Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. this planning commission meeting for April 9th, 2026. Um we'll start our public hearings here in just a minute, but I will go through kind of our procedures for the meeting. So, um, for each case, uh, staff will come up and present their staff report. Um, after that, we'll have an opportunity for the applicant to come up and give us any additional information you'd like. Um, then we'll open the public hearing if anyone from the public is here and wants to comment. They have up to three minutes at the um, podium there to uh, address comments to the planning commission. And then if there are comments then after the public hearing is closed the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to any of those comments and clarify anything. Um then then planning commission will deliberate and make a decision. So we are provided with draft um language for our motions both with findings for and against. So if you see us reading um we are potentially but we also have complete latitude to adjust those however we'd like. So there are no um kind of foregone conclusions or pre-made decisions. Um reminder that we are being streamed live on Facebook and YouTube. Um, and with that, I think we can go back to the agenda and um, consider first our extension request for 1300 Front Avenue Northwest.

Elizabeth, is your microphone on? No, it is not.

Okay. Um, so the applicant for 1300 Front Street has requested a second extension of their zoning approval from October 10th, 2024. the the current extension um will expire on April 26th and the applicant is asking that he be granted an additional sixmonth extension. I just put some additional information from the original case up on the screen. Uh it's also in the packet uh should you have any questions about that. So in some the second and final um uh approval extension is being requested.

Awesome. Thanks Elizabeth. Any questions for Elizabeth? No. This seems pretty consistent with um reasons we've granted extensions in the past. So yeah. Yeah. I would make a motion that we extend uh approval for another 6 months. Support. Okay. Motion in support. Any discussion? All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Now, let's do conflict of interest before we get into public hearings. Any potential conflicts of interest today? All right. Seeing none, let's move forward with 1606 Diamond Avenue Northeast. And Laura will walk us through this. This case is a request for approval to sell beer and wine for off-site consumption in association with a new convenience store. The sale of alcohol for off-site consumption is a special land use. The property is located at the corner of Diamond and Suite on in the northeast side of Grand Rapids. Um it is in the TNTBA traditional business area zone district. It's a small commercial node located within a neighborhood. surrounding properties there. Um, TBA to the west, neighborhood office services to the north and south, and um, MCN LDR residential to the east. Adjacent uses to the subject property include a vacant um, gas station to the west. There's a child care center just to the north, a um a Comcast utility building to the south, and a church at the corner, the southwest corner of Diamond and Street Suite. And you can see it's it's tucked within the residential neighborhood. For neighborhood context, this property is between Leonard Street and Nap Street, and it's two blocks west of Fuller Avenue. The property is improved with a strip commercial building with parking in the front. The building, as you can see, is set back about 43 feet from the

east property line um that provides a buffer between the residential and the commercial building. And there are approximately 20 parking spaces um that are shared um between all the uses on the property. The building is divided into four suites. There is an industrial garage on the north side, two commercial suites, and then at the south end is Wing Kings. It's a takeout restaurant. This convenience store will occupy the 20 2,400 square ft storefront in the middle of the building just north of Wing Kings. This same storefront was previously a convenience store with um beer and wine sales that was approved by the planning commission in 2018. Um the the store operated for a few years and in 2021 according to the um state licensing records the license was the SDM license was placed into escrow. the sign, the exterior sign was removed and all the interior fixtures were removed. And those are are all elements that um deem a special land use to be no longer um valid. So um the use has been abandoned. That's why this application is required um for consideration today. The floor plan shows that there will be um coolers located on the north side of the interior of the store. Storage would be along the back wall of the east side and the counter for the cash register would be on the south side of the interior of the store. On the left side of this image, that is the storefront

where the windows are located. The applicant has um indicated that 10 out of 13 cooler doors would be dedicated um for the display of beer and wine and that the store will be equipped with an alarm system and cameras as shown on the plan. The requested hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily. For context, with the previous approval, um the store previously was approved to be open until 1000 p.m. and the display was limited to five cooler doors and 4 ft of linear shelf space. Establishments that sell um beer, wine, and tobacco are subject to the city's septed um or crime prevention through environmental design ordinance. SEPTED is a philosophy of crime prevention that utilizes um elements of visibility, property ma maintenance and lighting. Um if we talk about visibility, you can see this this building has a significant amount of uh storefront windows and I've highlighted the area of where the the convenience store will be located. The SEPTED requires um no more than 25% of the overall window area may be blocked or obstructed from view to the interior. Um, you may see the the north bank of windows appears to be blocked by cooler doors and the south bank of windows has frosted is frosted over and that obscures um being able to see inside the store. the applicant can provide some

clarification about where the windows are uh relative to the site plan and um perhaps provide some additional context of of where the cash register be will be and um what is obscured. The zoning ordinance does require that the cash register be clearly visible from the street and the zoning ordinance also has a 60% um minimum transparency requirement. So, there are some limitations about um what windows can be blocked and certainly septed, the SETED ordinance would require that the windows not be blocked with posters or additional signage as well. Um, the SEPTAD ordinance also addresses lighting requirements and looking at the property, it would appear that um some lighting will need to be installed to meet those requirements. Each doorway and the parking lot adjacent to the use must be illuminated from um dusk until dawn. So I I spoke with a city septed specialist and there can be some lights potentially installed on the building that would provide that. Um so that will be a requirement. The last part about the the special land use considerations and SEPTED is that an operations management plan is required to um describe how the property will be managed and the use will be managed to protect patrons both inside and outside of the store. The narrative that was provided by the applicant that's in your packet um includes some elements that will be uh some precautions that will be

taken. Um, we ask that the planning commission determine if there is enough detail in what was provided to ensure that litter control, trespass enforcement, neighborhood communication, um, alcohol awareness and employee training is included in the packet or if additional information might be needed. Um, and lastly, there are no alcohol uses within a,000 ft of the subject property. There are several businesses on Fuller Avenue that do sell um alcohol for off-site consumption um within about a little over half a mile. the applicant um met with the Cresten Neighborhood Association and the the CNA, the Cresten Neighborhood Association submitted a letter of support and there were several letters submitted by neighboring residents that are also in her packet. The letters received from the neighborhood um generally expressed support of the convenience store with some additional concern about the alcohol sales, the late night um closing time and potential for increased noise or um litter associated with the use. So in sum, we ask that the planning commission consider the appropriateness of this use in this location, including the hours of operation, potential detrimental or disturbing impacts of the use to adjacent properties, and whether the operations management plan is sufficient um to ensure um minimizing any potential negative impacts. Any questions for me?

Excellent. Thank you, Laura. Any questions for Laura? Nope. All right. Oh, yes, please.

