Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Welcome to the City of Grand Rapids Planning Commission meeting for July 23rd. We'll call the meeting to order. Just a couple of brief housekeeping items. First off, the second item on our agenda today, the Thousand West Fulton Street, was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. So if you are here for that, we will not be hearing that case today. Yeah, and we will re-notice, the city will re-notice if and when that case does come back. As we go through the cases, each case will be presented by a staff person and then the applicant will have an opportunity to do a presentation. We'll have an opportunity to ask a few questions, and then we will open the public hearing for each case. If you're here for a public hearing, each person will have three minutes. I ask you to be cognizant of that. And just a reminder, we are being livestreamed as well. And as part of the preparation for our meetings, the staff prepares for the commission resolutions, both for and against each of the cases, which just helps us in making those resolutions. There's no foregone conclusions. We can change that language, but they are a template for us to use. So if we're reading something during our motions, that's what that's about. Yeah, I think that's it. We'll start with conflict of interest. Is there any conflict of interest from any members today? No, okay. Great, then Sarah.

For our first case today, we're at 230 Winter Avenue Northwest. This is the new Amway Stadium, just adjacent to US 131. This is just west of that, right next to the YMCA and adjacent to Grand Valley State University. Here's an aerial view to give you an idea. Bridge Street is all the way to the north up here. Summer Avenue comes down and Blumrich here. This has been reconstructed and we'll get into the specifics of this area in a minute. One thing that I'd like you to consider is that this is a TNCC zone district and The intent with a traditional neighborhood is that it's smaller, it's compact, there's a lot of pedestrian activity happening, and so you'll want to take that into consideration as you're looking at each sign. We have over 40 signs to consider today. Not all of them deviate from the TNCC zone district, but quite a few do. And before we dive into the specific sign types, I want to go over a few key considerations for you. Relative to our wall signage and a few of the ground signs, we have sponsorship branding that may be visually dominant relative to the total message of the sign. I would like you to consider the massing of the sign as well as the massing of the wall that it's attached to. Evaluating the setback distance for all of our ground signs as well as thinking about the intent of them. We've got several banners we're going to look at today, so thinking about the number and the placement of those banners, but also you have an ability to discuss the frequency that they're installed or if they're permanent and the applicant can get into their intentions with that. And lastly, whether the proposed window coverage on the west elevation is appropriate and meets the intent of a condition of approval that you all issued in 2024 relative to the special land use hearing for the construction of the stadium itself. And we'll go over that again as soon as we're looking at window graphics. Starting with wall signs, this is a overhead view of the entire site. You can see here in the southeast corner that this is a main entrance and there's quite a few wall signs. We have another entrance just west of that at the southwest and as well as the northwest. The northeast entrance here does not have wall signage but it will feature other types of signs and we'll look at those in a minute. This sign here, this is on the east elevation. This is their main identifier sign. The thing about the TNCC zone district, because of its compact nature and walkability, it maxes out at 50 square feet for properties in that zone district and that's a challenge when you have an elevation that maybe is greater than 50 linear feet and that's because signs are one square foot to one linear foot in this zone district and so I'd like to show you what it would look like if This sign met the ordinance requirement, so this elevation is about 400 linear feet, and this sign would be a 400 square foot sign. What they're proposing is just over 2,000 square feet, but I'd like you to focus on the massing of the sign compared to the massing of the canopy structure. On the northwest corner of the property, this is one of the entrances. We have a wall sign. Again, 50 square feet is the maximum for the zone district, but they're proposing 225 square feet. And you can see how that relationship happens with the wall elevation and the entrance area. If this was measured as linear feet, it'd be about half this size. Both this sign as well as the other Amway Stadium sign are illuminated. I know there's been some discussion in the past about MDOT and traffic safety and so far that's not been a concern to either entity about relative to signage. We have a host of southwest, northwest entry signs. These meet the zone district requirements. We can go back to these if you'd like to discuss them further. They're intended to be used as wayfinding for the entrances. We also have two suspended wall signs from the canopy at the southeast entrance. Both of these identify a sponsor and then as well as separating entry one from entry two as patrons are coming into the stadium. So if you can see in the bottom right corner, the location here right by the gates and then hanging from the canopy here and we'll get into some more renderings in a moment to give you the full feel. Another wall sign being proposed communicates the emergency and vehicle entry and delivery area. This is over in the northeast corner of the development and same with truck dock and trash. So normally without a sponsor name if it was just truck dock and trash it could potentially be an incidental sign however the ordinance limits those kinds of signs to two square feet and so we're over the two square feet we've got a little more design elements to it and so I'd like you to consider the appropriateness of these signs Similarly, staff entry ordinarily would be an incidental sign, but we're a little bit bigger than two square feet, and really that's the only thing of note for this. This would be appropriate for the zone district as a wall sign. got a few more wall signs to go through so this one is by the administrative offices this is the east building obviously on the this is the south elevation viewpoint it's intended to direct obviously the administrative staff to that building I don't believe it's a building for patrons or customers to go into So that'll help the intent is to clarify that. But just adjacent to that, we have a beer garden area and a sign is proposed for that. And the sign area is 96 square feet. So we're almost double what would typically be allowed. The font that's shown in the image here is a little bit, you know, is smaller than what the request is, so try to focus on the massing of the sign and the placement of the sign rather than the content. Similarly, we have a team store entrance. We have a wall sign identifying the landing at the northwest entrance. And then we have three groups of signs. So we've got donor name above club entry, sponsor name above team store, and sponsor name above restaurant name. And for each of these, the sponsor name portion signage is proposed, well, for this specific example, at about 65 square feet. Whereas these other two, we have a 72 square foot and then a 66. And what's important to consider about these three groupings of signs is that the stadium location, such as team store, club entry, is quite smaller than the requested area for the donor or sponsor. And so there may need to be some discussion about the appropriateness of that. We don't have renderings that reflect the actual size being requested, but you as a planning commission have authority to discuss the overall dimensions. And so if 72 square feet seems too large, you have the authority to reduce it as you see appropriate, and staff can support you with what our typical requirements are for the zone district. We have a box office sign. This one is larger than the zone district, which needs your consideration. And that includes a sponsor name and is intended to direct people to the box office. And 2024 is part of the special land use. Some of you were on planning commission and approved a multimedia sign. And that sign faces internal to the stadium itself, but the request today would be to have wall signage on the backside of that scoreboard. The image that we're looking at here, the proposed sign area is this pink box, which is 70 by 20, so that's 1,400 square feet. whereas the illustration is showing something that's maybe half that size and so if we considered what it would look like for the full dimensions to be maximized you would be looking at something that more is like this both This sign as well as the next, which is to identify the sponsor name of the scoreboard, are illuminated. I'm sorry, this one is not illuminated, this one is illuminated. This is to recognize the sponsor for the scoreboard itself. Wanted to show you some renderings. Again, this would be the administrative office sign. This was the beer garden sign. We have our staff entry sign, a box office sign. Again, for those wall signs, remember that this rendering is showing a more balanced difference between the locational signage and the sponsor signage, whereas the request is about double of the sponsor name signage. Again, here with the restaurant and the sponsor. We'll get into the window graphics in a moment. Again, just showing you the various wall signs and renderings. And here's the back of the scoreboard. Again, the full sign area being requested is quite larger than the rendering that we're looking at here. This is walking south down Summer. Maybe people are coming from Bridge Street and they're approaching the stadium. This is what that vantage point would look like. And if you're ready, we'll now go to banner signs. And so there's a handful of banner signs, about 18 of them. We have some that are attached to fencing that double as screening. And we have quite a few that are attached to light poles. And all of these light poles are private property light poles. They range from 20 to 30 feet in height. And, you know, the intent is to kind of liven up the space a little bit and complementing a sporting event or a large gathering event while also screening some of the less attractive areas of the development like a truck dock or a loading area. But what's really cool is right at the front entrance of, you know, this is the southeast corner of the development, we have a 990 square foot banner. This will drape down from the canopy over those two suspended signs under the canopy. Typically, with banners, we can kind of approach them two ways. We have temporary banners that people use, you know, for periodic events. Those are small-scale. Usually, one to two are permitted. But then, we also have permanent banners that are allowed. And those banners would be similar to ones that you see at the Children's Museum on Fulton Street or the Civic Theater. And so they're usually perpendicular to the building and are limited at 40 square feet combined. And so this is unique in that it's suspended from the canopy and is almost 1,000 square feet. And I'll let the applicant get into their intentions relative to how often this canopy or this banner would be installed. Getting into some of those screening fence banners, that's not the full intention of these, but it does support that. We've got in the southeast entry, some along the sidewalks here, this is Mount Vernon, and then some that are screening the YMCA parking area. We also have those by the truck loading docks I was speaking about and then we have a few that are I'll call them accent banners that are sprinkled throughout and so we have some on an ADA ramp as well as on an elevation near the northwest entry and for the light poles the intent would be to have two banner structures attached to the light pole and Each banner would be 10 square feet. We don't regulate content, but in theory, with two banners that are double-sided, it's four total signs. But we're going to have you evaluate these as just two banner signs. And again, those are located kind of throughout the stadium, but mostly at the northeast and southeast entrances. Here's some renderings to kind of communicate the vibrancy and energy that they're going for. This is looking at the southeast entrance. You can see the light poles have multiple light fixtures on them, and then the intention would be to have the banner provide enough ground clearance as appropriate, but also to provide some visibility from a little further away. This is an example of screening that loading area. And then next, we'll get into window signage. And the window signage proposed at this location is only on the west elevation. This is a good time for me to remind you that in 2024, some of you were on the planning commission and issued a condition of approval that the west elevation be more robust, more elevated relative to vibrancy, placemaking, and streetscape design. And so as we look through these window graphics, as well as the wall signs on the west elevation, I'd like you to think about if that meets the intent of that condition of approval. We want to be mindful that we don't get into building materials or landscaping, things like that. We'll just focus on the signage and the relationship that it serves. Before we get into that, I want to talk a little bit about our requirements. And so in the city of Grand Rapids, for window signage, we allow 25% of the total window area to be covered. And so if you look at this geometric pattern example here, if all of these windows is one area, this is showing that 30% or so is occupied within that window. What's unique about this proposal, if you look at the bottom image along this page, this is most of the west elevation. You'll notice that we have 100% coverage on the admin, restaurant, and club windows, as well as spandrel glass on the other portions of glass. effectively most of that West elevation is covered in some nature and when you look at it more closely in in mixed-use commercial zone districts, especially our requirement is that the two foot to eight foot range of that wall be completely transparent and what we're looking at today is the applicant is requesting an opacity of 25 of 25 to 75 percent and are you know there's sort of convoluting the requirement intent with the definition of transparency so again you're looking at the coverage area And then you have the liberty to discuss the opacity of the signs relative to visibility. So kind of two things are happening at once. We have a building requirement about keeping the two to eight foot area clear. And then we also have transparency issues relative to the sign ordinance because a lot of these windows are covered. Again, looking at some renderings here, you can see some examples of the window signage, club entry, team store. For the team store, it's about the top 50% or so was covered. And then we'll get into ground signs lastly. So there's five ground signs proposed. We've got one at a main gate entry on the northeast side, and then the rest are gonna be in our southeast main entrance corridor. And as we look through those, I'd like you to look at the massing of them, the character of them, and whether they speak to the vibrancy of the rest of the signs that are proposed. And so for this main sign, this is at the corner of Pearl Street and Mount Vernon Avenue. We've got a five foot three sign that's about 80 square feet and going back to how we define a traditional neighborhood, right? Compact, walkable. Our requirements are that ground signs are 18 square feet. and four feet set back from the sidewalk. And so this is quite larger than that, but it's also set back quite further than what is required. This sign also uniquely is on a man-made berm. When we think about sign height requirements, artificial berms are not part of the overall height measurement. Sometimes with fencing or retaining walls, we'll look at the average grade change and measure from grade to the top of the sign. Well, for this, you're just looking at base of sign to top. We've got some donor entry signs at the southeast as well as the northeast entrances. For our southeast, I'd like you to discuss the appropriateness of the chosen location for this. It is right in front of Gates that that all open. I don't know if you can tell from this image. We'll look at some renderings. But just thinking about a lot of patrons coming in or out of the stadium and if that placement makes sense for what they're trying to communicate. For the northeast, this one uniquely is 57 feet set back from the sidewalk. And so you'll want to think about the relationship between the street and pedestrian visibility versus somebody that is trying to meet someone at this location and how those would be different circumstances and would be different levels of appropriateness. We've got some of these accent ground signs, one for the plaza and one for the Great Lawn. These really just identify public areas. This southeast corner of the development will be open to the public on non-game days. And so the intent is to kind of liven it up by identifying what portion of that area is the Great Lawn and then what portion of the area is the plaza. Again, here's that berm I was speaking about. This does not factor into the overall height of the sign. And the other ground signs that are proposed, one is right where my cursor is here, and another is proposed over here. And with that, that is the 46 signs that are proposed today for a planned sign program. Again, your key considerations are going to be the appropriateness of all the signs and the character of them, of course, but also the relationship between the sponsor and donor, sign area compared to the locational sign, right? So team store versus sponsor or restaurant versus sponsor. As well as the proposed setback distances and placement of the ground signs, the banners, you know, the number of banners and the placement of the banners, if those are appropriate, and then the west elevation in its entirety and whether or not it meets the intent of your condition of approval, as well as the appropriateness of window coverage that's proposed. Thanks.

Thank you, Sarah. Any questions from commissioners or Sarah?

Sarah, so the one elevation where you've got sponsor names on one material and then a location name underneath it and a completely different material?

