Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. All right, welcome everybody to the city of Grand Rapids Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 2026. Um we are going to get started on um some public hearings here, but I'll quickly go through kind of how this stuff works. So, first off, we'll get a presentation from staff. They will go through um some key information for the case, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to come up and add um additional information for us. Um I will then open the public comment period for that case. And um if you'd like to speak to the case, you can come up to the mic, introduce yourself, and you'll have up to three minutes to give us your thoughts. We want to make sure that any comments that do come are addressed to the planning commission and not the audience. um and that everyone is just respectful of all the comments that um that are made here today. Um after I close public comment, the applicant can address any comments that um are made and then planning commission will deliberate and make a decision. Um one note is that staff does prepare some potential draft language for us to reference when we're making motions um with findings both for and against. So if you see us looking um at paper and reading, we are. But um none of that is uh set in stone. We can modify as we'd like when we're um making our motions and decisions. Um another note is that

this meeting is being streamed live on Facebook and YouTube TV. And I think that covers it. So we will go back and do uh conflict of interest. Any conflict of interest today? Okay. Seeing none, then we will go forward with oh the first case which um has been withdrawn from the agenda. So this um after public notice went out um this case was withdrawn um just to get some additional uh information related to it. So if you're here for the first case and would like to make comment then um you can do so at the end of the meeting during our public our general public comment um period. Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll turn it to the next one. Okay, it was green on my end, so that sounds better. So, our first case is a request for a new multiple family development consisting of three three-story duplex structures. The multiple family use and a building of height of three stories are both special land uses. The subject property is on the west side of Prospect Avenue between Matilda and Bradford Street. And um the surrounding zone districts, it's in the traditional neighborhood lowdensity residential and there is some tra transitional city center zone district um to the west. The properties around it are mostly um low to medium density residential. Aside from that one property in the transitional city center zone district that is a auto repair um service use the master plan the community master plan identifies this area as compact neighbor and recommendations in the

master plan include a greater variety of housing types. This property is also within an area covered by the Bellnap lookout neighbors areas specific plan and the the plan identifies this as Bellnap TR traditional family housing in which residential development in the form of single family duplex and triplex building types maintain the overall scale and character of the neighborhood. The 12 approximately 12,000 square foot property um appears to have never been developed. The southeasterly twothirds of the property gently slopes from the sidewalk um to the alley at the rear. And I I did not mention the alley behind the property is currently unimproved. Um towards the on the north side of the property and at the west side of the property there is a steep slope with approximately 8 foot grade change dropping down to the alley and down to the property to the north. In February the board of zoning appeals granted approval to permit grading and removal of vegetation in a defined steep slope to allow development. Um that area is shown on this image here. Approximately 4,150 square feet of the subject property is considered a steep slope and the board of zoning appeals granted approval for disturbance of that slope for development purposes. To offer um greater perspective of the property um I've here are a few different views. This is a view point of view from the southeast corner from

Prospect Avenue. You can see that the the subject property here is generally flat. It just has a gentle slope moving to the north and to the west. This is a view from the northeast corner of the property. In the very right hand side of this image, you can see that there is slope on the north side of the property. This image is the residential property, the abuing property to the north. This property, the house is set further back from the street, closer to the alley. Um the the house is approximately 1 and 1/2 ft from the property line, the shared property line. And you can see with the grade changes that exist that this house is kind of in a topographical bowl. And then this is a view from Prospect Avenue. You can see that house we just looked at to the north is on the right hand side of this image and the subject property is on the left side. So three duplex structures will be constructed oriented to Prospect Avenue with a 10space surface parking lot at the rear. The proposed density is within the maximum density permitted. Parking is deficient by one space. Um, I will say also that Prospect Avenue is well served by transit and on street parking. Each duplex will have a unit occupying the basement and first floor and the second unit on the second and third floor. Um, the units will be 2,400 square ft. Um, each building will have a total square foot livable area of 4,800 square ft. For context, the adjacent um single family homes to the north and south are less than 1,000 square ft. And then the two houses directly across the

street on the east side of Prospect are approximately, 1100 square ft. And I mentioned that the the house to the north is very close to the shared property line. That house also has a pedestrian walkway that is on the subject property. Um the applicant has decided to leave the walkway alone and um develop the property um without removing or disturbing that walkway. It's difficult to see on this plan as well, but there will also on the north side there will be a new retaining wall constructed that will be approximately 3 ft high at its tallest point. Soil will will be removed to construct the buildings including the basement level and to create a level surface for the parking lot. The soil removal will result in new slopes. You can see in this image that will be central to the property and on the southwesterly side. The structures will be three stories of this street or 32 1/2 ft high. Um due to the site grading, you can see in the the north elevation here, the properties will be three stories at this street and um the basement will be exposed as you move towards the back of the building. The back of the northernmost building from grade will be um 38.8 ft high. And um if we go back to recall the subject property to the north or excuse me the neighboring property to the north um because of the grade differences between subject property and the neighboring

property the the rear of that northernmost duplex will be perceived as taller than that 38 ft. Transitional features such as setbacks and landscape buffers are used to assist in compatibility of development. The proposed 7 foot side setback meets the minimum requirement in the zoning ordinance. Um today part of the planning commission um consideration includes whether this side setback and any um traditional landscape buffer would provide um transition and relief for the differences in building height. Transitional features are required when a building is one or more stories taller than buildings on the adjacent properties. relative to the parking lot. The parking lot will be set back 18 feet from the north and south property lines. Um you can see on this landscape plan that there is no landscaping proposed. Um it is required and will be incorporated um into the plan. The planning commission may wish to consider the level of plant material, landscaping material um and location of the material elements that would um be most appropriate given the grade differences both on the north side and the south side of the parking lot. I have um elevations and floor plans in the presentation should anyone have questions about those elements. Um regarding neighborhood engagement, the applica the applicant has provided a summary of neighborhood engagement efforts. Several letters were received both expressing support and con and concern for the development project.

Those have all been incorporated into the packet. And there was one last minute letter um that was provided and printed out and given to you um for your reading. In some we are considering we are asking the planning commission to consider the multiple family use in the threestory building height the consistency of the project with the recommendations of the community master plan and Bellnap area specific plan and the compatibility of the proposed building height and transitional features relative to abuing properties neighborhood context scale and massing. Are there any questions? Thank you, Laura. Any questions for Laura at this point?

Okay, seeing none, we'll invite the applicant up. Thank you, Laura.

Uh, thanks for considering this. Um, I don't have a ton to add, but I'll say, um, when I first acquired this lot about a year and a half ago, the first thing I did was reach out to, uh, Noble and have a conversation. sat down with the um the the chair of their development uh committee and the current executive uh director of the neighborhood association to kind of brainstorm ideas and so we talked about different options. Um one of the I guess one thing to note is that this uh was originally platted as two lots at some point in the history it was combined uh into into one. Um, and so I one of the conversations that I had with them is that uh by right uh without any special land use, you could go out and you could build uh four attached uh town houses currently because it's within 500 ft of linear feet of the traditional um the TCC zone. Uh their area specific plan prohibitly uh advises that this is not the appropriate area for town houses. And so that was a conversation with them of what would you like to see? Um I I I could have done that and overrid the ASP. I tried to be very uh sensitive to the ASP. I read the entire thing. We had multiple conversations. Um in the ASP they allow both um duplexes and triplexes in this area which so in that case it's confusing, right? Because the ASP actually goes beyond what the city zoning ordinance allows. So there so what I have ultimately come up with is a uh the very thin sliver of all of these ven diagrams that stack on top of each other. Uh that includes what's in the ASP, what's in the current zoning ordinance, what's in the new community master plan, and then what's economically viable. Um so there's uh there's quite a bit um uh infrastructure needs that need to happen. Right? So this is a green field site. So, uh, with this with 97 ft of linear, um, space, I think that Grand Rapids is currently

charging about $35 per linear foot, uh, to hook up to water and sewer, which will need to be paid. And then we're also going to be developing the alleyway, extending that, uh, to serve, um, a rear loaded use. Again, that that's what the ASP calls for. That's what principles of new urbanism call for. So we've tried to develop something that um is is very contextually appropriate um while also being a economically viable middle missing housing. Um it was very intentionally develop developed as duplexes to allow it to be built under the IRC or I'm sorry the the IR um the international residential code instead of the international building code. So um happy to have conversations. Oh, I guess I I would say um the original proposal uh was eight. Um, it had two more uh in the back. They weren't ADUs because it was a multif family, but it would be threestall garage with units above and using the grade changes, it would actually get you um fully accessible units because you could take the sidewalks all the way back. Um there was conversation uh with with neighbors concerns of density. Uh this this does allow eight units. Um during the conversation with the neighborhood association, there there was a mix. Um uh the chair wanted to support it as is with all eight. Uh others said we'd feel more comfortable with uh reducing that. So this has already been reduced in response to both neighborhood concerns from 8 to six. So 25% building unit. And then uh this wasn't something that the neighborhood association requested or mandated as a letter of approval, but it was to take into account uh neighbor concern about density. So the number of bedrooms originally it was 28. So each of these each of these units were four bedrooms. We can and part of the reason why it took from October until now is we went back and we completely redid the blueprints uh so that they're all three bedrooms except for one. The middle lower unit is four. Partly that has to um is to abide by the ASP's request that anytime there's multif family that they

have differing bedroom counts and partly it's because um you need to have egress windows and with sidewalks running along the side you couldn't. So um I think it's an elegant plan. Uh we tried to make it beautiful so it's not just a box like a lot of people complain about. Um and I think we I think we accomplished it and I hope you agree. So thank you for your consideration. All right. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Go ahead if Yeah, that's fine. Can you elaborate on what you mean by developing the alley?

Yes. Sure. So, uh, we had conversations, uh, with Cindy Irving, who is in the engineering department, and, um, we asked, you know, what are what are their specs because currently, um, let's see, I don't know if there's a great view. Uh, so yeah, so this you can see, um, the dotted line is currently where um, I don't have a pointer, but it's, uh, it's in front of the or actually in the alleyway in back of the house to the north. Um, that shows you that dash line. That's currently where the gravel goes. Um and so uh there is also storm water there as well. Um so in conversations with them they my engineer asked them for a spec and they basically said we don't have specs for alleys because we don't develop alleys and so they said we would be happy if you would continue it as is. So it's gravel with storm water. So, it would include a storm water system um and extend the gravel um to the dashed line right to the north of the tree um on on my lot as well.

Can you talk more about the storm water situation with the steep slopes? We were able to read your um the notes from your time at BCA, so that was very helpful. Um I know that came up in conversation there. Um, but talk about the different options you considered here and how this development may impact the storm water situation overall, please.

Yeah, it's a great question. So, um, all storm water contractors that I've ever talked to have always advised against putting any water in any pipes because as soon as you do that, you own it and you've got to take care of it. Um, so, uh, I know that in some of the letters of concern there was, you know, storm water or our basement floods. Well, I agree that makes a whole lot of sense because this steep slope currently all the water hits it and it all rushes back to the there's no storm water infrastructure. Um, so it's kind of part of it is the appropriateness of when this happens. So, um, I've tried to be very measured in when I'm making investments. I do have my my engineer who's working on a storm water system. The current thought is in that um northwest area. So between the parking lot and the neighbor to the north, that would be probably the most likely place for an underground detention. Um uh so that that is the current plan. Those are not developed yet. Uh there would most likely be an outlet that would be run back into the Cold Brook um uh drain, which is actually underneath the buildings. It's on the other property. Um and so there will so it's it's more of a it's not really a question of can it be engineered is um how much is it going to cost to engineer and design. Um that is something um it's my understanding like I I talked with my engineer and he said normally we develop this after this as land use is issued. The next step if this was would be approved would be a LUDS permit. So during the LUDs permit, obviously you have to have all of those things, but it's one of those things that I don't really want to spend another $20,000 on engineering designs if you guys say we think this project sucks and no, go pound sand. Um, so that's that is a concern. Um, I would say I know that that Laura mentioned um uh transitional elements and that is something I'm very open to feedback and what you guys want to do. Um the the challenge is the neighbor to the north um is a a I believe to be a

Spanish- speakaking couple. Um I've tried communicating with them. I've I've left uh letters that you know I've used Google Translate to translate. I've tried using my phone. They had no willingness to have a conversation. So my intent is to kind of just leave them alone as much as possible. Let them keep that walk next to their drive. If you came back and said, "Nope, our zoning ordinance says we have to have transitional items, and that means you need a six-foot fence," I would do that, but that doesn't seem very neighborly to me. Uh, they've got a window on that south side. So, you would have a sixoot fence directly next to a window, and I would be ripping up their sidewalk. So, um, again, I kind of look for your guidance on that. If that's something you want me to do, I can do it. Um, I would also say, um, please keep that in mind of of that is the area where we're planning on doing an underwater detention basin. So, um, you know, doing trees on top of a detention basin is not a smart long-term, uh, investment. So, anyway,

no, I appreciate all of that information cuz the the buffering was going to be my next question. So, thank you for that. Um, and in terms of the storm water, we have experts at the city that are going to have to work um, with you through that process, too. So, um, I appreciate all of that. Any other questions for the applicant? Go ahead. Yeah, some of the neighbor letters um addressed the retaining wall. Could you elaborate a little on the height of that retaining wall and you know if it will pose dangers to people outside of what other retaining walls in the area do?

