Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

¦ ¦ ¦ music music So, Thank you.

Okay, welcome everybody to the City of Grand Rapids Planning Commission meeting on September 10th, 2026. We are going to start the public hearings here soon, but I'll just run through our procedures. For each case, we'll have staff come up and give us their report, and then we'll have an opportunity for the applicant to add additional information. At that point, we'll open up the public hearing, and anyone who wants to provide their thoughts on that specific case can come up to the microphone and address comments to the Planning Commission for up to three minutes. We'll close the public comment and the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to any of the public comments that have been stated and then Planning Commission will deliberate and make a decision. Couple things to note, we are, the meeting's being streamed live on Facebook and YouTube, and staff, if you see anyone reading when we're making resolutions, staff does provide some draft language with draft findings, both approval and denial, and so we as commissioners have complete latitude to modify those and change those, but if folks are reading, just know that no decisions have been made ahead of time. With that I will Ask oh, you have something before conflict of interest. I just want to know I don't sorry. Oh, um, I Yeah, it does Let's do conflict of interest. Does anyone have a conflict of interest that they need to? Stay here today Okay, seeing that all right. Go ahead Kristen.

Sorry. I just wanted to check in if we were Okay with the setup Elizabeth Yeah Okay, just wanted to check in, thanks.

For sure. Okay, whenever you're ready, depending on the recording situation, we'll start with 834 Livingston.

Okay, so this first item is a request to rezone property from the open space zone district to the TNLDR, traditional neighborhood, low density residential zone district. And the intent of the rezoning is to facilitate a multifamily development. The subject property is located on Belknap Hill. It's east of the unimproved Livingston Avenue. And, well, you can't really, here's, we've got Livingston. It goes around, we have a water, It's an underground water tank. And this property is part, it's city property, and it's controlled by the water department. And the portion of the property is to be purchased from the city, from the water department, to support this multifamily residential property. Because the property is currently zoned open space, in order to facilitate that development, it would need to be rezoned to TNLDR. It's a wooded parcel of about 19,000 square feet surrounded by residential. And it's in the mixed housing area of the Belknap area specific plan. And that mixed housing designation suggests that a diversity of housing is encouraged to support changing needs and different life stages. while well here I'm going to show you the the proposed development and while working on this development the applicant approached the city about purchasing a portion of the subject property and that would That would facilitate a more developable site. We've got some steep slopes on the site. The project did already get variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals, but this makes it a rectangle rather than an irregular site. So this would just facilitate that development. It would allow the development to meet the rear setback, allow for additional parking spaces, and increase the overall green space and tree canopy for the project. So the applicant will be purchasing about 4,500 square feet from the city, but only 2,400 square feet needs to be rezoned. So that is what is before you today. Rezoning about 2,400 square feet of property currently owned by the city from open space to TNLDR to facilitate a residential development. And I'll be happy to answer any questions or turn it over to the applicant's representative.

Awesome. Thanks, Elizabeth. Any questions for Elizabeth? Okay, no. Then we'll have the applicant come up.

My name's Greg Metz from Lot 3 Metz Crutcher Architecture, representing the clients on this project and also the architect for the project. When we started working on this project, 12 unit development. As Elizabeth stated, it's steep slopes, it's a very challenging site. Early on then, once we got some concepts developed, we met with the Newberry co-housing group, which is right next to it. And it was a really good turnout. I want to say close to 20 people. We had a tremendously great conversation. And one of the suggestions that came out of that conversation was, hey, Did you approach the city ever about buying that little piece of property that would make this a complete rectangle, and wow, you could have a few more parking spots, and you could probably get rid of a few BZA items, and I was skeptical that the city would even want to entertain selling the property, but I did. I reached out to the city, and the city was amenable to it, and... That's what brings us here today. And so by being able to purchase this property, it did allow us to have one parking spot, will allow us to have one parking spot per unit, plus an additional barrier-free space. Also, it allowed us to get rid of the rear yard setback requirement, so we did not need VZA relief from that. Also, While we did have to get some steep slope relief, this did allow us to eliminate even more relief. So it really made it simpler to construct the project and try to keep it within the bounds of the zoning ordinance as best we could. And as Elizabeth said, it's a small parcel and only half of that parcel Let's see if I can navigate this. There he is, aha! Only the northern half of the parcel is zoned OS. The southern half of this proposed parcel that we want to buy is LDR. So what we're asking today is just that little tiny sliver to be rezoned to LDR to be in compliance with the rest of the property. And as all of you probably have surmised, I will be back someday. to present the 12 unit property to see if we can get that allowed on the LDR site. So this does not mean that I'm allowed to do the 12 unit, but it's one step closer. So that's why I'm here. Any questions? Happy to answer.

Sure, I just want, so what I'm getting from this is that you'll disturb less of the steep slope as a result of

the rezoning of this half of the land? I did not have to have relief from as much steep slope as I did without this piece of land. Without this piece of land, I would need more steep slope relief.

Okay, so by needing less steep slope relief, does that mean you are building into less of the steep slope? Yes. Okay, thank you. That's okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Go ahead.

There was some density issues raised at the zoning meeting on this. If you have this extra bit of land, will it ease the crowding towards the co-op that was expressed in that meeting?

Whether we get to land or not would not change the amount of units, nor would it change the relationship to the cohousing group. It pretty much stays the same.

Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, I will open up the public hearing. If you are here and would like to provide comments on this case, make your way up to the microphone. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners.

So I've seen similar situations on other sites, just looking at them for potential clients, but I think there's a number of places in the city where it makes a lot of sense that city-owned parcels were zoned OS, but as we're looking at additional housing density in the city and Opportunity sites in the city. There are a few OS sites that Probably don't make as much sense as open spaces Maybe they did at one point or it was just easy to zone them open space because they were adjacent to a park and their city owned so I looking at depth of the lots to the south of this among other things there's I think This makes a lot of sense to me, that it would be zoned as LDR and not as OS. And it also cleans up an issue where one parcel is zoned two things, which is always fun.

Anyone else?

Yeah, I think this makes sense. I think the scale is appropriate for the location and the neighborhood and some of the changes that have happened there. Yeah, seems to make sense to me.

Paul, did you have?

Yeah, I was just going to say I walked this several years ago looking at it with some other people that were trying to figure out what they could do there. It really is an awkward site. I think it's better off having the extra space to build a more traditional opportunity there and not inflict on that slope. So yeah, I would be supportive.

Yeah, I think this is pretty straightforward, surrounded by LDR, consistent with the pattern of development and all of that. Would anyone be willing to make a motion?

Yeah. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Hillside on Coit LLC Francisco Melendez to rezone the northerly half of the southerly 58 feet of 836 livingston avenue northeast from sdos special district open space to tnldr traditional neighborhood low density residential zone district facilitate a lot split combination and future residential development for the following reasons the proposed zone district changes will be consistent with the purpose intent of the master plan and the zoning ordinance because of future land use and the future including the future land use map because the 2024 community master plan future land use map designation of the property supports residential development and new housing types The proposed zone district will further the themes and objectives of the master plan as well as any relevant and adopted area-specific plans because the rezoning will more closely align with the 2024 Community Master Plan Great Neighborhoods Recommendation to allow greater variety of housing types in low-density residential zone districts, 1.b.2, And the rezoning will provide an opportunity for residential development that will promote neighborhood diversity as recommended in the mixed housing areas of Belknap neighborhood ASP. The property to be rezoned can reasonably accommodate the requirements of the proposed zone district because it will meet the minimum law area and width requirements of the zone district. The proposed zone district designation is compatible with the existing zone districts in the neighborhood because other properties with a TNLDR designation are located immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. The physical, geological, hydrological, and other environmental features of the property to be rezoned are compatible with the full range of uses in the proposed zone district because there are no apparent environmental features on the property that would inhibit the full range of uses on the property as proposed to be zoned. Adequate public facilities that will safeguard health of safety and general welfare of the public already exist and will or will be provided no additional public cost The proposed zone district or neighborhood classification will not be detrimental to the financial stability and the economic welfare of the city because the proposed zone change will facilitate development and use of the property and Development will be outside the city water main on adjacent property The proposed zone district is consistent with the trend of development in the neighborhood because the existing neighborhood consists of TN LDR zoned properties.

Second that. Okay, we have a motion and support. Any additional discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thanks. Okay, we will now go to our next case, which is 1038 Leonard Street NW.

The next case, 1038 Leonard Street, Northwest, is request for a ground floor coworking office to also serve as a lounge accessory to a fitness gym with 24-hour key card access. That all sounds very confusing, I am sure, and that's why we have our applicant here today to answer all those questions about how all this will work. But what I can tell you is the subject property is located in a TNTBA zone district. We've got the LDR zone district to the south. The subject property, we're looking at the back here, we're looking north, but you can see on the east and the west there is a parking lot on either side. The property to the west is the proposed Matthews House building that came to the Planning Commission about a year ago. We have a church across the street, library, and various other commercial uses in the area. The property is about 19,000 square feet. It's at the corner of Pine and Leonard, so it has frontage on two streets. And there was formerly, I don't know if we have any, it doesn't look like we have any photos, but it formerly housed a Chinese restaurant, I think the New Great Wall Restaurant, and a retail store. I mentioned the parking, and it doesn't look like we have a trash enclosure at this time. So the building will be divided into three separate commercial suites. I'm gonna start with the rear of the building. It will be occupied by a bakery and cafe, and then there will be two suites, Suites One and Two fronting Leonard. Suite one will be a 24-hour fitness gym, and then suite two is our subject suite. All three will share a common corridor that includes restrooms and perhaps some storage. The suite that the co-working space will occupy will be shared by a combination of uses. A 24-hour coworking office space, which is the subject of your consideration today. I should mention both the 24-hour use as well as the ground floor office use require your consideration. So it will be this 24-hour co-working office space. And then in the evening from, I believe, 4 to 11 will be a dry bar, which is a non-alcoholic cocktail lounge. And then the space will also serve as a lounge for the adjacent... fitness gym. And again, I'll defer to the applicant about any of those questions on any of those details about those uses. Relative to the co-working space, there will be a conference room that can be reserved by members. The applicant estimates that the co-working space can accommodate about 50 people. It will be unstaffed And it will be key card access only for members when it's not open for the dry bar. This space will also serve as, as I mentioned, a lounge for folks, members of the gym to relax. Although the coworking space is not open to the public, it's key card access only, between the hours of four and 11, it will be open to the public for that dry bar use. There is a kitchen behind, there's a kitchen adjacent to the suite that will be located, that will be used by the bakery, but will also be shared with the dry bar. And perhaps also the co-working space, I'm not sure. The applicant could speak to that. According to the... Applicant there'll be two to three employees on duty at any given time There will be three uses on site. But we have calculated, I should mention, there are three uses on site. The applicant has submitted a building permit for the bakery use and to white box the other two suites. And based on that we've determined that parking will be adequate for the shared uses. We have not received any correspondence to date, but the applicant did do some neighborhood outreach. They can provide additional details. I did correspond with the West Leonard Corridor Improvement Authority. This project was presented to them for a facade improvement grant. There were no objections to the use at that time. And I'll be happy to answer any questions that I can or turn it over to the applicant.