So they're both cannel letters. In this rendering, I feel like you can see it best. The restaurant, club, store, those are suspended from the wall. on this raceway is what it's called. It's suspended whereas the channel letters for the sponsor is directly attached to the wall. But they're the same type of sign, they're just attached differently.

When I look at it I see the restaurant name seems to be recessed underneath that. Is that correct? They're not like a level?

Yeah, I don't believe they're flush with the edge of the building.

They could be construed as being an advertising wall and then other things underneath it if they're not really part of the same sign. Sure.

Sarah, on some of these signs that the requested sign area far exceeds the illustration that were provided, has the applicant provided any reasoning behind that?

No, no. And I can, you know, they'll speak to why they chose to display it that way, but also, you know, you have the authority to discuss and determine if the sign area should be reduced or increased, and that goes for any of the signs proposed.

Great. Thank you. Another question for you. The west elevation where there's different types of glass... Mm-hmm. Is there the glass that's not transparent? What's the reason for that?

We have some of the west elevation has spandrel glass, which provides little to no transparency. For what reason?

I'd probably defer to the applicant to address the intent of what they're trying to achieve on that.

All right.

Any other questions for Sarah? All right, we'll have the applicant.

for the presentation. My name is Courtney Vallier. I'm with Progressive on behalf of the owner. With me, I've got Wade from Valley City Signs, TJ, part of the Zoys Creative Design team that has helped put together the package, and then lead architect and designer from Progressive, Robert Ferguson. I'm going to defer to Robert. I think maybe we could start diving into the west elevation and have him come up to kind of give the overall vision and how all of these components fit in between window graphics, sponsor signage, and then the amenity signage.

Thank you, Courtney. Good afternoon, commissioners. Stadiums are unique, especially in their design, where they're relatively internally focused as far as the spaces that the occupants in the building are going to be viewing or spending their time. In an Amway Stadium, we've got the internal side of this west building lined with suites and club spaces from the restaurant that allow people who are inside to see the activity that's happening inside the stadium and inside the bowl. On the outside of that, which is our west winter facade, we have a series of spaces that support that activity. From south to north, we've got the team store. Then we have a mechanical services room, toilet rooms, the club entry, the restaurant, the kitchen that supports the entire facility, and then offices on the north end. So some of those spaces, many of them are light-seeking, and we have glass that's visual clear glass from about eight inches above the floor to 12 feet above the floor. In areas like restrooms, a commercial kitchen, mechanical rooms where gas meters are coming in and are actually on the building, we've just screened the gas meter so you don't see it. Those aren't light-seeking spaces. And so that's where we have used spandor glass in the same window framing system that the vision glass is in to break up the mass of the facade, but to not have views into restrooms or a commercial kitchen or a meter room. That's how the facade is sort of played out relative to the promogramming of the building.

Can you speak to the effect of the window graphics between, especially I think between that two and eight feet and what can be expected? Because there was a lot of discussion at the permit review stage about that facade and kind of some push and pull about what could be spandrel, what could be clear glazing. And I think the intent was so that we could see into those spaces where it was appropriate to be able to see into the spaces. So can you talk a little bit about the effect of that 25% pattern and what would be anticipated for that area?

Sure, sure. What's rendered now is a concept around a light screening of direct clear view into office workspaces or directly onto dining spaces along the west facade and the opportunity to express the brand of the stadium, express the excitement of what's happening relative to having a team represented in this public facility along that way. Still allowing some views and daylight in but maybe just a slightly veiled screening of that.

So in an overly simplistic way, the gold dots of course would be opaque, and then the area around the dots, which is probably the 75% of that pattern, would be clear. I can see into the restaurant, for example, that's correct?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. So I think what Sarah was alluding to is typically when we have that 25% rule of the sign, we have a poster, for example, in a sign that takes up no more than 25% of that area. In this case, not dissimilar to some conversations I had with DeVos Hall, rather than having a single unified poster board sign, the graphics take up a larger amount of that square footage but in this case still amounting to no more than 25% of the visual obstruction, if you will, of that between two and eight feet. Would you agree with that statement?

Yeah, it's not about trying to block one particular area, but allow transparency and views across the lake.

Have that consistent identification and branding. Yep.

Okay. Mm-hmm.

So practically speaking, if someone's walking by here, are they going to be able to see in or is it going to be more along the lines of like a bus ad covering where you don't see into the windows but you can see out from the windows?

The intent is to not be distracted necessarily but to be able to, yes, you'll have a sense of what's going on inside. Especially as you move by, the eye sort of fills in the stuff that's maybe obscured by a 25% coverage.

Okay, thank you.

I believe you had mentioned, if you can go back to the previous slide, yeah, is there any glass on this facade? You mentioned when you first, nope, this one, that between eight inches and 12 feet there was some clear glass. I'm not seeing any clear glass here. It's all obscured by graphics or spandrel, yes?

The glass itself is clear from inches up.

Sure, but your proposal is to have graphics on all of the clear glass.

Potentially, yep. Okay. Again, this is sort of like a maximized approach.

But only the dots are the opaque piece. Correct. The area around the dots are still clear and you can see into and through. Yep.

Is there a reason that you don't have the graphics on the spandrel glass? Just for consistency of design across the facade? I know that it's not actually blocking light or anything like it would be on the clear glass, but it feels a little disjointed.

The graphic intent here is to draw the eye to the places where people will be going, or to make a connection. So where it's at the offices on the north end, you may be going to the offices and you see that there's people inside of there, right? Relative to safety as a pedestrian, it's nice to be able to connect it with where people are within there. At the restaurant, it's a similar sort of thing. So the graphics are intended to capture the eye, and draw you into those spaces, which is where you then get to engage with the activity that's happening, either just passing by or to see in.

Yeah, just thinking back to the original approval and our desire to see design elements that would activate this elevation more, especially where there is that spandrel glass. I think it would be appropriate to try to find ways to either include graphics there or some visual elements to help liven that space up so that it's not just blank glass.

Any other, I guess, it's a big case. So maybe at this west elevation, any other further questions for the applicant on this? Clarity needed? Okay, I might move to the ground sign. I don't know specifically the kind of that main entrance sign that's up on that artificial berm. This is, yeah. It appears that this is rendered in multiple different ways. And I don't understand the rendering here in the lower right shows a berm that is significantly wider than what it actually is in the plan view, it appears. I'm not certain why the discrepancy, and I think that happens in multiple times here in the presentation, why are there discrepancies in how things are rendered versus how they're planned?

The design team is in the middle of working with Zoya's to establish the final look and feel, and this is the current state of what that is. There are some adjustments that we're making relative to what's maybe in a conceptual rendering to what's being constructed. To clarify this particular location, what is drawn on the plan, the narrower entryway, is what's going to be constructed and allow for a greater movement of people back and forth. But the scale of the sign remains the same. Yeah, so in this case... So it would be on a berm, it would just be narrower than what's in the colored rendering.

And I'm trying to get a feel for how tall this is, right? Because it's 5'3", and it's nice to have a little person there, but that person is standing on top of the berm. It appears that the width of the green space there is... If the sign is 15-4, it's about 20 feet. So how vertical do you anticipate, how much lift do you anticipate the base of that sign being above the sidewalk directly in front of it?

The current grading shows it 12 inches above the adjacent plaza.

Okay.

So overall 5'3", but the top of the A would be at 6'3".

Gotcha, okay. So that's, yeah, I just was noticing, because in the rendering, and I think there's a larger version of it, and it appears that that berm is maybe, yeah, waist high, four feet high or something, but you're saying it's probably 12 inches.

Yes.

Okay.

We've moved it forward and lowered it. Okay.

Any other questions about ground signs, maybe, focus on that? All right, anything else, I guess, for the applicant before we open public hearing?

Yeah, I wanted some clarification on some of the signs where the proposed area for the sign is much larger than what's rendered. Sure. Can you elaborate on some of the logic there? Sure. Yeah.

So for instance here where we have sponsor name, the owner is actively seeking to find out who that sponsor is going to be. And whether it be a longer name or a shorter name, we've got sort of maybe a medium length word for sponsor and name. So without having the final selected The recommendation from the design team is just to give a little bit of margin to be able to do that without having to say no to a potential sponsor. Sure. Yeah, good question. So this Amway Stadium, as it's rendered here, is the brand of the stadium. It's a logo that's part of the brand, and that brand has standards relative to what we'll call negative space around it. So the height and size of the sign as it's rendered allows for the negative space that the sign is applied to to uphold that brand standard. But there may be in the future a different sign that goes into place and would be of a different proportion. So this again is sort of anticipating maybe future change to then allow for that change to happen without having to address a plan sign program application again.

So is the expectation that this is the design that's going to be installed now or that's not figured out yet?

This is what we're showing is what will most likely go in initially.

Okay.

But I can't say that that's been 100% established.

Sure.

Thus the desire to have some margin to work within in the future if need be.

Thank you.

What is that margin approximately? Does it vary by sign or is it generally, I'm not sure sir, is it 50% of the...

The margin here is really just the 70 by 20 which would, from a visual perspective, not wanting to see edge to edge, top to bottom, it all be a sign.

Sorry, that's not the intent?

Correct. The pink area is what we're asking for from a lotted area.

And what is that, how much bigger is that pink area compared to the area that you were initially proposing? Is it 50% greater?

So the dimension we need to know is the width of the Amway slash as it's drawn right now.

I believe in our application we're saying in these areas of the facility we want to be able to put signage here. And in many cases we're able to represent what we think it is going to be day one relative to the planned sign program, the ability and flexibility over time to change things out. We're applying for the area that's shown in pink here. Sure.

Yeah, I understand the desire for flexibility, but we are also contemplating the scale relative to what is going to be built. And to me, this looks like the proposed sign, especially in the rendering, that looks appropriate. But it may not be appropriate if it's just a stretched, if you're filling the whole pink area, it may suddenly not be appropriate. And so I think for us, it's helpful to try to gather exactly what you're proposing. And for better or worse, the nature of a planned sign program is sometimes you have to come back and get an amendment. So I think that's what we're trying to pinpoint here is How big is that as it's drawn? Because that feels appropriate.

It's probably, I'm going to guess to give you at least a starting answer, obviously 20 feet tall, because we can see that top to bottom, maybe somewhere in the range of 40 feet wide. The proportions obviously don't change when you're dealing with a logo, which is what this is. Is that helpful?

Yeah, go ahead.

Can I move on from this? I'm curious about some of the banners and how those will be used and how often they'll be hung and for what durations, that type of thing. Sure.

Do you mean the non-light pole banners?

Yeah, the non-light pole banners. The bigger ones? Yeah.

Sure. So a banner like this would be what I might call seasonal or tied to the activity that's going on inside of it. Not dissimilar to how Van Andel Arena in its big glass curtain wall receives graphics for either the Rise or the Gold or the Griffins. It's during their season or they're doing a championship run. We expect championship runs here too or the celebration of a player. and recognition, so it's banners that are tied specifically to functions that are happening there are probably put up relative to the season of that activity and would be switched out depending on what's going on. There may be special occasions too if it's tied to a particular community event, community-wide event, and we want to welcome that here, like World of Winter could be something where that banner gets changed out from a seasonal perspective.

I can add one more detail to that. Sorry, Robert. She stepped up sooner. So we are asking for the proposal is a year-round banner that will be switched out, which is different than the current ordinance of 30 days, three times per year. Like Robert mentioned, we anticipate activity that's happening here being a sporting venue extends past the 30-day period.

Some of the renderings, especially with the fence affixed banners, appears that there is like some transparency. Is that the intention or would these be like a solid vinyl type?

Nope. Transparency is definitely the intention, both from a wind load standpoint and especially at the plazas. The top images of the truck loading dock, like Sarah had mentioned, those might have a little bit more opacity, still need that transparency for wind load. But we don't want to block the plaza. Its intent is to be inviting both on event and non-event days, like the bottom rendering there.

Would the banners hung from the building or the structure, would those be different or similar in their opacity?

Yep, same opacity, especially on the facade. So don't want to really, the intent is to compliment the facade, not block it, especially with the fins there. And then the construction would be more robust. So definitely a more robust material, cable system, engineered points on that facade.

The banners on the fencing, if we could go back to that, this... This area is sort of the, this is the area that's going to be open outside of event times to the public, correct? Which we're calling the Great Lawn, so to speak. Yeah, tell me about, I mean, I understand, I guess, it feels as though that starts to shut that area off and close it up. And I sort of understand that around truck docks, not so much in this spot.

So again, I can feel free to add. The intent is really the excitement, the activity, the event that's happening, whether it's an event day or non-event day. Adding, you know, the plaza is pretty straightforward other than the monument sign. There's not a lot of architectural elements, if you will, that brand that space. So bringing more energy, excitement, interest into that space of what this venue is in sporting entertainment settings.

Thank you. Are we okay if we move on?

One last. So the renderings you have in this packet, how accurate are they at this point? You said you're in constant flux, right? But how accurate as far as what we're seeing?

I would say the type of sign, its location, the boundary is 100%. The final graphics of what goes in there is being pulled together You know depending on who the sponsor or donor may be now initially and in the future But this represents our current state as of today understanding of what signage might look like And you have a nine month maximum on some of the flexible signs that will change.

What's the minimum I?

We don't have a minimum in our proposal. We have the nine-month maximum.

So you could literally change them every day if you wanted to?

That's what we're proposing, but that certainly would not be the intent in the investment of the banner signage and the activity that happens here. Again, seasonal team or community event that would be advertised well in advance, much like the precedence of Van Andel.

And the south, east, how does the size of that one compare to the one on the other side of the stadium where there are three side by side?

So the south, the draping banner on the facade or on the fencing?

