection for all units would be on the interiors. In the case of buildings G and H, the trash cans are those that have to be kept in garages, similar to other residential single-family uses in the city. And in building F, a dedicated interior space for trash collection to occur. And specific areas for utility meters has been designated for areas to the extent possible that face away from the public view as well to further shield and screen those. Emergency access, this was reviewed by the city's public safety department and they found no issues with emergency ingress or egress with this plan. Water and sewer, again, not applicable because as mentioned in standard six with utilities, the belief and the conclusion is that there's already adequate infrastructure to handle this. In regards to standard 10 regarding signage, this version of the plan does not include any type of signage. We would recommend a couple things. First off, that, you know, a series of wayfinding signage to be implemented throughout the site to help denote and direct people to the different public and private areas so people that are visiting know where to go, whether it's a private parking area, a public thruway, or an area devoted to loading and unloading, helping people know where to go and how to get around. And secondly, on that topic, to establish permanent street names for the publicly accessible roads assist with navigation both now but particularly if future phases do come online to help with getting through the site in the future. And last but not least is building design in terms of the design standards. New or remodeled buildings shall be reasonable compatible with an appearance to other buildings in the vicinity. Again, this standard could be met. We talked a little bit about the overall modern design. We do note that in the renderings in the plan, there's a similar modern type design with lots of different materials, building articulations used. You mentioned buildings facing towards either pedestrian pathways, such as building G or the street in building H. There were a few comments about building F, the four-story building, particularly in regards to the design of the lower level facade. We did note in this version of the plan, some additional landscaping on the foundation of the building has been added. A secondary access point connecting to the parking area. In this area, in this rendering, it would be in this location here. But this would be a secondary access to the building, whereas before it was only accessible from the private parking area. And also green panels, which you kind of see on this facade here going down this way, on the south and the east for additional visual interest and green landscaping. In the materials, we mentioned several conditions we would recommend if the Planning Commission elects to recommend this for approval. At this point, because this is the public hearing stage, it's your discretion when or if you decide to make that decision. If you feel there is more information you still would like to see, you can still make recommendations or comments on additional information or items to address. When or if the time comes, the City Commission wishes to make a recommendation on this. We've provided a list of recommended conditions of approval that could be used. I've discussed many of them in going over the standards of review already. A couple of additional ones that could be added. Some additional landscaping along Lakeside Drive at the northeast corner of the site. This is to prevent pedestrians from crossing in an unsafe location and encouraging them to use marked crosswalks and the flashing beacon locations.

Excuse me, Jay, are you able to show that on?

Yes. Let me see if I can go back.

I thought the same thing when I was going through the packet.

Just take a second.

Thank you. Can you bring the document camera up, Laureate, sir?

Do what? The document camera, sir.

Okay. So we're talking about the area here. It's adding some landscaping that would discourage people from trying to cross there because of the way the paths are designed.

Jay, aren't you talking about the one on the bottom?

No, this is the correct area here.

This is an area where we don't want people to do this.

You want landscaping between the sidewalk and the street?

Or in some location in the area, yeah, essentially to prevent people from trying to cross in that area.

Any way you could maybe indicate or include, we could include in our final, let's say, you know, we get to that point, actually showing exactly where you're talking about on that. Instead of just saying in that area, you know, some landscaping in that area, but show us exactly the intent, exactly where along the path.

I mean, that would, I would say that's a design detail. If that's something that's commission wants to see a design detail that, you know, the architects can work out or proposes.

That will be in the notes from the meeting. If, if we talk about that, that would be in the notes.

Yeah. Well, I'm not talking about like design construction, design details, but just really indicating, uh, I, I, I am assuming we're talking about as the path starts to swerve towards the, uh, towards the, uh, north west. There'll be a temptation of folks to go straight Through is that what you're right exactly? Yes. Yeah Just so we all know what we're all in agreement what we're talking about So there's going to be a tendency to go straight through there There'll be a social trail or cow path or whatever you want to call it in the old path that might might arise there That's what you're talking about, right?

Yes Why not just have a crosswalk there? I?

So one of the things that was noted is that because of the curvature of Lakeside Drive, that may not be a safe crossing in general, even if there was infrastructure provided there just because of the sight line distances and angles.

Could there be a case for keeping it open just to keep the sight line and the visual connection open?

That's your discretion, I would say.

What do you have in mind? Well, I just... I would imagine somebody in that vicinity would, you know, intuitively kind of want to know where that path is going. So whatever landscaping was there, you know, if it was real thick, you might miss that.

So I think what we're trying to indicate here is that we're not prescribing the solution, but just that this is something that needs to be addressed. And we'll let the... uh, integrated architecture team, take a shot at that and we'll, and we'll continue to review that and look at that with our, uh, traffic engineers and, and, uh, planners. Um, but we just wanted to call this out as an item that, that, um, as Jay noted earlier, um, since we've had some more time to review, this is an area we, we think needs to have some things addressed. More attention. Okay.

Could we also, maybe there's a reason why it's like this, but if you move that sidewalk path, a little bit further south that way any visual blocking doesn't also black block the lakewood hills condos you know sight lines that might be something to consider did that make sense it's just reoriented so it's not yeah instead of like that that walking path kind of making a curve to the north i suppose that could be an option flip the shape so it's a little bit further south yep

Just to finish up the additional conditions, one of the other things that is required for a final PUD plan is a PUD agreement. The Planning Commission can make recommendations on what can be included in that. But ultimately, this is something that is required to be approved by the City Commission in conjunction with the final plan. We've highlighted a couple of things that we think should be included as part of the City Commission review, specifically making sure there's a HOA maintenance agreement to handle the maintenance of all the open areas, residential amenities, and landscaped areas. We have noted, as alluded in some of the communication that you have received from third parties related to an easement agreement between the developers and the adjacent apartments. Whatever issues that they have with that easement are resolved before there's any construction here. A license agreement with the city shall be completed for any buildings or structures that encroach into the Barnard Street easement. This easement runs in the parking area that is south of Building F, and this is currently used by the city for utilities. So this license agreement would allow the city to still access and use this easement for maintenance or repairs of any utilities as necessary. It's again verified that open space in this phase is or will be irrevocably committed for this purpose, and so it always remains in place, and that any statements related to that or anything else in the PUD agreement in this phase apply to any future owner of this property, whenever or whoever that may be.

And I'll add one clarification on the PUD agreement items. As we're noting these kind of in bullet points from what we've heard from residents, from the Planning Commission, and from staff and consultants, Um, these will be packaged in a draft form, um, a beauty agreement, um, that you all will recommend to the city commission who will be the final adopter. So, um, what we're trying to do is synthesize this by really focusing on what the issues are and we'll, and we'll work with legal counsel before this comes before, uh, the planning commission in the future to make sure that that draft is part of the, uh, recommended, uh, approval moving forward.

With that, before we bring up the applicants and architects, any questions about our analysis or any other procedural questions? We can address those now.

Jay, with the easement with Lakewood Hills, did you ever, did the staff make that, ever propose that being a condition of the Planning Commission? Or was that for the City Commission for that to be resolved?

You're referring to the PUD and the apartments?

Yes, for the easement.

Like Doug or either shake just just to speak to that issue We know that the two parties are engaged in conversations and find a resolution that they will present to us eventually so we know it's something that has to be resolved the design as The current design is that issue will have to be resolved one way or the other right?

But the city's the staff has never recommended to them Planning Commission that that be resolved prior to or subject to?

