Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

had a laptop for like years no longer the cover. It's because the battery was exp. It's time. Welcome everyone. It's 5:30 and time to start our meeting. But before we get to the main focus of the meeting, we need to take care of some housekeeping items as well as some first meeting of the new fiscal year items. So there's always a couple extra things to take care of. We'll begin with approval of the agenda. May I have a motion in a second? Motion to approve the agenda. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes.

Opposed say no. Motion carries. Next is approval of the minutes from the May 13, 2025 meeting. As always, thanks to staff for preparing those. Before I ask if there are any additions or corrections, I'd like to note that under item number two, I did approval of the agenda. I did not make the motion. I'm not sure anyone remembers because it's been a while ago, but just want to note that I was not the one that made the notion. Are there any other additions or corrections?

Um item five, Steve Aram's name, it's just a typo. Uh on the back side should be a A. And then under item eight, it says our next meeting is June 10 of 2025, which I don't think is true. That'd be going back in time. Well, that would have been it would have been it would have been our meeting if we had because it was the May it was the May meeting. Oh, next. Can I retract that? I have a few um ready uh for um Hold on. You got

apparently I was four minutes late and did not vote on the approval of the uh minutes but after that I did vote yes on three things at five, six and nine. Okay. So those numbers change to like eight votes. Eight votes and Steve had left. So the last one would be would be the six. He left at 650. Then more substantially um on the item regarding the master plan review.

Oh, that's Okay. One second. This is why I'm not allowed to sit here. City Hall, right? Yeah, it was the city hall. I've got turned off. So, okay. Go ahead, Commissioner. Want me to repeat that? So, we got the 569.

Got those down. Great. Yep. And then the more substantial one is under number um six, the draft master plan review. And it's just a it's just a kind of a semantic thing, but I think it's important. There's a heading that says authorize distribution. I think that would be recommend instead of authorize. And then in the motion wording, Brian Miller did not move to authorize here. He moved to recommend, you know, distribution to the city commission. That's definitely important under the motion. That's why it's always important to read the minutes.

Oh, and then and then Oh, back up. One last thing then. Um, for the site plan review for the rain garden and Hall Street, uh, under the approval of site plan review, it says to approve the agenda as presented. I think it'd be better if it said to approve the site plan as as presented. [Applause]

That's all I have. Anyone else have anything?

No. If not, may I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes with the noted changes? So moved. Support. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes.

Opposed say no. Motion carries. Next on the agenda is public comment on non-aggenda items. Just a note, we're if you're here to make a comment regarding the ordinance amendment and resolution for the gaslight investors PUD, which is agenda number seven, we're going having that portion after the topic is introduced and we have initial discussion and clarification among the planning commissioners. We'll then open the public hearing after that. If you have a public comment, please come up to the podium and state your name and address before making your comments. Please address the commissioners and please remember this is comments only, not a time for questions or debates.

Thank you for your time. My name is Erica Dunton at 2100 Goreham Drive. Uh it's going to be very straightforward. I'd like to add that we have the pledge of allegiance at the front of the meeting as a matter of respect and honor for everybody's service and general service. Thank you. Thank you, Erica. I'd actually been thinking about that somewhat myself. Thanks. Anyone else? My name is Scott Damon. My address is uh 625 Bridge Street Northwest. It's a Grand Rapids address. I'm here in the interest of my significant other Wendy Scott at 435 Lakeside uh within the thousand foot radius of a lot of stuff happening and and um my question comment is maybe just seeking clarification. It's been I think now 117 days since the last planning meeting and I would seek clarification from President of whose job it is to call that meeting or not call that meeting because I look at this has been a very pivotal time when zoning and planning would come into play. I spent some time in your position when I lived out west and and we would be digging into a lot of these issues, community character discussions, traffic studies, all that would be a constant discussion. And so I think this has been a bit of a missed opportunity and I would love some clarification on that. And beside that point, please, because I'll save my specific questions for the time is right. This is a great forum to empower the planning commission that has domain expertise, valued opinions to voice their take on a lot of hot issues that are going on right now. Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other public comments hearing? None, I'll bring it back up front. Before we go on though, can staff address a question regarding meetings for planning commission and who calls them and such?

Yep. So, it depends on whether we actually we have agenda items to discuss and um the planning commission had already with this spec specific topic had already moved uh the concept plan for this development on to the city commission. And so, um in terms of that, it's been at the city commission for that period of time. We have scheduled several other meetings and we've subsequently had to cancel those just because of timing. Um they've needed more time at the city commission. Still need more time and when it's ready to come back at some point in time uh to the planning commission they'll do that. We also wanted to avoid um uh multiple topics that are not related to the development um that are not urgent. So um that's that's the basis. The other thing about East Grand Rapids is in a lot in the summertime a lot of the community filters out and we generally hear from the community that for important decisions they like those to be generally after school started when everyone's back in town. So that's another thing that's unique to East Grand Rapids that I see some heads nodding in the back um that we try to accommodate.

Thank you for the clarification. Next on the agenda is election of officers since it's beginning the new fiscal year. The positions we're electing tonight are chairperson, vice chairperson, and secretary. We'll begin with election of the chairperson. As chairperson, your primary role is that of a facilitator. Be respectful. Invite all to participate. Make everyone feel welcome and valuable. Is there a motion to nominate someone for the position of chairperson? I'd like to nominate Mary Mapes for chairperson.

Support. Are there any additional nominations? If not, we'll close nominations. Any further discussion? Mary, I think you do a great job and I'm thrilled to hear your name come forward. So, I'll just say that. That's wonderful. Thank you. If there's nothing else, we'll then take a vote. All those in favor of electing Mary Mapes as chairperson, say yes. Yes. Opposed, say no. Thank you very much. Does this mean you can now continue to lead the meeting? Otherwise, you'd have to unelect this. Otherwise, someone else would have had to

just step right in. Very convenient. Next is the election of vice chairperson. As vice chair, you will lead meetings when the chairperson is not available or if there is a conflict of interest. Is there a motion to nominate someone for the position of vice chair? I'd like to nominate Brian Miller. I second that. Are there any additional nominations? Not we'll close the nominations. Any further discussion? If not, we'll take a vote. All those in favor of electing Brian Miller as vice chair say yes.

Opposed say no. Congratulations, Brian. Next is election of the secretary. If secretary, if both the chair and the vice chair are not available or have conflicts of interest, then the secretary will lead the meeting. Is there a motion to nominate someone for the position of secretary? I nominate Matt Fine. Second. Are there any additional nominations? Any further discussion? All those in favor electing Matt Fan as secretary say yes. Yes. Yes. Opposed say no. Congratulations Matt. Thanks.

Next on the agenda is the annualformational discussion of training opportunities. Zoning administrator JJ will update us on training opportunity. J.

Thank you Madam Chair. Um so welcome back everyone on the planning commission. Um for the third year in a row we have no turnover. So, um, I'll just go through this very briefly since I'm going to presume everyone here is already familiar with all these materials. Um, first off, the most common things probably the planning commission would need to reference, uh, the city zoning code and the city master plan. Both are available online at our city website, eastgr.gov. Um, we also have the commission bylaws that are on there. Uh any information on past meeting minutes, agendas for everyone's reference is always available on our website. Um we're always happy to also provide hard copies for those that prefer to see hard copies of things. We also do encourage uh plan commissioners to stay a breast of topics that are both of interest to them and are relevant to their position here. Um there are multiple different training opportunities throughout the state um operated by different um agencies throughout the state. Uh we always promote the Michigan State University Extension citizen planning program um as a intensive six class on becoming familiar with planning and zoning related matters. Um there's generally two options to do that. Um there is an ondemand module to do this now where you can do this at your own pace. There are also in-person sessions throughout the state um for those that prefer an in-person setting. Um there aren't any local inerson sessions in the immediate future. However, it is something that is always offered at the annual um Michigan planning association of planning state conference which this year is going to be in Kalamazoo at the end of October. Um the conference also goes has several sessions about good planning topics particularly those that are relevant to the state and other communities in Michigan. So for those that are interested in hearing more about what other communities in Michigan are doing, it's also a good avenue to do that. Um for those that may be interested in national trends or what other places

around the country are doing, um we are semi- fortunate that uh the next national planning conference is actually going to be in Detroit this coming April, April 2026. U for those that want to take an even deeper dive. Um there's also an online option for those that are still interested in those kind of topics but don't necessarily have the means, interest, or time to travel to Detroit. Um but happy to share information about that to anyone that may be interested. Um the city does have a policy as many of you know um to reimburse commissioners for any training that is relevant to their role here on the planning commission. Um any questions with any of this? We're always happy to answer this now or anyone has an interest in something else. We're always open to um guiding you through that. Thanks Jay. Anyone have any questions for him?

Thanks. Next is the introduction and public hearing for the amendments and resolutions for Gaslight Investors PUB. Before we begin, a couple things to note. We're focusing tonight on the PUB ordinance amendment and resolution language, not the concept plan, which has already been voted on by the planning commission. Staff is going to walk us through some of the changes to the concept plan that the city commission is currently reviewing. And if the city commission approves the concept plan, then the next process at some point will come back to the planning commission. We'll begin with an introduction by zoning administrator Jay Gennady. First, I'd like to thank Jay for his detailed memos and material preparation. It's certainly very helpful.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good evening again, everyone. Um so as the madam chair noted uh this is tonight we're holding a public hearing uh regarding the PUD ordinance and PUD resolution related to the Gasite investors PUD project. Um this is one of the last procedural steps in the concept plan phase. Um as Commissioner Mates noted um the planning commission's already reviewed the concept plan and provided their recommendation to the city commission in November of 2024. So tonight, uh, we are focusing strictly on the ordinance language and the resolution language that is in your agenda materials. Um, we'll go through all those materials as we go through since this may be kind of an unfamiliar setup slash uh, format for you. Um, as the language kind of infers, it is a type of amendment in the sense that is amending the existing PUB um, agreement for the site uh, to reflect what the current concept plan looks like. Um, at the end of this discussion, including the public comment period, uh, the plan commission could be asked to consider providing a recommendation on this language to the city commission. Um, it also has feedback on some certain topics that we will discuss tonight that have come up in the city commission's um, multiple sessions of their own in consideration of these materials. So as I mentioned uh the plan has already reviewed the concept plan and in 20 November 2024 uh recommended that that concept plan be approved. Um it has been revised at least twice since planning commission has made that recommendation. So we will give you a very quick overview of what the current concept looks like so you kind of understand what has changed and what the current language that we're reviewing um is based upon. Um again, we're not asking the planning commission to re re-review the concept plan or reconsider the concept plan. Uh mainly because um as mentioned or I should I should say in addition to the planning commission

already giving their recommendation um the current concept know is still judged to be generally aligned with what the planning commission recommended. uh what changes have happened are generally less intensive in nature while still sort of maintaining the same general form um that the planning commission did approve recommend for approval. Um in addition the city commission has been reviewing all of the different iterations since November 2024 and at this time a majority of the city commissioners have already indicated um their acceptance of the current concept plan which is what has allowed us to consider the language now. And so this is what you see here. This is what the current concept looks like. Um, just to highlight some of the main differences between November 2024 and now. Um, there is one less building than what the plank mission last referred to. There are basically eight buildings now. Um, including the new parking structure behind the DNW plaza. What was called building E, which was generally in the center of the site, has been removed entirely with the space of that building being incorporated into buildings C and D. Um the heights of most of these buildings have been reduced. Um as you may recall, at least one building in the original concept had up to seven stories. Um now the tallest building would be five stories tall. Um and 70 ft tall versus approximately 94 feet in those buildings. To compensate for this reduction in height, um most of the all of the interior parking in most of these buildings has been removed and replaced with uh surface parking. So you'll note that um in the bag along the Bley corridor and the corridor to the far east there is some more surface parking that may have existed in previous versions. The other item of note is that um at the far east end here uh this was originally presented as u a one-way uh service entry from wealthy going from south to north. This has been changed to

two-way traffic. So, while it is still sort of intended as the um general uh transportation corridor for uh deliveries and such like that, it is now open to two-way traffic. So, people can ingress and egress uh directly from Wealthy without having to go all the way through to Shopping Center Drive if they choose to do so. Um, in terms of specific types of uses, uh, we did a quick table to kind of compare the original 2004 PUD versus the November 24 version that the planning commission last reviewed to the version that, um, is now the current concept. Um, you may recall in 2004, the original PUD had seven total buildings with the retention of the Jacobs original Jacobson's parking garage. Um it included two commercial buildings, one one parking garage, one mixeduse building and three separate residential buildings. Um in 2024 uh that was increased to nine buildings with the two buildings along Wealthy Street being constructed. Um in addition to a brand new parking garage, there would have been another commercial only building, three mixeduse buildings, uh one residential only building and one row of town houses along the north side. The current concept has reduced that to eight buildings. Um so essentially one commercial only building has been removed. Um still a parking garage although again that has also been scaled down in size. Two mixed use buildings instead of three and this time only having commercial residential uses. No interior parking in those buildings. And the one row of town houses has been split up into two buildings of town houses now.

What are the new which ones are the existing? Oh just the two commercial buildings are existing. Correct. Okay.

Thank you. In terms of height, again, the original PUD approved sevenstory buildings up to 79 feet to the roof midpoint and 94 feet to the roof peak. And again, those tallest buildings were originally residential only buildings. Um the version in November, last November, um still seven stories. However, to account for um a flat roof type of design, those peaks again were up to 94 feet and those were encompassing the mixeduse buildings in that case. Um, as I referenced, those heights have been reduced in the current concept. Now, the tallest building is five stories tall and 70 feet to the top of those buildings. In terms of residential units, the original concept had 107 of those, all of them being condominiums. The November 24 concept had 180 residential units with different types of residential uses, uh, condos, apartments, and the town houses, as well as a commitment to reserve at least 10% of those units as attainable rental units. Uh the current concept has reduced that number slightly to 147 but again still a mix of condos, apartments and town houses and still a commitment to have a percentage of that reserve for attainable rentals. Commercial space the original concept had just under 100,000 ft of commercial space that went up to 134,000 in the November 2024 version and then down to 109,500 ft of commercial in the current concept. Jay, yes.

Can you on the uh go back on the on the 2024 amendment August 25, the um number of residential units the last may be subject to future brownfield. How would that affect the number of housing based on the requirement of the brownfield might require a different mix on affordability? Um I don't know if Mr. Charles wants to talk about that a little more detail or so the the conversation about um attainable housing percentage things of that nature when if we get past concept plan and the developer does submit requests for housing tiff consideration those are the type of things that'll be discussed and negotiated. Got it. Thanks.

Uh last but not least, parking. Um, the original concept had 687 parking spaces approved, though only approximately 414 were ever actually developed, mainly because many of the phases of the original concept never happened. So, the parking associated with those were never developed at the same time. Uh, the November version had 583 spaces in total. The current version we're looking at has 493 total parking spaces available. Um should be noted though that in all thesea these cases um the number provided either equals or exceeds the amount that the developer has calculated they would need for development in the concept plan. So any other questions about the differences between then and now before we proceed. It's I have one question um in regards to the parking spaces. Uh it was noted that um I guess there was a difference between our our parking standards and the developers uh standard. Um what what drives um so I would say a lot of that is sort of based on their experience in terms of what developments they've done and what they've needed traditionally. Um you are correct there have been some differences. I want to say the commercial spaces, they've generally allocated three spaces for every 1,000 square feet of commercial or retail use and one space for the residential uses, the condo condos and apartments, and then two spaces for each of the townhouse units. Um, but again, my understanding is that's basically based on sort of their own experiences with their other developments, what they've needed for those. Is that um just negotiable then whether to use their standard or or our traditional one?