Um Lauri, you had mentioned that there was a number of existing uh alcohol establishments on Fuller. Um what what are those hours of operation? So, the there's a family fair and my food market on the south side of Fuller close to Leonard. Um, Family Fair closes at 11:00 and My Food Market is a liquor store that closes um midnight or 1:00 a.m. At the north side, there's Walgreens and Eli's, the mobile mobile gas station. Walgreens closes at 9 and Eli's closes at 11:00. Okay. And the, if I'm remembering correctly, the community master plan identifies the Fuller and Leonard more as a a node. Um whereas I don't believe Sweet and Diamond would be correct. That is

for the anticipated development character change. Correct. The the suite and diamond is a neighborhood center.

It which is a smaller scale from from a node. Um the intent of the Crestston neighborhood plan area specific plan is that the existing commercial corridors would be maintained as commercial. um this particular commercial corridor um besides Wing Kings, there are no other um active uses. This image shows that there's a retail shop north um in you know in the smaller unit just north of this um that shop is currently vacant and is not open right now. So, um it's it's not it's not a node that has um a lot of active business at this time. Yep. And I think that the neighborhood center classification is important because it relates to the context in which that commercial uh district sits within in its proximity to uh residential. uh whereas conversely the family fair uh development or the more specifically the intersection of Leonard and Fuller uh clearly has a greater commercial context to it. So I think when um it would be important for the planning commission to carefully consider those hours of operation which uh also was raised by the community. So that might be something perhaps the applicant can expand upon and part of your deliberation should definitely include that um whether you think that that's appropriate. I would also like to mention that the city septed specialist um has recommended that the applicant consider installing um security transparent security film or clear trans clear clear film on the inside of the windows to help prevent protection from breakins. Um I think the idea is you know on Fuller there's more activity, there's more eyes on the street. a location such as this um throughout the the nighttime there there may need to be some additional protection.

Great. Thanks for that. All right, we'll have the applicant come up. Would you expand upon some of that stuff? Yes, I will be try to that and already we have to see she's explain about this all the matters of that but I want to use that property of that that's why I have to put the request for that that's so in terms of the operations plan and the lighting and I have to maintenance of that everything will be located that and then I have to going inside that then I have to contact with the planning commission and are here to city inspector of that and then will we inspect that and before the using this property.

Okay. And can you about the film can you expand a little bit more on um where the cash register will be in relation to those windows kind of at the southern end that are covered with that um obscuring film. But already we have to cover that but I will try to more protect that cooler side and then only we have middle of that 70% or 75% we have to visible area and 20 20 25 or 30% we have to close cover that okay but that window also I will try to cover protect that and anywhere somebody not breakage something not that damage that property

okay yes anybody else. Um, sorry. Okay. Are there other questions for the applicant? Um, for your requested hours? Um,

requested hour mostly still I have to open to 10 to 10. After that when we have to business is coming inside then we have to increase up to 11:00 hardly latest that 11 and otherwise before that close that store but I will be try to open 10:00 right now 10 to 10 12 hour. Okay, great. Okay. Anything else? All right, you can go ahead and have a Thanks very much. I appreciate it.

Um, I will open up the public hearing. If you're here from the public and want to come up and speak to this case, feel free to approach the microphone. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn to my fellow commissioners. All right. Shall we go through kind of one by one here? So, um the first thing to consider is the um the operations plan that we were provided and whether there was enough detail in there. Um, I did see a draft condition should um approval be recommended that we include some additional um we get some additional information from the applicant regarding um the operations plan and I think that's appropriate based on some additional detail um would be appropriate.

I agree with that. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, I I guess my question was about the operations plan and sorry, I maybe should have asked this of Laura during after her staff presentation, but is is that something that we I mean I I know Laura said it and I saw that some of the things that I would expect to see in an operations plan were addressed in the application, but is that typically something we see like a specific document outlining an operations plan as part of an application or is that or I sorry I don't I guess I don't have to answer. Yeah. Ask

typically it is separated out from the narrative. Um if the elements are in the narrative and the planning commission determines that there is enough detail and and the elements that have been outlined in the the draft resolution. if those if they are in that the narrative and the commission finds that it they are adequate. I it doesn't it I don't believe it's required to be in a separate document as long as the information is there. Typically it is.

Um certainly we can work staff can work with the applicant to create a second document that is distinct if the commission finds that that would be um beneficial. I guess my although Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. Oh, go ahead.

That although there um it could be perceived that there's some redundancy there, a lot of that is intentional on our part because it helps clearly communicate in a single document both to our crimerevention ordinance, any uh zoning administrator uh current and future um andor GRPD and the business operator uh because they're not always the same as the operator who applied for the special land use. It just helps make sure that there's consistent communication about what the city's expectations are in terms of what were the expectations of the planning commission when the use was approved. And so it helps ensure that that continuity and that transparency about um the in this case the operations and it it's just a a much easier uh tool for communication with the business owner and and enforcement if that becomes necessary. I have a related question. I think um I I noticed in in I think two of the at least two of the three letters received from neighbors um they referenced concerns about trash and things like that from past operations. Is that something that would be like a plan to deal with that would be part of the operations plan? Is that something we can require as a condition? Okay.

Yes. the trash maintenance as well as the overall property maintenance, keeping the the lawn mode neat and tidy. That can that is all expected to be part of the operations maintenance plan. I will also mention that when the previous use or the this previous special land use was approved, there was no commercial trash enclosure and that was a condition of approval at that time. And as you can see there, there now is a commercial trash enclosure on the property. So hopefully that would help as well. Sure. Thank you. Good. Thanks.

I just wondered I I'm not clear. Are the hours of operations till 10:00 or till 11 o'clock? I feel like I've heard both or read. Yeah, the the application I think was initially for 11 p.m. Um, what I I heard from the applicant was 10 p.m. uh was can you could you come up to the microphone if you don't mind please? Sorry it helps with the live streaming. Still we have to start with the 10 to 10 after that we will be increase that our latest we have to close that 11:00 still I will be check that how much we have traffic on this road and what is this that then we can see that

so you would still like the full you would like approval until 11 p.m. Yes. Okay. Oh okay. Thank you. Thanks very much. Yeah. not not dissimilar to other hour of operation conversations the planning commission has. If the planning commission set say 900 p.m. uh or the application states 9 p.m. you know any change in those hours uh that are more permissive would require an amendment to the special land use which is a process. If you set it for 9:00 p.m. or 10 p.m. today they could come back. Um, but those are just considerations uh from in in terms of of process.

And then the other thing I'd like to see in the operations plan there there were comments in the letters about noise and I I would love to see something about how they will deal with any excessive noise at the at the site or music or things like that. Can Can you keep saying words there? What? Um I just want to make sure I'm clear. Like is that sort of like how because I'm looking at the the trespassing, but I'm assuming it's more of like customer guest.