Not the fence, it's... Can you go back to that image that has the three? I think it's the west. It's overhead. It's not on the fencing. It's there.

This one here. Yep. So this is a larger 30 by 33 feet on that front entry Plaza. Up above, you can kind of see if we're looking beyond the Amway Stadium monument sign, it's elevated up above on the bottom of that structure. And then, so the dimensions there, the 33 feet, the 33 feet would start on the structure and go up.

I guess maybe this is Commissioner Helms' question. On the lower right corner here, you have three banners side by side, and that looks like it's not a square, which is essentially what your 30 by 33 is. What is that rendering indicating?

Thank you for clarifying. So like the other signage that we have represented in the package of the max size, that precedent image is representing that in a space of 30 by 33 feet, we might have three banners or two banners, but the maximum banners area altogether would be the 30 by 33 feet.

Maybe just to clarify, that picture with three signs is not, it's an example, not necessarily a rendering of?

Correct. Got it, okay. Yep, the two reference images of the player, yep. To the left with the AC Grand Rapids, that's the representative area on the facade above the entry.

Some of this might have been prompted by city staff as well, you know, I'm not sure our traditional ordinances are set up for facilities like an amphitheater or a soccer stadium. And so we have, I think, pushed in this case Progressive to be pretty illustrative. So that way when city staff is reviewing different ideas that might come through based on the season or the event, that we kind of have a little bit of flexibility understanding what the Planning Commission might have been comfortable with. Where if we show one image, then for us it's a little bit of guesswork as city staff to understand whether that would maybe materially impair your decision by having it as three separate banners instead of one. And so providing you with these references shows the types of signs that could be considered by city staff when we're reviewing individual permits but not to exceed the total square footage that's being proposed. So plan sign programs can be inherently challenging in that they are pretty specific, which is a good thing in general, but also we want to make sure that we have a little bit of flexibility within to be reasonably applying the intent of your decision.

All right, I think I get it now. So the one with the three images, you're literally standing on the other side of the berm then.

Correct. Yep.

I was trying to imagine where on the building that, where on the stadium that is because it didn't look like what we were looking at the other images.

Nope, nope, that's a precedent image.

All right, I get it now. Yep.

All right. Well, I don't appreciate your presentation. Why don't you guys take a seat? We'll open the public hearing. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. So we will open the public hearing now for this case. If you are here to speak to this case, if you could come up and approach the mic, give us your name and keep your comments to three minutes, please.

Nobody jumping up.

All right. Then we will close the public hearing. And time for discussion.

I think the scoreboard sign kind of, you know, the maxed out space one just kind of looks gross. I'd prefer to just crop that to what they're presenting, which looks good. And if they want to you know, come back. If they sell the stadium to somebody with a longer name, then they'll just have to ask for more space. We can evaluate how it looks at that time, but that's my first, you know, swag at that one.

Yeah, I think I agree with Commissioner Helm on that. Um, think I understand the trying to plan for future changes but also starts to feel a little bit like trying to short circuit the process of coming back and asking for an amendment yeah I think if we wanted to allow some flexibility instead of approving a box we could approve a square footage apart from the box so then there's some adjustment in that

the design of whoever wants to advertise on that.

Yeah, typically when we look at a square footage, we wouldn't necessarily limit it to a 50 by 20 as much as whatever the total square footage of that is within reason. So the sign could get a little skinnier and a little longer than what the box, if you will, would be showing around the Amway sign shown on the image. So we try not to be too restrictive in how we apply the...

Just a point of clarification in a sign in a sign like this is the square footage calculated by just the area that the letters occupy or is it the entire dimension of the box?

Yeah, so for the example that we're looking at here with the Amway Stadium, we would measure the gap between stadium and Amway. And typically, we do a six-sided box when we have an irregular shape, right? Like there's different polygons that are in this. Yeah, and then I wanted to circle back to Kristen's point that some companies, sponsors, whatever, have circular shapes or triangles, right? And so try to focus more on the massing compared to what it's attached to, and when you're walking up to the stadium, what you're looking at, rather than this is a 70 by 20 rectangle. As staff, when we talk about amendments to a planned sign program, there are three things that I have authority to do. And that's move a sign five feet from your approval, change the landscaping, and one other minor one that I'm forgetting. But the intent there is I, as staff, don't have a lot of flexibility once you approve something in a planned sign program. So I just wanted you to be aware of what exact authority staff has with this.

So I appreciate that clarification, Sarah. So in the future, the name of the stadium was changed. Is that something you can approve at staff level? Is that something that they'd have to come back?

Yeah, that's considered a reface. As long as we're in the same square footage, same placement, same landscaping, we don't look at content. Got it.

So if we prescribed a certain square footage area, they could presumably change the sign as long as it...

It's within that 100 square feet or that dimension.

It's like the banners. They can change the content on those banners. We're approving the size.

I think I like that using that same logic with the sponsor signs on the west elevation. It just seems like What's being asked for, those sponsor signs, could overwhelm the wayfinding signs for the restaurant and the club and things like that, which, I don't know, personal opinion just doesn't feel right.

Yeah, I would agree in this facade in particular that because of the disconnect between the sponsor name and the entry sign, or in the case of the restaurant, you could have a sponsor name and a branded restaurant right on top of each other. And then to me, honestly, the sponsor name on the facade of the building just feels like an extra billboard that we've added to the project. Right. It doesn't feel like it's part of the branding of the entrance in some of the other instances that we saw where you have a gate that has a brand and that we recently approved at the amphitheater.

Can I address some of the transparency?

Yeah, absolutely.

Okay, I think, you know, I'm concerned about two things. I, first off, really like kind of those pole banners, their placement, the symmetry, the excitement, and I like the big banners on top because if you think about when you get here, you're like, you know, let's go, you know, you're rooting for your team, you're walking through the space and you know you're going. I think that the transparency or the lack of transparency on the windows and some of the banners on the fences do exactly the opposite of what the applicant is applying because the excitement of a game comes in the people and the interactions, even if you don't know somebody and they're eating and you're wearing the same jerseys and your team just won and you're looking through the window and you're like, like to me, sorry for getting excited. That takes away from what this is. And, and I think that it's a fundamental flaw that I don't want to approve. Um, especially the transparency on the windows. I think that the fencing there may be, um, some wiggle room, I may be wrong on that. But I do think it takes away from the vibrancy in what a stadium and a team and, you know, this is our city's team. And we want people to get passionate about that, and that's how you build those relationships. You don't want to miss somebody you went to high school with that you haven't seen in 10 years that's there because you can't see through the window. They don't need to eat privately at a stadium. That's my feelings. I'm off my soapbox.

I agree with your line of reasoning there, Commissioner Hendrick. I think I may be a little less concerned about the transparency in the windows now that it's kind of been explained, but I do think the banners on the fences, particularly near the plaza and the lawn, don't really promote connectivity and... a feeling of, you know, including the surrounding area. That's just my thoughts on that.

I don't have concerns with the glass, per se. Like, understanding, I think that the renderings, the examples that are shown aren't, I'm sorry, not the renderings, the other references aren't a great representation of what they're actually proposing. These look a lot more dense, opaque. If this is what is being installed, then I don't think that it meets what you've actually discussed with the light, the window treatments with the gold dots and things. And I understand that that can change the design on the windows can change. But that feels a lot more dominant than what you're actually proposing with the 25% coverage. So I'm not as concerned about that. Again, my concern is just how the continuity along the facade is broken up with the spandrel glass, which generally I would

would get dressed up somehow because there's no activity like there is there's no connection to the pedestrian other than it being a glass material but I think you made a good point too about some of those signs that we do have the image of could be put on the spandrel glass and then they still get that the excitement that they're looking for with you know opaque windows and in spaces where they're going to have covered windows anyway.

I might want to hear from the architect, though. I'm not sure putting that dot pattern on clear glazing is going to even look the same as putting that dot pattern graphic on spandrel glass. I'd be worried that that would add an additional layer I guess I'm not convinced that it would work the way you're describing it because of the nature of the glazing being opaque versus transparent. So I don't, sorry to put you on the spot there, but.

No, it's fine. That's what I'm here for.

and maybe not as noticeable for you to see. And thus the resolution of the excitement of what you're seeing there changes.

I also believe that the streetscape plan was developed to complement the facade articulation. I don't think I can find that quickly, but I feel like this image might be a bit of a disservice to the totality of what's happening. And I say that because I feel like there was a lot of conversations we had with Progressive to talk about how we might implement the special land use condition that the Planning Commission added specific to this street elevation and that included a conversation about lighting and landscaping. So I would just keep that in mind that I feel like this image that we're seeing on the screen is a little stark because it's not including the streetscape elements that were very intentionally designed to try to further that condition of approval. So that's a little outside of signage, but I just wanted to comment on that for you.

Do you remember what any of those elements are? Are they like benches?

It was largely landscaping as well as lighting, street lighting.

Okay.

I just don't know that I can pull the plan up quick enough to be helpful in this moment.

Do you ever know the opacity of the fence signage around the great lawn? In the renderings, it kind of looks like you can see through it a little bit instead of completely blocking it off. I don't know if wind factor is a consideration for that type of fencing, but what is the opacity of that? Certainly not like 75% visibility like what you're putting on the glass, but is there a way to adjust that opacity?

Sure. If I may invite our signage contractor, Valley City Sign, a representative to speak to what they typically do in those kinds of banner signs. I think we do have an example here as well. But for wind loading and visual connectivity, the intent is not for it to be 100% opaque. There is transparency there, and that can vary. Do you want to speak to percentage in the materials?

Wade Homa with Valley City Sign. This is just a representation so you can kind of get an idea of like if somebody is behind this screen what that opacity is in visibility yet of the graphics on the face this can be adjusted. There are many different materials to work with for different applications and so there's a lot of flexibility in that.

Do you have a sense of what percent over this?

This would be on the higher end, I think, in terms of actual blocking versus visibility. Very different than the window graphics. So hopefully that's helpful. Higher end meaning less? Yes, it's more opaque. There's more solids in this screen. So depending on the parameters that you would like to see, we could source and find coverings that match our target opacity.

Do we have, is it spelled out what type of, how much of an opacity is in what we approve? Because like if that is super flexible, I don't want them to like, be at 95%?

Yeah, so it's kind of a challenge because Article 2 with building transparency talks about the VLT, the glazing, whereas the sign ordinance just talks about the 25%, you know, you can't cover more than 25%. It doesn't get into opacity. And so that's one thing to think about too with these is, you know, the area coverage, you could specify as a condition of approval that it's a certain opacity or a certain transparency percentage.

Does the application state a specific opacity within? It does not. It does not. And can you restate what that example sample was? Did you say that? I'm sorry can you come up to the microphone and I'm not sure I restate that but I'm not sure I understood what you just said.

This is on the higher end so between like 60 and 80 percent is the example we have here today.

Okay and so is that sample that you have here today reflective of what you planned to install?

Yeah, we didn't really specify an opacity, but this would be an option right now. I mean, according to our application, it could be 100% at this point. That's not the intent and that hasn't been specified.

And I think what you're hearing here is the banners that are installed on the fencing, perhaps at the perimeter of the great lawn and the beer garden, thank you. Having an opacity specified is probably what I'm hearing. If a banner's allowed, having a opacity specified is necessary.

So no more than 80% this LUTs visual, you know, we can see through it, but not, our intent would not be 100%, certainly.

Yeah, I'm just thinking about it also from a safety and security standpoint, if that's a public space, and being able to see in from the street. And just for people who are in there as well, I don't really, I like the idea of adding excitement and visibility, but I just, yeah, I think about it from a safety and security standpoint as well. So I would want to err on the side of a lower opacity than probably 80%. Yeah, I

I don't know. I think personally, I don't like the fence banner signs around the lawn and beer garden at all. I just don't think that they promote connectivity. To me, I don't see how those promote vibrancy. And I'll just be honest and not being critical, but I kind of feel like you're in a construction zone.

Yeah, I would agree. The idea of the fence banners there, I would say, my opinion would be leave them out, and if you want to apply for a temporary banner for an event, you do that in that whole southeast corner where there's public access. I'm not as concerned where it's blocking off outdoor storage and truck loading docks and things like that, but I agree. Banners on fences indicate temporary conditions with something going on behind it that we don't want you to see. And that's not what I'm hearing here.

And it sounds like what I'm hearing is the perimeter fencing, perhaps the internal fencing of those spaces might be okay. Did I hear that correctly? Because it looks like there is a banner hung on the fence separating the Great Lawn from the parking of the YMCA.

my opinion holds for that entire corner of the development which is again just me I'm not making the motion but I think that if you're activating space if there's something interior to that that we want activated and to feel like a public and welcoming space that there's not a wall essentially separating it from the other public spaces I think with the right level of transparency I'm okay with it but I'm

hear that I'm probably in the minority on that. I just wanted to say.

Without seeing a fence sign that's maybe only 25% opacity, similar to the window that allows full visibility into the space, full, hey, look at all those people having fun on the gray lawn, instantly seeing what's in there. Hey, I want to get in there. Without seeing that example, it's hard to say, oh yeah, I'm okay with the fencing. I'd rather... see it open and like I want to be on the other side of the fence, I want to be in that beer garden or I want to be in the great lawn because you'll see it. If a 25 to 50% opacity sign allows that to happen then I could get on board with the sign but I would lean towards not wanting the sign if it doesn't.

I think for me the three things as an overall are the fence banners as we've been discussing, the rear of the scoreboard, trying to limit that size to, I don't know, what appears to be about 50% of the scoreboard area, and then those west elevation signs that are disconnected from the item they're supposed to be sponsoring, and I'm not sure how you have a a Fifth Third Bank Chili's restaurant sponsored situation. My feeling is those get combined more like the other sort of sponsorship named event box office entry type signage rather than disconnected in this way. Those would be my comments.