Thank you, Elizabeth. Any questions for Elizabeth at this point?

I believe, Elizabeth, you mentioned what maybe help specifically what are we asked for?

It's the 24-hour use and well I should say let's the co-working space is the primary use so co-working we consider it an office. You might remember when bamboo came before you at Fulton and Division and that was also a co-working space that we considered an office use. So it needs, you know, it needs Planning Commission special land use approval for that ground to floor office use. Secondarily, it will be operating 24 hours a day when it's, you know, not daylight hours or when there was no one there to man the office. It will be Key card access only.

Okay. Thank you.

Anything else right now? Okay. Thank you, Elizabeth. We'll have the applicant come up.

Good afternoon, commissioners, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Olivia Mendez, and I am the growth and brand manager for the 1038 Leonard Street location. I'm here to talk about a concept that I believe can bring something valuable to our community, a communal lounge and co-working space during the day that transitions into a dry bar and social space in the evening. At the core, this is about creating a space where people can come together. Grand Rapids has a strong social scene, thriving food and beverage, and nightlife culture. We think there's an opportunity to complement that culture with something more unique. A space where people go to have a good time, meet new people, build relationships, or simply spend time in the community while being alcohol-free. Our goal is not to compete with the businesses that already exist, it is to complement them. During the day, our space can function as a lounge-styled communal office and co-working environment. Someone could bring their laptop, meet with a client, work on a project, or simply get out of the house and work around other people. But beyond having desks and Wi-Fi, we want it to feel like a community space. Business is booming here in Grand Rapids. There are so many people who now work remotely, are entrepreneurs, starting small businesses, freelance, or just want somewhere outside of their home to feel productive. Having a space like our Leonard location where those people can naturally cross paths create even more opportunities for networking and collaboration that doesn't necessarily happen when everyone works alone. Then, when the evening comes, the same space can transform into a social lounge and dry bar. and I believe that distinction to be important. We want people to be able to go somewhere after work, meet their friends, make new friends, participate in networking, and just enjoy a drink without alcohol being the centerpiece of the experience. A community is not just built through major developments or large events, it is built through everyday interactions, people sitting next to one another, meeting a neighbor, talking with another business owner, discovering a local organization, or making a connection that potentially turns into something bigger. And at our Leonard location, that's what we want to encourage. We also believe that this can benefit the surrounding business community when you give people another reason to spend time in an area. You're creating additional foot traffic and opportunities for neighboring businesses. Some might come to our space for work or a meeting, grab lunch nearby, visit another local business, or attend an event and continue spending time in the neighborhood afterwards. We want to be a part of the Grand Rapids community, not simply operate a business within it. We are interested in hosting happy hours for the neighborhood, building community, and other opportunities to connect. Most importantly, we want this to be a welcoming place for the community. You shouldn't have to drink alcohol to have a social life, you shouldn't have to be at home to work, and you shouldn't have to belong to a traditional private club to have access to a place where you can meet people and feel connected to your community. We believe that our upcoming Leonard location can help fill that gap. A space where work and community overlaps, a place where businesses can connect and thrive, where individuals can pursue their dreams, meet their neighbors, and socialize in an alcohol-free environment that welcomes all. Grand Rapids is a city that values entrepreneurship, small businesses, community, and innovation. We believe this concept reflects those values. We're excited about the possibility of creating a space that isn't just another business, but another piece of community. Thank you guys so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Questions for the applicant?

Thank you. Sounds like an interesting, yeah, I like the concept. I'm wondering if you can help with a few clarification things. So what I understand, suite three is going to be a bakery cafe, right? And what are the hours of that intended to be?

I believe that we're working on hours of operation, but similar to our prior bakeries, we operate from about 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. but it could go longer.

Okay, and that kitchen, no, let me get to that. Okay, so which, suite one and two, which one is the gym, which one's co-working?

Suite one is gonna be the gym, suite two is gonna be the co-working lounge.

Okay, and the gym members will all have access to the co-working space 24-7?

Yes.

And that space is not staffed at any, not staffed consistently at any time?

We are going to have two to three staff that are going to be in the building. They could, you know, it could be a manned area, it could be a not manned area, but they will be in the building at all times.

Okay. And then if I'm a co-working member, do I have access to the gym at all times as well? Is it reciprocal?

I believe that we're still developing that, but, I mean, we're open to...

Both are 24-7 spaces, though?

Yes.

Okay. And then... The dry bar space, the co-working space will then share the kitchen with the bakery during those, right? During the four to 11 hours and then it's open to the public.

Yes.

Gotcha. Okay. Yeah, I think that's helpful for now. Thank you.

So I heard that the co-working space will have space for about 50 people. Is that kind of the occupancy limit for the lounge and the kind of 4 to 11 time frame as well? Or do you have a different occupancy expectation for those parts of the use?

I believe it will be similar. I think we are keeping it at 50.

And do y'all have an operations plan? I'm not sure of that this time. Okay. Are there questions for the applicant? Yeah.

So am I hearing you correctly that this space is similar to others you've done like this?

We have two bakeries, yes.

And the bakeries, do they have gyms and common spaces as well?

I meant the operational hours are going to be similar to our bakeries.

Gotcha. So this is kind of new.

Yes.

Gotcha. Okay. Thank you.

So at any given time, meaning 24-7, there will be at least one, if not two, employees in one of the three spaces? Yes.

We plan on having two to three, and we're also working with the police department to have our staff trained for safety requirements.

Okay. So two to three employees at any given time in one of the spaces that would then be presumably roaming to ensure safety of the other spaces?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. And Presumably suite two could not, there's no thoughts of, so you call it a lounge space as an accessory to the gym, there's no anticipated live entertainment or DJs or events or anything like that? No. No, and there's no ability to rent that space separately? No. No, okay. So after 11 p.m., the facility would only be available to individuals that had a membership for coworking or those that have a membership to the gym? Yes. Which may be the same people or not. Yes. Okay, thank you.

I think two questions. Are the members allowed to bring guests?

So right now we're in the process of developing our membership and what that's going to look like. So I don't think at this time we're doing like a plus one for the members right now, but that's something we could look into if you guys would recommend that.

Okay. And then did you have, I think you probably already said this and I'm sorry if you're repeating yourself, did you have a max number of members that you were going to allow?

So it depends on the occupancy space that we're using. You know, suite one, suite two, they could all be different. But we know that in the lounge space right now would be a 50 occupancy rate.

Okay. But 50 members doesn't necessarily equate to 50 people in the space at the same time.

Yes. So 50 people in the space, maybe it could be a little bit more than 50 people for the membership. We haven't looked at those numbers quite yet. And then do you have plans for cameras? Yes, we do. We want to space it out throughout the suite. We want exterior lighting, exterior cameras for the parking lots to ensure that our guests are safe.

Okay, thank you.

Could you talk about the, I understand there was neighborhood meetings conducted. Could you talk about those?

The neighborhood meetings, so are you talking about the surveys that we took to, yeah, okay. So we surveyed around 100 people, and I think a little more than 100 people, and 100 people said that yes, they were interested in having those things in their neighborhood. But yeah, we wanted to do outreach to make sure that this was something that would fulfill the neighborhood.

Okay, thank you. I will open up the public hearing. If you would like to provide comments on this case, please come up. Great.

Hello, my name is Tim Ozinga. I live at 1154 Pine, which is right across the street to the east. I've been there 25 years, which is hard to believe. And I lived on Powers within sight of that property seven years before that. So, yeah, you can... see just to the east that's where I am I did get a postcard a while back about taking a survey what do you want to see in this property so I thought that was a nice thing like everyone I was kind of intrigued and my head was spinning when I read all the details about what they're proposing but sounds like a good thing I don't see anything any red flags I'm glad somebody wants to own a building near me and keep it going, so I would be in favor of it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. I will close the public comment period and turn to commissioners.

Just based on the the testimony the conversation of the Commission and the uniqueness of the of the use if the Planning Commission was moving forward with a an approval I just had a number of conditions that following this Presentation thought might be helpful and that would be that the building shall be staffed with at least two employees at any given time that suite two shall not have more than 50 persons at any single time and can finesse that language. That suite two shall not be rented separately nor have live entertainment or ticketed events. And that the operations plan shall be developed in partnership with the Grand Rapids Police Department, which apparently is underway.

Yeah, I think that those, I think it's a really unique concept. I think it could be really valuable and a really unique asset to the community. I think there are some fuzzy pieces of it that I think could be worked out. Many of those I think that the director mentioned as conditions I think would serve to start addressing those. I think any time you have a 24-7 operation and the uniqueness of the three uses trying to work together, you know, it could be fantastic or it could create some issues. I think that those types of conditions set to it would be helpful and would probably be enough to gain my support.

Yeah, I think the concept of, like, a third space is inviting. I think it's a good thing for the community, especially if people are, you know, for trying to get affordable housing and we're putting people in smaller houses, sometimes it's nice to have somewhere to go outside of your house that's somewhat private, that's more of a, where you can just connect with people. So I think it's a cool concept and I'm in support with the recommendations presented by staff.

Yeah, I agree. I wouldn't even call them concerns, but my questions were more related to like the operations plan and all of that. So with that being developed in coordination with staff and our police department, I'm comfortable with that too. I'm also wondering if it's appropriate to request a trash enclosure be provided. Just based on the level of redevelopment, just from staff's perspective.

So typically we have not required trash enclosures. If there's a trash enclosure constructed or put on the site, then an enclosure is required. If a dumpster is put on site, then an enclosure is required.

Okay, then I guess my question, I'm so sorry, I don't want to cut you off, but are you planning to use bins for trash? I'm sorry, Chris.

No, we would be proposing a trash dumpster. And in talking with Rowan from the planning department, it would go right here and it would be just like a fence. It would be on the alley side of the building. Okay. All right.

Thank you. Okay. Yeah, that sounds perfectly fine. I think it's up to you. What's under your purview is the co-working space and the 24-hour nature. And so I think it might be a little bit challenging to suggest that that space would generate enough concern for trash, whereas I could definitely see the bakery, which is more of a staff-level discussion.

Yeah, for sure. Thank you. I'm hearing consensus and seeing potential toward a motion here.