I mean that'd be part of the standards review. They would need to prove that they have the capacity to handle that amount of parking and that it doesn't have any detrimental effects on other parking, other traffic, etc., etc. So that's just part of the review standards and making sure that they have the studies to back up that that is a sufficient number. It's

Mr. Mr. Lefave, can you speak to um Progressive A's analysis? Yeah, they the the analysis um that they completed um based on um where they're at currently today and looking at the types of use from residential versus the commercial retail and that shared use strategy where um during the daytime the residential is expected to have some of those uh some of those folks won't be there. Uh so that's available for commercial and then um looking at what that looks like on a weekend versus um other other times of day too. The other factor um that they consider is u from the from the market forces for them to sign leases with different retailers and commercial entities they have to provide what those what those businesses require. So um certainly uh that's going to be important to them to make sure they have enough spaces to sign those leases. And the same would be true for residential. if uh they're not offering the number of spaces that the market requires for what their product is, um obviously they're not going to have those. So, it may be in some cases they're able to um address those with with transit that that goes through the area. In other cases, it just wouldn't be desirable for um somebody who has a desire for multiple cars and maybe owns a studio unit or rents a studio unit. So, um, those are all part of the market force side of things that are really going to dictate on their site as well. The PUB in of itself, as we've talked about, whether it's parking or heights or other standards, allows some deviations from our traditional requirements. Um, the other thing I would note too is that um, all the other commercial C1 businesses in Gasite Village are not required to provide any parking. Um so so really um the DNW site and this site um if you're talking about any excess capacity, those developments are really providing that beyond what the city provides from our one public parking lot we have in the village, our public parking we have here

at this facility in campus, our school parking and our on street options.

Thank you. All right. So, with that, uh, we'll get into the meat of what this public hearing is about, which is considering the draft ordinance and resolution language. Again, this language is to formally codify what is being shown in the concept plan in terms of of usage of the buildings, the site, of arrangement, orientation of everything. Um and then making sure that you know certain studies, certain standards are held to with the development and the usage of the property. Um we're using doing this format for a couple different reasons. First off, this site is already zoned PUD. So there's not a reszoning itself that needs to be considered here. This is just amending the original PUB agreement language for the concept development. And also we already had one phase of development on this site currently. Again, the two buildings on wealthy was phase one of the original concept plan. So again, instead of starting from scratch, we're looking at just amending the original language. As you may recall with the plank visions uh recommendation, there were uh a set of 10 conditions that were attached as part of their recommendation. Um you'll note that in this proposed language, those have been included in there. Um some of those have been restated just to add some additional clarity or specificity to those by the city commission. In addition, the city commission has provided their own list of additional conditions that are also included in here as well. We do have we did identify four topics that arose from the multiple city commission sessions. Um, so in as part of this planning commission's review of this language, we did want to have uh some discussions on those topics to get the planning commission's feedback to provide to them, get your opinions on your your view on these topics to help the city commission with their consideration. So with that, I'll introduce the first topic and then we'll take a seat.

I'll take a seat once I introduce the first topic, then we'll proceed with a discussion from there. Just to clarify too, um, thank you. Thanks, Doug.

Just to clarify, in terms of what we're looking for from the commission, we're not necessarily looking for specific legal language from you. Basically, we're just kind of looking for guidance and some consensus in terms of what the planning commission would like to see in the final agreement. um you know the staff at our attorney can look at that feedback and if necessary you know if we need to craft or adjust language based on that we'll do that. So no one needs to worry about providing specific actual language for us. Basically we're just looking for um your overall thoughts that we can use to give to the city commissioners. Jay, can you walk us through um you know on September 2, as you know, the uh city commission was still looking into some of these topics, right? And they tabled the meeting, you know, tabled the discussion.

Mhm. And then uh I thought we you know possibly the public hearing and at this meeting our review might be delayed because of that and and why didn't it what can you just walk us through why you know how how that uh that flow for us just so we all are okay with because we don't really have a final draft document from the city commission and maybe we we wouldn't have but if somebody can just help you can help us with that make sure we're okay administratively

no administratively yes we're we're Okay. Um, city attorney and I discussed and part of the kind of start stop that we had throughout the summer was um, as city commission continued its deliberations where we were we at a point where we felt that the language is substantially done. The commission will still have the ability to further refine the language, but as we're looking at big overall concepts, things of that nature, and as Mr. Geonati noted at the beginning, this is um more of a procedural step in the process. um Michigan zoning enabling act requires um that this kind of change does get uh does have a that the planning commission does have a public hearing. So this is kind of a um if you will check the box and complete that but the um we're based on our um input or discussions at commission at this point that we feel that our sense is the language is substantially done and I don't know if commissioner source would want to speak to that also but it's um administratively we're we're in a good shape. So,

so the this key is substantially complete. It lets us Yeah. review this tonight. Uh, but the city commission when they pick it up might continue their discussion. Correct. At that point, they may also have some additional input from us. Yeah. And we'll kind of see where we're at at that process. Um, part of this again is um trying to gauge um the process of where the commission is at as far as rendering a decision. Um earlier I believe Jay made a statement that um the uh it's kind of been indicated that the the city commission supported this language, but there's been no actual vote yet. Right.

So they've there's been a majority of the commission that has voiced support for the concept plan. Okay. So that step has that sort of affirmation is what allowed us to start considering the language piece of this. It's okay. Thank you. I guess if we we feel that we're we're we're in good shape in terms of a a uh an appeal or claim based on administrative or procedural Excuse me. Can everyone hear Commissioner Tilma? Oh, sorry. Sorry about that. So yeah, my question was about um if you feel we're okay in terms of you know potential claim based on procedural administrative compliance. Yes.

In this case, yes. I mean to be perfectly honest with you, there's some question whether we needed to bring this ordinance back to this body because it's a PUD, but we decided to take the conservative approach and bring it back to you. Thanks. And that's for developer and residents, correct? I'm sorry. I couldn't hear that either. When you talk that way, I couldn't hear you. I'm sorry.

Yes. Um I said that we were comfortable with bringing this to the planning commission at this point because frankly there's some question whether it needed to come back to the planning commission at all. And so our thought was we wanted their input or blessing on the they've not seen this project since it has evolved as Mrs. G and I pointed out and so our thought was to have them take a look at the language that has been proposed. Um and that's what we decided to do. I mean it's it was mentioned earlier by Mr. Lefave. There have been several times where we thought we were on the verge of bringing this to them and it got delayed because of other items that were happening. But we uh would anticipate that uh we are now on the verge of a vote being taken on this and so this was an appropriate time to get their input.

Thank you Jay. Will you be able to go through like one by one and then we can discuss and Sure. So I'll choose the first topic and then we open up for the planning commission to discuss and get their input. It's

Thank you. So topic number one is about should the development of the social hub space be linked to a specific phase of development or left to a standalone area. Um just to clarify what this means I mentioned earlier that uh building E in the original concepts has been removed. Um it has been replaced by a larger open space which is what has been dubbed the social hub. Um it includes um a large open space area. um a couple areas that have been indicated as commercial incubator space for potentially small uh commercial type uses. You will note in the draft QD language that uh developer that there is a limit of three separate phases for this project if that is how the developer chooses to develop it. Um there's been some confusion slashconsideration about what this means for development of the social hub area. Um should it be incorporated as one of the phases or could it be developed independently of those phases? Um so this is our first point of topic the planning commission's sort of opinion about or thoughts about how should this social hub area or open space area be developed in conjunction with the rest of the concept. It's with that I'll I'll take my seat and then we'll we'll all be taking notes. And

can I ask a clarifying question before before you go? So, I know uh we talked this is a three-phase proposal, but we've also got some language in here that talks about phase one already being completed, buildings A and B. When you say three-phase proposal, do you mean two further future phases and one is already? No, three three new phases. Three new phases starting to tomorrow or whatever, right? The wording in the statute says three additional phases. Three additional. Got it. But it's good point. We we realize that as well that uh the first phase was treated as a phase and it's a completed phase. I confuse easily but I appreciate Can we can we just re number them column two three and four just for simplicity or not um just a thought

I I as I said I think first of all they haven't been identified what is going to be in what phase so I think might be premature to do that but what we did say is there'll be three additional ph up to three additional phases they made talking about the nomenclature for convenience sake to avoid confusion just call them two three and four the problem Tom is we don't have a phase one two or three right now or two, three, and four, whatever we want to call it. They haven't been developed, right? So, that may in fact be where we end up. Are the incubator spaces attached to any building or attached to the social hub or how do they fit in?

So, they're indicated as part of the social hub at this point, but beyond that, there haven't really been any specifics about what the exact format of those would be at this time. Is there a potential that as the say phase one included building C and D that that area could potentially be used as construction parking or like a working space which might allow for it to be finished later or is there anything I mean I don't know how things like that work. Um, Madam Chair, if I may, um, I actually had opportunity to speak with gas line investors as they're evaluating part of there, that's the exact conversation they're having in regards to phasing and construction spaces and things of that nature. So, um, part of this conversation will also depend on input from gas investors of if we go vertical with these buildings and we're going to use this as a construction pad and things of that nature. So,

okay. Uh kind of following up on on what uh Commissioner Mage just said or asked about the the terms social hub and incubator are kind of buzz terms which could mean a host of things really and are used in different ways in the in planning world today and economic development downtown uh development worlds. So I was wondering maybe some examples were provided uh when this was presented to the city commission that could be shared with us for everybody's benefit here. So I I know the what the developer indicated to us would be something similar but but also different than um what you might see like in downtown Moskegan where they have like those incubator chalets. So somebody who's uh looking to start a small coffee shop or a sandwich shop or something like that. Um they they may be able to do a seasonal lease in a really small space so they can they can start that business. Um and then they would be located in um as Jay noted that um the outdoor um space area um where more of a community gathering um space. Um so that's really the what they shared as sort of the the vision of that to to that extent. But obviously they they're not going to be wooden sheds. They would be something that's more commercial nature more permanent nature.

Shipping containers. Yeah. If if it makes if it makes it to the final phase, we'll see what that is, I guess. Yeah. Miniature Christmas market. If it's um not identified with a specific phase, is there any danger that it just doesn't happen or gets left to the very end or I don't it's just a question or could there be wording in there some of that flexibility allowed but contingent upon it must be completed. I just wonder if it should be mentioned somewhere to be specific, you know,

and I think that's the direction uh that we were in and saying like let's have let's have this conversation at planning commission talking about and and still amongst ourselves where does this fit in because when we think about all of the phases um there's only like so many ways that this could happen you know like FG and H could happen independently but for C or D to happen the parking structure has to go up first to support the needs over there. So yeah, like what do do we want to prescribe when the social hub has to go in? You know, do we want to say it it must be part of an earlier phase or whatever that might look like. I think it was very late in the evening. Perhaps our creative juices weren't flowing. I yeah I guess I would just want to ensure that it does in fact happen at some point.

I would agree with that. I I mean I think there's like there's no room to like construct. I mean there's no room to lay down. I mean that unfortunately that a central social hub is probably the one area they have on depending on how they phase the parking structure. So I think if we put some language that says it has to be done as opposed to tying them to, you know, the first phase or the second phase, at least for my opinion, that's how I would do it. And I think um I think it was Commissioner Wesley at the time who was teasing out this question and he was like well is there any world in which you like make the social space smaller you know like and um it was a good reminder that like the the buildings can't move like D and C can't get more than what they can't move more than like 3 ft 6 3 ft. So it well I think it's important to like make sure we have the right language, but it's not like another plant could come back where it's eaten up by the buildings.

Any other comments? Yeah, I guess I'll just uh I'll concur with Commissioner Fyen that in reviewing the copious public feedback that's happened over the last like 10 months, a request for something like this has been one of the common threads. And so I think um some sort of language that ensures we actually get that would be really helpful. I mean, looking at the 2004 plan, we ended up with two buildings and a fountain with a cool fountain and a weird sculpture and not the rest of it, right? Like, we didn't we didn't get what we hoped for. Uh, so here's our chance to make sure that we at least put our best foot forward in trying to accomplish the the limited public space that's in this design uh I think is important. So, I I think some language to to you can't really mandate anything, right? But some attempt to mandate that this is one of the things that gets prioritized would be very important, I think, to me and to to anyone that thought this was an important piece of this. Whether you can put that on a phase, I I don't know because I I mean there's language in here that says the parking structure doesn't count as a phase. Is that correct?

It may not. It's not required to count as a phase. They can they can pull that out of the phase. They could decide they want to do that independently. Uh or they could put it in as part of a phase. So for instance, they could say we're doing the parking lot as part of the phase where building C is built. That's their request. Yeah. They wanted to have that flexibility. Do we does this as everybody involved, you know, in those discussions feel that that that flexibility is is a good thing for the city? Does it protect the

And again, it just is um in our discussions with them is the constructibility of um as um Commissioner Mitchell noted, where do you have lay down areas, things of that nature? They already have existing um parking obligations for buildings A and B. So, how do you move the jigsaw bustles around and things of that nature? So those are not those details have not been refined and would be part of any final PUD um submitt.

I can't speak for everybody obviously. Um but one of the explanation the the explanation that made sense to me in this is that the the parking structure has to happen. If you're building C or D, it has to happen. And the reason why calling it a phase becomes important in this proposed amendment is because we are now attaching um time. There's a clock for every phase

and that's you know one of the you know deficiencies with the current concept is that there was never a clock. So the concern from a practical standpoint, maybe people who are in the industry can weigh in on that, you know, more than I can, but um there was concern that starting a a phase clock with the parking structure would eat into time that would be needed to develop up, you know, buildings of this size. That could be maybe an end game type phase, right? like it has to be done by it's it's a it's like a three-year clock like one on one for

each phase maximum three phases maximum threeyear clock for each. So starting a the parking structure basically could start at any point in those overlapping phases rather than triggering a new clock. And it's also a good reason not not make it a fourth phase because we wouldn't want building a parking garage to trigger a new three-year clock. So it has it has it listen on YouTube and such too. So we need to make sure that they can hear you in the mic. Sorry. Thank you. Sorry.

So it does have its own phasing, right? It can be tied to any of the other phases, but it it it has to be done by a certain point in time, right? Yeah. I mean, it's it's logically it has to happen before C or D can be built to support the parking needs of those

relying on that that market type. Well, and just just just beyond that question if if I may clarify is so if they do build that parking capacity um that capacity is needed for C andor D is what was shared with us excuse me shared with the city commission last um Tuesday. So the but as Commissioner Schwarz indicated if they came in and said we're just going to do the deck but not CND they don't get a new three years the clock is already continues to run for subsequent phases.

I I understand that we don't want to trigger the clock uh on those phases. Um, if if we don't call it out at all, is there any danger that they could build some or most of this but never get around to the parking structure? That's my concern. With no timeline seen over 20 years, there's language. mean they could just say it's too expensive and we're not going to do there's language in the agreement that requires as each of these phases is done that the the the phase has to contain parking that can not only uh satisfy the particular phase but also satisfy anything else that's already been built. So CN D would never pass final right

without it. Without it. Okay. Anything else? I I I guess just an alternate idea I came up with is just you could attach I think it says the same thing, but you could attach you could say the central hub has to be built with aphase as opposed to I mean that way it's either grouped with CD and the social hub or you did G H and F. So you can either attach it to saying it has to be part of a phase or I think it says the same thing but just an alternate idea. Thank you. Let's face it, that they would choose. Yes.

