Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[music] Heat. Heat. [music]

[music]

Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music]

[music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat.

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

[music]

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. [music]

[music] Heat. [music]

[music] [clears throat]

Okay, welcome on this beautiful day to um the January 22nd, 2026 City of Grand Rapids Planning Commission meeting. Um we have a couple public hearings today. Um but before we get into that, I'll just go briefly through our procedures. So um when we start a case, we'll have staff presentation. Um and uh they'll go through the details of the case and then the applicant will be able to come up and provide additional information for us. Um we'll then open the public comment. If anyone here is from the public wants to comment on a case, um they can approach the microphone, tell us your name, um and you'll have up to three minutes um to give the planning commission your comments. Um then when we close [clears throat] public comment, uh the applicant can address any um comments that came and then we'll have deliberation and uh a decision here on the dis. Um, as a reminder, we are uh this meeting is being streamed live on Facebook and uh YouTube. Um, and also we uh do have uh staff prepares draft resolutions with um language both for and against um findings. So if you see us reading um when a motion's being made, we are. But those are just um draft for us to use as uh however we like and to modify also um based on the case before us. And with that I will go back to our agenda and we'll do conflict of interest. Any conflicts of interest today? I at least want to disclose that I have done work with amplified GR. It wasn't particularly on the development of the site in question, but I have done neighborhood engagement.

Just moving closer. Did everybody hear that or should I resay it? Restate it. Okay. I do want to disclose that I've done work with Amplify GR in the past. I don't have any current contracts with Amplify, but the work has been primarily neighborhood engagement and um data analysis, land use analysis for surrounding areas and not for the property in question. So, no financial ties or anything to this project? No.

I also uh as Habitat for Humanity involved in this project, I serve on that board. So, no financial ties, but I think in the past we've decided that is enough to elicit a conflict. Yep. Okay. Let's do a motion first for um Commissioner Hendrickk. Do we have Make a motion that Commissioner Hendrickk does not have a conflict of interest on this case. Okay. Support. Okay. A motion support. Further discussion. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

Okay. That motion carries. And then let's make a determination on Commissioner Yoners. we have in the past. Um so it seems to remain consistent. Um you're saying in the past he has we've determined that he's had a conflict. Okay. Yes. Because he's as a board member of Habitat um interested in the financial success of that organization. I would make a motion that uh Commissioner Yoner has a conflict of interest. Okay. Support. All right, motion in support. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? All right, motion carries. Okay, let's [clears throat] get into our first case. 1319 South Division. All right, I'd like to give a little background history for this one. So, the site has a long history of being a auto related um having auto rellated use on the property. As you can see, um there's a Westgate sign here. Um, it was originally developed in 1934 as a drive-in oil and service station known known as Westgate Station. And over the years, there were several approvals granted. The first one being a variance in 1961 that allowed for this existing twostory um brick building to be located at the rear property line and 5 ft from the north property line as well as another approval in 1967 for the second story edition. Um at that time it was an office space that was accessory to the service station. In 2001, the underground storage tanks were removed and the property was sold in 2006. And since that time, the service station signage shown here has been removed um and the required licenses were not maintained. And so, as a result, the service vehicle service use um was deemed abandoned um and has been for quite some time. And that is why the applicant is before you today to request approval to establish a vehicle service and repair facility um at this property at 1319 South Division Avenue.

I'd additionally just like to note that the second story that was the office use um has been converted at some point to a two-bedroom residential unit without building permits. Um, and while this unit is currently certified and has been um since February of 2024, um, some building code um, upgrades may be required um, relative to fire separation between that residential unit and the commercial unit below. The subject property is located in the south division corridor plan. Um and it is designated um as you can see in this square here as traditional business area and it is located as you can see in this image um just south of focus area 3 um and just north of focus area 4. Um, nonetheless, focus area three um notes that a large number of potential medium to small redevelopment sites um are auto repair services and tire shops within the neighborhood. And residents have mentioned that on several occasions that the presence of these neighborhoods may be holding the neighborhood back. And as the corridor transforms over time, many of these auto businesses may transition out of the area to allow for a higher and better use of um these properties within the neighborhood. Within focus area 4, um you can see it has this blue shading here and this is the subject property. Um it is identified as a potential redevelopment site. Um kind of hard to see, but it says small developer opportunity. Um, and it calls it out as a live, work, flex space. The subject property is located in and surrounded by the TNTBA zone district to the north, east, and south, and the TN

MDR zone district to the west. The property owner and applicant before you today also owns these two vacant parcels to the north. Um AC Sewing is to the east um and has been before the planning commission before, so it might look familiar. Um and then Cortez garage is a similar auto repair use just to the south here. And then again, residential properties to the west. The subject property is just over a quarter acre in size. Um, and as you can see, a majority of the site is paved and there are portions in disrepair. Um, and this is likely due to those um, auto repair um, fueling pumps being removed as I stated um, in 2001. Um, there are three curb cuts that provide access to the site with these two off of South Division and one off of Label. And there are currently four um non-conforming pole signs or pole lights, excuse me, um that will need to be replaced with sharp fixed um sorry, excuse me, fixed sharp cutoff features. Um as stated, the variance in 1961 um approved for this building and it still remains today on site. Um, and as you can see, there is one vehicle service door. Um, and the applicant is proposing to um, keep that one and replace the pedestrian door with a new service bay. So, there will be two on that east facade facing south division. Um, this pedestrian door will remain and the other one will be removed and brick will fill in to match the rest of the facade.

On the south facade um facing label there are these pedestrian doors as well that provide access to the seconds story residential use above. There is also a retaining wall and chain link fence with barbed wire um located along that west property line um abuing a residential property. Um this is proposed to be removed. Um and a new 10- foot wide landscape buffer will be replaced in that area um abuing the residential property as well as a new 10-ft wide landscape buffer along South Division for those parking areas. In terms of operation, the applicant is proposing to operate between Monday and Friday um from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Um the business will have one employee and is anticipated to work on an average of five cars per day. for vehicle service and repair uses. Um they are subject to additional criteria of the zoning ordinance. Um and the planning commission has authority to wave and modify some of these requirements. Um so the first one um a minimum 1 acre lot size is required. Um as previously stated, this property is just above um a quarter acre in size. Um, so the planning commission may wish to consider whether a waiver is appropriate for this size and whether the site can reasonably accommodate the use as proposed before you today. Another standard is the service bay openings shall be oriented away from public streets and residential areas. Um, as shown, one bay currently exists and faces south division and a secondary

one is proposed. Um the one that is currently there is a legal non-conforming condition. Um but you should consider whether the second one is also appropriate. And in addition, the ordinance also requires that all repair activity um vehicle storage and part storage such as tires um should occur entirely within the building and that vehicles should only be stored on the site temporarily for the purpose of repair. um and definitely not within the public right of way relative to parking. Um typically front yard parking is prohibited in the TNTBA zone district. Um and this site has historically included this front yard parking as part of the service station um layout and staff has found that this arrangement may continue. Um and so based off of the mix of uses of residential and the vehicle repair use um nine spaces is required and only eight is provided on the site plan before you. So there's a one space deficit. Um the planning commission may wish to consider a reduction based on um on street parking and nearby transit. Um staff just recommends that there's careful consideration in whether the site um can adequately handle both the residential parking demand and the temporary vehicle storage um associated with a vehicle repair on the same site. staff has received two letters expressing concerns about the presence of other vehicle service facilities within this neighborhood um and how these businesses are negatively impacting nearby residents. And overall, the planning commission

should consider the following. Um whether the proposed use aligns with the purpose and intent of the TN or the traditional business area designation. um found in the South Division corridor plan relative to auto repair shops as well as whether the vehicle service and repair facility use meets the purpose and intent of the TNTBA zone district. Um reinforcing a pedestrian and transit friendly environment in a mixeduse area. Thirdly, whether the site can meet service, vehicle service and parking standards given the existing site conditions, operation, and that the property is less than 1 acre in size. the potential impacts of a vehicle service facility coexisting with the residential use on the same property, the potential impacts of this use on adjacent residential uses, and lastly, any additional neighborhood concerns that will be raised in the um public hearing. Are there any questions for me before turning over to the applicant

uh with the the parking requirements? Can you just remind me is there something specific in the ordinance about double stacking particularly with the auto repair facilities? They wouldn't be allowed to double stack cars here right in the parking lot. Tandem parking I think is is how the ordinance refers to it. And no, it's not permitted. Okay. Related. I I I feel like on this plan that's on our screen, there are nine spaces shown. Um, are you counting this one? I am. Okay. I don't believe that one is a space. Okay. Um, this curb cut will need to be Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. The Yeah, it's too wide to meet current city standards. So, once it's reduced, that space will likely be removed off the plan. Okay. Any other questions for Avery? Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll have the applicant uh come up and share anything else you'd like with us.