I'd be delighted. Now, therefore, it be resolved that the Planning Commission approves the special land use and site plan review request of 1038 Ventures LLC, Houston Moyer, for a ground floor co-working office with 24 key card access to also serve as a lounge accessory to a fitness gym at 1038 Leonard 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 proposed use will contribute to the mixed use character of the neighborhood business district and will support the 2024 community master plan, a strong economy recommendation to utilize an underutilized commercial building to support non-retail businesses to encourage additional investment and activity, which will better enhance the potential for future retail use. Two, the proposed use will meet the site plan review standards of section 5.12.8.E because the existing building will be brought closer to current provisions of the zoning ordinance. Three A, the proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because activity associated with the proposed use is not anticipated to impose a burden on other uses in the area. And the proposed use will support the desired mixed use character of the neighborhood. 3B, potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed development on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through available off-street parking, on-street parking, and transit. 3C, the proposed uses will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter. because the office use with proposed 24-hour access is not anticipated to generate additional traffic during late night or early morning hours that may disturb nearby residents, and the use will occur indoors. 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 the building is existing and the site layout is not proposed to change. 5B, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the city because the use will encourage other investments in the area and members of the co-working office space will have the opportunity to patronize nearby businesses. 5C, the proposed use will comply with all other applicable city ordinances and policies and all applicable state laws. Be it further resolved that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project. standard condition set A approvals. One, that the application and plan submitted by the applicant and signed, dated, and stamped by the planning director shall constitute the approved plans except that the plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and or as amended in this resolution. Two, that the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony. Three, that this approval does not include any proposed signs and any future signs shall be the subject of the requirements of Article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. that a Land Use Development Services permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the City of Grand Rapids prior to construction, demolition, or operation. Five, that any expansion of the approved special land use requires an additional special land use review and approval by the Planning Commission. Six, that the proposed use will comply with all other applicable city ordinances and policies in all state laws. And seven, that this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission's decision. Item two, that group gatherings shall be limited to 4 to 11 p.m. Does that sound good to everybody? Five bar hours.

I was wondering if maybe the other conditions that would be a replacement of that.

All right, so strike that one, and then if you'll read the other ones. Sure, I mean, your motion. Thank you. But based on the testimony and the conversation here, I struck that one and went with the four or five that I'm about to read, if that's okay?

Yes.

That the building shall be staffed with at least two employees at any given time to ensure coordination of the three suites. That the occupancy of suite two be limited to 50 persons. That Suite 2 shall not be rented separately nor have live entertainment, DJ, or ticketed events. That an operations plan addressing security for shared spaces and the 24-hour use be developed in partnership with the Grand Rapids Police Department. So moved.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and support.

Sorry, can I just clarify? Did the 50-person occupancy, did, like, that are you comfortable with that occupancy at 2 a.m. for example is if that were to happen it's not going to be rented separately maybe it maybe it's covered I just want to make sure that we again in light of the unique new use we just want to make sure that we don't have any unanticipated impacts could we make a motion that says that the

police department while establishing the operations plan has the authority to decrease that if they find it's appropriate? I feel like they would be the one that has the most information whether that would be okay.

I would suggest no because that could be a very arbitrary number for them.

Is the 50 person occupancy based on building code for like the square footage of that suite in particular?

It was based on the testimony of how they anticipated using that space. Of course, if the building official determines that it can only support 40 persons, then that would supersede you. Right.

I think I'm fine with it because it closes to the public at 11 p.m., so then it would be 50 members accessing the space via their key card.

So I'm less concerned only if your condition limits it to Members because per testimony they're still trying to figure out if it would include a plus one or not. I see It may I ask one other question now that I'm understanding a little bit better the architectural or maybe engineered drawings here with the the hand sinks and the plumbing and things like that are those in suite two as well or just in suite three where the bakery cafe is proposed

Those are the common spaces that are accessible to all three suites.

No, I'm saying suite three shows multiple hand sinks because that is a service area proposed as a cafe and bakery. It looks like maybe there's a sink proposed in suite two, but no hand sinks shown. And I'm just curious if additional plumbing plans are being developed or if this is what your proposal is.

You lost me with the last sentence, but this sink right here is in suite two. It's more of a, I don't know if it's a hand sink, a service sink, or like a Keurig sink, right?

So I guess my follow-up question is, if this is a dry bar where staff will be serving drinks, where is the hand sink, where is the wear washing so that they don't have to go through the door?

There would probably be a small, like... What would you call it, like a bar sink? The bar would be proposed to be here. Okay. And then like the ware washing would happen in the shared kitchen. Okay. And that would really be developed in accordance to the health department guidelines and regulations.

Will outside food and beverages be permitted to be brought into this space at any time?

Um, I mean, no. Okay. I mean, I'm sure snacks, you know, a bag of chips or something, but not like food that would be, um, like catered or, you know, like a party with that sort of thing. So.

Okay. Any follow-up thoughts from staff on additional condition or revision of conditions?

I did not, but just to clarify the record, we were talking about the bar being at the top or I believe that would be the south end of Suite 2, the south wall.

I don't have a strong enough opinion to change the motion, but certainly would defer to other commission members if they want to amend it.

Okay, it's discussion time, so any suggestions?

I'm fine with the motion as is. There's a bunch of building code hurdles they're going to have to jump through when they get a permit for that bar, but none of that's under our purview, so... And ultimately the occupancy is going to go down when they do that. So I'm fine when the motion is. Okay.

Okay. We have a motion to support. We've had good discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. And now we are going to break for seven minutes and start our next case at two.

Thank you.

All right, it's 2 o'clock. We can go ahead and get started on 863 7th Street.

This next item is a request from Commonwealth Development for approval of a 48-unit multiple family development on the site of the former Stocking Elementary School. This is before you today because multiple family residential use in the TNLDR zone district does require Planning Commission approval as a special land use. So the subject property is located where 7th Street and Stocking become Walker Avenue. And it, oops. So it's bounded on the south by 7th Street that everyone thinks is Stocking or Walker, Fremont and Alley and Jeanette. It's improved with the former Stocking School that has been vacant for several years. The site is about three and a half acres in area with improvements typical of a school campus. The building is a two-story, 37,000 square foot brick building. I'll show you a couple of these Google Street View images. There are paved and unpaved playgrounds. There's a parking lot. There is an access to Jeanette, which I think, this is the alley. There's an access on this Jeanette side. There's a large lawn, and as you can see on the left side of the screen, there's an existing playground. We're showing you this slide so you can see the relationship of the school and the surrounding houses on Fremont. So if we need to go back to this, we can. The site is generally flat with a slight elevation change from south to north. And there's a small retaining wall. I should have mentioned that earlier. There's a small retaining wall on the Jeanette side. The development plan includes rehabilitation of the existing school building and construction of two new buildings for a total of 48 dwelling units. As part of the development, the southwesterly half acre or so that includes the school playground equipment is intended to be dedicated to the city to be a public park. Earlier this year, an MOU between the city and the property owner was approved. The remaining three acres would be developed for multiple family use. The school building would be renovated to include 24 apartments, a community room, a leasing office, and a fitness room. The developer is seeking historic tax credits for this renovation, which really dictates where the other buildings can be located on the lot. During our discussions with the developer on the site plan, there was discussion about possibly locating a building in this southwest area where the playground currently is, but that isn't feasible because the views to the building need to be maintained. And I'll defer to the applicant to talk a little bit about how the tax credit process will shape or inform the site plan. Building number two will front Fremont Avenue and will consist of 14 dwelling units. Building number three fronting Jeanette will consist of 10 dwelling units. A 59 space surface parking lot is proposed in the back of all three of the of the buildings. The access to the parking lot would be from Fremont Avenue. Relative to density the maximum allowed density in the TNLDR zone district the density requires 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit and based on the density allowed this property could support 80 dwelling units 48 are proposed and so the density is well within what could be allowed. I do want to mention the street types. The zoning ordinance use regulations for multiple family development restricts multiple family from being located on neighborhood residential streets. We do have three of the streets on which the project has frontage are I'm sorry, let me back up. Of the three streets on which the property has frontage, Jeanette is a neighborhood residential street. The stocking 7th Street Walker portion as well as Fremont are both link residential. So it does meet the requirement that it be located on something higher than a neighborhood residential street. But we the Planning Commission does have the ability to waive that regulation based on the nature of the development and surrounding neighborhood context. The plans that we have are very conceptual in nature. They're not engineered plans at this time. So really that part of that is because the applicant does not own the property, but they do need site plan approval of the use and site plan for the project financing. So the Planning Commission should consider whether we do have enough site and architectural detail for that preliminary approval. And whether final site plan review can be considered or conducted by staff at permitting. Relative to the building setbacks, really, as I've mentioned before, the existing school is driving a lot of the siting, of course, and partially because of those historic tax credits. On the Jeanette side, that building setback is driving this building setback. Our default setback is 27 feet from back of curb and although the plan does not indicate what that setback is, you can see that it's greater than that 27 foot setback and Again, that's driven by the need to maintain the historic context of the school. So that building number three is set back a little bit further than what we would generally like to see if if there were no other improvements on the site but given that the building is set back so far this would be a that would be consistent with the built environment in this location. On the west side, again, because of the school and the inconsistency of the setbacks on Fremont Avenue, we have defaulted to the default of 27 feet from back of curb. The building as shown is a bit further back than we might like to see, so I would like the applicant to talk a little bit about why the building is placed where it is, because it could be closer. On the side, on the alley side, both buildings are at least 10 feet from the lot line, which is appropriate. And the parking lot is, I believe it's 13 feet from the alley with a 10-foot landscape buffer, which is exactly what we'd want to see. Although we don't have a landscape plan at this time, the applicant indicated that the minimum 30% green space and 30% tree canopy would be met, and that could be confirmed at permitting. I'd like to move on to the building elevations. The existing building will be maintained with the exception of repair and window replacement. I'm very excited about the window replacement. I don't think the renovations over the years have done this any favors. So the existing building should look great, and that will have 24 units in it. This is a rendering and elevations of the West building number two. The two new buildings, both of them will be about 23 feet in height, well within the two and a half stories and 35 feet allowed. Materials are not indicated on the plans, but the applicant has indicated that it will be a mix of vertical and horizontal engineered wood siding. There are building projections and recesses to provide a facade variation, which is what we do want to see. The zoning ordinance requires that there be main entrances facing the street and both of the new buildings will meet that requirement. there will be four common entrances for each building, two facing the parking lot and two facing the street. For building number two, the common entrances are in this sort of smaller portion. I'm pointing to one here and then there's another one on this other portion of the slide. And then I'll go to the building number three, Here's the common entrance and the other common entrance. In addition to the common entrances, each first floor unit facing the street will have a private exterior entrance with a covered porch of six feet deep and 11 feet long. Relative to both the common entrances and the private entrances, We would ask that the Planning Commission consider the proportions of, or the size of the porches relative to the proportions of the building, as well as the design of these doors. They seem to have a bit more of a suburban look than what we might see in our urban context. And so I would ask that the Planning Commission consider that element. Additionally, The Westerly building, building number two, is about 175 feet long. So I would ask that the Planning Commission discuss the scale and massing of this single building on this side of the street relative to the existing built environment in the neighborhood where we see, you know, they're mostly single family or single smaller multifamily buildings. So the slide that I'm showing you here is building number two on Fremont, and that has 14 dwelling units. And the smaller building, building number three facing Jeanette, has 10. But they're both generally the same design. Relative to transparency, the applicant indicated that the buildings will have transparency between 20% and 25%. It does appear that the building would meet that minimum, and that can be confirmed at permitting. And I already did mention the scale and massing of the building, but I'd also like to talk about that in terms of transitional features, whether these buildings have an adequate transition into the neighborhood based on their size as well as what the context is in the neighborhood. I'm going to skip over the floor plans, but if we do need to talk about them, we can. Relative to parking, multiple family requires one and a half parking spaces per dwelling unit, with an additional quarter space for each bedroom above two units. For the mix of one, two, and three bedroom units, this 48 unit development requires 76 parking spaces. 59 parking spaces are shown on the site plan. We slightly revised the staff memo since it originally went out. The affordable housing developments do have access to a reduction for parking. The one and a half parking space requirement can be reduced by half a space. So the 48 units could have 48, be required to have 48 parking spaces. In this case, the applicant isn't actually requesting a parking reduction. But I did want to bring this up just in light of the letter from West Grand, which did express some concern about the amount of parking, that perhaps the amount of parking could be reduced. So parking is not deficient in any way, and it meets the parking requirement for a market rate development, but is higher than we might see for an affordable housing development. So I just wanted to put that out there as something for discussion. relative to public input. The applicant did have a public meeting that was facilitated by West Grand that was held on August 10th. There were a number of items discussed. Details are in, there are details in the staff report and in the packet. I'll defer to the applicant and I know that Wes Grand is here, so I'll defer to them to talk about their concerns. or to talk about that meeting. West Grand did submit a letter expressing some concerns about this development. I'll let them expand upon that. The West Side Corridor Improvement Authority submitted a letter expressing support for the development, specifically for the additional dwelling units and the preservation of the historic school building. We also did receive a letter expressing support for renovation of the school building, but concerned about the lack of parking and traffic resulting from the additional dwelling units. So with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions or turn it over to the applicant. Thank you, Elizabeth.