Uh yeah, happy to. Uh so the retaining wall at its highest point will be 3 feet. So I mean a three-foot retaining wall doesn't present dangers to anybody. So, um, uh, and part of that is is very important when you get into building code. Uh, there's a complex calculation as to whether or not a story is above or below grade. And so, we have to have that pushed out 6 ft. We've redone the elevation so that it meets the the building code definition of below grade. Um, beyond that retaining wall, you also have the elements of the structure. So I think that this uh project actually makes the site much safer and much more stable. Uh and we deal with um what has already been noted as as flooding problems that currently exists with the site. We essentially take ownership of that and uh engineer a solution to solve it. So I think that the endstate will be much safer.

Okay. Anyone else? Okay. We'll have you set for the time being. I will open up the public hearing. If you're here and would like to comment on this case, please make your way to the microphone, state your name, and give us your thoughts. Hello, my name is Ingred Joplin. Um, I'm a resident of Prospect for 20 years. Um, I really enjoy the neighborhood and um, so basically I got home from a trip and there was this card in my mailbox about this development. I was like, "Oh, that's interesting." And it said, "We'd like to hear your thoughts." And um, once I looked into it and how the big it was compared to the rest of the neighborhood, I was concerned. I was like, "This seems like that somebody's trying to change the character of our neighborhood." So, I did a little bit of research and I went around the neighborhood and I asked people, I went by foot and asked people what they thought because a lot of times people are too busy with their regular lives to get involved. Uh, my next door neighbor actually talked to the developer and he told him that he was for the plan, too. But, um, he actually told me every day how much he hated it and that he wanted to keep some of the nature there and to have a more um, peaceful neighborhood like we've had. He's been there maybe 10 years or so. and he actually signed the p my petition as well. So, he did sign the first thing that he um brought, but he also signed mine because he felt pressured and confused and basically he told me he didn't think that we had a chance to have a say, which I do really appreciate. The developer has worked with us to some degree. Um it has reduced somewhat and I'm glad to hear about the sidewalk. Um I have a lot of concern for the neighbors down the north because um they're not able to be talked to. So, he tried and I also tried to talk to them. And um I I feel like this is kind of like one day they're going to wake up and think, "What happened to our street?" I don't know because it's almost like one foot from their house.

And um I I wish there was a way that the um maybe some community outreach could get them, but there was so much other things to do. I didn't have time to do that, honestly. I actually wanted to. So, that's another thing. Um, so hopefully when um if this gets approved the way he wants it, um, what I hope happens is that there's a lot of protection for the storm thing because they're not able to afford to do that before that they get approved for it. I guess um I was a little bit shocked to hear that, but I guess that makes sense. Um, so I hope that everybody here um follows through on that and makes sure that the neighbors are protected since they don't really have anyone to talk to or they're maybe they don't feel safe to talk to anybody. I don't know their situation. Um, so basically, um, we still I I went and sent some emails, um, so I could update the letter, uh, since it was reduced since the first time. And everybody had the same idea. So I'm basically here to represent those people that signed the petitions that I talked to, I don't know about anybody else, but this one, the 20, I think 19 or 20 petitions I have, um, we're pretty much on the same page. Um, they felt that this was kind of like out of character for our neighborhood. It's too crowded. the parking is going to be very difficult. We have a lot of long-term residents maybe there for 20 years or more and um some of them are still renters. So, they're very concerned about the rents going up uh over time. I know this does happen anyways, but when you insert this many properties at 2,600 each, that's going to raise the rent. The the neighbor the the landlords are going to see that and say, "We can raise the rent now." So, unfortunately, some people may even be displaced that have been there for years. I mean, maybe. Thank you so much. Your time is expired. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Andrew. I'm Carly, director of outreach, Strongtowns, Grand Rapids, third world resident. Um, for developments like this, obviously Strongtowns Grand Rapids, we support incremental development within neighborhoods. Infilling a green field space inside of a neighborhood at this density or greater is something that we would be supportive of. Obviously, we are supportive of this. Um, we get to work with the developer here often in this case as he is one of the only people doing incremental infill development here in the Grand Rapids metro area. Uh, which is fantastic. When it comes down to some of the concerns that the neighbors are expressing, um, and specific to the retaining wall, um, I'm not a a building code guy. I've done a lot of OSHA auditing though. Um, under OSHA laws, anything over four feet requires fall protection. Um, as the retaining wall at most will be 3 feet. It doesn't require any fall protection on the OSHA side. Um, and the building codes may vary. Um, but um, if it's good enough for OSHA, it's good enough for me. Um, cuz well, OSHA protects all of us at work every day. Um, when it comes down to the the rent increase, the only way to decrease rents in the city is to build more. The reason why rents continue to basically go up here in the city is because we're short short so many housings. It's like 14,000 homes or dwellings here in the Grand Rapids area. And every time we're not meeting that demand, that's a signal to the market that we can increase rent because they can become more incompetitive. And especially as the changing demographics of the city continue to move to be a little bit wealthier, a little bit younger, a little bit more on the professional side, there's money for those rents. People will be able to afford it. Um especially again as the the changes of the city continue to happen and the city continues to evolve. Um in addition, these this style of development does create a nice walkable environment. The front porches allow for community connection. The rear parking puts the car from the front of the house to the back of the house where it belongs, you know, hiding in shame. Um, and not requiring the parking demands of that front street parking. Um, and so

that kind of helps start building those walkable communities, those really desirable communities that the city of Grand Rapids has to be competing with. And we do compete with it a little bit. um especially in some of our neighborhoods like Heritage Hill or Cherry Hill that are some of the most desirable places to live in the city. Um as the city in Grand Rapids continues to move forward and is a competitive and shows up as one of the best places to live, best places to grow a family, we have to build more like this to continue to attract those people to continue being on those lists. And then of course, as always, to continue to grow economically in the city. Um as noted before, this project fits the city master plan. um the new one and guidance there as the zoning will come out here um in the next few years. We'll see kind of see how that comes but based by the words in it to support the air specific plan of course and is allowed by right at this density. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Laura Cessa. I live in the second ward. Um I fully support this project. Um, I don't know that I have a lot to say about it other than I think it's a good project and um, I know Nathan pretty well and I know that he really takes a lot of care in designing the homes that he builds so that they're nice places to live for the people who end up living there. Like I've I've seen that like the iteration he goes through trying to make everything nice for everyone. Um, and I think that honestly not a lot of developers probably take that time to really think through what they're building with that level of care. Um, and also, you know, I just I think from, you know, a bit of a uh just from a zoning perspective, you know, as Nathan was saying, you could build four town homes on this lot by right anyway. Um, and as far as I know, a duplex would be allowed as well. And so it it seems like if one duplex is allowed, why are three duplexes not allowed? It kind of it gets into some sort of gray area that I I hope that a future zoning ordinance will will address. Um but also, you know, I think adding these types of homes with with the with the character um that will be in them, I think it only adds to the neighborhood feel. You know, personally, I love neighborhoods that feel like they've changed over time. they haven't been frozen in place since when they were built. And I think, you know, this sort of of of design that that takes into account what, you know, existing homes look like um and builds on that, I think is is really really valuable. So, I think this is a perfect infill development project. Um and I really hope you support it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thanks for having us today. Um my name is Bethany. I live on the block. We have lived there since 2014 and we've raised our five children on the block. Um this is my fifth, which is why I was not involved in a lot of the um fall meetings. Um but happy to be here today to be um opposed to this project. I do appreciate um all of the consideration of the builder um to have made changes, but we not opposed to the entire project. I do see a build here being profitable but um at the scale um that it is would very much change um multiple factors um of which I wrote a letter I won't read the whole letter but culture safety space economics and environmental changes will very much make an impact on daily life um the culture mainly being that we have a lot of long-term residents um 20 years my husband actually grew up on the block they lived there 16 years many years ago and now we've been here almost 10 ourselves Um, and there are many that are multigenerational um, homes that people have homesteaded here. Um, and so to multiply that exponentially will very much change the character, but also the safety on the block. I'm very much concerned about there being no yard space, not just for the beauty of green space, but where if we're going to be attracting whole families, like it sounds like the builder wants to do, where are those children going to play safely? um as it is, my children um play in the street when they have to because that's really the only place they can with supervision. And there are um cars that fly through trying to avoid Lafayette. Um there are all kinds of walking traffic coming down from the staircase including children walking to school. Um and additional um traffic coming through and then green space eliminated um will definitely create some safety concerns. Um so space um is an issue for that but also for parking. I know the parking lot um is supposed to absorb most of the

residents but likely um there will be a lot of students and like single residents and a car for each of them even if they're also going to walk and drive a lot. We have seen um a lot of the renters that come in bring multiple vehicles actually to accommodate their whole families um or to go multiple places during the day or one of them is broken down and sitting and taking up space. And we have very limit limited space already on that block even with the uninhabited um spots. This being one of them and then across the street we have two big work trucks that um take up space on our street as well. And then in every other parking um during odd even um seasonal parking it gets even more cluttered. Um and I I me mentioned this in my letter that the next block up is cluttered in that way and I don't even drive down that way because there's people trying to like park get their kids into their car seats and everything in the middle of the road and it's just congested and I wouldn't want to see those kinds of safety concerns on our block as well. Um, I think one of the last, um, ones I want to mention with my time is the economic issue. We rented and then now we own. And yet I still really care about my renting neighbors and I don't want them to be marginalized, pushed out to the edges of the city where they can afford it um because they can't afford or have unfortunately slum lords that don't allow them to buy their properties and they would have to leave. And they have also grown up on the block with my my um husband. So I would like to see them be able to stay. I would like to retain them. Um, so that is definitely a concern. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. Thanks.

Hello, I'm Josh Verink. I'd just like to second what Bethany just said and what Ingred said in opposition. Um, I'd also like to point out the style of the buildings really does clash with the general style and character of the neighborhood, especially the roof style. Um, I drove through today and there's not a single roof with that style in the whole neighborhood, let alone three right next to each other. Um, and so that to me seems like it's an issue that is not in keeping with the protocols or what should be. Um, other than that and seconding what they have said in opposition. Um, I just like to say while we do appreciate the reductions in density, the our stance generally is that the only safe alternative is either a single family home or a standard two unit duplex and that is what is right for the physical safety and stability of our street. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Anyone else that would like to speak on this case? Okay, I will close the public hearing and invite the applicant back up to address concerns or comments. So, I do appreciate the concerns. Um, some of the folks, you know, didn't show up at the the meetings and so to come at the 11th hour and say your roof line is ugly feels a little bit disingenuous. Uh, that's something we I'm sorry. Please. Thank you. Um

my apologies. I um so um that's something that we talked about with the development committee. Um is honestly not something that I have much of a horse in in the fight. If we wanted gable roofs, we could do it. The reason that they're uh flat roofs is because they uh reduce massing. Um if you added a gable roof on that, it would be significantly higher. Um, so, uh, the the two primary concerns that I've heard, uh, seem to be, uh, an issue with renters, um, and, um, car storage. Uh, both of those things, uh, seem a somewhat like a smokeokc screen. Um, a gentleman uploaded a new letter uh, yesterday. Um, so both Ingred and Colin and his wife showed up at the very first one. Um, and Colin in your packets submitted a very uh lengthy email where he had questions and and things like that. And he ultimately came back and and said, "We still uh we we appreciate it, but we still oppose it." Um, but he didn't include the full email. So, I brought that along uh to show you because one of the questions that I had asked him of the original development of eight units was if I changed this from being rental to being condos, would you support it asis? and his response was regarding the condo question, "Yes, I would be sort of supportive of the project as outlined if the ownership structure were changed for for sale condos instead of rentals, which in my mind um goes back to what Jonathan Height, as a moral psychologist, basically calls emotional re reasoning. So what you've heard is we don't like this project and then a long litany of things that aren't the actual concerns because they justify what the moral thing is. But really what it is is that they don't want renters. Um unfortunately the so if if you denied this today um in two years from now we will have a new zoning ordinance. The

new master plan calls to allow quadplexes everywhere within the city. Um this is a 90 foot lot. It could be split into two lots and then you would have uh I could build eight units by right, which is two more than what I currently am proposing. It's not what I think is right for the neighborhood. I'd like to move forward with something that the neighborhood association has provided input and context and done. Um it's also likely though that we will uh in the new zoning ordinance might reduce uh the minimum lot lines. And so if that went from 36 to 32 currently, this could be split into three lots and then I could build 12 units. Um there's a lot of things that could happen in the future. I think that something that was built with um absent the people who showed up today, strong uh neighborhood association support is a much better project, especially when we start to get it sooner um than that. Um I struggle with the cognitive dissonance of we want to protect our renters and we want to keep their rates low by prohibiting new rentals from being built. supply is the primary constraint and that's the primary driver of our rents increases in the city and this will help alleviate that um at the incremental level. So um I hear the I hear the concerns. I think we've addressed them and I I hope that you agree as well. Thank you. Would you like the emails to see or not?