To go back to the banners real quick, the way I... think about it is most of this signage is not meant for the pedestrian on the street you know the the stadium identification sign on the scoreboard or on the east elevation like those aren't intended for people walking by whereas the fence banner signage again with appropriate transparency I think can bring the some of that action to the sidewalk. I think there's a place for that, especially at a sports venue. So that's my perspective. And, you know, Andrew, you pointed out that the banner signs on the poles, walking in on the sidewalk there, those are great. Like, I think it all contributes to the vibrancy of what this type of a venue is. But I think it's an opportunity to identify to people walking by or even driving by at this street level versus the highway to identify what's coming up, what's happening currently and that sort of thing and I think that that's part of creating some excitement around this type of a venue. I think it's different than almost every other building or venue in the city in that way.

Yeah, I think I've Where I'm struggling with it is it's just a complete sign on the entire fence, essentially. I mean, you know, it's hard to say from the renderings and the listed dimensions. And then we have a, you know, very large sign at ground level, essentially, right off to our left in this particular view. I would be okay with, yeah, something more temporary that rotated more often or something less... less complete of that entire, I mean, they, we could have just had them put a concrete wall up and then paint that wall. Right. And allow that to be the sign. That's what it feels like we're doing here with that fence.

Yeah. I, I, I see what you're saying, uh, commissioner van stream. Um, and to some extent I agree, but I, I just think it's, that could be accomplished with, you know, maybe, one or two panels of the fence versus the entire fence being covered by screening.

And maybe the solution or the compromise is that in place of those fence banners, we consider allowing additional pole banners. I know there would be some additional design, but again, then you'd bring it up over people's heads. They can still see the people around them. You've got a little bit of action coming on each side. And it gives them the opportunity to build that excitement and continue that cemetery as you enter from either direction into that Southeast corner. I still don't, I don't know how that big ground sign fits into that pedestrian experience, but I think that maybe those like pull banners versus sign versus fence banners would create that experience. I don't even know if the applicant would like that. I see you shaking your head. It may be possible, but maybe that's a compromise.

So I think we're struggling with this for a number of reasons, because we're being asked to consider the size and scale proportions, how it relates to the building. We're being asked to understand transparency in terms that we've, I mean, I deal with this stuff all the time, and I can tell you right now, 60% transparency probably doesn't look like what you think it does. So I can't tell you what the right transparency number to solve for any of these things is without looking at samples and without figuring it out physically. So that creates a really interesting problem for us to solve. And I'm not sure what the best way to do it is. I think... Personally, the only concerns I really have are where people and pedestrians are interacting with the rest of the space. So I would say the fence and the banner on the fence, the graphics on the windows, and because of the size and scale of the building and the fact that People don't just get to show up and watch things for free. The places where this stadium interacts with the general public are relatively few. And I think by focusing on those areas and making sure that that interaction is allowed and happening, we'll make it a better development. So I don't have any major concerns around the size or scale of most of the signage. I do internally struggle a little bit with the idea that, I mean, obviously, everything that we're seeing in renderings, and I'm assuming that's going to be the case on the development, or on the stadium, is like, simple. like well curated signage because it looks good and we want it to be beautiful. But what we're approving is it could be as like most ridiculous block of colors you've ever seen in your life or advertisement. And so I struggle with that a little bit. But so my, where I'm currently standing is I don't, I don't see the signage along the fence as a pedestrian scale thing. I went to the pole mounted banners as well because those are much more pedestrian scaled signage element. If the poles don't exist, we're asking for infrastructure that may or may not exist and has costs associated with it. But I also don't know, as a pedestrian, if you're walking by this, in its location, if you're walking by this place, I don't know how much more you're gonna learn from those banners and practice. But I also don't run a venue like this, and I don't attend them very often, so I honestly don't know. So my opinion would be, I would rather not see it on the fence, or there's a very limited transparency requirement, which is either really easy to see through, like 25%, or it can't be a solid banner because it's a percentage of the total fence length, right? So then maybe you get some of the things you're talking about, and you can do sections of the fence on individual banners as long as it's not more than 25%. If you do a whole banner, we're talking about pretty significant transparency. I don't know if that's an option. I also am concerned about the window film. And I guess I have a question for staff. Can we talk about the intent between around the 70% VLT in the zoning ordinance and why we are asking for transparency in the first place?

Yes, but I want to go back to something that you just said. The zoning ordinance, the sign ordinance specifically, doesn't have requirements relative to fence signage. It's a prohibited sign type. So when we talk about the surface area coverage that only relates to window graphics. So what I'm getting at with that is as a staff person reviewing sign permits, If it's not assigned type that we administer, then I don't have a lot of flexibility. And so you would need to specify exactly what portions of fence are covered, and then we can get into the transparency requirements. Can you restate your question about transparency? What are you looking for?

Well, we're really uptight in the zoning ordinance about 70% VLT, which if you've ever looked at glass samples is almost impossible. And most of the time we don't get it. So like even 62 or 67% is usually what we run into with high performing glass that isn't too reflective. And so anyways, the zoning ordinance has always been like this is an extremely important thing. But now we're covering it with what is essentially frit. So we're taking away transparency. So I just want to understand the intent behind the glass transparency requirements and the 70% VLT requirement because I think that that matters in the discussion around whether or not requiring very clear glazing and then covering up 25% of it with dots is appropriate.

So the 70% was established in 2008. Understand that there was different energy codes in place and so there was a different, different products were available and The intent behind that percentage was for it to be non-reflective, clear, so that you could see into the facility. So there was crime prevention strategies as well as public health strategies behind the idea that me being able to see in and know that I can be seen and me being able to see out before I leave a business was intended to promote a more walkable, safe urban area. Since 2008, we have had several conversations with architects, with glass companies about that 70% requirement, and we are aware it is challenging today. compared to the feedback we received back in 2008. We have an administrative departure and as a policy we have consistently allowed for a lesser percentage closer to that 60% number consistently. And that will be part of the update with the zoning ordinance is to match the actual code with the practice of how we administer. So admittedly, we're using a departure as a stop gap because we can and we do and apply it consistently. The decision whether or not the FRIT to block or limit the opacity an additional 25% with what is currently reflected with, I probably shouldn't use that word, currently shown in with the gold dots is a decision for the Planning Commission. If you feel that that impairs the transparency requirement or expectations of what you would have anticipated in your special land use then presumably you wouldn't allow for this product and or in this design and request that they further reduce the frit or the Opacity excuse me the opaqueness to allow for increased visibility into these spaces Thank you So I'm hearing a little bit of maybe difference of opinion on certain elements of this. What I think I'm hearing is that the majority of the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the perimeter fencing, the banners that are on the fences around the lawn and the beer garden. And I'm hearing that the signs shown in the sizes within the application for signs C1, F2, F3, and G7, you seem to be comfortable with that. Where you're not comfortable is the flexibility to increase those to what was shaded in pink. What I think And then maybe the west elevation, I'm still a little unclear on that. So I just wanted to let the Planning Commission know that you could move forward today with the signs that you're comfortable with. You could not approve the signs that you are not comfortable with. And that wouldn't preclude the applicant from hearing your feedback, working with us, and seeking an amendment in the future to those specific elements. So that could be an option so that there's clear support for what can move forward and perhaps some guidance that's been given and look at some modifications. Alternatively, I think another solution could be to table the entire request and come back with modifications to those specific sign types. But that of course would delay production of the signs themselves.

You know, I guess to reiterate what I was saying about the fencing signs and also the windows, my concerns were around the security and, you know, with the crime prevention. And so I, like... think it is a unique venue and I think there is excitement and adding like different signage like that on offense because I do feel like you do see that at sporting events so I get it I would just want to have a level of opacity transparency that still I guess gets to some of the intent of our ordinance with regards to security and vibrancy and being able to see what's happening inside and outside so those are my thoughts

Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, please.

I really appreciate all the dialogue around this and attention to the detail. Relative to a facility like this, we know that there's a set number of matches that are going to be played for AC Grand Rapids in this facility. That's sort of the primary function of this space. But there will be other opportunities for us to bring to our community other events that can be held in this space. So imagine collegiate playoffs, women's soccer being held here, high school. Maybe there are other sporting events that we're able to bring here or other festivals. And part of the strategy around making a facility like this enticing for those organizations to want to be here and choose our city in this facility for those events is their ability to live out the brand of their event here in this place and sort of make it temporarily with banners on either fence poles or on signage, sorry, on fencing, a branded experience for that event. And so if we think about the operator that we have here, the Convention and Arena Authority and Legends Global operating and having a quarter century of, operating success here in the community. Part of the strategy here with fencing, and you can see we didn't choose to completely fence off that plaza because it is a public space. We want people to be invited there. Part of the strategy is in the planned sign program, can we give flexibility to organizations who want to rent out this facility and host an event here to put up some of the branding of their event within the space. And we feel that this is a location that would vary on the very public edge of the facility, describe, hey, something is new is happening here. It's not just AC Grand Rapids, or it's not just the events you're accustomed to throughout the facilities, but there's something new. And you may have seen it on social media posts. You may see it on billboards around the area. But this is where that event is happening. So we have an incredibly successful pickleball tournament here within the last month and that only seeks to grow more. So as you consider what a facility like this might be able to contribute overall to the success of bringing events like that to these event spaces that we've invested in, that's part of what we're seeing as the reason for the ask and the plan sign program. I'll just leave that. If you have a question specific I can respond or

One quick one. While I'm deliberating, I'm still not a fan of the design choice of the sponsor name on one face and then recess below it what we're actually trying to wayfind to. Those aren't lit, correct? Those are just colored signs?

I have to look to my design team because we've been up and down on that one relative to budget and feasibility.

Yeah, right now the upper sign is not illuminated and the wayfinding sign is.

It is illuminated. Potential to be, yes. Potential to be.

I'm curious, you talked about the other organizations that might use that, and I think that that is helpful. Understanding that the city's sign ordinance around temporary banners is perhaps more limited than what could be acceptable for the type of venue that you have. Is there a path to look at allowing the fencing on a more limited basis than perhaps what is being requested to accommodate some of those unique events that might take place. So perhaps they're the, I don't know that I would have sat down, but perhaps the coverage could be looked at in terms of making numbers up no more than 60% of opacity but that the fences shall not be covered more than 90 days in any given calendar month and that can be managed through a temporary permit process. I have no idea what I just said.

You said 90 days in any given calendar month.

I don't know what I said, my apologies. 90 days in any calendar year, and that could be then managed through a temporary sign permit so that maybe unfortunately, every event would have to come through with their own application. That doesn't take very long or doesn't cost very much from a process perspective, but that could be helping to manage the timeframe to achieve that 90-day, 120-day allowance. similar to some of the flexibility that the Planning Commission might grant a restaurant to have temporary events for maybe Halloween or New Year's Eve and those events do require temporary use permits and then we process them individually versus in this case through a plan sign program.

I mean it feels like we have at least consensus around maybe what the concerns are about the application. I wonder if anybody would be willing to propose a motion that may not make all of us happy but might move the ball forward a little bit.

Yeah, I would probably need some help along the way, but I can try. I guess most of our concerns are going to be addressed in conditions, correct, Kristen? Yes. Okay. What was that?

No. Yeah, I guess we should establish if the banners on the fences are going to be allowed in your motion. You can do this. Yes. Your motion.

Yep. Okay, now therefore be it resolved that the Planning Commission approves the request of Grant Action 2.0, Carol Wood, to establish a planned sign program for a new stadium at 230 Winter Avenue NW for the following reasons. One, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed planned sign program would result in a more attractive aesthetic setting, improve safety, provide more convenient identification for planned users or other similar purposes that would not be achievable without deviations from the specific zone requirements of the zone district because the proposed placement and size of signs are proportional to the scale and massing of the stadium. The careful placement and scale of the signs considered the pedestrian experience will aid with both pedestrian and vehicular Navigate navigation to the site and allow for visibility for several vantage points and the proposed signs will facilitate use of and wayfinding to the site which will consequently contribute to the activation of the city center and The applicant has demonstrated that the location and or physical characteristics of the applicant's property or the needs for identification are unique when compared to other similarly situated parcels in the same zone district in the same vicinity because the large project development area and the projects multi-faceted use warrant flexibility in sign design and display. The intentional materiality of the stadium's facade is an architectural feature and the exterior signage has been designed as an extension of the facade. The proposed signage will direct users to pedestrian entries and the parking facility along with identifying the stadium uses. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed plan substantially furthers the purpose and intent of Section 5.15.01 because the proposed signage supports Strong Economy Recommendation 3.1. of the 2024 Community Master Plan to prioritize transformational projects that will enhance the regional and national appeal of Grand Rapids by creating a vibrant space that attracts visitors and fosters community pride. The signed package has been designed in a coordinated way fashion to protect the aesthetic quality of downtown by preventing visual clutter and protecting views, and the signage will reinforce and support the desired character of the TNCC zone district by taking into consideration the building scale and massing, lot size, building setbacks, transparency, street dimensions, travel speed, and pedestrian presence so that signs contribute to the streetscape and aid in creating a sense of place. Number four, the applicant has demonstrated that the approval of the planned sign program would not carry any adverse impacts on one or more properties in the vicinity because the signs are appropriately scaled and located to prevent a proliferation of signs and sign structures that can be overwhelming, confusing, and distracting. And the signs will not cause unsafe traffic conditions through distraction of motorists or hindrance of vision and will not impede safe movement of pedestrians or safe ingress and egress from buildings and sites. Be it further resolved that the following conditions of approval shall Apply to this project that the application and plan submitted by the applicant and signed date and stamp by the planning Director shall constitute the approved plans except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and or amend or and or as amended in this resolution and that the plan signed program as approved compromises all approved building signage and that no additional signage may be permitted for the site unless the plan signed program is amended by the Planning Commission that all banners be constructed of high quality durable material and that fences along the public areas of the stadium, such as the Great Lawn, shall be at no greater than 60%.