Okay. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Alex Smart. Uh it's good to see a couple friendly faces uh on the panel. Um uh my friend uh or or client Fakundo uh reached out to me uh a while back when he purchased this uh property under the understanding and assumption that it was okay to put his business there. Uh so he reached out to me. I'm an architect, local architect um and asked for my help. So um I'm trying to navigate through the process. I've been working with Laura and her team. Uh fantastic. They giving us uh great advice. Um and uh it was very well uh said and detail uh the process that we gone through and uh and the description. Uh I wanted to add regarding the parking is uh this uh this this existing uh uh uh drive is going to be blocked and uh and I was uh told that we need to uh remove all that. But it does give us the opportunity to extend uh the uh the landscaping a little bit further and and and gain a couple more parking spaces if that's okay with the city of course. Um so we will be working if approved of course uh with the city to make sure that we meet all those requirements. Um there was also a comment about uh mention about uh fire separation and uh it has been our intent. talked with Fakundo that the fact that if this is approved, we will have to provide the necessary uh separation uh construction rate of construction uh between the uh the auto repair and uh the apartment up above. But I think everything else was said. If you have any questions, uh we're here to uh provide all the answers if we can.

Thank you very much. Um I do just have one question. And so I'm wondering um if there was engagement with the nearby neighbors related to this land use.

So So Fakundo is telling me that he did have conversations with the immediate neighbors, the ones behind and and I believe across the street. Okay. Thank you. And go ahead. Your client's not currently operating a repair facility in this vicinity right now? No. No. It's uh the area down below is is is uh vacant. Uh he does own a repair shop and 1300 Alpine and that's the one that he's going to be relocating here if it's approved and we can continue forward. What was the motivation to move? I'm curious. I'll ask him.

Okay. [clears throat] Oh, he's going to tell you. Okay. Hi, good evening every everyone's. My name is Fakondo Lucas Diaz and I'm trying to move this place because the previous owner, she told me this certified for out repair shop. But the but the reason is I come into the city to get the permission everything and they told me it's not right. So that's why I that's why I come here and I want to move it from the to the south division because the Alpine Al uh 1300 Alpine I've been operating right now but the space it's too little and I'm checking out there so I have a risk when I have a car every customer comes into uh in the shop when I finish the service they have to reverse to leave so it's not safety So, in this space, it's more safety for me because I have more space. And the other things is I'm paying four $4,000 for this property just for nothing. And I'm paying 3500 and 1300 alpine for using that property because I'm renting. So, and this is the reason I want to move in this property. But I want to but I want [clears throat] to straight everything with the city with the neighborhood and everything good because that's what I that's what I'm thinking to make sure everything fine and that's the reason

that that makes sense. Thank you for explaining that. I'm familiar with uh your your business on Alpine. I drive by it almost every day. Uh so I can understand why that might be too tight and yeah there's no good place to park where you can turn around and and get out onto the street uh easily. Um so I understand that but it at that site on Alpine often times you'll have more than nine cars there even on a smaller site. So that's why I asked the question about double parking cars or having them parked too deep and if you would be able to commit to only having cars parked one in each space at the new site because that would be a concern. Yeah, that's what I'm trying to don't uh don't double don't double stack the cars, the parking.

That's that's what I'm trying to get this uh space. Okay. So, you would you would be able to commit to that? Yes. Okay, great. Any additional questions? Go ahead.

I do have a question about the curve. Sorry, I do have a question about the curb cuts off of of division. The plan that we have in front of us shows three existing curb cuts and the plan shows that you're going to um take away one of those curb cuts, but are you saying that you you want to actually close down two of those curb cuts? So, you would access a site from the north curb cut and then you could exit onto Lebell to the south. Um, no, the proposal is to close one.

Okay. And then the the uh kirk up to the south right here by label is a little bit too large and I received uh notice from uh the plan review that we will have to rightsize that uh one uh access drive. So so we're prepared to do that and uh redesign that access uh to meet uh city ordinance codes. Understood. Thank you. Great. Anything else? Okay. Thank you. You can have a seat. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I will open up the public hearing. If you are here on this case, come forward and give us your thoughts in 3 minutes or less. Seeing none, uh I will close the public hearing. Okay. Commissioners thoughts. I don't want to put city staff on the spot, but are we able to calculate roughly how many additional spots we might be able to yield by extending the landscaping further to the is that the south? Is it to the south?

Sorry. Um, we could probably calculate that. Let me see.

Two, maybe three. I was going to estimate three, but it's a little difficult on the map, but I would say three would be a safe number, I think, to allow for um three additional spots if that southern curb cut shown on the plan or the middle one that exists today uh were removed. I think three would be a safe number, if not four. Are are you saying three additional to the north along division, but they would lose that one at the bottom, right? Yes. So net gain of two. Approximately of what's shown on the plan. Yes.

But I think that the one at the bottom wasn't counted initially. So it shows nine if you count that, but eight was what was in the staff report. Got it.

So it would be a true gain of three then. Uh, I I just I struggle because I want I want to approve this to help with the safety and with his concerns, the other business, but I also look at um where the master plan is in um the concern with the num from the the neighbors about the amount of auto repair businesses around there and the concerns about that holding back the the area. So, I um yeah, I'm just I'm struggling between those two things. I have those same concerns, but I also I mean the business as or the property as currently laid out Clearly, this was the intended use and and the applicants already purchased the property, which

makes me struggle more. Yeah.

Yeah. I would encourage the planning commission to stay focused on the the built environment piece of things. Um while clearly there's a challenge contractually and such, um I I can appreciate the uh challenge of of how we uh what's being recommended as part of the community master plan, but also balancing that with the the built environment um and specifically how this site is situated and constructed here.

Yeah, it does. Um yeah, that's interesting about the master plan. I was thinking about that as well. Well, I also think uh you know the site is you know been definitely underutilized for you know a dozen or more years. So I appreciate a new business or a business continuing to stay in the city of Grand Rapids. Um I uh I I I think the parking situation is a little bit uh challenging because it's a there's a ton of pvious surface there. There's room for a lot more vehicles, right? And so whether or not we end up with a lot more vehicles on that site, whether it goes to the north, uh I don't know that um yeah, I don't know what will prohibit the applicant from parking vehicles on those vacant lots uh or on the north side of this property. Um which, you know, maybe is neither here nor there. Car repair folks have a lot of vehicles on the on the sites and that's just how it goes, I guess, as long as they can stay out of the rightway. Um, yeah. I I don't know what else we we do about that. Um, but it is a lot of pvious surface on that for for nine or or 11 spots or however many it ends up being. But overall, I think uh glad to see a site here like this um you know, become active again. uh I think maybe not uh fitting in the ideal box of the master plan, but I um I do think it's good for the community and for that neighborhood to have activity at that site. And um yeah, I'm in the same place. I'm uh encouraged to see the site improved. My struggle has been uh this is what uh this use is what was previously existing here. So, it does feel like a a natural evolution to uh re-energize the site in the same way and um I'm motivated to approve it for that reason.

Yeah, I would say some some of the the benefits is that it is using an underutilized site. It's bringing it closer to compliance by increasing the landscaping um and removing an existing barb wire fence that that's obviously not good for the neighborhood. Those are all huge benefits. I do have fears about um operations of the site uh the scope creep of stored cars. I don't know if we can make the condition that um [snorts] it could be approved if an additional curb cut was closed and and landscaping was extended to the north on division. I would feel a lot more comfortable if we could get those extra parking spaces. Um I know right now the site that they're on is a a tenth of an acre and this is at least a quarter acre. So I think some of the issues that they're having there would be decreased. They're still operating in the in the city. That's a site that's two and a half times um the existing site. There's some benefits to approval. I think that we could do that. I I would feel comfortable with some conditions.

Oh, he has thoughts.

Uh well, I think if I'm understanding this right, they're already suggesting that they're closing one curb cut. which I don't think we are asking them to do another. Right. As drawn, there's three. They're closing one and narrowing another. This is not a curb cut. It's just looks like curb right of way right now. So, this will the ex the extension of the landscaping to the north up to the existing and future curb cut is what has been recommended. And by conditioning for the additional parking spaces, then we don't even need the parking waiver, right? Nine are required and that would make 11. So I think in that way it it works. I do have I mean I'm I'm conflicted on the uh number of auto repair shops in the area and I understand the concerns of the neighbors. Um but hopefully by you know the the applicant coming in looking to do the right thing making commitments to use the space uh as described. Um, I think it's an improvement for this property and hopefully uh a good thing for the neighborhood. So, I'm inclined to support with those conditions.