Yeah. With the introduction of the social hub, they did not ask for an additional phase. So, probably what they're thinking, but I don't think they've decided which phase is going first and which phase it is going to attach to.

Right. Does it need to be indicated anywhere that the incubator spaces are part of that social hub is rather than just assumed? So, so the doc document itself will um um as you look at the what's in our ordinance book for 2004 um is the plans are attached and within within that plan up there it talks about Jay correct me if I'm wrong but it does call out specifically the incubator component of it might remember that correctly.

Yeah, it it would be illustrated as part of the concept plan. Yep. It is illustrated as part of the concept of the plan. So on the drawing you see up above you'll see some language kind of in the center. Um the fourth item down the kind of standalone is unbox unboxed um textes um multi-purpose commercial incubator. Thank you. Any other thoughts on the social hall before Jay moves on?

Staff, do you have enough information to make notes?

Well, I think we'd like to know um since since we haven't really nailed down, does it belong in the phase or not? Do you know it seems like Commissioner Mitchell's kind of I think proposed the the most direct which we want I think that's what we want the language to be. So do uh do we is there consensus and maybe you uh um madam chair you go down the line and ask them if they feel like that attaching it to aphase is sufficient because I I do agree um um handling a lot of construction projects you're going to need some flexibility around that. You're also not going to want to have that open and have a bunch of people in there where all the construction's around and that's not safe. So um I'm sure that's a huge part of it too. So um you know I think a phase guarantees you that it will happen. um for for that process, but perhaps you go down the line and see if we have consensus so that we we know that and we can move on to the next item or if there's alternative thoughts uh we can hear those as well.

Thank you. Are there any other thoughts or do you want to do a count? Might you start? Yes or no? So, do you want me to restate? No, we're not asking for a motion at this time. I think we may if it devolves or we or it doesn't appear we have that. We're just looking to see if like we have in order with other ordinance amendments in the past if there's general consensus with that concept. That's the language that attorney Huff would take forth um in in amending uh language that al that the city commission would review.

Can I ask one more question? What what if you tied it to phase that includes building C so that it's tied to the adjacent structure. It's you're you're not guaranteed of anything, but you you increase the likelihood you get it, and you decrease the likelihood that there are trailers parked there for 12 years by assuming that the building directly associated with the social hub gets built. I mean, looking at looking at in my mind, I'm like, gosh, if you have three years of phase, you have three phases. Literally, it could be 2050 or no, not 2050, 2040 when this gets done. that little social hub because they're still working on the end building F or something like that. I'd much rather see it built when the buildings next to it are built.

It seems logical that you would want to build C, D, and the social hub all as one. That I mean that's what logic would tell you, but yeah, I don't know if they need a crane for that parking structure that needs to sit right there. You're not going to sit in the D&W parking lot. So, no, I don't so I don't know. Yeah, I um I know we have are going to have time limits for the specific phases, but we don't have anything indicating the amount of time between phases, right? It in other words, it could do one phase and sit for a while. No, no, no. It's triggered by the it it's a that three-year period. Yeah. The next one has to be has to be

has to be started by the time the first one is Thank you for clarifying. Yeah. So, good question. But so you're saying nine nine years is the window to to build this thing basically. Yes. Or 12. Nine. I would say that's pretty tight, right? That's that's

I'd like to pick up on something Brian said and and I agree with you, Brian. I think the social the social hub is a big deal based on public public comments. Um and so my only apprehension is let's if they do FG and H let's say that's phase one and boom they don't do anything else now that social hub doesn't get built. So, is there a way in a language that says, "Hey, if you do FG&H and at the end of the 3 years you decide you're done, you still have to do the social hub." Is there a way that we can roll that into it somehow? Um, so that that way it guarantees that that happens. If they decide to not do C and D.

So, that essentially ties it to phase one perhaps. Yeah. You're tying it to phase one either way. It should be part of phase one or but if they do a phase two, I don't want to tie it to phase one. Because if they do, if CN D is phase two, I don't want that lay down space to be gone, right? And I don't want pedestrian. Trust me, I want pedestrians in a construction zone. That's Yeah, I would think there's a very logical way they're going to have. Or maybe we say it's tied to phase one unless phase two gets com commences, then it can move to phase two. I mean, maybe it's a sliding thing. Um, it's or it has to be part of CD or something to that effect. That was my original, but I agree. Let's make sure that let's make sure let's make sure that it happens right

if any whatever at least that's happening if I may commissioner just an observation of you think about that site of if they have to do the social hub that's an existing parking area that's for A and B so are we inadvertently creating some challenges I understand the point I just just to get through the constructibility of it yes that's why I'm like how do we how do we write this So um like the idea is like if any phase commences a central social hub must be built even if there are no further phases. Is that

the problem I see with that is there are going to probably need a layown area and it it would be a natural to leave that until most of the construction was done. But yes, we want to ensure it happens. And if there was a big gap, you know, do we want to wait 9 years to see something happen there? You know, I I don't know how how you right

put that in words. I think it needs to somehow definitely state to city commissioners that planning commission very much wants to make ensure that it does happen and then they may have some other thoughts as they brainstorm and tweak things out but to let them know of our concerns and that we want to definitely make sure that happens as it's very important to community and all of us would that be sufficient to cover things and just brainstorming but I mean we're looking to give this as a message to the city commission in a ways right then I'm I'm comfortable with that. I mean, we it's clear we all agree about what we want. It's a matter of how to get it written correctly to get get that codified.

And there may be some other things that we don't realize at this point as far as the layout when buildings are done or the staging areas, but we all want to make sure that safety is there that as Commissioner Met said that kids aren't playing on the air using it as a social hub while they have a crane right two feet away. So we want to make sure that everything is done safely but that the social health is done.

And if I if I may, Madam Chair, just your last point or the point that you made in regards to if there are some other items that come out in the discussion is the conversation with gas light investors. we realize that this may not be practical because X and what I don't know what X Y and Z is that um just that that that does still work out there. [Applause] So if if I if I could, Madam Chair, I think what what we're hearing so we can move on to the next item is that the the planning commission the consensus is just making sure that that um irregardless of what phase that the social hub incubator space gets done some way to tie that in with language. Is that is that I think that's what we're we're hearing. not necessarily figuring out the construction semantics at this time, but just that's the overarching recommendation from this particular item to make sure that that gets fleshed out with city commission.

Maybe with a good faith effort to accelerate it, you know, if possible, there'll be some sort of site plan review at some point if it suddenly doesn't include this, that would be a red flag, right? So, at least after we've reiterated the importance of it. Okay. Is everyone in agreement or other thoughts? Because what do you think about the idea of like basically asking that they make a good faith effort to do it sooner rather than later? I mean that's like that's our will, right? That's our that's what we wish. Mhm.

Yeah. I would say alternatively you just tie it to C and D, right? I mean that's seems to be the logical alternative is just maybe we just do make that as a suggestion and we run the risk of if they do G H and F first we're waiting six years to get a social hub I'm comfortable with that. Yeah same that just might be the better route. Okay tie the social hub to D and C. Does that sound good down the line? looking for Commissioner Fay. I'm not seeing any. Yeah. No, that sounds good. Okay, Commissioner Tilma. Okay, we got everybody then. Okay, thank you.

All right, then. So, topic two, we've kind of already hit a little bit on this. Um, this is related to the construction of the parking garage. Um, as we've referenced in the current language, um, there is no specific phase for the parking garage. Um, beyond that, there's also language that would allow the developer to build the parking garage independent of any specific phase. So, essentially, they could build it on their own without having to build any of the other buildings. The question that came up with this topic is that if that were to happen, the garage to be developed outside of any other development, would that trigger a clock to start the deadline to build another phase or not? If they just build a parking garage, I'd be happy because that's more parking. So for me, no, it shouldn't trigger anything. Build a parking garage. That'd be great.

And if that's all they do, that's an advantage to East Grand Rapids. Is there an opposite concern that we need to have? Like um I was thinking about this. If you pull it out of the phases and I and I might be worrying about nothing, but pull it out of the phases, they build CN D. we get our social hub because we tied it to that and then they're like that's like so expensive and they just mow down the grass for GF&H and put a massive football stadium parking lot out there with no parking deck. Is that allowed by this if we I mean I know the concept plan requires those buildings as a phase, but if they never get to that phase, could we end up with surface parking if we didn't require the garage or

D Paul's shaking his head? That's a good sign. Good. They had they'd have to come back and amend the final plan to do that because to not do the residential and substitute a a parking lot uh is not part of the plan. So the substitution of the parking lot violates the PUD. So that's a major change then than then different than this if they mow it down. That's

they mow that down. Okay. So then then I am comfortable with the parking garage being outside of the the face approach because to Greg's point, the the biggest the highest odds are we get a free parking garage. Well, probably not free parking, but I I think we've already determined that that parking garage has to happen for CN D. Could we simply say that, you know, the parking garage will be built prior to CN but will not trigger any timelines? Would that be an easier way to You mean prior or in conjunction with or in conjunction with I I guess we're

like functionally it works out the same way. Functionally it's more flexible here I think because this just doesn't it's not part. Yeah. And that was why I was worried about surface parking. I was like they just never did it. But sounds like we're good. And earlier we said right there each phase has to justify its parking needs. Right. Correct. Correct. So basically the answer is no. Then would not trigger would not trigger a phase deadline. It's correct. We're saying that this is Yes. Yes. I think

it's written. I'm Yeah. Is that so? Yeah. Does everyone else agree? I'm trying to think of a negative and I can't think of one. So, I think that makes sense. I think the only for me it would be where for it would be a longer timeline if we waited another phase. Yeah. The other the only flip side would be for us to say no, it's two phases and parking independent. But I think I'm okay with this. Okay, Greg. I'm good. So, everyone's good with that? Yep.

Thank you. Next, Jay.

All right, topic number three. Um, is there potential language that acknowledges the development is open to the public yet remains private property? Um, I know this was among them some of the more contentious discussions that have been happening. um public versus private nature of the the spaces here. Um we do want to clarify in case there's any question u the existing streets circulation on the current PUD is private. So keeping the the private access ways open space uh is not really a change from how this the the PUD currently operates. Um, basically a lot of the discussion as we recall is related to ensuring that with the social hub and any other public space on the side that even though it may be dedic or legally defined as private, it still remains open for public use. Um, it still be available for the city to potentially use it for public events as they currently do. Um, and if so, how to sort of account for that in the PUD language? Um I believe I may have been Christian Schwarz and if I'm misattributing this I apologize. It's basically suggesting that you know it's the public versus private language is really just more of a language legal distinction that it still functions as public space but for legal reasons there's benefits to listing it as private to um make sure that the city is not you know held liable for anything that happens on there. Um, I don't know. Uh, Doug, you want to elaborate on that too or?

So, I think I think part of part of I think part of the distinction is there's there's been um uh interest in specifically in in in the the term streets um being, you know, part of the private development versus being dedicated um to the city as public road rightway. Um part of the discussion that um that we've we had with a developer u from prior iterations was part of what they were trying to do is to um to meet the um the vision of the 2018 master plan and Gas Lake Village and Gas Lake Village um the vision is not to have another DNW parking lot. So what they tried to do is mimic, you know, a street, a private development that feels like asset village. So the fact that people might confuse the the streets for public roads would mean that they're meeting the character, which is a subjective term, but what they're what they're trying to do is meet that character standard, and that's one of the ways they're trying to do that. I think that um you know, buildings have a a life to them, too. And when you dedicate public road rightway, that's that can be challenging to for for the future to change anything there too. Um so I think that's part of their concern um with that property is while we're focused on you know the next you know 25 30 40 years. Um, as we've already seen, this site has has been through as a amusement park and it it has been a, you know, a a medical center and a a large department store. And when you chop that up, um, into road right away versus easements and other things, that that limits your potential for the future, too, because now you're where those buildings are, you're defining that for um for the much longer term of not providing that flexibility in the

future. Um I I do think that in terms of most of the concerns related to um the the standards of upkeep and maintenance etc of the site. Um we we believe that can be handled with a development agreement more specific to what that means. Um I do think that um we we we have a a unique position because we have a preview of of um you know good and bad with the developer in terms of what hasn't been developed but what has been developed in A and B if you look at the ordinance um they were required to when they built that to integrate that into our streetscape. So their you know heated sidewalk system that they have currently today other aspects um integrate into Gas Lake Village quite well. they have met and honored um all the requirements for maintenance etc. Um so I I do think that though there are some aspects of the unbuilt part of the development uh from the past um certainly a community concern I do think that with buildings A and B how they we have a preview of what this looks like and working with them u from that standpoint um we've been able to do that. So, ju just trying to give some perspective again is, you know, if they came in with like a DMW plan, I don't think anybody would be asking for public aisleways between the the parking. Um, and so if you think about it through that lens, I think that's part of what they're trying to do is make it look and feel like um Gas Lake Village versus like, hey, we're just going to put in a large parking lot in here and then no one asks for it to be public street. So, I think that there there's two different things. I think people are confusing why they're trying to do that, but also um I I know from this experience if you once you lock those in in the in the future, it's very uh challenging to to undo that. So, I know it was longwinded, but I was hoping that was thought more thoughtprovoking maybe for what what they're really trying to achieve here

versus it being private streets. that really the goal was to and what we pushed him into to uh was you know make sure that you're trying to meet the 2018 master plan and the look and feel of Gasite Village and the look and feel of Gasite Village from prior master plans etc including what we've heard from the community on our draft update plan is we don't want large parking lots we want a streetscape feel and I think that's what they trying to achieve. So, um just just to make sure I understand, um you did have conversations though about like the possibility of them building according to city standards and turning it back over to the city for maintenance because I could see some real advantages to that. Yeah, I I think I think when we get if we if we look at that in terms of the development agreement, uh what we discussed um at the city commission level a few a few different times is, you know, what are those standards and we want to make sure that we we allow for those to evolve with city policies um and asset management standards going forward. Because if we lock them into like your street has to be maintained with the maintenance um etc as a paser standard for for road surfaces. Well, 10 years from now it may be called something different. And if we're looking back at the agreement, we're going to go uh-oh. So, we want to we want to have language maybe in the development agreement that says that that will be um that they'll be maintained um in accordance with whatever current city policies in place um in terms of those types of things. So it can evolve and that goes for safety things too like RFBs or crosswalks or other things too if we lock them in with um with very specific today it doesn't allow for evolution tomorrow and so we were thinking of in the development agreement kind of tying in that type of language um but again with the public private piece I think when people are looking at they're going these are streets and want them to be public and I I certainly understand that but as a practical matter too I think that's not that wasn't really the intent of why it's designed that way. It was designed

that way because that's what their master plan told them to do. So similarly like DNW that's that's what we've seen from the community for that site for the master plan update the next version is to do the same thing what they're doing if that makes sense. It it does but we are also going to end up with a situation where a private developer owns and controls a basically a significant portion of gaslight village per se. Yeah. I mean, like I said, it's it's your purview. I think the, you know, if you're looking at other developments that are even different, you know, someone who goes to say Woodland Mall, um, that's open to the public, but it's privately owned, and there's a lot of stuff that goes on there. There's a lot of public spaces there, uh, for kiddos and everything else. Um, I I think the concern that they have is they're trying to design to what we're asking for. And um I think I think their concern would be for for the future that limits what they could do in the future or makes it more challenging. If you look at some if you look at the parcel spaces they're dealing with. I mean triangles are not really great things to work with to get a grid pattern out of a triangle shaped property is challenging to begin with. And um I was just trying to give some context to I think where the conversation went. I understand why I went there, but I know that's not really the the goal.

