Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. It's nice to have such a full room. Sometimes we have an empty room, so thank you all for being here. We are gonna start with our public hearing soon, but before that, I wanted to just go over kind of the process of how this will go. So initially, when we're hearing a case, we have a staff person come up and provide us their staff report. Then the applicant has an opportunity to come up and add supplemental information, answer our questions, At that point, we will open up the public hearing and everyone here will be able to approach the microphone and give us your thoughts in three minutes or less. I'll remind everybody this at that time but if other folks have said kind of what your feelings are you can always just say I have the same concerns about such and such and such as has already been said so we can kind of move through this process efficiently but rest assured that we have read all the comments that were submitted in our packet and we will hear all your comments today as well. When you step up to the microphone, just state your name and make sure to address all your comments to the commission and not the audience. We would also ask that you kind of hold your comments or discussion for the public hearing portion of the meeting and not kind of boo, clap, that kind of thing. We want to make sure that everyone feels able to give us their thoughts regardless of kind of the opinions of others. So just be respectful. I want to remind everyone that this meeting is being streamed live on Facebook and YouTube. also there have been draft there's draft language for our resolutions that have been drafted by staff with potential findings both for and against so if you see whoever is making the motion if you see them reading they are but know that we have the latitude to modify that in any way and that no decision has made has been made beforehand think that covers it. So we will get back to the agenda and just do conflict of interest first. Does anyone have a conflict of interest today? Okay seeing none I'll turn it over to Kristen go ahead.

Thank You Commissioner. So before we do start our first case I do want to acknowledge the traffic existing traffic street and stormwater conditions report that was prepared for the Planning Commission for the community prior to this meeting for and by city staff. So during the first two community engagement sessions for the project that you're going to discuss today, it became very clear that residents have long-standing concerns about traffic safety and stormwater management in the neighborhood. Many have expressed that the project would worsen those issues. So in response, we developed that supplemental report that was titled Existing Traffic Street and stormwater conditions report. So I wanted to provide you with a summary in case it's helpful for you today because we do think that there was some valuable information that was shared by the community that is relevant and since we have an opportunity to speak to the community and assure them that we do take that feedback seriously and there are things either in motion or could be in motion to address some of those larger neighborhood wide concerns. So regarding traffic, we recognize that there are concerns about traffic volumes and speeding on 7th Street, Oakley, Fairfield, and nearby streets. The streets are classified as link residential, and we classify all streets within the city in what we call our Vital Streets Plan. provides some typology and recommendations for each street. The streets are classified as link residential and are currently operating within their intended capacity. So, for example, Oakley Road carries about 3,200 vehicles per day, and so that is underneath or below the street capacity for that type of street. That's not to say that there are impacts of the traffic that's there, but in terms of capacity it's within. The plan does outline potential traffic calming measures and there were what's called chokers that were installed on Oakley. It's clear that those have not been as effective as we had hoped and so we're currently evaluating as City Traffic Engineering Department is evaluating what additional options could be done to help reduce speeds on Oakley. For example, there's a proposed or considering what's called a street cushion. And I would probably need my traffic engineer to support me with detailing that if more information is needed. But additional measures called a street cushion could be implemented. So that's going to be presented to the residents for a vote in August. And so there will be some additional discussion to determine whether that type of street calming measure could be implemented. would be a valuable effort to make for us. There hasn't been to date any street calming measures submitted for Seventh or Fairfield. Street calming might be limited in terms of the success just based on the limited intersections, so the options are a bit more constrained, but certainly that could be considered if and when the city were to seek a request about street calming measures. Regarding stormwater, the area itself is served by a combination of storm sewers, roadside ditches, and rear yard drainage systems. The 7th Street's curb and gutter system conveys runoff that ultimately connects to the Oakley Road drain system. Oakley relies heavily on roadside ditches and shallow swales. The area is not within a FEMA floodplain and it was not identified as having an elevated flood risk according to the city's stormwater management plan. Some properties do experience localized flooding and ponding during wet seasons. This past winter and spring, for example, were exceptionally wet and leading to several service requests because of visibly standing water. The types of soils of course greatly impact how that water can be infiltrated. So there was some visible standing water, especially along Oakley and where the drainage systems rely on those ditches rather than enclosed or below grade infrastructure. So looking ahead, there are several projects in the city's five-year capital improvement plan. That's the plan that we use to guide citywide capital investments around our infrastructure. And infrastructure includes our stormwater, our road conditions, traffic, and pedestrian connections. So there is planned work in this neighborhood. between fiscal year, we're currently in fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 2030. There's improvements for 8th Street, 7th Street, and Oakley. Each project is funded by the Vital Streets millage and does include community engagement and a design process. And that would be specifically for Oakley Road, for example, closer, or I believe it's in fiscal year 2030 when we would start having those conversations And invite the community to come and participate in some design solutions for Oakley when it's reconstructed. So finally, I do want to say that we obviously collected a lot of infrastructure-related feedback of the neighborhood generally as a result of this project. And so we have committed to sharing that with our engineering department and our Vital Streets Oversight Commission to consider a lot of this information so that we're not asking the same questions again for information that's already been received in future efforts. So that's on the the infrastructure piece of it I also wanted to comment that as with any Planning Commission case when it comes before you you have a special land use in this case there are standards within your ordinance that you're obligated to Adhere to and so you're familiar with those standards there's some information that we often get through a public process or that is brought forward that may not be relevant to your standards. So, for example, with this particular case, there was a number of comments or concerns that came up about whether the project would be renter or whether it would be an ownership structure. There is legislation at a state level that does not allow a city to make a land use determination on whether the project is owner occupied or renter occupied. That's not to say that there's not impacts of whether a project is owner-occupied or renter-occupied, but it's not an issue that is within your authority to consider. So you have a responsibility to consider the project to incorporate Sorry, allergy season. to incorporate any information that comes forward through the public hearing process that can inform findings that you can use towards the standards of your review. So sometimes those are really difficult because there's really important things to our community that are very relevant to the success of a community and the growth and vibrancy of neighborhoods. But it's not all within the Planning Commission's authority. to consider those things, your one piece of a puzzle in a greater picture that helps a community grow and develop. So I just wanted to clarify those roles and responsibilities. Our role as city staff was to bring this project forward with as much information as we could. to help you make an informed decision. You have a lot of information before you today, so certainly with that information, if there's additional, we have also city staff subject matter experts here, so if there's a specific question after planning staff provides an overview, we will bring those individuals forward to help inform your process. And if you find that there's more information that's needed, as a planning commission, you have the right to table the request and give us staff specific direction about the information that you need more of to help you make an informed, a good decision for the community. All right, any, I think, unless there's any, oh, commissioner.

Can I ask a question about that? Well, in regards to you're talking about the infrastructure on Oakley, there were a lot of letters about sidewalks, about kids playing in the front yard, that type of thing. So would sidewalks be something that would be considered when that reconstruction process is happening or? Yes. Okay.

Yeah. So as part of the vital streets process, there's the a plan that guides the engagement, and there's a plan that guides the elements of a road that would be incorporated as part of a reconstruction project. So those design specifics would be something that we would talk with the community about when we are ready to move that project forward, which again is probably not till about fiscal year 30. which starts, what, July of 2029, so a little ways away. Any other questions regarding what I just said? Okay.

Thank you. All right, thanks, Kristen. All right, so now we will start with our case, 2457th Street NW, and Laura will walk us through the staff report.

Forgive me if I missed this in the meeting, but did you ask for a conflict of interest? Okay, I apologize. And one more announcement before I start. There are parking, paper parking validation tickets available on the table next to the validation machine if anybody didn't bring their parking ticket upstairs. And if we run out of those paper tickets, there are more available in the clerk's office on the second floor. So nobody should have to pay for parking today. So our first case is a request for a new development of 32 dwelling units in 16 attached single-family duplex buildings. The subject property is located on the south side of 7th Street at the intersection of Shawmut Court. This property and surrounding property are all in the MCN LDR zone district, mid-century neighborhood, low density residential. And as Kristen mentioned, the streets in the area, Oakley, 7th Street and Fairfield are all classified as link residential streets in the city's vital streets plan. Link residential streets, they provide connectivity between nearby neighborhoods and local destinations with capacity for a larger number of vehicles than typical neighborhood residential streets. The subject property, as shown on the screen here, is just under five acres, historically vacant or agricultural use, and today it is predominantly wooded, with a gentle slope running from the northwest corner of the property to the southeast corner. Adjacent uses include single-family homes, and to the south is Shawmut Hills Elementary School. You can see their ball fields in this image. The 2024 Community Master Plan identifies this area as compact neighborhood, which is intended to promote a variety of housing types while enhancing the desired physical characteristics of the existing neighborhood. This slide is a survey of the existing conditions of the property. I will say it is oriented with Seventh Street on the right hand side of the page. So north is pointing to the right. The top of the page is the west side of the property. All of the slides from here on out will be oriented in this direction. I'll try to keep everybody on track. There is an area of steep slopes at the southern half of the west property line. And field investigations identified wetlands in the southwesterly and southeasterly areas of the property. There is a public stormwater drain easement running from the east side of the property to Oakley Road between two residential properties. This is the grading plan. It shows the area of disturbance. If you see on the edge of the development area, there's a fence line. That is indicating the area of disturbance. This area of the site will be cleared, filled and graded to prepare for the development. The remainder of the site on the other side of the fence will remain undisturbed. Two elements of this plan require special land use consideration today. The first is multiple family residential use. The zoning ordinance considers any property with three or more dwelling units to be multiple family. And a reduction of the 75 foot protection area from wetlands to 25 feet. And I'll go into more detail on that in a little bit. The residences will be oriented to a new private drive. The drive will be 26 feet wide, ending in a cul-de-sac. And the drive will be oriented to Chalmette Court to the north. A private stormwater detention basin will be located on the east side of the property. And this basin will connect to that public drain And any improvements and the cost of the improvements to connect to this public drain will be the responsibility of and borne by the developer. Sidewalks will be constructed along Seventh Street and on both sides of the internal drive. And the developer is currently working with GRPS to establish an internal sidewalk connection from the subject property to the school to the south. This slide shows some of the natural features that are on the site. A wetland study and a tree survey were both conducted and the reports filed with the application in your packet. This image shows the existing wetland area shaded in blue. On the west side and there's a little bit on the southeast corner of the site. And the survey was conducted on the property during the growing season earlier this spring. The zoning ordinance considers the area 75 feet from a wetlands to be a natural feature protection area. On this slide, that 75 foot protection line is shaded in orange. Grading, removal of vegetative cover, and new structures and paving are not permitted within this protection area. The Planning Commission may allow a reduction from 75 feet to 25 feet if certain criteria are met. This includes the site landscape features such as vegetation and steep slopes are preserved as much as practicable. Natural features and site topography are incorporated into the site design. There is no practical alternative. And removal of protection within the area will not result in a loss of habitat, hydrologic function, or erosion control. The 25 foot line is indicated by the red dotted line on this site plan. Five of the buildings and the cul-de-sac are within the 75 foot protection area. Building number eight and the southerly area of the cul-de-sac are proposed to be constructed at the 25 foot protection area edge. So we are asking the Planning Commission to consider whether the site layout meets this criteria for a reduction of the protection area. Moving on to talk about trees. This slide was submitted to indicate that all of the trees within the red shaded area on this plan will be protected and the remaining trees on the property will be removed for the development. The site plan also shows a proposed rain garden at the northwest side of the property. And I will defer to the applicant to clarify whether this new rain garden will include removal of trees or if the trees there will still be protected. The tree survey identified significant trees as labeled on this plan here. Significant trees were determined to be trees that are large, mature, healthy, and of unique or rare species. 14 of these trees that I've highlighted in yellow are considered to be desirable species. And this is the landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to plant several new trees on the property. They will be planted on landscape berms between the buildings and 7th Street. And trees will also be planted behind the sidewalk and the private drive. Additional trees will be planted on the periphery of the property. And I will defer to the applicant to speak more about the decision to plant trees on the edge of the property. The buildings to be constructed will be designed as attached single-family townhomes or side-by-side duplexes. Each unit will have three bedrooms and an attached garage. Three of the units will have two-car garages. The exterior materials will consist of composite siding on the front and horizontal siding on the sides and the rear. The zoning ordinance requirements for building height, materials, and transparency are met. If you'd like more information or details, I can answer questions. If we talk about density, with the 32 units that are proposed, the project has an overall density of 6.18 dwelling units per acre. The density of nearby development, as you can see in this image that have been mapped out, ranges from approximately one unit to 3.69 units per acre. The maximum densities permitted in the MCN LDR zone district are 17.4 units per acre for multiple family, 12.4 for attached single family, and 8.7 for single family. So the proposed development is within the allowable densities for all residential building types in this zone district. The Planning Commission should consider the proposed density and the attached single-family form relative to the surrounding neighborhood. Going back to the site layout, I'll zoom in. Along 7th Street, Building 1 will be set back 35 feet from the edge of pavement at 7th Street, and Building 16 at the west here will be set back 43 feet from the edge of pavement. And then going back to the buildings facing this internal drive, the majority of the buildings will be set back 35 feet from the edge of pavement of the private drive. Considering the site layout and the building setbacks, the Planning Commission should think about the relationship of the buildings to 7th Street. and the proximity to the adjacent houses to the west and to the east, and the orientation of the buildings to the new private drive. And then if we move on and talk about parking, a minimum of 56 parking spaces is required for this development. 73 parking spaces are provided in attached garages, individual driveways, and there are four visitor parking spaces at the end of the cul-de-sac. Trip generation analysis was submitted for review by the City Traffic Engineer with this application. The analysis was prepared for a previous version of this project in which there were 43 units rather than the proposed 32 units. For the 43 units the trip generation analysis concluded that 283 daily trips would be anticipated and with 20 during the a.m. peak hours and 22 during the afternoon peak hours. The city transportation engineer concurred with the findings of the analysis and that the development will not exceed the capacity of the surrounding streets. In sum, we are asking the Planning Commission to consider the consistency of the project with the recommendations of the Community Master Plan, the purpose and intent of the zone district relative to density and neighborhood character, and the site layout, specifically as it relates to the reduction of the natural features protection area. Are there any questions?

Thank you, Laura. Any questions for Laura? I think I do. I had something written down. Oh, so related to the 25 foot, especially the buildings that are right on that 25 foot line, I know that in the report it says that no grading will be happening over that, but what are, if any, are the requirements related to disturbance during construction?

No disturbance is no disturbance.

So no disturbance beyond that 25 foot would be allowed during construction? Correct. Thank you for that. Sorry, I should have put everything on one page. That's it for now.

Anybody else? Is this when we can ask engineering questions, or are we waiting for a different time?

You can either ask them now or wait until after the applicant's presentation, whichever you think is best.