Okay.

Yeah. Um, I'm super conflicted about this one. I really appreciate the um the uh site plan bringing it closer to conformance with the ordinance with green space and landscaping. Um, but I think my big hangup is the that both the um the ASP and the master plan um are suggesting based on community input transition of this area um into something other than autooriented uses. And so, um, having this before us does present an opportunity to nudge it in that direction and to, um, follow through with some of the recommendations from those planning documents. Um, but I understand where all of y'all are coming from and, uh, you get to make the motions. So, May May I add something that the client just told me?

You may. So, he's uh I need to stop touching this. uh uh he he just told me that uh he would be committed to providing an affidavit stating that he will not exceed the number of cars stored on site to meet the city and uh your requirements. So thank you. Great. Okay. Any other discussion? Would someone like to make a motion? Can I ask one more question about transparency on the site?

Um, it is an existing building, so it doesn't have to meet the transparency. It's they're changing the front facade. The transparency right now appears to only have a couple small windows that don't really um that are higher up on the building. Do we know the transparency requirements for the T for this zone district and um how close to compliant it is? We we do. Laura Avery, do you do you have some context on that discussion while I look it up about what was I didn't know if you had already run those calculations. the we didn't um because the building was established by variance. It was existing and and it's it doesn't meet the zoning ordinance requirements for the for the setbacks or for for the transparency. Um so we we didn't have that conversation because it was established by variance. Um and given the the extent of the site upgrades that the applicant um is proposing um compelling the applicant to increase the transparency on a building that was allowed um by that variance approval um didn't seem to be a priority discussion point.

60% is the requirement for that zone district. But I think Laura raises valid points about um the the zoning ordinance does have allowances for departures from that 60% uh based on the nature of the use, the placement of the building um being um towards the back, the existence of the building based on the variance. Um our uh staff direction was to remain focused on the site improvements um versus the building element requirements. If the planning commission uh finds it necessary to add additional transparency, um that's something that we could um discuss with the applicant. There just might be some uh challenges uh especially as it relates to the extent of the improvements that may not warrant some additional compliance, but that would be up to the planning commission to consider. Do the windows for the residential unit on the second floor contribute to that 60%.

They don't. So the 60% generally would be between 2 and 8 ft. So it's for the ground floor. Um so that would be the upper level transparency requirement which I believe drops down to about 30%. Uh visually it certainly appears that the second floor would um sufficiently meet the ordinance. I think the one other thing that was brought up during the report was um adding a second service door store on the front there. Um and if this gets approved, I don't I don't have a problem with adding a second service there, even though it is facing the street. I just I don't think the amount of changes that would be required to that building to make it come into compliance would be worth it for the owner. This may not be relevant, so just tell me if we don't need an answer. I'm just curious if the building code speaks to the door going right into a bathroom going into the service area. If that's an issue, like does there need to be a customer entrance with this type of a business?

I don't feel equipped to answer that question. There's a new door on the north side. Okay. Okay. Was that part of your discussion, Laura? Okay. So, but it sounds like a new door is being added for as a customer entry. Okay.

And the door on the north side opens onto the applicant's property, not onto the neighbor's property. Okay. All right. Any other questions or discussion? Mulling over. Would someone like to make a motion? Sure. I'll make a motion now. Now therefore, be it resolved, the planning commission approves the special land use and site plan review request of Lucas Auto Repair, Fakundo Lucas, to establish a vehicle service and repair facility at 1319 South Division Avenue for the following reasons. One, the proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the master plan and zoning ordinance, including in the zone district, because the proposed use will support the purpose and intent of the TNTBA zone district by providing a mix of uses within a commercial area and will allow for reasonable use of an underutilized property and bring the site closer to conformity with current regulations. Two, the proposed use will meet the site plan review standards of section 5.12.08e OEE because the proposed use has been designed to meet all standards and requirements with modifications permitted by the zoning ordinance and the site will be brought closer to conformity with current landscape standards. 3A. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the existing planned character and uses of the neighborhood adjacent and adjacent properties because the original use of the subject property was autooriented in nature and the proposed use is consistent with the original intent of the building and site improvements and

the adjacent residential use will be buffered from the site activity by a landscape buffer. 3B. The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because all repair activities will be contained within the building. An effective landscape screening will be provided. 3C. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare because excessive noise or glare is not anticipated and any visual clutter will be mitigated by landscaping. 3D. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood. impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrianoriented environment because landscaping will be planted in front of the parking area near the sidewalk along Division Avenue, reestablishing the street wall. 5B, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the city because the reuse will not result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions. Be it further resolved that the following conditions of approval shall apply to the project. Standard conditions set a approvals. One, that the applicant application and plan submitted by the applicant and signed, dated, and stamped by the planning director shall constitute the approved plans except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and or as amended in this resolution. Two, that the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony as recorded in the planning commission minutes. Three, that this approval does not include any proposed signs and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. Four, that the land use development services permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the city of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. Five, that any expansion of the approved special land use requires an additional special land use review and approval by the planning commission. Six, that the

proposed use will comply with all other applicable city ordinances and policies and all state laws. Seven, that this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the planning commission's decision. Two, that all activities shall be performed within the building and all equipment, vehicle parts, tires, and any other materials and supplies shall be located and stored within the building. Three, that damaged or wrecked vehicles shall not be stored on site for purposes other than repair. Four, that all vehicles awaiting repair or pickup by the vehicle owner shall be kept in approved parking spaces on site. Five, that to the extent practical, the site shall meet the green site element standards of article six, green space and tree canopy, and that the parking lot landscape requirements of article 11 and the parking lot landscape requirements of article 11, screening, buffering, and interior landscaping. Six, that on-site lighting be brought into compliance with the standards of section 5.2.19. 2.19 seven that the curb cut on Label Street Southwest be narrowed to meet current engineering standards.

Did you want to add the condition about expanding net landscaping along South Division? I have a condition drafted if you'd like. Yeah. Yeah, I would actually. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead with that. Oh, I've just lost it. that the landscaping along south division along the south division frontage be extended to the north to meet the existing curb cut and that additional parking spaces be added.

Yep, that works. Um, and we don't like condition seven there was that we the label curb cut is going to be narrowed. We don't need a similar condition that will eliminate that because that's shown on this plan. So, we're assuming that's okay, right? Okay. Thank you. support. And uh just a question on uh how do we calculate the maximum parking allowed? There's a multiplier, right? There's a multiplier. Uh it's 20% over the maximum required

or the amount required. I think that there is some uh flexibility to differentiate between the storage of vehicles that are being serviced and parking spaces for um customers. So I feel comfortable with the nominal amount of parking that we can work with um the number of spaces being proposed plus a few additional uh with that logic.

Okay. The only reason I'm asking is, and I don't expect us to be able to determine this or design it right here, but if the applicant's architect was able to demonstrate that the drive lane width could allow for additional parking in front of the building as the aerial shows. And I think one one of it wasn't in our packet, but it was on the screen. So, right there in front of where the No, I'm sorry. Can you go back to the photo? So, it looks like cars have been parked pulled up to the BU building to the left of where the service bays are proposed. And if the drive width there is wide enough to allow for one or two more parking spaces if we're comfortable with that only I'm trying to create a scenario where they can stick to what they've committed to and not park cars where they're not supposed to be. Um so proactively saying that that would be okay if they can demonstrate that there's dimensions there. Um, and again, my concern is their westside facility is tight. There are more than nine cars parked there most times. So,

so then what I think I'm hear you saying is that the applicant work with city staff to identify additional spaces for on-site storage of vehicles uh waiting for repair andor recently completing a pair repair um to ensure you know orderly circulation of the site. Yeah. what I don't want to see a bunch of parallel parking and odds and ends, but if it makes sense in an orderly fashion, then I'm okay with that and I'd like to try to permit that if everyone else is comfortable with it.