It's something that will be, will have to be resolved before, basically before building permits are issued.

You referred to the HOA and some details about maintaining the public spaces. Is that enforceable or what happens if, is there a recourse if they fail to do that or how does that work?

So what we, in terms of the city binding a developer to some of those aspects of an agreement on private property, what we're suggesting is that we need to see that those elements are there in an agreement, not with the city itself because it's private property, but that they have, that the homeowners association, which is set up as part of this, includes those aspects that are required by the city. I wouldn't speculate on anything in the future, but that's the charge is to make sure that that is, that those issues are addressed in such an agreement.

Thank you.

Sorry, I think I'm still confused about the easement issue. So we have two letters from competing council on this and, you know, obviously they couldn't construct it and where would we finally approve it if there wasn't that pedestrian path. So like procedurally, you know, not saying we were approving it tonight for planning or for city commission, but like what happens?

The conversations will continue in regards to that. Both parties understand this issue needs to be resolved before they get to final, final approvals. So it's an ongoing, ongoing matter of discussion between the parties.

Depending on how that, that, Agreement is goes.

I mean could that prevent the the north-south bikeway from from happening or At this point I don't want to speculate well they understand the developer understands the desires of the community for that pathway so They are in conversations Thank you Any other questions for Jay before we move on?

Did you present to us all the potential conditions?

Yes, the ones, if I missed any inadvertently, the memo includes all the ones we are recommending.

Yeah, but did you present them, all of them this evening?

Yes, the ones that are in the presentation, the ones that are directly related to a condition of approval, I talked about in those areas.

Okay. As you went through the different slides earlier, right, so you were jumping around, you didn't go straight down the list, but you feel you covered every one of them, like there's even something about street names, et cetera?

Yes, I mentioned that with the wayfinding. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Thanks, Jay.

Thank you. Don't get too relaxed, we might have questions later. Next, we'll hear from the developer. Will you please come up and introduce yourself?

I'm Mike Corby with Integrated Architecture, 840 Otto, Grand Rapids. Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners and staff. Again, we're very excited to continue the dialogue that we've had with you. And I think it was helpful to have that last meeting with you prior to the public hearing so that we could get some comments. As Jay mentioned, we've addressed all of the comments. Hopefully to your satisfaction. We've added a few graphics to kind of clarify some of the things but we really are looking for Your recommendation to the City Council tonight or so the Commission with our plan so without further ado I'll get into Some of the graphics that have been presented So just again don't want to blame her but we're looking at phase one, which is the north edge of the approved PUD conceptual pod Three buildings, 40 units. Building H is a townhouse building, basically nine units that'll follow the lakeside right of way. And building G, again, townhouse type units that'll follow the proposed bike pedestrian path. And then building F would be basically stacked flat types units, three stories on top of a parking level. And that'll be 24 units. The parking for this particular phase is completely included as well as some additional. Building H has four parking spaces essentially assigned to each unit. So it has two indoor spaces and two apron spaces. Building G has two parking spaces, garage spaces. Building F has 24 spaces at its main level, at its grade level. So that provides one space for each unit. And then there's additional secure spaces. I call them secure because they're within that triangular courtyard that would provide spaces for minimally one space per each bedroom in the development for building F, for instance. That courtyard, as Jay mentioned, also has a resident amenity, kind of a terrace area as well as some lawn area. In addition, on the south side, there'll be 26 spaces that will be available here. And those will be available for visitors or residents. and those are accessed off of Shopping Center Drive. The private parking is accessed off of Shopping Center Drive as well. I'm going to follow up on a comment that was made by Jay. The reason we did not choose to provide this parking on the south side of this drive, soon to be named, is for a couple of reasons. One is we don't need it to satisfy the parking requirements for this phase. Two is, if you recall in the plan, we're proposing a parking structure here and just logistics of constructing that in the proximity of those spaces, it would be something that if we did build those spaces now, they would have to probably be removed when the parking structure is built. So we don't need them and it just didn't make sense to put them in for that logistical reason. And then as Jay mentioned, also this, this is going to be construction phasing for at least phase one, potentially future phases. And then the, uh, the, the North leg, let's call it of the proposed pedestrian bike path. And to answer maybe a question that one of the commissioners had, um, this easement conversation is going on. It is between the two private parties, but, um, The plan, our plan will always have a bike path there. Uh, the, the expectation is it'll be exactly like what you're looking at, but if for some reason there has to be a shift that we're not ever going to not have that path there. Uh, just to detail plan. One thing I want to mention again, getting back to some of the comments from our last discussion, we have, uh, added bike, uh, accommodations. near the entranceway to Building F. And then as we mentioned, the parking garage for Building F, you can see that kind of that strip on the ends of the spaces is a planned storage area for residents, so they'll have the ability to put bikes or whatever they want in a secure area that's protected. The graphic that Jay mentioned as well, again, hopefully this helps the questions that were raised relative to waste management. All of the units, all of the townhouse units will have basically waste containers that will be in the garages and then they'll bring them out for quote unquote curbside pickup. And then the building F has a trash chute that will be on each floor. basically so residents don't have to take their trash off their floor level. It'll get down to a consolidated bin area. That bin will then be, this path shows how the waste will get to an area where the waste hauler can pick it up as well. So really trying to keep things fairly simple and not have any kind of that disrupt the visual of the site. So I'm going to focus a little bit more. I think you've seen the renderings. I'm going to focus a little bit more on some of the specific comments that came through from staff and commissioners. There's been probably more focus on building F and I think, I think commissioner Metz made a comment about just, you know, convenience path of travel from, from residents of building F to the south. So what we've, and also the comment about just looking at enhancing, Uh, the base, while this is a pedestrian way, we still really see the, uh, this being the primary path for pedestrians and bikes, this being really a secondary path here that links up to the city's sidewalk. This is a five foot sidewalk here along shopping center. Uh, what we're proposing, I think, uh, commissioner Tillman asked if we could make the sidewalk a little bit wider. So we've made this, this path, a five foot sidewalk. just for that convenience as well as enhance that with additional articulation of this facade as well as another entranceway. This would be a private entry for residents to come in and go. That would allow them to not have to go around the building if they wanted to kind of move north and south to and from Gas Lake. We've also added some additional transparency that kind of wraps around the corner here. And you'll see in some of these other renderings what I'm talking about. additional transparency. There's that entranceway. And then we're articulating the pathway with these ornamental metal grills that would also allow ivy to grow on them. It's on the south side of the building, so it will be a great place to get some vegetation growing on those. But you can see It's it's a sloped path. It's it's basically sloping about seven feet from low to high So it's always going to be kind of one of those paths. That's not easily addressed with transparency the parking garage itself is a is a heated Parking area so we don't want to have openness to it, but we're using a decorative masonry in conjunction with these these ornamental metal areas that can allow vegetation to to help articulate that as well as made the sidewalk a little bit wider and we've got some canopy trees that are also going to articulate that path. You can't see them in the rendering very well, but we've added some bike racks here as I mentioned earlier and this kind of shows the secure entrance to the parking that's in the courtyard. And I'll show materials. I think Commissioner Metz also asked a little bit more about materials. I'll talk about that at the conclusion of the presentation. These are just, again, the updated elevations showing some of the things that I just mentioned on Building F. And you can see this is the point of entry on this that we've added to the south. And feel free to ask questions as I'm going through this. So working our way around to Building G, we've also made sure all the renderings match the plans that was mentioned in last meeting. Again, the idea with Building G is it's on the path. It's going to be an attractive setting for folks that like that relationship. We've got both tiered landscaping as well as porches on that east elevation of those. We've you know, we've got a we've brought some green and some plantings and we're certainly fine with adding some containment there, maybe a curb along that just to provide a little bit more containment of that pathway. But again, we feel it's a it's going to be a nice path for the pedestrians and and bikes, but also a nice setting for, for the townhome residents.