You could put it up there if you want. Um, one question I had for maybe city staff is in relation to communicating with that neighbor on the north, is there any help the city can provide to at least ensure that folks know what's going on?

I'm making an assumption that you're asking us if we can assist in providing some communication or get some feedback relative to the buffer, the expectations on the buffer. Is that correct? I I mean, sure. I'm more than happy to um ask staff to reach out if uh if the neighbors are are willing to to speak with us as well. Um yeah, I just didn't know if there were resources out there. I understand that folks may not want to or feel safe talking to folks, but um at least ensuring they are aware of what's whether um the city is in the best position to facilitate that, I'm not sure, right? But perhaps we could um

leverage some community partnerships to engage in that conversation. Um, and I I also think that, you know, we've as staff uh working in the community for as many years as most of us have, um, I think we might be also in a good position um, to help work with Nathan to, if this were approved, work with Nathan uh, to build a landscape plan that were uh, maybe traditionally acceptable to most, uh, community members as we've done work around the city. Okay. Yeah, that was my going to be my next question for staff related to the buffering and the considerations that the applicant brought up related to um retention or detention basins and like if there are other places on the property that kind of more of that buffering kind of landscaping might I'm not a landscape architect so yeah

so making an assumption that uh buffering uh and landscaping additional buffering and landscaping is is approp appropriate and necessary. Um I what I've heard from Nathan is that he's willing to work with us on on that plan. Um there might be some constraints around trying to add buffering and landscaping in all areas of the site in light of the uh storm water management, but we can definitely um what's shown today. Um I know Nate Williams is here, a storm water engineer. So, I I was wondering in light of the comments that have been raised around storm water, perhaps bringing him up to talk about what the city's minimum standards uh might be um and provide some asurances that although we don't have a storm water management plan today, which is pretty consistent with how we do land use approvals in that we don't ask for that level of information, understanding that um in most cases the storm water engineer is in a better position um to be working with an applicant, a civil engineer on the development of those plans compared to the planning commission or even planning staff. Um we typically do wait for um that level of work to be done after the planning commission determines that this land use is appropriate. So that's not atypical in terms of process, but I think it is fair um for Nathan to provide a little bit of detail and and hopefully assurance that there are storm water expect management storm water management expectations that are in place. Um, and so Nate, maybe you could talk a little bit about what those minimum requirements would be on this development.

Sure. Yeah. And and to help, you can call me Nate to distinguish from Nathan Biller. There's there's a lot of us around. Uh, that's fair. Um, so I I do most of the storm water reviews for new projects, new developments that come through. Um without getting into some of the technical details about what exactly that looks like, generally our storm water requirements for developments um including ones like this and this one specifically too uh they would have to manage a certain amount of volume of storm water on site. So they can calculate what the site uh runs off now in terms of water and then what is estimated to run off once this project would be built. Um and that difference is essentially what they have to manage on site in a couple different capacities. Um typically the ordinances say you have to hold it on site forever. Uh so that's a retention based policy. So if you can infiltrate it into the ground, if you can soak it up through trees, through leaves, um that's really the best. Um there are provisions if the soils don't allow that or if there's high groundwater or other factors that make that really difficult to do. Um, so we do run into that sometimes. In this specific site, it's really hard for me to say if they're going to be able to meet those uh easily or on the less easily side of things because like Kristen mentioned, we don't have that full storm water management plan. We don't have the kind of soil borings, geotechnical report, uh, groundwater tests to know how this site is going to impact some of those things, what the soils are like. Um, as mentioned,

the complexity of meeting those requirements are on the developer side, we our standards are our standards and that we don't change because it's hard. Right. We don't modify those regulations. Right. Right. We uh we have some allowances for things like difficult soils, contaminated soils. Um that would change how those uh requirements can be met through our ordinances. Um but that is correct. the burden is all on the developer and their engineer to be able to provide something that um and the calculations to back up that it is meeting our standards and is going to deal with that volume appropriately. Awesome. Thanks, Nate. Any questions for Nate while he's up here? All right. Thank you. Can you Sorry.

Go ahead. Yeah. Can you also speak to making sure that the water does not run off and the soils um the erosion that that is all managed as as well? Yeah. So that's that's part of the deal, right? Like you can't um for our ordinances send a destructive amount of water or erosion onto someone else's property. So that's not even just specific to new developments. That's generalwide. If if you have a property and then something changes and all of a sudden you're sending dirt into your neighbor's yard, we have language to say that you shouldn't do that. Well, can't do that.

Um and that would be the case here. I mean, obviously with the new development, we'd be looking at things like site stability. we'd have a permit to track vegetation growth and stability. Um, but those would all apply. We we would be looking for things like is the slope going to be stable? Did they propose the appropriate vegetation types? Um, so that would be uh yeah part part of the initial review but also would carry past when and if any permits were to be closed. Great. Thank you very much. Thanks. Okay. discussion questions.

I have some questions. Um I know the packet says that based on the size of the parcel um the maximum the site could support eight dwelling units and I know the applicant made a reference to being able to build eight dwelling units by right. Is that correct or is that under the new zoning ordinance that we're working on?

Laura, can you answer that? So under the current zoning ordinance which is which are that's what's within our our ability to to operate the when we calculate for density we include half of the area of the right ofway adjacent to the property. So, if you take the the 12,000 square feet of the subject property and add in half of the right of way, Prospect Avenue, and then half of the alley, which is also considered um right of way, um that does give a total which that would allow up to eight units with planning commission consideration.

Okay. Thank you. Others thoughts

not everyone at once. Go ahead someone.

I think this um is welldesigned. Um, I note the one neighbor's uh concerns about the um building style, the roof line in particular not necessarily matching uh the neighboring houses and even in that block. Um, but I do think that um it's relatively consistent with the era that the neighborhood was built in. I don't think it's um unsightly. I think it's a pretty attractive um design that we're seeing. I think uh it it fits well on the site considering the uh challenges with the steep slopes. Um I think it's handled relatively well. Um I don't have concerns about uh the storm water. Um I trust that our uh rules will will handle that and engineering can handle that at the time of permitting. Um I think the reduction in density was probably smart. Um I think you know providing more than a parking spot per unit is appropriate. Um, and having the access off the alley, the extension of the alley, um, I think adds to, uh, the walkability of the neighborhood and the attractiveness from the street, uh, as well. So, I like that the auto accesses from the rear. Um, yeah, overall, I I hear the concerns of the neighbors. Uh, some of those things are part of our consideration, some are not. Um, but I think that the positives here significantly outweigh the negatives uh or the potential negative side effects.

Uh, excuse me. I would tend to agree. Um, I think that the way the buildings are cited is appropriate. Uh, agree that utilizing the alley for alley access for ve vehicular traffic is an appropriate response. Um, and I appreciate I appreciate uh the neighborhood concerns and I also appreciate the fact that uh change is difficult and scary, but we also do have um we have a housing needs assessment that was done and we have um try to leave lean on um experts to help us understand uh planning decisions in the And I think we've been told repeatedly that additional density is appropriate and we need to figure out um how to allow additional density. And so with this being uh the site again allows up to eight units uh with our approval. Um and the fact that it was reduced based on community feedback I think uh is appropriate. Um, and I understand the storm water concerns, but uh also understand that that's something that will be happen later and the standards are they exist for a reason and they have to meet them. One thing that I would um like to see the applicant work be able to work with staff on would be finding a way um regardless of how like even if it does complicate storm water management, finding a way to provide a buffer so that cars that are parking in the north side of the parking lot are not shining their lights into that single storm at greater home. Um, I think that there has to well I think that that

would be um a great addition as the landscape plan is finalized whether it's a fence or landscaping or something others on the side. I agree on the buffer that that Brian just mentioned. Um, just from personal experience, I I live in a property where my neighbor's driveway is right up against the side of my house, so I agree with that.

Thanks for that. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, I I there was a lot of community feedback on both sides, so I don't want anyone to feel like they they weren't addressed and considered. Um, and I there was multiple comments kind of about young people and renters, and I want um to make it clear that those are not um elements that the planning commission can consider. We're considering um a multifamily um building on this site and those are not elements that are part of our purview. So, um, as much as they may be concerns, they're not they're not a consideration for today. Storm water, you know, that's already been addressed that it's not a consideration. Um, I think that the applicant has addressed some of the issues that I had with the unpaved alley and just asking questions and understanding that a little bit better. I feel more confident about that. Um, as far as green space, um, I I hear some of the comments that were made. There was multiple comments. Um, but we are a city. We're the second largest city in the state of Michigan. And I think that the city as a whole and the planning department has worked and the parks department has worked really hard to make sure that there's access to green space. Um, and actually on this site, on that property, there's five parks or or um walking trails within a half mile of this site, including Beltnap, um, Mary Waters Park, Frey, uh, Fry Stream, uh, hiking area, Carrier Creek Trails, and Highland Park. So, I heard that, but they're also, you know, property owners have the right to develop their property, and if they're going to be green space for public use, then they should be compensated for that. And I don't think that that's the case with this property. Um, this property has access to green space. This neighborhood has access to green space in other places. So, uh, those were, you know,

just concerns that I wanted to make sure um were not ignored, that were brought up, that are considered, but not a factor, um, in in my decision-m on how I'm going to vote today. Um, I think that there is aesthetic um, thought that goes into this building. the property directly adjacent to the west. If you're actually standing on the street, the height of the building directly across the street is about the same as the proposed buildings. Um the alley, the house located off of an alley is somewhat unique and we don't usually, you know, plan development around houses that are accessed. You know, that's not a typical thing that we have in the city and really want to consider. Um and and even just looking at the density, um there are multiple houses around this area that have this density. Um so when I looked at all those factors, um I I feel in support of this based on our standards for approval.

Great. All right. Thanks, y'all. Yeah, I tend to agree with many of the the comments that were made. Go ahead, Kristen. Sorry, you looks like you had your hand on your button. Um, yeah, I do appreciate that it's incremental um density uh increase that it's utilizing a vacant lot. Um, there are every time I drive by a vacant lot in my neighborhood too, I'm like something should be here. So, um I appreciate that and I definitely agree if um the applicant can work with staff related to landscaping and um ensuring that uh those lights aren't going into the neighboring house somehow um that would be great and I think it would help with like the massing difference um too from the vantage point of that house off the alley. Um but yeah, I I'm in support. I'll leave it there. Everything is folks have covered everything else. I think

I just wanted to um make sure I'm understanding that in the uh draft resolution uh whether what I think I heard was what we drafted as the 2B option that the planning commission would like to see some additional transitional features between the building and the property line. uh specifically uh that the use of landscaping needs to be um uh considered as a transitional feature. The buffer between the parking lot and the uh and the adjacent lot lines are are a little bit different in that those are required. Um so there's some uh additional conversation there. So those are kind of two separate issues. So I just wanted to make sure that uh we're clear on that. but also that I guess I just wanted a couple head nods that 2B is is what I think I heard that most of you um comment that you would like to see which for purposes for Nathan and the um neighbors that additional landscaping around the building is going to be expected. Um also for the record I didn't hear a lot of commentary about the building height uh three stories. It was sort of maybe more subtle than I I think I'm comfortable with. So, if we could have a couple of additional comments uh related to the building height specifically since three stories is a special land use um in addition to the actual use as multif family. Um so I was hoping if the planning commission is comfortable with that that there's maybe some more explicit discussion around the height. Yeah, I was uh going to comment and then uh my former commissioner did also I think in in reviewing the site and and walking the the street um the the homes directly across the street are all three stories um off the street um with garage under the lower level with kind of uh

you know a reverse walkout style. Um so initially my thoughts on the height were yeah a little suspect given the homes on the on the west side of the street. However, um those those east side homes are all three stories. And I I just would comment that I think, you know, I think the neighbor concerns are are valid anytime you bring new residents into an existing uh street, especially one like this where, you know, it feels like a kind of a small neighborhood street uh because of the, you know, it's not really a through street. Um yeah, those those concerns are valid. And yet I think uh you know our master plan process was uh exhaustive uh over the last few years and um I think we'll see zoning changes coming up as a result of that that really um you know promote and encourage exactly this type of development. Um and so I think for that reason I'm I'm comfortable with this Okay. Would anyone um want to make a motion or be willing to make a motion? Before we do, I wonder there's a we didn't address, but there was a condition uh Nathan that was suggested uh by staff that the bay windows be reduced as they're projecting like six feet into the setback and they need to be only three feet. Um so that is going to be I think a condition presented. Is that you comfortable with that? Okay. All right. Now therefore, be it resolved that the planning commission approves the special land use and site plan review request of Nathan Biller of a six a new six-unit multiple family residential development consisting of three three-story duplex structures at