Yeah, I am. I do think that there's more opportunity to have, you know, for lack of it, like structured like planned parking on this site. And if we're Yeah. I mean, I think we see it a lot that car repair facilities often have more cars than they anticipate on the site at a given time. And if we had spaces for them, that that's fine to fill them as long as they're, you know, planned appropriately. So, I would I would agree with that amendment. Okay. Um, we have a motion and support. Um, any further discussion? Repeat that at all or was it was it sufficient? So, you're going to add another put in

I was trying to type what I stated off the cuff and just wanted confirmation that is that okay? Um, that additional parking spaces be added where site dimensions allow to ensure orderly and efficient use of the site and accommodate necessary vehicle storage. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? I. Motion carries. Um, congratulations and good to see you. [clears throat]

All right, let's go to our second case, 1150 Adam Street Southeast. and Laura will walk us through this. Yeah, sorry. We'll let Commissioner Yoner leave. So, our next case is a request to amend uh an approved planned redevelopment district or PRD. This PRD is part of a larger development plan uh known for the Boston Square business district known as Boston Square together. The PRD was adopted by the city commission in August of 2020. The property is located east of Kalamazoo Avenue, bounded by Adam Street to the north and Fuller Avenue to the east. Um surrounding property includes lowdensity residential to the north, traditional business area to the west and south, and mixed density residential with the Grand Rapid H Grand Grand Rapids Housing Commission um directly to the east. So the the larger um development area Boston Square together includes development that is not part of this PRD. In this image, you can see um this the building at the corner of Kalamazoo and Ramona is the community hub building that is part of the Boston Square Together development outside of the PRD. That building has been constructed. Um, and in this image, you can see kind of in the middle of the screen, there's a building under construction that is part of the the PRD. It's currently under construction today. And I'll talk more about that building in a little bit. This is the plan, the conceptual site plan that was approved uh with the PRD

ordinance. And um it was intended that this would be the general plan of the the overall development and then each development phase would come back to the planning commission for site plan review with a public hearing to review the details of of each individual development phase. As you can see, there's there's Evergreen Extension. The street would be extended. Um the the community hub building is at the this the bottom of this image here. And the building that we saw under construction right now is this building in the middle labeled F2. And the F buildings are the family buildings. Um multiple um they're family residential and mixed use. There are senior buildings. Those are labeled S1 and S2. And then the town home buildings at the north along Adam Street are T1, T2, and T3. So in this original approval, there are three town home development buildings and this play area that is located central to the development. And it's the town home area of development that is um requested to be amended today. Um again, this is the original approval. This rendering shows how, you know, the the original um development as it was approved would would look like and feel like. And that if we focus in on the T the town home buildings, you can see the T1 building was proposed to be three stories um and T2 and T3 would be two stories. There are some grades on this property and the these buildings were were designed to um take advantage of some of the grade changes to allow for garages um individual garages for each unit

um to be accessed by the service drive running behind the town homes. And as I mentioned, the the PRD is intended to be developed um you know over time. Not everything would be constructed at once. The general development pattern um would run from the south to the north. And this image um each number represents the intended order of development. And this F2 building is under construction today. And at the just south of that building is the F1 building. That building is currently under permit review. And so on this plan, you will see the town homes are still intended to be, you know, moving from south to north. They're intended to be um last for development. So this is the site plan that is proposed that shows the changes. I've included this so you can see and review the overall PRD. U we can come back to this slide if we need to later. But I also wanted to give you the opportunity to to compare both plans side by side. So where there were three um separate buildings fronting Adam Street, now uh there are five town home buildings proposed to be oriented around the the service drive entering the the development area. Three buildings would front Adam Street and then two town home buildings would be on the south side of that service drive. The play area that was previously centrally located on the property is now located at the northeast corner um fronting both Adams Street and Fuller Avenue

and um the the change in density is is also being requested. Um 20 town home units were approved originally. What's proposed on the new site plan are 22 um town home dwelling units with a range of 22 to 25 units. Um I'll allow the applicant to provide some additional information. The and I'll go into this a little bit later as well. There's some flexibility because of the new design of the town homes. There's some flexibility to add some additional living space. Um so the applicant is has wanted to ask for this change um the range of density with a PRD uh any change in increase in density requires an amendment. So this range allows for some flexibility in the future. Here are some rendering images of what the town homes are intended to look like. They will be flat roof um brick clad structures. The two images at the top of the screen are the buildings fronting Adam Street. As you can see in these images, they are they will be two stories at the street. Um because of the grain cha grade change, they are actually three-story buildings. You can see on the bottom left image the where the garages were originally proposed is now um zeroep entry into the the units. And then the the buildings south of the service drive are twostory. They don't have a basement or a low lower level. And those are also designed to be zeroep entry. This slide shows the existing grades on the property. You can see that there's significant slope or significant um uh elevation change of about 15 ft um

dipping down from Adam Street to the south that runs straight through the middle of the property and of the development area. So this image, you can see the slope going down. Um the building that you can see in this image is the existing school building that's on the property today that will be demolished. And in the distance um is this is that F2 building that is currently under construction. And this is the view from Adam Street. [snorts]

So, as I mentioned, the town homes are arranged around this internal drive. Um, because the garages have been removed from the plan, there is now um parking has been added to this drive. There's parallel parking on the north side of the drive and 90deree parking spaces at the south side of the drive just west of the T5 building. Relative to parking, each area of development with the PRD is required to provide a parking calculation and any appropriate waiverss or reductions to show to demonstrate that it meets its own parking demand. Previously, because garages were provided for each town home unit, um the parking requirement, two spaces per unit was met with the garages and the garages have now been removed. So parking on the street is uh required to meet that parking minimum. The range of units requested require 44 to 50 parking spaces and 23 parking spaces are now provided on this internal drive. So that requires um we asked the planning commission to consider if a waiver or reduction of the required minimum parking is appropriate. the um it's a deficit of 21 to 27 parking spaces and a redu a reduction when in considering a reduction um it's important to consider the whether there's adequate street parking um the intensity of use the existing or planned traffic patterns and available transit in the area and I've put details about the parking um waiverss and reduction uctions in the staff report. So speaking about the drive, although

the drive is in the same configuration and location as originally approved, the nature of the drive has changed. Um, previously it it was necessary for the residents to access their garages and now it so it functioned more like an alley. Now it's more of a residential street with um with dwellings fronting on both sides. And even though the back of the town home buildings fronting Adam Street um is along that internal drive, there are entrances to those homes on that drive as well. So this this is um the change in the nature of the drive with the parking and the access to the residential dwellings um does change the circul circulation pattern of the the the PRD in general. So I will also mention that on this plan you can see that there is a parking lot surface parking lot behind the T5 and T4 buildings that is intended to provide parking for um the the other uses on the property. [snorts] So, here is the the overlay of the the existing grades with the um with a proposed site plan. And with this um this illustrates that the the surface parking area west of the T5 building um is down slope from those town home buildings. And also this shows that the significant slope um at the from the level area of the park at the corner

drops about 8 ft to the sidewalk next to the um internal drive. And um that's an important consideration. just the the park area is necessary to meet the urban open space requirement for this development and it's intended to provide um a recreational space uh for the residents of the development as well as the neighborhood um surrounding it. And while the location of the park on the periphery of the development um helps increase the accessibility and availability to neighboring residents, um due to the slopes, it may hinder some of the accessibility for the residents of the the development. Additionally, um there are six foot wide sidewalks planned um to be constructed on both sides of the internal drive directly adjacent to the concrete curb and gutter. There is no parkway planned. Um while this approach is intended to be an efficient use of property of the development, um it does not meet the the requirements of the city's vital streets plan for a residential street. Uh this slide I left in in case questions come up. This is a cross-section of the elevation changes of the drive. Um, I will defer to the civil engineer to provide details in describing this, but I wanted you to know that this this was available if it were a discussion point. And now the elevations. Um, you can see how these buildings have been designed to take advantage of the grade changes on the site. um the the east and the

west elevation of the three-story buildings. Those those are the buildings fronting Adam Street and you can see that they are two stories at the street and then three stories um along the internal drive. I will also mention on the these threetory buildings because of the lower level on the architectural plans there are egress windows shown on the front of these buildings. Um there are no egress windows shown on the civil plans and I will forward to the floor plans here. The lower level of those buildings is um as you can see on this floor plan they they're not planned to be built with livable space. So the zoning ordinance does require a 10-foot setback from the front property line for that egress window well. And so I if those window wells are necessary, I'll defer to the applicant whether or not they're going to be included on the plan. They would need to meet that 10-ft setback. I do want to talk about the range of dwelling units and this lower level. Um it's it's our understanding that the the additional dwelling units may um fit within the existing building footprints on your plan in this lower level for future conversion. And it's that level that is the zerostep entry out onto the private drive or the internal drive. And so um I will conclude with um mention that the applicant engaged with two neighborhood meetings and there's information in your packet and um they can provide additional um details about those meetings should you have questions. So, in some we're asking the planning

commission to consider this revised site plan um and increased density and whether the additional dwelling units um further our the the city's housing supply goals and supports the community master plan recommendations for a greater supply of housing types and how the the town home buildings provide a transition from the lower lower density residential to the north and higher density and um commercial uses to the south. Additionally, the site plan um considerations, changes to the site plan, um the location of the T4 and T5 buildings located um central to the site and relocation of the park to um the periphery of the development, the treatment of this the private drive, this the sidewalks and um the the parkway as well. And then finally, we asked the planning commission to consider the reduction in the parking requirements. Does anybody have questions for me? Thank you, Laura. Any questions for Laura? I don't have any questions for you, but I'm wondering if we could get um [clears throat] hear from mobile GR related to the circulation and the discrepancy between street parking on Adams and the future plans of that as a neighborhood bikeway and their thoughts on that.