Speaking of the rendering match matching the previous slide, is that realistic? This lawn that's right in this area here, isn't it more like this continuing?

It's actually the area that that's showing commissioner is right here. So that's kind of current pavement that will be seated in lawn. So it actually does, this will be lawn area.

But then as you go farther to the north, then it becomes quite a thin strip, right? At this point. What's your latest dimension on that? Would you say that planted?

It's about 20 inches wide.

So we're, we're going to put quite, quite thin, right? Is this is kind of out there, but. Is there any way the buildings G and F could be, the whole thing could be moved five feet south, or excuse me, west? That five feet would be really nice right there, wouldn't it, in an ideal world?

Right. It really, I mean, we've put a lot of thought into the plan and, you know, the relationship, I think, with building G, for instance, is it's, You know, it's got a front yard. It's got the wider walk. Obviously we're using a minimum of 10 feet for the bike pedestrian path, which is the minimum you really want to use for those multimodal pathways. We've got a strip with some verticality of vegetation, and then you've got a drive, which is no different than a road really. So, um, it's, it's not as if we're completely facing a parking lot or something like that. So the relationship in our minds is, is, is fine. I don't think we need any additional landscaping there.

You have to remember the slope of that area right there goes down and that's why the parking is not visible from the street. You can see the two levels, not three from the pathway, right? Because it slopes quite a bit there.

Okay. And elevations, unit types, the unit, uh, building H we haven't really, there hasn't really been any modification to those. Um, just, uh, to get renderings. I think the area that Jay mentioned, We certainly are willing to work with staff to determine how you can get some lower plantings so that you're, I think the vision, it's not only trying to keep residents, or trying to keep pedestrians from crossing there, it's also making sure somebody coming out of that driveway doesn't have landscaping that prohibits them from seeing, so maybe a low landscaping. We certainly could move the drive a little bit westward, or the walkway. The one thing I will mention, is the path here is a ramp that meets barrier-free requirements and ties into where we want folks to cross. This, because of the grades that were mentioned earlier, will have steps. So bicyclists in those are probably going to more take this path just because it's the easier path. So if this one needs to shift a little bit there to get it away from that intersection a little bit, we certainly can do that. But getting some landscaping in here I don't think is something we're opposed to doing at all and willing to work with staff on that. The finishing up on Building H, I think the Commissioner Metz asked a little bit more about what materials we're proposing to use. I guess before I get into that, this is the lighting plan that we talked about. I think we do have one pole light here on Shopping Center and another pole light here. I think we'll do a photometric and again determine whether any additional higher pole lighting needs to be added to meet maybe some minimum requirements along Shopping Center. So focusing on building materials, We've brought some product data. Again, I'm qualifying this to say we haven't selected a final product, but in terms of, you know, Commissioner Metz asked, what's a stone-like product mean? Does that mean it's plastic that looks like stone? It's actually stone that looks like stone. It might be a porcelain type stone, which is essentially stone. But again, the idea here is that these are higher quality residences. If you guys understand the scout, Mr. Wierda, and his desire to do good architecture, it's going to be quality materials. But the panel that we show on the buildings that is called stone-like is going to be some sort of a porcelain or stone veneer panel. And some of them come in different thicknesses, but you can see some here in context. So it is an actual stone product on some sort of a substrate. On buildings H and F predominantly, we show some basically textured siding materials. And so we are wanting them to have a wood finish. So there are products that actually are a protected wood finish. There are some products that are metal that have a wood appearance. But again, you can see in context some of the product types that we're looking at using there. And the base of building F, I think we mentioned in the previous meeting that we really are looking, we've got a strong influence from the mid-century modern period. And it was very common to have a very textured base on buildings. And so we're looking at different types of masonry products that might allow that to happen. the renderings that we show are representing this type of product, but you can see other products that are kind of fitting that bill in terms of just texture and size of material and things of that nature. So that basically takes us through all of the adjustments we've made. I did want to just indicate that the conditions that staff put into their report. We are fine with all of the conditions. We are, Naderveldt is currently working through with the city to design the sewer system to comply with what the city's suggestion is. We are waiting for the survey work because it's a property that's off of our property. John Casserly who's here from Interval can address it if you want to specifically. We're basically creating the documents to revise it to meet their requirements. I mentioned the landscaping so I think there really wasn't anything that we saw on their list of conditions that we had any concerns about. So we are hopefully you're excited to see where we're headed. We would really like your approval tonight of our plans so that we can keep the process moving and

um thank you for your patience and i'm ready for any questions questions for mike i do have a question since we're talking about materials um for buildings g and h do you have any examples of you know there's a lot of materials happening on those buildings and um it's probably a good time to share with you i've had the chance to talk to a lot of residents over the past few weeks about this and There's, of course, varied feedback, but a lot of the feedback has been positive for more housing, positive for the shape of where things are, but a lot of, frankly, criticisms about the choice of materials. A lot of people feel this is skewing a little too trendy, a little too modern, and I promised that we'd be getting more feedback about the types of materials being used on those buildings, especially when that's what everybody's going to see. So I know that this is still early in the design process, but you know, this in like this, um, rendering for instance, is that like a concrete or is that like a blown up, like wood like finish?

Yeah, this is the stone. Uh, this is where the base is brick. I didn't mention that. Uh, I didn't think I needed to, um, maybe reference what, what that was only because it's a familiar material. So the base, is brick. I wouldn't at all call these trendy. I don't think you see a lot of buildings with stone on them. I think it was a material that is still being used. It was used a lot in mid-century modern buildings. I think it's a timeless material. I think it's an enduring material. Lots of glass. The texture, I think the idea here was to create a composition that had some of the smoother uh, materials in, in, um, you know, uh, contrast to the, to the textured material. So I think there is articulation in them. They are residences. We want, uh, living spaces, uh, outdoor living spaces to be very visible. Um, that's, that's obviously something that's really, that's very, you know, attached to residences, front porches. So I think all of the elements are there. I think they are modern and we're not, reluctant to say that we took a modern approach. I think we're trying to do something that's... There's some heavily influences from mid-century modern designs, which we think are timeless. They have a fresh look to them as well, but I think we're very excited about this.

Can you speak a little bit about G? Because when I was looking at some of the renderings, that looks like more traditional brick, right?

Yeah, G is more predominantly brick. So this material here is brick. We've got some of that textured panel here. And again, they all have a little bit, they feel like they're from the same, you know, have a similar DNA, but they've still got a unique look to them. So I think the thing we prioritized was a lot of glass. They're generally simple planes and forms that come together compositionally. So, again, I think there's some articulation that you get just from the fact that we're stepping the townhouses, for instance, down the slope, so you get a little bit of that definition of units from that. But, again, we're really excited about it.

And are these colors pretty accurate to the vision as well?

Yeah, I think so. I think we'll get into that detail a little bit later. But, yeah, we want more neutral materials, you can see. In addition to the kind of masonry products, the textured panels, we want to use kind of a more of a wood look type. And then a lot of the canopy areas are a darker neutral.

