Sourced from GR City Website. View whole meeting's minutes here.

(2:50 p.m.) 1542 Michigan Street NE--Multifamily

Address:

1542 Michigan Street NE

Applicant:

Michigan Street Apartment Homes, LLC

(Gary Hensch)

Requesting:

Approval to construct a 30-unit, two-story multi-family building behind an existing twelve unit apartment building in a TN-LDR Zone District.

Zoning:

TN-LDR (Traditional Neighborhood – Low-Density Residential)

Requirements:

Article 5 Residential Zone Districts

5.7.06. Planned Redevelopment District

5.9.20. Multiple-Family Dwellings

5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review

5.12.12. Planned Redevelopment District

Case Number:

PC-SLU-2019-0009

Staff Assigned:

Elizabeth Zeller ezeller@grcity.us

Type of Case:

Special Land Use

Effective Date:

March 30, 2019

Ms. Zeller recalled that the Planning Commission considered this request at their February 14^th meeting. The Planning Commission tabled the matter for additional public input. She recalled that the site is on the south side of Michigan St., east of Fuller and west of Plymouth. The property is approximately 2 acres in area and is improved with a 12-unit apartment building with car ports on either side. The southerly half of the property is not improved with any structures. Ms. Zeller’s understanding is that at one time there was a swimming pool in that area that has been filled in. Ms. Zeller indicated that staff attempted to do some research on the property, including reviewing old Sanborn maps, to try to better understand why this property has this configuration and how it came to be like this. However, they weren’t able to find anything or determine what was there. It was likely farm land at one time and divided around it. The lot is quite deep and abuts single-family homes on three sides with Michigan St. to the north.

Ms. Zeller explained that the applicant had proposed a project of 30 dwelling units. There was some public input at that time but it seemed that many in the neighborhood weren’t aware of the project and the Planning Commission wished to provide an opportunity for additional neighborhood notification and input on the project, which has been received. The packet includes approximately 35 letters of opposition. The Fulton Heights Neighborhood Association has updated their letter and, based on the input from residents in the neighborhood, they oppose the project.

Since the February meeting, the applicant has made some changes to the project. The building footprint was reduced. The length of the building was reduced by 11 ft., resulting in an increased setback to the south of approximately 36’ vs. the previous setback of 25’. The number of dwelling units has not been changed but the applicant did change the configuration of units. Four of the two-bedroom units were changed to one-bedroom units, which was intended to reduce the number of residents living on the property. The plans that were submitted reflect that change. In addition, two parking spaces at the south end were eliminated and landscaping on the west side of the parking lot has been enhanced. The applicant indicated that fencing was considered but they felt landscaping provided a softer, more aesthetic buffer. They also plan to modify the open carports, providing backs on the carports, so that headlights will not be shining onto neighboring properties. Minor modifications were also made to the interior drive at the request of the Fire Department.

Mr. Rozeboom asked what would be permitted by right.

Ms. Zeller replied that there is already an apartment building on site. The only by-right use in this zone district is a single-family home. Ms. Turkelson added that the variance that was granted for the multi-family would allow for that multi-family development. Ms. Zeller agreed. The existing building was established by variance in 1961. There is nothing else they could locate on the site without some type of special approval.

Steve Witte, Nederveld, was present to discuss the project, along with other members of the development team. Mr. Witte related that since the last Planning Commission meeting, they have provided a landscape plan in color to provide a better understanding of what is proposed. As shown, they are proposing fairly extensive landscaping. The Planning Commission had requested a cross section view, which has been provided. What Mr. Witte feels is relevant, with respect to that cross section, is that the top of the proposed building is somewhat in line with the elevation of the top of the buildings along Alten. There is a fairly significant grade drop from Alten to Baynton resulting in the proposed two-story building fitting in with the topography of the site.

Mr. Witte related that since the last meeting the developers had a neighborhood meeting. The neighbors and neighborhood remain opposed to the project, which isn’t completely unexpected. The vast majority of people, if given the choice to live next to a green area vs. a development of any kind, would choose a green area. They have also reviewed the letters submitted and have a prepared response to how each of those items have been addressed. Mr. Witte offered to explain those responses if desired by the Commission. There weren’t any comments in the letters that they hadn’t already considered. They have modified the plan to try to address the comments. Two things that they did not change, but did consider, is the proposed sloped roof. They considered a flat roof and prepared elevations to demonstrate what that would look like. The developer would prefer the sloped roof as they feel it is a more traditional look, that it looks nicer, and results in less maintenance. However, if the Planning Commission wants a flat roof, the developer would be amenable to making that change. Additionally, fencing around the perimeter of the property is not proposed. They had a lengthy discussion about that after the last Planning Commission meeting. They feel that the landscaping proposed is extensive enough to block the headlights and provide better aesthetics. Therefore, they felt that was a better option than fencing. However, if the Planning Commission would prefer fencing around it, they would be amenable to that as well. Mr. Witte explained that he directed the landscape architect to enhance the landscaping as much as possible to block headlights and provide privacy and he has indicated that adding more than what is shown is not feasible.

