Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

She had some like that's what I was like.

No, I'm good. We don't have to share. I was going to pour yours in the lid. Yeah, you know. So well soon I have the new laptop to keep it going. Although all day

welcome everyone. It's 5:30 and time to start our meeting. Would everyone please stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. The next thing on the agenda is approval of the agenda. May I have a motion and a second? So moved. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Oppos say no. Next is approval of the minutes from the December 9, 2025 minutes. Does anyone have any additions or corrections? I do have one thing myself that I'd like to note that under the approval of the agenda, I was not the person that made the motion to do that. If you'd note that, May. May all those in favor say yes. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry.

So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed say no.

Motion carries. Next on the agenda is public comment and non-aggenda items. Just a note, if you're here to make a comment regarding item, agenda item number six, after the topic is introduced and we have some initial questions, then we'll have allow time for public to comment on that. Would anyone like to make comment on anything that's not on the agenda at this point? And please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. And comments are limited to three minutes. Okay. I'm Alex Bason. We live at 2914 Reeds Lake Boulevard. We have a through lot and we're isolated through lot. We're surrounded by four neighbors and we can't use our yard the same way all of our neighbors can. And it's created a lot of hardship on us for, you know, our growing family and and just wanting to be able to use our lot the same way as everybody else. Um, you know, not really sure what to do outside of applying for a variance. Um, and uh, I guess I just wanted for my statements to be heard and recorded into public record. We submitted it like a sheet that was put into the um, minutes of the last meeting. Um, and you know, it's just basically we're told that we don't have a rear yard when we clearly have a rear yard. Um, and the most ironic thing is if we were to cut our lot in half, we would have more usable space in our yard. Um, we could do all the things we wanted to do, but yet we can't cut our our lot in half. Um, our whole street is nonconforming for the zoning district that it's in. Um, so we're just basically hamstrung every for everything

that we try to do. Um, and it's been, you know, obviously frustrating. Um, but we're just kind of trying to get some of the city's help to find a way to move forward and and you know, come to some kind of common ground and uh, you know, an equitable solution for us both. What was the address again? I'm sorry. 2914 914 Lake. Appreciate that. Would you just make note of what you're proposing?

Um, I mean, I guess it's just I'm, you know, just want my comments to be a part of public record. Um, you know, I proposed two solutions. I've worked a lot with Jay over the past year on what we could potentially do. Um, you know, it would be a zoning ordinance or a amendment that would, you know, uh, be specific to through lots with four neighbors instead of through lots that are consecutive, you know, with a neighboring through lot. My lot's completely isolated. I'm surrounded by, you know, regular homes. Um, so that was one option would be an amendment to the zoning ordinance for through lots with four neighbors. The other one would be just let us split our lot in half um so we don't have a through lot anymore so we can use our lot the same way as our neighbors.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other comments on non-aggenda items?

Hearing none and we'll move forward to the next part of the meeting. Doug, did after the last meeting did you say something about what you just talked about? We um I know that uh um as as was noted by uh the resident um I know Jay has met with him several times. One of the pieces that we have um tied into our master plan update is to look at all these nonconformities that we have. That's one of the goals is to look at how do we look at those and and I think similar to what um what was stated be able to come up with some regulations some common sense type solutions to some of those non-conformities. So, um whether that's handled, you know, sooner through a variance or something like that or if that's something that plays out here when the master plan update update hopefully gets uh moved forward um this uh this winter uh into the spring um that could be addressed uh through that.

Thank you. And again, feel free to keep reaching out to staff via email or how have you been doing it as well. quick. Uh Doug, uh when the master plan is all, you know, done uh settled, um I'm wondering about the idea of like a rough schedule about, you know, implementation of some of these things that we could start working off of. Yep. That's kind of our first thing we'll do once once it makes it through um public hearing recommendation from the planning commission to the city commission is that's one of the very first things we'll do is come back with

um a schedule of topics. Um you'll recall from the current master plan where we did study sessions and those types of things where we can look at not various non-conformities or issues um discuss them, look at best practices, um get resident feedback and hopefully move forward with some solutions that work for everybody. Yeah, I kind of like the idea of just kind of marching through those and not having, you know, gaps where we don't have meetings, but let's, you know, move move it forward and when we get those all done, maybe we can skip a month, you know.

Sure. Sounds like a plan. Thank you. Next on the agenda is a continuation of the public hearing for the site plan review for the proposed vertical expansion of the north park and ramp at 1840 wealthy street which is Bladet Hospital. You'll notice tonight that zoning administrator Jay Gianady is not here. We like to extend congratulations. They welcomed baby boy yesterday so he's not here. So in his place, deputy manager Doug Lefave will be introducing the subject and after he talks, then commissioners can ask him questions. Then after each presentation is done, we'll have time to ask brief questions before we have the public hearing, then continue comments up here. So just to let you know and also we don't have a timer tonight. So when we do the comments later, Mr. Miller is going to be our official timer. So keep that in mind, please.

Little throwback. Here we go.

Good evening, Madam Chair, plan commissioners. Um, as is noted tonight, I'm pinch hitting for zoning administrator JG. So I put together a a slide presentation really to walk through uh the standards of review and just sort of highlight some aspects of the of the standards review. As you're um all aware, that's how we're to judge these types of projects. There may be other factors sometimes that um may be of interest. However, it's through the lens of the standard review that we have to look at these types of projects. So, going back to the November 12th meeting, um we had a few items to come back uh with the applicant uh Corwell Health uh with respect to the site plan based off of some uh community input and input from plan commissioners and those are kind of bulletpointed there too on the screen. um looking at uh information on light temperature and glare with uh preference for warmer light and glare shields. Um uh and looking at uh headlights more specifically for that the top level of the deck. Um also looking at additional building vertical metal screening options for some of those open air gaps in the ramp. U more architectural design features for the facade facing wealthy. consideration of uh a deed restriction or what we would recommend would be some sort of a or a development agreement um where um where we could u city staff and the city attorney could uh develop that with Corwell Health. I I know there's been uh from prior projects um including this one. Um there's been uh some concern that uh that um perhaps they could come back and ask for like a height variance or something else for development um in the future. And u that would essentially um um make that more crystal clear in terms of uh not having uh not going to a zoning board of appeals and that um if and when something like that would occur would require um a change in the zoning ordinance. So that's um that's also

we'll cover that later. And then uh more of a focus and uh more summary terms uh related to traffic and traffic impacts including implementing some of the timing changes which we we did right after the last meeting and you've seen that in the summary results. Um so getting into the the standards of review um the first uh standard here and this is in section 5.87 of the reviewer standards. Um, standard A, uh, the site plan must comply with all the standards of this article and all applicable requirements of the chapter and all applicable laws and regulations. Um, and as we go through some of these um, I'm going to focus um, more on some of the highlighted sections here. Um, in terms of um, number of stories and building height u, we have had some questions I think from the planning commission uh, specifically to this piece and u, the way we do the calculation is the same we do for single family homes. even though it may uh seem you know a bit different because this is obviously um a a commercial type structure. However, it is in a single family uh zone district and they do have a special use uh permit to exist there. So we have to apply those same um the same way we do our work and those same standards to um to Coral Health similar we would have to do with any residential property. So, um, just wanted to, um, make sure that I touch point on that since that was something that was raised our last meeting. Um, and this is just a continuation of that where, uh, zoning administrator Geonian um, kind of got into the weeds a little bit and showing that I know he had shared an example for a for a single family home and how we do the same approach uh, for those uh, with the the board communication for the packet materials. So in terms of height and um uh stories uh it's compliant with uh um R1 zoning.

The site must be designed in a manner that is harmonious to the greatest extent possible with the character of the surrounding area. Um when we're looking at the the function of the parking ramp that exists today, a ramp 2 um is not um changing in its function. U the existing character would remain largely the same. Um this is an addition to um the current one that was constructed over a period of uh years from 2018ish to 2022 23 in that range. Um so it's a really a continuation of that in terms of uh of what that looks like. Um in addition uh that particular area has had um since the inception of the hospital some form of uh structures, buildings, parking, etc. Um we included uh a lot of photographs um uh uh views in the materials but in the slides here uh the one uh uh to my left uh which would be October 2007 that shows the former WY building that used to be there in the corner. Um and you'll see that there's a a surface lot in that lower area in the corner noting that there's that type of use that type of development in that area. Fast forward to the WHY building and that parking lot being removed from the corner um to June uh a shot from June 2011 shows that where that former parking lot um was was changed into a green space. Um and uh the surface lot um uh really replacing and extending further to the south where the WY building uh was once located when that was uh demolished. And then a a photo a photo from uh August of this past year. U noting u kind of the the current state of of the site there. Again noting um uh for those of you who are around for those approvals um and that those processes uh with uh uh Spectrum at the time and logic hospital um the the architectural piece that was really

focused on for the for the stairwell was to try to mimic the main hospital in the former WY building. Uh so we were looking at the um the roof tiling and design and brick work was really to try to architecturally make that fit um from the historical nature um of that site. Um in addition to uh the use continuing there uh with uh with parking and additional landscaping. Uh on to C. Uh the site must be designed so as to minimize hazards to adjacent property and reduce negative effects of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, and glare to the maximum extent possible. Uh this is one of those uh standards where sometimes that can be in the eye of the the beholder and there's nothing uh wrong with those uh with those, you know, opinions. um we've been through uh again with a very similar project that was more impactful than the current uh proposal um um in the in the past um that that has moved forward. Um a couple bullet points to note uh with this particular project um is that it doesn't uh include the types of impacts uh through the process of construction that the the prior uh projects did. Um so it does not include mass excavations or foundation construction or or that type of demo. Um so that that impact during the pro project would not be present. Uh the total project duration is estimated to be somewhere around 7 months. Um there will be five concrete pores. Um the um addition to the the parking uh structure um would be um uh would be uh five concrete pores uh pre-cast assembly which would take uh they estimate about 15 days for that part of the pro uh process. Um there will be um only limited uh traffic impacts during the the the project um as we're not looking

at any full closures, just some uh minor uh disruptions during construction, which are um uh pretty common for this type of project. And certainly we'll see that with uh East Grand Rapids public schools coming up uh this this uh um June when uh that project kicks off as well. Um I I wanted to note too um as we get into some of the traffic piece here at the bottom um and the the traffic engineers from uh Fishbach and also the city's traffic engineer who did a a peer review on behalf of the city of their their revised traffic impact study uh that the 200 about 206 additional parking spaces are not new to the traffic network. um those are all spaces that are um allocated to existing on street and off-site parking that's uh present at Aquinus. So what that means is um and they'll get into more of the weeds on this, but what that means is that the traffic related to the parking on the campus is um already in the network. So it's not it's not something new above and beyond what's there today. Um standard D. um unless more specific design standards required by the city through different ordinance. Um and this is where we get into the traffic circulation piece here too. So, um you'll note that um the city did um follow follow up with as requested by uh residents and the planning commission at our last plan commission meeting working with uh progressive um AE and Fishbach along with uh the city of Grand Rapids for modifying uh traffic signal timing and those align with the um with the revised traffic impact study and the the results of of that work uh do show that the um operational level service D um uh is in effect. Um and that's on a that's on a scale of A to D with D being um I know

from a school grade is not very good, but but when we're looking at traffic impacts um D is an acceptable uh uh level of service for um an urban environment like East Grand Rapids. Um the the other piece that came from this study too is that the initial recommendations for some um for lead pedestrian interval changes or push buttons um is not needed. So we did remove those from um some of our conditions that were recommended for approval. storm water on site. Uh nothing is changing here in terms of impervious surface um because it's a it's a additional layer for part of the existing ramp 2 deck um that's primarily internal to the property. Uh we just provided some information um with respect to uh the past with uh there's a a storm sewer separator from a 2008 uh project at the hospital that does uh filter storm water from the um the blah hospital campus to Fisk Lake. Um, but we also included a memo from our the city's uh consultant civil engineer uh who reviewed the plans and didn't find any uh storm water uh changes that needed to be made. Landscaping um this is uh D number three. Um uh basically the the the existing landscaping um is uh going to remain. So some of those uh landscape that landscaping that has grown over the past number of years um will continue. Uh there's some small um um areas where it will be disrupted and they provide that with a landscaping plan. Additionally, um near the the corner of Wealthy and Plymouth, um there were several um rightaway trees that were planted uh by um at the time Spectrum Health that were removed related to some utility work that are um upon our review uh will be included. So, you would see that in the landscaping plan and I'm sure in some of their slides that