Thank you. You don't feel that a lot of that texture, that wood look is going to become time stamped?

I don't think so, no.

In terms of outdoor living spaces, Building F has a large flat roof with some height to it. Did you give any thought to amenities on the roof there, a rain garden or something?

We did. I think, again, I think the balance that you've got is just making sure you've got something that can, I'm going to use this word, Delicately, but can be affordable in some respects. I think as you look at building H the larger units They're probably going to be the more costly units the more the higher priced units building G Represents a little bit lower price point building F is again condominium living on this. So we looked at that We don't have a lot of units to kind of amortize the cost of something like that So but we did consider it so we did create an at-grade and then you know as future phases Uh, we've got kind of that central Piazza area and, you know, gas lights full of places for people to go outside. So I think we didn't feel we needed to get into that expense, but we did, we did actually look at that.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Otherwise we'll move on to public comment.

Yeah. Uh, the path, uh, we, we talked a lot about that path. Um, do you think that that would be cleared in the winter clear to snow?

The pedestrian path?

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay. And then does the city clear its shared use paths in the winter around? It does? Yes. Okay. It's granted if it's township that doesn't, right? Correct. Which leads to some confusion, I'm sure, on the part of the general public. So that's taken care of. And then that one slide where you showed Building G from the east a minute ago, you can see what I was talking about. The other, there's another one, another from the other end. Yeah, that one. So there is potential for that vertical, as you described it, landscaping to continue, right? Farther, farther northward.

Yes.

And I notice, you know, on the lake shore that might, that whole strip might be like marram grass, you know, beach grass or something, right? It'd be, I mean, if it was by the lake shore, there's a good chance you'd see that. I'm not saying that would be appropriate here, but it's the verticality that's, that's nice. And then... then that that's allowed in in lakeshore such settings to just you know not it's it isn't trimmed right and so you can have that verticality with native plants like by waterfront park the city currently trims that down but that really should be left at full height throughout the winter because there are insect larvae are in are in those plants so it's just a way of thinking about maintaining things in a way that enhances, you know, has some ecological values that could be enhanced, you know, not just having it super manicured looking, you know, in every instance.

I think that was the intent actually. We actually could look at some switch grasses that get to four to six feet tall. They do have to be trimmed seasonally or annually, but otherwise

They get quite... Yeah, and I'm getting at the idea there may be other species that you could leave in place without trimming them.

Yeah.

That might be something a little, you know, unusual for this area, but you're starting to see more attention to the idea of using native plants and then allowing them to just do what they're supposed to do. And I think that that's the kind of thing that might be appealing to kind of folks that would want to live there.

And that's actually one of the directives we gave to the landscape designer that we wanted native species for all of the specifications.

Is the width of a shopping center drive being modified at all?

The curb to curb width? Yeah.

There's some parking spots there now. Are those still going to be there? Is that part of the plan?

We haven't changed the curb location on the plan.

That's more of a city question.

Thank you, Mike.

You're welcome. 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 comments to three minutes. If you have the same comments as someone else, you can mention that you echo the comments rather than repeating everything. And always, as always, please be kind and courteous because we are neighbors. Thank you.

Madam Chair, if I may, technically you need to open the public hearing and then take comment.

Okay. We'll now open the public hearing. Thank you. I actually had that written down. Thank you. Would anyone like to be first?

So my name is Calder Stanley. I live on 2235 Boston Street Southeast. And I would like to say on like the designs have a sort of coherent and lovely pattern and sort of knowing what they are as like a structure and sort of the consistent design of sort of being very similar to the high school that is being constructed and sort of the design of large glass panels and the beautiful wood trim and like sort of on the quality structure with the stone. I really appreciate that there's something of a sort of vibe and like consistent design throughout each of H, G and F. And it's definitely a little better than like the castle building, you know, the one I'm talking about. that has like the castle facade and brick then it goes to siding then for some reason it goes into like a slanted roof and so the greatest thing about these is that it doesn't like that these buildings know what they are and what they are going to be and so I can see this lasting for many years and I wouldn't really consider these to be like a trend if they were sort of like in the like having neon lights or being sort of like uh more of a novelty than like actually being functionally purposeful with like the patios and the landscaping. I like how the designers really thought of like putting trees and adding grasses and providing lots of window space and thinking about little tiny details of like the little patterns of the brick. So that is like, I could see that there's a lot of thought that has been put into this project along with added bike spaces. I did bike here from like coming down from Hall to Lake Drive. And so having that added bike space for people to use bikes and space where you can access a bunch of shops and fun areas that are not like terribly far. is really nice and so I couldn't say much on more of the negative or like things that I would change all that much since you know all the things of all sides like the parking and the design have been really thought out here so uh I guess that yeah that concludes my comment thank you next

Hi, I'm Judy Fry. I have been working with Mary Dersh regarding the history the East Grand Rapids Museum at all. And coincidentally, it seemed to be the same time that the development was coming along. And what we've, our research that we've done is that there is currently no place in the city to have a, quote, traditional museum. So I think we've come to the conclusion what we'd like to do is try to have, to immerse the history of this of our city which is so rich into any place in the city that we can get it and one of the things as the development came along we thought why can't we have more of the history and just bring the community into this space and instead of just being as place that outsiders are coming to. So to that end we started, we were just thinking about things like could you name the buildings, like the Miracle Round Building instead of being a G building, I'm not sure that was the end product anyhow, but, or the Roller Coaster Building, or do we have benches that have some of the history, or there's a company that makes these story walks that you can have along the way to tell the story of the history. So I guess what I'm just hoping that maybe some of you would be interested in trying to incorporate something like this, and this isn't anything new to Mike, because I've had conversations with him, and I wouldn't have any idea how you do it, but it just seems like the community ought to be brought into this and be made more of a part, it could be a history park with all kinds of information there. So I'm just asking you and hoping to hear your opinions of trying to carry this idea. I know they can do whatever they want to, but I think if they want to be accepted and really appreciated for taking care of this space, that it would be nice to bring the community into it in this way. Thank you.

Thanks, Judy.

Hello, my name's David Decker, 925 Belle Claire. How do we get to consensus? You, the Planning Commission, I'll go out on a limb here, are probably going to vote 7-0 to move this on to the City Commission. Maybe there'll be some conditions. Maybe there'll be some things you'll push back on, but the way you folks work, you're going to find a way to get to consensus, maybe five, two, maybe six, one, but you're going to get there very different than the city commission. They voted four to three to approve the concept plan on October 6th by state law. They needed a five to two margin because they had been legally presented with a protest petition. It was initially unclear at that meeting on October 6th what the city commission would do about the state law requiring the 5-2 margin. But there it was, 20 property owners' signatures presented by a municipal attorney hired by East Grand Rapids residents. Look at what happened that night. Go back and look at the tape. It was a mess. The solution that night was simple. seek consensus find another vote bring a plan that would get a five to two or even a seven nothing approval from the city commission but that's not what the city commission decided to do three commissioners voted no three commissioners voted yes that left it up to one vote one person to make the decision well Finding a way to get to consensus is what 50 volunteer referendum petition circulators did. They went out and got 1,242 valid signatures. They were valid, we know, because the city clerk confirmed that they were in fact valid. But then after three days of legal analysis, They determined that there was a technical deficiency with the petition form, and thus they were not going to allow it. So the folks who signed the referendum petition were seeking consensus for themselves and for all of the residents of East Grand Rapids. Many wanted a smaller development. Some wanted it to proceed as planned, but will never really know how that vote will turn out because the city shut it down. They could have allowed it to go forward, but they chose not to. Thus, residents had to file a lawsuit, a lawsuit that will require the city to obey the state law on both of those counts. Thank you.