Mr. Witte stated that they understand that there are Standards to meet for a Special Land Use approval and they firmly believe that those Standards are met. In the original application they outlined how they feel the Standards are met. The property is already used as an apartment building. The proposed use is an expansion of an existing use as opposed to a new use altogether. Mr. Witte feels that is important because the use is already in place. The use and density are consistent with the Michigan Street Corridor Plan. The density is less than what the Zoning Ordinance allows for multi-family use in the TN-LDR district. The allowed use, per the Ordinance, is 45 units; a total of 42 units are being proposed. The units are one- and two-bedroom units with a total of 68 bedrooms on the property. Mr. Witte realizes that density is based on the number of units. However, when considering the actual physical number of people on the property it is actually quite a bit less than what you would expect when you hear 42 units. The property directly abuts Michigan St., which is a major five-lane roadway. Therefore, the concerns of traffic and/or density of the site is somewhat mitigated, in their opinion. The road network is more than adequate to accommodate the relatively small amount of increased traffic resulting from this project. Mr. Witte stated that the proposed project meets or exceeds all of the Zoning Ordinance requirements and Site Plan Review Standards, including greater building setbacks and parking setbacks that are provided on the west, east and south property lines. 38.7% green space is provided on site; the requirement is 30%. It is their opinion that the building is very attractive. All of the lighting will be screened. There are no new curb cuts required or requested. The proposed grading of the site follows the topography of the site from the east down to the west. They are providing extensive landscaping around the perimeter and internal to the site; a total of 80 trees and 89 shrubs and grasses are proposed as part of this project. All of the storm water runoff from the site will be collected and detained per the City’s requirements. Underground storm chambers are being proposed. The outlet for that system is to the storm sewer in Michigan St. Mr. Witte recalled that some of the neighbors to the west had some drainage concerns. Currently, all of the water from the site, and from the east of the site, sheet flows across the site toward the west. As a result of the proposed development they will actually pick up all of that water, detain it, and discharge it to Michigan St. Therefore, it will actually be less flow going to the west. In addition to the low flow, emergency water is also going to Michigan St. Mr. Witte related that they have reviewed the project with the Fire Department. Previously the circular drive was shown with a width of 15’. In working with the Fire Department, they asked that be widened to 20’, which has been done. Mr. Witte related that sufficient parking and bicycle spaces are provided on the site. They are providing four more parking spaces than what the Ordinance requires. Mr. Witte recalled that parking was also a concern of the neighbors. Finally, the site will be serviced by public sanitary sewer and water.

Mr. Witte thanked the Planning Commission for their time and consideration. He expressed his understanding of the neighbor’s concerns. He appreciates the comments and the letters. If neighbors have any specific questions, he will attempt to address those.

Mr. Van Strien invited public comment.

Cynthia Savara, 26 year resident of 345 Baynton, related that she purchased her home because of the character and charm of the long-established Fulton Heights neighborhood. Ms. Savara lives within 300 ft. of the proposed development and is very concerned about the potential negative impact this proposed development will have on her quality of life. Ms. Savara indicated that when she received the first public hearing notice her first response was no but then she realized she needed to obtain additional information. Ms. Savara stated that she reviewed the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting held on February 14, the agenda for today, and attended the informational meeting on March 4. She feels she is now an informed homeowner and resident of the neighborhood. Her response remains no. She is strongly opposed to this project. Increasing the density of this less than 2 acre parcel of land by building an additional 30 units, with potential occupancy of 80+ people, is not consistent with the density of the neighborhood or the 2002 Master Plan. The potential negative effects are traffic and noise. Additional landscaping is great but trees grow and they also die. Will a continual barrier be provided? The updates to the plan do not change the fact that the proposed development is not congruent or harmonious with adjacent properties, those within 300’, or the residents of the Fulton Heights neighborhood. Ms. Savara doesn’t believe a Special Land Use request should be approved that is not consistent with the 2002 Master Plan. It appears that the applicant did not complete due diligence regarding the potential use of this property. Ms. Savara submitted a petition of opposition containing 141 signatures. She related that she had the opportunity to meet the oldest resident of the neighborhood who received a postcard and was interested in signing the petition. She built her home 77 years ago and has lived there since, at the age of 102. She reminded Ms. Savara that the Fulton Heights neighborhood was here first. The Michigan Corridor Plan is the new shiny thing on the block and Ms. Savara would hope that the Planning Commission respects that the 2002 Master Plan should support the Fulton Heights neighborhood.