I'll wait until after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

All right, let's do that then.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Adam Rogalski, and I'm the owner of 2450 7th Street NW in Grand Rapids. I want to start with some good news. A recent MLive report found that Kent County grew its population of 25 to 34 year olds by 5,109 people, a 5.1% increase from 2020 to 2025. That is exactly the direction our city and county should be headed. At the same time, Grand Rapids has a documented and severe housing shortage. The city's own housing needs assessment made clear that we need more housing of every type, including homes for young families and professionals who are trying to put down roots here. This development is designed to be a small part of the solution for a growing and vibrant Grand Rapids. This site is privately owned and legally purchased. My intention is that it will be thoughtfully developed with strong environmental protections and infrastructure investments and that it will be an asset for both the neighborhood and the city. This proposal for 32 attached single-family homes on a five-acre lot, a carefully designed residential community, that adds to the housing stock Grand Rapids desperately needs while respecting the natural features of the site. I will begin by addressing each of the six special land use standards, then summarizing the extensive community engagement process behind the project. Then I'd like to respond directly to the concerns that I've heard from the neighbors and finally address a few points that I believe deserve clarification. After that, I will ask Justin Longstreth for more imbruging to discuss the more technical aspects of the development. Commissioners, I will address each of the six special land use review standards in turn. Standard number one. The city's master plan, Bridge to Our Future, identifies the need for diverse housing types throughout Grand Rapids neighborhoods. Our proposal directly advances that goal by adding 32 residential units in an established neighborhood with strong connections to jobs, schools, and services. The property is zoned MCN LDR, mid-century neighborhood, low density residential. Attached single family dwellings are listed as a permitted special land use within this zone. We are not asking for rezoning. We are applying for the precise land use approval that the zoning ordinance anticipates for properties like this one and neighborhoods like this one. The master plan also calls for projects to build upon existing neighborhood development and minimize differences in scale. Our development averages 0.16 acres per proposed unit on this lot that represents a transition point between the single-family neighborhood to the west and the school campus to the south. For comparison, there are entire parcels on Fairfield and on 7th Street similar or smaller in size, ranging from 0.14 acres to 0.16 acres. The architecture is designed to be residential in scale and character, with building heights and massing consistent with the neighborhood context. We are confident this project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the master plan in zoning ordinance. Standard number two. Our project has been designed to meet the site plan standard review standards in full. Let me walk through each key element. Site design and environment. Public utilities exist in the 7th Street right of way and will be extended into the development at no cost to the city. A professional tree survey has been completed and the site design preserves the steep slopes along the western property line and the identified wetland features in the southwest quadrant of the site. Landscaping will meet all zoning ordinances and requirements. Vehicular circulation. The development provides a single private street access point aligned directly opposite Chalmont Court on 7th Street. chosen specifically to reduce turning conflicts and improve traffic safety at that intersection. The street terminates at a cul-de-sac designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. A trip generation analysis confirms negligible impact on surrounding roadway levels of service. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Sidewalks will be provided on both sides of this internal private street, and a new sidewalk will be constructed along the full 7th Street frontage of this development, a meaningful improvement over existing conditions. Ongoing discussions with Grand Rapids public schools could result in an additional pedestrian connection to Shawmont Hills Elementary School to the south. Parking. The development provides 73 parking spots, 35 enclosed garages, 35 driveway, and additional surface space, exceeding ordinance requirements and accommodating both residents and guests. The onsite supply is intentionally generous to prevent any spillover onto 7th Street. Stormwater. A private stormwater collection system, detention basin, and rain garden have been designed in full compliance. with city stormwater rules and regulations. We commit to working with the city on all required stormwater permits and approvals prior to construction. Standard number three. Standard three asks us to demonstrate that the proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the existing character of the neighborhood. that adverse effects will be minimized and that use will not be detrimental to adjacent uses or the public welfare. Let's address these in order. 3A, compatibility with neighborhood character. This is a residential use in a residential zone. The attached single-family townhomes are designed with architectural character that complements the mid-century neighborhood residential scale covered porches, attached garages, and landscaped surroundings. The existing steep slopes and wetland areas on the western edge of the site are preserved, maintaining the natural character of the boundary. 3B, minimizing adverse effects. The proposed buildings are positioned to maximize setbacks from adjacent property lines. Perimeter landscaping and preserved tree buffers are provided between the development and neighboring parcels. The single access point reduces traffic dispersal through residential streets. Parking is provided on site to prevent spillover. The stormwater system is designed to manage runoff on site. 3C, not detrimental to adjacent uses. Standard 3C requires that the proposed use not be detrimental or disturbing to adjacent properties reason of excessive noise, traffic, odors or other nuisances. The trip generation study confirms that 283 additional vehicle trips this development produces falls well within the capacity of the surrounding road network and does not degrade existing levels of service. Beyond traffic, a residential Beyond traffic, residential land use generates no noise beyond what a household produces, no odors, no glare, no visual clutter. This development is a residential use in a residential zone. By definition, it is consistent with adjacent land uses both in character and in impact. 3D walkability. and pedestrian circulation. Sidewalks throughout the development and along the 7th Street frontage actively improve pedestrian connectivity in an area that currently has none. Rather than harming walkability, this development introduces new pedestrian infrastructure to a neighborhood that residents themselves have identified as lacking. The environment, standard number four. Standard four requires that the proposed use retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable, particularly when those features assist in preserving the general character of the neighborhood. Our approach has been guided by this standard from the beginning of the design process. The existing steep slopes along the western property will remain completely undisturbed. The four identified wetland features in the southwest quadrant of the site will remain undisturbed. No construction activity, grading, or filling will occur within or adjacent to the wetlands beyond the requested 25-foot setback. A comprehensive tree survey was completed. The design team used this survey to identify and preserve the highest quality trees whenever the construction envelope allows. The landscaping plan meets zoning ordinance requirements and includes perimeter buffering to maintain the natural characters at the project's edges. The stormwater system including the detention basin and rain garden, is designed to not merely comply with regulations, but to actively manage runoff from the site in a way that protects downstream properties and the natural features themselves. We believe this project as designed retains the most important natural features of the site, the wetlands, the western slope, and the ecological character of the property's boundaries, while allowing responsible residential development on the buildable portion of the land. Standard number five, public facilities. Standard five requires that adequate public infrastructure exists or will be provided, that the project does not burden the city financially, and that it complies with all applicable city ordinances and state laws. Let's start with infrastructure. Public sanitary sewer and water main utilities exist within the 7th Street right-of-way. All extensions into the development will be privately financed and constructed at no cost to the city of Grand Rapids. The development will connect to existing city systems in full compliance with engineering standards. The financial welfare of the city. This development will increase the city's housing stock by 32 units and generate new property tax revenue on land that is currently vacant and untaxed at its improved value. All site improvements Streets, utilities, stormwater, landscaping are privately funded. The city bears no capital cost for this development. The economic benefit to Grand Rapids is positive and direct. 5C, compliance with ordinances and state laws. The proposed development is designed to comply with all applicable city of Grand Rapids ordinances and state of Michigan laws. The special land use application and the accompanying buffer Reduction requests are made pursuant to specific provisions of the zoning ordinance that authorized both We are working within the system not around it Standard six standard six addresses uses involving the sale or consumption of alcohol The standard is not applicable to the proposed development No alcohol sales or alcohol related uses are proposed or contemplated as part of this project. I community engagement. Before addressing specific concerns raised by neighbors, I want this commission to understand the depth and sincerity of the engagement process we've conducted.

Please keep your comments and conversations quiet until it's time for the public hearing. Thank you.

This was not a check the box exercise. It was genuine In a sustained effort to hear the neighborhood respond to its concerns and produce a better project as a result Our timeline our engagement timeline ran from November of 2025 through the present and included two large public meetings a city administered online survey individual one-on-one meetings with residents in the neighborhood and small group meetings at the civil engineer's office and ongoing direct correspondence with individual neighbors by email and phone. On December 1st, we hosted community engagement meeting number one at Faith Community Church of Western Michigan, about a block and a half from the site. Approximately 200 neighbors attended. Every household within 500 feet received a postcard notification at least two weeks in advance, two onsite signs advertised the event, and we engaged a professional facilitator to ensure the session was inclusive. In January and February of 2026, earlier this year, in direct response to the feedback from the first meeting, the City of Grand Rapids Planning Department created a dedicated webpage explaining the special land use process and launched an online survey to collect additional community input. That link was distributed broadly to the neighborhood. What you have before you on the screen is the first version of the site plan that included the 43 units, primarily four plexes and five plexes. In a few moments, I'll describe in detail where we started with the site plan and where we've ended. In February of this year, we hosted community engagement meeting number two at Chalmont Hills Elementary School, again drawing approximately 200 neighbors. Throughout the entire period, we conducted individual engagement, one-on-one meetings at the property and in the neighborhood, small group meetings at offices, direct email exchanges, and phone conversations with the residents who wanted to discuss their current concerns personally. Four themes emerged consistently across all engagement channels. Environmental concerns about the wetlands, green space, and existing stormwater drainage. Two, traffic and pedestrian safety in the neighborhood, in a neighborhood that already lacks sidewalks. Three, neighborhood character and the compatibility of scale. And four, questions about property values. We took all of that seriously. The community engagement process produced concrete material changes to this project. These were not cosmetic adjustments. They reflected genuine effort to respond to neighborhood input. Let me highlight some of them. First, density was reduced by 25%. The total unit count was originally 43 units and was voluntarily reduced to 32 units, 11 fewer homes than originally produced. The building types were simplified. All four- and five-unit townhomes were eliminated. Every home in the development is now a two-unit, single-family attached structure, each with its own entrance, garage, and individual identity. Green space increased. The overall amount of green space was expanded by rearranging the site plan and eliminating a segment of the internal road. Parking increased. Dedicated on-site parking was increased to accommodate residential guests, reducing any potential spillover. And then landscaping was enhanced. Perimeter landscaping berms were added to provide improved visual and physical buffering for adjacent neighbors. My ongoing commitment to this neighborhood does not end with this application. I have made specific commitments to neighbors that I intend to keep. Let me talk through those. First, a direct point of contact. My personal email for ongoing neighborhood questions and concerns is available and I have a commitment to respond. The collaborative review of stormwater management plans with neighbors on the southeast portion of the property is currently underway. There have been on-site meetings with those neighbors most impacted and And as recently as last Thursday, we hosted a meeting at Moore and Brugink to go through the technical aspects of what that looks like to help reduce the flooding impact in their backyards. Three, active advocacy with the city for additional sidewalks near the development to improve pedestrian safety in the broader neighborhood. Finally, I commit to a pre-construction meeting with neighbors to solicit input on landscaping and tree preservation decisions. Not every neighbor opposes this project. The following comments reflect the progress made through the process and demonstrate that genuine engagement can move people. I've got them up on the screen. They're anonymous on purpose. I'll quickly walk through them. First, the revised concept drawing looks great. We appreciate the thought, effort, and planning you put into this. Second, I wanted to say that I think it's great that you're still engaging the community. That cannot be easy after the first meeting. Thanks for taking the high road. Third, if you're willing to advocate for sidewalks, I would be happy to work with you on that. We don't have to grant everything to collaborate where there's common ground. Four, I was opposed to your project, but because of your changes on the site plan, I am moving my position to neutral. And then finally, sorry it's been a rough road. I hope the development moves forward. I'd love more neighbors. Addressing community concerns. I want to take each major concern raised by the neighbors seriously. and give this commission direct, substantive responses. First, stormwater, drainage, and basement flooding. This is the concern I take very seriously. Multiple neighbors have written about water in their basements, some pumps that run constantly, and flooding during heavy rain events. However, I want to be direct. The flooding issues in this area predate my ownership of this property by decades. This development is designed to improve flooding conditions, not exacerbate them. What our stormwater management plan actually does is design a system that handles runoff on site and in many respects improves on the current unmanaged condition. Our civil engineers at Moore & Brugink have designed a private stormwater collection system including a detention basin and rain garden engineered in full compliance with the City of Grand Rapids stormwater rules and regulations. The system is designed to control and detain stormwater on site before it is released which is more than what currently occurs on this unmanaged naturally draining parcel. The wetland buffer reduction request. At our last community engagement meeting in February we presented a plan with the same number of units and buildings as discussed today. Since that meeting was completed, we had a wetland delineation study during the growing season, and that study confirmed that less than 1 tenth of an acre of wetlands exist on the parcel. We had a decision to make. We could have pursued a permit application to EGLE to develop over those wetlands. Instead, we evaluated multiple alternative layouts avoided any wetland impact. We believe that the best outcome is to preserve the wetlands entirely which is why we are requesting the reduced setback from the city rather than seeking EGLE authorization to build over the wetlands. The city zoning ordinance requires a 75-foot natural features buffer around the wetlands as the default standard. We are requesting a reduction to 25 feet which is explicitly permitted under the Grand Rapids zoning ordinance. This is not a request to violate city code. This is an application of a provision that the code specifically provides for. The delineation study was conducted by Matt Allen, a qualified professional with over a decade of experience in the field, who's available this afternoon to address any technical concerns for the commission. Within the proposed 25-foot setback, no construction activity, no cutting, no filling, no grading will occur. Vegetation within that area will be preserved in its natural state. The wetlands and their associated buffer will be protected throughout the construction period through soil erosion control measures and careful construction practices. Brent Gibson from Construction Simplified is available to address specific questions on this topic. Traffic and pedestrian safety. Several residents have written about traffic speeds on Oakley, the absence of sidewalks on neighboring streets, and concerns about the safety of their children walking to Shawmont Hills Elementary. The families who wrote those letters deserve better regardless of what happens to this development. Our trip generation analysis found that the proposed development will generate 283 additional vehicle trips per day. A figure the engineering study characterizes as a negligible impact on the surrounding roadwork network spread across a 24-hour period that's fewer than 12 additional vehicles per hour on average. At peak times, the impact on a street network that connects Lake Michigan Drive and Leonard remains modest. Our development access is aligned directly opposite Shawmont Court on 7th Street, specifically designed to reduce turning conflicts and improve traffic order at that intersection. We are committed to installing sidewalks along the 7th Street frontage of our development, something that does not currently exist. I want to be clear. The existing sidewalk gaps on Oakley and Fairfield are a city infrastructure issue extends well beyond the scope of a single development but I'm willing to be part of a conversation with the city about what additional pedestrian safety measures can be incorporated and I'm committed to working collaboratively on that. Neighbors have expressed concerns that 32 townhome units is too dense for this neighborhood and that the character of this development is out of step with the surrounding single-family homes and built in the mid 20th century. I respect that concern. At 16 buildings across five acres, this development is actually lower than some of the surrounding MCN zone parcels that would permit it. The MCN LDR zone allows for attached single family dwelling homes as a special land use. This is exactly what we are proposing. These are three bedroom townhomes with attached garages, covered porches, designed to attract families who want to put down roots in this neighborhood. I anticipate many of the families that move into this development to fall in love with the neighborhood and eventually move into larger homes as their families grow. On the question of tree removal, the tree survey has been completed and we are committed to preserving quality trees wherever possible. The steep slopes along the western property line will remain undisturbed. New landscaping and perimeter buffers It will soften the transition between the development and adjacent properties. This will not be a clear-cut lot dropped into a neighborhood. It will be a landscaped residential community. I'd like to take a moment to cover four topics before I conclude, focused on setting the record straight. Topic number one, there may be a perceived lack of neighborhood support. As you can see, there are a lot of neighbors here today. Unfortunately, many who support this project fear retribution from their neighbors. Here are a couple of examples. Please, folks. Y'all.

Enough.

Here are a couple of examples from neighbors who reached out to me via email but wish to remain anonymous. The first email Read, I would be willing to submit my letter of support with my first name only, but I'm uncomfortable with my last name and address on it. There have been some very angry people, and I would rather not have them have my personal information out there in public. Letter number two that was sent to me. Hi, Adam. As my wife reminds me, we have angry and frankly dangerous neighbors. Please use my initials only to identify support. Another observation of mine is that small group conversations have been much more productive than large town hall forums. However, it's been very difficult to get individuals from those small town home forums to have their viewpoints shared with the broader neighborhood. In addition, there's no active neighborhood association in the area where organized support could be expressed. Also, I have a letter of support from the Grand Rapids Chamber and a letter of needs from Housing Next stating that the alignment of the development fits within the housing needs of the city. Finally, Flywheel Community Development Services submitted a memo that underscores the fact that property values of single-family homes in this area are not negatively impacted by nearby developments with higher density. Topic two, the studies have been challenged as flawed. My design team brings a combined 107 years of professional experience to this project. Let me summarize their resumes. Jim Brody, the architect, has been an architect for 33 years. notably lives within 100 yards of the project site brent gibson the general contractor has 26 years experience justin longstreth a civil engineer has 23 years experience matt allen our wetlands consultant has over a decade and i have 15 years experience the traffic and wetland studies have been conducted by experienced professionals and completed by the standards set forth by the city of Grand Rapids. These are not back of the envelope estimates. They're professional studies performed by quality experts. Topic three, the density is too high. The site could have a special land use approved for up to 90 units under the current zoning. This application proposes 32, approximately one third of the maximum density allowed. That already reflects a 25% voluntary reduction from our original proposal of 43 units made directly in response to community feedback. The final topic, a note on the process. I want to acknowledge that this process has been deeply difficult for neighbors, my team, and my family. I have experienced intimidation and threats over the past eight months, and members of my team have been felt unsafe. I've always treated this community with respect, and I ask that the same standards apply to everyone participating in the public process. I raise this not to assign blame, but because a healthy civic process requires that all participants feel safe to engage. In conclusion, Commissioners, the proposal before you today meets each of the six special land use standards. It preserves the most sensitive natural features on the site. It introduces new pedestrian infrastructure where none exists today. It manages stormwater in full compliance with city regulations. It adds much needed residential housing to a neighborhood in a city that needs them. I'm committed to continuing to work with city staff and neighbors to address legitimate technical concerns and to collaborate on pedestrian safety improvements. 32 households will call this development home. They will walk their dogs in this neighborhood. Their children will attend Chalmont Hills Elementary. They will become a fabric of the west side. I respectfully ask this commission to approve the special land use and setback application for 2457th Street Northwest. Thank you.

Okay. Do you have someone else? Yeah.