Thank you, David. Anyone else?

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. My name is Judith Baxter, city staff. I'm here to speak on behalf of a lot of residents here who don't like this concept plan and don't like this project and don't like this residential project that's been presented to you today. You are the Planning Commission. You have the authority to make the developer make some changes in this project. You don't have to rubber stamp what the developer wants. That's what city ordinances, that's what city laws are for. You have a wide divide in the community on this project. There is a considerable divide in the community of people who want this project developed. The consensus in the community is they'd like to see the property developed in some fashion. The consensus of the community is, or the considerable divide in the community is, They don't want this project. It's too big. It's too massive. It's too private. There's not enough studies and known about how this is going to affect the community. You have the authority here to do better for the city and the community of East Grand Rapids by asking the developer to make some changes. I heard some comments saying, well, we've got some citizens who think it's too modern and we don't like the texture of the buildings. And you heard the developer say, well, we do tough. That's what we like. That's what we're going to do. That's not consensus. And you don't have to accept that. As planning commissioners, you have the authority by law to say, you know, we've got citizens who don't like this. Please go back to the drawing board and maybe you can modify this. You can modify this by height, by texture, by size. You can do that. You should do that. That's your duty to the community and the residents. You don't have a duty to the developer. You can make everybody happy. The developer can get his development. community can get this property developed that's something that everybody can live with not everybody will like but everybody can live with and that's something i encourage you to do here tonight by not approving this plan at this time asking the developer to make some serious modifications not the texture of the building not fake wood or steel or those little things but significant changes of the building that a lot of the citizens in this community The ones who filed a lawsuit, it meant so much to them that they filed a lawsuit, are requesting. In fact, they're demanding. You have some time to do that. I ask you to give that some serious consideration. There are more people involved in this project and who are going to be affected by this project. It's going to be community-wide, not just the developer and not just Gaslight. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is John Kronowski. I live at 775 Bagley Avenue. And I have spoken to the City Commission and Planning Commission several times in the past two years on the Gaslight Investors Development Proposal. Two things seem to stand out to me. One, the City Commission and its attorney, John Huff, stated several months ago that there would be no further discussion on the development proposal until the court litigation was finished, was completed. But here we are discussing phase one residential piece of this development. How can the Planning Commission approve the residential phases when the city and the residents still do not have all the nuts and bolts for this plan? I think it must be seen as part of the whole project. Once locked in, it allows less flexibility making changes in the higher density remaining sections. The second issue concerns parking in Gaslight. The EGR master plan ensures the residents that there is adequate parking. But no thorough traffic study has been done by the City Commission. In a recent development, the City Commission and EGR School District has approved a study to explore a parking structure on Bagley Avenue. The same City Commission allowed a request to destroy the Welty Street parking structure and has been insisting for two years that Gaslight Village does not have a parking problem. Gaslight investors is contractually obligated to main a parking structure. The wealthy street structure should be rebuilt if there is indeed a shortage of parking. The city would have to institute a millage to pay for its share of the parking structure on Bagley. This would be an unnecessary tax on the residents of EGR. I think it's the opportune moment for the City Commission and the Planning Commission to take a step back and reevaluate the proposed developments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Nancy Pattison, 2104 Gorham Avenue. Madam Chairperson, Commissioners, I have some random thoughts. The first thought that came to mind as I was looking at the presentation was, boy, that really is a concrete jungle. There is no breathing space in there. And inviting the residents to live there, to go wander through Gaslight Village to find green spaces seemed a little awkward. All right, speaking of awkward, I was at the Waterfront Park presentation and I heard the landscape architect really enthusiastically describe how phase two of the Waterfront Park development was going to proceed based on her enumerating all of the different trees and where to put the, extend the parking and how to increase the wetlands and She was blindsided when one of the people listening to her presentation advised her that there was going to be a huge development, just basically a stone's throw away, and she went, wait, what? So apparently different projects are not speaking with each other and this is going to be kind of a mess from an ecological standpoint. In fact, where are the ecological studies? Where are the environmental studies? And the parking studies that supposedly were done, who are they done by? Are they done by people that are 100% completely independent of the people wanting to build a development, we do not know who is Gaslight Investors. We don't know. We tried to find out, and the city said, well, we can't tell you because we don't know. I asked the city manager who are Gaslight Investors, and he said it doesn't matter. they own the land, they can do what they want with it. That didn't sit well with me last summer and it still doesn't sit well with me because who knows what dark money, maybe private equity firms, who knows where the money is coming from? Who knows where these studies are coming from? Are they completely independent? I urge you to step back as suggested by previous speakers and really take a look before you pass it along to the city commission Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hi, my name's Jerry Anderson. I live on Edgemere Drive. And I want to thank you for doing the job that you're doing. I know that it's not an easy position to be in. I'm sure each of you cares deeply about our community, the neighbors on Greenwood and Lovett and Bagley who are going to be bearing the brunt of this development. So you're in a tough spot. The piece of the development that you're looking at right now, as you know, is the park that very few people objected to. If the whole development had been on the scale of this corner of it, There probably wouldn't have been any objection to the concept plan at all and so of course that's the part that we're looking at first because once this gets approved it locks it in and it's going to give us less flexibility to look at the more dense part of it that needs serious consideration. What I'm urging you to do right now is to just put a stop to this. And the reason you need to put a stop to it is if you approve this little corner of the development, it will be a clear case of not seeing the forest for the trees. This corner of the development is a part of a hole. The rest of this development, the high school development, what's going on at D&W, what's going on with Sheldon Cleaners, the proposed new parking structure all needs to be seen as one whole and the details of the whole thing worked out before we start approving one piece or another. The big picture is a mess. As you know, we were told for two years that there are no parking problems in East Grand Rapids, and that this development would not create any more parking problems. The City Commission allowed a parking structure to be torn down, a functional parking structure, and now we're being told that, well, maybe there isn't enough parking in Gaslight Village, and we're gonna ask for an $8 million bond issue to fund a new parking structure on Bagley Street, where some of these people live. We were told that there's no traffic problems beneath Grand Rapids and yet experimental traffic circles were put in right where this development will flow out because we were told it was the most dangerous part of East Grand Rapids for pedestrians. We need to get it figured out before you approve anything. I encourage you to take the hard step and to say stop. Let's step back and look at the whole thing. On top of that, of course, we have pending litigation, and there's a great deal of confidence that the city will lose the litigation, the developer will lose the litigation, and this whole thing will be stopped anyway, so why not just stop it now? Thank you.

Thank you, Jerry.