Any questions for Elizabeth? Okay, we'll have the applicant come up, please.

Hi, I'm Sam Warshaw with Commonwealth. I appreciate Elizabeth giving that presentation. She covered a lot of the bases here, and I appreciate all of your time here as well. Like I said, Elizabeth covered it really well, so what I really just kinda wanna get into is why this kinda matches the five special land use review standards. So the first standard is compliance with the master plan and zoning ordinance. So it preserves and reuses the historic stocking school. It converts the underused public property into long-term affordable housing. Provides one, two, and three bedroom units. The new construction is limited to two stories. Multi-family residential is appropriate for the current zoning. We just need the special land use due to it being more than six units. 2,722 square feet of lot area per unit exceeds the city's 2,000 square feet requirement. And approximately, like Elizabeth said, 31% green space and 37% tree canopy, which are above the 30% thresholds or requirements. For the site plan review number two, the second standard, the adaptive reuse minimizes disruption to the existing area. The new buildings have been redesigned following neighbor feedback to better fit the surrounding neighborhood. Adequate ingress, egress, and emergency service access is there and has been chatted with with the city and these fire and police departments. The stormwater will be underground, which will meet city requirements further down the line in this process. Pedestrian connections are maintained, three different covered bicycle parking spots, and there's existing water, sewer, streets, and municipal services already present on the site. The third standard is neighborhood effects. So the residential use is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Historic school remains the site's and the neighborhood's visual anchor and will be largely untouched due to trying to go for those historic tax credits. The parking is primarily internal and buffered, so it's not a parking that abuts right up to the street and maybe doesn't look the best. No industrial activity, smoke, odors, or unusual noises. Approximately 391 daily traffic trips with 30 a.m. and 30 p.m. peak trips. We hired an analyst to do that traffic study and these 30 trips are well below the 100 peak hour trip threshold that would trigger the need for a full traffic study. And lastly, it's a walkable location near businesses and Route 7 transit as well. The fourth one here of the special land use review standards is environmental. So it preserves the historic school as already mentioned. Existing trees will be retained where feasible and replacement trees will be provided where required. It's less grading and site disturbance than if this was an entirely new construction project where there would have to be demo and all of that. And stormwater improvements, like I said before, will comply with the city and DNR requirements. And then fifth and last, public facilities, so existing water, sewer, storm water, streets and police services are available at the site. No major public infrastructure extensions are anticipated. The project specific improvements will be developer funded. Resident programming and community space is still there and is underway. We do have an MOU with Catherine's Health Center in place to provide monthly health programming services so that came to fruition over the last month and we're still actively working to set up more of those partnerships. It creates construction and permanent economic activity for the city and it provides 48 affordable homes with a 45 year affordability covenant. And then lastly, I just wanna go into the neighborhood meeting that was held on the 10th. So the West Grand Neighborhood Organization did a great job setting that meeting up in the gymnasium, coordinating food and setting up all the equipment. And from that meeting, there was obviously some feedback from neighbors, what they wanna see in the project. So we took all of their, all of their suggestions into consideration and incorporated as many as we could feasibly. So some of those changes include parking. So we were originally at 67 spaces. We reduced this to 60 spaces based on neighborhood feedback that all this parking might not be necessary. And we replaced those seven parking spaces with green space and landscaping and trees to make it look a little nicer. For overall green space, we did add a community garden space in the courtyard of the building that is intended to serve the broader neighborhood and community as well as our residents. We know that a lot of what WGNO is interested in is this food cultivation, so we do want to have this community garden on site and to serve the broader neighborhood and community. The community space, so, you know, as we kind of already mentioned, we're retaining the historic gymnasium that is inside of the school. We have talked to our property management partner, which will be the associate management company, as well as our own asset management team. And with the layout of the school, the historic gym should be able to be reserved for anyone in the community, reservable space through our property management. So that can be used as a place to have, you know, neighborhood meetings. It is a gym too, so there is still a basketball course, play basketball and do sports like that. but that will be retained as reservable community space. The building design, so it was substantially redesigned on the new construction part to better fit the surrounding neighborhoods. We initially had something in there that was maybe a bit too modern to fit in kind of to the West Grand neighborhood, so we adjusted it to nearby house colors, nearby apartment structures to make it look a little bit more suitable for that neighborhood. Um, porches. So another big theme at the neighborhood meeting was that West Grand neighborhood residents love to utilize their porches to connect with the neighborhood, you know, just relax with nice weather. So we did add those porches with privacy railing. So, you know, the resident has some sense of privacy on the porch, but can still connect with with neighbors in that regard. Project identity, so we initially had the Foundry at Stocking as the name and that was not received very well at the neighborhood meeting so we want to retain the school's history by just naming it simply Stocking School Apartments and not the Foundry at Stocking. The park into the playground area. So since the neighborhood meeting in MOU has been signed up between us and the City Parks Department, somewhat agreeing to when the project, if the project comes to fruition, that southwest corner there, that already has those multiple playgrounds on site will be preserved and deeded from us to the Parks Department so that they can be in charge of what goes there and they could possibly connect with WGNO to see if WGNO wants to have any of those outdoor community programs in this park space.

Thank You Sam Justin Mitchell also with Commonwealth development I thought I would just give a little bit of additional context we are currently present in your community so Commonwealth is was the developer and is the owner of Lexington school which is just over in the neighborhood similarly a historic school adapter for use project and then also the this the Seaward project that's right by there as well, Edge Flats on Seaward. So we do already have two affordable housing developments in the neighborhood. We have one other in Michigan, in Manistee, 167 unit development. Our company in general has done 26 historic projects, including nine that blend historic with new construction. Part of the basis for the new construction is that when you put a project together, the project has to be self-sustaining. So it has to be able to afford its debt and its operations. And that becomes very, very difficult with a very expensive project. Adaptive reuse projects are very expensive. when you have small unit counts. So the fewer unit counts, the fewer rent income that you're coming in, or that's coming in, and then further, it's restricted due to being an affordable housing project. And so by the addition of additional units, you achieve a greater economy of scale, and in general, We would love to see 60, 70 units, but the project is achievable or financially feasible at 48, and that lower number aligns with some of the neighborhood goals for the site. Regarding the setback of this building over here, That is movable if requested by the city. The basis is that it provides a bit of uniformity between the two sides. And then also, if you look on this parcel right here across the street, it quasi aligns with that setback. And so we thought that having some front yard space would be more conducive to the neighborhood. But if you need to see that or would like to see that moved, two, three, four feet closer to the road, that is achievable. It potentially then makes the units a bit further from the parking lot, which is fine. And trying to think if, oh, the other item I just want to note, and I think you have a slide here. Am I able to change these? Yeah, go ahead. Got it. We have a floor plan, I believe, there. So I love these historic projects because what they do is they maintain all of the integrity of the building, the sepal area, all of the ornate design on the outside, the posts and whatnot, that all is maintained. And we don't have the authority to not follow that. So when you participate in the Historic Tax Credit Program, historic specialists from the National Park Service and then the State Historical Preservation organization will come in and they will basically tell us what we can and cannot do. And so in general, all of the features, the historic features of the facility are maintained, whether it be chalkboards to, in this case, the gymnasium. And Sam did mention the gymnasium, which he indicated it can be reserved. And I'd just like to note that free. We make that space available to the neighborhood association and other community groups and members at no cost. And two examples of that, we're looking to incorporate, it's not finalized, but we're looking to incorporate a sort of, I guess, homeowner incubation setting. So we have partnered with the Housing Commission of Grand Rapids. In fact, they are would be a part owner of this project and it will be serving as a place for up to 40 of their current units where they are looking to modernize their portfolio But in order to do so you have to have a qualified location for the residents to go to And that can be hard to find those those avenues. So this would potentially serve as an avenue for facilitation of HC Grand Rapids portfolio. As part of that, they have a family self-sufficiency program and they have a home ownership program for their housing choice voucher program. We have invited both of those programs to provide at a minimum monthly workshops at the site. We also had a wonderful conversation this morning with ICCF, and they are putting together a proposal for us where we would contract with them to provide on-site services in financial literacy, home ownership, and then a youth-type financial program as well. And those would be made available to the neighborhood as well as to residents at no cost. I think that about covers it unless there was any other items that she wanted us to go over, but I guess I'll turn it over to you guys. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?

Hi. I shared with my fellow commissioners that this project is particularly meaningful to me as I served on the Grand Rapids Public Schools Board of Education when we first launched our Facilities Master Plan, subsequently the Transformation Plan, and dreamt about what our buildings would become for our community. So I'm delighted to see that those values have come through, through affordable housing and certainly community benefit and spaces. So thank you for that. My question is, did you consider the affordable housing parking space limit of 48 in your design ever?

Yeah, I mean, it was kind of made news to us a little bit this morning that the affordable parking covenant is there. So, you know, obviously we already decreased from 67 to 60 based on the neighborhood feedback. But, you know, it'd be a question for our asset management team if they think we need more parking spaces. But if it were to be decreased to the 48 units, then I think it is something that we could accomplish.

Okay, great. Thank you. I think you answered the rest of my questions, so that's it for now.

This is probably more of a question for staff. Is there a reason why the access to the parking can't be off the alley instead of a new curb cut on the street?