Yeah. Yeah. It sounded like I I thought I read a couple places where there were like there was music coming from cars and that type of thing. Um maybe I'm maybe maybe that would be under like the problem problem with people in the area hanging out in their cars late at night with music blaring loudly from their car stereoss. Okay. Problems with trash and bottles. Loitering control couldn't could address that specific to noise nuisances. Sounded like they're also currently getting that from people picking up their takeout orders at Wing. So, whose responsibility with multiple businesses on a parking lot is it to control noise and is that a part of this specific approval,

right? Or a issue that's more of a Yeah. code enforcement. A code enforcement. Fair. Yeah. I would but I would think we'd want it in everybody's operation plan. Both the wing restaurant and this this use as well. I I mean I I wasn't around when the wing restaurant was approved and I don't even know if they had to come here. So,

right. Yeah. It feels like more of a what this applicant might have control over would be the loitering aspect of it. Right. like the extended period of time versus you can't control what folks have in their car for music. So, and in this particular case, you're the property owner as well, correct? Yes, I am.

Yeah. So, in this particular case, we do have some continuity between the business owner and the property owner. And I think ultimately from an enforcement perspective, the property owner would be responsible for the things that are happening or the nuisances that are taking place on their property. Um however um certainly when we can get specific operation plans with the businesses in place that just helps reinforce and support the property owner in terms of making sure that there aren't nuisance nuisances taking place whether it's by customers of a business loiterers at a property um there's some partnership there and again in this case it's one and the same. Yeah, but actually I have to control in the parking lot but I am not responsible of the by the road. If somebody can have load with we are nothing to do about that. If somebody can do in the lottery and something doing in the parking lot then I have to contact with the enforcement department of that always because I am working the 29 years I have to say business we have to run the place. We know about that situation how we can handle that how we can control this. So how do you manage the noise if it's in your lot? Do you have a sign that talks about it being near a neighborhood and

try I will be try to verbally first of all customer with then then we can post the sign also and after that we can contact with the enforcement department of that and they will be helped to us that thank you. Okay thanks. Okay. One more question for you sir. You're going the old loca or the old uh use had five coolers and you're increasing that to 10. Are they just

used? Do we have eight or nine? Right now we have to make a 10 window cooler of that but because we have space I don't want to leave that empty space from over there. I want to use that whole space. 10 window will be fixed that easy. Okay.

Do you have any So, we have 10 doors for beer and wine. Will there be any? No, we have seven use. Seven window I have to use for the beer and alcohol and three window I have to use. I've heard the pop and soda something just like that. I see. Okay. Will there be any outside of the coolers like any shelving of front of that? We have to front of that in the counter and the cooler middle of that we have to put the shelf and on the side we have to make a stocking something else of that. Okay, let me let me make sure I understand. So you have 10 10 doors total. 10 door total. Okay. And so seven will be for beer use. Yeah. Three

and then I heard like a couple end caps of beer and wine facing those coolers. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Could you talk a little bit about the film that is on the windows and about um how visible the cash register will be from the street and how that

we have to protect with the board something we can do it if we have tent already we have tent over there but nobody can see that in the register area uh the on the window and on the side can 70% we have to open that area then can we look at 30% I have to maybe cover that area and then we can protect that. So you're prepared to meet the requirements of the transparency and the crime prevention through environmental science. Some area we have to keep the visible of that and somebody can look at that. Great.

Okay. Let's deliberate on the hours then. So thank you. you can have a seat. I appreciate it. Um there's a neighborhood directly behind. The hours that they're requesting are consistent with um other similar uses potentially, although I'm not sure folks are directly behind in some of those other institutions. The Wing Kings latest hours of operation are 10 p.m. Just some things to throw out there. What do folks think?

I don't have a problem with 11 o'clock. I mean, the I live near Cherry Hill Market. They're open till 11. It's in the middle of the neighborhood. Yeah, I don't have a problem with 11:00.

If the noise is contained and I lived right there, I would probably not have a problem with it. So if we have a good operations plan in place. Okay. But yeah, in general, folks seem supportive of this. The neighborhood association is supportive. It will reactivate um a currently inactive space and maybe um get some more activity in this uh commercial center. So, yeah, in general, I'm in support of of the use, taking into account all the um the additional information we'll need and make sure that we're compliant with the SEPTAD ordinance requirements. Just have a quick question about the cooler doors. Our draft language says 10. Should we amend that to seven if Yeah. Yes. Thank you.

All right. Great. Okay. Okay. Uh, now therefore, it be resolved that the planning commission approves the special land use and site plan review request of Jardell Singh to sell beer and wine for off-site consumption in association with a new convenience store at 1606, also known as 1612 Diamond Avenue Northeast for the following reasons. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the master plan and zoning ordinance because the zone district, including the zone district, because the use supports objective 2A of the 2024 community master plan for small neighborhood centers that provide local equitable access to services and the use will contribute to commercial corridor that is intended to continue as a neighborhood center as recommended in the Cresten area specific Plan two. The proposed use will meet the site plan review standards of section 5.12.8.e because the building provides adequate means of ingress and egress by public streets and walkways and non-conforming site elements are not required to be brought into conformance at this time as no site redevelopment is proposed. 3A. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment. because the convenience store is intended to be an amenity to the neighborhood and the use will activate an otherwise vacant retail storefront. 3B. The proposed use will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood because adequate parking is provided and the building entrance is oriented to allow for maximum visibility on the site. 3C. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or

to the public welfare by reason because the convenience store will provide products and services to the surrounding neighborhood and additional traffic is not anticipated. 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 pedestrian oriented environment because adequate transparency in the storefront is provided and will be maintained, and the building and site layout are not proposed to change. 5B. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the city because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require code enforcement actions. A1 given the character, location, development trends, and other aspects of the neighborhood. It is demonstrated that the proposed location for alcohol sales will demonstrabably be an asset to the neighborhood because the sale of beer and wine is expected to be an amenity for customers and neighboring residents who are anticipated to frequent the store. A3. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the addition of alcohol sales will not materially change the operation of a convenience store and the display area dedicated for packaged beer and wine will be limited. A5. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will not have any or or minimal negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the operation will be in compliance with the crimerevention through environmental design ordinance and an enhanced operation plan will be provided. Be it resolved that the following conditions of approval shall be shall apply to this project. Standard condition set a approvals. One that the applicant and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated, and stamped by the planning director shall constitute the approved plans exceptive 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. Three, that this approval does not include any proposed signs or and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. Four, that a 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 use requires an additional 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 the use shall operate no later than 11 p.m. daily. Three, that the area of alcohol sales shall be limited to seven cooler doors. Four, that the requirements of section 5.2.14 shall be met relative to transparency and clear glass, and no reflective mirrored glass or spandrel glass shall be used. Five, that the you shall operate in compliance with the crimerevention through environmental design ordinance, including but not limited to visibility and exterior lighting. Six, that a functioning video surveillance system capable of recording and retrieving a digital image to assist in offender identification and apprehension is required. Cameras associated with the system shall be positioned as indicated on the submitted plan with additional cameras to capture a clear image of the cash register area. And seven, that an enhanced operations management plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval by the Grand Rapids Police Department prior to the sale of beer or wine. The plan shall address all of the following items in writing. A. Crime prevention and awareness training. B. Alcohol awareness

and employee training. C. Letter control. D. loitering control, E, trespass enforcement, F, landscape management, and G, neighborhood communication. Can we add a letter to that about the noise since that seems to be the primary concern in the neighborhood, you know, signage andor calls for enforcement? Do we feel like that was was part of the operation part of loitering control though was Yeah. noise. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's contained within that. Do we So, we did get clarification that it's seven cooler doors that are planned. Do we want to add the three end caps?