Hello, I'm Niall Deem, 701 Laurel Circle, right by Wealthy School. I'm not going to nitpick the various little things here, but I do think any of those things that you're concerned with, you oughta stop and make sure you know exactly how they're gonna be done. All these comments about they're discussing it, they're working on it, we're doing this, we'll resolve it, whatever. Well, yes, maybe yes, maybe no. As you maybe know, and I think you probably do, this developer has had a lot of litigation in different places and he just had a piece of litigation in Walker that he lost that had a lot of the same concepts as here. He said it was approved however many years ago. He wants to go in and finish it now. The city had some requirements for him. He said you can't do that anymore. And so they had a two or three year lawsuit. Finally the judge ruled, wait till you have everything locked in place. Take a look at this, you know, not just, oh, that's nice. Yes, the water will drain where this is. There's no impervious. There's no pervious surface here. It's almost all impervious. You're going to have a lot of runoff. You don't want that runoff going into Reed's Lake without something to clean it. That's a lot of oil and gas off all those cars. And you're going to help make a mess of Reed's Lake. If you allow this, plus when you get to the rest of the development, to all drain that way, you've got to check these things out If you look at this picture, your sidewalk on the north side runs almost right next to the street with no room in between it. Why do your sidewalks in the rest of the city have a broader area there to protect people, to make them safer? Not here, you're right there on that street, Lakeside Drive. And nothing has yet been shown what to do with Lakeside Drive. You have six entries of traffic coming into that short strip, and something oughta be done for a permanent resolution that you know is gonna happen, and this, I am quite sure, drawing encroaches on your right-of-way. And it's gotta be told to back off some. I know the developer wants to maximize what he can, but that's not where he oughta be. You oughta sort that out before you approve something. Also, with this parking garage, it is kind of humorous that now we maybe need a parking garage for traffic and maybe not, but you've gotta consider that carefully, that whole issue. That is $7 million, but by the time you repay those bonds, you're gonna have, that's gonna be more like 20 million bucks. You've told the city taxpayers they get to repay to have that additional parking. Yes, I'm wrapping it up. Thank you.

Thank you.

And that has to be resolved and go on the ballot by the middle of August. So it seems to me you have several reasons why you do well to wait on the litigation and wait till that issue is resolved before you do something final.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me. Would anyone else like to make a comment? If there are no further public comments, we'll now close the public comments and bring it back up here and have a discussion among the commissioners. And the public hearing is closed. Thank you. Can we have discussion up here now? Sorry, I'm sorry. We have a discussion up here now. Anyone like to start?

So I think sort of returning to my previous comments about the particular materials I And I didn't mean in that at all my comment to be an insult into the design. You know, everybody has a different viewpoint. But I'm wondering if, you know, you expressed in the last meeting that there were some ideas for developing the later phases, C and D, you know, because at the last meeting I expressed concerns about the more traditional architecture of buildings A and B. and then the more modern appearance of these and how do we marry those in C and D. And with the feedback tonight, the feedback in person, it has been mixed. And I know people tend to come here when they don't like things. But I'm wondering if we could see some other materials on the same shapes that would lean towards that more traditional facade. I just want to make sure that we are speaking for all residents, that we're blending the different architectural styles. I don't know if other folks have that same inclination or if I'm on an island here, but I really want to make sure we get this right. I'd like to see some more design before moving forward.

I'll go next. In a very general way, I'm happy to see us adding some variety to our housing options in East Grand Rapids. We're 95% single family. We recently did a pretty extensive survey. I think there were 500 or 600 respondents, and I believe it was approximately 75% of the respondents are happy with that. They like the single family option. But surprising to me, there were 25% that actually would have preferred something different, either an efficiency, an apartment, a condo, something other than just a traditional single-family home. So I do like the fact that we're adding some variety here. My only real critique pertains to the north-south bikeway. I would have liked to see a little smoother curve. instead of a 90 degree here where it meets in the northeast corner. But I do like the fact that we're making an effort to see something happen there. So that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

I'm a resident of Lovett Avenue, and I actually use this current space quite often. My dogs run there almost every other day or so. But I'm supportive of this development, even though it will cut into that space. I have no issue with the design. I don't think we need to see other designs. The fact that we have a public hearing and we haven't seen many residents come and object to this design or ask questions about it, I think suggests that there's, you know, pretty firm support for this development. I am sensitive to the comments from some of the citizens about looking at the overall plan and making a decision based on the overall plan. I get that concept, but I just don't see that to be an issue. I think we have, as a commission, the ability when the next phase comes up to make changes to that phase. So I don't see us holding up the process just to get a bigger picture of the, I don't see much benefit of holding up the process to get a bigger picture of the entire plan.

I was going to kind of echo those comments. I think the charge in front of us, as I interpret it, is really to look at the phase that we have in front of us. And while it's important to look at the greater context of the phase two, I think that will come whenever that comes, assuming that comes and architecture and that design And we will address that and how it blends this architecture into the phase one or whatever Whatever was done on a wealthy Street, you know blending that architecture I think that will happen in whatever the connecting architecture is I think from a parking perspective the developer is more than address addressed Parking needs for this phase. So I don't believe parking is an issue I think there's actually more we're adding parking stock to East Grand Rapids by what they're proposing here So I'm in favor of what we're doing here. So I think the design in my opinion It looks nice. I think that's a very hard thing to do. Everyone's got a different opinion on what design is Looks great. I travel a lot. I see this type of design all over It is it is popular it it is It's timeless in my opinion.

It is certainly modern and I think it's a nice breath of fresh air for East Grand Rapids So I'm excited about this Okay Ironically since the last presentation about a week afterwards I had a spent an afternoon on on a tour of mid-century buildings in Southfield, Michigan. And I had no idea that that's one of the best places for mid-century modern. It gave me an appreciation and a better understanding of what was presented the last time and how they were drawing influences from that. And I started to see a lot of that and understand more. And so that helped me. to recognize that I feel like what was being presented was on the right track. Mike, I appreciate you bringing in the materials today. I especially appreciate that you showed photos of context, which instead of just, here's the material. So it helped me to understand more and yeah, they're very good materials. And I appreciate that too, I have a lot of pride in East Grand Rapids, and I don't want to see junky things. I mean, it happens, but this certainly is not going to be that. This is going to be a very high-quality project, which I think is great for this city and something that we want. As far as the architecture, as an architect, I get a lot of pushback whenever we get people out of their comfort zones. But I look at the project next door to this, Lakewood, that is certainly not classic. Our high school, not classic design. Our middle school, not classic design. City Hall, not classic traditional design. They're all representative of their era and their time. And as an architect, appreciate when I go somewhere and I can identify when a building was built because it's of the time. And especially if a building is really well done, I really appreciate it of its time. And when I look at these, what I really like about it is, A, it is quality materials. The fact that they're using the the ceramic stone is that's pretty high-end and that's we just don't see that in West Michigan because nobody's ever attained this level of design before So there's a discomfort with something that nobody's ever seen with that being said I think it's I'm proud that if this does in fact happen that it's in this in our town that we have this It's not traditional design. I don't think we're building in 1920. We're not building in 1930. We're building in 2026. And I want buildings to represent that. And 30, 40, 50 years from now, I wanna look at that building and I want it to still hold strong. And I think the materials and everything and the design, it is not trendy. And that's what's gonna help not make it go away soon. I think that everybody's going to, I think you're going to see more buildings emulating these in the future, which is a good thing. Um, so with that being said, I'm, I'm comfortable with, with, uh, the changes that Mike made for tonight. I appreciate that. And, um, yeah, I think this is good for our city personally.

Anyone else?

I was just going through my notes and, um, I think something for us to discuss as a city, um, going back to former mayor Fry's comments, we have that triangle area in the Northeast corner. Um, I'd like to see us explore doing that, like walking history reference to what used to be on the lot. I think that could be a really good spot for some visuals, walking history, exactly what was mentioned. I think that's a great idea.