they'll have for you uh this evening. So, uh we also believe this is met terms of screening. Um going and looking back at uh um um different um uh heights for uh parking lot lights etc. Um it appears that uh from our review and the revised submitts that all walls along each parking level um are at least 5 ft in height. uh that would be sufficient and looking at the elevations um and cross-sections um in the phototric plan that there's uh lights light spillage or any glare has been mitigated and we'll see that um on the lighting piece as well here. Uh in terms of the lighting, um Coral went back and and uh met with the city to discuss um kind of internally what they needed for for security uh standards um and what the desire for the community is. The city also provided um our Kelvin temperature which is basically that um the either and on and the scale that's provided here in the slides and the materials um um that uh that warmer uh color um and as you get to more of that daylight blue white color uh and LED that typically is what has the biggest impact on um on people when they're looking at lighting. So, um they are on the the top deck will be uh proposed to um uh have the lighting on the top deck at 3500 Kelvin, which is a warmer temperature. They've also uh advised that they will uh add light shields to the rooftop lights as well, which is not present before. So, we believe that that um in addition to the phototric plan, those changes um are sufficient in in line with uh other city lighting uh in the city. Um, is there a provision or could there be a provision that maybe that gets reviewed after it's built just to see if there's any adjustments that need to be made to the the various screens and and

whatnot? Um, that certainly could be um added to um conditions of approval um similar to what we we typically recommend for for traffic. Uh we typically always recommend that after um a project is done that we do a post analysis and we certainly add that um if that's amanable to the planning commission this evening. But how how does that compare to what's currently currently what they have in place? Yeah,

they they do have a they do have a um a more daylight um LED and I'll let them speak to that more specifically, but I'm going to guess it's probably um in that 4 to 5,000 Kelvin range. That's typically where the industry, you know, really moved out um initially and now even Consumers Energy with the Cobra overheads, which you're probably familiar with um throughout uh the Grand Rapids area, they they are now um modifying those to be a warmer temperature, too. So, it would certainly be an improvement from the perspective what the public comment we heard from from uh neighbors and residents.

Sure. Question. and the u adding the light shields. That's kind of like a voluntary thing, right? Maybe it was negotiated or it's not a requirement in this owning.

It was something that we we um in the prior um the prior review that the city had uh city staff had asked that to be added just because um based off of kind of where you're situated um adjacent to some of those uh surface lights that are um in a open parking lot or on top of a structure. Um, a lot of times it's not it's not the direction of the lighting from the phototric plan. Certainly that is focused on where it needs to be on the parking, but it's just that glare. If you think about looking at um like stars or something like that, if you look at it, you you you do get a glare even though it's not directly pointed at you. So having those light shields on the back of them um which are more common place for a lot of the Cobra overheads I just noted for street lighting um has really resolved those issues. So, if you see in some neighborhoods where there may be a um a Cobra overhead light um in front of someone's house um perhaps maybe near a room where someone sleeps, you'll see that we've we have or Consumers Energies installed light shield so that they don't have that glare even though the light is directed on the street below. So, it's kind of the same concept, but they have they have uh yes, they have volunteered to add it as part of their submitt um even though it was noted as a condition of approval last time. So, it is a condition um even though it's not a it's not a standard in the zoning or

it's not it's it's something that we we were going to add as a but they they've they've noted that in their plans that they would that's what they're going to do. I certainly appreciate the light shields the effort that's the city and the and the applicant made to to include those. Uh, but I I really am thinking of that as an example of certain things that maybe they're volunteering to do or you've requested or it's been negotiated and maybe developing a list of those kinds of things that may lead to certain site plan review standards that we could incorporate so it doesn't require all this negotiation or maybe there's something that we learn every time a large project like this happens, right? Yes. And then that could maybe then uh translate into certain

site plan review standards. So that may be seizing the opportunity. Remember we had a email exchange about bike racks for example. They're not they're not required but hey you know it' be nice if you would do it and you know maybe we can learn from from this phase of the you know at Corwell to see what kinds of uh things could be made you know permanent site plan review standards. And I think that's a a great uh suggestion. And I think um what we can do is um uh perhaps when we're looking at some of the um the goals um in the we could we could probably fit that in when we have our public hearing for an addition to the master plan update to to note some of those things we've learned uh for site plan reviews to also update those as well to your point so that it's a standard going forward, not something we need to negotiate. Appreciate that. Okay. uh move on to D6 um and uh seven, eight, and nine. Um these are um generally not anything that we need to address because they're not applicable or or they're uh sufficiently addressed without any additional work. Um so in terms of utility service, there's nothing that is proposed to change in this plan as we noted. Um it's a basically a partial um structural addition. Um exterior uses um they're not being proposed here. emergency access. Um that's been reviewed by the Department of Public Safety and um for use of uh various equipment and and vehicles and locations of hydrants, etc. Um and the plans in general uh for fire fire code and there's no no issues that they've identified uh to address. Um again, related to um utilities on the the city water and sewer side, there's there's nothing there to add. Um so uh we believe that standard is is uh um not applicable either and that these are met. In terms of sign there signs they're also not adding anything here any proposed signage changes to the

campus. So again that also um is uh permissible from the city's perspective. Uh D um 11 building design. Um this is noted and included in the drawings that show the expanded building would be architecturally similar to the existing garage uh what was recently approved in recent years. Um that the architecture of the race stairway is currently modeled as noted earlier uh with the existing main hospital and former Wy with building um that was de demoed in uh 2008. Um so the design would be retained on the current plan with some of the modifications noted uh from the prior meeting. Uh for any potential action this evening um the the motions would be approve the site plan as submitted, approve the site plan with conditions or deny the site plan if applicable requirements of the standards review are not met. And in your uh packet materials, we we did provide um worksheets for you all um as you're reviewing uh the site plan uh to help uh provide some comments or some questions that uh uh may be helpful for you all this evening. Um and then noted in the memo and up here in the screen too, and this was where maybe the the lighting piece may be added to this. Um, city staff is noted uh uh identified um if approved identified conditions that that we feel um uh should be added to an approval. Um uh and number five in particular really is a rehash of a lot of the conditions that we had in the prior uh site plan approval for the ramps one and two uh relief around the entire campus. So, we want to have all those there, too, in addition to uh noting some of the other uh conditions that were based off of staff review or uh comments uh that we

felt were um could be addressed uh with a condition from either the planning commission or or residents. And with that, um any further questions for Doug?

Yeah, Doug, I've got three questions. One is in the packet there are two different versions of kind of the metal screening that is proposed in between. Uh I think it'd be easier if I just kind of showed you what I'm looking at. So there's there's this right. I think that's new. And then in other uh other documents, it's maybe the old one. I just want to be clear on which one's currently proposed.

I believe it's the new ones, but we can address that with the applicants when they get up here, too. But I'll make a note of that so we can come back to that to make sure um if there's a I believe it's the new ones. Um the more vertical I think is what they heard. Some sort of a vertical mesh type uh change is I think what we we heard. The new one is the one that's it's just more there's more to it. Yes. Correct. Yes. I believe that's the I believe that's the correct one they have proposed. Okay. I'll let them answer that for sure.

And then my second question is about tree screening. What uh what types of I see a lot of trees added to the view on the southeast looking from wealthy in Plymouth Southeast looking at the you know the the biggest the biggest mass right what mechanism do we have if if said trees die in two years or three years or five years

so I will let the the applicant speak to that too but way we've handled that with um with prior approvals is um we do have um a consultant that will go out and verify their their landscaping plan if something um does die. Um either I know that they they typically have uh similar to the city, they'll have usually a couple year warranty on that type of landscaping. Um and I can say that we've never had an issue where um either we or um any neighbors adjacent to the um the hospital have said, "Hey, I noticed this isn't doing well or this died, etc." Um we've never had any problem um getting those uh replaced and and kind but that could be you know that could be another condition if that's a concern for you.

That was a comment that was brought up quite a bit when they did the last work on it. And the the the trees in the corner there as you noted those were removed. There's a fire suppression um service that goes to that that site that was done in the previous project. Um and um so they're they're they're replacing some of those rightway trees there.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. Um and then my third question is related to traffic. If taking away the level of service I think I think what I've read is okay, but I'm thinking more to queuing, right? How many how many car What does level of service D mean for for 5:00 queuing when when cars are stacked up going south waiting on that light at lake and what could we do about it and if we did something about it would that just back things up at lake

so I'll I'll defer to the the traffic engineers for that question I believe they are going to address that um so that'll be both uh the traffic engineer from Fishbach and also from progressive of um I I believe one of the things we mentioned just in that entire corridor along Plymouth uh for that north south piece of it not the lake not the lake uh drive piece um uh one of the things the city's looking at is uh is u we're doing a study with progressive and looking at a pilot for um some changes at MLK and Plymouth and MLK in um Argentina too in terms of like traffic circles something like that moving the the crossings further away from the intersection RFBs, those types of things. So, I'll let them specifically give you the the detailed answer on level service D and queuing. Uh, but those are some other things outside of this project that we're looking to do for improvements. Um, I should also add um since we're talking about traffic briefly before we really get into it, um, as you noticed in the report and review of accidents, um, most of those are related to the flashing uh, mode which is later in the evening. Um, and that's somewhat interesting. And so we're we've engaged with Progressive to look at um some of those changes we can make there too because that seems to be the um the predominant um type of accident that's occurring at those intersections in that area. My my questions uh revolve around the lighting. I I I recall one of the um residents, you know, showing a picture at the last meeting with, you know, the glare. Um, and I understand we're kind of reducing what you know what we have currently, but as I look at the grid, the lighting uh color temperature scale, like what's the harm of reducing it even further from the 3500, I mean, I see nothing but positive, you know, comments, warm, you know, I don't see anything that would say like there there

would be an issue with, you know, reducing it to 2,000. And uh as

so um what I can say is that when you're looking at a uh what does it actually cover that you can actually see on the ground? I think that's what they would probably talk about security. Um when the city we retrofitted our LED lights starting in about 2015. Um we did quite a study on um all the lights that you see through um wealthy through gaslight village along Lakeside. um and really try to find a balance of effectiveness. So you have security and safety lighting um and that temperature as we noted. So the city's lighting is is in that range of the I think it's 32 to 3500 is what we have you'd see outside here of this building. Um so there are benefits for to to to have the um more uh daylight lighting in terms of security. Um that's what they're going to maintain. I think 4,000 they noted um in inside of the decks which you won't see externally um to a great extent. Um but that's so that they can see with I believe it's so they can see with cameras and and everything else because it does have an impact on what you're seeing on the street level. Um like I said when we did a study we were looking at where the touch points of of the the the warmer lighting like on Lakeside for example in front of John Collins Park. You want to make sure that those uh um the the light uh um I guess circles, I guess I'd call them or boundaries that they touch so that you're able to see everything. It's much less when you have warmer lighting than um than that more daylight lighting. So, um that's that we would agree with them that that they've they're right in that bandwidth of where the city itself is.

The top level is exposed, correct? And would be exposed. Correct. So when you're parking, I would assume you need more light because of that. Correct. Parking security is probably right up there. I can't speak for walking to your car. Walking to your car. So that's they probably want to see it with security cameras and those things too. So that's why they I think they like if it was enclosed, you would need less lighting outside. I would assume they wouldn't need that because it's enclosed. So they they the lighting they do have inside I believe is probably like 4,000K or maybe even a little bit more than that. that externally that's not something that's projected from a glare view from that from the external. Okay,

thanks Doug. Okay, who's up next? We are going to have uh Corwell Health come up next and do their presentation and then we'll follow that with u um with the the key component here of traffic. We'll have the city's traffic engineering consultant come up and kind of go over their peer review of the traffic impact study. Um, and I think they have a brief slide presentation, too. So, we'll turn over to Coral Health right now. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself as well. Start three. Okay. Just confirming.