Good afternoon. My name is Justin Longstreth with Moore & Brugnick Engineers. Adam was very thorough in his remarks and stole a lot of my thunder so I don't have as many comments maybe to make as what I did before he spoke but I wanted to just reach out and just have a couple of Details to add to the discussion and then also certainly be available to any questions that the Commission may have. It has been mentioned that the stormwater system that is proposed on this project is in compliance with the city stormwater rules. That is true. We have calculations that we have shown that the downstream conveyance is adequate for 100 year storm capacity from this site and also the surrounding areas that are contributing to it. We have also prepared calculations that show that the peak runoff rates for 10 year, 25 year, 50 year and 100 year storms are all less post development than they are in their current condition. So I just wanted to point that out. We have met multiple times with downstream property owners to talk specifically about stormwater. To Adam's point, that did happen as recently as last Thursday. One of the commitments that we've made to those neighbors is that we would not stop that community engagement with this meeting. Assuming that this process and this project does move forward, there are additional permits that we need to obtain from the city, LUDS permit. Namely, we have committed to continuing to meet with them through the LUDS permitting process to keep them in the loop on all of that design. Um, Wetlands just a couple of things to point out and it was mentioned we do have a couple of buildings and a road cul-de-sac that is very close to the 25-foot buffer Our design, both in layout and grading, is very intentional, has been done very intentionally such that all of the grades at those pinch points, if you want to call it that, are at existing grade. So what I mean by that is we don't have a building that's 10 foot above the existing grade next to an area that we're supposed to protect. We are at that existing grade. With our construction management team, we are very confident that we can maintain those buffers, stay out of even during the construction process. It will have to be mindful, purposeful, maybe not convenient at all times, but we are committed to making that happen. And then just a couple of quick stats that I want to throw out. As it relates to green space, zoning ordinance requires that we provide 50% of the site area as green space. Our current plan has nearly 66. required tree canopy For this particular site is required to be a 48% We are providing 63% both by preservation of existing trees and supplementing that with new landscaping being proposed I'm sure that the Commission has many questions happy to answer all of those But that's all I have as far as initial remarks

Just want to clarify you said that post development. There's you're expecting less by calculation less Impact on neighboring sites from stormwater, correct?

That's correct Any other questions from I do have one so is there any on street parking allowed or not I this street?

In the current plan we do have a few at the end of the cul-de-sac.

But not along the private drive?

No.

Can you talk to me about the decision related to the berm along 7th but then the the lack of that kind of buffer between

development and the adjacent properties on the east and west sure the landscape berms and plant material along 7th Street was done as a direct comment that we received during the community engagement meetings with neighbors on the opposite side of 7th Street really desiring a little bit more of elevation Landscaping to block views that's not to say that we can't also do that on the other sides of the development But we just didn't receive the feedback from those neighbors now I will point out we had met with a couple of the neighbors on the east and west sides about landscape buffering not necessarily the berm aspect but providing some sort of screen and we are committed to doing that and I think Adam had mentioned that through that permit process and beyond we would like to continue to meet with those neighbors in selection of plant materials and making sure that those buffering elements can be achieved.

In our staff report we had some Feedback from the City Engineering Department identifying a few issues including the sewer lateral from Building 8 doesn't have adequate soil cover. The soil required to provide adequate cover could significantly change and shift site grades. Is that something you could address? Sure.

Since those comments were made, we had additional correspondence with the Engineering Department through planning staff and have made some last minute revisions to site grading. It's nothing that would impact the buffer areas as proposed. Really kind of getting into the final details of that design and I think we're much closer now to a final product even through that last week, week and a half of correspondence with the engineering department. We had received those comments. I personally feel like we're in a position now where those are not significant comments in my mind.

So including the showing, providing clarity related to how public and private utility easements will be accommodated as well as addressing the potential issue of maintenance for building foundations on buildings 10 through 16.

Correct. We had provided some additional drawings, and I don't know that it made it into the Planning Commission's packet, but we did provide some additional drawings to show how the private utilities could run through on both sides of the street for electric, gas, telecommunications, and then had some initial discussions with the grading on the backyards of those buildings 10 through 16. So again, we don't see any issues with any of those comments. I would anticipate that that level of detail very easily worked through as part of the LUDS permit process.

Typically what we see is looking for a level of confidence both by, in this case, Justin at Moore & Brugink as well as our engineering department to make sure that can the issues be satisfied without major site changes? Justin feels that the answer would be yes. If there are major or significant site changes that result compliance then that's something that planning staff would reevaluate and determine whether or not those changes are substantive to your decision in which case if the answer is yes we would require it to come back through Planning Commission.

For the wetlands buffer reduction, you're required to demonstrate that practical alternatives or alternatives were considered and they aren't practical. Can you highlight where those alternatives were demonstrated and what the practicalness of them was or was not?

Yeah, on previous versions of the plan, which were shown, we had contemplated keeping original layouts that would have impacted wetland areas. Granted, that would have required permitting from the state of Michigan, but was something that we had taken a look at. We felt like a change to the current layout avoiding those impacts, providing the 25 foot buffer was a better alternative. And so that's why we went forward with the commitment that anything within those buffer areas would have been protected.

I think that's a different question than what I'm asking though. Like what you're saying is, and before you were filling in the wetlands, I'm asking what are the alternatives that you're demonstrating to us that show why keeping the 75 foot buffer is impractical?

What it ends up doing is greatly reducing the amount of roadway length that we can build and the number of units that we can build. And so in light of... Folks, please. light of the housing studies and some of the other items that are just in the background we felt like providing a few more units on this site while maintaining a 25-foot buffer was an appropriate approach.

Okay any other questions for the applicant at this time?

Particularly regarding the proposed basin on the northeast side of the property, the grades as they're designed right now, are you able to accomplish that without getting grading easements from the neighbors to the east?

We are, yes, correct.

Can you talk about the rain garden maintenance plan? I know sometimes rain gardens are developed and then not maintained. Can you talk about how that process will go?

Sure. Certainly something that we would need to take a look at with the development team. You're exactly right. the word garden is right in the word right and so like with any garden it does require maintenance and weeding and that would all be done on a maintenance program and a lot of times what we see is just an overall stormwater maintenance program that is submitted to the city for review and approval which would outline not only the rain garden itself the stormwater basin, the catch basins, all of those different components to that. And so that rain garden and the ongoing maintenance would all be part of that where we would need to make sure that it's done professionally as part of just the overall upkeep of the property.

Is that a requirement of the LUDS permitting process or is that... Let me stop there. Is that a requirement of the LUDS permitting process?

I think that's a great question. I'm looking way back to my stormwater engineer friends. I think it would probably be helpful for us to look at a condition of approval that a maintenance plan be developed and submitted for their consideration as part of the LUDS permit review. I'm not sure if, good, okay, that's good. Thank you.

I guess similarly, I would love to know from staff if the way the engineering comments were addressed by the applicant, if that has been found to be adequate.

I believe the answer is yes, but I'd like Arden Postma from the engineering department to come up and speak to that, please.

Arden Postma from City Engineering Office. I'm Senior Project Engineer. Justin and I have gone through several iterations of the plans where he has adjusted things. I've commented. He's made adjustments. He's at a point now that I think he can make things work when he submits plans for a check print review and he needs to submit plans that get approved. And then for the sanitary sewer and the water main, He has to submit for state-issued construction permits. So he's at a point right now that I think he can get there. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. And will any of this have to be reviewed by EGLE or since they are out of the...

Okay.

Okay. So... Dan, can you come up to the... We can hear you, but it doesn't always pick up with the live streaming.

Dan Tabor, stormwater manager here with the City of Grand Rapids. Just to address the first, I guess, kind of question regarding rain gardens and maintenance. Maintenance agreements are built in into our stormwater code, so that would be a standard requirement based on what's proposed to get a maintenance agreement there, so nothing out of ordinary there. And then secondly in regards to potential for an EGLE permit, as noted in the wetland study that was provided by the applicant, those wetlands are regulated wetlands per the environmentalist recommendation there. They're not shown on EGLE maps frankly, just due to their size, but they're regulated by EGLE based on the proximity to the rear yard drains in Oakley. So they're within 500 feet of that water body that makes them regulated by EGLE. So any type of modification would be under state authority there.

And then while you're up here, could you talk a little bit about how I guess either It would or wouldn't the plan that's proposed here positively or negatively impact stormwater or groundwater on adjacent properties?

At this point, I haven't seen detailed engineering from a stormwater perspective, so be a little early to give that kind of recommendation. But overall, having rain gardens, having this stormwater detention basins and initial calculations provided by Justin, I feel meets the condition of appropriate review of planning commission. And then During the the Lutz process that's commonly talked about the Lutz process for the final construction and engineering Permitting that's where detailed Calculations are reviewed are provided by the the applicant and reviewed by city staff but rain gardens stormwater detention basins, I would consider this a Type of system that we see here in the city.

Okay. Thank you Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Yeah, please

I'm not sure if this is an art or a Dan question before you leave. I don't know if this is a Dan or an art question, but, you know, in reading the rapid environmental reported states in there that there's going to be eagle concurrence, you know, I'm curious about when that happens and, you know, your opinion on whether it needs a level three WIP evaluation and further, you know, what assurances can you give us that there's not presence of a second stream that's not being identified at this point and should that also be evaluated by some Eagle team members under city authority the city doesn't regulate wetlands that is a state state function

we can review and regulate the buffers. And I guess that'd be a decision potentially of this body if they wanted to see further Eagle involvement. But as proposed, they're not modifying the Eagle wetland. So I wouldn't expect an Eagle permit as part of, uh, as part of the city process. It may be part of the state, but as proposed, it's not a, it's not a modification of the wetland. So if there's any additional, uh, review warranted or wanted by this body, that would be, I guess, your decision.

I did want to note that your standard set of conditions does require that the use comply with state law. So to the extent that state law would require equal review or further compliance, your standard set of approvals are going to require that anyway.

Dan, you mentioned the buffers. Can you speak a little bit to maybe... We have kind of three grades, right? We have a standard 75 foot buffer, but we can go down to 25. I don't wonder if you can speak to if there's any significance in those measurements and maybe you don't know about how those were come up with, how those were established. And then it appears that we have a couple of buildings and a roadway right up against that buffer and the applicant indicated they feel like they can adequately construct there without encroaching into that buffer I just would like your opinion on that. Especially roadway with your undercutting to put in subgrades and all the other things.

Sure. In terms of why there's the 25, 50, and 75, obviously the further the buffer or the larger the buffer, the more protection it provides to the wetland feature. Say a The 75-foot buffer would have more green space and more area to catch any kind of roadway sediment or any kind of oils or greases from a large parking lot. And then the smaller the buffer, the less area you have to protect that wetland. In terms of relevance, for a 75 foot buffer, I would expect that to be seen next to a large parking lot or a larger, more susceptible water body. Reducing buffers here, that's why there's the language in the zoning code is for smaller, less intense uses to see if those, a smaller buffer would be appropriate for that. Most of this area is, you know, backyard, rear yards, you know, general residential use. That would be more commonly seen with a 25 foot buffer versus like a large 75 foot buffer that you might see behind like a Meijer store or a large parking lot, things of that nature.

And then as far as constructability of that roadway right up against that buffer and not they've committed to not impacting the buffer at all, but we all know how construction works.

In terms of constructability and roadway, yes, I guess there's potential for construction impacts. I guess I'll defer to the development teams in terms of construction methodology. Typically city staff doesn't dictate means or methods or contractor level work for the private development, so I'll defer to the applicant team to answer that.

I'll note prior to Brent's comments that Dan's team does include an inspection division, which means that the LUDS permit or the site construction permit inspectors are out on site. And if there is a requirement that there is no disturbance beyond that 25 foot or that red line in the drawing, then that is the expectation and what is inspected for. If there is disturbance beyond that, then that is a violation of the ordinance that is enforceable through fines, and it's enforceable through a restoration plan. And so, unfortunately, it is not uncommon for us to be issuing what we call notices of violation that carries financial penalties towards the contractor, the developer. and a restoration plan would need to be put back together. That is not the preferred, obviously, is to restore an important buffer, but it's certainly within our authority to require restoration, and it is typically viewed as more of a punitive consequence to the impact of the buffer itself.

Good afternoon, Commission. Brent Gibson, Construction Simplified. Just to hit on a couple key points. Certainly what Kristen just said, we have soil erosion, LUDs permitting inspections every two weeks that occurs. I think upon the proper setup with probably a six-foot chain link fence driven at that 25-foot barrier, given the concern here, with BMPs for stormwater control managed appropriately. I think it's also important to note that myself has been a stormwater operator state certified since 2003. All of our site managers are as well as we would require that of our site excavator. So all the compliance, you know, as far as building next to something so critical, we build property line to property line next to roadways every day. I think respecting the neighbor's properties, whether it's residential or the city road or right away as normal and customary. And then finally, the key point Justin made, I think looking out. You get the houses and you got the road understanding the grades are put at existing grades. So yes, Aaron, we would have a couple foot cut to put the road in where we're going down to come back up. Footings would be four foot. There's no basements in here. So four foot at worst case scenario. There is a buffer between on the plan. It looks like it's right on it. There is a gap there. But doing that appropriate with construction methods so you don't disrupt that.

Um, Dan, can you talk about, um, so all, all of the areas that are, have like the proposed rain garden or the proposed stormwater management basin, all of that is like forested at this point. Can you talk about kind of the different capacities that this proposed plan has versus what's existing in terms of like the large tree forested area or if the applicant has, yeah.

All right. We can do both. From a city stormwater perspective, in terms of detailed engineering design, we take into account existing conditions. So existing tree cover and existing, you know, it's called the C-factor. Basically, how fast does the water run off a site? So we account for that. So we started at a, you know, a green strike with lots of trees, and that's the... the starting point or basis for the stormwater design. And then as part of the city requirements, they're required to provide the stormwater management with the rain gardens and the detention basins for that increase. So managing the change from the natural green field to the developed site. Okay.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, happy to just add that the city of Grand Rapids as part of their stormwater rules have a spreadsheet that basically steps us through that process. So looking at what the existing ground cover is versus what the proposed is when we're done. And then all of that spreadsheet spits out the answer of what the volume is requirement and it takes into account. that it's trees or meadow or whatever that existing case is and factors that in. The other thing I wanted to just point out as I was sitting and I thought about it, as it relates to the wetland buffers, this is a little unique in this site where the wetlands are actually up gradient from a lot of the work. And so when you think about a lot of sites, the wetlands tend to be at the bottom of the hill, so to speak. The water runs from the site into the wetland. This is a little unique where these wetlands are actually perched up in a higher elevation than what the work is. And so any disturbance from our site is running away from the wetlands as opposed to running towards them. So to get to the buffer, if you had a situation where you had wetlands that were down gradient, I think having a little bit bigger buffer probably would be appropriate just to give that sediment or whatever else it might be time to filter out before it gets to the feature. This is a little different because the feature is actually running towards us, not vice versa. So just wanted to point that out.

Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, seeing none. All right, I'm going to be opening up the public hearing in just a moment. I want to remind everyone that we're still being streamed live on Facebook and YouTube. And remind anyone that comes up to the mic, please just state your name and make sure that your comments are directed to the commission. Please keep other conversation and noise to yourself. As I said before, we want everyone to feel able to provide their comments, so please be respectful of your neighbors. You'll have to live with them after this. Okay, with that, I will open up the public hearing. If you're here and would like to make comments, feel free to queue. And then as I said before, if someone has provided very similar comments to what you would like to make, feel free to say what they said related to traffic or storm water, et cetera, and we will definitely make note of that. Okay. Go ahead.