Did you want to hear my draft condition?

Yeah, what's that? Let's hear the draft. Yeah, it's your motion, sorry.

And that the banners be at least at 60%. transparency. That the window signage shall not occupy more than... Ooh. Okay, with this percentage here, this is... They should not occupy more than 25% of the west elevation ground floor windows and shall provide at least 75% transparency.

Is that right?

Are you accepting of their proposal? If you are, based on what was described, then you wouldn't need a condition.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I'll strike that then. Unless... Yeah, I guess I'm open to discussing that one, but I... otherwise I would accept it as it is. That any banner may be removed and or reinstalled without an amendment to the plan sign program provided there's no increase in the sign area or number of signs. That the sponsor signage related to the sponsor affiliated wall signs shall not exceed and this is where I need help because I want it to be

So how I had drafted that was that sign C1, F2, F3, and G7, which were all the ones with the pink boxes around them, shall be limited in size to what is actually shown by the proposed signs within the application and not what is shown by the allotted design space.

And that covers the back of the scoreboard as well?

That is G7, yes.

Okay, I would use that language. That all necessary permits shall be obtained prior to installation of the proposed signage, and that this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission's decision.

Support, and I couple comments about specific banners mesh signs g5 the large banner hung from the structure yes I don't think that that should have the same transparency requirement oh I was yeah I was referring mostly to one time on fences thank you for that clarification No, I think he's still limited. Oh same with G 3.2, which looks like it's elevated but still affixed to some structure fence I Don't know that that needs to be Was the intent of your condition to limit the opacity of the fences that are within and the perimeter of the beer garden in the front lawn I Yes. So only at that elevation. Okay. Yes. And then it wouldn't cover, for example, where there's the loading dock or something. That could be a higher opacity. Okay. All right.

I'm fine with the loading dock. With that clarification, do you still support? Yeah. Okay.

So that condition would then read that the fence banners installed at the perimeter of and within the beer garden and front lawn shall not have an opacity greater than 60%. The fence permits installed. Yeah. Okay.

All right.

Are we moving on to discussion? Sure, yeah.

Any discussion?

Yeah, so a question about how you packaged up number six. That would also be some level of restriction on the sponsor signs above the locations not exceeding what they've been granted either. So we don't end up with some really long... sponsor totally dwarfing whatever's underneath at the location that would apply to those as well, the sponsor?

So, Sarah, can you go to an example, please? How I structured the condition was that the What is shown 8.8 feet 6 inches by 3 feet 3 inches is what would be approved and not the 13 feet by 5 feet. So focused more so on the square footage of what is actually proposed in the detail and not the square footage of what is considered allotted letter space. So I'm not sure that that fully gets at your concern about having a singular line. We typically stay focused on area and sometimes letter height, not necessarily the length of the businesses or sponsor's name.

I am fine with your clarification.

I want to clarify the fence signs a little more. I still think, I still have a concern that even at 60% opacity, that's too... It blocks too much vision. It's too opaque, thank you. But I also think I want to go back to the compromise that Kristen suggested about those signs in total, those fence banners only being allowed a certain... amount of time out of the year.

I wouldn't be opposed to the motioner applying to amend his motion.

I said I wouldn't be opposed to the motioner. Would we have to amend the motion and do a whole other amendment, a motion to amend the motion from someone else?

The motion maker can amend his motion. Okay. So long as the support also supports the amendment.

Okay. So I wouldn't be opposed to having some kind of time limit on the fence signs located on the southeast corner of the development.

Are you talking about just the public spaces ones that I had mentioned?

Yes, yes.

Yeah, I don't, like, I don't, I guess it doesn't, I don't have strong feelings about it I just think it's a lot it's it's more work on the applicant and a lot of additional applications when um you know putting the time limits on it it's just going to create for more work for the city and more work for the applicant and I don't I don't know that I want to do that and that we gain that much from it because they can switch these out whenever they want them you know they can do that now wait yeah yeah yeah yeah okay yeah I thought you would yeah sorry

It's not a hill I'm willing to die on. I will not be offended if you don't amend your motion.

All right. We have a motion. Any further discussion? All right. Are we comfortable with where we're at? Can we just reread it, the conditions? Okay. Everybody comfortable? All right. Then all those in favor of the motion on the table?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Aye. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Do we want to take a five-minute break? Sure. All right.

Oh, the staples?

Thank you.

convene. Next case is 1415 Plainfield Avenue Northeast.

Alright, the next item on the agenda is a request to establish a cafe with alcohol service operating until midnight and a parking waiver is also requested. The subject property is located in the Creston area-specific plan, which was undertaken as part of the 2024 Community Master Plan. And it designates this property as Neighborhood Center, which is intended to reinforce a pedestrian and transit-friendly environment in a compact area and promote a mix of small-scale uses such as retail, service, and residential uses to enhance the vitality of the surrounding neighborhoods. The property is located at the northwest corner of Plainfield and Caledonia Street and located in and surrounded by the TNTBA Zone District. There are offices to the north, commercial uses to the east, Creston Market to the south, and an aerial fitness studio to the west. This property is currently located on the site and it is a two-story mixed-use building with roughly 2,200 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and one residential unit above. The proposed cafe will accommodate up to 65 patrons and the floor plan includes a bar, dining area, food preparation space, storage, and restrooms. The applicant is requesting hours of operation from 7 a.m. to midnight daily, with staffing ranging from two to six employees, depending on the time of day. The menu will initially feature breakfast and lunch options, and dinner service will be planned for the fall of this year. I'd just like to note that a full service restaurant with incidental alcohol sales may be approved administratively. However, in this case, or in any case, it is required that food sales make up at least 50% of the establishment's gross sales in receipts. In this case, the proposed food preparation area includes only a rapid cook oven and refrigerators with no commercial hood system proposed. And so given these cooking facilities, the proposed use has been classified as a bar rather than a full service restaurant. Within the vicinity, there are several other alcohol-related businesses with on-site consumption. As you can see, we have Cafe Mamo, Good Good Good, Quinn & Tootie's, Henchman House, which is currently under construction and came before you, planning commissioners, and Reservoir Lounge across the street. The applicant has also submitted an alcohol management plan that details training and a plan to mitigate any negative secondary effects of alcohol consumptions on the property. Relative to parking, the building has never had off-street parking and it's considered legally non-conforming. Whenever the use of a building changes and the use requires a greater parking requirement, the additional parking must be provided for that new use. And so the previous use that was here required six parking spaces and this new proposed use requires 22. So the waiver before you today is requesting... for that additional 16 spaces that are required for this new use. I'd like to note that there's on street parking along Caledonia and Plainfield. There are nearby parking lots shown before you to the east and then the west as well. And the area is served by rapid bus route 11 with a transit stop in the vicinity. The subject property is also located in the Creston Neighborhood Association and Creston Business Association. We have not received any correspondence from either organization for this request, nor have we received anything from nearby business owners or residents. For this request today, Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed use could create detrimental impacts on adjacent properties or the surrounding neighborhood. the appropriateness of the parking waiver, and any concerns that are raised during the public hearing. Do you have any questions for me before I turn over to the applicant?

Thanks, Avery. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, everyone. talking alcohol maybe a little bit more fun I don't know my name is Angela Tramper I run the Hoxie House LLC which is the company that I that owns the business I'm proposing to put into the main floor at the Hoxie building so I live upstairs actually with my husband and this is a family-run project that we're proposing again in the building where again I live above business below already allowed to be the cafe So we've been moving forward with that side of things, obviously with building permits separately, but of course adding alcohol could only make this even better for the neighborhood. Just another reason for people to stay out a little bit later, have some more activities, food and beverage options in this neighborhood. I think perhaps a lot of people have seen the changes that have been going on in the Crested neighborhood specifically. We very much have a lot of heart over there, but I think it needs a little bit more of a boost. And I think that what I'm proposing is exactly what that neighborhood specifically needs. So If you have any questions, very, very open to that, but we're just looking for a little modest cafe by day, bar by evening, again, family-run establishments in the Creston neighborhood at, I would say, probably the most prominent corner of Creston. I think it's nice and squarely in the middle and is going to hopefully help set a brand new precedent for the rest of the neighborhood in the future for that neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? No, I don't see any.

Easy, I love it.

Thank you. All right, discussion. I'm sorry. Yes, so I will open the public hearing for this. If you are here to speak to this, thank you. Yes, please come forward, state your name. We'll give you three minutes.

Hey folks, my name is Greg Hampshire. I'm a Creston resident and I serve as the corridor manager for the North Corridor Corridor Improvement Authority doing business as the Creston Corridor Improvement Authority. And I'm here today in support of Hoxie House's request at 1415 Plainfield. I believe Hoxie will serve as an important investment in our corridor. A daytime cafe that transitions into an evening neighborhood bar creates activity throughout the day and encourages people to walk, linger, and support nearby businesses. Its location is ample public parking and is at the gateway to a neighborhood node identified in the Creston area specific plan. And it's exactly the type of activation encouraged by the document. The ASP describes Plainfield as the neighborhood's connective tissue and gathering place and calls for investments that create a lively, unique, vibrant, walkable commercial corridor with active neighborhood destinations. And personally, I'd love to see more outdoor activity along the corridor, including outdoor seating. I think it's important to recognize the moment we're in. Crescent has unfortunately experienced several high profile restaurant closures over the past year, including Crescent Brewery, River North Public House, and the uncertain future of some of our other restaurants. Those losses remind us of how important it is to support thoughtful entrepreneurs who are willing to invest in our neighborhood and create new destinations. Creston certainly needs more businesses, but just as importantly, we need more neighborhood hubs, places that foster connection, strengthen the local economy, and give our neighbors and guests alike a reason to spend time on Plainfield Avenue. I believe Hoxie represents exactly that kind of investment. So I respectfully encourage you folks and the Planning Commission to approve this request. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else here to speak on this case? Alright, and I will close the public hearing and now we can move into discussion.

I don't have any particular concerns with this use or this request. I think it's a great activation of a space that has been less than activated for a little while. I don't have any issues with it.

I'm on the same page. I'm in support of this project. I think it's a great scale. It's not very often that you get to see a cafe or a restaurant with alcohol service that It doesn't have 100 people or 99 people because it's not sprinkled. And I also have no concerns about parking in this neighborhood with available street parking, and I think there's some city-owned lots nearby, whether or not they meet the distance requirement. So I don't have any parking concerns.

No, if my fellow commissioners have nothing else to say, I'm willing to make a motion. Okay. Now, therefore, let it be resolved that the Planning Commission approve the special land use and site plan review request for Hoxie House LLC to establish a cafe and bar with alcohol services operating until midnight at 1415 Plainfield Avenue for the following reasons. 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 the vitality of the local economy by encouraging investment, diversifying the economic base, and expanding the employment opportunities, provide a mix of uses in the commercial area, promote reuse of an older building, and support compact growth patterns and the desired coordination of land uses and transportation. The proposed use will meet the site plan requirements, review standards of Section 5.12.08E, because the proposed use will be located internally within an existing building, the building provides adequate means of ingress and egress by public street and walkway, and the proposed use will be compatible and harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the proposed use will support the desired mixed-use character of the neighborhood. The proposed hours of operation are similar to other establishments in the area. Potential adverse effects arising from proposed use will be minimized because adequate on-street parking, district parking, and transit are available in the area to support the use and the existing surfer entrance on Plainfield Avenue will be utilized. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, smoke, odors, glare, or visual clutter because no live entertainment is proposed, no outdoor seating or activity is proposed. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of pedestrian-oriented environment because no changes to the proposed building exist and which are already located at the sidewalk. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the city because the use is not anticipated to result in nuisance or require excessive code enforcement action. The proposed use will comply with all other applicable city ordinances and policies and applicable state laws given the character location development trends and other aspects of the neighborhood the proposed location for alcohol sales will Demonstrably be an asset to the neighborhood because the use will contribute to the already vibrant commercial district the use or change in use as constructed and operated by the applicant is is compatible with the neighborhood because the scale and hours of operation will inherently limit the intensity of the impact of the use and will encourage increased foot traffic between nearby businesses. The use as proposed to be operated by the applicant will minimize or eliminate negative secondary effects on the neighborhood because an adequate operations management plan and training will be in place. be it further resolved that the following conditions of approval shall apply to the project. That the application and plan submitted by the applicant and signed, dated, and stamped by the planning director shall constitute the approved plan, except if the plan, well, it's not, so we're not doing that one. Oh wait, yeah, I'm sorry. Except if the plan elements do not meet the ordinance required and or as amended by this resolution. That the use shall operate according to the application and testimony that this approval does not include any proposed signs and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation that the land use and development services Ludd's permit building permit and all other required permits be obtained by the City of Grand Rapids prior to the construction demolition or operation and any are that any Expansion of the approved special use requires an additional special land use review and approval by the Planning Commission that the proposed use will comply with all other applicable city ordinances and policies and all state laws that this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission decision. And lastly, this approval does not include live entertainment or outdoor seating.