Good evening everyone. Um Rodney Vanderan, director of planning, design and construction for Corwell Health. Um, good to be back here as a followup to our meeting in November. Um, I think as you'll see in our presentation, uh, we've taken the comments from the commissioners and the comments from the neighbors seriously and I believe we believe we have positively addressed um, those comments as you'll see in this deck and some of the handouts. Doug did go over was thorough and did already go over some of the things that uh, we've got in this deck, but I will certainly reiterate some of it. So, in November, we heard basically three main themes. There are traffic, lighting, and then um our aesthetics and and some of the facade treatment. So, we'll be going through that and helping describe some of the updates we made and um how we feel that we've made a better project um through the process. So, as it relates to parking, um I do have two slides here that are repeats from last time. I just want to reiterate some of the why on on why we're here. Um, as as Luke described last time, our parking utilization on campus is is fairly high with the industry standard being about 85%. So, um, we're trying to get get the the parking ramp back to a place where it operates efficiently and certainly we want to minimize congestion while obviously maximizing the utilization at the same time. So, it is a it is fairly fine balance. Um, as Luke shared, we we average about 5% um, capacity um, I guess available on any given day. So, some days are worse, some days are a little better. Um, so when you think about that 85% utilization target, we're actually at 95%. So, our our goals with this project are to um allow us to eliminate the frustrations from people parking offsite at Aquinus. Um it it'll allow us to have enough parking spaces for those that are

choosing to potentially park in the neighborhoods to have space on campus, those team members. And um really our intent is not for every space to be filled because if it is, we're going to have the same challenges we are right now with um patients and visitors coming to the the parking lots not being able to find those last few spots of circling, missing appointments, etc. So this project is not a a draw for demand at all. It's basically just trying to accommodate the people that are already coming to our campus. So yeah, like I said, utilization um trying to get to that industry standard metric is really what we're trying to accomplish. And with that, um I'm going to hand it over to Kyle from Fishbach to talk about the traffic study a little bit. Hello, I'm Kyle Reidzma, senior traffic engineer with FishBck. So, we were here in November. We had the same study. We updated it, added a little bit of content based on some of the comments we heard. Same six study intersections. We collected new uh vehicle and pedestrian data after that meeting. worked with the city to implement some signal timing adjustments that we recommended that were supposed to help with the level of service that we were seeing out there prior to any any work being done. Um, and then we analyzed, you know, traffic operations without the proposed work and with the volumes based on the proposed. So, this is just kind of a step back of daily volumes. We looked at like historical out here um along Plymouth, Wealthy, and Lake just to kind of give a feel for what's traffic been doing over the years. So, we went back and looked at available traffic counts that were uh that Grand Valley Metro Council and MDOT had to kind of get an average daily traffic to see how things have changed over the years. And overall, it's been pretty consistent in this area. Uh as

you can see going back to the 2013 counts um there's obvious dips at 2020 with COVID and that's across the board everywhere and then things start to pick up again with the postcoavid uh years that we had there. Uh as mentioned previously this parking structure expansion is not anticipated to generate additional trips. It's to provide that extra uh availability for people who are parking on street or maybe at the Aquinus lot and walking in. So there are uh this traffic is already in the the larger roadway network. Maybe not necessarily driving right down Plymouth. You know, they might be on Robinson. Uh but there there's also the potential that some of these people are pulling into the lot, finding it full, and then leaving. And so they'd be, you know, in the in the system there as well, going to uh on street or to Aquinus there. level of service. Uh did the same analysis as we did before. This is with the updated volumes that we collected and the implemented timings. Uh we were able to bring everything in the background. Uh all um all movements, all approaches and all intersections were at a level of service D or better. Uh and as uh Doug mentioned, the the A through F grade, you stopped at D, but uh it does go to E and F. Uh D is usually acceptable. in an urban situation. Those letter grades are based on delay per vehicle. So to your question about queuing, the level of service is not based on the queueing. However, we did run simulations for these and we looked at queuing. The queuing with the additional uh expansion is very similar to what's out there without it. If you go back to your aerial, does the queuing at the at the worst time, the peak time, does the queuing from Plymouth ever back up to

entrances where the ambulances go in? I would think that you operationally you would want to avoid that uh occurrence. I would have to look and see what our what the lengths were there for the Q link for that southbound. I know we improved it with the timings slightly, but there could be more wiggle room to to improve it if we adjusted the timings a little bit more. But it again, it should be matching very closely to what's out there today. Okay. I can look closer into that on what those Q links are. Thank you.

Yeah. And there is I I know we made some timing recommendations last time that the city implemented. Um I believe that the timings, if I'm remembering correctly, on Lake there were favoring east west. Um so there could be some room to squeeze a couple extra seconds out of that and put it on Plymouth to help reduce some of that queuing. We could look into that. Also, as part of this, we reviewed uh crash data. Uh looking at safety here, um Doug noted too that when we did a review of the last five years of crash data, there was a large number of crashes, almost 50% of them that were involving vehicles disregarding either a solid or a flashing red light. Um, most notably at at Plymouth and Lake, uh, I believe, uh, the majority of that even was, uh, during the overnight when it was in a flash schedule, uh, meaning yellow on one bound and red on the other. So, uh, one of the things we were recommending was, uh, to review those timings, um, not only the clearance intervals, also the flash schedules and, um, progression along the corridor because if people are coming to an abrupt stop, uh, that could cause some some red light running as well. Another thing we noted as a mitigation is, uh, signal head back plates. I know the city has those at some other locations within the city. Those just increase visibility. Uh it's a border around the the traffic signal head to just kind of highlight it. Gives that retro reflectivity on it. Uh making drivers more aware of that signal. Um we also reviewed Grand Valley Metro Council has uh it's fairly new. It's near miss data so it's not there's not a lot of it but it does go back about uh it went back to

2023. So, um, we did take a look at that and there were no near miss data reportings in this area. Um, but we do recognize that it's a very limited data set. However, there were other, um, locations within East Grand Rapids that there have been data points reported. So, it's not like there's nothing out there. Uh but we were just trying to get a better feel for if there is any additional data out there that we could look at for uh safety improvements because we understand that the crash data is only what's reported and you know what the police have crash reports for. So trying to look a little bit more into what's out there. Uh but we understand the limitations of that data set as well. So the conclusions um again operational impacts are uh not significant with this additional expansion. Uh levels of service remain the same for all movements, approaches and intersections. Uh the queuing is pretty similar between the proposed and the existing just like the level of service because while the the delay is what we're measuring, the queue and delay do kind of go hand in hand. Uh, one thing to note, uh, and and I think Doug mentioned it at the beginning was the leading pedestrian intervals were talked about a little bit last time and that is a a walk indication for pedestrians at the signal that goes on while the vehicles are all in red and that is u a safety improvement that the city's been putting in. Uh, and that gets the pedestrian the thought is it gets the pedestrian in the crosswalk while all the traffic is stopped. So, they're more uh vehicles are more aware of those pedestrians in the crosswalk. They've already started out there um and are hopefully into the roadway uh before the green light goes. So, one of the things we looked at with the timing improvement that we had

recommended previously um was could we operate this efficiently without putting push buttons in for those leading pedestrian intervals? And uh with those timing improvements that were implemented, the the pedestrian push buttons are not needed for those. Um, so it would operate the same as it is today with that leading pedestrian interval coming up every time the signal is out uh every phase that it's out there. So no one has to push anything. It's going to come up and give that safety uh safe signal to the pedestrians every time. Um, and then just the same thing, the city could review the signal clearance intervals, the safety mitigations we mentioned, the back plates, and then as Doug just noted, uh, a post construction study would be completed 6 months after construction to to do the same exercise and see if anything has changed and what improvements could be made to mitigate any traffic impacts.

Can I ask some questions? Yeah. Okay. Uh, so it sounds like we made I think you used the term tweaks to improve I guess wealthy and leg from an F to a D. Is that correct? We made some signal timing adjustments. Yeah. Yeah. So, so you just made some adjustments to make it to F to N D. What would it take to go from a D to an A or D to a C or D to a B? and and why didn't we go that route? Less cars, more lanes. I mean, that that's the reality. You hit a certain point of we don't have capacity on the roadway. So,

because we have to balance, you know, we have traffic on Plymouth and PL traffic on Lake. So, by adjusting the timings, we could take away a little traffic uh time from Lake to give to Plymouth. So, so you kind of operate it within the existing infrastructure it sounds like, right? So, you're like, okay, this is the infrastructure. The best we could go is from F to a D, right? Based on the current infrastructure. If we expanded the infrastructure, there is a potential for us to get a better grade. Correct. There is the potential for that. Yes.

Has Corell considered that as part of their investment? Um I I can answer some of that from a long-term perspective with the city. Um the city um has desired to operate uh fully within that A to D range. Uh and and not move to widen some of those major corridors we have. Um really the impacts there would be as is noted you'd have um uh you you may actually it's kind of the if you build it they will come. If you have uh if you have better letter grade and you have wider streets, you're going to maybe perhaps you generally can attract more traffic from other areas where people are looking to cut through. Uh you have wider um intersections for crossing distance which is not conducive to pedestrian safety. And the other the other major impact would be um the loss of uh a significant portion of our tree canopy that's in the right of way. So those those types of corridors would be clearcut uh for the widening those types of things. So that's just my experience historically here of why the city's operating in that level A to D range because widening to get a better letter grade has not been in the trade-off has not been um seen as a positive for the community.

Yeah, there's definitely safety trade-offs like like you mentioned the wider distances for pedestrians crossing, speeding, you know, there's a lot of other things that Yep. could be a side result of improving that to such an A. It's hard could to go from going to school wanting A+, right? And saying like, okay, D fits our parameter. Yeah, I think get degrees. Um, get degrees. Does anyone else have any questions for Kyle? Then we'll ask Rodney. Thank you. Thank you. Rodney, can you call up? Did you have questions or I can continue? I I know I do. Others might as well. Do you have more presentation? Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Okay. The other two themes, lighting and aesthetics, I think we should get to. Yeah. Good.

Okay. So, um lighting um that was definitely a major theme um last time we were here in November. So, Doug touched on this already. Our system standard and what's installed on the campus is that 4,000K temperature light. Um it's a neutral white light. uh it's what our security prefers. Um whether it's for cameras or just um being being able to, you know, facial recognition, even if just, you know, you and I are passing in the parking ramp, just being able to see facial features and and see more detail. That warm really warm light doesn't allow that. But what we're proposing is that at the new covered level, it would maintain that 4,000 temperature. That way, once you enter the covered level, it's consistent all the way up and down the ramp. But once you get to that um exposed level, uh we're planning on reusing the um poles, but we'll remove the 4,000 temperature fixtures and we'll replace it with the 3500s at that that upper level um to provide a little more of that yellow color. Excuse me. And then as Doug mentioned, we've we've already um offered and and planned to put in the light shields up at that upper level as well to try to minimize some of that glare. The light shields are not currently in place on the upper deck now. Correct. So, it's an improvement over the lights.

Correct. And then this is how did you settle on the 3500? Um try you know it's a balance, right? Our our system standard is 4,000 um without trying to go too yellow. Um and and talking with security, our in-house security, they would prefer not to go below 3500. And why would security not prefer to go below 3500? You know, when you go

when you get too warm, um you have a hard time seeing features on people if there's a video camera, for instance. It's unfortunate, but you know, it's just the the environment that we live in that things can happen. So we we have cameras around and you they cannot pick up as much when it's that lower warmer temperature as they can in that more neutral range. Okay.

So I'm not done talking about lighting, but um it's in the facade treatment section here. the top elevation. And this gets um to your um question a little bit, Commissioner Aram, about the the metal screens and which what's the re more recent version. The top elevation is what we previously had submitted. It's what's out um on the north ramp and the south ramp. They're the the square um framed mesh sort of coverings. Our proposal today is to remove them and and offer a different solution um for multiple reasons. So, I'm I'm going to focus on the bottom image now. And there's there's multiple solutions, so I cut colored them differently. The first the yellow sections. Each level has crash walls that, you know, your bumper can hit and so you don't go over the edge. And those are, you know, typically 42 in high and and they block most of the lights from most cars unless you have a, you know, fairly tall vehicle that can still fit in the ramp. Um, on that top elevation, you can see that we stepped it down every two column bays. We're proposing now to step it down every three column bays. And what that does, it just provides a little more height to those concrete walls, allowing for a little more screening of headlights that that might be pointing west. As you move further to the right and further to the south, that little orange line there, that's where it's existing deck currently. We're not we weren't planning to add anything to the the top of that, but what we're proposing now is that we're going to add an element to those concrete walls to get us another 12 16 in to also block more lights coming um directly out of that ramp. The blue elements um are areas where it's a little Can does my mouse work here? No. Um the blue areas, there's a sloped ramp behind those. So, as you can imagine, um some cars that park on that

level where you see the blue, depending on where you're parking, some of those headlights could today go right through that mesh that's there and and face directly west towards the neighbors. What what we're proposing now is that those um openings in the deck get infilled with louvers. That allows us to keep the air circulation that we need, but blocks the light to the west. So, it's only really needed there because that's the only place where we have a condition where um the the opening in the wall intersects with the slope that's going on behind it. And then the fourth um thing that's shown on this elevation are those green elements to the left. Um the new design that we're proposing is is sort of a aluminum lattice or grillage that you will applied to the the concrete deck to give it some more interest as well as it also has the effect of um providing more screening for those openings as well. So, it it's once again it gives us our air circulation but also provides more screening. Doug already mentioned um some of this about the landscaping. Last time we were here in November, we we weren't planning on doing anything on the southwest corner. Um what you see in the packet today is the trees that are shown green there. They're they don't get very tall. So, what we're planning on doing is removing those and replacing them with a different tree that that grows quicker and grows taller. So, as as you know, nature does its work, it will continue to grow past the the top um portion of that building and continue to screen it. And we've got imagery to show that uh coming up, too. And then the northwest corner, um we talked about that last time. Doug already mentioned the three street trees that we plan to add. Um and you'll see those coming up as well. So here the current um image taken you

know what you'd see today on the left there with those mesh inserts and then on the right you can see that sort of lattice um application to the parking ramp and then also those three street trees. We tried to envision what those might look you know in in some years when the trees get more established. still not as big as the other ones as they continue to grow as well, but um you can see that that they start to screen that deck fairly well as we move into future years. CL

and then moving on to the wealthy street on that southoutheast or sorry northeast corner you can see the the condition on the left there is current and then the one on the right um hard to render a little bit um from this angle but it's got that grillage applied to the different column bays as well and it does wrap around the east edge um for a couple bays there as well. I don't I don't in this um series I don't have um that next level of you know what does this look like in 10 years or so but I do show it in the elevations coming up and then once again current view on the left and it's it's a little hard to see because of the distance from the ramp but we are adding that that detail of that wall extender sort of to the existing building there. Um, yeah, he's drawing it right there as well as on the new portion behind. You can see that as a sort of design element.