I'll just reiterate what I've been talking about quite a bit is the path, the very narrow 20-inch green strip between the path and the drive, which may become a full-on Lakewood Hills drive. Who knows how that's going to turn out, but that 20 inches is really, it feels forced to me. It feels like it's an afterthought, and it doesn't seem to me have the... Uh, overall the entire thing has been so thought through and, and the dimensions and how things are spaced and in relationship to each other. That just, it seems a little forced to me and kind of like it's an afterthought. So I don't know what could be done, but I would still love to see that become wider than 20 inches.

Can I ask you a question? Would you advocate for a narrower sidewalk? Well, I could go to eight feet, right? Yeah, I just, there's a little bit of a trade off there. Would you, a wider bike path versus more landscape or vice versa? I'm just curious what your thoughts are.

Typical, most of the reeds, like that's eight, isn't it? Most of it.

Upgraded sections are 10 foot.

Yeah, that's kind of moving toward that.

Right, some of the older sections are eight foot, but the current minimum standard is 10 foot for shared use path.

Yeah. And this may or may, yeah, yeah. So that's the trade off, right? And there really isn't the flexibility you'd love to have with the width in that sense.

My sense from what we're seeing is that we have still some questions and considerations that maybe we should see it incorporated in the plan, like as Laura mentioned, that triangle area, some of the conditions that we've that are on there now, incorporating into it, such as the stormwater part that was verbally agreed but not shown in the plan, and have the developer consider some of our feedback and such, and come back with a fresh presentation with the changes and stuff next month. What is everyone else's thought?

I don't know. I think I would be willing to move for a vote. I'm willing to move for a vote.

Madam Chair, if I may. We were reviewing some things earlier today and one of the pieces that still needs to come before the Planning Commission is the draft development agreement. So that is something that we've identified that it's a part of the process that needs to be presented to the city commission. So deferring decision to the next meeting and allowing the developer to update, we would encourage the commission to consider that. And that was something that we were in process today, identifying some issues and going through our checklist. So that's still one thing that needs to be addressed.

So we would defer our approval to move to the city commission until we have the development agreement? Yes.

I have one more question on the stormwater. I thought I remembered this from the last meeting. When we're talking about running it to Reeds Lake, there was a stormwater separator involved, correct? Correct.

Yeah, that requires pretreatment. So this isn't like, you know, with the current ordinance requirements and our MS4 permit with the state and federal government, it does require pretreatment and that was noted. The idea that it would be open pipe to Reed's Lake, that's not the case. It would require pretreatment. The civil engineer review on behalf of the city was just making sure that that water, if and when we have 100-year rain events and there's a surge there, that that water is able to disperse and get to the lake versus the street. It's much better to have that get to the end location on understanding that it goes through pretreatment rather than in a street and then into the same location.

Okay, that makes sense to me.

Doug, where does that plume ultimately enter Reeds Lake?

I'm just curious as a person who uses Reeds Lake all the time. I mean, the general area would be the closest outlet would be, actually, if you can see, let's see if I can draw here. There's an outlet from a catch basin like right around here that goes to the lake. If you can see that up here. So if you recall a number of years ago... Kind of that cove by Waterfront Park? Just right where I'm showing here with the orange here, this is where we actually have an outlet pipe here. So if you have water that were to pop up and leave the site, it would enter here. And if this is obstructed, you may recall a couple of maybe two years ago, We did have a blockage that Public Works removed and repaired in this outlet, and so we had some temporary flooding here. And so, knowing that this entire area makes it to this catch basin and goes here, what we've proposed and they've agreed to is to provide an outlet that the city would, ownership would be provided to the city, so there would be a cutoff point where we have a catch basin where we assign that in the right-of-way, and then that would be out here daylighted somewhere in this particular area here so that it's open for inspection, it's an overflow, and then it would have pretreatment from the site to there. Again, that's only going to be active for more extreme events, but we want to make sure that we're planning for those more extreme events, if and when they are intense events, I should say, if and when they occur, but for your average type of event, the site itself will maintain it. That's more of the overflow, right?

Thanks, Doug. So for the average events, quickly follow up, the existing treatment infrastructure would be used.

Correct. We have a 36-inch storm that runs through this particular area here. This is the easement we were talking about. And the stormwater that comes from this collection point, that ends up really coming out right by the boat launch. And you'll note that the city does have a storm sewer filtration separator system at that location. So if you look adjacent to that, we do have some education materials about how that addresses items such as oil, trash, those types of things.

How long has that been in place?

Early 2000s.

And what's the lifespan of that, do you think?

About 60 years. We do do reported, it's part of our MS4 permit requirements with the state and federal government that we have to provide them cleaning logs that Public Works cleans those. We also have one for this facility and Gaslight Village that comes out just behind our north parking lot here into the lake as well. We're actually one of the few communities that have these types of separators into our lake. Thank you.

Any other comments or feedback for the developer? Are we all in consensus of getting more information before we do anything further?

I guess the one ask staff would have is beyond the conditions that we've captured to date here along with the memorandum, are there any additional items that we can weave into, legal counsel can work into a draft PUD agreement to go with the site plan? Or are you okay with those items and then the developer will try to condense as much of those as they can for resubmittal? We just wanna make sure we're on the same page in terms of...

Sorry, we're talking about the triangle type area and potentially doing like a historical reference point there. That would be city property, city project, or how would that relate?

We need to research that question.

Okay, great. And then I don't know if it's just me. of thrown off by this easement question particularly given the two letters that we've gotten so if that can be part of some additional feedback to us at the next meeting that would be helpful i agree it's one of the conditions though it right in your proposed conditions is that they need to be resolved yeah yeah i think i think if i'm not mistaken what she's asking for is just some more background or clarification about what that means from a practical standpoint it's Yeah, just just everything because I'm also looking I'd like to understand more because what I'm seeing what the property line is a two-way driveway exists north of the property line, so I'm sure there's a lot of history and so I just like to Know more so I can make an informed decision here Any other feedback or any additional things you so we're not making a motion we're basically no we'll have this I

Excuse me. We'll bring this back for the next, for the July planning commission. We'll get all these pieces put together and then be ready for a commission action. You've fulfilled your statutory obligation in regards to holding the hearing this evening. So next step is you'll be able to take action.

So will there be a public hearing next time?

But we can have public comment. One public comment.

I'm sorry, go ahead. Yep, I was just gonna say that. That sometimes is confusing because to meet the statutory requirements under state law, you have to have a formal public hearing. However, in East Grand Rapids, the tradition has been, whether it's been the city commission or planning commission, that public comment is always allowed. So the term is different in terms of what the legal requirement is. the tradition has always been to take public comment at meetings so i think what manager charles is saying is that we've met that statutory requirement under state law however we still will take public comment at any meeting that's been our tradition whereas at other communities they may after they have the formal public hearing not accept public comment because it's not required

How are you taking public comment because it's an agenda item and it's right So so you're taking that you would take public comment attracting on a non agenda item, right?

Or it's still be an agenda item. So let's take public comments Okay, correct. Yep.

Mr. Corby.

I would like to make a comment minute First of all the development agreement situation I think was something that we were not aware of prior to this. And I'm just wondering, can you vote on the plan similar to what the city commission did and then also consider the development agreement as a separate item? Because in terms of the things that we would be working on, I think that the triangle that Commissioner Swartz is referring to, we're happy to work on that with the city, but that's on city property. So I think If it fluxes, we're willing to kind of go through that. But I think I'm not necessarily hearing that word. There are a lot of major things that we need to go back and work on. So it would be focused on maybe some of these peripheral things.