Yeah, I was wondering that too. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I was going to suggest to add expand that sentence to read uh seven cooler doors and three end caps facing cooler doors. So, moved. All right. I have a motion. I don't believe I have support yet. support. Okay, a motion and support. Any additional discussion? Anything else we missed? Okay. All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Can now go to our next case, 734 and 738 Wealthy Street Southeast. Avery will walk us through this. All right. For this case, I'd like to give a little bit of background on the subject properties. Um, as they are under common ownership and share operations, but are managed by different operators. So the property at 738 Wealthy Street Southeast was previously occupied by Wawau Outfitters and 734 Wealthy Street Southeast received special land use approval by the planning commission in 2018. At that time they were approved to operate one food truck um as a principal use on the vacant parcel um and that was operated by Outside Coffee Co. And since that time, both operations have ceased. Um, but the property owner of 734 Wealthy Street Southeast did receive director review approval in August of 2025 um to operate up to three mobile food trucks on the food truck garden site with conditions that limited the hours of operation as well as prohibited alcohol sales or consumption on that property. unless separately approved by the planning commission. So that's why they're before you today for that section. So a little overview about what the applicant today is proposing is to operate a micro brewery and tasting room within the building at 738 Wealthy Street Southeast. And this requires special approval for the on-site alcohol consumption and the off-site alcohol

sales within the TNTBA zone district. The applicant is also requesting approval to allow alcohol service within that adjacent outdoor seating and food truck area at 734 Wealthy Street Southeast. And lastly, a parking waiver is also requested. The 2024 community master plan designates this area as a neighborhood center, which supports a pedestrian and transit friendly environment and promotes a mix of small-scale retail, entertainment, and similar uses to enhance the neighborhood's vitality. Additionally, the site is located in and surrounded by the TNTBA zone district as previously mentioned. And there are properties um in the TNDR zone district. So, residential zoned properties just to the south along Charles Avenue. The subject properties are located on the south side of Wealthy Street between Charles Avenue to the west and Eastern Avenue to the east. and it's also located within the Wealthy Street Business District. The properties are also located in the Cherry Hill Historic District. And although no exterior changes are proposed at this time, in the future, if there are any, they would be subject to review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. to focus on 738 Wealthy Street Southeast. This is a site that's improved with a two-story mixeduse building of approximately 2500 square ft. There is the main entrance shown here at the front of the facade along Wealthy Street as well as a secondary entrance or exit um on the side of the building that provides access to the outdoor seating area and food truck court.

On the second floor, there is one residential unit. And on the ground floor, there's a commercial space and a two-stall garage that is accessed from the adjacent property at 734 Wealthy Street um off of a driveway that's located on Charles Avenue. Regarding the proposed micro brewery and tasting room, it will occupy just under 1,800 square ft of the ground floor space and will include seating for approximately 65 customers. There will be a bar, a walk-in cooler to the rear of the floor plan, um, as well as some retail shelving for their merchandise. A smallcale brewing system will be located on the site. However, most of the production will be happening offsite. For the use, there's anticipated to be 6 to 8 employees and the proposed indoor hours of operation are from noon to 10:00 p.m. daily. And I would just like to note that the application for the food truck court um did state hours from 7:00 a.m. to 700 p.m. Um however, the director review approval was allowed um with hours that were consistent with the zoning ordinance which would be Sunday through Thursday um from until 1000 p.m. and then operating until 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. So, I would ask the planning commission to discuss how these differing hours would be coordinated and how the overall site would be managed between those hours of operation. For 734 Wealthy Street, the outdoor

seating and food truck court property, it is roughly 6,000 square ft and improved with seating, landscaping, and walkways. and it does not currently have food trucks, but as I previously stated, they were approved for up to three food truck courts. Um, and with the nice weather coming about, I'm sure that'll happen here soon. Um, and then as part of this request, the applicant is proposing alcohol service to be within this outdoor seating area on this property. Um, within your packets, there are also several businesses that are indicated um, within 1,000 ft of the subject prop properties um, that have been approved to sell alcohol for both on-site and off-site consumption. Relative to parking, whenever there is a change of use, any increase in parking must be provided. And in this case, the previous use required seven parking spaces and now the proposed use requires 32 spaces. And so since there's no on-site parking provided, the applicant is requesting a waiver for the additional 25 parking spaces. And the zoning ordinance does allow the planning commission to grant waivers if certain criteria are met. And so in this case there are several waiverss um to reduce the parking which include um on street parking that is available along Wealthy as well as two city-owned parking lots each 26 spaces. So, this one here at the northwest corner of Wealthy and Charles and then a secondary parking lot um between Henry to the west and then Charles to the east um shown here on this plan. And then lastly, Wealthy Street is also served by public transit bus route number five. And so with these conditions, the parking requirement can be met.

Um, regarding neighborhood input, the applicant has gone doortodoor doing outreach with nearby businesses and they have contacted the Wealthy Street Business Alliance and so far we have received one letter of support for this use. To conclude, we ask the planning commission to consider the impact of alcohol service and outdoor activity on nearby residents and businesses, the scale and intensity of the outdoor seating area, the impact of the requested parking waiver, and lastly, any concerns that are raised during the public hearing. Are there any questions for me?

Awesome. Thanks, Avery. Any questions? All right, seeing none, we'll have you sit down. All right, y'all can come up.

Hello everyone. I'm Trevor. This is my wife Mary. We're going to be the ones running this place. So, uh, I think Avery did a amazing job explaining pretty much everything we're going to be doing. Um, it's a very small family-owned micro brewery. We've got one in Holland right now that's just about to turn 14 years old. and kind of always wanted to have a second one to kind of replicate the atmosphere that we've created there. And this opportunity came up from our friends that own WOA and we had to say yes. So, uh hopefully everything works out and it's good for you guys, too.

Awesome. I I have a couple questions. I'm wondering about the food truck situation. Will you have rotating food trucks in there or kind of three regular or like stable users, I guess? Well, so what um Kelly and Ray, the WAW owners, but they they're in control of the food truck lot. They've expressed that they're just doing like an annual contract. Okay. So, cool. For the season and as long as they can keep operating into the cold. So,

okay, great. And then in terms of the hours, the inconsistency in hours, would you be comfortable having consistent hours for both kind of lots of in 2 to 10 every day of the week in Holland? And we we used to be open a little later, but we've figured out through all the shutdowns and stuff that 10 o'clock is just as good as staying open late and nothing good really happens after. Okay. Later you're open, the more Yeah. Right. Yeah. So, okay, great. Does anybody else have questions? Yeah, go ahead. The is is the uh the food truck lot is the is that the picnic? Yes. Yes.