Uh I know you're basically responding to the you've been responding just now to the idea of, you know, why can't the streets be public, whatever. And it seems to me that, you know, that kind of uh plan for this area, that kind of vision would have had to have been developed, you know, over many years. And it invol it would involve incorporating the, you know, the land area of the shopping center. And you know, if the whole thing was being under one owner and it was being done differently, perhaps there could have been public streets ran through like Crosswell and Vaguely and all that. So I kind of think the public street thing is kind of water over the, you know, that's that's done with. But I think the real issue, the concern that people have and and I hope we can discuss that is a com maybe, you know, it's a different topic. It's public access, right? And I recently went on a tour of some condos on Moskegan Lake and uh we were told that uh the public has a right to walk on the boardwalk out in front of the condos. You can't park right there, but if you park a little ways away, you can walk through and get onto the condos. I mean on the boardwalk was literally along the lake shore. So in this you know imaginary development agreement you know what what kinds of guarantees could you could we have that it's not an uncommon thing I don't think to have uh public access uh allowed you know and under what conditions uh early on I had asked very early on I asked you know if this is private are you going to you know somebody going through there on their bicycle at late at night coming home from work are they going to be hassled because they're trespassing right and we were told No, it's just going to function like, you know, that'll be public open, but but unless that's written down, right, or agreed to, is isn't there a risk that there could be situations where the public won't have access? So, what kind of public access, you know, have we've been talking about? How could that be uh written into some kind of development agreement? That's I think that's the real question. And then then there's the layer of public events, right? so that we have, you know, continued access to

having public events like the tree lighting ceremony. You know, that there was discussion about that the other night. But I'm thinking uh even even broader like how do we guarantee that people can literally drive through there at any time of the day or night, 24 hours, you know, 365 days a year. I think I would agree with that rhetorical question. No, I think I would agree with you that really it's about public access and what are, you know, are there any limitations or not? And I I think that's that's your perview for recommendation to the city commission that there are there are none or that um um whatever those might be and and I would defer to attorney Huff for thoughts on that as well.

Yeah, I think that um we're looking at the at that issue. We looked at it back in 2004 that obviously we want this to be a place that is open to the public and generally you're not going to know the difference whether you're walking on their sidewalk uh which right now when you the minute you leave wealthy street you're walking on their sidewalk and I don't think you notice a difference. Um, and but but I think your point, Tom, is a good point, which is we need to do all that we can to asssure that those are the the kind of access and rights that the public are going to have. Um I you know one of the issues maybe uh and I'm aware of this only because of incidences we've had with DNW over the years um is whenever there has been something like a labor dispute at DNW, they are able to force any pickers or things like that out onto the public sidewalk which is of course nowhere's near the entrance to the store. um because the store is privately owned and private property and so those kind of issues could also be involved because of the retail component of this development. I don't know. Nobody from uh Gaslight Investors has mentioned that to me, but I do wonder if that's one of the thoughts. Um I have scheduled uh a meeting with their attorney to kind of talk through this and explain these kind of concerns. Uh and uh I expect that to happen yet this week.

Uh I I know from from from how we how we manage public spaces uh from a public works perspective, the things that come to mind are the only the only time we limit access to sidewalks or streets in the rightway are uh safety, special events, maintenance or construction. Beyond that, they're always open. Um public streets. Yeah. Correct. And so I wonder if those are the tenants that we we incorporate. Uh because then they can't just close it off for whatever. It's got to be one of those those things. They have to prove that to us. Um those would be like the exceptions to some broad Yeah. public access.

Is it possible just to refer to that section of the code so that if you change that over time for the city then we adopt then that's automatically applied to this as well? Yeah, I think we can we can we could find a way to link that to uh to to future, you know, city ordinances, etc. But those are the big topics are are related to safety, uh special events, maintenance, or construction. And you're you're defining an access paradigm for the sidewalks and the streets. I I like that because

honestly, I think someone mentioned like I don't think we're really having a discussion about whether or not these streets feel like city streets. They got perpendicular parking on them. They're going to feel more like a parking lot than a street no matter what we do. Right. That that's what perpendicular parking is. Kind of like Breton Village. Yeah. Like the back of Breton Village by Coin and Cafe and stuff, but like being able to walk the sidewalks and being able to put up a holiday tree for a lighting ceremony and being able to do those things. Um that's what we're after. So if you if you mirror the city rightway stuff in terms of regulations, I I think that would solve the problem or prevent a problem. I guess

and a lot some of the city commissioners were naturally uh talking about, you know, hey, we want to be able to continue to the tree lighting ceremony, for example. I don't know, you know, how specific, you know, events could be written into such an agreement, but there there would be like a some type of application process or something for, you know, like that's what I suggested.

Yeah. I was suggesting in the meeting, you know, setting up something like that. I think we're all on the same page. I agree with I think everything that you that you were saying like it's not so much that in in my mind, I don't need these to be public streets. I need to have uh I need to see us reach an understanding about access and and like when are they going to say no to someone? Sorry, I'm usually on the end there. Um so, you know, those that's what I'm it's it's beyond the maintenance and the snow removal, those kinds of things. It's I want to make sure that people can use that bike path, you know, that's that's in the master plan, that north south connector. I I would love to be told that there's, you know, no world in which we'll be telling people you can't go through here. Now, if people can start egging windows and don't even see like we're we'd have to have a different conversation and that would be a a safety and you know that that kind of a question. But um yeah, for me it's it's the the devil's in the details with all of this. We've got to have that in the development agreement exactly how the city can request and be granted, you know, the ability to put up the Christmas tree. And we have to plan for the fact that it may not always be this developer who we do have a history of them saying, "Yes, put up the tree. This is great. Like, use our sidewalks." We need to make sure that if they ever transfer ownership,

that these rights endure. Exactly. Yeah. And that's and it would get tricky when you're trying to uh put an agreement a specific event or whatever that would be a little tricky. So some of that might just depend on goodwill and but yeah some of it may not be able to be guaranteed. I mean I think you could you could say access granted based on the the code

I think what I'm I think what I'm what I'm synthesizing you know from from city commission meetings and from from planning and and others. I think what I'm what I'm hearing is um again that we that we recommend a process for public events um between uh whoever the property owner is um and the city so that we can have public events in those spaces. So that's one uh under this item. And then um that there would be uh uh 24/7 365 access, public access to streets and and sidewalks and pathways outside of uh uh safety, special events, uh construction and maintenance.

Yeah, I feel like it's basically codifying like respectful access. I think added I think FG and H should be excluded because I can see how that could be a private sure gated area. Y and I think I think you're right. That's the they may push back. So I think with FG&H Yep. I'm sorry. As long as exterior facing sidewalks FG&H is kind of its own residential thing. So if it has a gate or something like that, I don't think that's a that's a good catch, Greg. We don't want public access. Yep. That one path goes right along the Yeah. As long as we don't, right? The outside, but building F is commercial, correct? No. No. Those three are all residential. That's an interesting building.

Maybe it was. Used to be commercial, now it's res. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Like the residential hub. So, I think with what Commissioner Mets noted, excluding the the the housing area that they're going to be selling that the other spaces as noted with in accordance with um current and future city policies and procedures on those topics and I wouldn't mind calling out the cut through like because that is next to FG&H and you don't want to you don't want to leave any dithering. We say and pathway there's only one pathway through there. Perfect. Yeah, that's got to be open. I have thought the same thing. Yeah. Unless they wanted to have it open, you know, but Greg, right? Unless they didn't care. But they given that option.

They're not going to have a choice. We're going to tell them that it's always going to be open. No, but I mean I mean in the uh townhouse. Oh, FG&H that's their call. They're they're given that option.

Is everyone have the same thoughts? Staff have enough information? Yes. Yes. All right. All right. So, topic four is about the potential refinement of street and sidewalk maintenance language on topics including but not limited to pedestrian safety improvements, lighting, and general wear and tear maintenance items. Um, again, we've kind of hit a little a little bit some of our other conversations. Um I believe you know this topic is basically again just trying to find some codifiable or enforcable standard for lack of a better term in terms of how the site should be maintained once it is developed.

Does it need to be indicated and maintained through the construction point as well?

Well that's more of a myosha that's covered under myosha through through the state law. Um I think the the conversation was um as I was alluding to um kind of in the previous item too is making sure that they don't end up with where you know the streets are the private aisleways streets whatever you want to call them aren't like full of truck potholes and all the streets around them that the city owns look good right so it's putting in a mechanism in place there to require a maintenance standard that's not covered like in a building code or something like that um so um I think what we were said we were with the discussion at the city commission Um and I think where where staff would feel comfortable would be um to talk about existing uh or in future whatever existing and future city policies are around um maintenance standards for roads and sidewalks and for traffic control uh devices. Um so for example I noted the paser rating system and that prescribes when you crack seal when you do mastic or an overlay or full depth you know repave um that that they're required to hash that out with us and in terms of leaving that open-ended so it can evolve in uh development agreement and I think uh concurrently with sidewalks the city does have set criteria for uh for maintenance and replacement repair of sidewalks very specific criteria that that we utilize for that and I and I think that would be helpful. So if it was reported to us or we saw that there was a heave section of sidewalk or something in this development because it's open to the public and has that feel of that public space, we could go back to the development agreement and say you're required to address this in accordance with it's 2029 and this is our current standard and you have to do that. And one example I gave at the last city commission meeting was part of uh Breton Village um development is actually in the city of East Grand Rapids um um kind of that space um behind where there used to be um Hungry

Howies and there's the the the DW gas station etc there and part of that agreement is that they will maintain privacy fences that are 12t tall between the residential neighborhood etc. And so even though that went from Viser Brothers who originally developed it in the 70s um you know we've utilized that to address maintenance concerns with um uh the well now they're they've just sold it to uh a new property owner out of the east coast I think but we've successfully been able to utilize that to get the maintenance done on that too. So, I'm just giving you an example of how that plays out 40, 50 years later if you have language that says you have to maintain something more broadly and generally to a to a standard and how that helps the city to enforce that.

I have a question about that. Has it ever come up where they have not responded? They're like, "Yeah, we're not fixing that." And then is there a mechanism where you can say like kind of how we do with code enforcement here? Like we we go to we go to court. Okay. That's what we do. someone doesn't want to if someone doesn't want to follow the law and that's fine they can do that and then they go to court and is there a like is there an easier way to do that where we could just say you have x amount of days to comply otherwise we will do it and invoice you yeah we yeah we we can do that too yep that's typically how not that I want to keep lawyers out of business

that's typically how like well like smaller stuff like let's say you know property maintenance like mowing your lawn we give them a certain amount of time to do that and then we do it and then it ends up as they they pay it or it ends up an assessment on the property taxes. So, um but for something more major, um you know, um we would do that or we would go to court and get a court order. Okay. Uh just to clarify, what does RFBS stand for? Rapid rectangular flashing beacon. Thank you. Um it's the device the device you'd see out front here crossing to the track. Okay. I think we've got about 20 of them now around town. You push the button. Thank you. Yeah.

Yeah. But there's those things evolve over time. So you don't want to lock them into it be like locking into like a traffic safety standard. We're talking about Bretton Village Mall from like 1972. We certainly won't want to be there. Um so we want to allow for that to evolve with current whatever current city policies and practices are. Thank you. I assume we're okay having a higher standard and you know with with some private parking lots than other parking lots because of the development agreement. So it becomes a contractual matter. Yeah. Meet or exceed Meet or exceed our standards. We certainly want to for some reason if they had something more innovative too I think that would be kind of but you're not requiring that you know that same level of maintenance on other private parking lots. Right. No. And I think I think that's sort of the it's okay because of the development agreement.

Yes. And I think that's because of the uniqueness of the PUD and what this process allows for and because of um what they're again I think I already know this because we get we get people that will call us about like you know hey you guys have something wrong with your fountain and Begley or other things. Um we're like well that's not Begley Street that's part of that development. A lot of people are confused because it feels like a city street. So but we have that context in the in the existing agreements with buildings A and B to address those. So I I kind of see the same the same we have that experience. I think if we make sure we lock down all the those aspects in a development agreement so we know that whatever we're doing as a city that can evolve over time can also be applied to uh the developer. Um I I think that's kind of the the compromise where we want to be where we can hold them to those standards.

Does this apply to the parking garage too? The the maintenance maintenance that's a building code. Um, okay. It's it's like it's a weird Yeah. in between.

So, so like the um two examples with parking garages. So, um Blit um we had uh inspectors in there um while they were going well before they were going through their process for for upgrading and and replacing those parking structures on their campus. Uh we had building inspectors in there like every other day um to check everything. And there was if you were in there um for the last uh two or three years of that existing um the building inspector required all kinds of additional bracing etc in there to make sure it was safe to be open to the public. Um the same is true for the former uh parking structure that Gaslight Investors own too. Um there you know the building code requires that there be inspections and we had inspectors there um um monthly for that one. that was not in as dire shape as um at at the time as blah hospital but um in terms of that maintenance it's a it's a safety factor not um

not a maintain not a maintenance or cosmetic factor okay thanks y I apologize if I missed this in the beginning are you going to have a separate maintenance agreement for is A and B going to be separate like the current and you're going to have a new one or are you going to revise A and B I think those would apply to the entire the entire site short answer is yes those are as we get into the development agreements. We'll figure out okay those that interplay between the existing we take some lessons learned if something is not gone well in A and B and revise it. Okay. So if you're looking for a take like in general um

especially sidewalks I'm super comfortable with you know at or above the city standard for sidewalk maintenance. It's hard to look at these and think of them as streets. So, you don't want to require city street code because you're not going to have perpendicular parking. They'll have to be extra wide like but but I think maintenance levels you probably could mirror the city and and get away with it and anything to keep it from turning. I'm like I'm not going to bash the existing parking garage that's back there, but like if you just go to Best Buy or something at Centerpoint Mall, you can see what happens when a parking area just gets kind of neglected and left alone. That's a minefield of potholes. You want to require some level of maintenance. So mapping it to the city standards, I think makes a ton of sense. I

think it's always good to tie something directly to something else like that. Do we know if they're planning snow melt throughout the whole development? I know that's something that they were they're they're kicking around. I think um that was certainly something that when they went through the final process for buildings A and B well that A and B were part of um that they do have a system that integrates to the city system to provide that and same thing they have to maintain it in working order.

Um so if they have if they have an issue they have to um essentially the communication with us is hey we have a contractor coming it's this amount of time or we have to get this part whatever and that's no different than the city when we have issues too. So, um, that's worked really well for since 2006. Sidewalks. Will there be, uh, standards for public quality of public art? Joking. I'd like that, Sper. That was pretty cool.