All right, I will go ahead and start. My name is Kiana Zatteray. I'm parched, sorry. One of the four organizers of the formal petition and letter that you all received inside of your packets. I'd like to start by first acknowledging and thanking the Commission for allowing us the opportunity to speak. Adam, I'd like to share one of your quotes that really resonated with the neighborhood. Community engagement matters. Just because you're allowed to develop something doesn't mean that you should develop the maximum amount of what's allowed. It's important to understand what's appropriate versus what's allowed. Our neighborhood is here today aligned on the mission of continued enhancement for our communities to ensure a good quality of life today and tomorrow, which I know is important to some of you. I live directly across from the proposed development with community at the forefront of my career and personal obligations. There are some considerations that should stay at the front of mind for this proposal. As a body that is meant to represent and reflect and uphold the community needs, there's one item that continues to crop up over and over again, and that is the consideration of current pedestrians. While the development is accommodating pedestrians within this development, it's not considering current pedestrians. This development butts up directly to an elementary school and is just down the road from a high school. Throughout the school year, children are walking to and from school and we consider their safety of the utmost importance as they grow and develop. My corner neighbor, who is also directly across from Adam's proposed development, is an in-home childcare. This means busy morning drop-offs and late afternoon pickups. It is extremely difficult to get in and out of my own street with drop-offs and pickups, so I can only imagine what an additional 283 trips per day on 7th will do. In your packets, it was also stated that 7th Street has not requested traffic calming measures. However, a petition was completed five years ago with a multitude of neighbors from Oakley, 7th, Shawmut Court, Charlotte, and Collindale signing on to have our traffic and pedestrian safety issues addressed. We've been told that by 2030, Oakley may have their calming measures put in place. However, the amount of vehicle trips being added to this area requires immediate attention, especially with current safety concerns considering children. During a three and a half hour patrol just this past April, police stopped 18 vehicles, which is a car every 18 minutes. We urge you to consider our safety as well as the safety of our future neighbors. And I hope that the rest of my neighbors can stay online and kind. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi. My name is Elise Tripp, and I live in the Shawmut Hills neighborhood. I'm also a professional wetland scientist with 37 years of experience in wetland delineation, permitting, and design. I reviewed the site development documents with and prepared a 12-page memo that has my analysis. I hope you've all reviewed it, especially the six recommendations at the end. I'll very briefly cover my most pressing concerns. First, I don't think the developer understands the site hydrology. It's well documented that homes directly west and east of the site routinely flood. Additionally, wetlands are located on a high point near the site's western boundary. This suggests high groundwater. No soil borings have been completed on site, and therefore there's no data to confirm depth to groundwater. It's not known if the three proposed stormwater management features will be constructed into groundwater. If they are, they will not provide their intended storage capacity. and this could create problems for stormwater management. Second, the wetland delineation identified a stream at the southeast end of the site, not a wetland as noted on the site plans. This is a very important distinction. A second potential stream is located on the site which was not identified by the developer. This feature contains the defined bed and banks and evidence of flow, flowing water which meets the definition of a stream by the Michigan law. The approximate location of the stream is noted in my review document. It receives stormwater drainage from a vast majority of the site and discharges into the first stream on adjacent property. I strongly recommend that EGLE's stream team confirm or deny the presence and extent of a second regulated stream. That will really make a big difference for the buffer situation. EGLE should also verify delineated wetland boundaries in a level three evaluation through its wetland identification program. Third, the developer has requested that the natural features protection buffer be reduced from 75 feet to 25 feet. As you know, the city allows a reduction of the buffer to 50 feet if certain criteria are met. I reviewed those criteria. To me, none of them appear to be met in the proposed plans. The Natural Features Protection Ordinance also gives the Planning Commission authority to allow a 25-foot buffer, although it provides no required rationale for this reduction. I would assume that at a minimum, the 50-foot criteria must be met. The developer has not provided a robust alternatives analysis to justify the 25-foot buffer. A 25-foot buffer provides minimal water quality and wildlife habitat benefit. It should not be utilized as a default when a 75-foot buffer is not convenient. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, excuse me, folks. Please refrain from clapping. We need to hear everyone's comments and we would like to do that in an organized way. Go ahead.

Good afternoon. My name is Matthew DeRuiter. I live in the Shawmut Hills neighborhood and I work in stormwater management, including MS4 and environmental compliance. First of all, I want to be clear that I'm not opposed to residential development on this property. I understand the need for additional housing. I recognize that this property is zoned for residential use. My concern is whether the applicant has demonstrated that reducing the city's required wetland setback by two-thirds is actually necessary. The application states that the wetlands will remain undisturbed and that no grading, filling, or construction activity will occur within the proposed 25 setback. I think it's fair to ask why reducing the setback from 75 feet to 25 feet is necessary. In my work, I've seen how important natural buffers are around water resources. Wetland buffers do more than prevent direct impacts. They help filter runoff, reduce sediment and erosion, protect water quality, and support the long-term health of the wetlands. As I reviewed the application materials, one thing that stood out to me was the lack of meaningful alternatives analysis. Were options considered that would preserve more of the buffer? Could the site have been laid out differently? was a 50-foot setback evaluated and could fewer units have been built while maintaining the full 75-foot setback. Based on the materials provided, I was not able to find an explanation for why those alternatives would not work. One question I would encourage the commission to consider is how many units could be developed while maintaining the 75-foot setback. Ultimately, I believe that is the question for you today. The application demonstrates that a 25 foot setback works for the proposed design. What I don't believe is it demonstrates why reducing the city's required 75 foot setback is necessary or why alternatives that preserve more of a buffer are not feasible. At a minimum, I respectfully ask the commission to require additional information demonstrating why the reduction is needed and how the standards for granting it have been met. Based on the information before you today, I don't believe that justification has been demonstrated. I respectfully ask that you deny the request to reduce the wetland setback and require a redesign that complies with the 75 or 55 foot buffer. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Fred Holland. I live in the area also. I come before you with a lifetime experience in business, hospitality, community service. My family's been in the meat business for over 100 years, so I have worked both as a butcher and a professional chef in order to prepare that meat. During my 48 years in the hospitality, I managed restaurants, clubs, and other businesses. When restaurants were in serious financial trouble, courts appointed me through a receiver to turn them around. My role was to identify problems, develop solutions, and restore the successful operations, and I learned the importance on relying upon expertise, planning, and careful decision making. I also served as a council person and a police commissioner for Spring Lake. We invested lot of money in our community master plan of taxpayer dollars with highly qualified experts in planning, engineering, environmental protection, wetlands, and other specialized fields. Their recommendations became the foundation of our master plan for the future. During the time, property owners occasionally purchased some of these wetlands and asked for exceptions to develop on them. We understood the disappointment when we did not change the rules. We recognize the wetlands serve an important public purpose and we respected the guidance provided by the experts who created the master plan. I don't know how much Grand Rapids invested in developing its master plan, but I know it represents countless hours of professional work, taxpayer investment, and master plan is not simply a document that sits on a shelf. It's a roadmap for responsible gain and growth. When we allow spot zoning or make exceptions, that is in conflict with the plan. We weaken its purpose. If it is not followed, the plan, whenever it becomes inconvenient, we send the message that expertise input to public tax dollars spent was null and void. I am not a wetlands expert, and I don't pretend to be one, but I do know the value of listening to experts and following through on a well-thought-out plan. I respectfully ask you to proceed with caution. Please remember who you serve. You serve the residents of Grand Rapids, and your responsibility is to protect the long-term interests of this community. I encourage you to honor the city's master plan with that decision. It will benefit everybody in Grand Rapids for generations to come. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Wasorek. I live right next door to 2450 7th Street at 2500 7th Street. My concern, I'm gonna start with a little history. 45 years. Yes, 45 years. We have lived at that house for 45 years. There's a little history to that field. I know a lot of you probably aren't aware, but Mickey Mouse made a visit to that field in the 1990s in the form of a hot air balloon that came down in that lot, The balloon pilot said it was the only way open space I saw. This is prior to the trees, by the way. All right, another thing that has happened is the trees. The trees came along in the early 2000s, I believe, was meant to be a nursery for Grand Rapids Public Schools. They were gonna come harvest trees, take them out, plant them on properties. I think they might have taken six trees in the course of the time it was there. And that's why there are so many tall and so many big trees. Another thing, that property was then considered for a parking lot for the Little League. They were considering building it. At the time, all of us said, parking lot? Why would we want a parking lot in our neighborhood? Well, hindsight is 20-20. And then it sold. We, living right next door, talked to many of the purchasers. Oh, some were going to build one home, some were going to build a couple houses for their family, make a little compound. Kept selling, kept selling, kept selling until it finally sold. I'm not naive. I realize something is going to be built there. I'm not naive, but what is going to be built there is in my concern. The number of units taking up the 75 foot barrier I believe should be considered the standard and they should somehow make the property a little smaller, fewer units and we probably could live there. I doubt I'll be there 45 more years, okay? But I hope that it will be a neighborhood that people can enjoy, that it will be safe for walkers and bikers and all the people involved. So I would please ask you to consider the fact that maybe the development should be downscaled to a little bit more manageable, keeping the wetlands safe. Thank you so much for your consideration.

hi my name is vicki stewart and i also oppose the development there's a lot of reasons it doesn't adhere to the city code so much that the developers seeking numerous variances for it not just one variance it conflicts with section five point eleven point oh six which requires the seventy five foot buffer which a lot of people have mentioned and i do agree with all the comments so far There should be that environmental feature kept in place and they shouldn't remove that vegetation because it's needed. We've all seen water problems there. I've had it in my home and I'm blocks away. It's a bad problem. His plan doesn't meet any of the criteria for permitting reduction of it. Again, like people said, he hasn't shown why he, what would happen if it was a 75-foot berm. He plans to remove over, well, at least 230 trees, and there's two wetlands being said today, but I had previously seen something that said four, and maybe the issue of the stream was part of that. It would just alter everything in that area to have more water runoff, and they say it's going to be better, but I don't personally think that it will. A substantial amount of fill will be needed, but also he talks about families, and there's concerns the sidewalk's only going to run the length of his property. What about the rest of Seventh? There's three elementary schools in that area. There's the Seventh-day Adventist School, and there's Westside Christian School, and you have kids for those schools walking as well. So that's an issue. And what about bikes? Are they going to then make the road narrower to fit bike lanes in that 2030 update for the vital spaces? But then maybe have this project wait till 2030 because it's really, there's so many things that make it seem not ready at this point. his proposal also conflicts with the section that requires that the special land use maintain consistency with the master plan and zoning ordinance including the zone district and it's a low density neighborhood and that doesn't mean that he can't build multiple family there but it's not really a low density development and if he has to go down to a twenty five foot berm And the city code does require him minimizing any adverse impacts on things like neighborhood walkability and existing character. And both of those will be adversely effective. And the vehicle trips is a real concern because he always talks about it being families. But in one of the meetings I attended, the big 200 people meetings, he made a comment about young professionals and Grand Valley students or other college students.

Thank you. Your time is up.

Thank you.

My name is Terry Dusima. I live near the intersection of Oakley and 7th Street. I am a mother of three young children and I am a psychologist. I have lived here for almost 15 years and I have several concerns regarding this proposal. The community master plan identifies goals of addressing, of adding housing and a variety of housing. I understand and appreciate that mission. It's also important to convey to you how over the last several years I've witnessed the rapid clearing of green space in my area of Grand Rapids. I've seen significant forest and meadow removal from John Ball Zoo to Lincoln Lawns Golf Club and several more in between, all for additional housing and parking. Are some needed? Yes. Should every proposal be given a rubber stamped approval? No. We need to look at both the big picture and the individual needs and challenges in each neighborhood. Our neighborhood is stressed and not able to accommodate this current proposal. It's not a healthy, well-functioning neighborhood. My neighbors have already informed you of the significant stormwater traffic and speeding issues. The community master plan states, quote, increased density in neighborhoods where adequate transportation infrastructure is provided. We do not have the infrastructure currently. I'm also concerned about the impact of pollution runoff from pavements and rooftops, car oil, and grass fertilizers, particularly this close to documented wetlands. I am tired of seeing land developed to its absolute maximum, pushing the limits, often a grab for the highest profit potential at the cost of community health and well-being. Profits are given priority over functionality and vitality. This is a mid-century neighborhood. You can see what the values and ideology were at the time it was built. It wasn't about extracting as much as possible from the land for personal gain and profit. The yards are quite large, homes are small to mid-sized, houses have space between them, trees and wetlands are valued. Goal number five of the master plan states, quote, new development will improve or support the existing fabric of each neighborhood, end quote. As a quick side note, I made a few calls concerned about this housing crisis that we've been hearing about, and I was able to find 14 units available for rent within a three-mile radius that would be available in the next four to five weeks. So I'm asking you to vote no on the current proposal and that this development be scaled back to include a 75-foot buffer zone for the wetlands and much lower population density, such as maybe three to five single family buildings, since the neighborhood has serious safety issues at stake that will not be addressed until 2030. That's not safe for my children or for our neighborhood. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Carl Zattery. I want to say thank you guys for your time today and listening to our comments. So I live across the street directly from the development with my wife Kiana. So my main focus in speaking today, I know there's four major topics, but is the wetland protection. So together as a community, we had a petition going against the 25 foot buffer, reducing it from 75 foot. We collected 519 petitions in our small neighborhood over the course of three to four days. So environmental constraints should not shape the design of a project. It should be treated as a barrier to be minimized. We do not want the buffer to be reduced from 75 to 25 feet. Many natural wetlands are hundreds to thousands of years old. Residents have sought guidance from certified wet list scientists, as you've seen here, and we ask that the long-term environmental stewardship remain a priority throughout the review process. A restoration plan will not mitigate the up to 1,000 years of natural development. Thank you.

I'm Jim Boshoven. My wife and I also live in Assumption Hills area, right near the corner of 7th and Oakley. We understand that this project likely will, and with the additional citywide housing needs, should go forward. I give credit to Adam and his team for making changes in response to the neighborhood input. as such as it is. We need more. The concerns, my concerns, our concerns, are not with the project, but with the size of the project. It all seems to come down to one thing. I believe that the developers failed in their due diligence in assessing this site. It was inadequate. They did not expect to have wetlands and groundwater issues and the associated 75-foot city code setback requirements It's there for a reason. It feels a little like, oops, hey, we screwed up. Please cover our mistakes by ignoring several existing city codes. That's hardly a legitimate reason for a growing, progressive Grand Rapids to grant this request. I believe it was Aaron that even asked, what happens if you scaled it back? There was never an answer given to that. And I asked the same question. So I submit the condition to follow the existing city ordinances and deny the request to reduce this 75-foot setback. Doing so is a correct decision as it also addresses the other issues of concern by requiring a reduction in number of buildings proposed. This change continues moving forward still with the city's goal of additional providing housing. But it shouldn't be, it should be about additional housing and not about a profit motive. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Michael Swerbet and I appreciate the opportunity to to bring our concerns to the commissioners. Thank you so very much. Storm water, drain water, setbacks, buffers, rain gardens, things of that nature, that's way above my pay grade. I really can't address that. What I'm here to talk to you about are some of the more practical things that certainly affect me over the 30 years that I've lived on Charlotte. And they are Before I go there, I would think that the city, their concerns in addition to so many other things that they have as concerns would include health, safety, and property values when considering a project. health, safety, property values. Are we going to improve the community along those lines or are we not? Property owners already are experiencing dangerous issues when simply mowing their lawns. I can't tell you the number of times I've got to come into the street and turn around and mow in the opposite direction and almost get hit by a car. That's right now. And that has gotten worse over the 30 years. I can just imagine what 280 additional trips a day are going to cause us. Oakley, we talked about that a little bit, Oakley already has a very high speeding area. Someone already mentioned it, that 18 cars in one day were stopped and ticketed 18 cars in one day. That certainly is not risky. That's dangerous. Poor access to Lake Michigan Drive and Leonard Street with traffic lights only at Oakley and Collindale. Getting out on Lake Michigan Drive during 7.30 a.m. to maybe 9 o'clock in the morning or during the evening is an absolute nightmare with all the traffic to and from downtown and Grand Valley State University area. It can only get worse and that's not high risk, that's dangerous. All of us ought to be very concerned about this with all our children, with the bicycle riot, bicycle riding, with the people blocking their pets. It's something that really needs to be taken a real close look at. The normal egress from just driveways, I mean, I can't tell you the number of times I've almost been hit by just backing out of my driveway. Now I back into my driveway and go forward in an attempt to try to avoid any potential problems. That's how bad it's getting. Flooding, somebody talked about flooding at culverts, driveways. Charlotte, Fairfield, and Barrett all have terrible, terrible flooding. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Jeff Scopp, and I live at the four-way of 7th and Oakley in Chalmette Hills. We are located two houses down from the proposed project. I oppose this development for many reasons. I want to begin today by talking about an issue I experience every day that I believe would be much worse if you approved this project. We moved here in 2003. Traffic has increased dramatically since then. Every day I experience cars blowing through the stop sign at speeds 20 to 30, even more, over the speed limit. Many of us have complained about the city at this for years, and not much has been done to mitigate this. This is a serious safety issue. I witness multiple accidents every year at this four-way, sometimes more than one a day. This is a serious, there are even more close calls. The safety concerns not just limited to this four-way either. It's an issue along 7th, Fairfield, Collindale, and all the streets. I've lost count of the several close calls we've experienced while out walking our dogs. There will potentially be 100 cars or more in this neighborhood causing, they say, 203 vehicle trips in the recent analysis. I'm not sure how it's only 283 trips. And even then, that's not acceptable. The last thing this neighborhood needs is to insert more cars and traffic in an area with major safety and traffic concerns. Oakley, Fairfield, and Collindale become the main routes through Lake Michigan to Leonard. The neighborhood is already packed with traffic due to school, churches, and 600 to 800 residents that live in the area between Collindale and Oakley. The increase in residents generated by this development will inevitably affect the traffic routes of all these areas greatly. Let me just tell you something about our neighborhood real quick. We are not an angry mob of VR residents with pitchforks shouting NIMBY from our rooftops. We are people with legitimate concerns for our neighborhood and for other neighborhoods that could be facing the same fate if projects like this are approved. We understand the city's goal is to provide affordable housing as outlined in their Bridge to the Future initiative. We sympathize, but adding 32 multi-level housing units to a neighborhood with density and traffic issues is not good for this neighborhood in any way. It's not a safe and prudent way to achieve the goals of the city either. It's certainly not affordable housing at the price point, and it's not creating an opportunity for affordable home ownership. We believe the city should be creating opportunities for people to purchase a home, not forcing them to pack a rental unit with six people or more to be able to afford the housing so the developer can make millions. This project is not creating affordable housing. It's maximizing profits and sticking it to people who can't afford a home. If the city really wants to create affordable housing and home ownership while maintaining green space, then they shouldn't move forward with this project. Just because you're allowed to develop something doesn't mean you should develop it the maximum amount of what's allowed. It's important to understand what's appropriate versus what's allowed. We all know that's a quote from Adam himself. We humbly ask the City of Grand Rapids and developer Adam to be people of integrity and practice what they preach and not move forward with this project in its current form. This project does not work towards the City's goals of creating safe affordable housing while maintaining green space, and it creates even more dangerous traffic issues. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Brenda Scott. I live at the corner of Oakland 7th right across from the development and two houses down. I oppose this development for many reasons, but I'm going to focus on parking and traffic concerns. Per the architectural plans and site plans, there will be approximately 73 parking spots provided for a 32 unit development with three bedrooms per unit. These units have minimal storage space and it appears few, if any, have basements. With this lack of storage space, it is reasonable to believe garage space will be needed for storage rather than parking. It is an oversight of the developer to assume there will only be two vehicles per unit when each unit has three bedrooms and that two parking spaces per unit will be sufficient. It is unclear where overflow parking will be for this development as it is currently designed. Will excess cars park on 7th Street? When that is full, will they be on Chalmette Court or on Fairfield? There are no sidewalks on the surrounding streets, and pedestrian safety is already a major concern with speeding vehicles. I witnessed drivers ignoring the 25-mile-per-hour speed limit constantly, with the vast majority of them driving 40-plus miles per hour. The vehicles obeying the speed limit are few and far in between. In addition, the number of vehicles completely ignoring the four-way stop at Oakland 7th is astounding. Add to that an additional 283 daily vehicle trips. which is currently the projected number of additional vehicles this development will bring to our neighborhood according to the trip generation analysis that was done recently. I'm deeply concerned that this number is grossly underestimated. These additional cars on our streets, whether driving or parked, will exacerbate an already dangerous situation. The developer should be proactive in ensuring there is plentiful parking on site for all potential residents and guests. Perhaps this means removing buildings in order to provide ample parking and ensure there will be no vehicles parking on surrounding streets. After all, just because you're allowed to develop something doesn't mean you should develop the maximum amount of what's allowed. It's important to understand what's appropriate versus what's allowed. That's a statement by the developer, Adam Rogalski, made recently regarding another project he's involved in. I would hope he would apply the same logic to this project. I'm requesting the City of Grand Rapids reject the proposed development in its current form. The project needs to be redesigned to allow plenty of parking on site for all residents. Residents deserve safe streets now, not after this development is built, and not after someone is badly hurt. Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, there's a lot of important people in this room. My name is Janie Boshoven and I live on the corner of Oakley and 7th. We have three parcels and I just want to real quick say that Adam, I think, I think what you've done, your whole project is, like, it's, like, nice. I said that to Laura the other day.