Stephanie Johnson, 324 Baynton, stated that the proposed construction would be directly behind her home. Ms. Johnson related that she is in favor of the growth of the City and she does not fear change. The Michigan Street Corridor Plan contains plans for growth and quality of life; it is exciting. She is also in favor of zoning and planning integrity to support the quality of life of residents. Ms. Johnson fails to see how this project supports the residents of the Fulton Heights neighborhood. Ms. Johnson is in favor of intentional and purposeful planning in order to create harmonious living for both current and future residents. She also favors providing housing for the recent influx of population but not at the cost of the neighborhood and business district integrity. Cohesiveness and harmony are required for growth of the City. Ms. Johnson feels this project compromises future growth and desirability for living in the Fulton Heights neighborhood and provides dissonance by constructing a non-conforming, high-density residential structure twelve parcels deep into a single-family neighborhood. Ms. Johnson stated that having built a small business directly across from a historically non-conforming building, she knows the grave issues that may arise. She also knows that change of ownership of these atypical structures leads to issues for future residents and for business. Zoning exists for a reason. Ms. Johnson asked if this project benefits the neighborhood. Does it enhance the neighborhood and build community? Does it fit the existing neighborhood scheme and will it create harmony? Ms. Johnson also asked if the property will change hands and what will become of it when it does. In her experience that is common. Such projects can truly enhance the City or deteriorate it. The residents obtained 141 signatures of opposition in three days time with five of them walking door to door and leaving flyers. Had they had more time they likely would have obtained many more signatures. The community as a whole wants harmonious living both now and in the future. They hope that their concerns related to this proposal are considered. Ms. Johnson expressed her opposition to the project as it is counter to the zoning.

Mamie Graziano, 245 Baynton, stated that every time an exception to the zoning is made it is an example to make more exceptions. Approving this project would put this neighborhood in danger. They have a unique neighborhood that they want to hold on to. They have single family homes, some of which are rentals. They have a lot of green space, which is the best thing about the neighborhood. The green space is used for edible gardening, other gardening, and tree canopy. If this request is approved it is in conflict with the 40% tree canopy plan that the City has. The lot is fully wooded with nearly mature trees. That loss will be felt in many ways. They already have the 196 corridor going through the neighborhood, which results in very high pollution. There are two factories and other industry in the neighborhood, one of which has generated some complaints about pollution blowing into the neighborhood. Those trees are crucial to screening and mitigating some of that. Any neighborhood in an urban area that has green space not only helps others and the residents but also benefits mental health because being in a place with nature, that draws wildlife, helps their health and wellbeing. Ms. Graziano stated that they have a diverse neighborhood and many of the residents have held out and remained in the City. She purchased her first home in the 1970’s and has been determined to live in a diverse, welcoming community.

Michelle Schaut, 301 Alten, stated that it took them five years to get their house and the adjoining property. They are in the process of joining the two properties together. They looked at many houses, the neighborhood, the people, the scenery and the trees. That is what they like about their property and neighborhood. Ms. Schaut doesn’t want to wake up every day and see a two-story brick building in her back yard. That isn’t what they bought the house for. All of the trees will be removed and replaced with a giant structure. Development on that site will also likely affect trees on adjacent properties because tree roots do not grow straight. The landscaping proposed won’t screen the view of the development for generations. The architect that lives adjacent doesn’t care because he is moving. He doesn’t want to see that, nor do the other residents. They don’t want to have to listen to the noise from all of the air conditioning units all summer long and they don’t want to hear construction for a year. Ms. Schaut stated that they don’t want to look at that when they come home and try to enjoy their back yard, watching cars go in and out, hear alarms, horns, and smell the exhaust. They purchased a home in a low- density neighborhood, not in an area of an apartment complex where they will cram in college kids. The traffic is intense on Alten and Baynton now. The speed bumps don’t slow traffic. Ms. Schaut stated that the whole thing is a bad idea.

Aaron Schaut, 301 Alten, read a prepared statement. The land is currently zoned Traditional Neighborhood - Low-Density Residential for a reason. He and many neighbors believe that the Fulton Heights neighborhood needs areas like this, that are currently zoned traditional low-density, to remain as such. Granting the Special Land Use could set a precedent for Special Land Use in other low-density residential areas, which can greatly diminish property values as well as the charm, quality of life, and simple nature that people bought into, love and enjoy. Visiting his relatives that lived in the neighborhood while growing up is the Fulton Heights he fell in love with and the neighborhood that he is now fortunate enough to call home. Understanding the demand for housing and the desire to grow Michigan Street, he feels this plot of land is not the place to do that. Not only is this site on the outskirts of the corridor plan, it also greatly intrudes on one of the greatest little neighborhoods in the greater Grand Rapids area. It does not align with the neighborhood or their quality of life. Increased traffic, noise and the general closeness to their homes are their primary concerns. While the developer states that their proposal is in accordance with the Standards, they are not when it is a low-density area, which this is. Given the nature of the structure that currently exists, Mr. Schaut believes the focus should be on the current structure and how it could be better used and better suited to the Michigan Street Corridor Plan. Should Special Land Use be granted in this instance, it is in the best interest for the surrounding residents that more consideration be given, including trees, privacy and a wall.