And that's what you referred to as the southwest corner, right? This is southwest. Yeah. So, the the new trees are going to be kind of right where his icon

Yep. Yep. Those will get replaced to um faster growing, taller trees. Yeah. And I've got an elevation to show it as well. Some of these are just really hard to render and make it sort of look realistic. So, we also did a um extensive study on what the landscaping is that's already on site and what we can expect it to do over the years. So, kind of want to focus on just those two um green colors immediately adjacent to the parking ramp along the west and the north. You can see there those they're evergreen trees. The current size ranges depending on on where you are from about 15 feet up to 20 feet. But also note that the expected final height of those is 40 to 60 feet. So they are not they're they're 30 to 50% of what they can be expected to get over time. So nature just has to continue to to do that. And if you looked at some of the images that were in the packet to the you know 2017 etc you can already see the fairly significant growth that those trees have managed to do just over the last few years already. So looking at the north elevation then top is is sort of current growth at 18 to 20 ft along that elevation. Um and then the bottom one shows the trees obviously more established and growing. um we've decided to just show them in this rendering as 26 feet tall, you know, increasing about six to eight feet. But if even if they hit that low point of what they're expected to get to that 40 foot line, you can imagine how this parking ramp over time is going to be engulfed in in nature and landscaping. It's just going to take a little while to get there. Could

Could you just plant them at that height? Um probably need an arborist to answer that. I it's really hard to, you know, keep them alive when you're moving a tree that big. That's that's the hard part of the root system is so big. No, I would think so. Yeah. But, you know, why wait? Then they won't have as long a life expectancy because they're already at pretty much their full capacity. Yeah. And then you start getting some die off as they're because they're old.

A question about the the overall landscape design. It's, you know, you're trying to screen that the ramp. I understand that. Uh is there a balance or is was there a consideration about a more natural um flow of the landscaping rather than strictly strictly you know a formal screening type thing where you could have some variation which would which would have its own aesthetic appeal um as well as provide screening.

Yeah, we talked a little last time I don't believe you were here. Um, we talked a little bit about, you know, um, IV walls and stuff like that and how hard they are in in a cold climate like this to actually maintain them. They look they may look nice for a few months of the year, but the rest of them they don't. So, I think the intent with this project is we've got a lot of really nice landscaping on campus already and we're proud of the campus and it's one of the greenest campuses in the country and I think at this point given where they're established, I feel like it's it's good to keep them in in their the good condition that they're already in.

That answer your question? I think you did try to put some greening in the walls earlier on and it must not have worked. Yeah, I don't I don't remember. There was that live wall you had on the retaining wall on the on the wealthy side that did not Yeah, it didn't take first built it. Okay.

When it was first built. I think you're right. Yeah. I'm actually um you know maybe it's just the way the rendering came out for purposes of illustration, but um you know what I'm getting at more would would be like a variety of evergreen trees where you have evergreen trees, you know, more of a natural mixture that would have its own appeal that would still accomplish what you want to do rather than being such a, you know, formal formal design straight down with all one species. Yeah. No, I I I hear what you're saying. Um, at this point, none of these are new. These are all existing trees, and we just want them to grow bigger and and I guess not impact the site much at this point.

Any other questions on this one?

Otherwise, we just got two more slides. Um, and showing the west elevation here. Um the trees are showing a little transparent so you can still see the the parking ramp behind but on the top there you can see that grillage that's been added that lattice work and then really small bottom left you can see those uh the new street trees and then a little bit bigger on that bottom elevation. So if the if the rendering if if they took the transparency out of some of those trees you know you you'd have a hard time seeing that parking ramp behind. And then the last slide, that that south elevation, those smaller trees shown on the top there, we just plan on um replacing those with some trees that that grow a couple feet a year. And so that'll screen that fairly quickly. So, like I said, that's the last slide. Um I believe we've made a lot of changes um over the last couple months to address the concerns of both the commissioners as well as the neighbors and uh really appreciate your time and um would really appreciate your support tonight.

Any other questions for him? Yeah. Ronnie, what's the roof material of the stair? It's clay tile, basically. Clay tile. Okay. Um, is there any more detail on that screen that you're proposing, the vertical screen? It's just, you know, all we hear is it's just aluminum screen, but I mean, do you have more information?

So, I mean, it's it's almost a custom custom design. It's not it's not a consistent Let's see if I can go back here. horizontal elements, you know, on a vertical sort of support system, aluminum. And what we've done is where we've got parking ramp openings so you can, you know, you can see into the ramp where it's it's we're just doing a sort of custom pattern where there's a um a band of three of them for instance with an inch space and then at the bottom of that opening there's a band of four of them with you know inch inch and a half space because if you can imagine looking up into those openings maybe the top portion is where you might catch a one of the parking lights inside one of the down lights and Then um in the areas where it's just concrete behind trying to come up with a pattern that's um a little bit uh non-symmetrical. I don't know just a little, you know, staggered if you will.

We we didn't take it all the way through CDs. Just, you know, obviously we we don't want to take everything through CDs before we get some support, but would be happy to provide more details along the way as well. Yeah, that would be that'd be helpful. And also, so um Ronnie, go forward. I think it's the updated west elevation. No, next one. Sorry. My apologies. Well, actually, no. I'm sorry. Go back one. I'm being wish. Okay. On the far right side of um you you said that you're adding adding something to that existing wall to screen uh headlights. Correct.

What What What is that? Um something. We've talked about just almost like a a metal plate that's mounted to the back side of the pre-cast. So, it's it's set in a little bit to the to the parking side of the deck. Um a painted, you know, to the concrete's already there in in some of the situations. So, we're trying to get a solution that can work on both. and um something that can molt bolt to the back but still allow allow water to drain off the top of that that existing concrete there and I I would support that. Yeah. Um All right. Um more technical than you needed. No, it's I like it. Um All right. Thanks, Rodney.

Anyone else? Can I just I got a quick dovetail question on a couple of those and we talked a little bit about louvers in there. Um it's where the angle of the ramp intersected the open thing. I can kind of picture that here but I'm having trouble picturing what louvers will actually look like. Are these like I've seen some parking garages where the louvers are, you know, they're like a foot wide and they're just kind of stacked at a 45 degree angle. I'm assuming it's not that, but it would be helpful to know.

It's not. But it's it's more of a traditional louver that the fins are, you know, 6 7 in. You know, they they they're angled at a point where visually you can't see past them because this one overlaps that one, but it still allows the air circulation to get through. If if if you remember the old ramp where South ramp is, that had a louver system on it. Okay, I do remember that. And it's, you know, it's just at that one level and most of it, it's really low to the ground at that point. So, it looks like it's behind trees. The trees are fairly wide at that point, too. So, you don't see a lot of it, but there is definitely the opportunity for a car to, you know, shine its lights directly through those current openings. Okay. Thanks.

Um, I just wondered if there was an east elevation available that might show what it looks like if you're driving from Gas Light towards Easttown. I don't have an east elevation unfortunately. The best I have is is this. And you know I can it's grainy because of the clipping into Photoshop or into PowerPoint. But it's it's the same aesthetic from Wealthy and and that those few bays on Plymouth that wraps around the corner. And then there's some um raw gray concrete there that we plan to stain as well. You've got the loading docks there, right? Like the

um Yeah, off off the picture here. Yeah, they're We lost connection. Yeah, we don't have picture anymore. Oh. Oh, Matt, there is a east elevation on page 78 of the PDF if you have it in your computer. I don't know if it's number 70. Sorry if you have to count. Thank you. Uhhuh. Yeah.

Yeah. There's that. Yeah. That's the wall you're talking about?

No. H I don't know why it stops sharing. So this is the sort of image with additional tree growth from the east there. And the two and it's a it's a skewed view because the only the only the two bays to the left where you see that sort of um bare grill is the east elevation. After that it starts going away from you on an angle because the parking ramp isn't square. It's got the sort of notched corner to it. And And where would the wall that that's kind of part of the uh the loading ramp area be here? Uh I know there's a big tank of some kind. And

yeah, it's shoot 20. Yes. Thanks. It's a lot lower. This view. Yeah, I I don't that doesn't show here, but yeah. Okay. I guess I was just wondering if we're going to end up with, you know, 20 some feet or so of parking ramp or of a loading dock with the parking ramp kind of above that if if it just ends up being a a large mass. the the parking ramp is set back from that loading dock a certain distance. Okay. I All right.

Thank you. I I see that a little better. There's a surface parking lot there that that is between the loading dock and the parking ramp as well. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Because I'm looking at street view right now and because of the angle because of the hill and the angle of the of Wealthy Street, it's really hard to see and there's good growth trees there. It's really hard to see that east elevation at all which I think is helpful.

Yeah. Yeah. the the area. There it is. My mouse. Can you see my mouse on the screen? Yep. This is all surface lot over here. Um immediately above that loading dock area. So, it's not till this wall right here where that the parking ramp starts.

Okay. Can I go back to lighting? And I'm playing way out of my league here, but I'm using chat GPT to help me here. Um, you know, our grid is showing Kelvin, which is the color temperature, right? So the 3500 is the color, but as I, you know, look at Czech GPT, brightness is lumens. And um you know is there a happy medium where we could reduce the Kelvin below the 3500 and increase the lumen so that there wouldn't be a security issue. Has that been considered? you know, are are we solely focused on the because I think the residents concern is really the the color, the brightness, you know, of the lights.

Yeah. And I understand that the concern from security uh but is there a way to minimize the I mean, I think there's there's the harshness of being too cool. Correct. Right. it's blue and it's it's kind of harsh to the eyes. But then I think there's if you if you warm it up and just, you know, pump more energy at it and intensify it, you know, you're not supposed to look at the sun, right? It's yellow, but it's it's really bright. So I I think you lose some of what you're trying to do by lowering the temperature be by just making it brighter.

I I I would just, you know, again, I'm not an expert. I'm a CPA, but um you know, anything that can be done to minimize the you know, that light, you know, but then you know, also make sure the security is sufficient, I think would be important to residents. And I would just note again that um they're really in the bandwidth of of what the city's done with our own lighting system. And so if you think about residents that live um in apartments or condos um here with the with Reeds Lake um you know out there for them they're I guess their front window um that was a huge piece of of our analysis when we made that change too to kind of find that balance and um certainly um I know that the city of Grand Rapids and some others of we've shared that study with them as they've gone through some of these same exercises in neighborhoods and um feel like this is right and that that kind kind of sweet spot in terms of balancing um you know all those variables. So, but the fact that it's in alignment with what the city has chosen for our own street lighting um in those areas uh we feel um that it's uh it's sufficient uh for approval. Can you go over what you talked about about the staining the concrete? And I believe you there's something texturized master put in there or there's a different term I wasn't familiar with.