Yep. Okay. Thank you. Sorry to put you on the spot.

I like your sweater. Thank you. It's very cozy for this cold cold day. So, um, Ariana Jessie, assistant director for mobile GR. Um, Adam Street is designated a neighborhood bikeway in the bike action plan from 2019. Um, currently there is 30 ft of available width there, which is enough for two traffic lanes in the current parking lane. You can see that the residence is to the north, have a driveway, so they generally do not park on that side of the street. Um, so if we were to build this into a neighborhood bikeway, we would be taking that parking. Um, we do not have it as a current project, nor do we have it on the capital plan. Okay.

Um, we are moving forward with a new transportation plan hopefully. I'll put that little asterisk on it. So, it's something that we may not be uh keeping this particular type of bikeway or kind of bicycle facility within our newer plans. So in the immediate moment here, we are not planning on taking that parking. Um, as far as the internal circulation of the driveway, um, it is kind of more of a residential road. If it is a private road, it is something that we are okay with kind of like the parallel parking there. Um, the 28 ft, unless it's being dictated by the fire, is wider than our standard driveway. Um, and kind of I would say that particular width would allow for two lanes and then a parking lane. So, it's something that they would need to either sign or acknowledge that those would be indoor inside parking spots. So, cool. Thank you so much. Any other questions from commissioners now? All right. We'll have the applicant come on up. Good afternoon. My name is John. I'm the executive director at Amplified GR. Uh and Andrew with Habitat will also be speaking today. Um we're excited about this project um and this uh this uh revision to the plan. Um we began this planning process back in 2018 and it fully was adopted in 2020. And so you can probably imagine there's been a couple of things that have changed uh since that time and likely in the future other things will be changing as well as we um really try to get to a financable constructible uh uh uh for each of the subsequent phases. So um we've had a significant amount of community engagement um over the last uh six to nine months this process. We've had three public meetings and a couple of smaller meetings as well. Um so we're

pretty excited about the specifics of the site plan and we're still working on the architecture design. So uh the design that you saw is very preliminary. Uh we've actually been updating that uh since this uh since what uh since this so the it's it's significantly progressing even beyond that. So the goal is that the uh the final architecture would come back for review the planning commission I believe. Is that right Kristen? Um um and so this is just kind of the the initial part. Some of the things that we've really been focusing on. So net this is a a increase in density on the site. Um and so as we think about housing, um certainly it's an important feature. Maybe one context point uh for F2, the building that's currently under construction, uh there's 57 units and we have not begun advertising for that yet. And we've already had an inquiry of over 450 people. And so I think it just speaks to the the the significant challenge that we have in terms of housing supply in the city of Grand Rapids. Uh we've been really thoughtful about the transition between the single family houses to the front um and then really utilizing the grade change. So one of the big changes that we're uh proposing to make is the elimination of the garages. I think really the thought is we're creating the volume of space. Wouldn't it be better to use that for housing rather than for housing cars? And so that really is the big shift. Um and then if you think about this internal street, you know, I think really the context is this is essentially the same width as a street in Easttown. Um, and so it is thought of as more of kind of a a driveway, if you will, but in terms of its context and width, it's very much like a a traditional city width street in terms of its design. And really, that's our goal. We want this to feel very European, walkable, um, despite the fact that it's more of an internal circulation space. Um, the park, uh, we really have, uh, grappled with what is the best way to approach this. Um, so we've been very thoughtful about that. Um the topo is the existing topography and so I would not focus too much on kind of that significant shift because in the end that's all going to be graded with retaining walls and that kind of stuff to really get the maximum flat

space and that's actually one of the main reasons we wanted to shift it. Um in the the old or the original uh that 15 ft of grade change was actually happening on the playground space and so that's that's kind of the why one of the parts of why we wanted to shift that. Um, the other part is if you think about Cherry Park on the corner of Cherry and Eastern, I think this is a good kind of mental reference of what this could become. It's not going to be as large, but you know, a prominent intersection and how how both the neighborhood can can more enjoy the space versus it being internal to the Boston Square together. So, that was the big shift of is this for the neighborhood, for the community or is this specific for the tenants of Boston Square together. So our conclusion this should be for the a greater amenity and that's why we desire to uh uh kind of shift it to be a more public space. Um so I think that's that's probably it from the amplify perspective. You know I think we're really excited about how this fits into the broader um redevelopment effort. Uh we actually have our second building under construction. So it's no longer in permit review. Um it's now under construction um as of January 5. So uh the old Amplify offices if you're familiar with those uh is no longer there. it's now just a flat site. So, we're pretty excited about that. Uh, and we're beginning to work uh both on the bank site on the top left or the northwest side of the corner and the senior housing project. So, a couple more that hopefully in the next uh 6 to 12 months will be coming back to the planning commission as well. Uh, with that, I think I'll turn it over to Andrew from Habitat. [snorts] Uh, hi everyone. Andrew Clary, vice president of neighborhood revitalization for Habitat Kent. Um, I think John hit a lot of points that I was going to talk about, but I think it's important to keep in mind that these are all intended to be owner occupied. And so with that, the intention in the design is to allow for the longevity of a family to grow into the space and to be in their home for a long period of time. So the T4 and T5 buildings were added so that there is

a component of accessibility to the site. um that was the only way to include any sort of ADA accessible unit within the development. Um and that's something we try to achieve with every home that we build. Um and then the shift from the garages to the lower living space allows for families to grow um to build out that basement if they want to to turn it into an ADU if they so choose. um just provides a lot of flexibility for a family to make choices for what works for them and what they need from their home. Um which I think is something that we're really excited about um just providing that flexibility and that growth opportunity um through the design here. Um the other piece I'll talk about with the street design, um it's really designed to be a community oriented kind of community building space versus a parking lot. Um, every unit on the Adam Street units has an outdoor patio seating space on the back of that unit. We envision that really being the community center for these town homes where you are able to interact with your neighbors. And so designing the street in a way where people feel comfortable sitting out there talking, planting their gardens, grilling, whatever they want to do with that space, um, feels really important to us. And so we would appreciate keeping the street tight, slow, and really pedestrian oriented.

Great. I have one question. So, um I just wanted to clarify I think something that Laura said during her presentation related to the unfinished portions of the buildings that being where the zero zeroep entry is like but so will there actually be zero entry units? Yes. Okay.

So those yeah the 15 units on Adams will have the zeroep entry on the back side. Our intention is to build those out as like a finished basement wreck room kind of at at the completion of our portion. And then the T4 and T5 on the other side of the street, those will be zero entry with full accessibility. So first floor bathroom, first floor bedroom. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions for that? Yeah. I guess wonder could you just address the discrepancy with the egress windows and whether or not that was

Sure. Yeah. So I guess our intention was to include the egress windows which is part of the providing the flexibility for a family to make that into a bedroom in the future and have the proper uh structure in place to do so. So if we need to revise the setbacks, I guess we would have to work on that for our next uh hearing for the three buildings along Adams with the zero step entry in the back and these being town homes that will be purchased. What if an owner wanted to convert that into a garage? Is that an option that they would have? I don't believe so. I I guess I don't Yeah, I'd have I'd probably look bit more at you than we wouldn't probably allow that. I guess the HOA probably wouldn't allow that to take place either. Um we haven't defined those ma that mastery year bylaws yet. I I think from our standpoint, uh HOA and and master deeds aside, uh we would look at that as a change to the site plan and bring it back to planning commission. Um because it would change the the functionality of the street. Um I not sure how the uh bylaws would be structured to know what that process would be. Uh typically if it were coming back before planning commission, it were an individual homeowner at that point, we would also uh have documentation from the HOA to indicate support. So we don't enforce the bylaws, but we try to make sure that we work with the owner to ensure that there's communication so that all three parties, city, owner, and HOA are involved in that discussion. I think what it would mean though is if that um unit were or sorry that ground floor space were converted into a separate unit though that individuals

that might reside above would then be required to walk around. Correct. Um and it wouldn't be a zeroep entry for that upper unit. Correct. That's correct. Yeah. If they convert it, would there then be parking requirements with an ADU? Additional there would be. Yes. And that would be something else that would have to be that's part of the flexibility we're looking for today is to kind of plan for that potential future with the parking requirements. So, right because you're Oh, sorry. Because you're asking for a range of