Sara Karasinski, 1563 Fulton, expressed her opposition to the project overall and how it will affect the neighborhood. Ms. Karasinski related that she attended Aquinas College and her home is across the street from the college. Daily they feel the effects of people parking on the neighborhood streets. They say they are providing enough parking for the apartments. However, what she has experienced is that people park in the neighborhood and leave their vehicles for days, using the neighborhood as a parking lot. Her fear is that when there is not enough parking for this development that they will park on Alten or Baynton. There are some roads in the neighborhood that do not have odd-even parking. Cars that park there block the ability for residents to park near their homes. Ms. Karasinski also doesn’t see any benefit to the neighborhood that would result from this project.

Fred Stella, 234 Baynton, agreed with the comments of his neighbors. Mr. Stella recalled the number of signatures they obtained and the responses they received by email in a matter of a few days. They only covered one part of the neighborhood and he is confident that, if they covered more, they would get plenty more signatures. Mr. Stella stated that they love their neighborhood association. They are hard working people. However, he feels they dropped the ball on this. This proposal warranted a blanketing of the neighborhood with hard copy notices of this proposal and people would have come out and expressed their opinion. With respect to traffic, residents of the proposed apartment building wanting to get to Fulton would have two choices, Alten and Baynton. Mr. Stella is very concerned that with 30 new units those streets will become mini expressways.

Virginia Morris agreed with all of the comments offered. She related that her back yard would be directly affected by the proposed development. Landscaping is not going to prevent tenants that park on Baynton from walking through her property. Mr. Witte stated that the proposed is an addition to the existing. It isn’t; it is a separate building. He also said they had to increase the width by 5’ for the Fire Department. Where did they get the 5’ from? Will that make the parking lot closer to her back yard?

Leslie Sanford recalled that she was present at the last meeting and offered comments. Mr. Witte addressed the Standards for Special Land Use approval. However, one of the things that is an umbrella to changing the land use is that the harmony, congruity, and uniqueness of the neighborhood remains. That is the biggest thing that she is opposed to. This project changes the complexion of the neighborhood. Ms. Sanford has been a resident for 20 years and many residents have been there longer. Some of the younger residents will move. An apartment block is incongruent with what they want and with what she feels they should have.

Pat Dekryger, 1573 Innes NE, related that her home is directly south of the subject property. Her concern is purely personal. She is uphill from this site by 15-20 ft. Her living room and bedroom are across the back of the house. When she is in bed at night, she can see the light from Michigan Street already and she can’t imagine 15 or 20 more lights. They’ve asked what they can do to keep her happy. Ms. Dekryger stated that not building that building would keep her very happy. From her elevation she will see the entire development, as will two of her neighbors.

Mary Lerchen, 246 Alten, agreed with the concerns mentioned adding that traffic is already ridiculous trying to go west on both Michigan and Fulton streets. Trying to get to the grocery store between the hours of 3 and 5 p.m. results in waiting through multiple traffic signals. Ms. Lerchen also expressed concern about drainage. Her back yard is a pond from this time of year through June. There is an old creek bed there and a lot of standing water that doesn’t drain currently. She can’t imagine that additional development will help that issue at all.

Catherine Thelen, 145 Holmdene, related that she and her husband spent a year looking for a place to live in Grand Rapids. It was important to them to live in the City of Grand Rapids and they spent a long time looking for this neighborhood. The developer mentioned that they would be installing 80 trees but they didn’t mention how many they will be taking out. Ms. Thelen wondered about the concerns that might be expressed if this development was proposed in the back yard of a Planning Commissioner. Before making a decision, she asked that the Planning Commission give that some thought and consider whether they would want that in their back yard.

Mark McDowel, 329 Alten, acknowledged that he is involved with the project but also a resident that backs up to the existing apartment structure and proposed new structure. He has lived there for five years and has not experienced any issues or complaints against the apartment building as a neighbor. They purchased their house knowing full well that the wooded area would be developed at some point. This is not a surprise and he wanted to be involved with the project to help shape it and give it some direction, being mindful of his and his neighbors yards that abut it. Grand Rapids is desperate for housing and the proposed development brings growth to the market. People are concerned with their property values but he would suggest that this would stimulate those values. Mr. McDowel recalled testimony about this being a single-family home neighborhood. However, there are apartments, office buildings, a grocery store, and other commercial uses in the neighborhood. Mr. McDowel agreed that it is a great neighborhood and he loves living there. There is mixed-use within the neighborhood however. He is in support of the project.