837 Prospect AB Northeast for the following reasons. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the master plan and zoning ordinance, including the zone district, because the proposed use will support the recommendations of the 2024 community master plan and Bellnap lookout area specific plan to allow a greater variety of housing types and residentially scaled duplex structures in low density residential zone districts. meet the underlying intent of the TNLDR zone district to create, maintain, and promote a variety of housing opportunities for individual households and to maintain the desired physical characteristics of the city's existing neighborhoods. The proposed building and site will meet all standards of section 5.12.08.e E because all elements of the site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to topography, the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property and the type, size and proportions of the buildings. Uh on-site parking will be provided accessed by the alley. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the residential use is at an appropriate density for the size and nature of the site. Duplex structures and architectural features such as front porches and bay windows complement the surrounding development in the neighborhood. The proposed building height is less than the maximum height that can be permitted. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the proposed building setbacks meet the minimum requirement. The proposed building height, massing, and site placement as proposed provide adequate transition between uses. Adequate on-site parking will be provided with the reduction of one parking space supported by available on street parking and transit. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, odors, or visual clutter because parking will be accessed by the alley.

Landscape buffers will be provided as a condition of approval to screen the parking lot to mitigate glare and noise disturbance to abuing residential properties. The proposed use would not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrianoriented environment because the building setback will be con consistent with neighboring properties maintaining the street wall. The additional activity resulting from the project will reinforce the neighborhood's sense of place. The connections provided to public walkways will promote walkability. The building and site area required for the proposed use will maintain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because the board of zoning appeals in granting of variance found that grading and removal of vegetation and a defined steep slope on the property to facilitate development could be permitted. Public or private infrastructure already exists and will safeguard the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because required improvements to the infrastructure will be made as necessary with the cost borne by the developer. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the city because the proposed development will encourage additional investment in the neighborhood. Be it further resolved that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project. Standard conditions set A. Approvals that the application and plans submitted by the applicant and signed, dated, and stamped by the planning director shall constitute the approved plans except if plan elements do not meet ordinance requirements and or as amended in this resolution. That the use shall operate according to the application and per testimony. That this approval does not include any proposed signs and any future signs shall be subject to the requirements of article 15 of the ordinance and permits received prior to installation. that a land use development services LUDS permit, building permit, and all other required permits be obtained from the city of Grand Rapids prior to the construction, demolition, or operation. That any expansion of the approved

special land use requires an additional special land use review and approval by the planning commission. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable city ordinances and policies and all state laws. That this approval shall take effect 16 calendar days after the date of the planning commission's decision. Uh number two uh that transitional features consisting of um well increase setback landscaping or fencing shall be provided uh per discussion. Wasn't that uh number three that a 10-ft landscape buffer meeting the minimum plant material standards of section 5.11.12 of the zoning ordinance shall be provided between the parking lot and the north and south property lines. Number four, that the bay windows on the east elevation shall be modified to project into the front yard by no more than three feet.

Um, one potential consideration is whether an additional um condition related to construction um time the construction activity being limited between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. which we've done in areas where neighbors are so close.

Okay. Yeah, that would be uh consistent with other residential developments because the um city code for construction activity is is more permissive uh which has been uh challenging when we have especially in our traditional neighborhoods but just in any neighborhood that permissiveness of the construction hours has been um problematic and so consistent with other special land uses we've added that. All right, we have a motion. We have support. Support.

All right. Any other discussion? True. Any additional discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. All right. We will go to our next case which is 422 North Park Street Northeast. Avery will walk us through this. All right. The next item on the agenda is a request for approval to expand an existing dental office use on the ground floor. This requires special lane use approval due to the potential impacts on the business district. The community master plan designates this neighborhood this as neighborhood center which is intended to reinforce a pedestrian and transit friendly environment as well as promote a mix of uses. The subject property shown in green is located in and surrounded by the TNTBA zone district. And the subject property is located to the east of Monroe Avenue, to the south side of North Park, and located to the north of two residential properties as well as I96 to the south. The applicant owns the subject property as well as the adjacent surface parking lot to the west um that provides sufficient parking to the dental office use. The subject property contains a singlestory commercial storefront that has five storefronts along the front. The dental office currently occupies these two westernmost storefronts and is

proposing to expand into this storefront that you see on the cursor here to the east. The current dental office includes five dental stations and a check-in area um located here to the rear of the building. Um and that is accessed from the parking lot um shown here. So, you just access it from the sidewalk and then there's an entrance um shown here. So, this is the parking lot and then the rear entrance with that check-in area here. With the expansion, there will be four new dental office spaces in that 900 ft area. Um, I would like to note that the zoning ordinance does require a primary building entrance along the front facade. Um, however, the main customer entrance for this dental office use has been located in the rear um, as it's proposed today um, and has been this way for several decades. As part of the proposal, the planning commission should consider that the existing storefront um that they're expanding to here um is proposed to be removed um and that the main entrance would be at the rear of the site um as it has been. to talk a little bit more about the storefront that they're expanding into. Um, this door is proposed to be removed. And essentially, this storefront will replicate and match um exactly what's shown here um to the farthest um western storefront um with the opaque glass on the bottom and the the transparent glazing above. Um the zoning ordinance does require um glass to be transparent um with a minimum requirement of 70% visible light

transmission. Um this will not be met and the applicant is requesting a departure for that transparency requirement um to allow for the fully opaque windows along the storefront. Um the planning commission should consider whether the administrative departure for this requirement is warranted for the project. As far as neighborhood input, um we have received three letters in support um from um Tom Foolery Galleries here and then just several patients of the dental office use. Um, so in summary, the planning commission should consider the impact of the ground floor dental office expansion as well as the appropriateness of the proposed window treatments as well as the prop appropriateness of removing that um, primary entrance here um, and rather facilitating patient entry to the rear of the site. Does planning commission have any questions for me?

Questions for Avery? I do have one. Yes. Do we know the history of how the current transparency condition came to be? Yeah, it's been this way and operating for several decades and at the time it was an allowed special lane use approval um and has continued as such um to today. Okay. Thank you. Does that go for the entrance as well? Yes. And you guys can have the applicant speak a little bit more to that as well. Sure. Great. Anyone else? Okay, thanks Avery. We'll have the applicant come up.

Hi, I'm uh Dr. Rob Dame. I am the owner of North Park Family Dental um and the owner of the property that you see there. Um as was said, this this has been a dental office for uh over 70 years. Um I have had the privilege of um owning and operating it for the past 33 years. Um and during that time we've served multiple generations of families in the North Park um community. Um the expansion that we are proposing does not change the nature of the use. It remains a dental healthc care facility. What it does do is it allows the next generation of our practice to join. Uh my son will be graduating from dental school in May um and will be joining us and my daughter will be graduating from dental hygiene school in April and uh will be joining us. Um, and we just we need room for them. Um, we're not expanding hours. We're not increasing the intensity of the use. Um, we have, as I said, we have adequate on-site parking. Um, I I would like to provide a little context regarding the zoning intent for this corridor. Um, while the long-term vision may emphasize retail use, my experience as the property owner for 30 years um has been that retail businesses just are not sustainable at this location. Um we have had multiple retail tenants over the years um most are there for 1 to three years um that realize they can't make it and close their doors. In contrast um this dental office has been here for over 70 years and provide a reliable neighborhood serving use. Um regarding the storefront windows um as a healthc care provider we are subject to federal HIPPA privacy regulations. Um, we cannot have patients receiving treatment in operatories that are visible from public sidewalks. Protecting the patient privacy is both a

legal requirement and an ethical responsibility. Our proposed solution mirrors the design that is already in place um in the existing portion of our building and um we feel it gives an attractive um consistent and professional appearance while ensuring patient confidentiality. Um I respectfully ask for your approval of the special land use application and the requested VLT deviation. Um and I thank you for your time and consideration and and for your service to the community. This has been very interesting for me to watch and I I appreciate uh the the care and concern you guys put into it.

Thank you. Does anyone have questions for the applicant? I I am curious about the the treatment on the windows currently. Is it is it it appears to be like a mirrored two-way kind of situation? It is not. It's totally opaque. And on the interior um it is an 8ft wall. You see a drywalled um 8ft wall. Those are um all treatment rooms along that location. And um and the thought when we did it was and this was done 20 years ago

um roughly um I I originally occupi when I bought the practice I occupied just the first the corner spot there um and then expanded over uh roughly 20 years ago. Um, and the the uh the thought was that e even if you have glass there that seemingly is one way, how comfortable are you sitting there um in a room receiving treatment while you're wondering is this really can this person really see not see in or can they see in and it just provides a much more private atmosphere. So then are the upper transoms?

They are. Okay. Yeah. So there's a that is at a eight well on the on the first unit that is higher than an 8 foot. So those ceilings in those room are like 12 ft on the one end. Um and um but the so there's a very high opening there just to provide natural daylight as much as we can. Um the two opaque you do see too opaque high up. 20 years ago, we had a dark room um and that was where the dark room was located um in there. Now we of course everything is digital and we don't need a dark room to develop x-rays anymore, but that's why those two are different than the others. Um and I would be open to changing that that would be perfectly fine.

And then could you talk a little bit about the entrance in the rear and uh then getting away doing away with the entrance in the place you'd be expanding into?

Yeah. So, being on a hill, access is has always been an issue. Um, at the rear, we have a handicapped accessible ramp that is there. Um, it's more convenient for people to park right in the lot and walk in the door. Um, there there just wasn't I mean, before I remodeled the first time, 20 years ago, we were bringing people in through the North Park Street entrance. I'd have to haul wheelchairs up the steps um in order to get them them in. So when we went through round one of expansion and everything, uh we changed that. Um and at the time, I know a question was asked about it. At the time, nothing about transparency or anything like that was brought up that I can recall at all. So this caught me off guard. Yeah, I have some yeah questions or concerns about that too, just related to some of the kind of non-patient spaces that could be put at those fronts to allow some additional or some transparency in general. And related to kind of the commentary that was that you provided related to like the viability of retail on this like having no activity going in and out of your office. um or having some activity going in and out of your office could contribute to kind of improving that situation for folks um in those other suites. And so I guess I don't know how you would respond to that, but those are some of the things that I'm grappling with.

I can say this. So to do to flip-flop some of those things is going to be a huge expense. I mean, we spent months trying to lay out a plan where we would not have to demolish the five treatment rooms that I have right now and I could still stay functional and operational to see patients and treat patients while we're expanding into that other space. To move some of those elements to a storefront location would be extreme probably cost prohibitive. um where I would then probably, you know, start to look at just other locations completely.

Other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. We'll have you set. Um

all right, I'll open up the public hearing on this case. If you're here and would like to give us your thoughts, come up to the mic and please share. Okay, I will close the public hearing and turn to commissioners. I I wonder about the and this has come up multiple times, right, with medical uses in particular on these types of locations and um you know in some travels I've noticed that new construction in in towns where it's sort of a uh trying to create a town square style atmosphere where there's um buildings built right up along the street and yet the parking is all behind uh or the parking is behind and really the access to the to the retail is from behind, but when you walk down the street, um there's glass, but the the typically it's it's not it it is typically opaque, but it almost always has like uh graphics on it and signage indicating what's going on there. Or if it's a sporting goods store, it may have pictures of people playing baseball or something. And it just gives a different feel than what and this is not necessarily criticism of this particular application but what we feel is when we get this is often feels like a just a brick wall and then we call you know if they wanted to put some graphics in there of kids smiling because they're so happy they just went to the dentist like then it becomes signage and it's advertising and there's all these special permits and I just I just wonder if there's some way in a situation like this I would I understand the situation and I appreciate the challenge. Um, I just wonder if it if it wouldn't be better actually if we had some graphics along there. So when you're walking along, you know that there's a dental office. Maybe it even could say, "Hey, North Park Family Dental, please enter around the rear." You know, something along those lines and not be necessarily subject to the same signage hoops. I don't I don't know. Um, but I've when

I've seen this in other communities, uh, where you kind of have a streetscape that gives a sense that it's all retail, the reality is no one's accessing the retail from the street side. If you happen to be walking down the street, the doors are not functional. Uh it's all back of house stuff. Um but there is something that gives it some sense of life instead of just these opaque windows or brick walls. I know in an unrelated situation, we did require u mitigation through the use of um what do you call them like window displays that were that were just more I I want to say art installation and uh some creativity used there so that we were using the installations and such less as signage but more is something of interest. So, um not having a a full appreciation yet for the for the scale of the um construction that would be necessary in that tenant space. Wondering if you know whether there could be some art or um display windows that could be considered uh in lie of um the the opaque glass.