And that's why the range is requested. May I speak to the the timeline for when you last engaged the neighbors? I know you've you've got great resources in here. Have you engaged the neighbors about the change um in the park and in these additional buildings? Yep. So, we Yeah, we initially engaged the neighbors with the changes that you're seeing here, I believe, last April, followed up in the fall, and there was smaller meetings in between then and now, and still ongoing work with the community. Thank you. Go ahead,

Andrew. I don't know if this would be for you or for your civil, but my understanding uh from the fire department is that the proposed uh road would actually need to be 26 ft and not 20 ft to accommodate the uh fire truck. Um so I'm not sure that the plans were updated with that information. So, I I just want to make sure we [sighs] um have that consideration and and whether if the if there are not curbs and the sidewalk is flush with the street, maybe that is a way to accommodate the 26 ft if necessary, but [snorts] I believe that was a requirement of the fire department um because of the fire code uh changes recently. Um, and then also since you're up here, I'm wondering, can you help me reconcile the landscape plan and the site plan with the renderings? It it certainly the renderings uh do show some additional landscaping and placement that are not consistent with the site plan. So, I just want to make sure we understand what is the accuracy of the renderings. the uh regarding the street width, we have been working with the fire department on that and I know there was we did kind of a last minute change around December to revise some of the street width. Um I couldn't really tell on that screen what it's listed now. I think you were saying it was 20. We've have been working on I think 28 ft total, but then getting into that parallel parking is something we're still kind of working through with the fire department. Um so there might be a couple feet here they're adjusting to meet their requirements. Um, as far as landscaping, it kind of ties into that street width discussion. Um, particularly along that interior street, there's not a ton of room to put street trees. Um, we have utilities coming between the buildings and then we also have the patios attached to the back. Um, so I guess kind of the short answer to that would be that that's still a

little bit of a work in progress depending on what we do with some of the street width discussions and some of these smaller building adjustments. Um, and then obviously putting them in where we can. Do you have space on the southern edge then? Because I I feel like, you know, there there's dimensional constraints here and requirements that have to be met. But what I'm trying to understand is is that going to come at the expense of the um of the landscaping along the streetscape elements to reflect I think John you used the European style feel. Can those elements that would create that feel be accommodated with the 26 foot width

that I would have to review that. Um that's kind of why it's a little bit sparse at the moment because we're still looking into some of that and trying to figure out where we're going to be at wise. Um we would work to comply as much as possible as we can fitting every fitting landscaping in where we can. We want to make this a nice space. We don't want it to just be empty.

Sure. And I understand I mean this is a conceptual plan approval for the planning commission. So I think that there's still time to work through some of these details. But I think being clear for the planning commission on what is the expectation for how this street functions and feels is really important because what I don't want to have happen is approve a concept plan of based on dimensions and layout and then not be able to create uh add those placemaking elements and then it's it's a much more difficult position for you to be in during a final site plan review if you don't have those expectations clearly articulated. Yeah, that's a good point. Hard to say no,

right? Yeah. Yeah. No, I think the more we can do um to increase that pedestrian oriented environment, the better. But yeah, and I'm I know Habitat and Amplify have the same intentions. It's just when we're developing in an urban area, we're constrained um by geometry and sometimes that pushes and pulls a few things. Any other questions now? Okay, we'll have you have a seat. Um I will open up the public hearing. If you're here to speak on this case, make your way up to the mic um and give us your thoughts. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn to my fellow commissioners here.

I Yeah, I generally like the changes. Um if they can, you know, work with the fire department and um the city in a way to make that the street narrower. I totally understand the desire to do that and I I kind of like like the approach. Um so I would I would be in favor of that. I was a little bit concerned about putting the park on Adam Street in Fuller, but after hearing the explanations around it and the comparison to Cherry Cherry Street, um that makes makes a lot of sense to me. So yeah, I would be in favor of it. I struggled with the park, too, and I'm I'm glad that you're able to bring some clarity to that because I did think being able to make this a neighborhood park is important. Um, I don't love how the phasing makes the park number seven. Um, so I did, you know, seven out of seven. I I wish that the park were completed, you know, when the first batch of um residential units was completed. Um I understand there there may be some challenges and I don't know that I have any control over that, but I did reach out to staff just because I wanted to make sure um that this important element didn't get overlooked and that the park actually got finished and they did clarify that this is, you know, a part of the approval. I I almost feel like it should be a condition of you know the final CO but there is an approval in the township that or gosh the city that's going to be an adjustment um that this element will get finished and that was important to me and I do appreciate the work that Amplify has done to build relationships and the other organizations in involved um to build relationships and get feedback from the community over years on this project. it hasn't been just

shoved down anybody's throat and I like that we actually have community feedback. That's um super important to me. But I also agree that this, you know, this meets some of the goals that the city is has for density. Um I did want to ask parking requirements. What percentage does the planning commission have the authority to wave?

So planning commission can wave up to 100% of the required parking. Um I would need to rely on staff to help me remember what were the expectations around the original planned redevelopment district here. But you have the authority. Um however those spaces have to be the waiverss have to be earned. Uh and they can be earned through availability of on street parking. Um keeping in mind uh the comments that were made previously from mobile GR uh they can be earned by proximity to transit. um the ad of bike parking. Um so there there is that authority.

Okay. One more question for staff. Then this may not be readily available but do we have other um examples of projects mixeduse projects or or housing projects that have waved parking requirements and you there has been problems or there hasn't there haven't been problems. That would give us any more insight onto if that would be appropriate for this site. I so planning commission has fairly consistently I'd say uh waved parking requirements at varying degrees of um at varying degrees. I can't think of a similarly situated project. I'm staring very intently at Elizabeth. I'm sorry. [laughter] I can't think of a similarly situated project um to compare a waiver of a town home style development. I think ours are more in the the modern era, mid-century era. Um but the the waiverss of parking generally, especially in our traditional neighborhoods, are are not infrequent. Again, they're they're earned though. So the expectation is that if private parking isn't um provided that it can the the individual might choose an a different mode of transportation and and that's easily accessible. I do want to circle back on the phasing piece of it though. I I do think it would be within your authority to um let me finish my thought. I do think it would be within your authority to consider whether the the proposed phasing plan is acceptable to you. The phasing of the overall PRD is is something that the planning commission did consider. Um so whether there's tied to funding and such, I I think that that's something that um Amplify specifically might be in a better position uh to address. So if you need more information to feel comfortable

with the phasing plan, I think that that's a fair question to be asking. Um, and know that if it is an expectation that it has to be moved earlier in the process to align with the development of the town homes, for example, that's something that you could consider. But John's hand shot up really quickly, so I don't know if you'd like. Yeah, that's [laughter] your

um could we pull up the phasing plan again? I don't remember which direction that was at. Um the way that we've envisioned the phasing is that it really just kind of flows south to north, but that wasn't necessarily the way that we thought it was going to end up. It's just as these partnerships and kind of financing pathways emerge that we we'd probably reorder the the phasing if this happened. So the other thing I think is a really important context is that the PRD is uh connected with the community partnership agreement and I failed to mention that early. And so, uh, the the community partnership agreement really lays out the expectations of, uh, Amplified GR, the neighborhood organizations, and the city of Grand Rapids. And one of the key features of this is that that through this partnership approach, it's going to take a village to get these things accomplished. And the parks are certainly going to be one of those things that um, will require some ongoing conversations. And so, um, so we are in active conversations on the park across the street um, at the Adams Apartments complex. uh we're in active conversations with the current modern hardware property about their hopes to move across the street uh to become a future park and then of course this one and so I think one of the conversations we're having with the city is does this become more of a park the city of Grand Rapids parks distributed type of model um and so um I think at this phase uh we're not we're I we're not at at we're not uh able to commit to it uh tied to this but I think it would be appropriate to tie it to something prior to being at the very very last thing. So, I think that would be appropriate. So, again, our expectations that these numbers are going to change. Um, but we also have to continue our conversations and negotiations with the city parks department about um how to fulfill all these green sph

before the planning commission though it's it's not the city has not committed to this being a public park currently. Yep. Yeah. So, just want to make sure that that's for the record clear with the planning commission. Is the playground in phase two publicly available or is that tied to a daycare? Uh that is tied to the the litec units there and so it will be uh technically available or u well I should say the opposite technically not available but practically will and functionally will be available uh for local residents as well. Okay.