I didn't mention lighting, but I see that on here, and I think that's important. So, I would add that to the list. So, I have um streets, maintenance, city standards, sidewalks, city standards, and whatever those are in the future, we'll we'll craft that language. Um traffic related um calming um devices or practices with future city or existing future city standards and lighting. Actually, if there is public art, you know, if something if it could be a maintenance issue with graffiti or some damage, right? I mean, you know, maintain your public artwork to its original design. I mean, something to think about

wary of original design only because sometimes the sculpture change like I mean using that like the piano didn't Yeah, the pianos didn't work out started. I just Yeah, just general maintenance things concerns like that. If something is tagged with graffiti, that's a good point. You can control that on your on public if it happens on public property. You take care of it yourselves. Y maybe they'll just some of that could be left up to natural. Could just be a general graffiti needs to be taken care of. So if they tag a building or something, they have to deal with it. Vandalism. Yeah, vandalism. There you go.

What was your lighting standard? I'm sorry. Just city standard was the the comment on lighting. So in the in the commercial, we'd have to look at what we have uh developed throughout Gas Lake Village. We've done that through Lakeside, obviously through Wealthy. So we would look at um look at what the distances. We we do have we went through this a number of years ago. Uh Commissioner Miller was here, I think, when we went through a deep dive of when we even changed to LED. So um we have like a Kelvin range and everything. It's not like that white UFO. Yeah. No, I mean that would be good. A Kelvin range. match the frequency of the city's lighting. We do have that temperature.

Yep. The temperature. Yep. We have We do have that. It's like I think the range is like 20 2700 to like 2900. The bright white would be awful, right? So that's why everything around here is that warm. So certainly tie that in as well. Came straight from work. Do we have everything covered? Anything else? Are you comfortable you caught everything we're talking about? Yep. I think you're ready to

All right. So, those are the four topics we gathered from city commission for a deeper dive. Um, at this point, if there's other aspects any commissioners have about um the language, um, we can address those in in the entire package or just what we've been talking about to date. the entire package. I would say it's I do have one.

Let me get to it. Jay, while he's looking. So, are we going to So, they made some suggestions to our uh seven or eight. Um, sorry, I'm getting to it as well. Are we going to talk about those as part of this or no? Again. That was on the that was on the I guess I'm can like we're supposed to today, right? No. Okay. I just want to make sure because that's a lot what the the proposed revisions is a lot. So that that's a healthy I tried to synthesize the the key buckets, but if there's other things there. Okay. Got it. Jay, somewhere there there was language about the third floor floor above had to be set back.

If you can help me find that page, that was one of their additional bullets. So they made revisions to ours and then page one of their additional items. So that's city commission condition number two. That's on page eight of the amended resolution. It's all I did have it circled. Sorry. Yeah, it's in two different areas. It's summarized and then it's also possible or 11.

And Commissioner Schwarz, I'm I'm sure you'll have an opinion on this. Could we change that to um buildings three stories or taller shall have a variation in building modulation and facade articulation and the reason I'm saying that is because it allows a little bit of freedom of design and we all agree that there needs most likely has to be some stepbacks. I know the architect agrees with that too. But what if they do 80% step back and it still may be a really wonderful design. So I I just would like to keep that open instead of saying absolutely it's an absolute. Um I just think it provides more freedom to get a better design instead of putting them in a box.

How much flexibility do we have when the site plan comes to actually look at what they like if we if we give that verbiage and then a site plan comes through and we look at it. My understanding in the finals is that we can so that that flexibility still leaves us the the authority to make some questions. Right. That's my understanding. Right. Correct. Yeah. It's not like uh it's not defined as to what that exactly looks looks like. So if if that's still there, I think that gives them the direction for the final plan design if they get there and then you get to see it and then you get to decide whether that So they don't have to do a 100% step back on the third floor as it's written today. It says it has to step back. I don't believe it's cool. I don't believe it's prescriptive to tell you exactly as long as it's

I think that's a good call out though because in my mind it was 100% around the building or or at least on the facade side. I I hadn't think this is why I like coming up here and having professionals in this industry here because that's a really good a really good call out. And so I wonder if we want to I'm sure there will be appetite for discussion in city commission. Um but I I like that you know as long as it's a reduction. I wouldn't want I I think there'd be less appetite for accepting language that allowed the developer to can lever out over the road after level three. Um but but if you know you could see I've seen you might be surprised. Who knows?

Right. Um yeah, so I I am personally open to that and I think that's helpful because we wouldn't want it. keep saying we I wouldn't want it to just be like step step if the architects can come up with something that's more visually appealing and and blends in with what we have. Um so I don't know the language to accomplish that. Um,

so just just to clarify, so Commissioner Mets, so I understand that um in conversations we've had with gas investors, just kind of looking a little bit ahead, they asked the question of, you know, we can step back earlier than three stories and we said, "Yeah, this is this just says and this and um Mr. Geonat and Mr. Block can probably speak to this. This language also mirrors our existing C1 language." My correct. So that's where the three stories came from that matches our C1 language. So I'm just trying to open it up so there can be even better design. No, I I think it's I think it's less prescriptive.

It's a really good point and I would just want to put the guard rails on it so that they can't like take advantage of it by going over. But I guess that would probably be the footprint is when it comes before us, I guarantee you if they're not hitting things, I'm going to say no. Okay, perfect. Doesn't mean you'll agree with me, but I'm going to say no. Can you maybe just restate it one more time just make sure we're

I'm suggesting and and I'm not saying it has to be this buildings three stories or taller shall have a variation in building modulation and facade articulation. Mr. Huff, this might be a question for you, but when we're talking about like if we're looking at the the concept plan and the drawings, so let's let's just say the building is 30 ft by 100 ft. If three stories up, they can lever it out more than 3 feet. Is that a variation that would go beyond the scope of the approved concept plan? Like are we measuring from a plane on the ground going up or are we measuring where the building sits on the ground?

I would say we're measuring from where the building sits on the ground. Okay. So I think as we're thinking about that language just being careful. Okay. I in the recommendation I guess. Sorry. This is a recommendation to city commission. So yeah,

I'm wondering uh I brought this up early on too. I I I don't know what the concern is about um you know a four-story building. Ada has one four-story building in it. There's no setback on it and it would kind of look silly depending you looking at how they maintain a a nice street wall there in their development. And then what's the building in East Town? I keep forgetting the name of it. It's Kingsley building. Thank you. I remember this designer in public house building. But anyway, uh I just looked at that the other day. drove drove past it actually this morning and took some pictures and it's five stories and it's a it's a building with lots of character and when I'm going to Tara or Terara Bagel I don't feel in any way you know overwhelmed or you know I don't walk up and say oh my gosh you know I'm not going to go into Terra today because you know there's you know four stores stories of apartments above me you don't even notice it so I don't know what that concern is I would be supportive of not having a step back or using you know like your language Greg where um a minute ago you And we all agree it has to something has to be it has to be stepped back. What what is that concern? I mean we did have sevenstory buildings. Now we only have five.

I think a lot of I think a lot of it commissioner is I think there's a lot of public feedback about that and I think just being sensitive to that. I think I think we almost need to push that. I think just because of what we're hearing from the public and I I just think it would be while I don't like to be put in a box as an architect, I think in this case it's okay. Did did eliminating two stories and going down to like 70 ft? I mean earlier we were talking 96 ft, right? 94

94. So did does that give you some sense that we you know the public was listened to if if we lose two stories in terms of still wanting to have a set stepped back design you know I'm just I'm I'm only talking about fivetory building um to me the seventory building doesn't exist. So and frankly frankly I'll be honest it applies to every building. I think there needs to be a sense of scale. It needs to it needs to relate to pedestrians. I mean there's there's a lot of things that need to be done here,

but I don't think we need to be prescriptive right now. It's concept only right now. But I know when it comes back to us for final, that's what we should all be looking at is how does it relate to pedestrians? How does, you know, is there a tripartate? Is there a base, middle, top? Um how does it relate to everything else? Um is it too powerful? Is it overbearing? You know, these this is what we as a commission need to be looking at and and I know we will. I know we're very sensitive to these things and as residents we're very sensitive to it. So, um, does that answer your question? Yeah. Yeah. It's all that context that and within all the broader social context of the comments that we've received.

I understand that. Yeah. Uh, so I would I would hate I guess my concern is limiting good quality design and I think that's what you're that's what you were leading off with, right? Agree. That's what you let off with.

Yeah. Um, I'm rereading this condition and I'm a little worried that we can it could be interpreted in different ways. Um, it was saying the upper floors of buildings in excess of three stories shall be stepped back. What are the upper floors? Like I think what's intended is that the upper floors I just want I don't want to read like if a building has more than three stories then the upper floors shall be stepped back. I think we can tighten it up for clarity because if I could read this as saying if if buildings exceed three stories then the upper floors need to be stepped back and does upper floors start at 2, three, four. I understand what you're saying. Is that

I think we all know what we meant to put there. I think we probably meant three and above. Yeah. But right I and to your point like do we do we want to set that as like the the the minimum the maximum height at which you can step back? What if they do want to step back starting at two? Oh, I think I think I think Greg's language changes that and we use a site plan review as a time to question that. But but they can do better. They just can't do worse. Right. I just want to make sure. Yes. I just want to make sure we're doing that. They asked us that question. That was our answer. Okay. Okay. If you want to start it too. Yeah.

Okay. And it might make more sense, but they're the designers. They they have a vision and I trust them that they're going to they're going to hit it. Nail it. But we're saying it only applies to buildings. Well, I guess they're all three stories and above, but it only applies to the ar the variation in facade articulation only applies to three stories and above.

Above. Three stories or tall. Yeah. Three stories taller. Yeah. Thanks, Pete. Yes. Um, I have a question about something on page one. Um, section one, uh, P. The developer may construct up to eight buildings. Um, I just kind of wonder if this is a little bit unclear because it this does not include the parking structure as a building, but elsewhere in the packet we did. That's that's been changed since

that's been changed. And then we also limited E. Um the second question I had was this refers to a mix of uh residential retail uses and commercial uses. Um up to this point we've kind of identified uses for every building. Um such and such a building would be onestory commercial with residential above. I just wonder if we need to pres you know call that out and you know which building will be residential which will be commercial if that needs to be identified. Um I guess you know the concern was you could have a scenario where the uses of the buildings got moved around. Um like like the condos um on H you know I wouldn't want that to become uh you know a commercial strip mall or something like that. Does it make sense to identify just to identify the uses uh for sake of clarity really

and there is a document here that they gave to us when they switched the 109,500 ft and it does exactly that. Okay. Does that become part of the code? Okay. So that that is the it is called out. Okay. Yeah. And is noted on the concept plan itself. I mean that we believe is sufficient enough to lock in those uses so to speak. Okay, Jay, do you have anything else? That that was all we had prepared in terms of specific discussion. Else have any other comments before we move on to public comments and then we'll be discussing back here again.

Um yeah, I'll make one comment. Uh I wanted to thank the city commission for getting more specific on some of our requests for studies. So, we had some fairly broad requests for traffic studies and things of that nature. And the proposed language that we're receiving as kind of the push back or or what was sent to us is much more specific. Uh I just call out I guess it's page 11 of your packet which would be condition number one. Um this now says comprehensive traffic pedestrian bicycle mobil mobility study. uh it talks about expanding this to the intersections beyond just the development which I don't think we discussed at this level but I think is pretty important. So I think um for for the specifically for the audience that's being invited to comment uh it looks to me like quite a few of these conditions that we suggested were made far more specific and and I looked and looked for something to disagree with but found that I found them all much better than what we sent up. So thank you. Well, you guys set us or this this commission set uh city commission up well. I think I did have one question and I think this is something that um came up late in that meeting as well talking about the conditions. We were talking about um environmental assessment studies and what would be sufficient and us trying to think of every possible thing that we should look into. We said, "We want to make sure we do environmental assessment studies." And our diligent staff said, "What do you mean by that?" And we said, "Protect the environment." Basically, so is there anything anybody up here would like to get more specific on to give us a little bit more guidance on maybe things that we aren't thinking about that should be asking for, you know, like what comes up in your work where you think we should be doing this.

So, obviously there's soil. I I mean I' have they done a I mean they own the property one.

So what would be typical we would look at would be like a phase one environmental for eagle and then obviously if you meet that threshold it cascades on to phase two phase three. So that's that's what we were talking about. Uh the um the memo we have in here from Prine and Newuhoff that's essentially what they're referring to is that from at this stage at concept stage because of the historical uses on the site they don't think that triggers that but we could certainly require uh a phase one analysis which is we'll just hand that to them and you know let the scientists determine if they if they need to do anything additional because we do not have any history of like a of like a gas station or anything like that. So those of you who obviously are in the development world, you know these things specifically, but I think that's where the city commission maybe doesn't have that perspective.

That and like and it sort of ties in with another condition too, but talking about, you know, like drainage, are there best practices for drainage? So storm water storm water management. I'm sure you and we have an ordinance they have to meet the criteria of the ordinance. So that's already codified in the law that they have to follow for that. And that's that applies to everybody whether it's a single family home to any size development. And there's it's this it's the um the regional ordinance that we have uh through GVMC and Elgrow um for our storm water discharge permit. So it meets all the Eagle and uh EPA standards. Yeah. You I mean you could take it a step further and say no storm water discharge off the property. I mean you could go to like unless you don't want that.

Yeah. I I I know that particular area is separate. Um, and we've had some comments about other areas of the city, and I know that that that particular drainage district area really is from uh shopping center uh towards Reed's Lake and inclusive of all of Gas Lake Village. Um and so I I certainly think that um we do know from a historical perspective that the existing infrastructure there when you look at um the site where that entire site was basically buildings in concrete like 100% of it um if you look at what Jacobson's and all that was um so it certainly um at that time took everything and just flushed it into the lake. Um the current or the the current ordinance requires on-site detention and first flush treatment of storm water before it even gets into our system. And then from our system, uh the city's proactively um installed storm sewer separators in John Collins Park for this facility to cover not just that site but also all of their commercial space in Gas Lakeite Village. So uh the city has taken the step of covering other development that's occurred prior to that. So really we have a we have a number of checks and balances that are in place um to mitigate um environmental concerns

and I think on site if we required that it would be a big detention pond which then you have to fence it off. You could do underground. Yeah, you could do underground. It's likely that that's what they would do at the site is a lot but I I agree. I mean I know what's in place right now. It's it's pretty clean water that gets dumped into the system healthy for the Grand River and everything. Y to achieve those goals. Um you know there the ordinance requirements for storm water management. I mean there are different

um design solutions, right? Some more hardscape, some underground. Uh some are more of a natural, you know, rain garden type situation, right? So and I know there was something in there about um maximizing the use of natural systems or whatever. I that's not the term that was used. Right. The semi- imperous surfaces. Yeah. Um I do have but I Yeah, just to finish quickly. So, um I mean that that may be an area um Schwarz where where we may want to get be more specific. We may want to emphasize perhaps more natural, you know, there's a range of right of types of facilities that that you can have

best management practices that could follow for Yeah, we do have BMPPS that are noted in the in the ordinance that align with with what you're you're you're discussing. So I think we can um so I think from the environmental perspective we'll note specifically a phase one eagle review um and then whatever subsequent would be needed if needed and then from the storm water piece best management practices in alignment with um more green uh applications versus hardscape and then we'll we'll see what they bring to the table. Does that sound good? Technically you're technically they're doing a phase one. I'm not sure if if there's nothing identified. I don't know if it has to go to Eagle. So,

no, they would just do the phase one. You're done. Right. Right. So, you're saying phase one eagle review technically it's to produce the phase one. Correct. There's nothing identified then it doesn't need to go to Eagle. Correct.