I didn't say texturized. There's there's a there's a different there's a portion of wall along and sorry the screen does that every time I change view. It was something to give it more visual interest. Oh, well that's that's the lattice and the grillage that we're trying to apply that both screens the openings as well as gives it a little more character on the elevations. But there was there something that you mentioned with the staining. Yeah. So this this area once now my mouth doesn't work.

Spray applied to the existing concrete. Is that we were talking about? So if you're if you're if I if I could if you're looking at your screens right here, this particular area here when um this the current project was done initially um it was something that after the fact um we had some conversations with some of the residents that said, "Hey, gee, this this concrete here um you know was a was a was just bare concrete." And um along with some other things um that were helpful um Corwall did stain this. So I think what he's trying to say is that and what what we had said in our previous memos is that any any of that bare concrete that doesn't align with the overall structure uh should be stained so that it matches the the brick. Um so you don't have that bare concrete and then all of a sudden um more of that um neutral color that aligns with the brick. Mhm.

It's in the fishbach memo. Okay. It's a It was described as a textured elastimeic coating. Yeah. Right. Y that's the word you Yeah. There's there's this area and if you remember from November, we've we've changed we're going to demolish some of those landscape walls to build them taller as well as along with adding new plantings so that you won't see as much of the concrete to begin with. But yes, we're going to we're going to stain it as well. There's this portion here. There's a small portion um on the south elevation and then there's a small portion on the east elevation as well. Good. I think that'll make a big difference. I think the grill work gives a lot more texture and interest to my opinion, but

there's no other questions. We'll continue with the next.

I have one question. I I don't know if it's relevant right now if this is for later discussion, but I wanted to talk about parking capacity during construction. Um, is that good for right now? Can we talk? Okay, so somewhere in here I I I read that, you know, we're expecting reduced parking capacity during construction, which makes sense. Um, prioritizing patients parking space. So that's requiring more um hospital employees to park offsite. Correct. Then I also read that um during construction you would ensure that construction workers park um on site. So would they sorry I can't I've read through a lot today and I can't remember exactly where it was. I was just wondering if you know consideration has been given to having them also park offsite and be shuttled in and if you can offer any like assurances to the neighbors about how you will enforce that those those kinds of questions for those seven months of construction.

Yeah, Doug, was that one of the conditions that they park off site?

That is one of uh one of the conditions. Um sorry. No, that's okay. Um and that's one of the things that um uh through the the last project u um that uh that they that they did was making sure that either they're required to park on the campus itself or that they would shuttle them in from various locations. Um I think that's under number five and it's like the sub bullet point number four. Yeah. Construction workers shall be required to park on campus and or shuttled into the campus. So the idea for them is that they would uh for their their the construction personnel um and or per or employees that they would have to shuttle those in while the priority is um are the patients and visitors to the hospital for remaining on on site. Thank you. Sorry I missed that. It's okay.

Yeah, our priority would be you know patients, visitors, team members and then vendors like contractors and stuff. Okay. Thank you.

Hey Ronnie, a question. um any reason why you're not so you know I've been looking at I I I literally go by this hospital almost every day. Um and in a lot of the writeups there's been a lot of uh referral to the south ramp and the south ramp has got some nice brick features to it. Um, every other panel is brick and this is 100% concrete with just brick column lines and at the corner of Plymouth and wealthy what you know it's it's this is what you see when you enter East Grand Rapids. This is the corner and I really appreciate what you've done with a staircase. Thank you. Cuz that at least is something pleasant to look at. Um, but it'd be nice if to see a little bit more brick because, you know, just to see that concrete, that pre-cast panel just takes away a little bit, especially when I look at the south ramp and I see how how well designed that is. And I feel like that it needs a little bit more love on this this north ramp needs a little bit of that love. Um, at least on the corner where everybody sees it. And I'm just wondering why the two different treatments.

Yeah. Well, in my head, there aren't two different treatments. So, that's the first thing I got to do. And I, you know, I I was I'm not involved in every project, and I was pre time a little bit. You probably have like what, a thousand or 2,000 buildings that you're in charge of?

There's a couple. Yeah. Um, so I'll go back and look at that, but you know, for the most part, the aesthetic of the two is in the same language. Um, certainly one came before the other. Um and and that's as you know the difficulty with doing an addition is is taking the existing language and and how do you extend that and still you know meet all the needs of crash rails air flow all these other things and so when when we talk about adding a whole bunch of brick you know how does that we certainly don't want to tear the existing ramp down to get a brick aesthetic right so it's that balance

I'm just saying the top you know pre we we you and I we know how pre-cast cast panels are made. Um, so they can easily embed brick in that top pre-cast panel. And that's what you did on the south ramp. Um, you'll see that that that's embedded in every other one um has brick. It goes brick, concrete, brick, concrete, brick, concrete. Um, and again, I'm not saying this whole thing needs to be brick. I'm just saying this corner I I just would like to see it beefed up a little bit more be, you know, to be more compatible with a neighborhood. Um, having more brick there would just be better for East Grand Rapids and better for for an aesthetic. Um, my two cents. We will take a look. I appreciate the comment.

And one other question. Um, am I to understand that the and I'm going to be wrong on the number 206 208 parking spots at Aquinus um offsite um when this ramp is done that still is going to be retained. So, one of the conditions Do you want to speak to your

Sure. Um that's that's one of the conditions we wanted the staff recommended to is that um they're required to still maintain that lease and if they uh want to terminate that lease, they have to work with this with the city to provide us with um sufficient uh data information, etc. that that they can um move on from that lease. So um kind of one of those back stops to make sure that um this project the project says what it's what it's supposed to do. and they certainly didn't even request that from from the last project um at any point. Great. No, thanks Doug. Appreciate it. Thanks, Rodney.

You know, this project even with adding the spaces does not get us to the number of parking space required by the ordinance. So, yeah, we're we're providing spaces offsite. We would not like to do that in perpetuity if we're not using them. So, agreed. Thank you. Do you want me to keep this up in case we want to look at? I think we're going to swap them out because we're going to have uh Joe Everly from Progressive Companies come up. And I was going to ask because John wanted to ask add anything. He covered it all. Appreciate all the collaboration. I think uh appreciate Doug and his team and uh all the great feedback we got from the county commissioners and neighbors. It really did make a stronger project for us at Coral. Appreciate the collaboration.

I shouldn't assume everyone knows who you are. Will you introduce yourself too? Thank you. Um John Ashram the chief operating officer for Corwell Health Grand Rapids lodge it in Helen Devos Children's Hospital. Thank you. this first.

The public comment for this project h has passed, right? We did it the first go. No, we're going to have public comment tonight. Yeah, we always another public comment. Yep. And then we'll have more discussion among us so we don't keep public waiting too long.

What are the odds? That's Lor's family, not my computer. So I have the same issue Rodney was having. shows up here and then we're missing. So, we'll see if we can get that. It took some coordination to match all those out of dress that way. Did you have to wear the cloth during the holiday bus? Here we go. Just All right. Thank you.

Uh my name is Joe Everly. I'm a traffic engineer with Progressive Companies. Um been working with Doug and uh my boss Chris Soul, who was here last time, um with this project throughout. Um so, uh I got a short presentation, but just hearing some of the questions before on level of service and things like that, hopefully I can clear some of that up. Um, a a good way to think of the level of service for signalized intersections, level of service D is uh 35 seconds to 55 seconds of average delay. So, what that means is there will be some cars that hit the green, there's no delay, right? You go through at the speed limit there. Some cars you're going to pull up, hit that yellow, you get the red, you're sitting there for, you know, the maximum amount. Um, that could be 50 60 seconds of delay. Um and so we average that through a simulation that puts thousands of cars through um and we come up with the average. So a level of service D uh I I don't remember what the seconds of delay was, but say it's 40 seconds of delay. So that's the average person pulling up to the intersection at the worst traffic period of the day. Um you're sitting there for 40 seconds on average. Um, I don't know if that helps a little bit, but it's it's not it's not like a D in school, right, where where your grades are in trouble. It's it's 40 seconds, it's 50 seconds, something like that. So, um, that's why it's generally considered acceptable. Um, at stop controlled intersections, it's a little less um because people are more impatient at a stop sign than they are at a a red light. So, um, another thing, there were questions on queuing. Uh, I had the luxury of not being up here and I could look it up on my laptop real quick. Um, the cues are project are currently at, uh, 340 ft. Um, for that

southbound approach at the worst traffic period of the day, um, we generally figure about 20 feet per car, giving the car length, some space in front, some space behind. Um, so that's like 17 cars. Um it's projected with the new um you know second level uh that cues will go up to 370 feet which adds about a car length a car and a half. Um the distance to the first driveway is about 450 ft. So it's all well shy of that house for a hospital. Yeah, for a hospital. Is that acceptable?

This is this is on Plymouth. on Plymouth. I thought it was on Plymouth going turning into No, this is Plymouth traffic going southbound at Lake. Yeah. So that the 340 is just Plymouth. Yeah. So it's like three or four houses is what you're block in terms of the people because a cars going southbound are basically blocking people's driveways. That's the that was the neighbors comment I think at previous meetings too, right? Was like we can't get out of our driveway or whatever. So 340 ft looking at driveways.

Yeah. From that stop bar. And then yeah, in the future that might increase by one car. I should also point out that's 95th percentile cues. So that's the, you know, essentially the worst Q that will happen all day. Um, yeah, I think those are my comments. So I'll get to the slides here. Uh so Doug and uh Kyle talked about that this is existing traffic in the network, right? Um we're not adding new trips. So if you were to put in a McDonald's or something, that creates a whole lot of new traffic to the area. Um this isn't doing that. This is taking people that are parking at Aquinus currently. So if you look at the the kind arrows, you have this traffic going, people are coming from everywhere. So you have people going north on Plymouth, people coming off of wealthy probably Lake and Robinson, and then they're turning into the Aquinus parking lot. Um, so in the future, those people that were going north on Plymouth are still going to be going north on Plymouth. Um, people on wealthy are still going to be unwealthy. It really the the shift is occurring, you know, towards that Aquinus parking lot. Some of the turning movements are just shifting a little bit. It's not new traffic necessarily, just, you know, a shift in in some turning movements.

Joe, what's I don't I'm not understanding the shift on Robinson. So, Yep. Yeah. So, you So, why did those little loopy things go away? Yeah. So, the there's a parking lot right there uh for Aquinus. So, say you're an employee. You're currently parking in that lot. you live somewhere east on Robinson, taking Robinson in um and then you're just going past Plymouth turning into the parking lot, right? Yeah.

So, if you have a new spot to park on campus, but I thought we just heard that that's not happening, that we're adding more parking so that when a patient comes in, there's a perception that there's more parking. And what you're saying is that well you're going to take the people that are parking there and you're going to put them there. So we're going to have the same lack of available parking. I I I think the

right because if if if we're maintaining the Aquinus lot, the people that park there now in theory are still parking there and we're adding new spaces so that when patients come because what we've heard in the report is that when patients come there's less than 5% available so they act they don't feel like there's anything available. So we're adding more parking so that they have the sense that there's available parking.

So I think these are two different things. I think one one piece is what is what is the the traffic, you know, um distribution, uh and what is happening in the network, which I think is what he's trying to address in terms of the parking. I I think and um the coral team can um can come back up and and and bring up some of those slides. I I recall what what we reviewed was that um between their north and south ramp um I believe it's the north one that's that's above that 85% utilization. So, so I think they're looking at rebalancing how they're going to have visitors or employees come to that site, whether it's ramp one or two. Um, where those are exactly going to be, I'm not sure. But once you once you get above that 80 85% occupancy, that's where people will cycle through. Uh, the the park national parking standards show that people will cycle through and they can't find a spot, they may come back out here and actually create more more trips. And I'm sure residents that live there, in fact, I know they have indicated that in the past, um with with some other changes we made to the entrance where people will come around and drive around the campus back in looking for a spot. So, the idea is that um you're addressing between the ramp one and ramp two enough capacity so that you're below between the two of them below that 85%. But now we're adding the 200 at our and so we're going to be adding the 200 that park at Aquinus are now being added to this.

They're they're either they're either they're either um they're still in the network. So what they're doing is they're parking either up here or they're parking here on street right here. You see all the utilization here in Wealthy Street. Um or in some cases um I'm not I'm not aware of it from being reported, but I I know before they did both of these projects, we would get them uh parking in all these neighborhoods around here. So the point is is that from a traffic perspective, they're all they're they're they're driving around here anyway. So it's not like like uh Joe noted where you're putting in he used the example of a McDonald's where it's totally new. It's a totally new draw for a different population. This population exists whether it's the employees or it's visitors or patients. Um and and I think and I'll I'll defer to to Corwell to to respond to that further. what they're trying to do is balance their parking utilization to really be at or be at or just below that national standard for parking utilization so that you don't have people looking for other parking. And I I believe the other piece to it too is um which they've covered in the past is in terms of some of their staff members, it's a it's a um a um retention issue for them too uh compared to I think some of the other campuses.