Yeah, I think something like that. Am I looking at the storefront, the picture of the storefront that even that? Yeah. If if we create remove the the Gypsy Trader storefront and just simply create another wall of glass and brick, like I'd almost prefer to see signage up there, right? Like can we put some signage on the building, something that says there's actual activity going on here. Uh you just are going to enter around the rear of the building. And now it's limited to just the graphic on that on that, you know, one door that doesn't get used. Um, but yeah, I could I could see that too. If I mean, specifically, if it were retail, I would think uh, you know, a faux wall behind the window that would allow for a display of some sort would make sense. I don't know if that does here. Um, but just something to liven it up a little bit because I think we've run into this a couple times.

Should we have the app? Would you like to respond to that? Well, well, the other thing I would I just wanted to add is like I live right in Easttown. There's Easttown Pediatric Dental right there, too. But like all along their parking lot, they've got their patient rooms and there are windows there, but they have shades on them. And so I don't I just don't know if there are different ways that that could be handled. Right. I do remember that case, but go ahead. Yeah. Um I I didn't quite get your

uh Are you familiar with Easttown Pediatric Dental? Um right on Wealthy Street near Lake Drive. So they have a practice right there, too. And it's it's essentially there's a parking lot on one side and then it fronts uh Wealthy Street on the other. The front is the is the waiting area. That's all windows, but then along the side of the parking lot is also all windows, but they have like shades that can be pulled down. But there's um so there's there are times when there is open and transparent, but other times when they have the shades drawn, so they have transparency into their treatment rooms. Mhm. Yeah. Yeah.

I assume when no one's in there.

Yeah. Um, well, our our rooms are used pretty much all the time. Um, yeah, as far as like a display window, I don't know what I would display as a dental office. I mean, it's not like I have wares that I'm selling. Um, so yeah, I for me as far as the like the window decals and stuff, signage, I man, yeah, I don't know, you know, I know I have um in the past talked about signage out there and you're limited to so much per square foot of it, you know, so you have all limits that way. Um the window decals to me look for personally it looks a little hokey to me. Um especially for a professional dental office. Um I suppose I mean we could I'm sure there's a classy way we could do it. What I have seen it just looks kind of kind of hokey. Um but I would love to put a nice sign along that North Park Street there. Um that that would be something great that I would be very open to. Um I just really like that professional, consistent, clean look along the front of my building there. Um so that's kind of where I'm at. Would you be willing to work with staff on potential kind of solutions to break up that or to minimize kind of the negative impacts of that lack of transparency?

Sure. Sure. Um I don't know how I don't know how fast time goes um with with that sort of thing. I I'm my goal is to get this done by July when my kids get their license. Um, so I mean that that would be a huge issue, but certainly I'm open to suggestions and things if we can work that out.

Yeah, I mean we staff can certainly be available to assist. And what I think I'm hearing from the planning commission is that the continuation of the opaque glass into that third tenant bay um is undesirable and that there is some uh ask for um I'm I'm not going to say signage because um while there may be some decals and such that could be added um the additional signage will have a a conflict with other aspects of our ordinance. But um with the soven guard over on Bridge Street, for example, we removed a window bay. The the bay the framing is still there, but the the glazing was taken out and a uh a mural is to be installed there. I don't know if it's been installed yet, but that's the expectation. Um like I said, we've used um window displays in other circumstances where we had to mit mitigate for the lack of transparency. It does not need to be a product of what you may or may not sell. It could just be partnering with an area artist and having them put something in there that's of uh interest or uh just vis visually more pleasant than perhaps a another bay of black glass. Mhm.

Um, so there's certainly a variety of options that seem like they would still be a cost-effective uh solution for you, but also something um beyond the continuation of the the the black glazing that doesn't seem to be preferred by the planning commission.

And so I guess I'm I'm I have a little bit of confusion there. How do we how do we have a wall inside of that? And and isn't the person just going to be looking at a decal or a painting and then into a into a opaque wall? Yes. Yes. There would be a wall that would be built I'm making numbers up. 3 feet into your space. So there would be it it doesn't have to be three feet. Please don't take that little thing cuz I don't got 3 ft.

There is a distance between the uh windows and the wall. And in between that space, that dimension, you would have something in there that would be whether it's an art installation, a display of of something and we can work with you on, you know, suggested options. Um but yeah, it just breaks up the what people are walking by. So it's Yeah.

Go ahead. Hi, I'm I'm Mike Bellio from the design forum architect. Um, one possible idea. Yeah, I'm just running brainstorming here, guys. So, um, perhaps we could maybe do some transparency here, Rob. I just a thought, you know, I mean, this is all just public circulation space. Okay. Yeah. Sorry, you're away from the mic. So, we're going to have to try to summarize for the minist perhaps we could add some transparent glass for that full height. You know, perhaps in that corridor hallway space. Yeah, that's what I was going to suggest, too. It sounds like you have drywall walls already inside of this opaque glass at your existing.

We're not going to be doing that in the new concept. We were planning on just putting an opaque film um you know potentially which could be removed in the future, you know, should it be change hands or whatnot. So,

and considering that there's already walls built on the inside of the existing practice, I wouldn't ask them to change that or to try to rebuild that. I do think the opportunity lies where you will have a doctor's office with your existing door that has the opaque film on it plus the expansion where you do have almost half of that new space will be a hallway it looks like. And so if we can incorporate some transparency there even if it has some very limited amount of glazing so that it's not a huge contrast in appearance from the street. Fine. But at least you're getting some daylight in. There's, you know, eyes on the street as well. Um, I think that that would make me a lot happier. I I advocate often for more signs. Uh, and with the expansion of your street frontage, you will now be able to have a much larger uh wall sign. So, I think

as long as it's not an electronic message sign. No, I don't I don't like No, I don't like those. But wall signs are great and you'll have a big opportunity here. Yeah, Mike makes a great point and I I think that would be, you know, a compromise that would would definitely um hold our um privacy uh concerns in place and provide some transparency to that glass. there is that would not be a treatment area and so it would be something that we that we could do there.

And for consistency, I think if you're able to change those upper level windows that used to be the dark room that that makes sense. So I like that idea actually. Awesome. Thank you so much. Anybody else while we have our applicant back up here? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Other thoughts from folks?

So, this one's a really tough one for me. I think uh we've reviewed and approved office or dental uses on um at street level a number of different times, but I think this is the first time that I'm aware of that. It's pretty much a blank wall along the entire street frontage and without an entrance off a street. And so, Um, I'm excited that they this location is working. I'm excited that uh they have the desire and the opportunity to invest more um in their business and expand their business operations. But with the number of things that we're talking about, I'm really curious if like is this zoned appropriately or is this I mean I feel like we're in a position where we're talking about this isn't um like traditional business zoning, right? because we're getting rid of a large section of this street frontage is now turning its back on the street and um beholden to a parking lot which is inherently not an urban design choice. So, I don't know that we even have um at least in the traditional neighborhood zone districts that would support a use with this orientation. But, um yeah, I guess I'm struggling a little bit with how much we're being asked to give up on addressing the street. I I understand those concerns. I think

if this were a completely new application, I'd uh understand it uh and probably feel similarly, but this is essentially a 30% addition of their street frontage. Um there's already an existing use here. Hopefully we can improve what's existing. Um, and I understand the complexity of the operations and the inside of the building and not being able to reorient that. And I think from a a patient perspective, having a single entrance makes a lot of sense. Again, if we were to design this from scratch, would we want a parking lot at an intersection that um you know, tied into an entrance to the back of a building? No. But at the same point, I think like it is relatively attractive all things considered. And I think that the the way they've handled the accessible ramp to the rear entrance and things makes sense. And I think that there can be some improvements with the street facing facade that make it a little easier to understand from a user perspective.

I agree with Kyle. I mean, Brian, I share your concerns that, you know, if this was like Kyle said, if this was a new application for 100% new use, I would not be in favor of it at all. And I'm typically not in favor of, you know, non- retail uses taking up retail first floor retail spaces, but given the history and given the the fact that that there's a broad level of support, um, you know, this this business has been in the neighborhood for, you know, longer than we've all been alive. So, it's um I I'm I'm a little more inclined to to agree with agree to let it go forward others. Yeah. I mean, as I I raised kind of at the beginning of this, like I too have concerns about the transparency and um the entrance being the way they are. And given that it's an expansion and not a whole new application like we would with other folks, right? We can't ask them to undo past things beyond um kind of the the expansion of the use or what's reasonable considering the amount of investment they're going to be making into the new application. Um, I drive by this a lot cuz my my son goes to North Park, so I'm going past this um on a regular basis and I would like to see some more activity here. So, if there's a way to add some of that transparency like we've talked about um kind of encourage more kind of pedestrian activity along this stretch, that would be great. but it's also right by the

highway and so it's a lot of driving past here even though you have um good bike ped infrastructure um in front and nearby. Um so yeah, I'm while I do share all of those concerns, I am um supportive of this application moving forward. I am too. I'm willing to make a motion. I'll just need some help on the transparency language when we get there. Thank you. Now, therefore, it be resolved that the planning commission approves the special land use and site plan review request of North Park Property LLC for expansion of a dental office on the ground floor in the TNTBA zone district at 422 North Park Street Northeast for the following reasons. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the master plan and zoning ordinance including the zone district because the proposed use will support the expansion of an existing business and contribute to the mixeduse character of the neighborhood business district. The proposed use will meet the site plan review standards of section 5.12.8.e E because the main entrance to the building found at the rear of the site provides access to the public street via sidewalk which is located along the adjacent parking lot. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood adjacent properties and the natural environment because activity associated with the proposed use is not anticipated to impose a burden on other uses in the area and the proposed use will complement and expand on the existing use on the property. Additionally, the proposed use will support the desired mixeduse character of the neighborhood. Potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed development on the neighborhood and adjacent properties will be minimized through the proposed use will provide

additional support for residents in the neighborhood and parking on an adjacent property and street parking are available. The proposed uses will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter because no outdoor or late evening activities are to be conducted, and the traffic generated by the use will be minimal and will only occur during typical business hours. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrianoriented environment. Because existing pedestrian access is provided from the parking lot and the building is existing and the approved site layout is not proposed to change. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or economic welfare of the city because the use is not anticipated to create nuisances or needs that will require additional city services. The proposed use will comply with all other applicable city ordinances and policies and all applicable state laws. Be it further resolved that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project. Standard conditions set A, approvals. All right. And number two, can I get some help on the transparency language?

You read way too fast for me. Great. I'm sorry. Um, just give me sorry one second to We're kind of going back and forth here.

Did you read number two at all or No. No. Okay. uh that this approval does include a reduction in the 70% or greater VLT transparency requirement of section 5.2.14I. However, the applicant work with planning staff to minimize the use of the opaque glass into the expanded tenant bay and consider the use of clear glass into the hallway or through the use of window displays and/or art along the frontage. It's a little sloppy. Can you also specifically address the transom windows that are currently the dark room? I had that as a separate

suggested condition. So, yes, but can we get there? Can we can we talk about the one I just read? Would you like me to reread that? You do it one more time.

It It's sloppy. I'm sorry. um that this approval does include a reduction in the 70% VT or greater uh or excuse me a reduction in the 70% or greater VT transparency requirement of section 5214I. However, the applicant work with planning staff to minimize the use of the opaque glass into the expanded tenant bay uh and utilize clear glass into the hallway andor utilize window displays and art. Could we say something about the use of opaque glass only where it I'm not going to get it right to, but I'm just thinking about the the requirement to protect the patient privacy. So that's where we'll allow opaque glass. Everywhere else we prefer transparent,

minimize the use of the of the opaque glass. Um only where it's essential to meet it is patient privacy. to meet patient privacy. Okay, that is probably a far more succinct way of phrasing that and then we can work with um the um owner on and maybe the architect a little bit. Great. So, I picking Oops.