So I think that's an important part too. It's not an only the the future park that's in the white box at the very bottom. Uh but we will have a community garden and the playground that's nested within the the kind of the peach uh phase 2 uh that's under construction currently. What is the current setback from the uh Adams facing buildings? You said 10 would be required for the egress windows and what are we at right now? Do we know eight? Okay. Manageable. I'm sorry John. When you're talking about the in and Kyle, when you're talking about the current playground, are you talking about the one like by the refugee education center and right by the hub?

No, it's uh next uh so the number two. I don't know if my cursor shows up. Oh, okay. Oh, gotcha. Okay. What about the one that is by the hub that that playground there? Is that available to That one is exclusively for the early learning center. Okay.

Yep. Um, the other one that we're kind of more informally working on is uh the property that Hub7 owns between the sidewalk to the north and the modern hardware building. There's probably about 20 ft of green space there. And so we're also looking in the interim of more of kind of a kind of a temporary organic kind of park there, similar to the Boston Square parklet we have immediately to the west of Modern Hardware. So again, we're trying to inject more kind of informal green spaces in addition to the formal ones that are currently there. [snorts]

I guess as it relates to parking, typically I have no problem waving parking, but as these are going to be owner occupied units and clearly intended for families that could have two working adults that work in areas that may not have good transit accessibility. I just have a concern that if we're only providing one parking spot per unit, you know, you have two adults who are working, what if, you know, one adult works in Rockford, one adult works in Cedar Springs, clearly can't get there using transit. Now, that being said, I also understand that, you know, people who have that requirement have the option not to purchase these units, but I do just worry that it limits and for I mean, and and I'll I'll say for my person, me personally, I'm not counting on the unit the parking spots on Adams to exist forever if we're thinking that that's going to become a bikeway in the future. So, um that's that's a concern that I have. I'm with you on this and I I'm certainly being influenced by a day like today when it is a privilege to drive into a garage and to drive out of a garage and not have to manage um traversing any distance when especially if you have a young family or or a child in a car seat. So, I'm wondering if there's a blended approach that's an option where some of the units could have garages and some could have that ability to further develop that lower level and then families might have options about what their priority is. I don't know if that's our purview or not, but it's been a thought I've had.

I would say it is within your purview. I think that if that were the majority of the planning commission sentiment that a pause or postponement would be uh a better route for us to work with um the applicant, determine, you know, feasibility of that. um from a a project perspective, project financing model. Um and then from our perspective about how the site would function if we were to have garages off the uh off the service drive. Yeah, it would it'd be something I'd hesitate if I'm fine if that's what the planning commission wants. I'd be a little bit hesitant to move forward with an approval today with a condition like that.

I'll be I want to clarify my comment too that I'm not necessarily looking to add back the garages. I just worry that having less than two parking spots per unit is is not ideal.

Would it be okay if I respond? Um, so just conferred with uh uh Andrew, you know, I think really our approach is I want to kind of center who this is for specifically. So this is a project in partnership with Amplify and Habitat for Humanities. So these are really, you know, projects that are focusing or on uh low and moderate income folks that have have traditionally have been locked out of home ownership opportunities. And so I think it's really important to, you know, to build garages and that sort of thing is at a tremendous expense and it's an expense that's at the detriment of creating uh the living spaces that we're desiring to get. And so I just want to make sure that we're holding those two things in balance. Um you I think probably part of I think what you uh mentioned as well is that there is a choice too that there is going to be an element of self- selection here. If you know parking is a desire, right? This may um or abundant parking is a desire. This probably is not the place that you're going to want to um to live. And so I think that's going to be a choice. There certainly is an abundant of other choices um in the city of Grand Rapids. And so I think you know I think who is the core market of the the 22 families that will be living here. This is not for everybody. Absolutely. Some people want a single family house. Um, you know, other people want a garage. Um, right. But this will be for a demographic or folks uh that are looking for something like this. And I I think I'd probably just keep that in mind as well. Um, is there anything else you want to kind of share in that?

Yeah, I think uh on top of that, it's we think about the overall PRD and what the intention of the overall development is. this feels like it is in line with what that intention is to promote walkability and having access to every aspect of your daily life without having to get in a car. Um, and if people do really prioritize that, we have other projects that are uh going to meet those needs elsewhere. Um, so we also really value housing choice and providing a different mix of options for um this segment of the market that has traditionally been left out of home ownership. mentioned the bus stop too.

Yeah, there are also two uh bus routes, I believe. One that runs along Kazoo and one that runs along Fuller. Um so there is ample uh transit access on either side of the development.

Great. Thanks. Yeah, I for one am pleased to see the um addition of living space and um the inclusion of zeroep entry units. Um the additional density um is good in my opinion um and very small if someone was concerned about um adding density. Um and uh with the Adam Street after hearing from Mobile GR and the uncertainty related to sticking with that original bicycle action plan and not knowing um what's going to happen there, I think with that there's enough time for the city to work with this development to figure out what um is best uh for the for Adams in the future. Um, and yeah, I I thought immediately of the Cherry Park um, example when we were talking about when I saw the plan to move it here and how that is a very busy intersection and um, yet that park feels very comfortable um, to be in. So, I think that this can work here as well. Um and yeah, just glad for the continued engagement with the community and um noticing the modifications that were made between meeting one and meeting two. Um so yeah, thanks for listening to folks uh about this development. I'm in support.

I assuming that the the fire lane width requirements can be met. Um good. I'm I am concerned about the experience of the residents in building T4 and T5 and I'm fine with a narrower street, but not having any landscaping or the tree lawn or anything, just having the road flow into the sidewalk is concerning to me. Um, and I understand that they're working with some pretty tight constraints here. Um, but it does feel like some of the homes that face alleys right now in the city and I worry about how that uh actually turns out in the future for them. You know, front door facing the back door of a neighbor pretty close by. um and what that's like. I mean, I I think it would be better if there was more distance there so that there could be at least some buffer from car traffic, from parking.

Can we do Sorry. Could we recommend or require that in an in an uh motion to approve? I want to make sure I'm so I I would say yes if um you might need to give me a hot minute to come up with that condition. Um but yes, if if the goal is to find space uh to ensure that the uh entrances to the town homes, both the T2, 3, five, and four especially, have additional landscaping to provide um either uh that that sense of separation between the the sidewalk and the street. then we can work with the applicant on the the site design, the dimensions, you know, the the further we push T4 and T5, you know, there's obviously the grade behind it. Um, but we can definitely work with the applicant if that's um important to the planning commission, which I I don't disagree at all with. Um, I think it's doable. I just think having that clearly defined or that expectation clearly defined in a condition um is is critical for us to make sure that we're prepared when we come back for final site plan approval. Um alternatively, if you feel like that is a significant enough concern or condition that needs to be addressed before conceptual approval, we can also you know come back to you. I think those are your two options. There was one slide in the presentation that shows the view of the back of Adams Town Homes from the southeast. If we could pull that up. So looking at this makes me less concerned about it because while there isn't a

room for street trees and the parkway, there's clearly thought being put into creating that separation with these vegetation boxes and um kind of other things that can be accommodated in the space that they're working with. I agree except that I don't know that these renderings were created based on a 26 foot wide street and the renderings are not consistent with the civil plans that are submitted. Okay. And those porches and boxes are on the Adam's side, not on the internal town homes.

Right. Um the lower left P image the rendering the right side of that is fronting on the internal drive. Okay, that's the T. Yeah, I'll go up to the new zero entry. Are you sure? Because that looks like more than two buildings. Uh yes. So the right the lower left picture the right side are the three buildings that would front Adam Street. Adams. Yes. Right. So the box you see are the the back entrance of Adams the Adams Street town homes and then that's what I thought left side of that picture are the two buildings that would front the private street. Okay.

Um just something to consider as we're discussing this. Uh the two the two buildings that front the interior street are proposed to be ADA accessible. Um, so we do need every inch of what we've proposed in the floor plan to allow for mobility within the unit um and accessibility to the bathroom and the bedroom on the first floor.

Yeah. I and I have no interest in preventing that because I like it in concept, but with a zero entry living space, I'm even more concerned about how it interacts with the sidewalk and the street because there's no grade change and it feels very public. Yeah.

Right. There's it's it's difficult to uh interact with the street. um without people looking directly into whatever room that is. Um so all the more reason why it would be better to have a bit more separation. But again, I understand that there are constraints here with the lots and um yeah, I'm just raising that as a pretty major concern of mine and how people who actually live here will experience that.