Mr. Witte responded to comments. He clarified his comment regarding this being an expansion. This is not an expansion of the existing building; it is a new structure. However, it is an expansion of the use that already exists on the property. The 5’ that was added at the Fire Department’s request is on the circular drive and doesn’t impact the location of the parking lot, which stayed the same other than the elimination of a couple of spaces to the south. With respect to privacy, they are proposing extensive landscaping. There is a retaining wall to the east of the site and landscaping east of that. They are not opposed to adding fencing if the Planning Commission desires that. All of the setbacks exceed the required setbacks. They are trying to accommodate as much privacy as possible. Mr. Witte responded to the concern about noise. Similar to the privacy, they are providing extensive landscaping. Air conditioning units are actually located in an enclosed closet. From a noise standpoint he doesn’t feel it would be any different than the noise that would be generated from the number of single-family homes that could fit on the site. With respect to harmony and non-conformity of the parcel. Multi-family housing is permitted in the TN-LDR District as a Special Land Use and it is an existing use on the site. Granted, this is an expansion of the use but the use is already there. Mr. Witte recalled concern mentioned about the smell from vehicles. He has heard that concern when working on industrial and commercial projects but he has not heard that concern related to residential development. Vehicles in general have odor but this is no different than if single family homes occupied the site. Mr. Witte responded to traffic concerns pointing out that Michigan Street is a busy corridor that can easily handle 68 more bedrooms. Several neighbors expressed concern about insufficient parking. They are providing four spaces more than what the Ordinance requires. Quite often projects request, and receive, a reduction in the required parking. Mr. Witte agreed with the comment that the woods on site will be removed. However, that would occur with any development of the site, whether multi-family, single-family homes, or something else. They are replacing the plantings with 80 new trees. Obviously, everyone would prefer the wooded area or green space but, with all do respect, the property owner in this case has rights as well. Mr. Witte also recalled that there was concern about pollution as it relates to the green space and trees. As previously mentioned, the proposed green space is 38.7% and 30% is required. They are also providing the additional trees. A comment was offered that there should not be an exception to the zoning. However, the use is permitted as a Special Land Use in the zone district and the existing use is multi-family. This is simply an expansion of that; this is not a rezoning. Furthermore, they have met or exceeded all of the standards as they related to multi-family, including parking, landscaping, green space, etc. The Ordinance requires 37% tree canopy and they are meeting that requirement. With respect to drainage, the proposed project includes storm sewer system on the subject site. All of the water from this property, as well as the property to the east that sheet flows onto this site, will be picked up and detained in the storm sewer system. The outlet of the detention system is to Michigan Street. The neighbor that spoke about drainage problems will see an improvement in those conditions because all of the water is currently sheet flowing across the site and ending up on her property. If they receive approval, they will obviously go through the LUDS process and meet related requirements. Mr. Witte recalled a question about parking lot lights and where they are located. There are three light poles proposed. The lighting will be fully shielded and will comply with the zoning ordinance.

Ms. Turkelson asked the height of the poles.

Mr. Witte didn’t recall the height. Mr. Rosedall believed they are proposed at 18’, which would be lower than the building. Mr. Witte offered that the height can be adjusted if desired. The difficulty is that the lower the light fixture the less it shines out so they may have to add more poles. If the Planning Commission wishes to impose a height limit on the fixtures, they would be amenable but instead of three poles there might be more.

Ms. Joseph asked staff to clarify the steep slopes and administrative departure.

Ms. Turkelson explained that there is a steep slopes protection requirement within the Zoning Ordinance that would suggest you can’t disturb slopes greater than 20%. There is an administrative departure, with conditions. Where there is not more than 10,000 sq. ft. of contiguous area, they have the ability to allow those steep slopes to be disturbed. The intent of that is where the slope is part of a larger, natural system, they are natural to the community. However, when there are smaller areas of slope it is usually as a result of the development that has already taken place, more man-made, and not connected to a larger system of natural features. The Environmental Services Dept. helps to identify the impact of any disturbance to the slopes and the natural system. It is a waiver that would need to be looked at as part of this project. Under typical circumstances, staff has been able to provide that administrative departure when it is a staff level review or permitted by right project.