Uh there is one environmental uh issue or question I I wanted to to ask about. Um I'm an avid sailor and a bunch of people have asked me or are concerned about the effects of wind uh on these buildings and what will happen out on the lake. Um, the winds on Reeds Lake are pretty screwy. I don't think this is going to help any. I'm not sure if this is something that can really be addressed via zoning. Um, but I do wonder if there may be some small things a developer could do to mitigate uh that kind of thing. Um, like I said, defer to attorney health, but we don't require that for any of the homes that go up around the lake, and some of those are larger than commercial buildings. Okay. I mean,

I don't even can't even imagine how you would study that. I Well, I don't know either, but it's been brought up. It's environmental home lake advantage you have for all the out of town sailors. I have a technical uh question about uh the city commission added seven new conditions and number three talks about you know uh the closure of private streets and we discussed that you know for construction or u we discussed some of that earlier but how much of this goes into the ordinance language and how much would be in in like a development agreement that would separate right there would be Right.

I think we're thinking the majority of it's going to be in the development agreement in development agreement. Right. So like that condition number three, if you look at that that the that the city commission has put out there, maybe that fits better in a development agreement. That's

one of the issues you have there is there's uh potential um owner issues and rights depending on how they proceed with this development. So for instance, there may be condominium associations involved. Um, and the thought was the development agreement gives you a lot more freedom to specifically address the rights of each group rather than try and write an ordinance which you might then have to continually amend to try and react to the actual parties who are there. So I think this the thought is this calls that out says it's got to be addressed but it would be done in the development agreement. Paul, I don't know if you want to say anything differently on that,

but a development agreement persists via ownership changes, right? We have to lose that. Okay. Right. So, all of the conditions and those topics, I mean, maybe that's a screen, right? Like what you could go through, right? What goes what fits better in the development agreement? What's better in the PUD language uh or ordinance language, right?

Yeah. A lot of it is just um setting the if you will place markers for when we get to the development agreement we need to make sure this is satisfied. So you know John correct me if I'm wrong. So this is prescriptive of we will we'll have these type of topics covered within development agreement but it also doesn't limit just to those. If there are other items that we identify as part of the final PUD we'll incorporate that into the development agreement. So

and I think if you look at the resolution in particular, you'll see a number of sections where it called out that this is these issues are going to be uh dealt with in the PUD agreement. And part of that stem from the fact that I think the thought was the first time around, we had more in the ordinance than we should have and that created some problems when it came to changes and so forth because you don't want to have to keep going through ordinance amendments when it's something that should be basically negotiated between the parties. use the term PUD agreement. That's also the development agreement. That is Yeah, those would be synonymous. So, PUD ordinance and PUD development agreement, two different

there's a final concept plan and then there's a PUD agreement. We have an existing PUD agreement right now that'll be probably substantially modified by this. Thank you.

Anything else before we open the public hearing? We'll have more discussion later. At this point, we'll open the public hearing regarding the amendments and resolution for Gaslight Investors PUD. We'll now welcome public comment. As previously mentioned, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please address the commission and limit your comments, not questions, to three minutes. And there is a clock on the dis. Again, please be kind, courteous, and respectful. Remember, we're all neighbors. Thank you. My name is Judith B. Oops. I'm sorry. And comments may also be emailed to staff if you'd like. Go ahead.

Thank you, ma'am. My name is Judith Baxter. I'm an East Grand Rapids resident of over 55 years. I've spoken at this commission meeting before and at the city commission. Um, I would like to make some points responding to the points that I've heard here from the planning commission. Number one, I think the one of the community objections to this development is not an objection to the development at all. It's a develop it's an objection to the massive size and transformative nature of this development. And I don't hear anybody up here talking about asking the developer to significantly reduce the size of this development, which you have the authority to do. The concept plan locks in many aspects of this development plan that cannot be changed that you have no authority over and that you have no control over. All these things that have been discussed about setbacks or or design are nice, but they're really mostly tweaks to the existing concept plan development that's proposed. And the objection in the community has been to the massive size of this. and you discuss the Zander van building being five stories and you're not intimidated by it when you go in to get a bagel, but there are four or five of these buildings planned for this small space and that's the problem. It's not one bu if it was one building, it'd be a whole different story, but having multiple buildings in that area is the problem that many members of the community have and the cement and all of that that goes along with that. The public versus private space here isn't the other problem that I think I want to make a point here. There's been comments made and Commissioner Schwarz has made it that you don't feel you can make a private property owner do anything with their property and that's not the case. That's what zoning laws and ordinance laws are for. And if you think you can tell a private property owner, well, you have to let us light the Christmas tree every year here, or you have to let us ride

bikes through the development through a development agreement, then you're telling a private property owner what they can or cannot do. So, you can't have your cake and eat it too here. You can either make these these requirements before the concept plan is approved while you still have the authority to have some control over this development rather than after. The studies that the public has been requesting are so that you know what you're dealing with and you know what you're getting into. Environmental studies are complicated. It can do with shade. It can do with shade effects on the lake. It can do with wind speed on the lake. We have bald eagles and ospreys on the lake and buildings interfere with that process or buildings interfere with that process. And it's disconcerting to know that I'm hearing conversations about Gaslight Village being compared to Woodland Mall and Breton Village. And they that's really comparing apples and oranges because Gaslight is a small space, confined space, not big like Woodland Mall, not like Breton Village Mall, and people in the East Grand Rapids community don't want Woodland Mall and Gas Light or um Breton Village and Gaslight. So, please take those comments into account when you're making this plan. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. Nancy Patterson, 21104 Gorm Drive Southeast. I have been to several commission meetings. I am a firsttime attender here. I am a little bit puzzled that everybody seems to be talking about this concept plan which is really revised with the removal of building E and smooshing that space into at least D and maybe partially into C. And that's that's a recent change and I don't think the public has had a chance to comment on that. I mean, it's just new and and it just seems like everybody is saying, "Okay, developer wants that." Sounds good to us. But as Judith Judith said, we're still not happy with 70 foot tall buildings right in the center of Gaslight Village. I hope you will take into consideration that this new concept plan hasn't been around long enough for the residents to really understand uh what the changes are and how that will affect them. And I thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Janet Rose. I live 2311 Wealthy Street Southeast right behind uh this project in Lakeshore Club Condominiums. My deal also has been the the height of the buildings. I know we went down two feet, I mean two stories, but I would have loved it if it went down to just three stories for uh each of those buildings C and D. When I was looking to see what um what the difference was, um it looks like there's no parking. The garages are not in the building. There was supposed to be a parking garage, I believe, in C. So, we've got the units there. I'm just wondering now where they're going to park. I mean, are they going to be required to park in the ramp or are they going to, you know, be right there on the street? We're going to have that's like a hundred cars between C and D that don't have a parking space in the building. And as I said, I don't want the building obviously to go up any higher. I I still wish it was lower, but I'm just curious about these parking spaces. I where I live um uh coming in off of people will come in off of wealthy. We have five guest spots and you know like football has started you know people come in there and just park all the time and it's nothing we can do about it but I'm just wondering about this parking I guess I I'm trying to rephrase not make it a question but am I right that there is no design or no parking uh for these people that in these other condominiums or other residentials. So that's I guess all I have to say.

Thank you. My name is Scott Dame and I have not moved since my earlier public comment, nor have I moved in with Wendy. I really appreciate the comments from the domain expertise. I think it's great that you're able to get together because there is some really nice knowhow and some good suggestions and maybe some of this could have been leveraged into some of the city commission meetings. Um I I've been using this term the city commissioners and city staff have heard inside the boundaries and outside the boundaries and even today and I know it's the emphasis with the language is we're talking about what happens inside these boundaries. Part of planning is to understand the impact of outside the boundaries. I find that to be the most crucial step that's being glossed over during this step as we're headed to the approval unfortunately of this concept plan. The four votes are there. When we talk about traffic studies, it's nice the traffic studies have been defined to be in this work that's been claimed. We're going to do that later, but that is an essential detail that has to be addressed now because we don't know. This is a high density plan, a much higher density plan than original. We don't know what that impact is going to be. And what I what when I when I paint this picture, I kind of see, okay, we're going to push this through. The developers now in control. This went from a legislative process to administrative process. We all know that. And I and I do have a open question that maybe Mr. Huff can clarify if I remember to come back to it. When this highdensity plan is in place and the traffic study, hopefully independent, ethical, credible, says

this development needs to be about 30% less. You can't do that anymore. You're locked in on the density. What I hope the plan isn't that residents, you requested this mobility traffic study. Guess what? We now need to grow our infrastructure to support this project. And that's where I'm a little bit worried this is headed. And that's a planning issue to to talk about what's going on outside the boundaries. It's the responsibility of the development to fit the character of the existing infrastructure in the community, not to bring in an oversized development and have the community react to that. And I can't emphasize how important the vote is coming up to allow a concept plan to move ahead because the city loses all control at that point. The last little point I'd like to make before I address a question that maybe Mr. Huff can answer is we always see these beautiful pictures and these renderings from the architects. They look really nice. I would love for the architect to do the rendering of the whole ecosystem in April. Maybe it's a Friday at 60° and show me what that rendering looks like of the PUD and let's say maybe a half a mile out. I'd like to see that visual. The final question that I would like clarification on and it and it may be more of a city commission question. I'm not quite sure. when this step happens. I've had a private conversation with a commissioner who they feel that we can do these kind of steps down the line we can fix things. Um, I need clarification to know can the city we we heard last week at like 10:35

to midnight. I was I was actually listening. Um, we talked about that that if a traffic study or some sort of impact study comes back that is not favorable, the project could be pulled back. But what wasn't clarified is can the city compel that to be pulled back or is that only something that the developer can do? And those are my final comments. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is My name is Sarah Buck. I'm at 308 Manhattan Road and my notes are all scribbled, so bear with me as I work through this. Um, I'm here to ask that you apply our zoning and planning standards rigorously and to to deny any special allowances for gas light investors PUD until the developer proves with data and binding conditions that traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety will be protected and that parking will truly match the van. Our parking first point, the parking and adequacy spillover. Our code lets you modify parking in gaslight village when shared parking on street supply and walk-in trade demonstrabably offset demand. But that requires a qualified parking study and recorded shared parking agreements. a one:one exact match of calculated demand to supply at concept with the parking study deferred until after concept approval risks overflow onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront. It's up to you to protect our citizens and require the parking study now and condition any approval on delivering the garage in phase one before new retail opens. And I must say that it was wonderful to hear you guys talk about the incubator and the green space, but the parking is really a biggie and I think with the citizens um next as proposed this is too much program for this block. The massing height and overall intensity does not transition to

a single family street. Our master plan calls for modest infill that fits the village and not a sudden jump in bulk that rewrites the character of these streets with one single vote. Finally, we ask that you deliver safety and parking first. No special allowances on traffic, parking or safety until the developer meets your standards with completed independent studies and with enforcable mitig mitigation. And I must say that the pace at which we make all these decisions should be measured with the size of this this development is huge. Um, this developer has known been known to over the past to not adhere to a lot of his commitments and agreements, even agreements that he's been contractually bound to. So, I ask that you represent us as the citizens here in looking out for our interests in this regard. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening. Um, David Decker, 925 Bellclair. Um, can I put a slide up here? Thank you. While he's uh pulling that up, I just want to say um thank you to all of the planning commission members um to the city employees. Hopefully this meeting will be over well before midnight tonight. Um the work that you guys do um is very much appreciated by all of the citizens um referring to city as well as commission members. U not easy. Um thanks for you know volunteer and I know you guys aren't quite volunteers but um you probably feel like it sometimes. um trying to sum up my thoughts as um I started looking at what was I going to say here tonight and that really is I think what all of you city employees uh all the commissioners as well as the residents of East Grand Rapids really want um development and housing are something that we want in this area. You've heard it from public comments that I know you've been listening to and and referenced and um it's it's a balancing act. Um starting in June of next year, the high school is going to be undergoing a major renovation. Got to balance that into there. And what residents want and what I think you all want is something that makes sense so that we can continue to live, continue to drop kids off if you are dropping them off the middle school. Mine aren't

doing that anymore. Um, after they got taught really well by some teachers at East Grand Rapids High School, uh, they moved on and, uh, doing other things now. But that's really what I think residents are looking for. And you're hearing that feedback. Um, the majority of East Grand Rapids residents want sensible, responsible development, something that matches and fits, and those are all issues that you're wrestling with. There was meeting announcements or announcements sent out to people who live within a thousand feet of um this area. And I think if you would um survey those in particular, there'd be a large percentage that are saying, "Wow, we don't want this particular development." Some of us who live 2,800 ft away over on Belair, um it's bigger than what many of us want as well. What are the benefits to the community, to those who live close, who live farther away, because that's really what the residents want to see. And really, has there been a list provided by the city? Um, a lot of things that the city has provided say, here's what we can do legally, but what are the benefits to the community? Many residents have noted significant issues. I don't have time to go through those here, but what residents would like to see is a list of what is in this for the residents in that surrounding area. Thank you.

Thank you. [Applause]

Hello. Erica Dunton, 2100 Goreham Drive Southeast. Um, quite a few thoughts that I have are first and foremost, communication, whether it be the new plan and the presentation to residents, all residents. I do not feel has yet happened. Um, second, it was just alluded to is a notification to residents. This is in fact the center of our community. It is a community. It is a village. It's a small space. It impacts every single one of us wherever we reside. Everybody should be made aware. Everybody should have a voice. You are the representatives of those everybody's. We are grateful for your service. We are grateful for asking hard questions. But this is important. This is not a 1,000 foot parameter. This is the city that we love. The place where we are raising our children. The place I grew up. The place I came back to for my daughter. a place I hope my daughter wants and that to me is the biggest thing. A place I hope my daughter wants to come back to and I do feel that we are making decisions without data to support them which is concerning. Lack of data leads to problems. It's a fact. I work in data all day every day. That's how I make money for my company. That's how we make educated decisions for our families. We need it. We can't bypass that step. Any step of this process requires current accurate data. And finally, um this code, these are tied in hand is nobody's spoken about the BRA concept and what impact that may have on residents in conjunction with the phases that have been proposed. We will, the residents will, for better or

for worse, without data, without clarity, be carrying that weight. I don't want that for myself, for my daughter, for my parents who also still live here since 1989. This is our community. This is a place that we have invested in. I graduated in the class of 2001. There was no John Collins Park, no Christmas tree. We've made such huge strides as a community to build up the wealthy street landscaping. People's effort, their time, their decisions, and their money have gone into these choices that we all enjoy and want desperately to preserve and enhance. And those are the things that I think really need to be thought about, not just for yesterday, not just for today, not for tomorrow, but for 10 years from now, 20 years from now. For example, the word incubator may not exist in 10 years. Um, and I work in digital marketing. I know how quickly things change. Uh, and then finally is I know was in reading through the minutes a lot of cost sharing seems to be taking place. Again, a point of clarification, more of a question mark for me, but any cost sharing I'm not on board with and should be a point for the residents to be a part of that discussion in my opinion. I do appreciate everybody's help, their effort, their time, and many hours. And thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? That's everybody. I'm busy taking notes. I didn't count each person. If there are no other pardon,

round two. Since there are no other public comments, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back up here. Commissioners, do you have any further comments before we discuss or discussion points? I I have a question, I guess. So a number of our discussions have been predicated upon the concept that uh let's say I'll use a traffic study as an example delaying the traffic study till after the concept plan approval but before any sort of site plan approval or development agreement that that's the the me the information we're given routinely is that's where that belongs. So, I think a lot of us have moved forward with the idea that, hey, you know, I want to see a traffic study and I want to see a parking study and I there is no way I would support a development that doesn't, you know, respond to the needs that are identified by a traffic study. But I think there's a a very commonly held belief amongst community members, some that speak today, some that speak in social media, some that speak to me at my house when they walk by, that those things should be done before the concept plan approval. And so I'm I guess I'm asking um two specific things. Number one, can we can we address that concept because there's obviously a disagreement between the public and the information that we have in this chambers in terms of where those studies belong. But then number two, and I think more importantly, beliefs and agreement aside, are we able to look at a traffic study that says, or I'll use a parking study because it's easier to quantify, a parking study that comes back and says, "Guys, you need a thousand parking spaces for this development and the development has 490 in it." Are are we able to pump the brakes if a study comes back and says that or as has been said by many more than just our speaker tonight, like no, once you vote the concept plan through, you're done. and and you're going to have to take care of that somewhere else. I I think it would help me a ton to know how that works from both a legal standpoint, but also

from how other communities handle this cuz certainly we're not the first community to approve a PUD or seek the approval of a PUD that has a parking requirement, a traffic requirement, an environmental requirement. Those are those are in every single one of these developments across the state, I assume. So, some clarity there for the record, I think would help a ton for me and probably for other people. Want me to go first here? Sure.