Please address us and not Adam. Yeah, address the commission and not Adam. Yes, thank you.

What the developer has said is, like, what he has proposed is, like, it's beautiful. My whole point, besides being with everyone in this room... What he did, his development is great, but it's not the right fit. I live, like I said, my home office is on the corner of 7th and Oakley. And I see people going 60 miles an hour, going through the stop sign, killing deer, killing geese. People walking their dogs, people with their baby carriages. I worry about traffic. And I also know there's over 200 trees on that property. And those trees suck up a lot of that wetland space. So I am just right now to say I'm with everybody here on record. And that I don't think they know what they're getting into. And I'm imposing the 75-foot reduction to anything less than that. I guess really that's all I want to say. And thank you for your time. Thank you.

Oh, one more thing.

Disturbance. I keep hearing the word disturbance. I'm not sure what that means. I wrote that and I stuck it in my bra. I was like, what does disturbance... Because we're going to get disturbed a lot.

We'll address it at the end. Thank you for that, yeah.

I can't follow that. My name is Patricia Jackowitz. I'm a resident. I live two blocks away. My background is in real estate, 39 years serving Western Michigan. And I know one thing, and it's kind of a rule of real estate, it's called buyer beware. There's this assumption that you can buy anything and if you buy it, you can build on it and that is not true. That's just a hard no. There's all kinds of property everywhere that's really not buildable because it's the reason we're here today. You have to have the municipality behind you and follow the rules and today you're asking us as a community to accept breaking those rules. It's a low-density neighborhood. This is a high-density townhouse development. There's a 75-foot setback for some reason because somebody thought it was the right thing to do. So keep it. And the property was sold by the Board of Ed 19 years ago and had three other owners. Mr. Rogalski's done his hard work, and I appreciate it, but it doesn't mean that sometimes you don't lose. You want to do something, I've sold people a house, they want to build a garage, they can't. These things happen. Sometimes you have all the plans, but maybe you didn't answer all the contingencies before the end. It happens every day in real estate. So, outside of all of the reasons everybody's giving you, I'm not gonna be repetitive. I just can't imagine an Amazon truck going down that cul-de-sac or somebody pulling the snow out in January. I can't. I don't see where these cars are gonna park because I think people are gonna use those garages as basements. I think there's just a lot of holes in this plan that haven't been considered. And in my last 53 seconds, I'd like to say something to the board. When we have something this active and this many neighbors that want to be involved, we need a special 7 p.m. meeting, not on a holiday week, where we can get more people here. Please. I just think it's doing the right thing by the neighborhood. And I'd also like to say that as a first ward resident, I feel very unrepresented since January. Nothing to do with you. But not heard back from Commissioner Belichick or my mayor on anything that has to do with this project. And I am so, so disappointed. I know most of you volunteer. Thank you for your time and your service.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Nathan Adolphson. I live in the Shawmut Hills area. I grew up there as well before moving back a decade ago. The word fit keeps coming back to this project and to me it just doesn't seem to fit. You have people who sign a petition who have lived in this community for 60 years and you have some who have lived in the community for six months. And that should tell you something about such a diverse group of people who've come together so well to see something that just doesn't seem right. We have an amazing city in Grand Rapids and the west side is sometimes looked upon as a hidden gem. However, other times our schools or roadways are overlooked and forgotten about as if everything is fine on the west side. However, and this seems like anywhere on the west side right now on any empty corner, something's being developed and that can be great. But this development is not on some corner. It's right in the middle of a neighborhood and we can't assume this will be fine for the west side. The city's master plan calls for a new development to be compatible with the existing neighborhood and characteristics and walkability. The proposed development is not on the periphery of the neighborhood or near a major road where a higher density development would make more sense, but right in the middle of the neighborhood. A neighborhood my nine and seven year old have seen grow immensely with bikes and strollers and dogs all the time. This last Halloween looked like a movie set. The need for new housing should be balanced with the needs and concerns for existing residents. The new development would connect to 7th Street, which is, as stated, a link residential street. I see logically these units, with the size that they are and the proposed rental amount, as we're looking at three earning adults living there, we're looking at three separate vehicles, We're looking at an average of 144 vehicles, in my opinion, three to six vehicles at least if these people have partners, these partners visiting, parking overnight. I used to live in rentals, used to live in town homes, used to visit friends who lived in town homes, had partners who lived in town homes. They were great, they're needed, however, The 70 parking spaces or so cannot be enough. Can't imagine that they're going to be enough. So these people parking are going to be parking on 7th, on Fairfield, on Charlotte. And that means there are going to be blind spots. That means there are going to be city plows navigating around them. There are going to be plows. There are going to be cars blocked in. There are going to be fatalities. We've already had deer killed on our street. deer killed on a 25 mile an hour residential street. There are going to be humans killed. There are bikes and dogs everywhere. I invite you to come walk our streets. I invite you to come visit and see the amount of people walking and the amount of cars already going 40 miles an hour to 45. Close calls. You had these cars out onto the roads at 11 o'clock at night and there at 7 a.m. when people are going to be walking, there's going to be a fatality.

Thank you, sir.

Hello, my name is Taryn Karate.

Chair DeVries.

We live on Fairfield, a street called out as a link street in the initial presentation. We already have concerns of a lack of sidewalks in a walkable neighborhood. Adding a large number of units to the uniquely located space would increase the through traffic that is already a safety concern, especially considering how close the multiple elementary schools are. Our greatest concern addresses the density of the development. While the proposed plan is within the overall limits, it's clearly double the size of the surrounding densities, thus going against the existing neighborhood design. The word harmonious was used and I don't feel that that is an applicable description of the current proposal. From the initial version of the site plan with 43 units down to 32 units, it is apparent that the developer is interested in maxing out the space for his own interests and not the interests of the existing neighbors and neighborhood. I would like to mirror our neighbors concerns with the wetland reduction from the standard, your word, standard 75 foot buffer to 25 foot. The developer claims to be respecting the natural environment, but the presentation also showed a significant amount of special species that would have to be removed. And we'll end with, just because you can doesn't mean you should. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Terri Ottenwest. I've written several letters to you guys, and I wasn't going to talk at all because I'm not a very good speaker, but I have to point out that nothing was really mentioned about the erosion that's along the green spot of the corner. And getting rid of that buffer, I believe, is going to just, it's a critical slope, and it's just going to slide right down into that wetlands. And that's really all I wanted to bring to your attention. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Melissa Jackham. In 1943, my grandfather built a house at the age of 27 on Fairfield. I own that house now. I bought it in 2013 where I raised my son. And that house overlooks the wetland area. I'm one of the few houses that probably doesn't have a fence. I affectionately refer to my house as a mullet because the front always seems like the residential zone, the houses, but when I go out back, I have this peaceful oasis. I am a firm believer in green space. I think that it's important in cities. There needs to be pockets. I recognize Blandford is there, Highlands are there, and we do have those green spaces. I also recognize that that space is developable, and I do recognize that he does have a right, and it should happen at some point. I do think that there is a space that can be met between both people. I don't think that this needs to be as dense as it needs to be. I do really hope that you guys uphold that 75-foot buffer zone. Living there, I've walked back there many, many times, and as much as that wetland area is designated on that map, it is wet further on to the point where you do have to wear muck boots to walk around on. It extends beyond the point of what's being seen there. So I do hope that you carefully consider the decision you make and the effect that it's going to place on us, but also the nature that surrounds our environment. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Simone Unitas, and I also live in the Chalmette Hills neighborhood. So much has already been addressed, but I think it's worth reiterating. Certainly the 75 foot reduction to the 25 foot impacts the wetlands. It has been kind of mentioned, and I don't know if any studies have been done, but I have been told by multiple people that we live in a very high water table area. I live on Charlotte, which is a block or two away from the development, and I will tell you that most of us in this room have spent countless amounts of dollars mitigating the water issues that we have in our homes. My suspicion is that removing trees and just clearing that in the wetland is really environmentally irresponsible. And I also think that it's likely to create more water damage, more water issues, particularly for those residents living sloped on the east there. I think that's a problem. And I think it's unfair. And again, just because it can be done, should it be done? The bottom line is we are all stewards of our environment. It's not a huge piece of property, but it has an impact on our city and our community and the way that we view the places where we live. I apologize for my emotions, but I want to reiterate, we are stewards of this land. And it's not a huge parcel of land. but we're responsible for it. And those trees have a purpose and that is to support the water, to help it drain, and all of those things that we as humans know and need to understand. I think such a large scale development impacts that and I will say no more about that. Secondly, we are a low-density neighborhood. We chose the neighborhood. Many of us have lived there all of our lives. We've raised our children there. And the City Master Plan, the Bridge to the Future, calls for new development to build upon existing neighborhood development and minimize the difference in scale between the two. My opinion is that this proposal does not meet that threshold. It doesn't align with the characteristics of the existing neighborhood, and I want to be really, really clear. We're not opposed to responsible development. We're not opposed to it, but this proposal does not reflect the character of our neighborhood, nor has the process included the true voices and perspectives despite claims to the contrary. This is Mr. Rogalski's idea, his vision. It's not ours. I am respectfully and strongly requesting the Planning Commission to reconsider the proposal in its current form. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Valerie Tyrell and I live directly adjacent to the proposed development. I'm here to ask you to deny the application in its current form for multiple reasons. First of all, there is a drainage ditch to the west side of the lot that the developer hasn't accounted for. The city drainage ditch runs along our property line and empties directly into the site. This drain is actually not noted in city records. There is a note of the easement, but the city has no knowledge of the existence of this drain. It carries runoff from at least 10 lots on Fairfield and Charlotte. Beyond that, there's a natural channel and it has visible banks that carries the stormwater downhill towards the wetlands during snowmelt and rain. Neither of these was identified in the wetlands delineation report and the surrounding area was never sampled. Building on or otherwise altering the topography of this portion of the lot could affect the flow of water of this intermittent but large volume of water as well as the existing wetlands. Before the project moves forward, that needs to be addressed. Second, as mentioned, there is no available on-street parking in the development. This is because it involves the construction of a private street that, as designed, has a large number of driveways spaced too closely together to allow for any sort of vehicle to fit. The four off-site parking spaces are insufficient to accommodate overflow parking from either a three-car household or roommate situation, as well as visitors to the development. Third, despite what the developer stated, the majority of the neighborhood is opposed to the development in its current form. So as previously mentioned, there was a petition that was to that effect that was signed and submitted with 500 residents or neighbors signatures. The majority of these people were people who had heard about it and made it a priority to get to the petition to sign it. But my husband and I went around door to door to speak to neighbors who hadn't already signed the petition. And in doing so, we had only a few, three or four people who chose not to sign the petition. The majority of the people were happy and very interested in signing the petition of those that we talked to. And I also do agree with a lot of the previous statements regarding the wetland buffer reduction, the flooding and erosion issues that are already prevalent in the neighborhood, as well as the density and incompatibility with the current neighborhood. So for these reasons, I'm asking the commission to deny the application and require the developer to come back with a lower density design, one that maintains the wetlands, doesn't worsen flooding, and actually fits with the Shawmai Hills neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Ryan Tyrell. My wife just spoke and the storm sewer she mentioned, I did try to bring this up to the surveyor before the per property was purchased. I tried to bring this up at the second meeting, which also no one was allowed to speak at. I would talk to someone from the city afterwards. It was noted. I saw the note kind of unclearly in the notes of the packet here. So we've tried to bring it to their attention. I just saw the stormwater review from the city. It was not in there, so I called Laura yesterday and brought it to her attention. Something needs to be addressed because there are at least 10 properties that are drained by that stormwater sewer, which I believe was there when the area was all originally part of Walker before the city annexed it in, I think, 60 or 61. So I think somebody needs to look into that. Overall, a lot of what I've wanted to say has already been said. One thing I really wanted to hit home on though is the wetlands. There are four strict criteria that must all be met for that buffer reduction. In my mind, I don't think any of the four are met. The developer went through all the criteria for the other aspect of special land use. He did not touch on these for some reason. Let's see. And another thing with the density, I feel like the numbers portrayed don't really reflect the true nature of the project because so much of the site is unbuildable between the wetlands and the rain garden, the management basins, everything else. Everything's kind of compacted into just a smaller space. I mean, as far as I can tell from these prints, the spacing between the homes is like eight to 10 feet. That really is not compatible with the neighborhood. Another issue I have is there's a discrepancy with the documentation here as far as the trees. The tree survey shows this whole upper area, I don't know how to point to where the rain garden is, as part of the outside the construction envelope and all those trees being preserved. So their numbers are based off of that. But then on these other documents, it shows those all being clear cut. Even by their own report, they plan to remove 214 mature trees, more than half of which are desirable species in good condition. So I think it's gonna be real hard to meet the city's tree canopy goals. The city has zoning standards that applicants must exhaust all reasonable efforts to alter layouts to preserve mature trees. The applicant has not done any of that. So overall the site is I feel is being overdeveloped at the expense of our neighborhood character and our natural resources I urge you the Commission to deny this proposal and require a redesign that fixes these discrepancies Respects our zoning laws and protects our wetlands. Thank you.