Dean Rosendal, Copper Rock Construction, related that he lives 2.1 miles from the site. He applauded those that have come out; he loves their passion. Mr. Rosendal related that he did attend one of the neighborhood meetings. He clarified that Copper Rock is not the developer but they are the contractor in this case. Mr. Rosendal stated that he sits on the Board of a local, walkable neighborhood. He is hoping to help the neighbors see this a bit different. He did a study when they had apartments coming to their neighborhood. Mr. Rosendal offered copies to anyone that might be interested. There was concern expressed about property values. Harvard performed the study and it provides good economic reflection. Mr. Rosendal felt the information might help neighbors feel better about that. Mr. Rosendal complimented the developer on the compromises they have made with the proposed project. The building has been reduced from three-stories to two. When you take the total square footage of the land, with 12 apartments on it now, that equates to over 7,000 sq. ft. of land per unit. The last four projects that were approved in the City average 907 sq. ft. per unit of land. What is proposed today equates to 2007 sq. ft. of land per unit. If you take the average density of the last four projects in Grand Rapids, in his walkable neighborhood, it would equate to 92 units on this site. This developer is trying very hard to make a project work and is only proposing 30 units, resulting in a total of 42 on the site, while the average for the City would be 92.

Ms. Turkelson recognized that density was a topic raised quite often, understandably. Mr. Rosendal offered some comments about past projects. Ms. Turkelson suggested the Planning Commission needs to keep in mind that the context of those past decisions is important; it isn’t universal across the City. Ms. Turkelson asked that Ms. Zeller speak to the density calculations in terms of what is present in the surrounding neighborhood vs. what is being proposed. The zoning ordinance allows for up to 2,000 sq. ft. of lot area for every dwelling unit for a TN-LDR but there is also the Master Plan that suggests being consistent with the existing patterns of development. There are other aspects that should be factored in when determining whether maximizing the density, or coming close to, is appropriate at this location.

Ms. Zeller related that staff did a quick density calculation of the properties on the east side of Baynton, to the west of the property, commensurate with the limits of the subject property. The result was 6.6 dwelling units per acre. The subject property with proposed development would be approximately 21 dwelling units per acre.

Ms. Turkelson recalled that Mr. Witte pointed out that the Ordinance looks at density of units. Bedrooms has also been a previous conversation with neighborhoods; looking at the number of bedrooms/beds that would presumably be there, in terms of density. However, the Ordinance looks at the number of units.

Mr. Davis suggested that the 2002 Master Plan and Michigan Street Corridor Plan are in tension with each other. Perhaps the Commission should consider this in context with both of those plans. There is a Master Plan and a new Master Plan is going to be developed. Ms. Turkelson pointed out that they should consider recent patterns of development. Mr. Davis wished to have a sense of where Commissioners are analyzing this from, in light of those two documents.

Mr. Rozeboom offered that Great Housing Strategies is also a consideration.

Ms. Turkelson pointed out that that was not adopted as part of the Master Plan. She agreed however that it is a policy of the City.

Mr. Van Strien recognized that the Master Plan labels this as low-density residential whereas the Michigan Street Corridor Plan encourages more middle-density. As they discussed during the last meeting, as it is shown on the Michigan Street Corridor Plan map, it is on the outskirts and still low-density. He doesn’t know that the Plans are in huge conflict with each other.

Ms. Collier stated that gentrification is real in many communities. She feels the greatest and most expert voice is the stakeholder; those that live in the neighborhood. When you are looking for a home it is a huge investment. When considering neighborhood impacts the standard states that the proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous or disturbing to existing or future adjacent uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, glare, visual clutter or electromagnetic interference. Ms. Collier feels the proposed development would be detrimental for those reasons. That is a huge disruption to the existing homeowners. That would be one of the Standards she feels could not be met in this case.

Mr. Davis agreed. Unfortunately, they don’t have the ability to use the amount of energy in the room as a Standard. Mr. Davis appreciates the neighborhood being here today. There are similar passions of people in the City that are fearing displacement and gentrification that would love an apartment complex to come in and absorb some of the people that are taking away single-family homes in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Davis clarified that that is not to say he is in favor of this project. He feels they need to look at the entire system. He doesn’t necessarily hear, or see reason to believe, that this project is causing displacement.

Ms. Collier argued that it would cause disruption in the neighborhood. People are looking for homes; that is what they want.

Mr. Davis agreed with some of those points but clarified he doesn’t recognize displacement in this case.

Ms. Joseph offered her comments. She clarified that she is definitely for multi-family housing, even in single-family neighborhoods. However, with respect to this particular lot and this particular site plan she had hoped that, after meeting with the neighbors, they would have a site plan that made more sense with this particular location; something with fewer units or townhouses, etc. Multi-family on this site could potentially make sense within this neighborhood but this particular plan doesn’t get there.