That's what's running that. And are they going to be selling anything other than food? Any alcohol out of the trucks or that's solely your thing and they'll be able to take alcohol out there and then get some correct eats at the trucks? So, we've worked out uh kind of a c caveat with the girls there that we will be the beverage supplier that's just going to be food. Um similar to like places like Little Fleet in Traverse City that you go into their bar, order and come out and and get the food from the food trucks. Yeah. Yeah. They did express that one of the food trucks might do a coffee beverage, which is great. Yeah. So,

yeah. Push, pull, give, take. Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll have you take a seat and um we'll open up the public hearing. If you are here and would like to talk, um give us your thoughts on this case. Make your way to the mic and you will have up to three minutes to address the commission.

Hi, my name is Brett. Um I won't need three minutes, but uh I've lived across the street um right across the street from the first house on the opposite side of Charles um for 10 years now. and uh all the owners of that property and what they've done over those 10 years has been amazing. Len with uh Wealthy at Charles where they did like home furnishings, right? And then um Erica has been an amazing neighbor. They just it she knows exactly where that line is to uh get the neighborhood feel and then uh you know make sure nothing that they do offends anybody. She's still involved. This sounds great. It sounds like the coolest corner in Grand Rapids. And my daughter Penelopey, she's uh not going to say it, but she's happy you kept the hammocks.

Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Thank you. Anyone else on this case? No. Okay, we will close the public hearing. Uh, commissioners,

no. I um I drive by this area a lot and um use that outdoor coffee company a lot during the pandemic because it's one of the only places you could sit and so I was sad to see it leave and I'm glad that it's going to be put back to use and this seems like uh um it seems like a great use for the neighborhood and very fitting with uh some of the other uses around it. So I I would be very much in favor Exactly the same feelings. I am noticing a condition that we're being asked to um not allow amplified outdoor music, live entertainment or sound. Just want to make sure you're comfortable with that and are aware of that.

Um so no. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Should have noticed this for the recording. So I know that the girls have like little ground soft speakers outside and it's like a low it's not like live music or anything. amplified. It's just a like a Sonos speaker. Is that Sure. Yeah, we can modify the condition. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Because that creates a great atmosphere to have a little background. Great. And our interior system would be linked with their exterior so it wouldn't be competing noise. Gotcha. Copy. Yeah. Wonderful. Okay.

Yeah. I guess the one um kind of thing I think we should discuss is the hours of operation situation. And I Sorry. Go ahead. Did you have something to say about it? I hope I'm reading your mind. I had an idea. Okay, great. I love I I was going to suggest sticking with the 10 p.m. to um 10 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. hours of operation based on the week, the days.

Um and then but then further say, but in no case shall the operations operate on a separate schedule. So if the food truck closes, then the business closes, but if the food truck stays open, they have that permission to stay open till 11 on Fridays and Saturdays. You know what I mean? So that there's consistency and we're not limiting the hours of the of the micro brewery unnecessarily should you decide to stay open past 10, would would that create an issue? So say for example, the food trucks closed because of weather, then does the then does the the micro brew,

right? Well, yeah. So I was just my I had a similar thought in terms of making them consistent. So, I was just going to suggest potentially we allow up to or no later than 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and no later than 11:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday. I don't have a sense of whether we need to have a start time or not. like they don't want to operate earlier than noon, but if for some reason there was a brunch situation. I mean, we don't Yeah, I don't wouldn't be concerned about it operating earlier than noon. So, I don't know.

All right, that's fine. Okay, so let me just make sure we're in agreement. No later than 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, both indoor and outdoor. And then 11:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday, both indooroutdoor. Okay, cool. And then in terms of the parking, I'm very comfortable. So many people walk in this along this corridor. There's public parking, there's good transit, there's microtransit. This is exactly where we don't want a bunch of surface parking. So, I'm comfortable with the waiver as well.

I just said we'd never get it anyway. It's all historic. You're not going to get any historic service parking.

All right. It sounds like we're all on the same page. Would someone be willing to make a motion?

I I can I'm just trying to find it. Okay. Now therefore, be it resolved that the planning commission approves the special land use and site plan review request of our brewing company LLC Trevor Doublestein for a micro brewery and tasting room for beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Outdoor seating with alcohol service on an adjacent food truck court and a parking waiver at 734 and 738 Wealthy Street Southeast for the following reasons. Number one, the proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the master plan and zoing ordinance, including the zone district because the proposed use will support the vitality of the local economy by encouraging investment, diversifying the economic base, and expanding employment opportunities, provide a mix of uses in a commercial area. Number two, the proposed use will meet the site plan review standards of section 5.12.8.E E because the design of the existing building and the site are consistent with the standards of the zone district and are not proposed to change and the outdoor seating will add will be adequately buffered from nearby residential uses by use of landscaping. Three, the proposed 3A. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood adjacent properties and the natural element because the proposed use will support the desired mixeduse character of the neighborhood. The tasting room will be limited in size and occupancy. The proposed hours are consistent and compatible with similar uses already established in the area. 3B. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use will be minimized because adequate parking and alternative forms of transportation are available within

the district to support the demand. And the outdoor seating area has been has existing garden fencing, landscaping and green space that will provide a buffer between the neighborhood use and neighboring properties. 3C. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic or noise. Because the proposed use will support the desired mixeduse character of the neighborhood, the establishment will be open no later than 1000 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. 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 the outdoor seating will be fully contained on the neighboring property with the existing perimeter fence in the landscaping, helping to establish a street wall. The use of the food truck garden for an outdoor seating area will reactivate the corner and encourage a pedestrianoriented environment. 5B. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the city because this is use is not anticipated to result in nuisances that require excessive code enforcement actions given the proposed scale and hours. E1. Given the character, location, development trends, and other aspects of the neighborhood, it is demonstrated the area is underserved by the proposed use and that the proposed location for alcohol sales will demonstrabably be an asset to the neighborhood because as proposed use will be unique as compared to existing uses in the neighborhood. E3. The use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is compatible with the neighborhood because the proposed hours

of operation are consistent with other establishments in the vicinity. E4 adjacent or nearby parks, playgrounds, religious institutions or schools will not be adversely affected because the sale of packaged alcohol is anticipated to be purchased. Sale of package alcohol is anticipated to be purchased during operating hours by patrons visiting the micro brewery and not generally by walk-in visitors. E5. The use as proposed by the to be operated by the applicant will not have any or minimal negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because the use will be small in scale and the hours will be limited. Be it further resolved the following conditions of approval to approval shall apply to this project. The standard condition set of a set A approvals as uh seen on the screen. Uh number two that the micro brewery and outdoor seating areas of operations shall be uh on from on sun Sunday through Thursday till 1000 p.m. and Friday and Saturday till 11:00 p.m. This approval does not include amplified outdoor music, live entertainment or sound, but may but uh low-level ambient music from speakers may be played

except that speakers with background ambient noise is permissible. Okay. What Kristen said um support. All right. Is that it? I don't need to say when I'll take effect. Can we skip 5C? 5C. What's 5C? Oh. Oh, just that it will apply to state law. Oh, the proposed use will comply with all other applicable city ordinances and policies and all applicable state laws. And do I have to say anything about when it will take effect or is it that's in there the