Well, I just I I'm the one that brought brought this up. Um and I don't you know, if there's if there's broad support for what you have in there, that's great. I I don't I guess I wouldn't want to put the requirement of artwork or display windows in a in a dental office if you know if there's not necessarily broad support for that. I'm actually quite comfortable with the transparency in the transoms that don't exist today as well as the the hallway space, the non-patient spaces. Um that that to me is enough. And then if the applicant, you know, if I were in their shoes, I would consider additional signage. All those things make a difference to me. I I don't want to try to force artwork, I guess. So I would be comfortable striking that piece if if

but you know, I'm just I'm just me. So you all can I agree with that. I agree with that too. So then we're waiting. Do we have support yet? I don't know. I want before we discuss Okay, go ahead. any hope that a reduction in the 70% or greater VT transparency requirement is approved only where essential to protect patient privacy. Beautiful. Thank you, Laura. And then you had one other regarding the Yeah, I did. Um, scroll up. That the transom windows be maintained and transparent glass be used.

Thank you. and that this approval does include an alternative entrance lo location at the rear of the building rather than at the front facade as required in section 5.6.5. Do we have support? I'll support and then as part of discussion only suggestively from a form perspective that I guess it'd be the eastern set of windows the far east side of the new expansion area if that were also transparent glass but you could include blinds on the inside to protect the patients privacy I think it would look more consistent from the street elevation so not jumping back to a black opaque glaz glass, but potentially just using a different form of of blind would be nice from my perspective, but not required. Well, I I think from an administrative perspective of this condition, if the applicant were um willing to utilize the blinds, I would consider that the condition is condition of the planning commission is still satisfied whether it's opaque glass or blind. But

yeah, I'm just saying be nice if they would do that, but I'm not I don't think it's been required with the Yeah. Yeah. All right. All right. I have motion, support, and discussion. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. I. All right. Motion carries. Thank you so much. The hardest on commission I think I've ever had. You nailed it.

Okay. Good. All right. Let's move forward. Our next case is 1108 Merit Street Southeast. All right. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new two family dwelling at 11:08 Merit Street Southeast. This street is classified as a neighborhood residential street type and requires special lane use approval. The community master plan and southtown area specific plan designate this area as compact neighborhood which has the intent of supporting more diverse housing options. The subject property is located in and surrounded by the TNLDR zone district. The 5,000 square ft vacant property is located on the south side of Merit Street, located between Alto and Nelson Avenues. And the site is currently unimproved green space that is largely flat with little to no grade change. Here's the front elevation in which the proposed development consists of a twostory slab ongrade duplex of approximately 21,000 square ft. All site layout and building element requirements will be met. Um the development also includes two front-facing entrances shown here. Um the one to the right is to the upper level unit and the one to the left is to the ground level entry. um to that unit. Um both units are proposed to be two bedrooms and one bathroom each.

There is some variation with the facade. Um the zoning ordinance requires a 60% building facade um located along the RBL. Um what is proposed is 71% and that upper level entry to the unit um is located here um which is set 6 ft back um which is a little hard to tell from that other elevation. So, I just wanted to note that. Um, as far as the site layout, the two family dwelling requires three parking spaces which will be provided on the parking pad um located off the alley to the rear. Um, the parking pad will be striped and adequately buffered with a 6ft tall privacy fence um to each side with the residential properties. The parking pad will also connect to those front entrances um with a five- foot wide pedestrian walkway. The applicant has reached out to the Elder Heights Neighborhood Association via email and has sent um notification to nearby residents by mail. staff has received several letters from nearby residents expressing opposition to the project, just outlining concerns um primarily focused on maintaining a single family character within this neighborhood. Today, the planning commission should consider whether this type of development is appropriate on the neighborhood residential street type that it's classified as. The potential impact of a duplex on the desired character of the surrounding neighborhood. The compatibility of the proposed structure with the architectural character of the neighborhood. And lastly, whether the proposed site plan provides efficient and livable use on the property. Are there any questions for me?

Go ahead. I do have just one question. In the in the application, the the applicant indicates uh and I and I believe this is correct, but this is new, so forgive me, but that um he could buy right could create a single family home with an ADU. Correct. Correct. Which is I guess in the way I which is uh quite not that dissimilar to this, right? Other than except for in that case, one of the units would be quite a bit larger than the other. Correct. Yeah. So the ADU could only be 40% of the gross floor area of the main structure. Yeah. In addition, other I mean the neighbors could also put in ADUs with and rent them out uh by right. Yep. Okay. Just want to clarify that. Thank you.

Any other questions for Avery? All right. Thank you very much. We'll have the applicant come up. My name is Francisco Melendez from Wilson Whitman Homes. uh on this property 1108 Merit as you had mentioned it it you can have a accessory dwelling unit. We decided to shoot for a duplex just because of the area and we think it's going to fit into the neighborhood a little bit better aesthetically. Uh essentially everything else uh should should be the same. The lot lines and and the distances and and the parking allowed.

Great. Any questions for the applicant? any I'm sorry. Anything else you wanted to share? No, that should Yeah. Come on up. Greg is

I'm Greg Mets. Um I'm helping Wilson Francis Fisco on some of the stuff. So I just have a few comments and Avery did a great job. She took away a lot of my talking points about the compact neighborhood. So thank you Avery. Um also one thing I just want to add. It does allow for different income types by allowing these smaller places to be rented as opposed to a full full family house. Um to the ADU, he could build this house, this two-story house as a single family and have a much larger ADU at 40%. So in essence, by not doing ADU, in some ways he's keeping this a little bit more compact. And as far as scale, it does relate to a lot of the houses, especially on Alto Street. There's a lot of taller two-story houses. So, I do think it's consistent with the neighborhood. Um, my two cents. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but with the new the changes that we made to the zoning ordinance or that city commission made to the zoning ordinance, ADUs are also allowed on duplex properties. Yes. Okay. Sorry, that was so long ago, right? Yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure one would fit on this property, but I did want to mention that, too. Um, it could be attached. Oh, it could be attached. Sure. Okay. Well, it seems like we're good for the public hearing now. I'll open up the public hearing. If you're here and would like to comment on this case, please come up and let us know your thoughts.

Yeah. My name my name is Mark Owens. I live in 11:04 Merit. There's no 1106 Merit that I know of. And so my house will be right next door to this lot. Um, first of all, this area is zoned traditional uh neighborhood lowdensity residential single family. And I guess one thing I need to ask is what is zoning law ordinances for anyway? I mean, I understand they're meant to protect existing single family residential neighborhoods and if they can be changed at any time or just have to have a commission meeting like this. Um, this is a quiet walkable area with a mature landscape. Uh, the property has always been attached to the house next door, 1112 Mar Street. I've lived there 43 years and it's always been used by the families that live there for their kids to play in. Uh, they set up those bouncing tambourine or trampolines and uh or just have when they have guests over or neighbors over, they set up chairs and stuff in that area and have cookouts and things like that. It's always worked out real well. This is a lot of smaller houses. Uh, and it tends to be you tend to know the people across the street or the people next door. I know most of mine pretty well or at least somewhat. And um, I talked to Francisco and I've sent him some emails and we've looked at this and uh, a lot of things he talked about I like. And one thing and I kind of I'm just learning here but what has been brought up with some of the previous properties as far as parking and this is parking in the alley off the back and I thought I proposed to Francisco about possibly putting up a car port so just so there's no cars pulling in and out. This alley usually isn't plowed on a regular basis either. It's plowed occasionally but not every storm. And uh it tends to end up being a parking lot sometimes for people when they have guest over, they just park in the alley

and assume that nobody's going to worry about that or need to use the alley. Um and I know Grand Rapids has a desire for additional housing units and I think a a single family unit would enhance that vacant lot very well. Um, I would just like to see us maintain a quality established neighborhood. And uh I'm also concerned with some of the things when I talked to Francisco previously, we talked about maybe a privacy fence along the side there, but now we're talking about this 5-ft walkway. And uh that has me concerned with people walking right by my windows and to get to the front of the property where whether and the people that bought the house next door have already put up a huge 6-ft privacy fence. And like I said, it's always been kind of a neighborhood, a small house neighborhood where people know each other. And now if the next thing now I have to put up a fence between, you know, you start building bunkers instead of houses. And my last point is she mentioned the property going up being 21,000 square feet. And I don't know if that was correct or not.

I think it was the lot area she was talking about. The lot is is it really 21,000 square feet? 2100. Sorry. Okay. Yeah. All right. Well, for the building. Thanks for listening. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Hello again, Andrew. Strongtowns Grand Rapids. Um, I actually live close enough to this house where when I punched it into Google because I was like, I think that's right around the corner for me said that was a one minute walk. Um, and so I will be able to stand on my roof and watch this construction happening. Um, I think it's great. I think adding density to neighborhoods. Obviously, it's the duplex going into a vacant lot. Um filling in those missing teeth as the mayor would call it. Um the duplex is great because it's adding density to the neighborhood. Uh these neighborhoods are nice. They're kind of up and coming a little bit as well. Um and so getting some new development in there. The develop this project really fits a lot of like the imagery of the that neighborhood as well. I like it having a patio up front. That always helps with community connections. um as well. So that way people can sit out front, say hi to their neighbors, you know, that kind of stuff. I have a table out on my patio. Um and then a lot of the the uh the buildings in the neighborhood have some of those patios. A lot of these houses also are kind of 1940s built where they had like post and like postwar boom kind of housing types um that are and so I think getting something new and a little bit fresh and something a little bit you know different than that um is a really net positive for the community as well. Um thank you.

Thank you.

Hi my name is Nathan Biller. I'm a small infill developer working in the city. Um, I'm obviously very supportive of this. The fact that we are still requesting special land uses for duplexes in TNLDR seems like a huge miss. Um, we have bills in the House that likely will legalize ADUs and make them much larger than what our current ordinance allows anyway. Um, it would be great if we could lead on policy instead of being reactive to it. Uh I know that the ADU uh thing is on your agenda for the rest of the time, but this is an easy win um and an obvious yes in my opinion. Thank you. Anyone else on this case? Okay, I will close the public hearing commissioners. Oh, maybe one one thing. Um I'll have the applicant come back up. I'm sorry, sir. The public Oh, yes. Get your glasses. I'm sorry. Um, could you come back up? Um, Francisco, I'm wondering if you can talk about We didn't talk about landscaping or fencing. Could you address

the I I am open to dialogue on fencing. There's already a 6ft fence on the left side. Okay. So, I guess we could talk and see what what we can come up with for privacy, whether it be a fencing or or landscaping. For landscaping. I I Yeah, I guess I I don't know that um we would suggest that it's required. I was just wondering what your current plan is. It's not required, right? No, not no unless the But we usually do. I mean, the last house we built on 1014 Lafayette, we did put fencing in the back just to keep a little bit of privacy and everybody, you know, have their own space.

Okay, cool. And I understand the walkway going from the side to the front of the house, you know, he probably wants some privacy on that side. So, okay. All right. Thank you. I just didn't I wanted to know what your current plan was. Thank you. Okay, commissioners.

I think this is really thoughtfully scaled for the neighborhood. Um, it would have been very easy for just to have a couple more bedrooms or something else in each unit. Um, and I think the sizes, uh, it relates to the surrounding buildings. Typically, I would say I would like the finished floor height to match the neighboring properties or be in line with it. Uh, it looks like there maybe is a foot difference. I understand this being slab on grade makes that more complicated. Uh, but related to that, this is also set back from the curb further than we would typically see uh, in this type of neighborhood. And the further back you are, the lower the first floor can be and still be comfortable. So, um I'm I'm very comfortable supporting this as is. Yeah, I I agree. I appreciate all the um feedback that we got and community folks coming out for sure. Um I do also agree that it was thoughtfully designed. It looks like a single family house essentially in this um neighborhood and um with a very minimal increase to density um shouldn't negatively impact um kind of the neighbors uh as far as I could see. Um so yeah, I'm very supportive as well. again an example of infill development um that's consistent with what's around it and what we're looking for as we try to increase the housing supply um in this crisis that we're in.

Would anyone be willing to make a motion?