Commissioners, I was sort of rethinking maybe some of the findings and wondered if you'd be open to striking the commentary under 3C about no outdoor seating and the added language to the condition. Although it may not fit today, I'm not sure that viewing outdoor seating as a negative is necessarily accurate. It definitely would require further evaluation, but it might make sense in this case so that if there's room in the future or circumstances change, that that could the addition of that does not undermine the approval of this I agree and I will gladly amend my motion to remove any references to this use not including outdoor storage so that would be the second finding made for 3c and the condition of approval that was stated the second condition of approval completing it at after live entertainment so it would read that this approval does not include live entertainment period

I'm still in support.

Okay.

All right. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, I will go ahead and move ahead to 2211 East Beltline Avenue Northeast. This is a request to establish an outpatient infusion clinic within an approved planned redevelopment district. Medical office uses within a PRD require special land use approval. The subject property is located along the northeast edge of the city limits with offices to the north. We have Village at Naps Crossing to the east and Celebration Village to the south and west. The 2024 Community Master Plan designates this area as Community Activity Center, which is intended to provide places to live, work, and shop around key intersections and corridors to evolve areas into well-connected, walkable places. The site is improved with a commercial shopping center with a mix of tenants. The AT&T storefront that you see here is currently a Bovee Pilates. The Sarah Care is currently there, and it's an adult daycare center. This storefront that you see here is the subject space. It was previously a sports clips, and for transcript purposes, I'm circling an area that's in the middle of the shopping center. There's also a subway, a nail and spa, and then a Qdoba at the westernmost end of the shopping center. The tenant space will be renovated to include a waiting area at the front of the building. with unobstructed storefront windows that provide visibility into the space. There will be infusion treatment areas behind that waiting room wall shown here in the middle of the space, and that is to maintain patient privacy. There's also two private infusion rooms and office areas within the space. The clinic is proposed to operate Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. And the applicant anticipates serving around four patients initially with the potential to grow up to around eight patients a day as the clinic becomes established. Patients will be seen by appointment only with a physician referral and can receive services such as hydration therapy, antibiotic and iron infusions and other similar treatments. I'd like to note that Corwell Health does provide similar outpatient infusion services at their other facilities and they operate in a similar manner to what is proposed within this clinic. The shopping center currently has about 97 parking spaces and is designated to or designed to provide a mix of uses with vehicles coming to and from the site throughout the day. As staff, we do not anticipate parking impacts with this proposed clinic, as it's expected to generate fewer trips than the previous use and operate at a lower intensity than a typical medical office use. The applicant has contacted the Northeast Citizen Action Association, or what we consider as NECA, and they've reached out by email, and NECA indicated that they don't have any concerns with this proposal. We have not received any additional correspondence for this request. And for this item, the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed medical office use is appropriate within this approved PRD. whether the proposed medical office use is compatible with the existing shopping center tenants and supports the center's overall vitality, and if any concerns are raised during the public hearing. Do you have any questions for me?

Thanks, Avery. Any questions for Avery? All right. Then we'll let the applicant come up.

Good afternoon. I'm Andrew Walker with Corwell Health. like Avery indicated, this is an outpatient infusion center. It is not intended to serve oncology or any controlled substances. It is strictly hydration, iron therapy, and antibiotics. Unfortunately, if you have contracted the little parasite that's going around, you would be a prime candidate to come to this clinic for some outpatient treatment for antibiotics or hydration therapy due to the results of that parasite. So we're thinking that this is a compatible use to here. These services are currently offered at our 2250 Beltline, but it's way buried. We're trying to make it a little bit more accessible for patients to be, instead of having to go into a three-story large parking lot to be able to get curbside service, essentially. Do you have any other questions for myself or Rodney?

I just have one. She mentioned that Only like four to eight patients a day, is that? To start, some of these treatments take two hours. Okay, that's what I was curious about.

And so as we start to build the population, and there isn't a clinic like this in Grand Rapids at all, we currently have one that we're constructing in Muskegon that will open later this fall.

Okay, but as a patient or a client, I'm expected to spend a couple hours here potentially?

I mean, depending on what type of infusion you're going to be receiving. Some of those iron infusions, they have to go very slowly so that your body can absorb the iron in a timely manner and not, you know, get too much too fast.

Yeah, OK, thank you. Any other questions? No, alright, I'll ask you to take a seat. Thank you. I will open up the public hearing for this case at 2211 East Beltline Ave. If anybody is here to speak to that case, please approach the mic. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Any discussion?

It does seem like there's a similar business located, I believe, fuller south of 96 near the Starbucks, and there's a Brother's Donut where it's very similar, and that's a very compact parking lot, and even though the Starbucks seems to take up most of the parking, they still manage to operate outside Looking at this and the scale and this development, I see no negative impacts of this business operating in that location.

Happy to make a motion. But not yet, because Kristen has.

Well, just a few more comments, I think, about how this meets the intent of the ordinance for the record, I think would be helpful.

Yeah, I'd say the scale of this development in that business, if you look at what was there before, you have a barber that's going to have many more customers coming in and out of that. So when you look at traffic impacts.

consistency of uses.

This is pretty consistent.

I do think it was interesting although the medical office use is what was most applicable. It borders on a more retail nature just by its customer base so we did have a lengthy conversation about how what was best but ultimately based on the ordinance definition But I think that there's definitely a little bit more activity typically with uses like this than what you might see with a traditional medical office.

Yeah, I agree with that. I mean, I think there's some... examples of things like this elsewhere in the city where there's businesses that kind of walk the line between two different types of uses. This shopping center has a pretty broad mix of uses already. I personally not regular occasionally frequent the Cadoba there. And I mean, it's, it's never hard to find somewhere to park. So I don't have any concerns.

This is another hard one too, where it's in a PRD. So like it's very specific, you know, the range of uses that are appropriate for a primarily commercial, you know, area. This, this fits with traffic count, all of those.

Okay.

Now, therefore, be it resolved the Planning Commission approves the special land use and site plan review request of Corwell Health to establish an outpatient infusion clinic in an approved plan redevelopment district at 2211 East Beltline Ave Northeast for the following reasons. 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 the vitality of the established plan redevelopment district as a retail center, contribute to a mix of uses that are destination-oriented high-intensity businesses and services intended in the town center area identified in the East Beltline Overlay District. The proposed use will meet the site plan review standards of Section 5.12.08.E because the existing site layout and building elements were designed to meet the requirements of the zone district. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood adjacent properties in the natural environment because the use will support the desired mixed-use character of the neighborhood and adjacent properties. The use will be complementary to the other uses in the commercial center. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because adequate parking will be provided. The building orientation will not change. The proposed uses will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare because all activities will occur within the building. Appointments will occur throughout the day. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment. because the use will complement other retail uses in the area, encouraging visitors to walk to multiple businesses in one trip. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and or economic welfare of the city. Because the use will not place an unfair burden on city services, the use will encourage other investment in the area. Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Sorry, did we get standard conditions? No. Subject?

Oh, I'm sorry. Standard condition set A approvals on the screen.

Thank you. Now we have a motion. We still have a second? Still have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next case is 3503 28th Street Southeast. This is a request for construction of a new restaurant with a drive-through pickup window. Special land use is required for any drive-through use. The 1.89 acre subject property is located within the Centerpoint Shopping Center at East Beltline and 28th Street. The property wraps around the Chase Bank building that was recently constructed, and you can see to the west is BJ's Restaurant. Home Goods and TJ Maxx is to the northeast for context. The property has frontage on the shopping center's internal drives. And just for overall context, Centerpoint Shopping Center is a 65-acre shopping center as seen on the plan. In 2011, the Planning Commission granted site plan review to redevelop the south area of the shopping center. And there have been several amendments since that time to the site plan to accommodate growth and changes within the development. The most recent amendment was in 2022 for the area of the shopping center you can see here. And the result of that site plan review amendment resulted in the creation of new outlets. Like I mentioned, the BJ's Restaurant and The Chase Bank were created and approved and then developed. And then the outlot identified in green labeled Parcel 3 in the image was the third outlot created at that time that is before you for development and approval today. The site is currently a paved 182 space surface lot with a small landscaping strip on the south side. One of the most challenging parts of presenting this I think is going to be the direction of this plan. To orient you, the landscaping strip on the south side is on the right hand side of this image. So just tilt your head a little bit and then you'll be better oriented I think to to north and south perhaps like I am. The parking lot currently serves as overflow parking for the shopping center. You can see on this plan running from the top left corner to the bottom right corner is there are lines that are identifying the enclosed Whiskey Creek storm sewer and there's a water main running underneath the westerly side of the property. And the easements associated with those elements do encumber the north side of that property for any future development. I will also add that our city stormwater engineer would gladly point out to you that Whiskey Creek appropriately runs into Plaster Creek. So I just thought he would like me to share that on. Currently, there are five access points on the east side of the site at the top of the screen that provide access from the internal drive to the subject property. And then on the west, there's a bay of parking that is shared with the BJ's restaurant parking lot. to the west, and then there's a sidewalk connection at Chase Bank that provides pedestrian connection to the public sidewalks along 28th Street. This is the proposed site plan, a new single story, 2,449 square foot building will be constructed for the restaurant. We'll have parking associated with the restaurant on all sides, I guess on the east and the south side. And the drive-through lane will enter along the rear of the building and wrap around to the west side For orientation, the building front is on the right side of the building here that faces south towards 28th Street. The pickup window is on the west side facing Chase Bank and the rear of the building is towards the north. A landscape island will be constructed to separate the restaurant development area from the northern side of the property. Only the southern side is intended to be redeveloped. The parking spaces at the northern side will remain in place and continue to serve as overflow parking for the shopping center. One of the access points on the east side will be removed and replaced with Landscape Island, which will also allow for additional parking for the restaurant. And the shared access point at Chase Bank will remain in place. The green areas on this plan show the opportunity for green space and landscaping. A detailed plan has not been provided at this time, but will be required at permitting. Relative to the building elevations, the orientation is consistent with other recent development that I mentioned, Chase Bank and BJ's Restaurant, oriented to face 28th Street. And the building materials proposed are Ephus panels with stone veneer and a cedar canopy is proposed over the patio seating area at the front of the restaurant. In this zone district, the MONC zone district, the materials proposed are acceptable materials. The storefront windows you see on the elevation are proposed on the front of the building facing south, also some on the east and west sides. The front and the west side meet the minimum transparency requirements. excuse me, the front and the east side. The west side is the side of the building with the drive-through pickup window. That is a little bit shy of the 15% required. The Planning Commission may grant a departure if it's demonstrated that transparency would, additional transparency would significantly be detrimental to the operation or the security of the use. or any side of a building abutting an outdoor service area such as trash removal operations or mechanical equipment. So we might ask the Planning Commission to consider the proposed transparency on the west side and determine if additional transparency may be necessary or if other mitigation measures such as taller or enhanced landscaping such as these trees shown on the image might help mitigate for that lack of transparency on that side. At the rear of the restaurant, there is no transparency proposed. That side of the restaurant does face the parking lot that will remain on the north side of this property. The zoning ordinance does require a minimum six square feet of clear window area for every 40 linear feet of wall of a building facing a parking lot. In this case, a window could be incorporated into the service door and that would meet that requirement. Relative to the drive-through use, The hours of operation of the restaurant will be 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Orders will be placed and prepaid remotely. So there's no ordering station, there's no speaker box, there's no menu board to consider. Everybody who places an order will order using an app or a mobile website or a website and prepay. So they are scheduled for a specific pickup time. I'll let the applicant provide some additional operation details if you have questions about specifics. The applicant did provide a queuing analysis, which states that a maximum of three vehicles is anticipated to queue at any given time. The city traffic engineer reviewed that plan and concurs with the findings. The plan with the queuing analysis and the proposed site plan is appropriate for the amount of queuing expected. The traffic engineer also requested that some additional, recommended that some additional pedestrian crossing to allow people to park south of the drive-through lane and safely navigate to the restaurant across that drive-through lane be considered with part of the Planning Commission review today. Relative to parking, the restaurant use requires 29 parking spaces, including the parking area to remain. There will be a total of 115 parking spaces on the property. I will say that the total amount of parking provided is a reduction of 67 parking spaces, and the additional parking is intended to provide overflow parking for the shopping center. In sum, we are asking the Planning Commission to consider the drive-through use and site plan review standards, specifically any potential adverse effects of the drive-through activities on surrounding properties, pedestrian, and traffic flow. that any of those potential adverse effects are minimized. And, you know, the transparency of the building, if whether a departure for the building transparency is warranted. Are there any questions for me?

Thanks, Laura. Any questions this time? Nope. All right. Thank you much. Turn it over to the applicant.

Hi, thank you. Jason Blum. I'm a senior director of development for Bridge 33 Capital. We own the shopping center. I appreciate your time and attention today. Laura, thank you so much. Could not have described that better myself. I don't have much to add to that unless you have some questions I can respond to.

Any questions? Yeah, I have a question regarding the transparency. I think it was on the south uh west side maybe where was yeah the drive-through side like yeah um is there a reason there is so little transparency there and can you is it possible to add some more transparencies particularly maybe towards the front there um

Yeah, we're responsive to the design of the tenant who we have a lease with. So this is the way they typically build their buildings. I'm not opposed to going back to them and adding more transparency.

Okay. Yeah, I would love to at least meet those requirements, and I think it would probably provide a better experience for the people dining inside as well.

Yeah, so we'll work with our tenant to provide more transparency in the next go-around with planning.

Okay, thank you.

Related to that with this elevation, it appears from the site plan that there's the patio that we see on the right-hand side of this drawing here, that concrete comes all the way back down to that drive-through window there instead of landscaping. I'm wondering what that, see how that concrete wraps around on the This is a challenging directional side.

Yeah, so to the right. Let's call it to the right.