We had a lot of conversation about that, and I think that there was some... mixed feelings on how the design was originally presented and the fact that the current alley width is about 10 feet. And so... That's what I was trying to say. The pavement width of the alley itself is 10 feet. The alley right of way is much larger. Do you remember how much that is? 20 feet? Thank you. So the alley right of way is 20 feet. So if... alley access is preferable there would be a need to reconstruct the alley to widen it in order to accommodate fire truck access and potentially snow removal etc. So While I think it's possible for alley access to be provided for vehicular access maybe in the current conditions, to have sole alley access would necessitate some larger improvements.

Thank you.

So we are, you know, I think one of the recommendations, potential conditions is that we are happy to continue to explore that. I think that was the original design that Commonwealth came forward with, but there are some limitations.

Is another curb cut being closed on Jeanette?

Yes. There is an existing curb cut on Jeanette. The initial plans did have a reuse or expansion of that curb cut, but the misalignment with 8th Street was problematic.

I would... Yeah, reiterate, just ask you to revisit the parking, size of the parking. Even if, and I've built a lot of affordable housing developments in most of the parking spaces, most, but generally they're very over-parked. So obviously you have your experiences with the Lexington project. I'd just encourage you to look at that. And even if your parking layout lends itself to easily eliminate seven spaces and then you can always add them in later if you really need them. I also would encourage thinking about and maybe work with the community because you do have community uses potentially on the site, right? With the playground being deeded to the city and a gymnasium, you may have more guests than a typical affordable housing development. So something else to consider. But anyway, the question I had for you is more related to the new builds and the question why... Two questions, really. How do you notate the common entrances versus private on the building if I'm a guest and I come up and I'm looking for an apartment and curious about that? And then why don't the rear units about the parking lot also have a private entrance on the first floor? That seems like it would be... And I guess while you're at it, I feel like the... Maybe the choice of doors just feels like they're almost designed to look like residential sliding doors versus a typical front door entry. I'm just kind of curious about that.

Yeah, sure. So the first question, how do you differentiate the doors between each other? Most of the doors, will they be fobbed in the other buildings that we have? There'll be signage at the door saying room numbers, common main area, so it'll say the room 208 or unit, whatever it is. So they will be marked pretty clearly to show between common and private spaces. For the no private entries on the back, I believe it was just a safety concern since it abuts the parking lot, and the parking lot is already pretty full at the 60 units, so I believe that was kind of the reasoning behind that.

And then just the type of door, it kind of just visually appears like it's a residential sliding door on these homes that feels a little weird on a front entry?

Yeah, no, we would never do a patio door or anything for the sliding door. These almost look a little bit like French doors, which I don't think they are either, but it will just be a standard open door, not a sliding door for sure.

Yeah, if I can just add, we're not looking for any sort of waiver or exception to the rule for the doors, so I'm happy to work with the city on whatever they would like to see, as well as the neighborhood. I'm not sure that that's been fully finalized yet, but, yeah, we're happy to work with everybody on that.

And the depths of the porches as well, is that something that you all would be able to work with? Like to make sure that folks can actually sit on them and engage with their neighborhood.

Yeah, I think, you know, our architect team did do a good job of making sure they are large enough. But, you know, we could go back to the drawing board if there is concerns for it being six feet deep and 11 feet wide for residents. It is something that we could revisit for sure.

Is there a preference that this body has or staff? I mean, happy to take a look. I'm not sure that we've received a recommendation for a different number, but happy to attempt to incorporate that.

Yeah, I think six foot would tend to be the minimum for access. It doesn't necessarily allow for enough space to allow tables or chairs and congregate. I think one of our recommendations was to maybe draw a little bit more from what is existing in the neighborhood. So doing more of a analysis about the architectural style of the porches of the doors and pulling in some of those architectural elements so that there's further compatibility. I appreciate the changes that you've made. They were very receptive as a team to revisit some of the architecture based on staff's feedback and based on the community feedback. So I think that there's a little bit more that we can provide some guidance on for you.

Okay.

Any other? Oh yeah, go ahead.

I just have a question. If I understood your response to the question about the private doors on the back, you said it was because the parking lot was so full. If you're able to reduce the amount of parking, are you able to include

So I think it has, yeah, I think it's kind of twofold. So, you know, not wanting to have those balconies go right into the parking lot just for, you know, aesthetic purposes too. And having them on the front side more so, so those people on the front side can have those porches that feed into the front facing neighborhood and can be more connected to the neighborhood. I mean, the porches on the backside of the parking lot, you know, or the private entrances too, you know, it would be nice, but I feel like it would create maybe an inconsistent seat between the two buildings then.

Is that something you'd be willing to chat with staff about as well to see what potential options? Yeah, I just think it would be nice for every unit to have that asset, right?

I think, yeah, I think because these are stacked units, it's not gonna be possible for every unit, right? Because only first floor units that have it. I am curious actually, there's some comments about the scale of the building in relation to, you know, the single and some small multifamily homes in the surrounding streets. I'm kind of okay with row house style design, which this starts to approach, but I'm curious the decision to go with stacked versus a townhouse style unit. So given that the units are all quite large, all three bedroom, fairly large units, I wonder about that.

Yeah, so, you know, a couple of reasons for that. One of the first reasons is accessibility. So a lot of these new construction units are ones that are type A accessible. So you can't have multiple level units, those for the accessible units. And then secondly is, you know, we've used stack flats on most of our, a lot of our new builds instead of townhomes. And, you know, we've received really good feedback there. But yeah, I would just say from an accessibility and visibility standpoint, especially for people with disabilities, it makes it tough for every one of those to be a townhome then.

Could I ask a question about your architectural limitations for the existing school? I know you can't do a lot of things, but if you're looking at the south face of the building, you have this beautiful front, and then you have the air-conditioned units that pop up. By the way, yes, that was me walking around. I didn't want to interact with you because I figured you were the applicant. Is there wiggle room in your design options to screen that unit? with the historical requirements?

Yeah, I think it's something that can be done. I think what the historic people are most concerned about is you taking away elements or altering currently existing elements. So if you were saying the AC units on the outside of the building, behind the building, it is something that we definitely could buffer. But what the historic people are more concerned about is you just altering the whole face of the building. One of the reasons that there is this green space that Elizabeth mentioned in front is that you have sight lines to the historic building. So really inside the building and on the building, I would say, you know, it remains largely untouched or we have to follow the historic guidelines. But something like an air conditioning unit, you're putting a screening fence around that. I don't think the air conditioners would be included in the historic package. So they could probably be moved as well.

Yeah, I personally would love to see something that was consistent with the architecture of the building that screened around that

roof unit yeah as you saw if you're familiar with Lexington where there is a small retaining wall you'll note that it's a like brick appearance we can't we would not be allowed to you know if it's brick add modern siding as a barrier so any if there's a garbage enclosure if there's a screening for you know utilities or anything like that it would have to be something that aligned with the appearance and like material of the existing school so thank you yeah of course

Going back to the length of building two along the Fremont side, I too am kind of generally okay with the row house design, but just for kind of testimony's sake, can you talk about why you're doing that as one big building instead of like maybe two smaller buildings in thinking about the scale of housing in the neighborhood?

Yeah, so we're already pretty limited on space because one of the big things that we did want to retain here is that southwest portion of the park to be preserved as parkland. So I believe we did kind of toy with multiple buildings, but we know the city didn't want any buildings on the north side. And by having them on the east and west side and having them in one larger building, it kind of allows us to take up less of that space, have that adequate ingress and egress off of Fremont. So, yeah, I mean, on the other side, why it's, you know, much smaller is just because it is abutting to the historic school. So you don't have space there. So it really came down to a space and trying to preserve as much of that park space as possible.

You know, one other item that you can do, and I don't want to overcommit because we don't want to be blocking windows and walkways, but. You know, one thing that you can do to kind of break up the visible, I guess, flat board, if you will, is, you know, planting a couple evergreen trees midway that, you know, when you're walking through or driving by, it really creates that differential appearance. It's not something probably that we've considered, but certainly happy to take a look at if that's, you know, a route that you would prefer.

Yeah, I had one more question. I noticed when I'm looking at the renderings, I was drawn to them, and then when I looked at the elevations, there's a pretty stark difference in that the renderings have steps leading up to the doors, whereas the elevation is sitting at grade. And I think that that's a significant difference, especially the siding. It looks like there's some sort of masonry detail at the bottom of the rendering, but the siding goes all the way to grade and the elevation. Can you speak to that difference there?

Yeah, so I would definitely take the elevations into more account than the rendering. So there will be, I can't see if you can see it too well, but there will be at least one step before those private entrances and porches to kind of create that porch area, and there will be an accessible entrance as well not having to go over the stair if it needs to be ramped instead, but I would definitely go based off of the elevations over the renderings, as the rendering software can sometimes make errors or make inconsistencies like that, but yeah, I would definitely go off of what you see in the elevations here, closer than the renderings. I'd say.

Okay. In that case, are you open to providing some sort of 18-inch masonry base at the base of what is the elevation now to provide that maybe more traditional architecture?

Yeah, it's something that we could definitely consider, yes. Okay.

So there will be a step...

I believe so. I'm looking at here and it looks like there might not be steps, but it's something that we could definitely confirm with our architect. But the elevations would definitely be more accurate here than the renderings.

Okay. And I can appreciate the need for the accessibility by all means. I think our challenge is providing that accessibility, but also having a little bit of privacy. It tends to feel a lot more comfortable when your finished floors are, you know, in that 12 to 24 inches above the sidewalk grade so that when people are walking by you're not you know at eye level so having that physical separation in height is sometimes helpful sure so that could just be whether that's through grading and architecture because you are set back a little ways it might provide that ability to increase that grade so it's not flat with the sidewalk okay

Other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay, seeing none, I'll have you take a seat. I will open up the public hearing. If you would like to comment on this case, make your way up to the mic, state your name, and address your comments to Planning Commission, please.