Thank you Hello, my name is Amy toe I live on Charlotte a couple things I certainly agree with what others have said especially with the parking and not having any on-street parking inside the development, that's a really big deal given that we don't have sidewalks. So it's such a big safety concern. So I want to emphasize that. And also relating to cars and parking, not to repeat what others have said, but we are in between the campuses of Grand Valley State University. So it is not just traffic at normal rush hour times. Fifteen minutes before every hour, you will wait at least three or four light cycles to get off of either of the streets with lights. I live on a street that's a cul-de-sac. There are three that are cul-de-sacs. We don't have another way to get out. That is our only way is to be able to cut down to one of the others. Putting something so dense certainly has an impact on all of those things. Also, with the density, I was trying to do the math on the numbers that he gave during his presentation. If there's 0.16 acres per unit, and that's per unit, not per building, then that's 5.12 acres, which is more than the property is, so I assume that that is per building, which would be that only approximately half of the site is being built on, and that would make the density 12.5 units per acre, which is significantly higher than the rest of our neighborhood. I would put an emphasis with the sidewalks. We don't have them. Everyone's there and we're waiting at least three years for any sort of a change for that. And then lastly, just the emphasis that yes, we know that it will be developed and we do welcome that, but not as it currently is. The other two plans that were given were prior to them knowing that there were wetlands and prior to them having emergency vehicle access. So they don't even apply. So they're not an alternative to say that you voluntarily downgraded something because they don't even meet the minimum. So seeing something that is truly an alternative and can respect the wetlands and keep our houses dry and our streets dry would be really, really appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Warren March. I'm a 66-year resident. I went to Oakley Elementary School from kindergarten on, rode my bike down 7th Street quite often. I still do and I walk there on my regular walkies. Anyway, I wish I'd had something prepared but I had to race down here and I'm really honored to be in the presence of all these pitchfork and torchbearers. As a sociologist I'm kind of concerned about we only had two to four pro people and everybody else was violently staging mutinies on the neighbors. It just sounds very odd. I always wonder about the third group, you know, the non-decided. We only seem to have plus a 500. I signed the petition, I'm still one of the 500. I didn't bring my pitchfork. But anyway, very eloquent things being said here, especially by people who seem to have backgrounds in water and property development. And I really allowed all those very significant comments. I was trying to take some notes to say some things. Of course, we have... Now my notes are hard to read. But these don't sound like concerns that are just haphazard or people that are squeamish about any new thing that happens in the area. And developers always, especially if you're wined and dined by them, and his beautiful project designs, you know, they're eloquent. He's done millions of little tiny details from the city charter spreadsheet and so forth. But, you know, what's not said is what these people are bringing up, and why hasn't this... I mean, they brought it down to 25 feet from... I don't know, but they did do some... 42 units down to 30, whatever it was. That was interesting, and he did do what seemed to be a lot of things, but then I start hearing things like, why all the variances? That's like a red flag. And that's what happens with, you know, a long time ago I was watching the city commission vote on whether or not the veterans facility should be built the way it had been designed and architecturally developed and the property set aside, and then the main guy at the facility had died, and then the developers came in and we had half the commission going toward rental space per square foot. And it was just clear down the middle. You could see who was who. So I hope we don't have this situation here, who's dining who and all that. But as a sociologist, I guess you got to watch that stuff. And I don't want to see Grand Rapids turning into, we already have a battle down with the Washington, I mean, the city controller versus the city manager. And this is really critical stuff going on for Grand Rapids at this time. So you've got to be on the lookout for all this kind of thing happening. All these points seem very valid to me. So I wish I wasn't the last one, I guess. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

All right. My name is Anthony Carl Karasevich. I live at 1100 Carpenter Avenue Northwest. I've lived there for 14 years. My phone number is 616-228-2992. Please, anybody in the community, stop by.

Please address your comments to commission.

The commission too. The commission is welcome at any time. 6 p.m. after till dark, you're welcome. Visit, please. I want to see you. I want to see anybody in the community. This is great. Okay, so what you're going to do is essentially block bust this neighborhood. So like I'm going to peel back the veneer about everything. So essentially what you're going to do is you're going to drop a bunch of multifamily buildings into this neighborhood. And I own 1,100 carpenter. I am one man who lives in that house, 2,200 square feet. My neighbors to the north, they have two people in their house, 2,200 square feet. The other ones to the south, they have four in that house. Very low density. So you're going to dump a bunch of people in my neighborhood, and I'm going to see traffic increase. I'm going to see things I don't like. And you're going to say, okay, no problem, we'll give you speed bumps and we'll give you all sorts of fun things to deal with. I don't want to deal with it. Or we'll have the cops come and we'll do police control for speed and we'll pull over 18 people in your neighborhood who live in your neighborhood. Who are you? So I'm going to move. I'm going to move out but I'm not going to sell. I'm going to rent that house and I'm going to rent that house in the most advantageous way to me would be to put as many people into that as possible. And as this happens, you're going to have more and more people do the exact same thing. And your population density is going to go from a single family to rental units. Having to sit here for two hours and listen to how patronizing everyone has, like the builders have been, and I had to, I have not, my voice has only been heard for three minutes and it took forever. That last meeting, they didn't even wanna, they wouldn't even let us talk. They told us right in the beginning, no, no talking for you. So I get three minutes to tell you exactly what's gonna happen, not tomorrow, not a year from now. Five years from now, you're gonna see that neighborhood everyone's going to have that's in it is going to start moving out, and you're going to have rental units. And if that's what the city wants, I don't know if you're going to get more tax capture by this. Maybe your tax capture will increase a little bit, but the quality of the neighborhood and people like me as well feel like they're not being listened to, so they're just going to say, I'm just going to do as I please. And I have some anonymous... information, but I don't want to go to the police or anything, but I think these guys are involved in pedophilia. It's completely anonymous. I don't know.

Your time is up. Thank you, sir.

Calling people terrorists is a shitty thing to do.

Would anyone else like to make public comment? Last call. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. I'll remind folks to now keep conversations and noise quiet until at the end of the meeting there is another opportunity for general public comment, and you can provide public comment then as well.

Oh, excuse me. Sorry. I apologize. We did receive a communication from Mr. Michael Sack that I meant to alert you to before you close the public hearing, if you don't mind. That was my fault. To the 520 signatures in opposition to the 7th Street project, he is also in opposition, and I believe he intended to co-sign that opposition petition, and he lives on Valley. Thank you.

And I will also recognize all the written correspondence that we received. As I said, that was included in our packet, and we all reviewed that, and all of that is part of the record and part of this consideration as well. Okay. Is there any of that that you want to address first before I ask the applicant to address what they want to address?

I don't think I... Undisturbed area?

What disturbance means? Disturbance would mean that if any land is modified or touched, a shovel goes in it to move earth, that would be considered a disturbance of the land.

Thank you. So any shovel, any kind of construction-y activity is disturbance. Construction-y is a technical term, I'll tell you that. Okay, all right, I'll have the applicant come up and if there are parts of any comments you would like to address, please do.

First of all, I want to say thank you to everyone that commented today. I wrote down the themes from everyone's comments. I think the wetland delineation study speaks for itself. It stands on its own and I think it should be treated fairly. There are comments about the alternative analysis site plans. I think that's a legitimate question. Those documents exist. They absolutely exist. We probably have We have multiple. I don't know how many different versions Justin and I went through before settling on a version that we wanted to submit to the commission. It's not my understanding that those are documents that are required to be part of this packet. The multiple versions Different versions you've seen different versions dating all the way back to November. There's been countless revisions So I just want to acknowledge that just because they're not in the packet doesn't mean that that exercise has not been fully Exhausted The one of the reasons that I think it's important to think about the web the buffer reduction is my commitment from the first community engagement meeting to the second and to eliminate the five and six unit houses which are permitted and getting into duplexes that are single family homes with a shared attached wall. Those could come back into play in future site plans and I don't think that that's the direction that we want to go. I feel confident that this is a plan that is well vetted, well researched. The team itself is a team of professionals that have worked with the city to get this to be a plan that should be supported and I thank you.

I do have one follow-up question. So someone brought up the potential discrepancy between kind of the preserved area or the area of study in the tree survey. So I don't know if, Laura, if you can pull up, there's like a, yes, this. So this, and I guess maybe the first question is what does the red area represent?

So I think this is an excerpt from the tree survey. Right. And this is a plan that was prepared before we had communications back and forth with engineering and stormwater. We had mentioned that there was some refinements up to the last minute. And so this was an outdated version of the tree preservation survey, just Wasn't updated in time to make it into the packet And so I think there is an opportunity for us to keep trees in and around the rain garden But it probably won't be as much as what that original red area shows in that on that northwest corner It was just a timing thing from when we were making final revisions to the plan To when information was distributed to the planning commission in their packets.

Okay, but this red area was what the tree survey report is based on, correct?

Yeah, so there are trees that are in that red where they separate it between outside the construction envelope and inside the construction envelope. There are a few trees in that area that potentially would be considered in the construction envelope now where it would be a little bit different than what was in the original report.

Okay.

And then we also were, another comment brought up a drain on the west side of the property that 10 houses use that might not be on the survey. I don't know if you have knowledge of that or what.

We have done some investigation and I would be happy to continue that conversation with city staff or neighbors. Our design and what we're looking at is capturing all of the water that's coming to us from the western side of the site. We have already acknowledged that there is drainage that is coming to us. We are capturing that and routing it through our stormwater basin. And so while it might not be shown, all of that would be captured and routed through our system. And so to clarify those details, we'd be happy to do so through the LUDS permitting process, absolutely. But just on a high level, we are planning to capture all of that and route it through our stormwater system.

And then the last question I'll have before I let others jump in is that steep slope and erosion related to that, how, if any, will this development impact that?

City ordinance does not allow us to touch those steep slopes without a variance and so from our perspective we are not touching by grading, tree removal, any of the area that's shaded in that green. I'm not sure if there are things that we could investigate on the upstream side of it, right? It kind of getting off of our property at that point, but if there are things that we could look at up there, I think we'd be happy to investigate that. But as far as the steep slopes themselves are concerned, they're a bit off limits to us.

And then I guess I lied, I do have one more question. Was the groundwater level or water table, has that been investigated? What do you know about that as it relates?

Anecdotally, we've heard obviously from the neighbors that it is a concern. It is on our list of things to do very quickly after This process wraps up to hire a geotechnical engineer to do soil borings to investigate groundwater. So at this point, we don't have any technical data as it relates to groundwater, but know full well that we are aware of the situation and know that we need to do that as a follow-up.

Okay.

Thank you.

Similar to that, to her last question, can you confirm that if you find high groundwater levels, your storm sewer system is going to have to accommodate that?

We would have to absolutely work around that. In order for your calculations to work? Yeah, we'd have to work around the groundwater.

Other questions for the applicant at this point? I do have a question for staff. So if this were to move forward in whatever capacity and the private road is aligned directly across from Shama, is there an opportunity or an intention for any kind of enhanced crosswalk or treatment related to that?

Arianna, if you don't mind, I would defer to you on that. I know that there was some discussion about opportunities for traffic calming and such, but thank you.

Hello, I'm Assistant Director for MobileGR, Arianna Jeske, so oversee our traffic engineering and planning signals and sign shop folks for everybody new to me today. So looking at the opportunity there, we would have to look at just kind of general traffic volumes and such. We look at generally a bit larger volumes that we're looking at as special enhancements. We would probably require a crosswalk and a ramp to the existing sidewalk that's over on the other side of the Chamotte Court there. So there would be those standard high visibility markings that you see, kind of people call them the piano keys or the continental style. Thank you.

Any other questions? Go ahead, yeah.

I actually have a question for the engineer. There's been some comments about discussion with Shawmont about a pedestrian path. I assume it would be through the south side of the site connecting to Shawmont, but it looks like that entire area is going to fall within that either where you're developing or where you're within the environmental protection area. So have there It doesn't seem feasible, just kind of looking at this, so I don't want it kind of said as lip service if it's going to happen. Like, is there actually...

Yeah, so we have had very, very high-level conversations with GRPS just to the point where they've acknowledged that there is a potential partnership that could be had. There will be and is a kind of break in the buffer areas that does extend to our south property line. We're actually extending a public water main area. down to our south property line. So there would be an opportunity for us to put a path at least to that point and then where it goes once it's on public school property. That's the piece that just is up in the air. We haven't gotten into that level of detail in those conversations. We can commit to absolutely getting it to the south property line and then where it goes from there is still to be determined.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner, I'm not sure if you're alluding to the buffers at the inability to disturb within that 25 foot as well, but with pedestrian paths, trailways, trail networks and such, there is a departure within the zoning ordinance that does allow for those types of features to extend through a wetland buffer. Now, of course, there's some coordination that would be required with EGLE, And there would be some design sensitivities and engineering that would be needed to actually construct any sort of trail system through that area. But in terms of an actual trail going through a buffer, that in and of itself is permitted by the zoning ordinance.

Thank you. And that could be approved administratively if we conditioned it?

That's correct.

Thank you.

Okay, then it's deliberation time. Oh, yes. Let's take a five-minute break. Thank you. All right. Sorry about that. All right, let's make our way back to our seats, please. We're going to go ahead and get started again. Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Okay. Commissioners. I hope you don't mind, Commissioner Hendrick, but since we know you're on a timeline, I wonder if you might share with us.

Yeah, there's obviously a lot to consider and we want to stay within the bounds of what our zoning ordinance allows us to do. So a couple things that I'm thinking about is the future land use for this property and is this this use, this development appropriate for the future land use. This property is designated as a compact neighborhood as opposed to what it was in 2002, which was at that time institutional. But the adjacent property to that was low density residential. So whatever decision is made for development in this area is by nature going to have some rub because we're moving from a low density residential to try to accomplish some of the goals of the city for density and more housing. Not to say that makes this appropriate or not, but it's something to be considered. There is a change in designation from low density residential to a more dense residential area that will always have a problem here. And then I guess one of the big things we're going to have to decide is if the 25 foot or a 75 foot buffer is appropriate for this property. I do want to note that the city of Grand Rapids is more restrictive than almost all of the communities within Kent County and a lot of requirements within the state that buffer from wetlands is closer to a 25 or 35 foot. So We start off, the zoning ordinance starts off very restrictive with the ability to make decisions to make that smaller based on the land area. So again, I'm not saying that's what is appropriate for this site, but our ordinance is structured in a way that by nature protects environmental aspects of a property more than a lot of the zoning ordinances here. So just to kind of start off, that should be considered. I think that when we look at why we should grant that, most of those standards are considered within this application. The steep slopes have been preserved. They are located on the west side of the property, which is the higher area. So a lot of development impact that would impact the steep slopes in this area would actually come from the adjacent properties to the west. And if you look at those properties, some of those have backyards that are completely clear-cut. One of them has a pool with a deck and is completely developed. So those properties are actually more of what would impact erosion on those steep slopes, just a consideration. Natural features, we've seen that some of those are preserved throughout the site, but some are not. The question really is, coming from the neighbors, is the development within this property appropriate for the site? They have obviously taken the site and designed it to its maximum, which is not something unique. That's what anyone wants to do. But when it comes down to presenting those alternatives, I do think that they may have done that work, but I don't see all of that work presented here. I do want to acknowledge the work that the city has done in navigating these conversations with the community, the work that the developer has done to change their plan and to engage. This isn't easy work. This is hard work. You have more than one person together and there's going to be a disagreement and there's a lot more than one people in this. meeting today. So that's hard work. Thank you for doing it and thank you to the community for coming and being part of that. But then it really comes down to did we really start at a premise with this site that is Too far. Is there too much development where our starting point was? The wetlands were not considered. Those are considered now, but those really should have been a consideration from the beginning. So I don't want to look at this and say, okay, alternative one is developing over the wetlands. When we're looking at whether we should allow for that reduction, it should be development one, meeting the standards of the actual 75%, what can we do? Not maximizing, over-maximizing, giving 150%, and then trying to go back down to 110 and saying that's adequate. So I hope that was articulate. I hope I've expressed where I fall, but that's going to be my biggest challenge. I think it should be developed. They have the right to develop it. But is it designed in a way that Is 32 units the right number for this? Is the exact location of the 32 units appropriately designed on the site? I think that there's more deliberation in question. I don't know that I'm there to be completely 100% with the way this is presented right now. That's making sense.

Is there specific information, more information you'd like provided?

Potentially more of those alternatives. I do feel that some of my concerns about the steep slopes on Building 6 to 10 that our engineer had presented were concerning to me, but I've seen that the applicant has really addressed those issues. Maybe more detail in the landscaping on how the rain garden will be developed. That was one of the comments that one of the members of the public made, and I think it was thoughtful that we should know, is this a sustainable rain garden? Is it designed appropriately? The maintenance plan is required in our zoning ordinance. So whether we make it a procedural condition, it's required anyway. It's not really required to be made a condition, but those are things that are important to me and I know are important to residents and want to acknowledge that they will regardless if we condition them, be part of this.

Thank you. Go ahead. Yeah, I was going to say I agree with Commissioner Hendrick. I would have liked to have seen a little more detail around the alternatives. Asking for the maximum reduction, fine, but the applicant did a really good job going line by line through most of the other reasoning behind asking for a special land use, but I would have liked to have seen some more information and some more alternatives to either going to the 50-foot setback or preserving the 75-foot setback.

Other thoughts? Oh, go ahead, Kristen.