Yeah. I Sorry if it sounded like we were moving all of the parking from Aquinus. It's the 200 additional spots. It It's not all from Aquinus. It could be from on street parking. It could be But people are still parking at Aquinus, right?

So, they'll still they'll still be going. Hey, we're going to require as one of the conditions we've laid out is they're required to maintain this lease agreement up here for Aquinus until they can until they can prove uh to the city that this is not being utilized for any any use and that they're able to um maintain all that on site. If they can't provide us with that, then the city requires them um to maintain that um that additional parking there.

Yeah. So, it's not a 100% shift. It It's just easier to show um people moving from one lot to another, but you know, this could be people that normally, like Doug was saying, circle the block a few times looking for an on- street parking spot. Um it could be anyone. It's an additional 200 spots. So the those 200 trips um will now just have slightly different turning movements is the point we're getting across here. So um some traffic perspective. Uh Kyle pointed this out as well. Um some historical traffic values. So this is a peak hourly look at um Plymouth and Wealthy and Plymouth and Lake. So with the detailed traffic counts that were included in this study, you can look at the peak hours um for each intersection have remained close to the same. Two 2017 was actually a little higher um and it's fluctuated a little bit. That could be due to the time of year. You know, the 2017 counts were taken in June, 2025 counts were taken in November. Um but the the point is traffic overall isn't showing a a significant increase. Um we also have the average daily traffic which Kyle pointed out as well. Um so about 7,000 per day uh on Plymouth, you know, 8,300 on Lake, 6,000 on Wealthy. So if you look nearby Fuller and wealthy, um it's a you know 30% more traffic going through that intersection with the same type of layout. Um which shows that these intersections do have some capacity in their current state. Uh and they should be operating well, which

the traffic study showed. So that was all I had. I I guess also to sum up, we've been looking through Fishbach's traffic studies. um they followed all industry standards. We didn't find any issues and uh we think the recommendations are completely valid. So other questions?

I have a question. It's more for Corwell. Um just you know peace of mind. Um I used to go to uh blahit for like lab work and now I go out the lake because there there wasn't the lab work. Is there any plans to increase traffic due to new kind of in-n-out kind of traffic or new services? So that you know is is part of this intended to have new services at your old project campus uh to house that to replace some existing services. I'll say under blahit in its current state for the hospital itself there are no additional services we plan to add to the hospital it's pretty pretty uh wellrun and pretty much at capacity for the space that it has um for the amount of bed capacity and outpatient services that are there. So truly it just be for those vehicles that are currently already visiting us either at the hospital or at our professional office building there.

Okay. They did bring lab service back. Is it theirs? They brought it back. Thank you. Anything else to add before we open it to public comment? I

think just one thing to um Commissioner Mets's question about, you know, Aquinus parking. We don't currently fill all the spaces at Aquinus. Um we're planning on moving those that do park there. It really is about getting us some capacity for movements within the ramps. We are required to maintain those off-site parking facilities whether we use them or not, though. So, that would be the hope after this project is complete that we can go back and hopefully um reduce some of those leases for spaces that we're not using. How many and and Rodney, I apologize. I should know this because it's in your package. How many new parking spots are you adding? 206. 206.

So, so the same that's at Aquinus is what you're adding here. So, in theory, if everybody that of Aquinus parked in the new parking spots, you'd still have a a delta of 4.6% and 06%. We don't have 200 people parking at Aquinus. Okay, got it. Yeah, we're not using all those spaces even though we're required to keep the lease. How many are parking there, do you know? Roughly like a 100. We're we're using approximately 20 to 30 cars a day. Most of that is that way. Okay, that's Luke Thomas, our uh I don't forget your title. Manager security. Okay. I know a lot of times the Aquinus part that parking lot's really full, but it could be other people, not not Spectrum people. So,

where where's the public transportation drop off and what plans do you have for all that good stuff? There's You mean bus stops? Is that what you're asking about? There's two along one going either direction along wealthy. And as part one of the conditions, it's that we'll agree to um make them bus stops as opposed to just benches right there on right that way over here.

I don't know if this is the right time to discuss that. But the one on the the eastbound, excuse me, the westbound um on the north side of the street, there's a huge uh drainage problem there. if you've seen that where um water collects in the road uh right by there and uh um it just makes it inconvenient I think for for bus users. It's also just a uh a relatively narrow parkway strip there right for talking about improving that. So one thing that uh I'm concerned about is how you would fit that in there, you know. And then and then another thing is that there are standards that the rapidity uses for for bus stops. The implementation has been quite irregular. But it it includes the ideal layout includes like a pad for the front door for boarding the bus and then a and a pad for the the rear door for exiting the bus etc. And then uh the shelters there's whole variety of sizes for those. Some have benches some some don't. Um, so I think it's something that the city may want to do some research or specify that or work work together with Corwell, you know, on on defining what we mean by a transit stop, transition.

And we we left it um somewhat general because of all the things you just noted, right? So we're dealing with rightway um in the area. we're dealing with whether we need to execute um a potential easement or whether we can use the existing uh rightway slightly to um the east there. So in conversations with the rapid um they seem to think there's a number of options too and so we we wanted to make make sure that improvement was noted in the approval so that we carry it out but didn't want to prescribe it as too specific so that if we couldn't do it we would have you know either it gets it would be dropped or we'd have to somehow come back. So to your point um we are aware of uh some of those challenges in that area but

we could prescribe a process. Yeah. And that's why that's kind of how we noted it as a recommended condition. Um because what we're trying to do uh from that perspective um since the um the prior project is was completed. The the new main entrance to the hospital is off of Wealthy there. Yet the transit piece to that um is the only covered shelter is on on Plymouth and and Wealthy. And so it's about a/4 mile distance for somebody who might need uh covered shelter um uh that's coming to or from the hospital, but also then internally too that distance from the the new main entrance being more internal to the campus. Um so it provides that amenity uh for them to have uh somewhat more comfort while they're coming and going um especially during times of inclement weather etc.

Right. another uh sometimes there's amenities depending on the size and uh sometimes there's a uh refuge container sometimes there's a bike rack whatever uh the refuge containers are an issue as you may know that the rapid doesn't uh routinely maintain that so arrangements would have to be made also snow clearing is not performed by the rapid so that's another issue that that comes up so they really to make those functional um I mean it sounds like the that he wants to encourage public transit use by making that as a potential condition.

So, I'm wondering about, you know, making that actually, you know, functional in the real world and everybody's kind of in a big state of denial about the fact that a lot of the bus stops are not are not functional for up to a third of the year. And to and to your point, um I the East Grand Rapids is the only one of the six cities that we do actually shovel hand shovel with our facilities team. Uh here we do hand shovel blow snow at all of our bus stops that we have along Breton, Boston, wealthy um throughout the city. Um and I can provide a follow-up map of that for everyone to look at too. Um you could add hall straight to that too. That'd be good.

I know that's we're working on that. Um and then uh and then in terms of the the trash containers, the city actually provides that service as well for the reasons you noted. And in fact, if you look at the refuge containers at the existing bus stop there on on wealthy and Plymouth um as well as the bench too, the city has swapped them out to more of our decorative street streetscapes uh types uh because of some of the condition of some of the rapid ones. Um and also uh the uh the bus stops that are in Gas Lake Village um and what those look like are more custom for the city with approval from the rapid. Um as well as that rightaway triangle there on wealthy that would be just east of the campus uh by Laurel there. Uh we've collaborate the city's collaborated with Corwell in the past on landscaping and maintenance there. Um so we did add um decorative pavers, park benches, uh uh refuge containers, more landscaping there too. And that may be that may be more actual for the the the site for a more prominent um bus shelter as I noted with some of the variables we're dealing with. But, uh, to your point and on and some of those issues around transit regionally, those are real, those are true, and, um, we're doing the best we can, um, from the city's perspective to improve and mitigate those.

Well, thank you that this, uh, to the city for taking care of it, the shelters that way or the stops that, uh, that well, um, so I do encourage uh, refuge containers at at these um, at those stops. Thank you. At this point, we'll open the public hearing regarding the proposed expansion to public comment. Would you please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and the three minute timer is Mr. Miller right here. Again, please be kind and courteous.

Two one minute indicator. Jodia Estrakus 435 Plymouth Road. 20 years ago, I lived across from a surface lot. I now live across a three-story parking structure that they try to hide behind man-made BMS and trees. Adding another level to this parking structure isn't just going to be ugly. It will cause more problems daily. The neighbors are faced with excess traffic, noise, and trash. For most of you, you don't understand because you don't live there. Under your standards review of standards, the site must be designed to be harmonious. It must be designed to minimize hazards to the adjacent property. The staff comments cover the construction phase. But what they don't discuss is what happens 5 minutes after construction is done, much less 5 years later. Since the new parking ramp, neighbors are faced with much more traffic. It is the speeding cars coming from Robinson that race through the wealthy intersection to make the green light. There is no 25 miles per hour. It's the constant use of the middle turn lane as a regular traffic lane. Violating the no turn on red at wealth the wealthy intersection is a daily occurrence. And the most severe is during shift changes. The constant stream of cars pouring out onto Plymouth from this parking structure without stopping at the stop sign first. I can't tell you how many times I've almost been sideswiped. Heavy traffic isn't just an inconvenience. It has become a major safety issue. I've watched pedestrians on the sidewalk and then the crosswalks almost get picked off. You can put up all the no turn on red signs, the stop signs, but unless you enforce them, people are going to break them. As for the traffic study, how accurate can it be when the data it's only two days worth of data? This study was done on December 18th and 19th. The 18th was the last day of school before Christmas break. High schoolers were only in class

between 10 and noon. There was no one in school on the 19th. That data doesn't reflect the true normal everyday traffic in those intersections. In the Fishbach study, there was a section named near miss data. It even states that they don't even have the information because it requires citizens to report the near misses. To me, this means it's incomplete because the near misses happen daily and go unreported. How is adding an additional 206 spaces with one entry and one exit entirely on Plymouth Road not going to cause more problems? I've just spoken about the traffic issues. I I haven't covered the other issues like the car alarms blaring in that structure, the snow plow that runs in the middle of the night over the floors, not the roof of that structure. the trasher constantly picking up the cigarette butts from people smoking in your front yard. And my favorite, when the patients come to the front door begging for bus fair because the hospitals discharged them and they have nowhere to go. All of these things happen and they happen quite regularly. But you wouldn't know that unless you live there. For the neighbors living next to this hospital, there's nothing harmonious about it. You may ask why I sound so frustrated. Here's why. I live on a postage stamp-sized piece of property. I pay more in property taxes to the city than Corwell does sitting on 14 acres. They are a billion dollar entity that sits on the largest parcel in your town within your city limits using your city resources resources and I pay more. They keep coming back to you guys asking for more and more, putting more and more on that site, not caring if it impedes on the neighbors of the surrounding area. There are variances on the books to protect citizens in this city. But every time the city gives in and allows

Corwell to do whatever they want at the owner at the neighbor's expense. the neighbors. We used to meet we used to meet quarterly with the city manager, the mayor, city commissioners, and the ex- police chief after the completion of the last part, the last construction. So, we've voiced our concerns, issues, problems, and it all fell on deaf ears. So, yes, we are frustrated. We are taxpaying citizens that have been ignored, but you could change that today. They don't need the additional 206 spaces and the neighborhood doesn't need the additional problems. Thank you. Thank you, Jody.

Tough act to follow.