So, Mr. Roth, do you want to speak to this?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Corby. I'm going to refer you to a city ordinance right now, section 5.48 . Section 5.48 of Article 6. That reads that the final PUD site plan shall be accompanied by a PUD agreement for review and recommendation by the Planning Commission after review by the city attorney. To date, all we have discussed is the PUD site plan. That's what we did today. There is, to my knowledge, not in existence a PUD agreement for the Planning Commission to consider or for the City Attorney to review and approve and make a recommendation on. So in order to this is a technical issue and I'm at risk of becoming the most unpopular person in this room. Because I represent the city on the litigation, and now I'm saying we've got a technical issue here. But our office is simply trying to call the balls and strikes on what the legal obligations are. And this is an obligation that's set forth in the ordinance. It was amended, I think, in 2013. And with belt and suspenders, I think the appropriate way to handle this is in one fell swoop with a PUD agreement and the final site plan for a vote by the Planning Commission at next month's meeting.

Okay, so you can't separate them like it was done at the City Commission where we voted on the plan and then we voted on the development agreement?

This is silent on that. Okay. And my recommendation, given the number of eyes that are watching this and the engaged community that we have, the most prudent course to follow is to do it in July.

Okay.

If there are any specific things other than what I mentioned that you feel you want us to work on, just let me know because I think we just, again, I think Generally, I think we heard the comments and we're probably not going to make a lot of adjustments unless there are some specific things that you would like us to look at. Thank you.

Well, we're looking for us to try to clean it up as much as we can. So we don't have as many conditions if we refer it to the city. So as I mentioned, like the stormwater and such, the good thing is the next meeting is not for five weeks. Do you have an extra week?

Yeah. And just to clarify the, Sewer issue this the storm sewer issue is a request from the city. It's kind of a an additional Protection the the system that's been designed for this phase works without that Additional I think this is a as you said it just for an extreme event potentially that you'd have some

Accommodation and we're willing to work with the city on that but but I think the comment is if that design is completed Reviewed and signed off by the city then it doesn't become a condition for approval So if that can happen in the next five weeks, then that's one less condition that we need to deal with sure Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Corby. We look forward to having you come back to us in July

Could we detail, list out what we're looking for at the next meeting? That would help me to understand too, because I keep hearing, come back with more information. I would like, what information are we asking for?

I'm deferring to Doug.

Yeah, so what I was, so what I was, that's what I was trying to getting at is the sort of the foundation of the PUD agreement draft is really what we have in terms of the bullet points we have here listed along with Jay's memorandum for conditions. So I think as Chairwoman Mapes noted, If the developer can include, you know, as many of these types of items into a revision, then they're not needed for the actual PUD agreement that you'd be considering. If there's anything that's not listed here that we need to make sure we address with the draft agreement for consideration, that's helpful to have on the front end. However, that also can be added when you view the draft agreement at the next meeting as well. So we're just looking for, is there something major missing that we heard from the public tonight? Um, or from the planning commission that we, we really need to dig into, um, otherwise more minor, um, pep items can be added, um, uh, to that agreement, uh, right at the next meeting.

Thank you, doc. Thanks, doc.

I have a kind of a technical point, uh, about the ad landscaping along Lake Cedro at the Northeast corner of the site, which we've talked about quite a bit this evening. maybe if there are any implications of these proposed conditions that affect public property, right? That's what we're talking, that's pretty much on public property right there. And maybe that should be called out or mentioned and clarified.

That particular area is actually an easement that the city holds there, so it's not necessarily all our property, but it is an easement.

So that line there is not a right-of-way line? right there on the north end side? No.

Okay. That's a development limit. And I think what we heard this evening is that was probably one of those items that we want to have addressed for next month's meeting so it's not necessarily a condition of approval. Like they've amended their plan to address that specific issue. It seems like we had enough conversation on that that that, along with a few of the other items,

Well, so there's a city easement is in that area. It is a city easement area. So again, maybe just refer to that or make it clear what we're talking about. You know, it's like, it just says right now, um, at the Northeast corner of the site, which is kind of vague, you know, so clarify who owns it or what easements there are and who's, you know, are we, are we okay requiring them to do something, you know, uh, in terms of like impact fee kind of situation. With with that city easement property, so it's owned currently by What's underneath the easement who owns it?

So the the ownership is with the The the property owner but all the easement regulates what you know, what can and can't be done there So generally speaking when we're talking about easements we don't allow for development in them unless there's not a any sort of impact to Utilities are the intended purpose. However in some cases We do and that's why we were talking about another area where there would need to be an executed license agreement for First of encroachment for the life of the development But I do think that's one of the items that you know, there's a handful here that I think we've we understand need Some more clarification or would be helpful to have more for clarification and just just get some legal ease in there about the Eastman and What you know how that would work?

So the city does have some control within that easement, right? Quite a bit.

Let us do some initial analysis because what was being proposed initially was not intrusive. We didn't get into that level of detail.

Yeah. Yeah. I understand. Thank you.

All sets. Next is the report of the city commission by commissioner Schwartz.

Thank you. So a couple weeks ago, we had the... I might wait a second.

Thank you, everyone.

The approval of the Safe Routes to School Plan, which calls for putting in a pathway along Reeds Lake Boulevard on the south side of Reeds Lake Boulevard. Right now, there's only a sidewalk on the north side. The sidewalk on the south side, this is a part of a A federal or state? Federal grant, yeah. A federal grant. So it connects from kind of where the rock is and then goes all the way to Manhattan. And then there will be the sidewalk connecting up to Cascade. And then there will also be eventually an island put in in the middle lane, the middle turn lane to help kids. This is the whole point of the Safe Routes to School. help kids from the triangle, cross the road, and get on a sidewalk that gets them safely to school. So that was approved, so that'll go out to bid this month, right now.

Potentially. MDOT did indicate recently that they, because of the number of projects they have, they actually have contracted out some of their reviews to some private sector firms, so it may be a July letting, but we'll update the commission on when they make that call.

Is there a roundabout going there at the rock?

Yes, so there I heard that so there's there's there's quite a bit happening in the North Shore area so as a local project the city is constructing a traffic circle at that location by the rock there to DPW has been doing a lot of the grading and site work there and to save some funds, but also we coordinated that with a water main connection project in Manhattan Park this fall from some of that fill. So we will be connecting a shared use path in a crossing at a safe site distance from Reeds Lake Trail, from the General Rock area north to connect to the new sidewalk that was constructed on Robinson and Cascade Road. So that's what that widening feels like right now, if you're in there. So we'll be adding, there'll be quite a bit of separation there with some green space, but the site lines there, from a traffic perspective, that has actually been something the city has been looking at for some time. We have low speeds in the area, so people can react to some of those sight line issues, but that is something that's being constructed. Additionally, with the Safe Routes program, there'll be a traffic circle constructed at Manhattan and Reeds Lake Boulevard as well by the park. So that will be, so there's two traffic circles that will be going in on North shore from different, different programs and different projects.

Is the rock still going to be there?

It is a hundred percent.

Yeah. A hundred percent.

Put the rock in the middle of the traffic circle.

Anything else Laura?

No. Are there any questions anybody has?

Anything else from staff? Our next regular Planning Commission meeting, as I mentioned, is July 14th, which is five weeks away. Hope everyone enjoys their Fourth of July and the 250. Next on the agenda is a motion and a second for adjournment. May I have a motion and a second? So moved.

Second.

All those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed say no. Thank you, everyone. See you next fiscal year.