I I agree with that, Kyle. Um, and I also agree that it's kind of difficult because with Kristen that it's kind of difficult to look at this rendering and reconcile it with the civil plans. Um, especially because we have a question about how wide the drive has to be from the from the fire department perspective and the fact that these renderings show cars parking on the south side of that driveway, which is not something that's on the civil plan. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, I am it's up to y'all what kind of motion you make here today. I'm comfortable with the fact that we have all emphasized the importance of landscaping and placemaking and that also is a goal and priority of um the development group uh and the city and I trust that there will be I mean the fire department has to sign off on this right so like there are um parameters in place and they'll be coming back for final site plan review. Um, so I I wouldn't love to postpone this or anything.

No, but but final site plan review is a check with further detail of your preliminary review. So it becomes a much more um narrow scope of review unless you have conditions or expectations clearly articulated in your motion. Conceptually, I'm okay with this and for the use, I'm okay with that. I'm okay with the increase in density. I'm okay with the waiver of parking. Uh, but when it comes to the site plan review, I would want to see something different. And so, I think we can approve it with some of those expectations when they come back for final, right? Or is that not something the city's comfortable with? No, I'm I I I I'm fine with that. I think that there's definitely um it appears to be like a workable solution. I just would appreciate a short recess for me to craft that condition for you. Um I'm just struggling with it on the fly here. And so if if that is a condition that we want to add because you're inclined to move forward with an approval, um I would just appreciate a couple of minutes to work with my team to develop that properly.

I'm okay with that. Yeah, I agree with Kyle. I mean, that's where my head's at. Okay, let's let's take a five minute break then and we'll come back.

Thank you. Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat [music] [music] up [music] here. Heat. Heat. [music]

[music] Heat. Heat. [music]

[music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat up

[music] [music]

here. Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music]

[music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] [music]

[music]

Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [music]

[music] [music] [music]

before we get there. I'm wondering if um if y'all have worked with or consulted with disability advocates about this project. Could you talk about that engagement? Um yes, we did have a preliminary meeting with disability advocates um primarily around the intern like the floor plans of the units and the internal design. I think we'd be happy to go back to them in the interim between a full recommendation to get some feedback on the overall site design. That's fine.

Okay. So, in light of the uh conversation that took place about the um streetscape elements along the internal drive, uh we came up with the condition for your consideration that additional streetscape elements along the internal drive be added to create appropriate physical separation, enhancing pedestrian safety and resident livability, and more closely align with vital street standards to the extent practicable. So, the vital streets reference was added because it does have a lot of guidelines in there that can be um at least used to help guide some of the direction we can provide. Uh but understanding that to the extent practicable gives us the ability to consider um the overarching desire of of what the planning commission has talked about the dimensional constraints of the site. So, that's where we landed.

That sounds reasonable to me. Kyle, do you think that's sufficiently? Yeah. Yes. Okay. I do. I just understand the difficulty of making this work physically and y

but I think that that covers it and then I look forward to seeing what comes back for final site plan review. I I think planning staff shares some of the sentiment that have been expressed today, which is some of the um language that Laura used in the summary to talk about the uh function of that service or the internal drive. Sorry, not service drive. Um and trying to raise some of those those issues for your consideration. And it it sounds like you're in agreement that what we're seeing today might not quite be sufficient. Um, and so I think I think we're comfortable with having the language that we've added here, understanding the direction that you would like this to go in so we can continue working together with the applicant.

Excellent. Um, would anyone like to make a motion or any anything other anything else we need to discuss? I did before the motion. Sorry. Were you going to make Oh, go for it. Yeah, go ahead. Just also um the egress window well piece of it. We I did have a condition for that as well. Okay. So I just wanted to state that before I threw it at you during the moment. Love it. Just to make sure that that requirement is met. Well, would it be okay if I just let you read that part when we get to it? 100%. Okay. Fantastic.

Um now therefore, be it resolved that the planning commission recommends approval of the request of amplified GR John Apple of uh sorry John of a major amendment to the PRD for 22 to 25 town home units in five buildings. A waiver of [snorts] the required number of parking spaces with 23 parking spaces provided. a relocation of the play area to the northeast corner of the property and associated site plan changes at 1150 Adam Street Southeast for the following reasons. three A and B the or A the mixes the mix of uses and density of the development and design of the proposed PRD are consistent with the master plan and the proposed purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance because the great neighborhoods chapter of the 2024 community master plan recommends a greater variety of housing types that [snorts] enhance the general scale, character, and natural features of the neighborhood. Development of additional town homes will increase availability of more affordable housing types and will support vibrant walkable neighborhoods while gently increasing density. 3D. The proposed PRD amendment will ensure sufficient development on the property and will result in a logical and orderly development pattern in the neighborhood because the additional town home buildings and units and associated site changes will result in a cohesive site development and circulation pattern. The site placement of the new town home building is intended to take advantage of the existing grade changes and to echo traditional design patterns. The town homes facing Adam Street are consistent with the development and pattern patterns of the neighborhood and have

been [snorts] sensitively designed to respect neighborhood character. Uh number two, site plan review. The proposed use will meet the site plan review standards of section 5.12.08.e E because all elements of the design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to topography, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property and the type, size and proportions of the buildings. All buildings will be arranged so as to permit access for emergency vehicles by practicable means and the widths of the streets and driveways will be appropriate for the existing and anticipated volume of traffic. Neighborhood 4A. The proposed developments will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood adjacent properties and the natural environment because the town home building style, height, and exterior materials will be compatible with the existing homes in the surrounding neighborhood. 4 B. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed development on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through appropriate orientation of town home buildings and entrances fronting both Adam Street and the internal drive and adequate on-site parking provided on the private drive Adam Street and the proximity of public transit for C. The proposed development will not be detrimental, hazardous or disturbing to existing or future adjacent uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic noise or visual clutter because the several access points in the development will disperse vehicular traffic associated with the town homes and the site is well served by the by public transit reducing the need for personal vehicles. 4D pedestrian and vehicular connections will be provided between buildings, uses, and amenities within the property as well as connections to and from the

surrounding properties because internal street and sidewalk connections are provided linking the site internally as well as to the surrounding neighborhood and the future play area located at the corner of the property will be accessible to both residents of the PRD and the surrounding neighborhood. the environment 5A. The proposed development will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because the site has been disturbed over the years with few original features and the minimum required green space of 20% will be provided. public facility 6A. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services will be provided at no additional public cost and will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the applicant will be responsible for the construction of any new infrastructure necessary for the development. 6B. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the city because the additional housing units will increase the customer base for the commercial uses within the PRD and for nearby businesses. 6C wherever practicable. The proposed development will provide amenities including but not limited to park and recreational facilities, urban open space, and non vehicular connections that serve a public p purpose because the future play area will provide green space and a recreational area available to residents of the development and the surrounding area.

[clears throat]

Be it further resolved that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project. The standard set condition A approvals striking number five that any expansion of the approved special land use requires an additional special land use review and approval by the planning commission. and seven that the approval shall take effect 16 days after this date of the planning commission's decision. Number two, this approval shall be subject to all conditions to the original PRD approval except as modified below. Three, that the that the elevations of the town home building shall be subject to the planning commission final plan final site plan review. And four, Kristen.

Four is that the that additional streetscape elements along the internal drive be added to create appropriate physical separation enhancing pedestrian safety and resident livability and more closely align with the vital street standards to the extent practicable. Five, that required setbacks for egress window wells be met along Adams. And then six, that this approval shall take effect upon city commission approval. I'll second that motion. All right, I have a motion and support. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thanks, guys. Okay, we are now moving on to Oh, let's get Commissioner Yoner back in here, shall we? Andrew, maybe we could meet to debrief with your team and our team just to kind of go over next steps. Thanks.

Okay. Um, one item of other business is a an extension request for 740 and 742 Clansancy Avenue Northeast. So um in Janu on January 23rd, 2024, the planning commission granted approval for um a construction of a new two family dwelling um cons uh in the TNLDR zone district at 7 I've lost the address. 740 and 742 Clansancy. Thank you.

Yeah. Um the appro effective date of the approval was February 8, 2025 and a sixmonth extension of this approval is now being requested. The zoning ordinance allows the planning commission to grant up to two uh six-month extensions if the commission finds that the extension is warranted due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. And there is a letter in your packet um from the applicant describing the situation that they have found themselves in over this past year and um their request and if uh six granting a six-month exp extension would give the applicant until August 7, 2026 to substantially commence work on the project.

Great. Thanks, Laura. Um, yeah, it seems like this request is consistent with other requests we've gotten and um, pretty straightforward. Would someone like to make a motion? I will move that the um, project is given an extension. [snorts]

A motion support. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Planning commission discussion. Anything here? No. Okay. Um, I will open up public comment. If you'd like to speak during public comment, feel free to make your way to the mic. [snorts] Seeing none, I will close the public comment period and we're ajourned. Thanks, everyone.