It's in the standard conditions. Oh, yeah. You're right. Okay. All right. Still support. Yeah. Okay. Um I have a motion in support. Any additional discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Okay. Um maybe it's with you guys. Uh, so for our Michigan liquor license, the micro brewery license, we just have a one form that needs local government approval form that needs to be filled out. We can talk to you. Yeah. Okay, great. Awesome. Thanks, guys.

Thanks. Thank you. Okay, next on our agenda is um discussion of proposed zoning ordinance changes and Elizabeth will walk us or Kristen, will you? Kristen. Okay, sure. I will start and then uh hand it over to Elizabeth. Uh so today we had initially uh set up this discussion to talk about some uh zoning text amendments that were specific to the uses within the Grand River overlay and uh accessory dwelling unit requirements that were um that resulted from the recommendations of the accessory dwelling unit task force. In light of the fact that there are several commissioners unable to attend today um and uh uh the work that's been done so far uh we did pivot this to so it is there is a public hearing that's been noticed. Um but we uh are asking for the planning commission to have a discussion about the items uh and not make a recommendation today. Uh further um the accessory dwelling units uh we would uh if the planning commission is is prepared uh we would ask that a an additional discussion and perhaps a recommendation be scheduled for the next planning commission meeting in two weeks. However, the Grand River overlay uh ordinance uh amendments that are specific to the use tables. Um once Elizabeth and I got into it, um as I said earlier, you know, things aren't always as simple as maybe they initially seem. uh and we started to have a lot of questions ourselves. Um and for that reason we decided that um as planning staff we are not prepared to ask you to spend a great deal of time today deliberating on those recommendations. We think we need more additional internal conversations um communication or further communication with DJI and perhaps the Chamber of Commerce um some property owners perhaps. So we just need a little bit more time to make sure that uh we are putting our best foot forward

in terms of what we would like you to consider. Um so certainly if you have any uh initial questions or comments on the uh direction we are heading in uh by no means do I want to state that this is a a final recommendation uh for you. Um but please do feel free to share that but I don't think it will be uh helpful to spend a great deal of your time today um on those amendments. Uh I do not have a specific time frame for when the GR overlay uh will come back to you. Um certainly we're we're motivated to make sure that our use table aligns properly with our uh planning documents. Um but I don't want to suggest that it could stay on track with the uh accessory dwelling unit. Um so that's kind of uh where we're at today. I I apologize. I I think we were a little ambitious and excited. U maybe got ahead of myself here. Um and I I simply don't think that we're we're ready to have the planning commission weigh in other than if you have a reaction to uh what's before you today, that's perfectly acceptable. Does that make sense? Y

Okay. So, thank you. So, with that, I'll have Elizabeth uh go over the uh amendments. Um a little bit more detail, I'm assuming, on the accessory uh dwelling unit amendments. Um and probably not spend time on the GR overlay other than Well, I don't think there's necessary unless you think there is, but I'll just introduce it.

Okay. I'll just say um rel the the Grand River overlay as well as a multitude or multiple plans recommend activating the riverfront. So with that we are asking you to consider what the appropriate land uses might be along the river. We have I think five zone districts along the river. the the city center, transitional city center, industrial transportation, um uh open space and uh lowdensity residential. No changes would be we don't anticipate any changes to the uses allowed in the open space or the residential zone district. But we do um think that some modification to uses in the city center transitional city center and in um uh uh the IT zone district would be appropriate. So we've outlined in the staff report the uses that would be eliminated and then we also provided um so that would be here um and then we also in um included um the full uh table of how we think that might be approached. So, I won't go over that in detail, but um this is uh this is our our first stab at um what we think might be um the way we might want to go for uh the Grand River overlay. And I'm happy to take any we're happy to take any questions if you have them now.

Um or I'll pivot to the accessory dwelling units. Okay. All right. So, ADUs in a little more detail. Um, so um we have been relatively cautious in um allowing um accessory dwelling units. Used to be a special land use. Then we made it a qualified review. Now it's permitted. And after um it became permitted um in April of 2024 um with the uh housing needs assessment that came out, a um task force was um commissioned or or put together to come up with some additional uh recommendations to increase the housing supply through accessory dwelling units. The task force came up with dozens of ideas and um put into um tiers of priorities starting with those that are easiest to implement and that's what we're talking about today. The four tier one priorities under zoning reform that we'll be talking about today and moving on would be adjusting accessory dwelling unit size, modifying accessory structure requirements, revised site layouts and placement standards and broad broadening accessory dwelling unit use requirements. All with the goal of increasing the number of accessory dwelling units and making the process easier. So under adjusting accessory dwelling

unit size there were four task force ideas and I have them uh um also in this table here. The first one is to increase the maximum ADU size as a share of the primary home. Increase the maximum total ADU size and eliminate the size relationship between an ADU and the primary home and default to a maximum ADU size. So those three recommendations are really associated with our current regulation that reads you can't exceed 40% of the gross floor area of the primary structure or 400 ft whichever is larger. And in no case shall the ADU exceed 850 square ft in gross floor area. So, our maximum is basically 850 square ft. And we do tie the size to the um size of the main house because an accessory dwelling unit is a secondary and subordinate dwelling unit. The last recommendation is to exclude non-living spaces like stairways and mechanical spaces from counting toward an ADU size. So um as we were thinking about this um how to implement these recommendations, what we have come up with is eliminating the percentage relationship to the primary structure and setting a maximum floor area at 1,000 square ft but also limiting the size of um the ADU to no larger than the primary structure. And the reason that we have that last one

limiting the size to no larger than the primary structure is really of course that we might not have a um uh a relationship um between the ADU. Let me back up. That's so that an ADU does not is not larger than a primary structure. We do have many homes within the city that are 750 square ft, 850 square ft, 1,000 square ft. So, we really don't want the ADU to be to um overwhelm the primary structure. So, only when the primary structure is relatively small would would that um really be effective. Do you have any questions about that?

I have just one. So when we um for the the new maximum floor area that kind of um taking care of the exclusion of non-living spaces. I guess I'm just want to verify that typically non-living spaces like stairways and mechanicals make up less than 150 square feet of a property. I I I'll be honest. I can't I can't say for certain, but ra just felt that trying to eliminate, you know, eliminate that from the calculation would be challenging for both um the developers as well as for staff. Um and we thought we wanted to just increase the area. I cannot say for certain the the amount.