Mr. Davis stated that he did not disagree. He is also considering the plans they see and the common desire to find places for density. It is rare to have a site this close to a high-traffic corridor system, where there is an existing use. In this case they are considering the expansion of an existing use that has ingress and egress via Michigan St. That is where he is struggling, although he agrees with Ms. Joseph in terms of the site plan. He also agrees that it is on the edge. At this point he is on the fence in terms of a decision and is feeling the tensions of both arguments.

Ms. Joseph feels the traffic is also a compelling argument against. Adding 30 cars trying to turn left onto Michigan could be a consideration. In general, adding 30 cars to Michigan isn’t going to be a big deal but for the neighborhood streets it could have potential impact.

Ms. Collier added that the stakeholder’s voices should matter. Some of these residents have been there 50 years.

Mr. Brame related that he bought houses in this market several times. The first time he bought a house in this market was in 1979. When he went to the closing and looked at the deed there was a stipulation in the deed that the neighbors had agreed upon that the house could not be sold to a person of color. That stipulation was a private arrangement enforced by the government. A person that has been there 50 years precludes someone from being able to be there for 50 years and therefore can’t make a claim of longevity to community, therefore my voice needn’t be heard. Secondly, as Mr. Brame looks at a City within a City, that talks about Grand Rapids, he looks at the color of law that talks about the practice of FHA, with reference to housing and how housing ordinances and density has been used to regulate where people could live. Mr. Brame stated that he weighs in on the side of the people that are being displaced and need a place to live and that are being pushed out of neighborhoods where there are single-family homes. Those folks also have rights and needs. Mr. Brame supports a program that provides additional housing to people in Grand Rapids. Every time he drives down the street and sees people on the sidewalk, or every time he goes to a school and sees children that are homeless, those people need someplace to stay too and they need a voice. Mr. Brame recalled that he has often argued on this Commission that they sway the decisions based on those who articulate. However, there is a portion of the population that, because of history, have been taught that they can’t win and think that this exercise is useless. Mr. Brame is being their voice today and saying to the Commission that we need to create housing for that population as well.

Ms. Collier clarified that she was speaking from the experience of being a resident within a block that is predominantly owner-occupied. Her experience is that owner-occupied units are different and the neighborhood more welcoming. They work together and collaborate on different things. She agreed it is unfair that people can’t live where ever they want to live. She feels there should be homes created vs. more rental spaces.

Mr. Brame argued that the fact is is that the government has given up on the goal of home ownership for individuals and has even advocated providing a sufficient amount of subsidized housing; we’ve given up on that. The alternative seems to be to be able to afford to stay in the market or to live on the streets.

Mr. Van Strien recognized that there are a lot of systemic issues at play here. While it may not be a consideration in this decision-making process, the market is heading more toward rentals; there is a demand for that. He doesn’t feel they should only be focused on home ownership opportunities.

Ms. Turkelson acknowledged that there are a lot of other issues around housing, several of which have been touched upon. However, the Planning Commission cannot base a land use decision on whether these are rentals or what the price points are. The focus should be on the land use, pattern of development, and whether it is an appropriate location for the land use and the proposed density, traffic, etc.

Mr. Treur appreciates that, as well as Mr. Brame’s perspective. He understands that there is a need for affordable housing and additional housing in the City. This is a unique parcel. Ms. Zeller had explained that staff tried to determine why it is so unique and why so oddly shaped. The fact that it is on the edge of the Michigan Street Corridor, where it is still looking at low density residential, and the fact that it is completely surrounded by single-family except for the building at the front of the property, makes it feel different and not harmonious with the uses in the neighborhood. They have approved other apartment buildings near low density residential before but it is usually on the edge and as a transition to something like a Traditional Business District where it becomes more of a traditional change. He can’t recall an instance where they have approved multi-family in single-family areas like this.

Ms. Turkelson clarified that what Mr. Treur meant was that we typically see that the multi-family/density is parallel to the major street rather than vertical or protruding into the neighborhood.

Mr. Treur agreed. For him it is mostly the fact of the neighborhood use. There will be a loss to green space and he understands that will happen with any development but there is that concern with respect to the environmental standard. Mr. Treur feels it is in conflict with the Master Plan and it will be denser then what they’ve talked about with the Michigan Street Corridor Plan here and it isn’t harmonious with the neighborhood.

Mr. Van Strien stated that in terms of the use he is not opposed to multi-family. However, the positioning of the parcel into the neighborhood does make a difference. He is somewhat uncomfortable with the site plan.

Ms. Behler noted how it is continually being brought up that it is on the edge of the Michigan Street Corridor Plan. However, it is still within it. The Plan was designed and it is within the Plan. She feels they begin to get into dangerous territory when they begin to consider treating it like it isn’t in the Plan because it is on the edge.

Mr. Treur clarified that he was referring to how it is still designated as low-density in the plan.