My name is David Brown. I live at 551 Plymouth. Um, thank you for this time and thank you for your um, I would say thought-provoking questions. I think you've been very thorough. you've asked some very important questions and I appreciate that. Um, what I'd like to do, again, I'm not going to take much time because um I think we've all got better things to do, but here are some of the potential impacts. Proximity to mass parking structures and permanent loss of sightelines decrease market value. Long-term projects 7 months make it difficult to sell our home if we wanted to move during this period of time. And clearly, the increased congestion of traffic overwhelming existing local um intersections. I agree they did tweak as they I think the term that they used the lights and um I will tell you that it is slightly better but you're basically still taking the same amount of traffic maybe potentially more with these 206 bases and you're just reconfiguring it. You're squeezing a balloon. It's coming out on Lake Drive now versus Plymouth. So that's not necessarily I think one of the best u answers. The current level of service for Plymouth. Okay. gets a D. Um, I know that nobody wants to say that a D when it comes to traffic is like u what you'd get in high school or college, but it's still not fun. Um, I can tell you that the wait times for residents to exit their driveways during peak times is well over 3 to four minutes. I'd say it's gone down by maybe 45 seconds at best with the tweak. And uh, as you get closer to Lake Drive, which is where I live, right on the corner, I can sit there. Um, the good news is I get to make calls and maybe do emails, so I'm trying to utilize the time, but it's a little frustrating when you're uh trying to get out in the morning. So, what are some of the alternatives? Well, I think we need to advocate for public transportation options, which I think we talked about. Um, I think that

would be great if they could uh add more um transportation. I would uh propose that instead of putting it on wealthy that um you actually have the bus go through. And I made this comment last time. Go through the campus. Um I see it happening over at Pine Rest. I was over there for a meeting. I was not admitted by the way. Um and I also know that the same thing that occurs at U of M uh west. So it's not uncommon for mass transit to go through the campus. I think it would work great. Um like you've said, trying to walk winter bad weather right underneath their canopy. I think that'd be fantastic for their members, their team members as well as patients. So, what other things uh car pooling initiatives or partnerships with rid share? I think that's something that they should be looking at as well instead of constantly coming to us for more spaces. I would uh and I think that this is something that they had actually proposed during the first um increase in parking, but they talked about digital parking guidance. They said they're seem to be frustrated that that their uh patients are driving around and not finding spots. For those of you that might have been to the uh Peter Sea building downtown, which Corwell owns uh the parking, when you pull in, it tells you, if I'm not mistaken, how many spaces are available. Then there are also little green and red lights. So, as you're driving around, you kind of know, oh, field feel green, I can park. Um I think that's something that should be looked at. Um, I think that's another way for them to actually improve their parking structure at this point.

Thanks. As I was driving, you're running out of time, so can you summarize?

Yeah, I can. Um, as I was driving home this evening from work, I was thinking, you know, how do I how do I get my message across to all of you? And again, I I think you've been very um very good at asking the right questions. But I I came up with this expanding household and a small house. A family keeps children, keeps having children, growth, more kids. But instead of planning ahead or moving to a bigger house, they just keep adding makeshift rooms whenever a new baby is due. The repeated reactive building suggests a lack of foresight and planning. Mismanagement, even as the core need more space for the family is real. I truly believe that Corwell and for the most part I I do believe that they try, but I also believe that they can control this. Instead of coming to us each and every year or every couple of years asking for more parking space, they have the ability to manage our campus. They could reduce services. I think commissioner, you mentioned that they could do things over on Lake Drive. They could send them downtown. They've got multiple systems, multiple hospitals within their system, but yet they keep coming back here trying to add more people. And the fact of the matter is that they want to move all their all their um employees off of the uh the um I think it's Aquinus over to the campus. If you drive downtown during busy hours when the nurses are getting out, they're not all parking in the parking structures right across the street. They're walking down the street to Grand Valley. So, I know from a from a trying to maintain your employees and doing the best for them, they're already doing this in other areas. So, thank you for your time. Um, if you do have to approve this, and my guess is that you probably will, then I suggest or I would like to see that there's no more construction, no more parking decks, they're done. This is it. And the fact of the matter is that they look at how they can improve the campus.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else? If there are no further comments, we'll bring it back up here. Before we have commissioner comment, would anyone like to address the digital parking guidance? Is anyone Thank you. Certainly. Please introduce yourself again.

Sure. Thank you, commissioners. My name is Luke Thomas. I'm the manager for security support uh which is also parking and transportation. Uh we are actively looking at digital guidance for uh this ramp. It is something that we can add in as a add-on um without creating too much uh construction noise or or disruption. Um it is something that we are actively investigating. There are several uh technologies that we have looked at um to address a couple of other items uh that were brought up very specifically ride share and um public transit. Uh we actually do offer both of those for our team members. Um at this point we have team members taking uh approximately 300 rides a day. Uh so approximately 300 team members um not all to the Blit campus unfortunately but through the Grand Rapids system. Uh that is our current count. um ride share we're not doing so so much good with uh but we do offer that and we also offer um better places for them to do alternate uh ride such as bike um anything else that they could possibly use scooters. Uh we provide places for them to put those items as well as uh ways to clean up. Uh when you're riding a bike in you want to uh make sure that you're taking care of your team members. So, we're offering all of those options for them.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for him? Do do you provide reduced bus fairs for all your employees? Do they get reduced? You know, rapid We actually pay the bus fair. It's not reduced. You might have said that and I apologize.

Thank you. I'm familiar with some of the uh bicycle parking accommodations downtown at your downtown facilities, but I was wondering about at this facility. Um the the city of Seattle has a really good uh bike parking guideline that you could guidelines section that you can look at. Uh the big the big point about their their system there is that they distinguish between long-term bike bicycle parking also ebikes and scooters versus short-term. So short term is for visitors customers. Those are typically bike racks that are outside or you could have them on private property near your entrances or whatever for visitors. Then the long-term parking is secure either in a cage or perhaps bike lockers or a bike room and that's for employees. Do you make that distinction in bicycle parking at this campus at at Blit and would you consider that if you don't?

Um I believe we have a limited number of bike lockers at the Blahetta campus. Uh mostly it is the public style uh bike security but we do have a limited number of bike lockers and we can certainly uh look at increasing that as well. Typically just a a cage caged in area with you know with card access. We we use individualized lockers that they can either box, but what you could do is just, you know, donate two or three of parking spaces, car parking spaces, and you could accommodate

many many bicycles, ebikes, and scooters in a car access caged in area with appropriate racks, sometimes two-level racks. I encourage both the city and um Corwell to look at the city of Seattle bike parking guidelines. Certainly. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, we can have more discussion comments before we do you have a question for

I just want to address some of the um citizens comments about you know it's not real really related to the development but just um you know some of the traffic issues and violations that uh resident uh mentioned about you know the area. I assume I mean we have those all over the city but and I assume you know the police kind of evaluates you know the trouble spots and increases enforcement in areas where there are problems. Is this one of the areas that you know is patrolled or considered as far as enforcement goes?

Right. So the the city does um uh we do have currently deployed I want to say around um currently about 30 radar speed feedback signs. Uh there are several in that area. Um we have provided um I think the the last meeting we had with the neighbor group. Um I think we provided um 247 365 data in that area. Now, there's not any one street in the city that doesn't have a car that speeds, but it's really the threshold of what that standard is when you're looking at uh an engineering or design change versus enforcement. Um uh Plymouth itself um we do not we from our studies we've done there have not determined that the the threshold is 80 the 85th percentile and what what that is and that's generally um somewhere in the I think 20 7 to 29 range which is an acceptable range from the posted speed. Now again I'm not saying there's not speeding um speeding does occur. There's a there that's why that standard exists so that there's there's a general understanding that there is an acceptance of certain level of that that is generally deal dealt with with enforcement. Um, I can't speak for Chief Buke tonight, but certainly um, you know, I think it's important for residents to uh, make sure that public safety is aware of concerns. You know, if they often times if they don't hear of things or, you know, if near misses those things we're talking about tonight are not reported, um, then it doesn't necessarily make it on our radar screen. So, I'm not saying they don't, but we need participation from residents and citizens to help us u make sure we have resources where they need to be, too. And and if if if if uh residents are seeing littering and people knocking on their door, you know, what is their, you know, rights as residents when

if if someone's knocking on the door or getting access to their property, they should call public safety. Um it's no different than issues we have uh where you know people may be trespassing on school properties or other you know uh uh we have part of uh Kelvin University's campuses in the city and we have some of those same issues there. Um in terms of littering um uh that's something that uh we certainly have worked with Corwell um for a number of years uh for for them to utilize their own facilities team. I I know those folks. Um but that's not to say that you're still not going to find some littering. We can always do better, but in terms of what the facility um is and has been in some ways is not different than the challenges we have with um some neighboring areas to schools where we get complaints about um noise from the schools at times based off of shifts people work or littering other things we get around school campuses. So, those are always areas for improvement, but not necessarily something that is unusual based on the location where somebody lives in proximity to um a facility like that.

Thank you. Comments, discussion.

What is the status of Corwell agreeing to a deed restriction on um adding new fees? So what what we have discussed um and and I can uh let attorney Huff speak to this. Um you know our recommendation would be um similar to what you heard from uh Mr. Brown. Um that that would be that number uh four would would be to execute uh an agreement with with Corwell Health for this site plan area. Um that will not subject height variance requests to the zoning board of appeals unless the city amends the zoning ordinance um for that particular area in the future. So, what that what that would do is eliminate them from from this particular area that's up for consideration from from asking for height relief in the future. As we noted, they're held to the same residential um standards, even though the the the site obviously is is different. So, that was one of the things that staff based off of um our interactions with uh uh and relationships with neighboring residents um we added that as a as an option, but the term would be an agreement with them. we have have something in writing that we can refer to. Um let's say staff changes at Corwell in four or five years and um they come to the city at that time and say hey we want to do this the city would have that on record with our file to say uh no and we'd have to follow a different master planning process for recommendations or etc. But it wouldn't it would it would negate their their request for uh a variance. So essentially um I think as uh Mr. Brown put it, it essentially for this particular part of the campus would show that they've met their the limitations of what that that uh that site can bear.

But would that close down all their options for any other parking areas? We're we could only talk about the site plan. Um so this would be the ramp 2 area would be specific to this spec specific. wouldn't lock down any of the other. Right. That's outside of the scope of what this is this evening. And attorney Huff, I'd defer to you if you have anything else to add. No, I think that was a good summary, Doug. That's that's what's been discussed. I'm wondering how what what would justify ever justify a variance um being granted for adding another level to the parking ramp. It would be difficult. Yeah.

I mean, meeting the standards of variance be very difficult. seems almost like it would be impossible. I mean, if anybody, you know, you know, who seen the new zoning board of appeals in action knows that there have been three variances in two years?

Any other discussion? I guess I'll just say that I think Corwell team did a really good job. I think the comments from last time from the public were let's bring this back to Corell, make some improvements and I think you really checked all the boxes, right? You addressed the lighting, you addressed landscape, um I understand the traffic concerns, um but I I think it's a better project as a result of of the feedback that we provided uh last time. So my two cents

my two cents are I from the looking at this through the filter of our standards I think it's there um I think the question is accountability um there's a little bit of accountability for just operational you know operational management I would like to see if we were to add conditions. I would like to see post construction lighting study and a post construction traffic study added to these items. Is that the traffic study in there already? We do have the traffic study, but we could add post construction lighting to that.

Which one's the post? What which one's the traffic study? Um it would be Corwell Health will it would be the uh one, two, three, four, five. The fifth bullet point um down from number five. Thank you.

Um, Corwell Health will submit post construction verification um 6 months after occupancy regarding the result of traffic impact relative to the traffic traffic impact study findings in operation at or above level service D under all conditions and that if they drop that below that they're responsible for working out a solution with the city or to incur any costs to um to bring that bring that impact back to level of service D or better. Can we if fixing level of service D at Plymouth makes lake worse, you know what I mean? If they're stealing from lakes's flow,

how do we ti how do we tie those together where we don't limit or we don't make lake worse

outside of the immediately adjacent hospital area. Um the responsibility for uh for uh for infrastructure and level service really relies on the city itself. Um in terms of uh our traffic signal movements, we do uh collaborate uh regionally through the Grand Valley Metro Council um on signal op signal optimization studies. I think we have another one uh due here in two years where we look at not just what is the what are the localized impacts to these but how they all work together because something that we a change we make um in this particular area can have impacts further to the east west north and south too outside of our jurisdiction. So we really take a uh a balanced approach to look at what's happening in a localized area and how that might affect a more regional uh piece there. Um, and most of the transportation jurisdictions have uh an operational agreement with the city of Grand Rapids uh who hosts the um the traffic uh signal center, I'll call it, for lack of a better term. And so we we collaborate with them to make sure that if we have a request, they will run that through their evaluation too to make sure that we're not just trading one problem that we have for making one worse somewhere else for for another neighborhood. Um and that's what we did in this case after the last uh last plan commission meeting. We got together with the traffic engineering teams and uh Grand Rapids uh uh traffic signals uh department in the mo or in the mobility department and uh mobile GR I should say and uh they worked really great really well with us to make sure that we could make some changes that made things better in our neck of the woods but also weren't having a negative impact. So um again as we move further out from the hospital those things are really our responsibility as a city and uh something that we we do evaluate um and try to again make improvements we can

make that don't require things as noted earlier like widening um and those types of things to make the level of service better but maybe the environment uh the experience for pedestrians worse.