So just a couple observation is there has been work done on these various subjects. There has been traffic um information provided. There has been parking analysis provided all of which was vetted by city uh professionals, our consultants, things of that nature. And you'll see letters in there to that effect. And provided within the commission packet was all the different links. So um there has been a lot of work already done. Some of the finer finer details are things that can't get resolved as far as a traffic impact study until here's the concept. Okay, now we have and we're in the final design. I do want to speak to the um comment about um you can make a change. Um there are conditions specific within both the city commission conditions as well as the planning commission conditions that if you don't meet this then you've got to change your plan. Um and there's actually a very specific condition that says look if this doesn't work you either have to reduce or reduce change change change the plan. So we are um within that one last observation and um I'll let the team jump in where they think it's appropriate is this is also an area that's been studied extensively um where you where you may see I'm going a developer going out to a farm field in the middle of nowhere and dropping down a thousand homes. there's a very different level of analysis for something like that as compared to an area that has been studied historically uh for a number of years and we constantly have traffic uh data updated um within the city. So when the data that the gas line investors provided through their engineers when we were vetting that we have an exceptional sense and better than most communities of what are our flows, what are our capacity things of that nature. So, um, point being is that, um, if this was something, at least from my perspective,

if we were in a rural area, someone came in with a thousand home development, yeah, absolutely a full-blown TIS would be something that staff would recommend because we may not have any of that data, but given the history, the information that we have, and the ongoing data collection um that we do, um, that at this stage, the data that has been given is sufficient of Yes, the system can handle this. But if the final TIS shows no, it can't, then the developer has the responsibility uh to modify their plans to accommodate whatever findings are within that. And um and actually this commission posed that question to gaslight investors last spring. It was um Mr. Mitchell um who noted that look something comes out of the TIS that this has to change. that's their risk and they acknowledge in that meeting that very uh situation.

Thanks.

If I could, I would just add that like for example the utility analysis. Again, we've studied that area. Um we know what the capacity is based off of, we literally have the data and looked up the accounts and the flows and everything from sites that were gone 20 years ago. But um we also noted in there that from the the macro level um square footages and assigned uses that aligns with what the whether it's sanitary sewer flow capacity or pumping or capacity for um for for a water system. But we also noted that if the with with buildings that are four and five stories, you may need additional pump internal pumping and that would be born by the developer. So um and I would go back further to the the um prior PD process. um there was a recommendation for um uh some traffic changes there and the the developer was required at that time 20 years ago to put $250,000 in escrow to help address those. Um, so those same types of things apply here. Um, uh, and and and they, you know, again, if we came forward and they said, um, between, I'll use the residential units as an example. We don't know what size those units are going to be, but at a final stage, we would know. You know, there's a huge difference between a a studio and apartment and a four a four bedroomedroom apartment and what kind of sanitary flow they're going to have. That's where we can dial into that that level of data. It's like the chicken and egg thing. And um, this is something we do every day. It's not something we expect residents. Um I I know many of you are in are in the uh construction or architectural uh business or planning business, so you understand these things, but it's something that is not necessarily understood by the general public that we do every day. Um so it's it's certainly something that um you know there's not going to be anything related to uh public infrastructure that that we have that when when we when and if we do get to a final plan to look at um if there is are any deficiencies I think as manager Charles noted the developer has to scale back their development to to meet the services that we can provide or they have to provide

the costs and and improvements to address it for themselves. I guess one other thing I would I'd like to clarify because um that we've heard some confusion in the community the thousand foot mailing requirement. It it's actually a state law requires 300 feet and if you guys recall from planning commission in November the public said hey we'd like it to be we'd like the city to exceed that and that was members of the public that suggested 1,000 ft. So that's what we're doing. So we're not doing anything. We're way above and beyond what the state requirement is. And we do um have in all of our water and sewer bill inserts um social media, newsletters, etc. Um website ways for people to connect to keep keep track. Um that's their prerogative, you know. Um and but but I know that uh the city is trying to use all of our communication platforms to make sure people are aware. I just wanted to address the notification thing because some people think I'm not sure what they think but um the law is the law is 300 feet and we're doing 1,000 feet because we're trying to achieve better than what the the requirement is of the law.

Thanks Doug. As the um author of both the ordinance and the resolution, uh I would confirm that uh what Sheay said, which is we've gone out of our way to make sure that these this will be a conditional approval and that those conditions any one of them could derail this project before it would ever be built. Um and I think we've also made it clear to the developer cuz they've seen the language. We shared it with them that uh if a study comes back and says whatever it is, more parking spaces, um more roads, more traffic control devices, we made it clear that we're not committing to to share the cost of any of those items. And so the developer has basically three choices. One is he can pay it all himself. Two is he can pair the development down uh to the money he does have available. or three, he can abandon the project. Um, but that's clear and and I think you need to know that that's clear. I I would also Paul if you don't mind putting you on the spot. I think Brian had a question generally about other PUDs and these these issues and what have you observed because you've probably had more uh uh exposure to PODS and what other PUDs and what other communities have done with them than anybody in the room.

Fair amount. Um yeah, the city's ordinance is not unique that we require a two-step process, a concept plan and a final plan. The reason for the condition that traffic and parking studies have to be done before the final plan is approved and after the concept plan is approved is those studies need to be based on some data. Um, if you look at the chart that that Jay showed in his earlier presentation, the numbers have changed three times since 2004. In fact, they've changed twice since last year when this application was first filed. So the the developer um the the uh traffic engineers doing the studies have to have some basis for what they're making their calculations on. And the idea is unless we've got an approved plan that sets the parameters and says how much square footage of retail, how many units of condominiums, how many units of town homes, whatever it might be. unless they have fixed numbers, then we may end up doing multiple traffic studies every time those numbers change when we ultimately get to an approved concept plan. So, as as I think she said, we've already they've already done a preliminary traffic study. Um, but once the concept plan is is approved and they know specifically what those numbers will be, then they'll do a much more detailed study and they'll give us

recommendations based on their findings. uh what whatever traffic mitigation measures might hap have to happen in order to retain existing or acceptable levels of service for traffic and the same with parking. We did a parking study as part of the 2018 master plan which showed a surplus back then. Well, things can change. We know that. So there will be a new parking study and again depending on what that parking study shows they'll either have to provide more parking if it's required or they'll have to scale back the development.

Thanks. I appreciate that. I wonder if we can just bring home the point of like what is locked in because I I know a lot of people it was mentioned tonight um I've heard people talk about uh you know being concerned about what we're locking in. So I I rather than why don't you just tell us like what gets locked in? I would say what is locked in by the concept plan is the location and the size the dimensions size the height set back so forth of the buildings and that's really the only thing that's locked in that's important I don't want to minimize that

yeah but it's setting like the maximums things can be brought in right they can be reduced without they don't need to ask our permission to reduce it they would need to ask our permission to move a building more than 3 ft or to try and increase the size of a building at all. And anything approved isn't really locked in right now because there's all those conditions. Right. Right. Okay.

Right. I mean, you you have a number that your your board came up with conditions to begin with and we incorporated those and then the city commission embellished those but also came up some some additional ones of their own in response to some of the comments and concerns that the public and others had raised about the development and most of those conditions and you had a chance to look at them obviously have triggers on them. These are things you have to be able to meet. And if you can't, you're either going to have to come back and figure out a way to deal with them or you're going to have to walk away.

Thank you.

Just a followup. Um, if building locations are pretty well locked in, I mean, that also locks in circulation, the street locations, sidewalks to a degree, that sort of thing. Right. Right. And and that's one of the reasons though why we're we're talking about that's why you you do that and then you have the follow-up studies or the the major study really because that's what's going to tell us that. Uh an exception perhaps to that rule is when building E was in place, the traffic engineer could already our traffic engineer could already look at that and say this has trouble written all over it. and he got together with the uh developers traffic engineer who basically agreed with that conclusion and I think that's one of the things that led to the removal of that building from the project is that they they realized that that was going to be an expensive fix to try and deal with that. The other thing is going to take details that we don't currently have, but uh adopting that plan goes a long way to allowing them to start making those conclusions and determinations. Uh is it possible that somebody could look at this and say, you know, this building needs to be moved by 10 ft? I suppose that's possible. Uh that risk I think is on the developer because as Shay said he's already had an initial traffic study done and they have I think a decent idea what they think the the next study will show. But if if they got bad intel or if they made a mistake where they're placing things, that's going to be on their shoulders. if a study, you know, uh, revealed some problem that needed to be addressed, would that trigger, I mean, going back to a concept plan or you just work through it or

it it would probably I mean, if if we're going to move a building significant, if we're going to move a building, we're going to have to at least deal with that building in a amendment to the concept plan.

Okay. Now if you go back to 2008, uh that is exactly what they did in 2008 when they were going to build the first residential building is they looked at the 2004 concept plan and they had a major change which was they were unable to or unwilling to uh pay the cost of underground parking which was part of the original proposal. And so they had to come back and say how are we going to change this plan? Where are we going to put these cars? What are we going to have to do? So they had with that building they went through the whole process. Um but that's exactly what you have to do. There's no shortcut that allows you to just say, "Oh, I'll just move this building 10 ft." No, you unfortunately you can't.

Thank you. I also just want to point out that all of these studies and I think everybody here knows all of these studies we have set up so that um in the final studies they're our experts and we are reviewing and approving. We're not asking the developer to do the study and then saying thanks we like the data you came up with for your own benefit. It's independent review of all the data. Right. But they they do pay for the studies. Right. Yes.

Yeah. So and just just that point if I can commissioner real quick is the developer will pay their consultants to do this and then city's consultants will review this but that cost is borne by the developer. The city's not incurring that cost for that review. Um and that's been true of the process to date. Um even for the concept plan just to get here any costs that the city has incurred um in reviewing opining etc. those costs have been borne by gaslight investors

and that's true of any site plan review of any magnitude that we've used that for all the previous including the previous thing in 2004. And just to articulate that um we we created a just just because there's so much information on this uh we created um Jay created I should say um a link page to the preliminary traffic studies and you'll see there's three there's three additional that were completed by the city's consultant and we we charge that uh we have an escrow uh fund set up with the developer. They pay for all that. So, we've had three different different reviews based off of comments and other things have been requested that are provided in materials and we we provide those links rather than um we know it's difficult with with the volume of materials rather than you know another 300 pages or something um those links uh that take you directly to those pages whether it's preliminary environmental assessment, preliminary soils assessment, preliminary utilities analysis, um the building inspection services for foundation questions, a lot of things that have come up that we have answered. to the extent you can are provided for the materials and we try to create for this packet and for uh the upcoming city commission um just a more condensed way to to access that information.

Are those links on the website? Yes, through the packet. Yes, I know I saw them in the packet. I was just wondering. Yeah, if you go to the online version of the packet, it'll the links are clickable there as it's this is the I'll just up here. Um like instead of it's very well organized. Yeah, I know it is. No, we try to put in like who it is too because that's some of the concern is so we put cities consultant your developer so people are able to discern like who is it from and why and that type of information. So we tried to do that just to organize it because those are some of the those are concerns that have been expressed throughout the process and we want to make sure everyone knows that that we hear them and that we're trying to address those. So

kind of a recent thing or has it been been accumulating? It's all there. But I think one of the concerns we had is when when residents are going through like 500 pages of documents, it's not necessarily organized in a way from what we've heard back from them to to understand who who's what and and where. So we tried to we heard them and we tried to to address these by topic and then the links that will take them to those direct pages rather than having to um we understand that. I mean sometimes that's the world we live in. don't you know we're trying to hear and understand and provide that an easier way to access that to residents. It looks great.

Jay, can you go over again with commissioners what our requested action is for tonight? So, if the planning commission chooses to um make a recommendation on whether to to the city commission on whether to approve the draft resolution and PUB ordinance amendments. um and incorporating know the feedback you've provided on the topics we've discussed tonight. It's and it's important to know that we've already voted on the concept plan. We're not going over that part. We're going over the amendment and resolution. Correct.

Correct. And just like any other, you know, amendment that the planning commission reviews, um, there it is still subject to change by the city commission as they continue their deliberations. Thank you. And you feel clear on what we've discussed and agreed upon, right? It's been taken in the notes and it's been recorded and that will be passed on to the city commission clearly, I'm sure. Does it need a motion? Yes, please. I make a motion that we bring forth everything we talked about and recommendations recommendations to the city commission.

Yeah, I'll support that. Is there any further discussion on that? So, we are agreeing to uh send our information, our feedback, right? But are we also Yes. Obviously, you're recommending that the proposed amendment and resolution be approved and the feedback you've given to help guide their discussions if they want to make any further revisions or not or so because it's a recommendation, right? We're not approving anything. We're recommending they take our feedback, incorporate it into the amendments, and then approve the amendment pending our feedback or they may add other

or they might they get to do whatever they want. Correct. At some level, but that's what we're recommending, right? We're but we're also agreeing with everything that they've that's been before us tonight which is right. I mean if you what as modified by our feedback right right if that's the motion if that's the motion. Yes. We have read everything that the city commission has presented to us tonight. We have provided input and we're saying that's what we recommend. we we approve what they've written with our recommendations and they can do what they want with it.

So, I mean, I'll I'll comment specifically. Part of the reason that I'm comfortable saying yes, I support that motion and that approval is most of the things that we've said are mostly covered already, right? So, like my comments were there's no way I would ever vote for a final site plan, which I recognize is later, that doesn't adhere to the recommendations and requirements of traffic studies and all these other studies that we've noted that's in here. And I and I've I went through and highlighted it to make sure it was in here because I was like at first I I thought for sure that's all I needed and then I just wanted to double check which you all did very well for me. So given the fact that the proposed language addresses the concerns that we raised at our original recommendation, who knows when that was a while ago, and it addresses, you know, it addresses all of the the um I guess the authority of the commission to still hold things up if we don't feel like it meets those requirements, provided the city commission reads and listens to what we had to say. Yeah, I I totally send this to them

and we like how they uh improved our conditions, right? They they did a good job taking our conditions a bit better. So, we like their new conditions, right? It's all it's all right. For the public. So, there was a motion and a second, I believe. Right. Correct. Yes. Supported. Yeah. Any other discussion on it? If not, we'll have a vote on the amendments and resolution for gaslights investors PUD to be forward to the city commission with the discussed changes and additions that that staff has noted. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes.