I was just thinking on two things. So just to be clear, the EGLE wetland map did not actually identify these as wetlands. And so I think initially it was not known that there was wetlands here until there was further investigation done, which is typical that we would get into a site and realize that there's some additional work that's needed or additional studies that might be needed. So I don't think it was an intentional oversight by the development team as much as they started to get into the project. they learned that there were wetlands present and then had to pivot. I'd also note, you know, I'm hearing now two commissioners, maybe three, commenting on the alternatives and Certainly, that's something that I think could be provided. I do want to say that, you know, at a staff level, we had a lot of iterations on this. And there was some judgment calls based on feedback that was provided from the community, based on what we thought was appropriate relative to our ordinance and community master plan. moving the amount of density that was perceived as needed by the developer to make a project viable, which is, those are real numbers. Whether we think it's too much density or not, there is an amount that would make a project more viable. Moving that towards Seventh Street caused a very different housing typology caused a typology that was larger in massing and scale. We really felt like the attached single-family form was probably the largest massing of an individual building that was appropriate for the site. Not looking to ask for a three-story building, keeping it at two-story, which is something that a special land use for the district could have accommodated. So those were some of the and looking at the types of wetlands, the size of them, felt like there was the ability to provide adequate buffering to keep those wetlands safe. So there was some iterations that happened, I think, between city staff and with the developer. Now, if the Planning Commission needs more information on that, that's perfectly within your authority to ask. I'm sitting here listening and thinking that it would probably be helpful if I explain that there was those conversations that took place. There was guidance about, I'm really not comfortable. I think meeting one we had was, I'm really not comfortable with having larger massing on 7th Street. I think that that would be completely inappropriate. And so how do we move that massing, that type of development, further into the site? But there's trade-offs with that. So I just wanted to comment on where we were at, what guidance we provided as city staff to get to this point.

Thank you, Kristen. That actually makes me feel a lot more comfortable having that kind of fleshed out.

And again, I'm sorry we didn't plan to have iterations before you here for alternatives. That's something that you could request and the team could provide, but those conversations did happen.

Yeah, I guess I, you know, it's complicated. And it's, I do want to see, we need more housing. And I know that we are more restrictive with a 75-foot setback here in Grand Rapids. I do appreciate the comments that were made, too, about the lower intensity use of single-family housing versus a parking lot or a retail space. That makes me feel more comfortable. I mean, there's still the 25-foot buffer. The wetlands are not going away. They're still being... protected and per testimony from one of the neighbors this used to be an empty lot and now there are trees there and so it has it has lived without the trees there before it but the you know developer will be replacing some of those trees there will be some taking back but we're still above our city limits for tree canopy desires I hear a lot of concerns about the traffic and about the walkability of the neighborhood and I I really wish that those can get addressed by the city, because it seems to be a common problem there. I love the idea of having a connection to the school, if that's possible, so even if kids are coming off of 7th Street, then they can at least walk down these sidewalks and that pedestrian area, and that will improve that. So yeah, those I guess are my thoughts.

I'll go. So this one hits different than a lot of these cases do and I'm not exactly sure why. But I appreciate all of the public comment and I appreciate all the work from the development team on this project. I have a few thoughts. It seems like, I mean, a lot of the public comment is around protecting the wetlands and stormwater issues that are in the neighborhood and potentially with this site. But from people that are experts in the field, we've also heard multiple times that the site's not allowed to be worse for the neighborhood than it currently is. And I know that there are concerns about groundwater level, but if the groundwater level is high enough that some of the stormwater systems that we were shown today Don't work the way that they were shown they're going to have to be revised in order to Make sure that the site isn't harder on any of the neighboring sites than it currently is so I think we need to rely on the systems that we have in place the city engineering department and licensed engineers to do what they Are licensed to do so I don't have any major stormwater concerns and understand all of the neighborhood concerns, but I think understand the processes that are currently in place to manage that. I don't have any specific concerns about this actually being a noticeable detriment to the rest of the neighborhood from a stormwater standpoint. I think we have said multiple times this is maximizing the site. I know it feels like that because it's pushing up against that 25 foot minimum setback from the wetland areas, but the reality is that this isn't maximized at all. I think if you use the density calculations in the zoning ordinance, you're north of 80 units, maybe north of 90 units. would be allowed from a density standpoint. We would still have to see it here, but you could put an apartment building on this site and parking and stay out of the 75 foot. So I'm afraid, a little afraid, that this site is a privately held site. The likelihood that it gets developed is extremely high. And so I'm a little afraid that the law of unintended consequences is if we push really hard on this 25 foot setback for the wetlands, we might get the 75 foot, but it might be for a 50 or 75 unit apartment building on the site. And so, and I don't know, I can't imagine that the neighborhood would feel better about that. Especially based on the comments that were around neighborhood character and what fits in the neighborhood. And so, I still don't know exactly how I feel, and I'd like to hear from the remaining commissioners, but those are my current thoughts.

Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Swim. In my time on the commission, We've heard a lot of cases that have requested reductions in the buffer setback. And it does feel like a lot of the comments we're zeroing in on that is the main tripping point for this project. For better or worse in the past, I think it's been a formality. That we've heard those things Because there were other issues or because it was you know, we didn't have the turnout from a community like this So I recognize that it's a concern at the same point like Commissioner Swim had made We do have systems in place. This is not an uncommon thing. There are professionals that handle this and it can be addressed in the LUDS permitting process. I'll say yeah, I agree that I don't feel like this is maximizing the site. I think it's maybe pushing it to the physical boundary of where it could be developed, but in terms of the density, don't have concerns about this number of units here I You know rely on the traffic study and on our ordinance which states that it could be significantly higher in density and so My question to those that have been concerned about maximizing the property and things like that is what is the side effect that we're concerned about with this number of units? Is it that it's encroaching into the wetland buffer? Is it the additional traffic in the neighborhood? Is it the removal of green space and tree canopy? And I can say, yes, we've heard that. We've expressed it ourselves. I recognize those things. I guess my... biggest concern and something that we've heard numerous times is about the traffic and pedestrian safety in this neighborhood. I live in the first ward. I travel down Oakley probably four times a day. I've never been pulled over. And I'll say I am not one of those people blowing through the stop sign at 7th. But I do see it, and I understand the concern there. And as someone who lives on the west side, and I consider this part of my neighborhood, I also have really deep concerns about the walkability of this neighborhood, especially Oakley, as a busier street, super narrow street, and really no place for pedestrians, bikes, kids, you know, and people to walk. I guess my question to you, Kristen, or staff, or MobileGR, is our capital improvements plan, can that be accelerated? Because we've identified it. I've been part of the commission for a long time. We've identified Oakley as an issue for 15 years or more. And so why does it have to be 2030? Why can't we get to it sooner? We did Collindale. Collindale's also very busy, but this is an important corridor.

I will probably phone a friend and let Arden come back up if you don't mind, but I did speak with the city engineer because we were wondering the same thing. Excuse me, I'm so sorry. And timing of major road reconstruction like Oakley is different in the capital plan than the timing of a mill and resurface project for example and the reason for that comes down in part to budget when is funding available but also because it's reconstruction meaning we have to that means we have to time it with funding cycles relative to the water department and other utilities and so and we also work really hard to work for State funding or various funding sources to supplement the cost of the reconstruction project And so it is far more difficult for us to say, you know, oh we have a development We're going to move Oakley in this case up into the fiscal year 28 or pick your year Prior to fiscal year 30, so I don't know if Arden if you have anything more to add but that was Cindy's message was that Those types of projects are more difficult to move around or move sooner.

You did great You you said about the same thing. I would say it's very easy to postpone a project But as far as moving a project ahead It's difficult because of that very reason she just stated that We're trying to coordinate budgets that water has established. They have projects of priority that they need to get done before this, and they've got limited amount of money. There's limited amount of money that engineering has to do for the resurfacing. And then we'll probably also have to video the stormwater and the sanitary sewer that are there to see if any work needs to be done there. the budgeting that has been set up already and the collaboration that's happened between the departments, it's very hard to move it up. I'll just say that.

Are there such things as assessments for sidewalk installation to at least advance a, not specific to Oakley, however, because I realize that that's reconstruction, but when we think about 7th Street that's not due for reconstruction, are sidewalk assessments a tool?

There is a tool that we have. We have I don't know how many hundreds of miles of unimproved streets that don't have curb and gutter and don't have sidewalks. And for those streets that don't have sidewalks, there is a long list and there is a hierarchy where there is the greatest need or the greatest perceived need Those are at the top of the list, and we try to pick those off little by little, and there's, again, a limited amount of funds that are available to pick those off. And so that list has an order. I don't know where these streets are in that order. I did not look that up, but that's something that I can do.

Just not now. You stated that there would be an engagement process and a I would assume partly through the planning department process of neighborhood engagement on what that reconstruction would look like. How long does that take and when from the start of that to the beginning of construction, reconstruction, does that typically take?

We like to start working on our projects at least a year ahead of time. before we want to be putting the shovels in the ground, so to speak. There's design time. There's time for getting the plans checked by all the departments. And if MDOT is involved, it takes longer. I'm not sure at this point if Oakley is a road that would get MDOT. I didn't look that up before.

Maybe only if it runs into Lake Michigan Drive, right?

If there was federal funding, then it would have to go through the MDOT process.

That adds time. Then there's time for construction as well. It's a long process.

I was going to say about the same for a project like that. We'd start engaging specific on a road design project

Engagement process about a year in advance from when the project would start construction That's helpful to know I wish there was a way to to move that up Even if we could get to the community engagement process sooner than later I mean this is this is an existing issue that I think needs to be addressed and that I wish could be addressed sooner Apart from this project Again, I'll say This number of units I don't think is going to exacerbate the issue to a degree that it justifies completely denying it. I just wish that overall, as part of this neighborhood, that those capital improvements could be made sooner.

Well, we've made a commitment to share all of the feedback we've received through this process with the engineering department. Clearly, Arden is here as well. And I'm happy to take that request back to the city engineer and see if we can implore them to rethink the timeline. I don't know what that would look like.

I did have one more thought on traffic. I think in density, But it is true that the level of density for this particular private drive is on the order of maybe double of some of the other neighborhood. But from a traffic perspective, it's very near. I think Shawmut Court has 30 units on it. So from a traffic perspective, you have another court across the street that has a very similar number of units. So the expected traffic for this development would be very similar and its effect or impact on the surrounding neighborhood would be very similar to Chabot Court and I think there's a couple of other courts in the neighborhood that are a very similar scale, like serving a similar number of units. So I do think that the density serving that drive, you see that a lot and then a number of times in that neighborhood.

Yeah, I mean obviously this is a challenging case. I think that challenge is much exacerbated by existing conditions in the neighborhood that have been present for dozens of years with the lack of sidewalks and the challenging road networks. I also drive Oakley fairly frequently, and it is hard if you drive the speed limit on that street. It's challenging. because people will come up on you very quickly. And it doesn't feel like a 25 mile an hour street. And then lack of sidewalks is a significant challenge, I can imagine. On the wetland buffers, I think, you know, I was initially concerned with it. I had asked a few questions. I don't think it was adequately addressed by the applicant, however, in looking at the grades and listening to the design engineer, I think those wetlands are perched. And so then the water that runs off of the development area of this site is very unlikely to make it into those wetlands. And therefore, to me, that's a pretty compelling reason to be able to reduce that buffer in order to add some more housing to the project. because the buffers there intended to protect the wetlands and in this case it's largely not necessary. And we have granted exceptions in lots of cases in the past without very much discussion. And so, you know, I think we have to think about that precedence as well. So we're not maximizing the site here. with the density that they have. It is more dense than the surrounding neighborhood and I think there is some tension in our master plan with respecting the current development but also providing diversity of housing opportunities. And I think that this does that pretty well. So yeah, I'm with some of the other comments or agree with some of the other comments. It would be nice if the city could find a way to expedite some of the other revisions to the streets that would make it more pedestrian and family friendly. But that's not within our purview here to be able to facilitate. But overall, I think... Yeah, I think... This is a development that I think in the long term actually will be beneficial to the long term future of the city in several different ways.

I appreciate the comments of my fellow commissioners. I was definitely impacted by Commissioner Swem's comments and hadn't considered that there is an alternative allowable that I'm assuming the neighborhood would be less in favor of. And I appreciate that comment very much because it is helping me think differently about the project overall. I like to come at these cases as how do we get to yes? And so as I'm listening and thinking about getting to that end result, I think about possible conditions. So those are some things that I'm thinking about for our consideration. Not knowing the burden of cost or schedule, something that was considered was an equal review to just validate the wetlands, the setback. Again, I don't know the burden of cost or schedule, so I don't necessarily want to condition that because I'm not fully in knowledge of what that requires. I also heard Brent Construction Simplified say they'd be willing to put up a chain link fence during construction to protect the wetlands or have an added protection measure. So might we condition that to assure protection of the wetlands during construction? And then also the confusion about the west side drain and ensuring that that's reviewed prior to any further progress on the development. So those are my thoughts and otherwise aligned with my fellow commissioners.

I will note that the drain issue was presented to my office and I do not have concerns with that drain. Thank you.

Anyone else?

I'll try to be brief. I appreciate everyone's comments so far, public and commission. This was a lot of information to trudge through over the last week. And I was really on the fence environmentally, but I'm more confident now listening to the engineering staff and the plans they have to do core drilling. The fact that the storm water solution is designed to take all the water from outside the property that will inevitably be coming that way because it's lower than the west side neighbors, that that's had a greater impact on the wetland than the actual project development. And I guess I'll, you know, Commissioner Schake, if the, you know, the Eagle review and the fencing and the west side drain is being contained is all good. I do like the condition of a maintenance plan being written in so that that is monitored and part of the expectation moving forward. That gets me a little more comfortable to understand, you know, what the impact would be. And, you know, it really addresses a lot of the concerns, you know. I definitely would like to see some of the surrounding areas timeline developed quicker because that's been around for a long time. I don't think that that's been addressed. It could be very good for the surrounding community to have that access through to the school and everything else. That seems to be a positive in all of this. That's where I sit.

Great, thanks everybody. And I too want to echo the sentiments from the commission and thank everyone for coming out here and for everyone who wrote us about this. We appreciate the community voices and involvement. Yeah, as far as the development maximization, I agree that based on the zoning ordinance itself as it is, this site layout as proposed is not maximizing the number of units that could be there and still be within zoning ordinance, what the zoning ordinance allows. So that is something to keep in mind. I also would appreciate, yeah, if we can figure out a way to make a pedestrian connection into Shawmut, that would be great and would potentially provide a safer route for kids going to school through this development. And I think as far as the other traffic safety concerns, like those are real and solutions need to be developed assessed and worked on and if those 18 people that were stopped are from the neighborhood then that seems like something that the neighborhood can also engage with your neighbors about as well. In addition to additional enforcement and other obviously solutions that the city can help provide but I think we all need to do our part to make sure that traffic that we're traveling safely on our roadways as well. And I don't think that the existing traffic issues, as others have said, can be laid at the feet of this development and expect that this development will do something to, will have responsibility to fix those. And then yeah, I was really concerned about the development, or the wetland, going to the 25 foot buffer, but I hadn't considered that elevation factor, so I can buy that argument. But I am wondering if there's a way to still preserve some of those really mature trees kind of on the eastern and western edges of the site to provide better buffer for the backyards that abut this property. Acknowledging the fact that at one point this was like a clear-cut field, now there are mature trees there and to lose all of that for a basin is a bummer, frankly. So I don't know if it's doing more bermage, if it's berms, if it's just making sure that some of those mature trees or as many of those mature trees as possible along those edges are preserved. I think that would be that would improve the plan, in my opinion. I think Nobody wants to look at just a basin in their backyard, whether you're in building 11 or on the Oakley side there. So that's something to consider as well. This is slated to be compact neighborhood based on our future land use map, which allows a variety of housing types. This is an incremental increase in density and does seem to have adequate parking for folks. So yeah, all that to be said. This has been a process and I appreciate the engagement that it's had. Does anyone have anything else we should consider in our deliberation? Would someone want to put a motion out there?

Can we figure out what the stance on the EGLE, are there questions for people that know more about the process or?

Yep, so in light of the condition that's already part of your review about complying with state regulations, We, hearing the concerns of the community and the comments of the Planning Commission, we suggested, would suggest a proposed condition that states that the use will comply with all state and local regulations regarding wetland protection, including but not limited to any approval or review necessary from the State of Michigan Department of Environmental, Great Lakes, and Energy.

It includes stream.

Regarding stream and wet... regarding stream and wetland protection. Sorry I was moving those things together. I think in addition from a staff perspective I don't want to speak for Mr. Tabor and Williams but the message has been clear that there is definitely an interest in coordinating with EGLE. I think Mr. Longstreth has heard that as well so I don't I think it's already inherent in the conditions you have We can support that further with the conditions that I just stated, but I think in addition, just as planning staff and the engineer of the development team, we're happy to further investigate that and make sure, triple check with EGLE and applicable state regulatory agencies regarding the concerns that have been raised today.

I do also like the addition of added protection measures during construction. I think that's... good idea. I too was skeptical about the ability to not disturb right on the edge of that.