I can do it now. Now therefore, be it resolved, the planning commission approves a special land use and site plan review request of Wilson and Whitman Homes LLC, Francisco Melendez to construct a two a new two family dwelling at 1108 Merit Street Southeast for the following reasons. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intention of the master plan zoning ordinance including the zone district. Because the 2024 community master plan future land use map designation of the property supports residential development and new housing types. The development will contribute to greater variety of housing types in a low density residential zone district. 2024 community master plan great neighborhoods recommendation 1B2 and a new two family dwelling at this location will support the recommendation of the southtown neighborhood area specific plan to allow for a variety of housing types in single family districts. proposed use will meet the site plan review standards of section 5.12.08E because the site has been harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to the size and type of lot character of the neighborhood and adjoining structures. The site and building components have been designed to meet all zoning regulations. 3A. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious, and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood adjacent properties and the natural environment because the proposed building is consistent in scale and orientation with what is desired in the TN neighborhood classification, and the proposed use will result in a density appropriate for the area. 3B. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the proposed on-site parking spaces off the alley will meet the requirements of the zone district and building structures and entrances are appropriately oriented on the site and building setbacks meet the minimum zoning requirements. 3C. The proposed uses will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to the existing or future uses or to public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter because vehicular access to the property will be from the alley

and this will be a residential use in a residentially zoned area. 3D. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian oriented environment. But because the proposed building setback will be consistent with properties on the same side of the block and the placement of the house, entrances and rear yard parking reflect a pedestrianoriented site. 5B. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the city because the infill development and provision of additional housing units will support a complete and stable neighborhood. 5C. The proposed use will comply with all the applicable city ordinances and policies and all applicable state laws because the additional dwelling units will contribute to the tax base and support the nearby business district and the proposed development will encourage additional investment in the neighborhood. Be it further resolved the following conditions of approval shall apply to this project. One standard condition set a approvals on the screen. two, that a five foot wide pedestrian internal pedestrian walkway shall be installed to connect the off- streetet parking area with the primary entrances of the main building. Uh, and a third condition uh is just to limit the times of construction from 7:00 a.m. to 700 p.m. daily.

Second and support down there. Okay, we have motion support. Any additional discussion? Andrea, second. Yeah, I just had one question about the the there's a very large tree in the front yard. Is that I just was curious if that was going to remain and if do we have to do anything regarding tree canopy or it will need to be removed. uh and single family and two family um housing does not have a tree canopy requirement which was actually an intentional decision at the time with the urban forestry committee. Okay, thank you.

There's no Okay, any additional discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you so much. All right. Do you want to take a five minute? Could we?

Let's take a five minute break. Wow. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. All right, let's go ahead and get started. Thank you.

All right, Andrew's back. All right, commissioners. So today we thought we'd spend uh a few minutes uh reviewing the uh ADU task force recommendations uh because in subsequent meetings uh there will be some proposed uh draft or proposed text amendments zoning text amendments that will implement some of the recommendations that are contained within the task force uh document that you have before you. Um I think uh coincidentally last night was the state of the city um uh address and a year ago uh the mayor in his state of the city address talked about uh putting together a task force uh to advance the city's policies around the creation of uh accessory dwelling units. And so this is uh subsequently a committee was put together uh here a city a committee was put together to help city staff formulate some recommendations uh that we will be uh working on as time budget capacity etc allows. So as I've mentioned uh city commission uh collectively did uh affirm that they wanted to expand ADU production uh within the city and the task force uh was utilized to assist with that process. So, we uh recruited some community leaders that represented uh stakeholder groups including social justice organizations, small-cale developers, lending institutions, and affordable housing advocates. So, the group was tasked with uh identifying any unnecessary friction in the development process and help us create a prioritization list of the changes that could lock unlock accessory dwelling unit production. So, this was intended to be uh a a view beyond maybe to traditional zoning. So there are some aspects of this of course that will not relate to the work that you do as planning commission but equally as important and relevant when it comes to uh assisting in the ADU production within the city. So on this list are individuals that participated in this

process through uh several months of meetings and so I am extremely grateful for the time and that they've spent uh with city staff in helping us create these recommendations. uh and so their uh knowledge and commitment to the city uh was much appreciated. So accessory dwelling units in general have grown in popularity. Uh we've heard that through multiple housing efforts uh most recently with the um zoning reform changes that the city embarked upon in 2024. And so the demand for housing uh is high. We've heard that again today needing 14,000 units by I believe it's 2030 uh within the city of Grand Rapids to satisfy the uh demand that's hap that's taking place. Supply is but one tool that we want to look at. An accessory dwelling unit reform or modifications especially around local zoning is but one tool that will help us in advancing housing supply production within oops within the within the city of Grand Rapids. So the task force uh identified a number of friction points in that in our current development process and what we did was uh um put those uh put those recommendations into really four buckets if you will. So there was a lot of conversation or friction points around customer service. So how do people know and understand what can be built within the city of Grand Rapids? Taking a look at zoning, we we've made several amendments over the past, I think, uh 10 years. Um but there was still uh the ability for the task force to identify additional amendments that they felt would be helpful um for advancing ADU production in the city. There's constraints or friction points around building code within the state of Michigan. Um and so how we administer that there are some of course limitations but there's also some uh influence that the city can participate or have as we participate in building code modifications at a at a

state level. Um and then financing being able to finance an accessory dwelling unit is um has inherent challenges about who can access capital how people uh could budget for it but also access those financial resources. These were historically popular within the city of Grand Rapids. So, some of our older neighborhoods, you'll see a number of structures, whether they're called carriage houses, granny flats, mother-in-law apartments, these types of uh units exist in our in our city. And of course, as planning commission, you are well aware of that. We look at accessory dwelling units or define it as a secondary and clearly subordinate unit that's either attached or detached in association with a single family or a two family. And we um can refer to those as as granny flats as well, but accessory dwelling unit is the uh the zoning terminology that we use in the city. Because we're planners, we like to look at the history of how things came about. Uh in 1923, of course, we didn't have uh zoning in the city of Grand Rapids prior. And so we called it the Wild Wild Midwest. You could build anything anywhere. Um and carriage homes, granny flats, accessory dwelling units were uh somewhat popular. and uh and took and many of the existing ones today were built prior to 1923. So as we move over the timeline here, what you'll note is we went from being very permissive uh to being far more restrictive where ADU production was uh um discreet if it existed at all, at least certainly not legally. Uh very few permits were issued, very f uh um applications were brought before the planning commission. And what we quickly realized back in probably 2015 is that one of the main burdens that was exist that existed in the city was the zoning. Um and so it was simply a laborious process. The uh requirements in place uh practically pre

uh restricted um the creation of accessory dwelling units. And so slowly over time and 2019 20 24 are the years that we made significant progress. So allowing for them to exist um without a special land use. Um modifying the floor area ratio between the accessory dwelling unit and the primary structure. Not requiring an owner occupancy on the property. Those were some significant changes where we've seen um probably the most progress we've seen since 20 in 2024 since the 2024 amendments where we've seen a number of applications that have come forward. So, we know we're heading in the right direction, but through the task force discussion, we know that there's some additional modifications to be made. Um, so I mentioned that there was several meetings with the task force. Here's a uh timeline of that uh where we met multiple months in a row. And um we felt like it was really important to make sure that there was an understanding of what was currently required, what was the process, what was the intent of the code because there I think that there was a lot of misunderstanding in the community generally um about what our what our community requirements were or city requirements were but also who controlled those requirements whether they were city or state. So there was a lot of misunderstanding and we wanted to make sure the task force was clear about what the actual recommendations were. What were some of the constraints um kind of mythbusted some of the things um that were perceived as constraints but also what authority does the city have? Uh for example building code I've mentioned that's a state of Michigan document. We do not control that at a local level. We cannot simply request a change and have it um implemented. Um, so as we moved through uh the months and into the fall, um, we were joking about having a ruthless prioritization where we, uh, forced the task force to begin helping us prioritize the lengthier list of of changes that they came up with. We also wanted to make sure we identified

the the levers of change um and making sure that we understood if we put time and energy and expense into something uh one of the recommendations, how much influence, how much change could that really uh effectuate. And so we wanted to make sure that we were spending our time and resources wisely to get the best outcome possible. Um this is action shots of that of that process. you'll see uh Nathan Biller was is he still here? Yep, he's still here. He was on the the task force as well. Um and so uh that was really helpful because again all of the stakeholders had different um perspectives of what they brought forward. This is the the messy version of the recommendations. And so within all of these uh all of the sticky notes that you saw being um put on the board in the previous slide, uh we began to ask the committee to prioritize what was how much effort did we think that that was going to take and then what was the impact? And so obviously the area where we have the lowest amount of effort and the highest impact were then looked at a kind of a tier one. That's where we could focus our energy because we'd not need a lot of capacity or resources to make the modifications. But then it was felt or believed that the impact to that meaning the uh permissiveness to encourage production within the city of accessory dwelling units would be quite high. So this is a uh simpler way of looking at the very same document. Uh however, we did take those recommendations and then break them down into those four buckets that I've mentioned earlier. customer service, zoning reform, building code, and finance. And so, um, as you have, I I'm not going to go through every one of these, uh, recommendations and and tiers, but the document that you have included in your packet that was also provided to city commission um, and shared back out with

the task force um, shows how each of the recommendations break down based on effort and impact and by the customer experience, the zoning reform, etc. And so as you move through that document, you'll want to be mindful of that. And um you'll note that in the coming months when we bring forward zoning amendments, the uh tier one zoning amendments were modifications that at least at a staff level, we felt like those were pretty simple changes that we could bring forward prior to the completion of the zoning rewrite, which would not be until um probably summer of 2027. we felt um it would be appropriate for us to bring forward now sooner than later. So breaking out a couple of the priorities. So tier one um for the customer experience there was a lot of conversation around uh marketing campaign communication of what uh accessory dwelling requirements are within the city. So really having a person that could be uh dedicated or very knowledgeable about all things generally accessory dwelling and at least being able to make connections as well with other disciplines uh or uh stakeholders that might need to be involved. Um, so building out some of that information, also working with uh, GRA is going to be helping us uh, develop a marketing campaign to be able to more broadly communicate that yes, accessory dwelling units are allowed. They're permitted by right within the city of Grand Rapids. Kind of that did you know that you have that ability um, to add an accessory dwelling unit if you wish to do that. Um zoning reform of course was the the other uh tier one priority really focused on adjusting that uh floor area ratio or that ratio between the accessory and the primary. Um uh I think the thought was that we would want to increase the minimum unit size for an accessory dwelling unit. Um modifying our accessory structure requirements. So, right now there are some uh perhaps conflicting zoning codes

in place in order to implement the recommendations of the task force in the number of accessory unit or excuse me accessory structures we allow on the property. And a an attached uh garage, for example, is an accessory structure or a detached garage would be an accessory structure. And you can only have one accessory structure on your property. And so if you have an existing garage that you are unable to make into an accessory dwelling unit, um you cannot now add a second accessory structure for your accessory dwelling unit in it. I don't know how many times I said accessory in that explanation, but a lot. Um so you can see that there's conflicting uh regulations in place there and an ask by the task force or recommendation by the task force for us to reconcile some of those uh conflicting zoning code requirements. uh looking at some of our site layout and building placement standards um maybe around green space and and setbacks. Again, making it eliminating the zoning barriers that are in place. We say we want accessory dwelling units. We permit it by right. We eliminated the owner occupancy requirement for the property and yet we still have some objective uh requirements in the zoning ordinance that are making it more difficult for many of the properties and likely some of the more um dimensionally constrained properties. Um, and then also looking at some of our use requirements. So, uh, home occupations, for example, are not permitted within a, uh, an accessory structure. And so, if an individual wanted to live in an accessory dwelling unit that were detached, they could not then also have a home occupation. So, taking a look at some of those requirements and um, making it more permissive. Oh, so I just talked all about this and I forgot I had slides, but here are the more detailed um uh more detail regarding the marketing and awareness campaign. Um and then you can see on the right hand side of the screen are the specific ideas or conversation around um

this specific uh priority or recommendation. Um and then as city staff we did have a conversation with the task force about the implementation considerations and that helped um decide what prioritization level it got. So for example, we thought we could very easily I say easy um we but compared to some of the other recommendations we could easily um communicate more broadly what are the recommendation or what are the requirements for accessory dwelling in ADUs in the city um and share that with our neighborhood associations our corridor improvement authorities etc. Um, so just being able to develop a more robust communication strategy than what we currently have. And we felt like that that was a a minimum minimal effort considering some of the other recommendations. Um, same with the the toolkits and and guides. Um, and here's all the accessory dwelling units. Like I said, we wanted to increase the size compared to the um primary home. Um there was some other uh nuances there uh about when an accessory dwelling unit is relatively constrained in the amount of square foot that is permitted. Also accounting for stairwells and mechanical spaces in the floor area of that nominal the 450 square ft for example is really challenging. And so being able to extract um some of those non-living spaces from that gross floor area calculation uh was uh highly desired by the uh by the task force. Yeah, I'm sorry. I should have used these slides to talk earlier, but I did not. um broad news requirements. Okay. Uh tier 2 priorities. So as we move up in in priority prioritization um things get a little bit more difficult, more capacities needed, more conversations needed. Um so the recommendations of the uh task force was to have a uh project toolkit, some