Opposed say no. Motion carries. The next step will be for the planning commission's recommendation to go to the city commission. Next on the agenda is a master plan update. City planning consultant Paul LeBlanc will be giving us an update on the ongoing master plan. Paul,

well, just to reiterate what I put in the memo to you, uh the 42day required review period expired in mid July. Uh we did not receive comments from any of the surrounding communities. uh which is not unusual frankly. Um so I had really expected that uh the next step would be a joint meeting with the city commission to go over the the draft and make whatever refinements, changes uh that uh both the planning commission and and city commission agreed on. Uh I expected that would happen last month. Um but um the city commission really has been occupied with um the gaslight investors project that I I thought probably would have been resolved before now. Uh, and I'm sure having sat through a number of the city commission meetings and as you are aware last Monday's went until midnight, um, I doubt that the city commission wants to have a another joint meeting um, on their schedule until all this other stuff is resolved. So, um, they meet again Monday night. Um depending on what happens at that meeting, we may be able to schedule a joint meeting for uh October, but in my opinion, it's more likely to be uh November when we can pick up the master plan again and and uh keep it moving on. Um, as I noted in my memo, um, it seems

like every week I get one or two more survey responses. We're up to about 612 now. Um, so we we haven't put any cut off date to submit comments. It's good that people are still uh making their voices heard and those comments are posted on the the website. uh if you choose to go back and look at them. So, um that's where we are. I'm I'm spending a little time going over the the draft plan and making some uh refinements here and there. I've I've been playing with a different format to make it more readable and put some pizzazz to it, but um otherwise we'll we'll probably be on hold until we have a a joint meeting.

Thanks, Paul. Does anyone have questions for him? What's the status of the St. Steven property? Do you know? Is that uh No. There have been rumors that the church was going to be closed. Um, my understanding is that's not the case. It's still only the school. Okay. I'm I'm not sure it's a rumor. It it has been officially announced they're not uh having mass there anymore, right?

So, I thees so I don't necessarily it's not necessarily closing, but but the status of the building has changed. the document from the church says something about what will happen when the church is sold and I haven't seen that but we just there's just been a link in our bulletin or something. Okay. The dascese posted they did a press release of all the properties they were closing and that was one of them and I just didn't know if they've reached out or whatever. And then sorry if this has been disc the traffic circles does that fall under the master plan? No. started. That's got to be a contentious topic.

No, no. It like Well, I think like most things about half are four, probably half are against I think that's the way where we're at in this country and the community. So, um do we have an update on how they're doing?

Yeah. So, I mean, we're we're keeping up with with the maintenance of it. You know, one of the challenges we have, this is something we've looked at a lot of different things in that area actually. Um we we found documentation uh back to like the 19 late 1960s. Um and we in 2023 did a study to look at realigning Reeds like Boulevard with Lakeside at Durant. So we've looked at a lot of different things in that area because we do have um we do have some minor level service issues but what with sight distances and turning movements it's not ideal. Um so um we just we did this as a pilot for with the existing we have to work within the existing framework of the curb that we have. So, we came up with this with our traffic engineering team and our our public works team and uh we're getting feedback and like I said, it seems like, you know, some people really it's it's wonderful, but we wanted the creative space to sort of test something in the community to get feedback from something that's not permanent. Uh so people don't have to line up on sides and charge each other. Um, so, uh, it's kind of a way for us just to test, feel it out, learn, and, you know, we'll we'll we'll see, um, uh, as we're we're doing a current, uh, traffic impact study in that area with the exist with the current configuration. We'll compare that to the 2023 study of the prior conditions and we'll we'll see what we learn from the hard data, and then we'll see what we we hear back from the community from that to see if there's a project in the future for us to look at or not. So, um, but that's independent of everything else because if this doesn't move forward, we didn't want to hold up interest in, uh, exploring different options in that area as well.

And just so I understand, sorry, the the reason we need two is so that the so I knew lakeside was happening, but the reason we need one at Reeds Lake is so it doesn't traffic doesn't back up. Correct. That that is actually the level switch failure is actually a left hand left turn movement there and it affects pedestrians too where they at peak times they get stuck there and they stack. So, um, you know, the solution may be a larger, more centralized one that kind of pulls everything together. You know, I I think that's probably the more likely outcome, but I I don't know. We'll we'll we'll see what the study shows us and what the level of service, the hard data shows us, and we'll see what the the aggregate community feedback is and the users and what they think. Okay. Thank you.

Is there public feedback on the master plan? Pardon me. There will be once it's posted, right? Online. You can still as as uh as planner noted there the the survey is still open for feedback. So that's what I was just going to say. I don't mean feedback. I mean public comment on Well, there there is there would be a public hearing when we have the draft in final form. He's asking if you can do public. He's asking about tonight, right? Like no. Is it okay if he asks a question? I don't think there's not tonight, right? Oh, I have a uh I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. We just Is it okay if everyone if he

Madam Chair, it's up to you if you want to suspend the the normal rules if if you want to. So, want to vote on you can come off. Have some discussion about it. Yes. Again, state your name and address.

David Decker, 925 Bclair. Um, I wanted to just point out that one of the things that I really liked seeing in the 2025 master plan is the comment from business owners that they believe there's not enough parking. Um, and business owners I've talked to um, echo that comment um, without me prompting it. And just on Sunday, um, sitting eating an ice cream cone at the picnic table at the corner of DNW's parking lot, three people step over the fence to get into DNW, which is where their car is. The parking that DNW provides runs Gaslight Village and I think the comment in the master plan seems to indicate that. That's my comment. Thank you.

Thank you. Erica, do you want to make a comment? No, I'm just No, I'm just just want to be fair, you guys. I'm just excited about all this. Thanks. Should come more often. It's always this one. Any other questions for Paul?

Yeah, this is about the very exciting mandatory uh comment period, 42day comment period. And I think Jay, you said 45 days. So, um so sometimes I actually uh look at what the city commission does with our recommendations. So May 13, we recommended that the city commission be, you know, uh decide to uh send it out. And I looked in the minutes of the city commission. I couldn't find where the city commission took action to to release that to to decide to distribute that. So um we did. You did? Yeah. When when Oh, I'm not going to be able to tell you. No, but but I mean was it was it because there wasn't any consent agenda or consent agenda or the last second meeting?

It was either the second May meeting or the first June meeting, but it wasn't. I will I will look again. Uh it was an actual agenda item. If so, if you look, it was an actual agenda item. Wasn't a consent. I remember because we discussed what I'm glad you did. I just couldn't find it. I will look again. Thank you. I'm I'm so glad. I'm so glad you did. I promise we did.

Thank you, Paul. Next on the agenda is the report of the city commission by Commissioner Schwarz. We've been talking a lot about gaslight investors and uh it shows and uh yeah, I I honestly this has been taking up most of the time. So that's the whole update I think is what we've talked about tonight. I think um [Music] Monday already, Monday the 15th is the next regular meeting. We don't have the agenda. I expect that this will return. So, sorry, not to put you on the spot.

No, that's fine. Um so, at the September 2nd meeting, there was a motion to um um move this discussion to the uh next uh next commission meeting. Um at this point um um we do anticipate it being on it will be on the agenda um for the 15th. Um whether commission takes action or not, we'll we'll see. So um but um so u but look for the commission packet tomorrow. You'll know. So that's it. Staff, do you have anything to add?

Just that we're wrapping up construction. Uh we did complete the city's in our estimation the city's uh longest uh non-motorized uh uh sidewalk um from basically the east beline all the way to connecting to Grand Rapids at Plymouth. Um so uh we're we're working through punch list items there. So, uh, kudos to our team, our consultants, and to our partners with Grand Rapids, Kent County Road Commission, Grand Rapids Township for everyone collaborating together to finally get some pedestrian infrastructure um, in that corridor. And, uh, beyond that, we'll be releasing our updated uh, PAS ratings from all our road construction, which is wrapped up um, soon, uh, so residents can see where we've benchmarked ourselves uh, with uh, investments in our network. So,

thank you. I have to say I love the flashing light by our house now. Yeah, I should Yeah, I should note I should note from pedestrian studies that we completed at the end of last school year, we're installing seven additional um of those RFB uh locations. We've we've completed several near closer to school campuses at priority just with some of the supply chain issues and we should have some additional ones actually. one out by the um uh at uh I think Woodcliffe and Lake Drive by Kelvin and then there'll be several on one on Gladstone in Wealthy and one on Lake in uh Gladstone as well. Oh, that's so good there. Be going in there, too. I think that every time we walk by.

Yep. So, we've we've uh really with our updated policy, it's really streamlined at the city commission's given authorization of staff. It's really allowed us to really speed up that process uh from start to finish from our studies to implementation and uh thankfully those those improvements seem to be universally acceptable in the community. So, thanks so much for all your work on that. It's been great to see the Robinson and Cascade sidewalk project come together. I'm really happy. A lot of challenges there, but we made it we made it through. to have more by

sure. I think it only applies to Robinson, not to Cascade, but you know how um ideally at some point the road commission would like re-engineer that and have like a consistent shoulder and everything and you know it's it's a little bit uneven sometimes that is if they re-engineered that and kind of rebuilt that in the way we'd like to see it at some point, would that affect the sidewalk? I'm sure that was a consideration, right? Sure. So basically we we altered the whole corridor right with a with a pedestrian uh component to that in the right way.

They they will when they have that another cycle for for for resurfacing or for reconstruction um they will reinccorporate that and I think you know we've discussed things like some areas where they're they're going to probably add some additional valley gutter or some other pieces that better align with that infrastructure that's there too. So, um I really I really can't say enough about our partnership with them and they've they've been um we've had such a good relationship working with them where we've helped them with some things that are kind of in our neck of the woods for them and um they've really been receptive to I'd say town I'd say county road commission. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Um so, but it it's possible some of the sidewalk could be affected to be reconstructed a little bit, right? I mean, if you're going to do a reconstruction of

Robinson, if they do, but there's not anything that I'm aware of that would be um anywhere anytime in the near future there. But um certainly certainly those those were all factored in when we did the review the plan reviews. It's below it's below the you know, it's kind of downhill from the road, right? So, so it could be subject to water runoff, right? I mean, that's what I was talking about gutter and some other things. Yeah. So, right now it's it's wonderful, but it's it it could be getting even better at some point. Correct. Yep. The bike lane bumpers on Martin Luther King, are those those will come out for

those will come out. Um those will come out here in another month as well. Same as the traffic uh circles. Um so we've compiled feedback on those. We've definitely learned a lot between different types of adhesive products on a on a weekly basis. We actually we we do have an adhesive product that works. We've actually found it out of uh um Seattle, Washington, actually. And um I was informed that there's an adhesive convention that was in the Detroit area this summer with over 4,300 adhesive manufacturers. So we've learned a lot about adhesive, too. And uh armadillos. So was the new sidewalk equipment approved at the last meeting?

It was. Yep. So do you want me to speak to that? Uh so basically um the Department of Public Works for a long time were we're constantly trying to evaluate better ways to provide uh service in particular related to sidewalk and snow and ice removal. And our our biggest gap is when we uh we remove 95% of snow and we have a little bit of residual there just to uh just accommodate the types of equipment we have. Um and if we get freeze thaw cycles um and if residents or property owners don't remove that remaining uh amount um you know it can be a challenge uh for for residents or visitors. Um, so we've purchased equipment from Europe, from China, from Canada uh that we've been piloting the last several years and nothing quite works um um perfectly in our specific environment with the types of weather we get here and the variation we get in West Michigan. Uh so we worked with a um a local welder with our uh public works staff and we created a prototype this last year that kind of combines a lot of different elements and some new elements. And um so we've we've developed that and we'll have uh four units ready to go in November that essentially can help us to uh groom crush and groom and blade off uh material at the same time. So from an efficiency standpoint, we don't have to have uh two or three pieces of equipment. If you've seen us running these demo ones, we'll be able to do that with one. And so reduces our cons our usage of fuel um but also our manpower and and equipment to to get to the broader community because with the pilots we've been doing we've only been able to really stay on kind of our major streets like our Breton or Lakes etc. We'd really like to be able to get into our um our local street network too. So so look forward to seeing uh that equipment uh this winter. Cool.

I hope we don't have to use it too soon. Right. February. Uh, do we have anything in our ordinance that that says uh, homeowners are responsible for clearing snow? Nope. And we just we just updated our snow and ice guidelines policy at 12:09 a.m. uh, last last week. Uh, it doesn't say that. No, it did.

Nope. It compel the city manager can compel if the city's unable to provide that service, but we do not by ordinance require that. Um, and that's really from um, uh, I know we all want to get out of here, but um, from a system standpoint, the the goal of the city service is really to provide a a level of service citywide. Um, because just because you have an ordinance that says that everyone has to do that doesn't mean they do that. And um, I spent a lot of time where people tell me that every sidewalk in Grand Rapids is shoveled perfectly and wonderfully every year. And it takes me about two seconds to to see that's not the case. So, uh, when you rely on individuals to take action, that's for the collective good. Sometimes that there there's failure there. And so, you end up where, um, you might have a foot of snow here and a clear sidewalk here. So, we get it down to about an inch. And that's citywide. And that's so that uh, primarily so that our student population has the ability to at least have a a cleared pathway, not to bare pavement standard, but cleared for them. And then, uh, secondarily for that for for the community for exercising, walking their dogs, etc. We're just trying to build on. Yeah, we we're able to provide that level of service, but we want to continue to do better. So, just as a summary of all the parts of the world we've talked to people, like I said, we've had stuff held up in customs in Canada. We're trying everything. Um, and so our best our best approach to this at this point in time was to sort of take lessons learned from tinkering and trying different things and to really make our own custom piece of equipment.

I really like the fact that you're always trying to tweak and not be the best way of always done it. look at different things as things evolve. But the ordinance language that was approved does uh encourage homeowners correct to clear off that remaining 1 in or whatever it is also to to clear it off before you go out if you because you don't go out. It used to be three inches, now it's two or something. It's um whatever about two inches. Yeah. So our our we do we do do the priority routes by a time frame because it's really it's really dependent and we run night shifts and second shifts different shifts. the changes

really. It's it's our goal is to make sure we get all the our priority routes around our school campuses and major corridors before 7 a.m. uh for our students and then from there we branch off into other routes. The right um but yeah, it's predicated on on two inches because at the same time we have to juggle what the weather event is and clearing roads at the same time. So it's kind of a it's kind of an art. Um so we we have some flexibility to operate within within those guidelines. So Miss So Mr. Lo Fave will be available uh later. Sure. And if you want to do a ride along, you can you can experience it all yourself. just give me a call. And residents too, we'll get you in a plow truck or a sidewalk plow and yeah, we'll take you back to the Ramona days.

But quickly, the part that that you didn't mention was that you do encourage people to do the one in efforts left and the 2 in if you can't go if you're not going to be going out two inches or less. Is there any way to promote that and encourage that? Yep. So, we're we've talked about that too. Um, water things. Yeah, like a we're looking at some some branding and some things to do some enhancement on that. Next on the agenda is our next planning meeting is October 14th. Do you anticipate something being on the agenda? Stay tuned. It's next on the agenda, unless everyone wants to be here until 12:09. Have a motion and a second to adjurnn.

So moved. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Oppos say no. Motion carries. Thanks so much everyone. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you staff. So early four hours. Yeah. Right.