So if the Planning Commission is comfortable if there were a motion or yeah motion to approve I had a number of additional conditions that I won't read verbatim right this minute but I will mention to make sure that we're aligned. One is about the internal sidewalk connection to support the installation of the internal sidewalk connection to Shawmut Hills School and that every effort is made, now I'm reading it, every effort is made to coordinate the connection with GRPS. That there's a maintenance plan for the rain garden submitted for review and acceptance prior to the issuance of the LUDS. I mentioned about the coordination with the state regarding the stream and wetland protection. That the city stormwater engineer require enhanced methods of wetland protection be reinstalled at and outside of the 25-foot buffer line, including the installation of a chain-link fence. Effectively looking to our experts in ESD, our stormwater engineers, to provide that specificity, but clearly there is an expectation of the Planning Commission, and this will give them the authority perhaps to go above and beyond the typical protection measures. That any unauthorized disturbance of the 25-foot wetland buffer be restored as required by the city's stormwater engineer. So we're not just talking about fines and fees and such, that there is clear expectation to restore the buffer using the subject matter expertise of Dan and Nathan. And then finally that the applicant work with the city planning and stormwater staff to re-evaluate options that would preserve existing mature trees along the west lot line near the rain garden. So those were the additional conditions that I took from the conversation that you had. And hopefully if there's more, please let me know.

Are there any trees on the east side too that might possibly be retained?

I mean specifically I was worried about those the east and west edges just because they about the other properties, yeah.

Okay, I missed that so I will modify to reflect that. We'll basically take a fine-tooth comb when we're going through the detailed engineering review to see and make every effort to preserve additional or existing trees.

Now, therefore, it be resolved that the Planning Commission approves the special land use and site plan review request of 7th Street Holding Group, LLC, for approval of a new multifamily development consisting of 16 attached single-family buildings totaling 32 dwelling units at 2450 7th Street NW for the following reasons. One, the proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the master plan and zoning ordinance, including the zone district, because the proposed use will support objectives outlined in the community master plan great neighborhoods chapter that are supportive of the provision of housing types other than single family detached residential, including create complete and stable neighborhoods and expand the variety of housing types and price points. and meet the underlying intent of the MCN LDR Zone District to create, maintain, and promote a variety of housing opportunities for individual households and to maintain the desired physical characteristics of the city's existing neighborhoods. Two, the proposed use will meet the site plan review standards of Section 5.12.8.E because elements of the site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to topography, the size and character of the site and the type, size, and proportions of the buildings. Site landscape features, such as notable mature vegetation and steep slopes, will be preserved in their natural state insofar as practical by minimizing tree and soil removal, alteration to the natural drainage courses, and the amount of cutting, filling, and grading. And landscape buffers are provided to ensure that proposed uses are adequately buffered from one another and from surrounding public and private property. 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 site plan addresses the existing built environment by the appropriate location of building types and building orientation relative to adjacent properties, and the proposed development will result in a density appropriate for the neighborhood. 3B, potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed developments on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through the provision of adequate resident and visitor parking, adequate setbacks and landscape buffers, and appropriate building orientation and entrances. 3c. The proposed development will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses, or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, glare, or visual clutter, because the trip generation analysis has concluded that the anticipated number of trips will minimally impact existing traffic operations along adjacent roadways, and adequate setbacks will be provided to abutting uses. 3D, the proposed use, would 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 homes will be oriented to the new drive establishing the street wall. The width of the new drive is appropriate for the existing and anticipated volume of traffic and will conform with the dimensions of a neighborhood residential street, and paved walkways will be provided within the development. Four, the building and site area required for the proposed use will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because wetlands and site topography are incorporated into the proposed site design. Buildings and structures are placed in a manner that preserves and protects environmentally sensitive areas. The applicant has demonstrated that site landscape features such as notable mature vegetation and steep slopes, would be preserved in their natural state insofar as practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal, alteration to the natural drainage courses, and the amount of cutting, filling, and grading. And the reduction of the natural features protection area to 25 feet will not result in a loss of habitat, hydrologic function, or erosion control. 5A, the health, safety, and general welfare of the public will be maintained because adequate offsite public infrastructure exists to support the development, and the cost of any new public or private infrastructure will be borne by the developer. 5B, the proposed use would not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the city, because the scale and design of the proposed development does not place an excessive burden on services currently furnished or may be required by the City, and the development will provide necessary housing within the City limits. Be it further resolved that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project. standard conditions, set A approvals. One, that the testimony, application, and plans 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 zoning ordinance and or other city ordinance requirements and or as amended in this resolution. Two, that the use shall operate according to the application plans and testimony. 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 zoning 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 tree removal, construction, demolition, or operation. Five, that any expansion of the approved special land use requires an additional special land use review and approval by 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. Item two, that construction activity shall be limited to between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. And take it away, Kristen.

Did you not say that

There will be another public comment period at the end of the meeting itself.

Three, that the applicant install an internal sidewalk connection to Chabot Hill School and every effort shall be made to coordinate the pedestrian sidewalk connection with GRPS. Four, that a maintenance plan for the rain garden be submitted for review and acceptance prior to the issuance of the LUDS permit. Five, that the use will comply with all state and local regulations regarding stream and wetland protection, including but not limited to any approval or review necessary from the State of Michigan Department of Environment Great Lakes and energy. Six, that the city stormwater engineer shall require enhanced methods of wetland protection to be installed at or outside of the 25 foot buffer line, including the installation of a chain link fence. Seven, that any unauthorized disturbance of the 25 foot wetland buffer be restored as required by the city stormwater engineer. Eight, that the applicant work with the city planning and stormwater staff to reevaluate options that would make every effort to preserve existing mature trees along the east and west slot line during final engineering review.

I have a motion. Do I have support?

Support.

I have a motion to support. Any additional discussion?

The only comment I would make is around the Enhanced wetland protections should be for during construction. Yes, during construction. Chain link fence there long term.

Thank you. So we'll incorporate that into condition.

Okay, yep. I'll add during construction to be installed at or outside of Thank you for that, yeah. No, we don't want a chain link fence around the outside.

No, thank you. Okay. Any additional discussion? Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay, now we have a review for an extension request for 740 and 742 Clancy Northeast.

This project came before you on January 23, 2024, and it was a new two-family dwelling. in the TNLDR, it was granted an extension on January 22nd of this year and their extension is expiring in August and they're now requesting a second extension and that would give them until February 7th, 2027. The rationale for their request is in your packet.

I'll make a motion to approve the extension request. Support.

All right, we have motion and a couple supports, so pick one. And any additional discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Any additional planning commission discussion?

just say for the record and maybe this will make it to Commissioner Belichick and others but more concerning if there is a concern about traffic as a result of this development is developments that may not be in this immediate neighborhood I live north of Blandford and travel down Richmond to Oakley to Lake Michigan Drive and there's development happening north of the city outside of our city limits that are going to impact this more. I don't think that that means that those developments shouldn't happen but I think that it should mean that the city considers those things in planning out their capital improvements. I know that it's a long-term planning process and these things have been set years in advance but Rather than create additional issues and be reactionary, it would be nice if someone had their eye on this and could potentially move it forward more quickly with those things in mind.

Yeah, I know while most folks have left, I wanted to again kind of address all the engagement. I do think that the engagement by this neighborhood did change the site plan of this project for the better in terms of aid the discovering of those wetlands and ensuring kind of a more incremental density that could be more favorable to the neighbors in general. So keep engaging. Okay, with that, I will open up public comment. If you would like to provide additional public comment, please come up and you'll have another three minutes.

I guess not so much a comment, but kind of curious about this path connecting the development to the school. Is this just a path from the cul-de-sac area of the development into the school area? Is that what you're saying?

Yes, that there would be an extension of the sidewalk connection that would run along the drive of the development and connect down to the south.

I'm kind of curious how that would benefit anyone in the neighborhood other than those living in the development. Because there's no sidewalks to get anybody into that development to take that path. So I don't really see that as a benefit to anyone living, any of the other children in the neighborhood that need to get to the school. because they still would have to somehow get to the development on sidewalkless streets. So I don't think that's a benefit. I also am curious about why just a small area of the neighborhood was taken into consideration for figuring density of our neighborhood. It looked like the houses adjacent along 7th to the east of the property weren't considered. None of the houses on Oakley were considered. in calculating density. I'm curious about that as well. Does anybody have any answers to that?

Laura, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but typically when we provide density of the surrounding neighborhood, we typically just take a sample of adjacent blocks. So there's not specific guidance in the ordinance that provides any sort of guidance to provide that comparison to you. So they are just samples that we do with the blocks that are immediately surrounding the development.

I think those samples intentionally left out properties that had larger lots. probably to make it seem like our neighborhood density is a little bit different than what this is, what you're saying it is. I mean, the houses east of the property along 7th and the ones on Oakley have much larger lots. I think that would affect the density that you're saying our neighborhood contains. So I just kind of was curious about that, why so many houses were left out. I don't know if that was a really accurate sampling of our neighborhood. So I guess those are my comments. I'm a little disappointed that we can't have safety on our streets sooner before this is put in. I know you're saying that this isn't going to, the traffic's not going to affect our neighborhood very much. 283 cars is insignificant apparently, but when you live on a corner, there's no sidewalks, there's nowhere to walk. If cars are going to be parked there from this overflow, I don't see where I'm going to be able to take my dogs for a walk. I'm really concerned about that, and I'm kind of disappointed that... you know, that's not really being addressed for the next, who knows, five years maybe if it happens? Sounds like that's not even a guarantee.

Well, I know it's not everything, but they are adding sidewalks on 7th in front of the property. Yes, I know it's not everything, but at least... That doesn't benefit anyone.

That's a very short stretch. You know, I don't see how that would benefit any of us.

Thank you for your comments, yes.

Can I go?

Yeah. I find it blows my mind, and I say this with all due respect. Every one of you said traffic was a major concern. The third person, and you live on the west side. You know what a problem it is for this neighborhood. And you acknowledge, and Kristen, we've talked before, and you've... I feel like we had a good faith conversation before, but honestly, I don't think that exists anymore. You acknowledge yourself that you just can't do these things until 2030. So every one of you, by voting for this, says we're okay with the risk and the safety risk for the next four years if this goes in. That's my first point. My second point is Brenda's right about the density. Those numbers are way off. It only takes a very small sample size. 283 car trips. That is ridiculous on a daily basis. I don't know who did that study. Was it an independent study? Did it take certain things into consideration? It doesn't seem like they did. Did anybody in this panel actually walk the site, go to our neighborhood? You probably know if you live on the west side. Probably know. The footprint to look like mid-century modern housing, that's ridiculous. It looks nothing like our neighborhood. Nothing. Like I said in my statement, we live on the corner. We can tell you this is not safe. We spent the entire time telling you about these concerns, and I feel like you took them into consideration. Yet when, Jen, you read whatever it was that you read for the last five minutes, you basically said, well, we're approving this because none of these things matter. None of these things are a concern. Yet you all pretty much admit it. You all said it. You all said, I'm concerned about the traffic. I'm concerned about the wetlands buffer. This is a tough one. How would anybody here feel if this type of development was in their neighborhood? There's no way anybody would be in favor of this. But it's not a problem for you. So, I mean, I understand you want to advance the goals of the city. I get it. I understand that it's rezoned for that reason. I understand all that. What we're asking for is not unreasonable. It's not unreasonable at all. We're saying make it look somewhat like our neighborhood. You're saying we could go much further. That sounds more like a threat to me than anything else. It makes me wonder, was this decided before we even had this hearing? That's how it feels to us. We feel like we've been gaslit from the very beginning, from Adam and this whole thing. We went to every meeting. We organized our community outreach people. You know, these are real people that are concerned about this. 520 people, it's not like some pissed off people, excuse my language, that just don't want this in our backyard. Like, this is very bad for our neighborhood. It's good for the city for housing, but it doesn't give the affordable housing that the city says that they want. Takes away green space. Like, I'm not an expert on wetlands, but it seems like this is very bad for the wetlands. Several people more smarter than me have said as much. And I just don't understand. It's a mystery to me. Nobody here would say in good faith that, yeah, you know what, this is a good idea for this development. Put one in my backyard. There's no way.

I'm Vicki Stewart again, and I'm a little surprised. I worked with the Planning Commission for almost 10 years, and I honestly thought at minimum you'd table it, and at minimum you'd make it a 50-foot for the wetlands. But the traffic is something I'm not sure any of you realize. I don't even know if you can change it, what you've decided. But he presents it like families are going to move into these properties. That is not what I understand his plan to be from speaking with him directly. In the first meeting he tried to say that maybe fifty percent would be rentals and at the end of the meeting i said how many are going to be rentals and he said all of them so since then he has also talked about grand valley students college students young professionals when you talk about the number cars and parking spaces and the number of people going in and out you're not looking at if you have six college students living in three bedroom apartments when someone compared it to 50 or 75 apartment building, most apartment buildings like that would be one and two bedrooms. This is all three bedrooms. Three bedrooms, two units, 32 units times two is 64, times three bedrooms, which could house two people in each room. Partners, people living together, or roommates. Multiply that out and think about how many cars. And if, in fact, they're college students or young professionals who maybe have flexible work schedules, which many of us did not have the opportunity to do when we were young, they're going to be going in and out all times of the day. Mornings and evenings are going to be terrible. We all already know that. That's not new. But it's going to be all times of the day. Maybe you walk your dog at 10 AM. That's still going to be a lot more traffic. And I'm really worried about snow removal. Where are they going to put it? On Shaw-McCourt? They have to take care of their own snow removal because there's no way to get it out. And also someone made a reference to it being an extension to Shaw-McCourt. That's not true because Shaw-McCourt is all single family houses. It doesn't matter how big or small the house is, there's one family living there. And usually when adults, when children, my children are adults, they grow up and move away. So then what raised your kids there, they weren't driving. But now you've got all these people in these, they're not gonna be families, you guys. And I don't think it's affordable for young families. It's gonna be people trying to split with roommates because of the cost. I couldn't afford to live there. My son, who has a good job and is a tech guy, couldn't afford to live there. It's $800, $900 more than what he's paying in his apartment. And he's in Bayberry, which are nice apartments on Lake Michigan Drive.

Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate the extra time, even though it seems a little late.

I'm not sure how much this impacts our neighborhood, but I guess just in general. Really, the parking, I mean, I don't know how the rules change, but overall, when there's no on-street parking and there's essentially one parking spot per unit, that really always is going to impact where it's being built. So I don't know how that can be considered in the future or at some point, but... That really is a big deal, and that does impact walkability in our neighborhood specifically as we don't have sidewalks, and once you put cars on both sides of the road, it's hard for one car to go through. So that really does impact walkability because where are you walking? There isn't another place. You only have the street. And I guess I would just echo the sentiment about the crosswalk. Like, you have to be able to get into that... new development in order to benefit from it. So it really doesn't benefit anyone on any other street, because in order to get there, you have to walk in the street the whole way. Thanks.

Thank you.

I just have a question, really. You mentioned, Kristen, and I'm not sure, Dan, is it Dan? Art. Art, sorry. The fiscal year budget was, is it not October to September 30th?

No, the fiscal, city's fiscal year is July 1 to June 30th.

That makes sense, okay. Rick, you also made a comment asking about GRPS connections for the development. There are no sidewalks anywhere else except for Chalmette Court, which is my cul-de-sac. And from my history, the cul-de-sac that we have is historically difficult for emergency vehicles to get through and turn around. something that wasn't considered. In addition, I also work with GRPS very closely as someone who has specific agreements with them for my own work, and they're already uninterested in this property, so I'm curious as to how they would even be a partner in this. That doesn't affect any of the other children who are in other surrounding neighborhoods, so has there been conversation with GRPS already and was it positive?

Laura, did you have conversations with GRPS about the sidewalk?

No. No engagement has been had with GRPS, period. It's just hearsay on whether or not there is a potential connection. The developer did. The developer had conversations. He said he didn't.

That was the engineer then for the developer?

They said that they hadn't contacted GRPS at all.

Okay. Big picture though, what we do try, the planning commission often requires sidewalk to nowhere in that every effort or every opportunity I should say that we have to install sidewalks and create pedestrian connections, we take advantage of. In the short term, that often does feel silly because there's sidewalk connections or there will be sidewalk constructed along 7th Street, for example, in front of this development. Over time, those gaps are filled in. And so it seemed like there was an opportunity to extend sidewalk to a public school property.

Oh, yeah, they wouldn't do that. I mean, best of luck doing that. What I would like for consideration to be had is I literally cannot even get out of my own home, my own driveway, with an in-home daycare right next to me. I live right across from the property on Shawmut Court, 801 Shawmut. I understand. I know you want to leave, but it was your duty to hear all of these things. Where are those additional people going to park? There are four additional parking spaces in that unit. We, all of us, have single-family homes, and we have two car garages and two additional parking spaces outside of our garages. They don't have that. It's not fair to them. Our new neighbors deserve better. They deserve more parking spaces. They shouldn't be parking on the road. That should have been considered.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Can I say one more thing?

I'm sorry. You've had your time. Okay, I will close the public comment period. Anything else here? All right, folks, we're adjourned.