Thanks Doug. I I I just want to say I'm very empathetic for the neighbors of of Corewell Health uh for what, you know, they deal with, you know, as as residents. Um, you know, it would bother me with all the things that they said and um and and I'm really empathetic to that. At the same time, I'm also very grateful to Corwell for being in our community. I think there are a ton of communities that would love to have uh you know a hospital uh in their community and one that's as aesthetically pleasing as what you have your campus and you know for the city you know I think we need to go the extra mile to accommodate those residents who are essentially taking one for the team the rest of the community for having you know kind of putting up with the the headaches of having that for the benefits that we as other residents that aren't adjacent to the campus dealing with. So, I just want to thank both of you, both parties for for what you're dealing with.

Thanks, Chris.

I'll I'll go quick since we're going left to right or right to left. So, uh, one of the one of the things that's tough for us, I think usually is that our approvals and denials have to be legally tied to the review of standards. So, to Chris's point, very empathetic to the situation of neighbors. Uh, I would be furious if my driveway was blocked on a regular basis and I couldn't pull out. It would drive me nuts. Uh, and making it making it busier. I won't say better or worse, but obviously for you that's worse, right? Making it making it busier is worse. And there's no version of this where it's not more cars. I think we've seen from these studies it's not a ton more cars, but I bet it's about 206 more cars. So, uh, it's really frustrating. I the only standard where there's really to me room for debate is probably standard B cuz I because we never define harmonious. I mean, I've been coming to meetings in various capacities for like 15 years and harmonious is a really tough one to define which means obviously it leaves it open to subjectivity. In in this particular case, uh I think that standard is probably also met because harmonious is not talking about things like traffic. It's talking typically historically for us, it's been talking about things like usage and aesthetics. And from a usage and aesthetics perspective, this is what that corner has always been. Um so my frustration is often that we we really are confined to reviewing specifically the standards. I think it does leave us room to to make some of those conditions of approval at the end. Uh light shielding study after it's built and some of those ones from 2020, traffic study after it's built. I mean, those are to me those are no-brainers. We have to have those and we have to have some sort of means to correct that if it's wrong. But um otherwise, I just don't see that we have a whole lot of room not to approve it at this point.

Thanks, Brian. I would like to u bring bring back up the uh idea of u highquality long-term secure bicycle parking also parking that would include for motorcycles, ebikes, e scooters, that kind of thing. And not just be like, yeah, we're going to provide some something and it may end up being more of a short-term u facility like a bike rack instead of a secure facility. So I don't know if we have if that kind of requirement really would fits in with our site pan review standard at this point. So it' be more one of those negotiated things. Perhaps the perhaps the hospital could present some designs to to the city and you could take a look at them.

Yeah, I think the the most appropriate way to deal with that um is is to to note um that would be a condition of approval to the satisfaction of staff and and authorize us to review u those options. And we certainly would we would certainly with all these uh standards or anything deferred to staff will follow up with that information to um to the planning commission as well. Um one other thing I would note that we um the city's intent um um depending on the action um um is to update um we we have had for since the last projects a dedicated web page where we put in what the what the um required conditions are and and the ones that were approved over time. um that they were completed so we can verify that for accountability and then we upload what those are to that. So we would continue that practice so that it's transparent and available to um not to the general public too. So it's not like hey did they approve something two years ago? Did they ever do any of those things? Um we do uh we would do the same practice to make sure that's out there for anybody to make it easy to find. You just search blahet hospital construction. But we would recommend if you're of that type of condition, if you if you'd like to, we would add that as um you know to provide uh different um mobility, micromobility um storage options to the satisfaction of city staff

if that can be a condition given what the site plan review standards are, which is a question I have about all these conditions, you know, does it fall within uh our site plan review standards to require a condition like that? I think that we can we can work we can make that happen. Laura,

uh yeah, I think everybody's sort of summed up my my thoughts as well. I think we're on the same page and I want to acknowledge the residents who spoke tonight and who have come out before because this is a uniquely difficult burden. Um I do not envy um any of you. Um and at the same time, you know, we we are bound by these legal standards. Um, and I do want to give credit to Corwell for coming back with changes to try to address um, those concerns as best they can. And this is where, you know, for me, it's the the details of what we do with the conditions. That's where we can really help our residents with what is a difficult situation. So, I think everybody's hit on I I had noted I'd like to add the future light pollution analysis and a commitment to mitigation measures as needed. I think um you had already noted that um having a deed restriction. I would like to put that in place. Um we talked about adding digital guidance for the parking garage in discussion, but if if others are open to it, I wouldn't mind making that one of the conditions. And then I also um wanted to add a condition that um core will evaluate um usage and provide secure bike storage. Um and I I think you just covered that Tom. So those were my thoughts building on what other folks have said.

What do you think Laura about instead of just stating digital or whatever current technology there is? Maybe there's something that's on the forefront or Sure. I don't know what to call it. I don't know. Um with something like that because technology can change so much. That's what I mean. Yeah. It may be something that's like an app in a year from now, not even all the lights and everything. Um I think um is that another to staff satisfaction type thing or

I mean we certainly we we certainly can can look at that um with the Corwell team and if if that's deferred to staff we can look at best practices and and whatever that might be and leave that kind of as a a more general broad one that we'll we will I think Lou has a thought too. I I think I would ask what's the result that we're trying to seek with digital guidance? Are we trying to seek like timed exits from from the hospital? I was picturing the I thought we were talking about like counters like I'm driving up towards the parking garage and I see it's red. So, I'm not even going to start doing that circle and adding another trip circling the block because I see the

lot parking availability. It's capacity and utilization. Yeah, that's what it is. Airport counters when you go to the back community. Totally get it. Does that help alleviate traffic on Plymouth? I think so. I think it would the circle the circle. It gets it prevents people from pulling into the parking lot, looping around, and then exiting with no spot available. So, I think it eliminates some frustration. A lot of people are coming to the hospital from areas that they're not familiar with Grand Rapids and they're already stressed and things. see if we can do anything to help alleviate some of that stress as well. And then they're they're late for their appointments and they're speeding faster and faster around the block trying to find a spot. So, and if if folks aren't on board, that's fine. I just thought it would be

I think it could be as it could be as general as parking management um um solutions um best practices. Yeah. Yeah. best best practices um uh for addressing um capacity and utilization and defer that to staff to work that out with Corwell. That sounds good to me if others are on board. Okay, Matt, you're last.

Okay. Um I appreciate all the conversation we've had here tonight. I think it's been good and I'm glad to hear, you know, some of the efforts that have been made. I think our improvements, I like that. Um, when I look at the review standards though, I'm hung up way back at the beginning on standard A and whether or not it meets the R1 height requirements. Um, maybe it's cuz I've I've been, you know, the delegate to the ZBA for a while, but um, you know, it it says not to exceed two and a half stories. And I don't think there's much question in my mind that we've got two levels or stories there now and that we're adding a story or level. Um and and the the rationale about, you know, open air and whether it's a floor or a ceiling uh just seemed like too much of a stretch for me. Um I struggle with that. Um as far as the other things, you know, I I think well, you've got to have all of them. So that's where I'm stuck. Thank you. Is anyone comfortable making a motion at this point? Again, as Brian Well stated and others, we have to look at the standards of review.

So, we we can u approve right now is what you're saying. Well, we can recommend approval. Approval with denial of the proposed action. Do we want to see our additional conditions etc you know in writing before before we do that? Like right now have someone like have someone list them out right now? Well, I mean uh I mean I know we would read we would read it, you know, read it out. Um, yeah, but tableabling would would be another way to accomplish that, too. And then at the next meeting, we just read them.

I think typically what we've done, Tom, is that we go over the proposed conditions. I think Brian's been a good scribe, and kind of goes over them and then we include them that way and discuss them.

Yeah, that's whatever would work well. I can make a motion for discussion and review the conditions that we've discussed and see what you all think. Um so the motion would be to approve this site plan with conditions of approval that include there was four of them that were in our packet from the city as recommendations which is maintain maintenance of the off-site lease parking spaces. Uh coordinating with the rapid to construct two new covered bike shelter or bus shelters, sorry. um visible bare concrete being stained to match the existing and then authorizing the city staff to pursue that. Um I guess I'd call that the deed restriction on the height variance in the future. We would call it an agreement as an agreement.

Thank you. That's what I meant. Uh and then also there were a number of bullets from the 2020 recommendations under item five. Yeah. So those are in our packet. I don't know if we have to restate those or not. If we can just call that they're good. Okay. Just the new ones. The new ones. Okay. So then the one that's new that we had that I haven't mentioned then would be the light shielding uh review at after the completion of the project cuz the old bullets covered traffic which at the end of the project but we didn't have a light study just to be post construction light study post construction light study. Yep. Were that kind of the same language six months after occupancy or something using language from the other ones work I'm sure.

And that's it. That's the those are the conditions that we talked about that I wrote down. We talked about some kind of parking best practices that Laura mentioned. The Yeah. Um non-motorized. So I would have So six would be the the post lighting study with the the language that we have for traffic. Seven would be uh micromobility storage options um um to the satisfaction of staff. And then um eight would be parking management um tool uh with with best best practices uh with deference to uh city staff um with Coral Health.

Yeah, I like that wording. I'm not comfortable with prescribing something specific because then like you said that's completely obsolete by the time they finish the project and we've asked for horse carriage parking or something like that. And that wasn't the deed restriction. Another he he did add the number four. Oh, I'm sorry. So I would second that motion. Any further discussion?

Was there a was there a condition in the old construction one of the prior construction uh site plan conditions to create a committee. This is I'm talking about over the course of the last 10 years all the site plans that were approved to create a committee that's neighbor and corwell operations to meet on a regular basis to make sure that everybody's being good neighbors. I thought I saw something in there.

There there was the difference between this this project and that project. That project was like four four plus years and um so there was a long-standing duration a lot more complexity to it. This project will actually be completed within around 7 8 months. That's going to be faster than most single family projects in the city. So um when we when we had those uh conversations internally at the city we felt that um this project is different than that than that prior project and for that reason um by the time you would even get started with something like that the project should be well underway. We do we did ask is noted here with the prior ones is that we we provide a single point of contact and communication for residents so that if they have an issue it's not going to 10 different people to figure that out. Um um so um so we we feel like that helps then get it directed to a single point of contact the city can immediately address with um with Corwell and residents

and that one's already existing right that's that's what we have that's what we have correct yes okay y that was the distinction you're correct that that was a requirement in the past okay Doug we for one of the conditions is require the applicant to provide a name and contact information who is that who's that provided to um well we will the city will post that on that web page I was telling you about. So if there's an issue, contractors are parking on the street, I can just go to that website, call that number

and and and certainly people reach out to us as well. So we just want to we just want to make sure that they're in the they're in the loop on it. Um and that we've got, you know, kind of a chain of command to that so that it doesn't end up with the 10 different people um at Corwell. They have a designated person and then we go straight to that person. If we hear something separately from a resident, we also report to to that point of contact, too. So we keep it clean and the same people in the conversations. Any other discussion? If not, we'll take a vote on the proposed site plan for the expansion of the north parking garage at 1849 wealthy with the noted changes. Do is do we want to read the changes again or not? Are we also

uh I've got it covered. We also have it recorded both in video and recording form. So all those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Opposed say no. No. How many nos were there? Just one. Just one. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you everyone. Next on the agenda is a master plan update and we'll be hearing from Paul. Good evening. Um, city planning consultant Paul Oblanc.

At our last meeting when we uh reviewed the master plan, uh there were a number of suggestions offered by the planning commission and I have gone back and made those changes. Um it was uh noted that one of the graphics in the uh plan is a little difficult to to read and so we're redoing that graphic um which I expect will be done this week and as soon as uh I've incorporated that in the plan I'll get it posted on the website and we'll get copies to all of you. We have advertised the February planning commission meeting for a public hearing. So I want to make sure that we get the plan out there uh in ample time for people to you and the the public in general to review it uh and come prepared with comments or questions at the February meeting.

What will be the procedure at that meeting? Are you going to explain an overview of things or Yeah, I I will make a presentation and uh then we'll open it to public comments and I can try to address whatever questions you or the public might have. So that'll be a full public hearing to adopt the master plan in February. So we'll yeah ideally uh depending on on the comments we receive uh but ideally the uh what I'd like to happen is to have a recommendation from the planning commission to approve the master plan adopt the master plan and a