Hello, my name is Annette Jackson, and we are the owners of 923 Walker, which is about three houses to the west of that area. And I didn't get invited to the West Grand Feedback, so I'm kind of surprised by that, and sad, but I would have liked to have given you some more input. It looks nice. I like the rendering better than I like the other, the elevation. But it does look nice and I'm very happy to hear that something is being done with that area because it has been vacant for a while. My only concern, well a couple of concerns, is the parking. If you have 48 tenants, is that correct? With two- and three-bedroom homes, you might have more than two cars in that family, and then if they have guests. And so I know how busy Walker gets, especially when I'm trying to back out of 923. So it gets pretty intense with cars coming and going, because it is a bus route also. I think... So that's my concern about that. And when winter comes, we lose parking spaces. There is no doubt about that, just because they have to pile it somewhere. And Fremont is kind of tight. Can you just make sure to just address commission on this? Yes, of course. The other thing is because the area is such a walkable area, we see a lot of people walking. I'm concerned with adding that many people, which I'm not opposed to, but you need better crosswalks on Walker. So that would be one of my concerns. You don't have really good striped crosswalks so that people can be aware that they need to stop as they're coming by. So that is another concern that I have. Other than that, I think it looks pretty neat. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Annette Vandenberg. I'm the executive director for the West Grand Neighborhood Organization, and with me today is our chairman, Maurice Baker. We did start working with Commonwealth late in July to work on this project, and they did make some changes. However, the community really wanted me to express how disappointed they are that they will not have an outdoor basketball court. That is really important. The next closest basketball courts are... Richmond Park. And so we're asking our kids then to cross Leonard to walk all the way up to Richmond to play pickup games. I know they said they would use them indoors, but a lot of our adults love the higher basketball that is available outside at Stocking School. Our kids are out there playing every day. The kids are, families are using the green space for a dog park basically because we don't have a dog park in that area so while west grand typically always says yes to housing we're saying yes and we also need a healthy balance of green space for overall wellness of our community so in general there's not much that we're concerned about the project just the amount of green space that has been traditionally been there for the last hundred years and a lot of our families don't drive to this parking or this park They walk to it. It is the only park serving 5,000 residents or 2,700 households approximately. So most of our residents do walk to that park. West Grand walks to that park every week with students who are learning about the area, community service people who are cleaning it up and maintaining the park area. whether it's picking up trash, getting rid of weeds, or whatnot. It is a very vital part to our neighborhood. The other two projects they talked about aren't actually in the West Grand neighborhood. They are in the John Ball area neighbors, so I can't really speak to how that interaction works with those other places, but yes, they're on the west side, but they're not in the neighborhood per se. And just recently, Walker Street Pharmacy did close, so now our families are having to go up to Walgreens or out to Standout Meyer or Alpine Meyer for their prescriptions. There's been a lot of changes lately in the neighborhood, so we just ask that you consider making sure that maybe they can work with the Rapid and get our bus step back on Walker Avenue because that got taken away a couple years ago and it was something that was supposed to stay Because we have another LIHTC project that is just across the street from them at 747 Stocking. And that has about 50 units in there. And so now our families are finding it hard to get to things. And sidewalks aren't always plowed in those areas. So it makes it really difficult when you're elderly or in a mobility chair to get back and forth. And so we just want those kinds of things to be considered. Because we want to say yes to everything. But we also want a healthy balance. Thank you for your time.

Thanks. Would anyone else like to make comments? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn, well, would you like to address any of the comments? Yeah.

I just, I texted the architect just to get clarification. So as Sam indicated that it is an AI generated concept rendering. and that there are no steps currently planned due to accessibility. And we can certainly take a look at any requests that you might have for incorporating steps or a gentle slope, but they did not include steps for the accessibility purposes. And then just regarding basketball courts, I love it, right? Sam and I were staying at the Marriott downtown, and we learned that they have a rooftop basketball court, so we went and played some horse. I won. And, you know... I think there's an opportunity with the park space that's being provided to potentially incorporate an actual full court. So right now there's two basketball courts or hoops that don't form a court. They're separate right now. No five-on-five full court happening. I think there's an avenue for doing that, and I think that's a conversation with the Parks Department for creating a... public, accessible playground that meets the requests and the interests of the neighborhood. And we would certainly support that. Similarly, it's not out of the question where we've supported bus stop infrastructure on our projects. If that was something that the transit department or whoever manages that with the city was interested in incorporating a sheltered bus stop or anything like that, we would love to take a look at that and In any way possible, incorporate that into our project. A lot of our residents would likely utilize public transit, and if we can support it in any way, let's do it.

Yeah, and the only thing, you know, I would add in response to the public comments, you know, just with parking, it will kind of always, it's always evolved. We, you know, haven't had enough parking that we had too much parking. So, you know, it's just a conversation that will remain, you know, fluid with the city and the community. But yeah, it's kind of a double-edged sword. Some people think that there should be more parking and some people think that there should be less parking. So it's something that will just need to stay in conversation.

Thank you. Regarding the bus stop infrastructure, so obviously there's not a bus line or stop immediately kind of on your property at this point. If something were to come up in the future, is that something that whoever's managing, are you all still involved in terms of discussing future improvements if transit were to come there?

Yes. So a way that a lot of these projects work is for affordable housing tax credit developments is you try to get everything up front so that when you're securing your financing, you have it planned. And so that said, we don't have to have it done now. Our application goes in October 1st. And I think there's a timeline. I don't know. But we have months. We have many months, more than half of a year to continue to that conversation. And if it ends up being something that the city says we think we would like to do in the next 15 years, what we would do is we would put an escrow account for that so that that money would be funded up front. And then if we did it 12 years later, we have the money and it's not a concern. Gotcha.

Thank you. Other follow-up questions?

I'm going to belabor this. I'm sorry. All of the units on the ground floor are accessible through the common entries. So it seems like there is room to discuss where those stairs and finished floors are able to happen, right? Yeah. The common entrance I can appreciate might need a little bit more ramping and such, but the individual entrances seem like there could be some room to provide that traditional finished floor. Is that a fair statement?

Yeah, no, definitely. Right now we're slotted for, I believe, five fully accessible units, but it remains to be seen which units we'll pick for those. But yes, that is something that we can amend to.

Okay. I'm sorry, I belabored that, I know.

No worries.

okay thank you we will discuss commissioners so uh back to stairs um i think this site has enough of a crown in it that from a site development standpoint having these buildings be higher in the sidewalk is probably easy they're going to have an accessible entry off the parking lot no matter what. If you decided to, you could make all of your first floor units fully accessible. I know you don't need to. I think that elevation change and the stairs and that detail is critical to relate to the neighborhood. They're not going to look like porches if they're just a slab on grade with no steps and no detail. I'm I have similar comments about the rendering. The rendering is very clearly AI generated, but what it's doing is it's making a bunch of promises that don't exist. So this building will look very different if it's detailed the way the rendering is, which it can be, which is with purposeful trim profiles that add depth to the facade and details that I think are making this more compelling. It's the fun thing about AI is it generally knows what people wanna see, so it tries to show it to them. Without some of those details, this is gonna look like a much flatter facade. So with traditional cheap trim around the windows, we're gonna end up with some extra vents on the outside. So I think, I'm not sure what to think about that. I too have used AI renderings, So I understand that they can really help see the potential of a project early, but we're also looking at two different buildings. And I think that probably isn't helping because I think the AI rendering is closer to easier to approve than... knowing what the elevation's actually gonna turn into. I agree with the entries on the street. I think they probably should look more like real porches and real entries. I think that goes to the steps up to the entry and working with staff on the porch size and I'm comfortable with you working with staff to figure out a door and sidelight situation that's more representative of this type of neighborhood. I don't think we need to match the neighbors' houses per se, but I do think that those entries need additional work. Given the way that they're currently in the elevation as full light French doors that go all the way to the floor, your Basically, per testimony, you have people's living rooms with six foot of glass. that goes all the way to the floor at the same height as the sidewalk. And what's gonna happen is there will be curtains or shades or something over those windows 24 seven because it's uncomfortable to be standing at eye level with the people that are outside on the sidewalk when you're in your home and you're supposed to be secure in your home. So you feel exposed and so that's why the elevation change between the sidewalk and the first floor think can and should exist and I think also why a more appropriate entry design would help to mitigate some of those concerns and then hopefully the shades aren't drawn all the time and people are actually comfortable having leveraging the transparency that we require in the zoning ordinance I think that's it for the moment

Did you say that you're planning to put this in for the October 1? Yeah, never mind. Yes, October 1.

I would agree with my fellow commissioners as far as the elevation change on the front and having those porches be higher. And also with Commissioner Yonker, it is not clear to me that those are main entries, the two with the lower roof. And so even if, you know, changing the front doors on the residences actually might help that because... I know you said there would be signage, but I don't know if there's another way to differentiate that as well. But overall, I generally like the plan. I would be okay with if you found at Lexington you can survive with lower parking, I would be fine with that too. And I appreciate that you're willing to work with the neighbors and staff to improve the plan, so thank you.

Yeah, I agree with the comments about the steps, particularly along both Fremont and Jeanette. I think it can be done. I think it would help with bringing the design closer to the neighborhood. I'm probably a little less concerned than my other commissioners about the rendering versus the elevations. I think the devil is always in the details, and we don't usually get those details, but I think I am comfortable. I mean, this is asking... I think this particular proposal is asking for us to trust staff to navigate several of these issues, and I do trust that. I think that, yeah, I'm comfortable with staff navigating several of these issues as the design sort of solidifies. I do like the idea of moving the Fremont building slightly closer to the road to better mimic, and I also am comfortable with the Jeanette building where it is, because I think it is more appropriate to have it more or less in line with the existing historic structure than maybe with the buildings across the street, which I think it would feel like it was in the front yard of that school building then, despite the fact that it tends to sort of potentially reduce the opportunity for green space interior to the site. And then I think we've got about a half acre dedicated park, and I think that the comments around a basketball court are great, but I think that conversation can be had with the Parks Department when it comes time to redevelop that space, which hopefully the Parks Department can, after they accept the space, can can find some resources to do and involve the neighborhood in exactly what happens there. I think that's great. I know that making a development of, what do we have here, 48 units? Yeah, it's a lot going on here for 48 units, meaning that it is hard to make deals that are that small work. I'm aware of that. So they've got a lot kind of on this site, but I don't know another way to make that work. Putting housing into an old school building is one of the most fun things and most expensive ways to create housing ever. And I've done a bit of it. So I appreciate the effort. I appreciate the willingness to allow the community to use the community spaces in that building. I feel like it will continue to be a benefit to the community for a long time. And I appreciate the, although it's not part of our decision making here, I appreciate the affordability. This is going to be an eminently, you know, we can debate the term affordability, but to have many of the units at 70% AMI or below, that's, you know, that's a great asset to the community as well. So I would say I'm generally supportive, I think, with a few comments that have already been mentioned.

Also very supportive of the project. I'm trying to think about things that haven't been said and I'm certain there's lots of conditions being written right now too. I am supportive of where the larger building is currently set back. I don't feel like that needs to be moved at all. I did like the idea that the applicant stated of possibly planting evergreen trees as, forgive me for not having the right language here, but a way to break up the length of that building. So some sort of landscaping there to buffer the size of the larger building. It also supports a masonry facade or brick-like product on those larger buildings to tie in the brick from the school. And love the idea about escrowing for the bus stop, so very much in support of that. Okay, this might be an impossible idea, but you talked about escrow, so the idea came to me. I wonder, okay, this is really dreaming, but I wonder if there would ever be a way to escrow some funds to move the basketball court so that the park could have that partnership with you to then redevelop it. I don't know if that's possible, but when you said escrow, it came to mind, so I'm saying it out loud. Yeah, I'm just again very excited to see this redevelopment come to light and I appreciate the commissioners discernment of this because we likely will see more schools become other things in our community. So this is a very good activity for us. Thank you.

I think I have one question for staff is the location of the community garden. If we approve this, that's something that staff could administratively change if required. This is kind of like dorking in the weeds, but it's on the east side of a really tall building, and you kind of want your gardens in a south location where they can get sun?