Yeah, and it wraps, yeah, the patio is on the right-hand side of the building on this sheet, and then it wraps around towards the drive-thru, and I'm not certain why that couldn't be a landscape space or what that's accessing. There's no doors or anything over there, so I didn't know.

Yeah, I believe that's to provide access for the employees to maneuver around there and move around chairs and tables and things like that. It's generally how they... There's over 450 locations nationwide. I'm not speaking directly for my tenant, but I think they found that that's the best way to operate their restaurants. Okay. Thank you. I'm also informed that there's a trash receptacle right there.

Gotcha. Yeah, I was wondering if that was trash or what that was. So, okay.

I had a couple questions for you. It looks like in the building elevation plan and specifically what would be the rear of the building, that there are trees presumably that are an attempt to mitigate for the blank facade wall, but your landscape plan isn't showing those. Is that just something that can be addressed during permit review, that landscaping would be installed in that green space behind or to the north-ish of the facade of the building?

Yeah, the landscape plan is in development. And my understanding is it's not, we don't, we get to that after this SLU approval. So staff will obviously have, you know, put constraints on us or add additional things. So it's not a fully developed landscape plan at this time.

Okay, well I think it's important to distinguish between what staff would have the administrative authority to require and what we wouldn't, since it's not a required landscape area of the site, yet I think it should be a condition for the Planning Commission to consider in terms of facade mitigation for the blank wall. It would be helpful to have the Planning Commission direct staff as to what we think would be appropriate, and I agree we can definitely resolve some of those details during the permit review process. My other question is with the parking that is remaining, and I understand the complexities of some of this parking arrangement for the mall generally, I'm curious why some additional trees couldn't be planted between the drive-through access and the existing parking.

Along the, yeah, the barrier in between them?

Yeah, that center green space area.

I mean, it's a maintenance obligation more than anything else. So that's one of the reasons we didn't add it there. We felt that we want to meet the standards of the city, and we felt like we're doing that. And any more landscaping creates just continued obligations to the tenant that we didn't want to put on that.

Okay, well, that seems like a missed opportunity in the plan, understanding that there's certainly a cost associated with that. But with the flexibility and permissions being asked for allowing for parking to remain, we've really pushed to take opportunities where we can bring this site closer to conformance to today's standards. So it seems like that could be a missed opportunity.

Well, we can certainly work with planning to add some landscaping to that area.

Thank you. That's all I had.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right, thank you. Thank you so much. Take a seat. We will open the public hearing. If anybody is here today to speak to this case at 3503 28th Street, please approach the mic. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and begin discussion.

think this is an improvement over the conceptual plans that we'd seen in the past where there was a drive-through tenant shown here long narrow with a queue that wrapped all the way around the building so I like this better yeah and given what else is in the area like you know with like Krispy Kreme and chick-fil-a right there like there are other

examples of this and i think it's a fairly auto oriented area um so it doesn't seem out of place here and um yeah my only concern was around i guess that transparency i do like you know kristen's suggestions around landscaping that type of thing so um but other than that yeah i would be in favor of it

I do like the idea of a little more landscaping. It's kind of a dead zone over there. I mean, even in Christmas time, I've never seen cars filling that space, so I'm not at all concerned with the reduction in parking spaces. So, yeah, I would be supportive of the proposal so far.

Yeah, I agree. I think it's an asset. I think if we can get some of these green areas, perhaps with some more vertical plantings, trees and that type of thing, that'll be nice to break up the sea of asphalt over there. Yeah, I'd like to see it.

All right, I'll make a motion. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Planning Commission approves the special land use and site plan review request of Bridge 33 Capital, Jason Blum, to construct a restaurant with a digital order drive-through pickup window at 3503 28th Street Southeast for the following reasons. 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 the 2024 community master plan intent of a community activity center to provide places to live, work, and shop around key intersections. reflect the purpose and intent of the MONC zone district to encourage a broad range of business, service, and commercial uses in appropriate locations. The proposed use will meet the site plan review standards of section 5.12.08.e because as a new development, the site has been designed to meet all standards and requirements with modifications permitted by the zoning ordinance. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood adjacent properties in the natural environment because the use will support the desired mixed-use character of the neighborhood and adjacent properties. Did I hear right that they think that they can increase the transparency on the one elevation to meet the standard? So do I need to... 3a mentioned that a waiver to allow less than or would that only apply to one of the two elevations listed here?

Is it possible to do it on both those elevations?

The North elevation as defined as the rear of the building doesn't have that same 15% transparency requirement. That's the different requirement for a six square foot window for every 40 linear feet. So that could be accomplished through adding a window in the service door. So I don't think it was, it's incorrect to lump those to get together. here.

So can I just strike that point?

Per testimony they've agreed to install the door in this the window in the service door and increase the window on that side elevation that faces the drive-through therefore a waiver would not be necessary.

Okay.

And I can create a condition to manage those expectations.

Okay. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the intensity of the use and site orientation are appropriate to its surroundings. Adequate vehicular stacking will be provided. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, odors, or noise because the use is anticipated to be used by many patrons already within the shopping center, which is an auto-oriented use. 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 the proposed improvements do not exacerbate the existing conditions on the site, which are already auto-oriented in nature. Pedestrian sidewalks to provide additional connections to and within the shopping center will be provided. The proposed development will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because the site redevelopment will increase the amount of green space and landscaping on the property. adequate public or private infrastructure and services do already exist or will be provided at no additional cost. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the city because the proposed improvements will encourage additional investment in the neighborhood. Be it further resolved that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project. Standard conditions set A that will be on the screen.

Would you like me to read the three drafted conditions that better address the conversation than the ones in your report?

Yes, please.

That landscaping shall be added with trees within the green space on the north side of the building to provide additional facade mitigation. That additional windows be added to meet transparency requirements. And that three medium canopy trees shall be added to the center green island located on the north side of the drive-through lane entrance.

I'd like to incorporate that into my motion. Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

I apologize, I did not add about the language about the pedestrian connection that was recommended. Would you like me to?

Yes, please.

That additional pedestrian crosswalks be added to provide safe passage across the drive-through lanes?

Is that in both directions, north and west?

Laura, can you shift the site plan back?

So it's my understanding definitely from the west. And I don't know how the commission feels about this parking to the north.

That parking was not integral. That parking was not integral to the actual restaurant, so I think our focus was on the west side of the building.

I agree.

That a pedestrian crossing be added to the west side of the building across the drive-through lanes.

Yep. Are you going to suggest it? Do you want me to suggest it?

I don't remember who seconded.

Still second.

Did we miss what's labeled as condition number two about the door? No. It was incorporated. It was incorporated? Okay. Yeah.

Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor signify with aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Thank you. Motion passes.

Thank you.

Yeah, where could you come from?

Maybe down East Paris?

Okay, our last and final case for the day is for 528 and 532 Bridge Street NW. This is a request to expand an existing accessory surface parking lot to facilitate use as a paid public parking. The establishment of a surface parking lot for paid public parking is considered a principle. It's a principal use, so if a parking lot currently exists because it's intended to serve the building on the same property on which it exists, now allowing the use of public parking is the establishment of a new principal use, which is why this request is before you today, as a special land use. This property is comprised, or the subject site is comprised of two properties. in the transitional city center zone district, just on the outside edge of the city center zone district, located at the corner, the southeast corner of Bridge and Seward. This property is located within an area covered by the GR Forward Plan and the Westside Area Specific Plan. I will say that the GR Forward Plan generally discourages new surface parking while also acknowledging the need for parking facilities to support downtown uses. The surrounding properties include the Adobe Restaurant, the newly renovated. It looks very nice if you haven't been over there. A restaurant to the north. There is the railroad right of way to the east. DGRI, Downtown Grand Rapids Inc. has a community garden and futsal courts to the south. And there's mixed use to the west. I also want to mention that the area is well served by transit with rapid bus routes and dash routes running both along bridge and seward. And there are dash parking lots to the east of this subject property and to the south of this subject property. There is street parking available in the area, bike lanes on both sides of both Bridge and Seward. And then finally, both Bridge and Seward are classified as urban center streets within the city's Vital Streets Plan. This is a survey of the existing condition of the property. As combined, the properties are just over one acre in area. Existing improvements include approximately 13,000 square foot office building and a 57 space parking lot. You can see in this image, this is taken from Seward Avenue. The south property has an access that allows, it's an access drive, it is currently gravel, and that allows access onto 528 Bridge. And this is an image of the property from the north, from Bridge Street. And you can see that there is the single tree on the property and the green space is clustered at the access point along Bridge Street. The proposed site plan, the changes include extending the parking lot pavement to the south to add 18 parking spaces. There are two new pedestrian walkways proposed to provide access from the parking lot to the public sidewalk. The first is west to Seward Avenue. And I would like to point out that there are hatched areas where we found parking spaces which could not be navigated. A vehicle could not turn in or exit these parking spaces. Hatching those spaces out created a new area that looks like a parking space, and I might ask the Planning Commission to consider a condition of approval that would require this area to be marked and hatched out for no parking as well, so as not to block the pedestrian access to the parking lot. The other pedestrian walkway is to the north, off bridge, It's been proposed on the east side of the access drive. I find that the walkway would be better coordinated with the pedestrian access to the building and would ask the Planning Commission to consider relocation of that walkway to function in a more coordinated fashion. Parking lot screening is required for any parking lot adjacent to a right of way. And so that would be at the part of the area of the parking lot facing Seward Avenue. In this location, a four foot decorative metal fence and a five foot wide landscape buffer is proposed that will satisfy the zoning ordinance requirements. A 10-foot wide landscape buffer is also required between a parking lot and any area abutting a public park or recreational area. So that is required along the property line to the south. The new pavement at the south property line will be set back between 5 and 6.9 feet. That is less than the required 10 foot width. The Planning Commission may grant a departure if the Commission finds that the land use relationships between the abutting lots are such that the lesser buffer would be appropriate. The interior landscaping requirements for a parking lot, currently with one tree, this parking lot is non-conforming. With 75 parking spaces, five landscape trees or canopy trees would be required. Three new trees are proposed, bringing the property closer to conformance. The office use at 13,000 square feet requires a minimum of 28 parking spaces and a maximum of 34 parking spaces. The parking exceeding those spaces needed for the office use would be utilized for public parking, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And the parking spaces needed for the office use would become available outside office hours. I will defer to the applicant on the business operations of the public parking lot. In sum, we are asking the Planning Commission to consider the expansion of the service parking lot to serve as a public parking facility. and whether the coordinated use of parking, the office use during the day, and then the public parking for the spaces in excess of the office use and outside office hours is appropriate for this area. The landscape buffers as proposed, particularly to the south, and then the overall parking circulation and pedestrian connections. Are there any questions?

Thanks, Laura. Any questions for Lauren? Alright, then we'll invite the applicant up.

I don't actually have a question and forgive me for being out of order, but I have to leave and I would like to at least make a comment about this development before I leave. Whether or not you choose to approve this or not, I would like the Planning Commission to consider expanding the fence that's proposed on the south and west side of the site to potentially go down the east side abutting the the train tracks as well just for pedestrian safety and creating some kind of visual barrier. If we're going to expand that parking lot to the south and we have people that are going to be parking there and then heading east on Bridge Street to go different places, it would be nice to consider some type of barrier. Obviously, we can't stop people from going there, but we want to drive people towards the sidewalk and the pedestrian in those areas.

So they're not jumping the railroad tracks and shortcuts?

So kids aren't being kids. Just make it a little bit harder in life.

Good thought.

Thanks. And thank you for graciously allowing me to go out of order.

Hi everyone. Dave Rapp with Advantage Commercial Real Estate. I'm a principal there. Gary Albrecht as well, a principal. We're here to represent the property. I thought I'd just give you a quick history if you don't know of kind of how we've gotten to this point. And we also have a couple of our consultants here too as well. We have our contractor, general contractor from Visser Brothers as well as our engineer from Excel Engineering. So real quick, we purchased the building in February of last year with the intent to move our business there. We have worked with the city through the incentive process as well as the planning process. And it's taken a little longer than we thought. But we've been moving through that process methodically. We've also had some tenants that were in the building, some that were leaving, some that we had to relocate. And so we've been working through that process as well. So we're very close to finalizing our permits. As we were getting closer to that and finalized our incentives We wanted to get the parking lot process moving forward to to monetize it as well off hours As part of the project, so we're here to answer any questions you have Thank you any questions Applicant you have any problems with adding the fence along the railroad tracks for safety I So we've had a lot of conversations about that, and it's our intent to have those discussions and potentially put that there. We've had conversations about maintenance from a plowing standpoint, as well as whether or not we can even do it. Jeff, our contractor, could maybe answer that. But, yeah, we want that parking lot as secure as possible. I mean, as part of the renovations of the building, obviously a new parking lot, lots of landscaping, lots of new fencing, lots of new lighting, security cameras. There's a lot of things that are going into that parking lot as well beyond just the fence on the west side. But, yeah, open to that.

Would you be open to landscaping the parking spaces that have been hatched out on the seward, along seward?

Do you mean pulling up the asphalt? Yep. I think we'd rather not do that because there's so much landscaping already to the west of that.

Can you talk a little bit about how you would operationalize the public parking aspect?

Sure. Yeah, we've been contacted by a lot of different groups that are in town. Obviously, there's a lot of parking needs in downtown Grand Rapids and a lot of conversations about parking. We have had conversations with a couple third-party operators. We've had conversations with some local folks as well, too. I mean, we don't want... problems with third-party parking so we're very aware of coming up with the simplest best products that we can utilize to make sure that it's Handled appropriately so we don't know who that's going to be yet But we're going to filter through that process and I know the city's I know you guys have had a lot of conversations about that as well too and are certainly aware of not wanting to create problems for the city as well as people calling in and confusion related to parking. It would be our intent to partner with somebody on this that is going to put the appropriate signage up, make sure everybody's fully aware that this parking lot's monetized, and have it done in a mobile way. I don't think having somebody on site's practical for this lot in this particular situation, so that would be our intent.