Okay. No, I understand the logic behind it. Yeah, but that can be something that's that's a great question and we can explore that. Thanks. Go ahead. But so if someone had a desirable location, they wanted to stay there and they had plenty of lot space to do a development

and wanted to build a structure that might be larger than what they're currently living in because they're interested in using the one as the primary residence and turning the other into the ADU. This would prohibit them from being able to do that on their property. Correct. or would that be a special land use because they wanted to exceed the size of a building that would eventually become the primary residence? I I'm not 100% following, but if you understand, you can go ahead.

I think I understood the qu. So, I think the answer is you're right. Um, and it's to keep that relationship between an accessory dwelling unit subordinate in size uh compared to the primary dwelling. And so if somebody had a substantial rear yard and could build a structure that exceeds their that could physically support a unit larger than their primary, this would limit them.

Do they have any avenues? um as it's currently written, the avenue would be to seek a variance. Uh if that's something that the planning commission is generally um uh interested in considering, I mean that to exceed a thousand square feet, it it could go further to say unless otherwise approved by the planning commission through a special land use. I I'd still have to give a little bit of thought to how does it stay um subordinate in in use if it's not subordinate in scale. Um that's something I I needed a little bit more time to noodle on.

I know it's just popped into my head. It's just kind of a weird situation, but I, you know, have seen some properties where instead of tearing down a building, they would want to build something nicer and then use the smaller building as the ADU, but yeah, not to over complicate the the line, just

Yeah. I So, there's there's the definition that we currently have and just I guess the general concept that it's a a subordinate or accessory to the primary, uh, which typically also means subordinate in size. um in scale. I think there's also um a question or yeah a question of whether or not allowing an accessory dwelling unit to exceed the the scale of a primary whether that would then conflict um with the uh general provisions that that does not allow more than you know two one primary use and structure on a lot. So there there might be other regulations we'd have to think about. Did you have a thought?

I Okay. I guess it staying on that point. you just asked a question uh and didn't pose it necessarily as a recommendation, but I think if if there were direction by the majority of the planning commission, that would be helpful so that when we brought it back, we would know that that's a a desirable amendment for us to to make. It's so obscure. I'm not sure I would waste time on it. It's more of a curiosity. Okay. For me. Okay.

Yeah. I mean, I think it goes back to like where on the property, too, right? So like if we were to think about a primary structure being closer to the street and then you'd have the bigger one behind like it still would then create a strange relationship. So yeah I guess I now that you say that Laura I'll I'll throw my my

thoughts into the mix. So, the pro the next to my house, it's there's a a two unit that's way back from the street. It was a carriage house and there was a huge house in front of it that burned 30 years ago. So, what about a situation like that where the structure on the lot is clearly more of an accessory structure? There is no primary structure on the lot because it burned.

Yeah. Okay. So I I I wasn't 100% sure I understood your question, Commissioner Helm, but I I I think now I understand. And so staff had talked about that. And let's say you did have a 750 square foot house. We think it would be appropriate to build a new primary structure. I think the location is the issue there. So, we really don't want the big house in the back because then we don't want this a large building towering over neighbors backyards, right? So, I think um you've given me a lot to think about, but I think it would be dependent on where that um existing house is. And is it correct in in Matt's question in his case like I know like in Heritage Hill if there's a an existing foundation of a burnt down carriage house by right that owner can get an approved to redo what was there historically is that the same in in a non historic lot they had an existing you know foundation that was there and the house burned down 30 years ago they should be able to get approval to put a house back where it was. No, if if a house has been if the house is gone, there's no there's no rights anymore for that. But I would say if there is a small if there is a small accessory, you know, that was originally accessory structure in the back of a lot, you should be able to build a larger structure in the front.

Bring the sight into conformity. Yeah. Yeah. And I think um so these questions have um helped us figure out what we need to incorporate here. So thank you for those questions. Well, Elizabeth, just to be clear though, I I don't think Commissioner Holm was there's no recommendation to allow for something greater than the primary.

No. Okay. No. Yeah. I mean are and I guess the question is do you think we're on the right track here? Okay. And I um we will um do a little exploration to um really figure out how much floor area the stairways and things those usually take up. Okay, moving on then to the second um set of recommendations. Modify accessory structure requirements. So um in in this set um there were two that we feel that could be implemented and um one we'd like we we would recommend a pause and the third um we don't feel a change is necessary. So, um, in in this section, um, really, um, again, we're we're talking about, um, trying to, um, increase, um, the ability to construct accessory, um, accessory dwelling units. And right now we do have right now accessory structures are subject to a maximum area based on your neighborhood classification and your lot size. So, if you're on a small lot in the TN zone district, you're going to have less maximum um accessory less uh u less maximum floor area for your accessory structures than you would in the modern era neighborhood on a really large lot. So, um, the task force

recommended exempting I'm on actually on the, um, second one, exempting ADUs from the total maximum square footage of accessory structures on a lot. And, um, they're also um, uh, recommending that um, ADUs be exempted from the total number of accessory structures per lot. Today, one detached and one attached accessory structure is permitted. You also get a freebie shed of 120 square ft or less. So in order to move these um forward to advance these um we um would recommend that ADUs be exempted from the total maximum floor area for accessory structures as well as exempted from the total number of accessory structures on a lot. So what are the implications of that? Well, if we um exempt them from the maximum floor area, of course, they'd still be subject to the maximum ADU requirements, which would be, as we've previously discussed, a thousand square ft perhaps. Um uh additionally, we have green space requirements. um in the TN zone district for instance um for a single family it's um you need 40% green space. So that would still be in effect. So those would be other factors that would uh limit the size of an ADU or other factors that would control rather than the maximum floor uh floor area of an accessory structure. Now, if we exempted an ADU from the

total number of accessory structures per lot, that means you could have up to three detached accessory structures on every lot. Right now, you can have one detached. You could have a detached garage and a a small shed. But if this regulation were changed, you could have a garage, you can have a small shed and an ADU. So, in this case, the ADU would not have to be on top of the garage. It could be at ground level. And so, you could have up to three detached structures. um relative to the other two um one uh the the first recommendation is to redefine an ADU outside of an accessory structure. So basically not calling it an accessory structure for purposes of zoning. We felt that there would be a lot there would be a lot of um there may be some other changes that would need to be made in other parts of the zone dis uh zoning ordinance. The the whole zoning ordinance is interdependent. So changing one thing will affect others. We felt that these two recommendations would implement the intent of this section. um and we'd rather not change that at this time, but it could be looked at um through our uh comprehensive zoning ordinance update. Um there was one additional recommendation to increase the area of ADUs built on the second story of an accessory structure like over a garage.