Yeah, typically we would not look at that detail as something that couldn't move around the site. It's in the plan, so we would expect it to be in the plan, but since I, until you brought it up, hadn't heard from the commission that there was a specific reason why it had to go there, typically staff would allow for that level of detail to be adjusted administratively.

We haven't talked about parking, so we probably should talk about parking. I'm leaning toward further reduction, more aligned with what the minimum allowable is for affordable housing projects, just allowing more flexibility than in the site plan to make some of these changes. So that's my motivation, and I would be supportive of that reduction in a condition. sorry can I was working on other conditions can I make sure I'm not sure I understood what you just yeah so I'm in support of reducing the number of parking spots hold on let me find my notes so 48 is the calculation aligned with affordable housing standards currently 59 or 60 I think is what they have so I would support a reduction to 48 okay if my fellow commissioners agree

So you would support a reduction, meaning require them to be capped at that number or just if... I see what you're saying. Correct. We would cap at 48. So they could provide no more than...

Correct. Got it. Thank you.

Just clarification on that, Commissioner Shockey. So even if we have it capped at 48 right now and they find that there is a need for more parking and it is causing difficulties in the neighborhood, would they be able to go up to the 60 then?

Okay, great question. Yes, I don't want to limit that, I guess. I just don't know how to make a condition that allows that variability, so that's where I need help.

We do allow deferred parking. I'm trying to pull that up quickly. I don't know if Elizabeth or Sarah have that more quickly than I. where we allow for parking, Elizabeth, but does the language require them to demonstrate the need to add the part that was deferred?

I think one thing to consider is where those parking spaces are going to come from. I don't think from a site planning perspective you're going to see a significant benefit in the overall site plan by losing 12 spaces. You probably end up with more green space next to the alley or something. So I think, I guess they're already allowed to have 48 spaces and they know it, so if it helps them solve some problems, certainly supportive of that, but from a requiring less spaces You know, if we could see how it was going to noticeably improve the site or add usable green space to the development, but I'm really struggling to see that with the current layout, I guess.

I would agree with those comments. I kind of went down the rabbit hole of redesigning the site in my head for like the basketball court and the parking and then accessing through the aisle and expanding that. But it seems like our staff has already kind of thought that through. And I would hate to just be like, go back to the drawing board on this concept that you've already vetted. But I agree, like, if they can do less, great. I don't want to limit them to that for not foreseeable benefit.

Absolutely. Yeah, I hear what both of you are saying. Thank you.

I would agree with that too. That's where my mind was going. What are we gaining by forcing them to reduce the number of parking spaces? They're all still very open to work with the applicants working with the community on what's going to be best for both. I'm not sure I want to be involved in restricting that fluidity for them unless a demonstrably better design would come up from less parking spaces.

Anything else? Yeah, I mean, I'm excited about this project. I'm not going to repeat everything that's already been said, but yeah, very grateful for the thought and working with the neighborhood and staff. The one thing that we didn't kind of cover is this being multifamily on a neighborhood residential street, which we are allowed to waive, and I think it's appropriate here because of the strong pedestrian network that's here, it being within reasonable walking distance to transit, although not directly on and also within the micromobility service area. And I appreciated the comments from the public about crosswalks on Walker. Hopefully that's something. I'm not sure what the city's plans are for Walker at this point, but yeah, as a busy street, adding more folks we want to make sure that people who are using the great pedestrian network there are safe as well so thank you all for that and with that I'm wondering if an oh go ahead yeah if the Planning Commission is inclined to approve make a motion to approve I feel like I've got a number of conditions that

that we are working on. I would appreciate having maybe five quick minutes. I'm sorry, but I just want to make sure we have this correct before I read them back to you. Can we pause for a second then? Thank you.

Can we talk about the setback on the big building while you work on that? Sure. No. Let's do it. I just wanted to, I had a couple of thoughts about that. Typically I am a huge proponent of maintaining the street wall and basically matching the setback of the buildings on the same side of the street. Here we really only have two homes to the north and so because there's potential concerns about the length of the building and its presence in the neighborhood, setting it back a little bit more. I just wanted to chat about whether or not we think that helps or hurts. I know Commissioner Yonker already said something about pushing it forward. And then again, across the street, their houses are set back quite a ways. So I thought since it sounded like we had people on both sides of that, maybe chatting about it a little more.

I agree. That was one thing that was sticking to me, and I think it's a compelling case that they're somewhat mimicking the larger setback across the street. I know that typically we look at it on the same side, but based on the length of the building, already some concerns about privacy from the sidewalk into living spaces, I think a larger setback is actually preferable from my perspective.

And maybe if the depth of porches, maybe if that's extended, then it'll feel closer to that setback wouldn't feel so much bigger as well.

I agree with our chairwoman that once we start having a conversation about usable porches, I think that language to me is important to have something usable because right now there's no way you could put tables in front of those two doors. So once they start talking about usable porches,

will likely expand a little more to the west side of the setback anything else we want to chat about well yeah how about the the concerns about identifying the common entrances from private Maybe there's a good planning reason against this, but if the common entrance connected directly to the sidewalk and the private entrance is connected to that common sidewalk, would that help or does it feel more institutional?

Yeah, I wondered about that or if that is at grade and there's steps only on the front porches. I don't I don't know, but I'm not an architect, but there are people around here who are.

I wouldn't advocate for having a separate, essentially, sidewalk that connects to those common walks or a separate... I think that The whole intent of having, in my mind, the intent of having entrances along the street are that you're connecting to that public infrastructure. So I don't know if those are, I don't know if that helps. I think that there probably are architectural ways to distinguish those entries. Then also, it's magnified in this instance because the number of units in this building, but these are issues that people in the neighborhood deal with every day. If you're walking up to somebody's house, you have to figure out which door is theirs. Even if in some of our townhome developments all over the city, some of the units are pretty much exactly the same. I don't know. I think that with a material change or something that could help elevate or make the entries more obvious, or the common entries more obvious, that could be great. But I don't, I guess I don't know how much of a concern I really think it is. I also think, you know, a full light door with a side light, like what they have shown now, starts to be, is a more common entry possibility. element anyways. So if you go to a more residential entry, a more single family residential entry on the dedicated entries, maybe that helps. So I think it's all... I don't really wanna get too into the weeds about how to design it either, but I think some of the things we talked about before should help with that.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing in terms of the double door situation. on the common entries and then, yeah, making the individual entries more just like the single typical traditional residential kind of feel. But I trust staff to work through that for sure.

Now you've I'm good, I think, for not a break. Would you like me to read the conditions that I think I heard up front before we get into the actual motion? All right. That a final grading, landscape, lighting, stormwater, and soil erosion plan be submitted with the LUDS application for all phases of the proposed project to be approved by the planning director and all other applicable city departments. Two, that the submitted architectural building elevation drawings are approved in concept and that final architectural building elevations comma reflective of the concept renderings shall be reviewed and approved by the planning director prior to the issuance of the building permit. Keep going. Three, that the design of the building entrances facing the street be modified to have greater consistency with residential entrances currently existing in the neighborhood. and that common entrances be differentiated from the private unit entrances. Four, that the finished floor of the new buildings be elevated as shown in the concept renderings necessitating steps to access the street facing units. Five, that an 18 to 36 inch masonry base will be provided along the base of the new buildings. Please correct me if the dimension is incorrect. That landscaping adjacent the new buildings be varied in height to provide additional facade articulation and mitigation for building massing. I think I want to add something about the street facing there. Seven, that the applicant work with staff to explore options for vehicular alley access. That changes required for federal historic tax credits that affect the site layout, building placement and or building elements may be allowed. just giving deference to anything required by the federal government in that regard. Nine, that construction activity shall be limited to between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Yeah, that felt consistent.

The one question I have related to the steps one is that you're just saying steps to the individual entrances and that the common entrances can be accessible and at grade? Or were you saying everything toward the street needs stairs?

The way I wrote it was everything towards the street needed stairs, understanding that there is the accessible entrance at the rear of the parking lot. But we could modify that to allow, to be specific, to provide greater flexibility for the common entrances if needed.

I just wasn't... I would be in favor of allowing more flexibility for the common entrances just because, I mean, if you need accessibility entry, you shouldn't have to just get there through the parking lot. But I'm looking for... Okay. Any other comments on the potential conditions?

No, I... Well, I guess I do, yeah. I appreciate having the entrances be more consistent with the neighborhood, but can we mention something specifically about them having usable front porches so that that is clear as well?

I had one more thing. If we can condition, if practical, that the mechanical unit, the rooftop mechanical units on the south side of the existing building be screened? I'd like to see that.

I just wonder if, it's likely those will be replaced with a completely new system. So I don't know if you want to be that specific, but we could, and I think.

If practical, we're practical.

I don't remember the historic, what the folks will, I mean, generally they'll make them, screen them anyway, but.

Yeah.

I think something broad. would be more appropriate there, just that rooftop mechanicals would be screened from public view on the historic building.

I'm cool with that.

Okay, good discussion, everybody. Would anyone like to make a motion? All right, thank you.

Do I have to read all of your conditions? Not your, our conditions that we've agreed on.

They are not mine, yes. You can defer to me and I can read them for you if you'd like.

Thank you. Now, therefore, let it be resolved that the Planning Commission Recommend approval of the request of the Water Tower Place LLC, Jeff Edwards. Am I reading the right one?

Yeah, that's what I was just going to say. I'm wondering, would you, yeah.

Let's do the right one. Yeah, thank you. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and Site Plan Review request for Commonwealth Development Corporation of America. Christy Morgan. of a 48-unit multifamily development consistent of the former Stockings Elementary School and two new two-story apartment buildings at 863 7th Street NW 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 meet the underlying intent of the TN LDR zone district to allow medium to high density residential development along transit routes near business districts and along major streets consistent with the pattern of development of the area. And it will support the recommendations and goals of the west side area specific plan. to encourage infill housing that respects the massing and character of nearby homes while retaining the historic neighborhood fabric. The proposed building and site will meet all of the standards of Section 5.12.08 because the elements of the site design are harmonious in effect and efficiently organized in relation to the size and character of the site and the type and size, type size and proportions of the building. Buildings will be situated at the street with parking at the back and access drives at Fremont Avenue will direct traffic to a higher volume street and eliminate turning conflicts at the intersection of Jeanette and 8th Street. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and use of the neighborhood adjacent properties in the natural environment because the residential use is at an appropriate density for the size and nature of the site. Multiple family residential uses will support the desired mixed use character of the neighborhood. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the intensity of the use is appropriate to its surrounding, transitional features including similar size architectural features, windows, doors, buildings, building material and are incorporated into the building design and the proposed building setbacks are appropriate. The proposed building will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic noise, odor, visual clutter because adequate on-site parking will be provided for residents, landscaping buffers will be provided, and a commercial waste enclosure will be provided. 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 the building setbacks have been determined to be consistent with neighborhood properties, will preserve the sight lines of the historical school building, and will reinforce the street wall on Jeanette and Fremont. The additional activity resulting from the project and the dedication of the land for city parks will reinforce the neighborhood's sense of place, and the connections provided to existing walkways and public sidewalks will promote walkability. Adequate public or private infrastructure and services already exist. Oh wait, am I missing something? Oh, I'm still going. Already exist or will be provided at the developer's cost and will be supported through dedication of land to the City of Grand Rapids Public Parks. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the city because the proposed development will encourage additional investment in the neighborhood and additional dwelling units will contribute to the tax base and support nearby businesses. Be it further resolved that the following conditions of approval shall apply. Standard condition set A, as stated on the screen. Two, that the, okay. Yeah, deferred. Do you want me to?