I will add that we've talked probably most extensively to a third-party group that actually manages quite a few other surface area lots up and down Bridge. So that's primarily who we've talked to. So there's, you know, if you did go move forward with that group, there's familiarity with a lot of the other lots up and kind of down bridge that people use for nights and weekends going to the restaurants and bars. To Dave's point, we have not made a decision on who that's going to be yet.

I would say they already have people in the area that are monitoring those lots, so most likely we'd choose somebody that's already in the area. I would also say that if you drive by there on a Friday or Saturday night, typically the parking lot's half full of people already parking there, so there's already a lot of confusion about people utilizing that parking lot. The last thing we want to do is put up towing signs and be dealing with issues with people parking there that don't understand the operations of that parking lot. So we think by monetizing it and using a third party, that'll help stop any confusion related to that.

Can you help me understand, is the existing parking being reconstructed?

Yes.

So all of the asphalt is being torn up?

Yes. And right now there's, you know, there's two separate parcels and there's some history to this site that we're not completely sure what happened. You know, the site to the South DGRI owns, you know, there's this, this previous owner of this property at some point sold a piece or however they worked that out. And so we have this weird sliver that goes down Seward that backs around the backside of the property. And as part of our permitting process, I'm pretty sure that they're asking us to merge those, right, Jeff. So there's a process going on there as well. Um, So the portion of the parking lot that's currently gravel will obviously be repaved, and then the parking lot itself is too. And it needs to be repaved because of the condition of it.

It hasn't been addressed in a number of years. There's some sloping issues.

So when you say repaved, it's actually being reconstructed. It's not just like a mill and resurface.

Jeff? It's close to that. I mean, you're not modifying all the grades in there.

I'm sorry, can you come up for the microphone? We're live streamed and it does not pick up voices that are not into the microphone.

So to Gary's point, the condition of the lot's been deteriorated, so it needs to get repaired, and it's beyond just a surface mill at this point. The cracks are two through most of the asphalt and potholes and everything else. With the improvements we're doing to the building, we're making some minor grade adjustments, two things to make it more basically accessible for where staircases are, where the handicap ramp is going, but we're not changing grades by three feet. So I don't know I'd really call it a reconstruction. It's more of a repair and improvement of the existing one. Sure.

But a significant one. I guess I was asking that question for clarity because the question that Commissioner Swem asked about adding landscape islands where the hatch pattern is, although it may be existing impervious surface today, you're already tearing that up. And so it seems like... There could be an opportunity not to put it back.

Yeah, I don't disagree with the concept. The one thing that I would say, though, is that with that end spot, you really don't want it to end into a landscape bed where someone's opening the door right into it.

Yeah, having a little cutout, I think, would definitely, or we see them on Lake Michigan Drive, like a back-end space almost, which would be probably necessary as well because of the pedestrian connection there, too.

But I think the intent was trying to leave kind of that last line of that asphalt, you know, in line with that landscape bed across that whole area. I think it also opens some other opportunities for, you know, just a different, I guess I wonder about like a motorcycle parking spot or if someone comes with an e-bike, like does it offer an opportunity for someone to park something like that in a reduced area?

By keeping it open, the problem, how we got to this point too is those parking spots you just couldn't safely back into them we thought. Talking to Laura and working through it. If you left it open, if you closed it up I think you'd have a hard time for that second row of parking spots too to maybe turn in and out. I guess it would depend on how much asphalt you pull up. If you're pulling up the whole parking spot then you're almost kind of creating the same situation that we had

that got us to where we are. And we also thought it would be a good spot to push some snow there during the winter as well versus piling up onto a landscaping bed that you have a bunch of landscaping. Just to be able to have a place to kind of push snow, as we all know in Michigan, you push snow up into corners of parking lots and you end up losing a few spots. So having a little bit of additional asphalt there for that particular reason would go a long ways in our opinion as well.

And that landscape island is what dimension? Five feet? Okay. So it's five feet, but it is the minimum necessary. And with the amount of parking that's being proposed, I just wondered if there was a bit of a compromise to provide a little bit more separation between the public space, the sidewalk, and the parking. Still able to achieve some snow storage space, still able to provide that adequate circulation, but maybe increasing that buffer a little bit so that it's not all impervious.

Sure, we'd be open. to having that conversation.

Thank you.

Any other questions? All right. Then I will ask you guys to take a seat. Thank you. And we'll open up the public hearing. If anybody is here to speak to this case, Please approach the mic, state your name, and you'll have three minutes.

Hello, my name is Jessica Prestigiacomo, and I am a resident of the apartment complex that is across the street. And today I am here in support of this new public parking lot. For full transparency, I am currently employed by Advantage Commercial Real Estate. As a nearby resident, I have firsthand experience of how limited the parking is in the area. My complex has limited parking to begin with, so a lot of the residents have to park on the streets or nearby streets for where we live. And with the nature of Bridge Street, including all the bars and restaurants open up late, this causes us to basically compete for parking with those that are visiting the area. In addition, when I want to have guests over, many times they are forced to park streets away because of how busy the surrounding streets are in my area. And I believe that opening up an area for more parking to the public will not only alleviate the issue with my apartment complex, but will help those that are visiting the area. So thank you.

Thank you. any other comments right and i will close the public hearing and uh... open to discussion i believe there's uh...

comment made about the proposed sidewalk the pedestrian access to the parking lot on the north elevation by that uh... drive entrance and potentially moving that to the building side but from the plans it doesn't look like the size of that landscape area is going to change right can maybe i can have the applicant speak to that it looks like that You're proposing to remove the curb along the west side of that north entrance, but not change the dimensions of that landscape area?

Yeah, yeah. So I think what you were getting at too is that we have a ramp that we're relocating from the back of the building.

Mm-hmm.

front of the building and I think you were stating that you thought maybe it could go there. I think to answer your question, yeah, we're just adding the sidewalk there to connect those.

Sure. But Laura, were you suggesting that the sidewalk, the pedestrian access next to the tree could move to the west side of that drive? And if the From looking at the street view, it doesn't look like there's space for that. It kind of goes, there's a grade change up to the building there.

We looked at it, and there wasn't enough room, I think, when we looked at it, Jeff, when we walked it. Not with you, but with our engineer and contractor. And we also, because of the grade, we relocated as part of our LUDS permit, we relocated the handicapped spots as well to have a better grade. So they're now on the side of the parking lot where that new connector would be as far as getting away from the parking lot rather than going to the building.

So you've proposed removing the curb. Are you putting curb back in? after reconstruction of the parking lot?

I don't know the technical part of how that's being installed.

Yes, I mean, the landscape area here, they're already pretty limited, and I understand creating more pedestrian connectivity to the parking lot, especially as there's more public users, but I don't know if having the sidewalk there is... a good thing or a bad thing. Basically removing, you know, permeable area that the tree can suck up the water that's gonna fall there.

I think the suggestion or the idea of moving that sidewalk from the east side of the access point to the west side was to facilitate pedestrian connectivity into the building.

Oh, I see.

Whereas right now, you've got a sidewalk that, as it's shown on the plan, a sidewalk that ends into a parking lot and you still have to cross the parking lot.

Is that more of a form-based consideration than a use-based consideration? Because it seems to me that most of the building users are probably parking in the lot. Since it's not mostly a retail use.

Perhaps if you lived across the street, you might.

Well, that's true, yeah.

I don't know. It was more looking at... that sidewalk doesn't seem to have a good purpose. And so if it's not safely connecting to anything, is there a reason to use the green space for it? And so the thought was, could it flip to the west side of the access drive? If it can't, maybe perhaps at least it keeps people temporarily out of the access drive, but not for long.

Yeah, it's a tough spot. But if we're talking about this as a paid parking lot, pedestrians are going to be exiting out that way to go wherever they're headed, generally out Bridge Street, I would think.

Yeah, if you look at the street view, they're already using, they're walking through that tree lawn on the eastern side of the property line. So right next to the railroad tracks there is the well-worn area. So if you use that as a, theory of where to put sidewalks, but that also doesn't make sense because then you are entering where a car is theoretically parked.

I mean, to formalize that would also dump the pedestrian into the crossing of the train.

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying that I don't know that there's a good solution here to create a pedestrian access point because I think it is fairly cramped on the west side of that access point.

I don't know this. I mean, if they're reconstructing the lot and asking for creation of a paid parking lot, I don't know what that drive aisle is in there, but it feels quite wide. It could be

The drive aisle is listed as 23.4 feet. The actual curb cut does not appear to be dimensioned.

It's not overly wide.

Another concern here is that tree doesn't look all that healthy right now. And if you start cutting into the grade and installing a sidewalk there, I have a feeling it's probably not going to last. But I don't, I'm not an expert on trees. It just looks well established.

So, on that topic, I think paving that small section of that island doesn't make any sense. It's not connecting anybody to anything. I don't, with the current site plan and the location of the new ramp, I don't know, you'd be paving most of the green space on the other side of the drive. That connectivity doesn't exist today, so I'd could be convinced that it doesn't need to exist. It'd be nice if it did, but it would require a redesign of kind of everything we're looking at. So, yeah, at a minimum, I'd probably just get rid of that little bit of sidewalk and forget about it. I do... Considering the fact that we're being asked to waive a buffer to the neighboring property, I think that there's really no reason not to provide more landscaping between Seward and the parking lot, especially since it's getting repaved. And no cars are going to park there. They're still going to be able to turn it out of there because you wouldn't do the landscaping across the whole thing. You would just do it. where those two parking spaces are cross-hatched. And then that gives an opportunity to meet the tree canopy requirements. So I think it's a good idea. I can support it if along those lines, it's a weird site. And so with the gravel lot and other things like, Do I think this site's highest and best used? Probably not. They're not wrong. Bridge Street's busy, so there's some opportunities. I mean, at least leveraging the property in a way that helps to serve other businesses should be helpful. But if we can't talk about those, I mean, yeah. I mean, without the additional landscaping, I don't support it.

looking at those hatched areas they look to be about eight and a half feet wide or the width of a parking space would you be comfortable of utilizing three and a half feet of that so that there still is a five foot transitional space between the parking spot and the landscape island to provide a little bit of compromise but flexibility for the maneuver.

Personally it's where I would park because it means there's nobody parking on that side of my car which means I have less people to worry about so the idea that nobody's going to park next to a curb because they can't get out of their car don't agree with and that condition exists everywhere so a foot or two sure but beyond that we can make them nine and a half foot spaces instead of eight and a half or whatever but I'm I that's my personal opinion I'm only one boat so

Anybody else? Anybody prepared to make a motion? Anybody?

I'll make a motion. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Planning Commission approves the special land use and site plan review request of Acre Bridge Street LLC, John Kuyper, to expand an existing accessory surface parking lot to facilitate use as paid public parking at 528 and 532 Bridge Street Northwest 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 coordinated use of an existing service lot supports objective 4C in the 2024 community master plan. Conveniently located public parking will contribute to a level of activity necessary to support the retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses desired by the GR Forward Plan. 2. The proposed use will meet the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08. Point E, because the parking lot improvements associated with the expansion will meet zoning ordinance requirements and bring the property closer to conformance relative to green space and tree canopy. 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 parking lot already exists and is Its coordinated use will add availability of necessary parking, the increased amount of surface parking will be minimal, and public parking at this location will provide an opportunity for visitors of downtown to park once and walk to a variety of destinations. 3B, the proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the provision of adequate public parking will help support businesses in a vibrant and growing downtown area, and the parking lot will be improved to meet screening requirements. 3C, the proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare because the proposed use is not anticipated to result in excessive noise, glare, or visual clutter. 3D. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because people will be parking in this lot in order to walk to off-site businesses, activities, and events. An adequate vehicle queuing will be provided on the property out of the public street and sidewalk. 5B, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or the economic welfare of the city because the use will ensure the viability of the surrounding uses by creating additional public parking. 5C, the proposed use will comply with all other applicable city ordinances and policies and all applicable state laws. through maintenance of a City of Grand Rapids parking facility license. Be it further resolved that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project. One, standard condition set A approvals as displayed on the screen. Two, that the properties shall be combined. Three, that a City of Grand Rapids parking facility business license shall be maintained. Kristen, did you have another one?

That the sidewalk on the east side of the Bridge Street access be removed. That fencing along the east lot line be to be installed to provide a separation between parking and the railroad. And finally, that the landscape screening along Seward be increased to 12 feet in width where the proposed plan currently shows a hatched area and that additional plantings be added to fill the landscape bed.

Motion, do we have a second? Second. All right. Any discussion? All right. All those in favor signify with an aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. We have planning commission discussion next, but I feel like we're usually doing public hearings next, but public comment?

Nope, just a reminder that there will be a joint meeting with the Mobile GR Commission at the second meeting in August, which I believe is Thursday, August 27th. No decisions will be made. It's more of an introductory to the mobility blueprint. We'll explain what that is, what is the process, what is the scope of the project, and yeah, I think that's all.

Great. Thank you.

Good call. Thank you. We would like to thank Avery very much for her service to the City of Grand Rapids. Tomorrow will be her last day, so we're excited for her for this next chapter to be closer to family. Thanks, Avery.

All right, and then I will open up the public comment period again. If anybody is interested in commenting, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, we'll close the public comment period, and we are adjourned.