support tools, and consider allowing short-term rentals uh within the city um in accessory dwelling units. Uh so here you can see that the idea behind the uh the project support tools is working with lending institutions, having a perform template, publishing some toolkits for property owners to have accessible to them. Um and perhaps some sort of uh playbook um that talks about uh accessory dwelling units generally and how they could be constructed uh within the city. You can see on the bottom the implementation schedule those timelines are lengthier um and the resources are are more challenging allowing short-term rentals. Uh this was definitely a conversation a recommendation of the task force. Um this is not something that will be advanced to you by city staff um in the near term. uh understanding that there are uh a need for housing supply within the city uh generally and the conversations we've had around housing. Um and the uh this is not a um an easy subject. Uh there's a lot of policy consideration that's going to be needed more broadly beyond just the modification of the the zoning table or the use table in the zoning ordinance. Um so city staff admittedly we did push back on not advancing this. This is not something that's practically feasible in the near term. Understanding that likely presumably short-term rentals uh will need to be uh discussed as part of the uh larger update. Lot of uh recommendations within the uh tier three. Um so partnering with contractors beginning to build out the program. How can we connect people with those that are able to um support the construction of the accessory dwelling units? Having some sort of uh virtual hub, so a place where all things

accessory dwelling units are readily available. Um, I had the the benefit of going out to the city of Portland a number of years ago and uh, Sonoma, I think Sonoma County um, has a really amazing tool resource uh, that is similar to what I would envision is is part of a hub. Oh, there it is. Sonoma County um, has a marketplace where actually um, plans can be downloaded either for uh, no cost or low cost. And it's like a marketplace where um individuals can actually submit and have their plans available for purchase that then a resident who wishes to build could um so kind of those those connection points between those that are designing and construction constructing and those that wish to have an accessory dwelling in it. Having some sort of uh program to administer all those things that I've just talked about. Um I sort of liken this to the cannabis manager position that we have within the department. someone that is a subject matter expert in uh generally all things that relate to uh the particular subject. So in this case, accessory dwelling units. Um that was one of the recommendations of the uh task force. Um of course that's going to take time and resources and conversations with um city manager's office as well as um uh the city commission because there we believe that there would be fiscal considerations. Um it's not unreasonable to think that planning staff might be able to um accomplish this work with existing city staff. I think that we have the capabilities of doing this, but we don't have the capacity. So we don't have staff planning staff currently that's available um to serve in this role. Permit ready plans is another recommendation of the task force. We do currently have these um that were available or created for single two family and and quad plexes. And so the idea being that perhaps if we had a

couple of plan sets available for no cost um that could be um uh an option as well uh for us to further explore green space requirements. So, so that's under the zoning reform making sure or ask the recommendation is to lower the green space requirement uh to support the construction of an accessory dwelling unit and again eliminating zoning barriers that could be more permissive. Um I put this in a different tier. My recommendation was a different tier because I think that there's conversation that's needed about storm water management uh as well as what soil types are in place for that particular area of the city. Um, and so I I think it's a a larger conversation with uh city, including people like Nate Williams that was here today, our storm water manager, than just a zoning. There's implications beyond zoning requirements that need to be considered here. um recommendation to allow accessory dwelling unit lot splits to so to create an entirely separate fee simple parcel for the accessory dwelling unit separate from the the primary structure um and condominium considerate or condominium situation could also uh be considered for that allowing more than one accessory dwelling unit per property was also a recommendation of the task force. Um, again, that's a not a uh simple subject that I'm prepared or willing to advance at this point. Um, I put that into the larger uh conversation around the zoning update. Generally, um, recommendation from the task force is to provide some financial support uh to the uh to the development community for the creation of accessory dwelling units. Um and the task force ideas were to um explore the use of uh pilots or payment lie of taxes uh tax increment financing whether there's emerging developer grants. So financing support uh for an individual that wishes to build an accessory dwelling unit.

Um staying on the finance uh looking at available or connecting individuals into the finance community. Uh, tier four. I'm trying to go through these a little bit more quickly since they are um more complicated tiers uh for you and of course it's in your packet and we can circle back at a at a later date. Um, but tier four four priorities, these are ones that we said these are not going to be easy. We recognize that they could advance production. Um, but they are going to take time and resources and complexity. And remember, we also talked about impact. How much impact do we really believe it will be or have to creation of accessory dwelling unit and it's in the city if we modify existing building codes to be more permissive? Um and so but they were still captured as part of the document because they were the recommendations of the task force. So looking at public private partnerships for financing, looking at the manufactured housing approval process that is a a state level that would require a change to the public act 230 um to delegate different authorities for inspections to supplement state inspections of manufactured uh housing of for ADUs. Uh recommendation to modify uh existing building codes. Again, that's not something that the city has control over. And so participating in these processes is something that um we currently do and could continue to do, but those um are on a cycle and they don't tend to move quickly. Um so I I've talked a lot about this. We need to be mindful of any policy conflicts that we might currently have or recommendations that for conflict with current policy and have those conversations. have that policy conversation looking at timing for what are the capacities that we have to be able to implement it and the effort over the impact. All right, so that's the uh end of my presentation. I'm going to backtrack very quickly, sorry, to the uh larger

table as I think that's most illustrative of all the recommendations and and ask if you have any questions. um understanding that we do have some uh work coming up for you in the coming months with an a zoning amendment. Thank you, Kristen. Any questions? I'm just curious what a home occupation is as opposed to like what if you work remotely at home, you know, is that considered a home occupation? It's it may be considered a home Well, it's not a home occupation in the sense that people are coming to your home. It's not it doesn't require any sort of license or permission from the city for you to work from your home. Oh, okay.

You're not You're working from home, but you're not conducting a business out of your home where you're not like bringing clients there and things like that. Exactly. Okay.

So, it's the home occupation is a tiered structure within the licensing ordinance. And so, the more people that come to your home, the more impacts. Think bed and breakfast have the highest level of review. whereas perhaps a uh piano teacher for example um that low that's a lower impact to the neighborhood. So those are tiered differently in terms of the licensing requirements. That's interesting. I've never thought about that concept in my whole life. Um thank you for asking about it. Um so in terms of the the green space and I think I know the answer to this but I just want to clarify. So you talked about including the green walls as part of it. Green roofs are already included as part of green space. walls and green roofs are already can already be used for a departure. Um to it's not it's not technically a departure but can be considered to reduce the overall grass green space landscaping at grade.

Okay, cool. And I did after reading through this look at the Sonoma County ADU marketplace and it's pretty cool like to be able to look at all that stuff. So that would be a fun thing for the future. Would would something like pvious pavement qualify as green space? So like if you had a driveway but you paved it in a in a pvious substance, would that meet the requirement?

Yeah, there's there's percentages of how much So if it's a 20% green space, a portion of that 20% can be counted by use of permeable pavement, green walls, and green roofs. Yeah. Sorry, I was doing the phone a friend. I think I said that right. At one point there was discussion around uh the the state building code requiring individual sewer and water connections for these ADUs. How did did we figure out a strategy for that situation?

No, it's still well I think the recommendation is for us to um participate in a process or discussion with the state to not have that same requirement. But it in the state plumbing code it is currently requirement that it's a separate sewer lateral that is required for um am I saying that wrong Nathan? You don't need a separate sewer lateral. It just can't go through the building. Can't go through the building. So you have to bring it off the line from the primary and then if it's you're this is a detached structure run it um as a as a separate line adjacent. So, in a new build, you could run the sewer line around the house essentially, but

it can't be from the house to the detached structure. So, it's that creates challenge for wanting to put an ADU behind an existing home. Mhm. Uh yeah. Okay. Anyone else? And that also speaks to the the cost of an accessory dwelling unit, of course, right? um with those requirements in place. Cool. Well, thank you and thanks to the task force. I know Nathan left already, but yeah, I appreciate everyone's time and um contributions to helping move this forward. So, thank you.

Yes. So, please do uh especially read the report um but please do especially focus on the tier one prior to your April meeting. April, is it the first meeting or second meeting? Okay. The first meeting in April, the one where half the people won't be here, but I'll be here so you'll understand where these are coming from and the discussion behind that recommendation for why we're advancing the amendments.

Okay. You missed it, Nathan, but I did. We we thank you and the rest of the task force for your your service here. Okay. All right. And we'll look forward to more discussion in April. Okay. Now, we'll open it up for any public comment. Anyone who wants to address, come on up. Hello again, Laura Cesa. Um, second word resident, also policy analyst for Strong Towns Grand Rapids. So, taking over for Andrew in his capacity right now. um just to say that as an organization obviously we support um all of these these recommendations and and um even the the outline you have here of like how they can be implemented I think is is really smart. So so kudos there to for going through and and seeing the how much effort something will take. Um I think especially you know uh if we can really streamline the the zoning requirements here I think that will be really important. um you know just as a personal story you know permitting two ADUs per property or like you know um permitting uh a second accessory uh structure you know in in at my house our garage is an old chicken coupe so like obviously that cannot be an ADU but you know it it's something that we might be interested in so if we could have a garage and an ADU that didn't have to be the same building that would be you know that would be helpful and I'm sure other people have many situations like this in our city with a lot of old housing stock that has a lot of creative solutions to um how it's used today. So, um and I would also just want to call out the the short-term rental recommendation. Um I understand where um some hesitancy would come from for this. You know, we do think, you know, we don't want our city to become vacation homes, but I think it

is important to remember that short-term rental is a type of housing that people also need access to. So, I think, you know, we have um Corwall Health, you know, right right up the the hill here and people accessing medical care, cancer treatment, they need somewhere to stay presumably if if it's going to be a long-term thing. You know, folks looking to move to the city who need a place to stay while they look for more permanent housing. Um even like medical residents or or medical students coming in for rotations. you know, there there's a lot of situations where people need short-term housing that isn't just people going on vacation. Um, and so I think if we can permit more of that, I think it'll just be make our city that much more attractive to welcoming all sorts of people with all sorts of situations. Um, so yes, we support these recommendations and and look forward to seeing the the new um zoning ordinance recommendations. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello again. My name is Nathan Biller. Um I'm representing My Backyard Build, which is a company that I started to help other people build uh ADUs. Um a couple things uh I will point out like I' I've probably had 15 or so conversations with people interested in ADUs. Uh we did a partnering with the city. We had an ADU task or not ADU task force, uh an ADU boot camp. Um, we had 30-ish people come. Um, so I've built two of them. Um, I'm building a third one on the northeast side for a neighbor who happens to be across the street. And honestly, the biggest barrier for getting people to build these is that they're not quite economically viable as detached structures. Um, so if you're going to build a brand new house in my opinion, um, right now the thing that makes the most sense is doing a duplex with an ADU or just building from building code because you got to think about like depending on how you're looking at this, zoning might say, "Oh, well that is an ADU." And building code would say, "No, it's just a duplex. That one is smaller than the other." So the two items that would actually change the economic viability of this build argument would be allowing two per unit or allowing short-term rentals. I personally have no interest in allowing short-term rentals, but it changes the economics uh to support it. For an example, uh doing a two bed uh 832 foot unit building, it's about $200,000. So, the math on that would say that you need to be able to rent that out for $2,000. That has not been my experience. I built one in the southeast side and one in the northeast side. I think we're getting 1,400 for the one on the southeast side and we're getting 1,600 for the one on the north. Now, there are three garage spots that maybe you could say those are $50 a piece. So, there's another 150, but you're not hitting 2,000. But if you change it to allow two per lot, uh my guess, this is just my guess, best guess, is that you're probably you could probably build two 400 ft² units for something like 220. And you could probably rent those out

for a,000 bucks, maybe 1,100. Uh that makes your your math work. And so, um, there's a great podcast, if you don't listen to it, uh, Housing Voices with Shane Phillips, um, out east, and he talks about California's process. And California has been like making ADU laws for years, and like 2015, finally they started making them where it actually allowed it to be economically viable for these things to be built. Um, I mean, the process that we went through, I I commend the planning staff. Like, it was it was great. There's lots of good recommendations. my gut check now, I mean this is six months later since we did those um is that we need to make those changes. Um and I so preparing for that I I emailed every city commissioner individually about this. I wrote an entire blog for them to show like the economic impact to the city. There's a lot of good reasons why we should do this. I'm not going to read the entire thing, but I'll highlight a couple things. So, there's a lifetime city revenue bump for each ADU that gets built of about $43,000. that takes into account the property taxes as well as the income taxes of a new person there. Um there's additional city revenue of about $2,000 a year for every ADU that's built. Um there's annual local economic activity of around $40,000. So there's there's a lot of good reasons why this would happen. It also impacts your retail catchment rates. Um I'm over time, but um anyway, thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Do you want to Nathan, do you want to shoot that to the top of my inbox and I'm happy to share that blog post with the Commission? Please. Okay, I will close public comment and we are adjourned. Thanks everybody.