Yep, take, okay. I sure do. Okay. All right, bear with me. There's 10 conditions here. I think all are similar to what I've read previously. That a final grading, landscape, lighting, stormwater, and soil erosion plan be submitted with the LUDS permit, land use development services permit application, for all phases of the proposed project to be approved by the planning director and all other applicable city departments. that the submitted architectural building elevation drawings are approved in concept and that final architectural building elevations reflective of the concept renderings shall be reviewed and approved by the planning director prior to the issuance of the building permit. that the design of the private unit entrances and porches facing the street be modified to have greater consistency with residential entrances currently existing in the neighborhood, and that common entrances be differentiated from private unit entrances. That the finished floor of the new buildings be elevated at least 18 inches above sidewalk grade, as shown in the concept renderings, necessitating steps to access the private units from the street. That an 18 to 36 inch masonry base be provided along the base of the new buildings. Six, rooftop mechanicals on the historic building be screened from view. Seven, that landscaping adjacent the new buildings be varied in height to provide additional facade articulation and mitigation for building massing. that the applicant work with staff to explore options for vehicular alley access, that changes required for federal historic tax credits that affect the site layout, building placement, or building elements may be allowed, that construction activities shall be limited to between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.

I think the only thing missing is the porch.

Porch usability.

Yeah.

Okay, I... added number three to say that the design of the private unit entrances and porches facing the street be modified to have greater consistency with residential entrances. My intent behind that was that existing porches tend to have greater depth and usability than what is shown here. If you'd like more specificity, I can do that.

I'll support. Okay. We have a motion and support. Any additional discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much.

why that invited you or should have so yeah that's my number if you're on there if there's any other yeah just we're updating it based on the conditions and everything but if there's no specific things about it okay we're going to move on now thank you just one yes you have to go now

One, two, three, four, five.

Yeah, it won't impact quorum.

Yeah.

Okay. Okay. All right. Thanks, everyone. We will move on to Fuller Avenue. A couple of rezoning requests.

Thank you. We have 1911 Fuller Avenue and 1951 Fuller. They're two separate requests, but they're related, so I'm going to present them together. Please note that you will need to do a separate resolution for each, however. Okay, so here is a zoning map of the subject properties. In green, shown here, is 1951 Fuller Avenue. It currently falls in two zone districts. The MCNC commercial zone district and a small portion is in the MCN LDR zone district. that makes it sort of hard to develop. So this request is partially, well, is to facilitate development by putting both of those, or putting that lot into one single zone district. And you can see what the property looks like here. It was partially improved at one time when some of this commercial development went in. We did find plans from maybe 1960 for a commercial strip center here that was never constructed. So there has been some earth moving here in the past. The next part of this request is 1911 Fuller. As you can see, today the lot doesn't have any frontage on Fuller, but it still has a Fuller address. It is owned by the city, another property controlled by the Water Department, and that property And so it has a water tower on it. The applicant has a redevelopment multifamily, it's not even a redevelopment project, it is a development project because this property has never been developed. They're proposing to rezone all of 1951 Fuller and a small portion of the city-owned property to MCN MDR, Mid-Century Neighborhood Mixed Density Residential. Mixed Density Residential is our higher density residential zone district versus LDR, which usually comes to you for special land use approval for multiple family development projects. If this property is rezoned to MCN MDR, the applicant could develop their intended multiple family project without any planning commission approval. It would be a buy right development. So that is what is being proposed today. The 1951 that falls into two zone districts, plus a portion of the city property on 1911. That is, it's about 20, almost 22,000 22,000 square feet or about a half an acre of the water tower property would be purchased and rezoned. Of course, the city has given permission for this rezoning request and the purchase would take place sometime after the rezoning. I think I have it all there. Do you have any questions for me?

Thanks, Elizabeth. Any questions? Nope. Okay. We'll have the applicant come up.

Good afternoon. Excuse me. I'm just getting over a cold. John Casserly, civil engineer in Naderwald. So, Elizabeth, great introduction, as usual. One of the key points the rezone ask is we believe that the rezone does meet the area-specific plan and the master plan intent of creating a transition from the LDR to the commercial zone at this location, specifically highlights this property as a higher density location for residential. I think that seems pretty straightforward. We've been working with staff on a concept, certainly challenges. That's why this parcel has remained vacant over the years. But the rezone is the first step that we need to take in this process. In the report, we did meet with the Creston neighborhood. And I thought they had provided the letter of support. OK. So in the report. So we did get favorable response, some feedback. We've been talking with the neighbor adjacent to the parcel about future redevelopment here, trying to get their feedback and incorporate it into a future design. One of the challenges noted, we will potentially be requesting a variance for steep slope impact that's fairly hilly. There had been some disturbance. We're working on a potential angle to avoid that, but as you can see, there's a good amount of topography change. Some of it's just kind of natural. Some of it we think is disturbance, but... We are fully prepared to seek a variance if the rezone goes forward and we feel like we have a good case to make at that variance hearing. So, Joe's the landowner, can give you a little background about the parcel and attempts previously?

Thanks John. So my name is Joe Abdu. I am one of the developers in Water Tower Place along with Jeff Edwards who is not here today. My family has owned this property for about 20 years now. We've looked at developing this in the past. I believe around 2007 we looked at doing a retail center there, which as everybody knows that was not a great time in the economy. So kind of shelved that plan and the lot kind of sat vacant there for the next couple decades. Then I happened to meet Jeff a few years back. We started chatting and felt that this would be a great infill residential site. And so that's really when we started to build our team. And as John said, we've been working with the city to try and get this project off the ground. And we really appreciate you guys considering our application to rezone and look forward to delivering some much needed housing to the community.

All right, thank you. Any questions from commissioners? Okay, seeing none, I will open the public hearing. If you would like to provide comments on this case, please make your way to the microphone. Seeing no takers, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners.

This seems to make sense to me. I think it's in line with the master plan and looking for additional housing opportunities. I would be in favor of it. And I think it's interesting that we're looking at two water department properties today that the city is willing to sell. Yeah, two hilly properties.

hard to develop properties. But yeah, it's an interesting concept. I don't see a reason why we would not move forward.

Yeah, I think it makes sense here. And this is kind of a parcel that it's a buffer between some residential and some commercial. So given, you know, the marketplace that we have today and the need for housing as well as the housing that's directly across the street, which Incidentally, I had a hand in designing some 25 years ago, but I think it makes sense in this location, so I'm in support.

Yeah, I agree. As said, I think providing a transition to the low density residential with this mixed density makes sense and regardless of the steep slopes and whatever variances might need to be sought,

something that meets the zoning requirements can be developed on the site if re-zoned.

So I'm in favor as well. Would anyone like to make a motion?

I will do it again. All right, here we go. Now, therefore, it be resolved that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Water Tower Place LLC, Jeff Edwards, to rezone the northerly 60 by 364 foot area of the City of Grand Rapids Water Department property from MCN LDR Mid-20th Century Neighborhood Low Density Residential. to MCNMDR mid-20th century neighborhood mixed density residential zone district to facilitate a lot split combination and future residential development at 1911 Fuller Avenue NE for the following reasons. A1, the proposed neighborhood classification and zone district changes will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the master plan, including the future land use map, because the 2024 community master plan future land use map designation of the property supports residential development and new housing types. A2 the proposed neighborhood classification and district changes will further the themes and objectives of the master plan as well as any relevant adopted area specific plans because the rezoning will further the Creston ASP community goal for affordable and inclusive growth by encouraging denser housing on key corridors such as Fuller Avenue. A3, the property to be rezoned can reasonably accommodate the requirements of the proposed zone district because subsequent to rezoning in combination with 1951 Fuller Avenue, it will meet the minimum lot area and width requirements of the zone district. B, the proposed neighborhood classification and zone district designations are compatible with the existing zone districts in the neighborhood because the rezoning will provide a transition from MCNC to the north to MCNLDR zone district to the south. D2, the proposed neighborhood classification and zone district will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the city because the proposed zone change may encourage greater utilization of the subject property. and E1, the proposed zone district is consistent with the trend of development in the neighborhood because the rezoning will allow for residential development and provision of much needed dwelling units.

Support.

We have a motion in support.

Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Would someone else like to make the second motion?

Oh.

Okay. Sure. Is it the same?

Go for it. I can't find it. Now therefore be it resolved that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the court request of Water Tower Place LLC Jeff Edwards to rezone 1951 Fuller Avenue Northeast from MCNC mid-century or mid 20th century neighborhood commercial and MCN LDR mid 20th century neighborhood low density residential to MCN MDR mid 20th century neighborhood mixed density residential zone district to facilitate future residential development for the following reasons proposed neighborhood classification and zone district changes will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the master plan including the future land use map because the 2024 community master plan future land use map designation of the property supports residential development and new housing types. The proposed neighborhood classification and district changes will further the themes and objectives of the master plan as well as any relevant adopted area specific plans because the rezoning We'll further the Crescent ASP community goal for affordable and inclusive growth by encouraging denser housing on key quarters such as Fuller Avenue. The property to be rezoned can reasonably accommodate the requirements of the proposed zone district because it will meet the minimum lot area with requirements. of the zone district. The proposed neighborhood classification and zone district designations are compatible with the existing zone districts in the neighborhood because the rezoning will provide a transition from MCNC to the north to MCN LDR zone district to the south. The proposed neighborhood classification zone district will not be detrimental to the financial stability of the economic welfare of the city because the proposed zone change may encourage greater utilization of the subject property. The proposed zone district is consistent with the trend of development in the neighborhood because the rezoning will allow for residential development and provision of much needed dwelling units. And the property to rezone was not improperly zoned or classified when this chapter was adopted or amended because the property is currently situated within two zone districts.

I think you meant was improperly zoned because it's in two zone districts, the current property? Or you could just not use that condition.

Yeah. I guess I don't like the condition because I don't want to say somebody improperly zoned it. We're just joining two. Can we just scratch that last one?

Yeah.

Consider that scratched.

Okay.

And support.

All right. We have a motion and support. Any additional discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Motion carries. All right, thank you very much. Okay, anything for Planning Commission discussion? All right, then I will open up the public comment period. If you have any comments you'd like to make to Planning Commission, please come up to the microphone and let us know. Seeing none, I will close the public comment period and thank everyone today. We're adjourned.