Um right now we allow an basically that an additional um 100% if you if you are building on top of an accessory structure. Right now we're not um recommending any changes as the intent would be addressed by the increased floor area and exemption from accessory structure number and area. So, we're recommending exempting ads from the total maximum area for accessory structures and the total number permitted per lot. What are your thoughts on that? Or do you have any questions? I think it seems the right direction. Yeah.

Okay. Um, next, revise site layout and placement standards. Um this one was a little bit more complicated um when we really started to think about it. Um the first one was reduce the front yard setback for ADUs on corner lots. And we felt that this might be something best um uh addressed and thought through in more detail as part of the comprehensive zoning ordinance update. Um we are one of the things that we um are thinking about and want to work with our consultant on is the placement of multiple structures on the same lot. You know, we've we have um uh a desire for for tiny homes and other kinds of um of of layouts and this seemed to be really um part of that discussion. So, we'd really like to put a pin in that one and and delay um uh implementation. Um that would also be um the same recommendation for um allowing zero lot line setbacks for ADUs when done behind zero lot line buildings. What that really means is maybe you have a row of town homes with a row of ADUs behind them, you know, lot line to lot line. And um I think that's going to be challenging and there's going to be a lot that we need to think about um as

part of that. So we'd like to um we'd like to return to that um later. Um the last two um give staff more flex administrative flexibility in ADU placement and reduce or eliminate the rear setback for ADUs along alleys. We think both of those can currently be addressed with our existing um administrative departure. You can, pardon me, um, an accessory structure can be located as close as 1 ft to a lot line with an ex um, administrative departure. And we think that for the most part th that um those recommendations could be implemented through that. Um the specific recommendation about reducing or eliminating the rear setback along alleys that will require um a bit more exploration with our engineering department because there it you know that is right of way and there are often times utilities in the um uh uh in the alley. So uh we want to uh tread carefully there. So in some we're not recommending any changes in this set of recommendations but we do feel that um it um our existing administrative departure can address that in the interim.

Just to rephrase what you said, we're not recommending them at this time because they're more um complicated. I don't know what I said, but thank you.

Yeah. So it's not that we're not supportive. um or feel that there's opportunity here. It's just what we were attempting to do is find additional lowhanging fruit that we could do now. And uh what I think Elizabeth is explaining is that these uh especially the top two in this chart are are not lowhanging fruits. They're much more complicated, but it's not that we're not supportive and we'll re-evaluate this as part of the update. Thank you. And I think this is the last one. um broaden AD use ADU use requirements. So um the first recommendation was to increase the maximum number of bedrooms permitted in in ADU. Well, our current recommendation is two or our current or ordinance maximum is two. We are recommending that okay we could eliminate the number of bedrooms. So and and you know so you can design it the way you want. However, there are other codes that would apply and um that would be um you know uh building code and if it's a rental unit there are uh rental there are uh housing code requirements for the size of bedrooms. Um and an ADU is also not huge. So, it's unlikely you're going to have six bedrooms in an ADU because they're just not that large. So, in some were recommending that the number of bedrooms be eliminated from ADUs. Um, the second one was allowing home occupations in ADUs. And I don't think there ever was an intent to not permit

someone living in adu to operate a home occupation um particularly something like you know an office use um where you're working from home. The way our ordinance is written however this is in artic this is in the home occupation section. Um it it clearly says that home occupations are not permitted in an accessory structures. However, that was really intended so that people weren't using garage garages or sheds for home occupations. So, we do recommend and intend to amend the home occupation section to allow residents of ADUs to operate um home occupations, class A and class B. Class A is, you know, you're working from home um desk job. Class B is where um maybe you are uh a tax preparer and you have people coming to your homes. that would be a class B. So, I did not include this section um 914, the home occupation section in my legal notice. So, unfortunately, we do have to renotice for that. So, when we come back with other amendments, we'll incorporate that one.

Just a side note, Elizabeth, for staff, I think we'll have to notice the definition section as well. The definition of home occupation speaks to the principal dweller. Oh, thank you. So, just and we didn't include that either. So, did not. So, take note, Laura, please.

Um, so, uh, lastly, the recommendations were to allow ADUs to be built in multifamily developments and allowing ADUs to be built built in mixed use and commercial developments. Um, that's a really interesting idea, but it will require a lot of um a lot of thought and some and changes to our ordinance. So, um, we're asking that that just be put on hold or incorporated into our comprehensive zoning ordinance update. Um, did you have any um thoughts on this last batch? No. Okay. All right. So, that was that was all I have. So, all right. Thank you for your for your comments there.

Thanks, Elizabeth. Yeah, I think all of this makes sense and um given that we're going to be doing a an entire zoning ordinance rewrite, these more complicated ones makes sense to go with that process, I think. Okay. Um, so in order to since we did notice this, I'll open up the public um, hearing. If you would like to make comments on this, feel free to come up and tell us your thoughts. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Um, and I believe we Oh, we were going to Sorry. Oh, we're holding it open. I'm not closing the public hearing. I'm so sorry. Hold open to the next meeting, please.

Okay. My apologies. All right. Then we will need a motion to postpone open to the next meeting or table open to the next meeting. Postponing is specific. Do you want to have any discussion or are you going to do that after? Go ahead. I didn't know if there's any additional discussion. That was all. Sorry. Thank you. Any additional discussion? Never mind then. Move along. Okay.

Sorry. Um, postponing usually is specific to a date and may or may not be open and then tableabling is typically open without a date specified. So, I would love some direction on what folks should make their motion say. I believe it would be a postpone open to April 23rd. Great. I will entertain or for just the ADU because aren't we separating the two? We are. I believe it's just for the I don't know what that we need to say that but I it is just for the ADU.

So maybe it's just a postponement open of the of the amendment of various sections of the zoning ordinance because it doesn't really m like I don't know. Sorry, I'm just pausing to think. Um, we may we may want to po well we may want to postpone one portion and table the other. I was going to say split it in like two motions almost. Correct. So bifurcate the ADU and the Grand River overlay. So specific to the ADU requirement uh proposed amendments postpone open till late 8

April. Yeah. Oh goodness. 23rd and table open the and then table open the overlay river overlay. Yep. All right. Anyone want to make one or both of those motions? Well, we'll take them one at a time, but which one are you calling? I will call the ADU one first. So, I move to postpone to 423 the ADU portion of the zoning ordinance tax amendment discussion. Okay. Support. I have a motion and support. Postpone open. All those in favor say I. I. I. I.

Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. And then the next one would be to table open the um uses permitted within the Grand River Overlay District. I move to table open the proposed text amendments related to the uses prohibited in the Grand River Overlay District. support. All right. Motion on support. Any additional discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. Motions carry. Thank you. Sorry for the confusion. Open. Did I not say the open? It's okay. It was clear.

Okay. Um, any additional planning commission discussion? I will open up the general public comment period. If you would like to address commission, now is your time to come up. Seeing none, I will close the public comment period and we're adjourned. Thank you everyone. Thank you.