Ms. Behler agreed that there is conflict between the Corridor Plan and the Master Plan and what density is desired. She gets anxious when they begin to decide discretionarily. She understands that they can do that but doesn’t feel it is appropriate to say they shouldn’t take the Plan as seriously because of the location at the edge of the Plan.

Mr. Van Strien explained that wasn’t his suggestion. As you get to the edge of the Plan it transitions into a lower density recommendation and it still recommends that this is low density, despite the overall increase in density from the 2002 Plan.

Mr. Rozeboom feels the big picture principals speak to support for the proposal but some of the more detail-oriented Standards speak against it. He agrees that if it were between the mass of low density residential and the businesses it would be an easier decision.

Mr. Van Strien agreed, even a block and a half over where there is a transition into some of the higher density and mixed density.

Ms. Joseph recognized that the existing apartment building is more in line with the Michigan Street Corridor Plan with its location fronting Michigan Street where there is transit, etc.

Ms. Turkelson clarified that it has the proximity of the density to the major street.

Ms. Joseph agreed. The area of the parcel under consideration is deep into the neighborhood. She would agree that it is a matter of the site plan.

Ms. Collier asked if there is any issue with the number of trees that would be taken out.

Mr. Davis replied that they propose meeting the tree canopy requirement of 37%.

Ms. Turkelson added that the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance encourage the preservation of trees to the greatest extent possible. There is a tree canopy requirement. Effectively, they would be clearing the back half of the site as a result of the grading necessary for the development. They will be required to put trees back in. That is one of the decision points for the Planning Commission; whether it is appropriate to be able to clear the back half of the property, which is directly related to the site plan, vs. looking at a different site plan that might suggest clustering some of the densities to avoid the need to remove existing trees. The Master Plan encourages that where there is density to make an effort of clustering around natural features where they exist rather than spreading the development out and starting new. Ms. Turkelson agreed that they are proposing to meet the canopy requirements but there are other factors that go into that consideration.

Mr. Van Strien invited additional comments; there were none.

Mr. Treur MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission denies the Special Land Use request of Michigan Street Apartment Homes, LLC (Gary Hensch) to construct a 30-unit multi-family building behind an existing 12-unit building at 1542 Michigan Street NW, for the following reasons:

1. The proposed use will not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed use will not be consistent with the desired future character of the zone district as a low-density residential area and will exceed the density of the Low Density Residential designation of the Master Plan and would also exceed the density as indicated in the Michigan Street Corridor Plan.

2. The proposed use will not be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because the scale and massing of the proposed building will not be consistent with the single-family residential character of the surrounding neighborhood and the proposed use will not be consistent with the desired density of the neighborhood.

3. The proposed use will have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the additional residential units in the neighborhood may increase traffic and parking needs, especially given that there is no street parking available on Michigan Street and the height of the building and its placement on the site will negatively impact the quality of life of neighboring residential properties.

4. The proposed uses will be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter because the proposed building is out of scale with the character of the exiting single-family residential neighborhood; additional residential density will result in additional traffic; development on the subject property will excessively affect abutting properties due to the extreme depth of the site.

5. The proposed use will adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall, or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because adequate pedestrian walkways and connections to the sidewalk on Michigan Street are not being provided.

6. The proposed development will not retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable because the proposed development will result in a loss of greenspace on the site as well as impact the steep slopes on the site.

7. The proposed use would be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the City because the project would have a destabilizing effect on a desirable neighborhood.

SUPPORTED by Ms. Joseph.

Ms. Turkelson offered suggestions to enhance the resolution:

· The proposed use will not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the proposed development is not consistent with the pattern of development as recommended by the Master Plan. Additionally, the Master Plan recommends that overall densities of existing neighborhoods be maintained.

· The proposed use will not be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment because, the Zoning Ordinance does not encourage the removal of existing trees and the Master Plan encourages clusters of development patterns to conserve open space and natural features.

Mr. Treur accepted the suggestions offered by Ms. Turkelson and amended the resolution to include those points. Supported by Ms. Joseph.

The question was called. YEAS: (Collier, Joseph, Treur, Van Strien,) 4. NAYS: 4 (Behler, Brame, Davis, Rozeboom). MOTION FAILED.

Mr. Van Strien explained that since the motion did not pass it will be necessary to either reconsider the motion or entertain a motion to approve. He suggested they discuss it further. He suggested those that are somewhat undecided offer their thoughts. Mr. Van Strien related that he can see this either way. He is in favor of the use and in this location but he is uncomfortable with the site plan. If he were to support approval of the project, he would want additional conditions to help alleviate some of the concerns of the immediately adjacent property owners, specifically including the fence that they removed from the site plan.

Ms. Joseph asked if they have the ability to return with an amended site plan.

Ms. Turkelson advised that if the request is denied they could not return for a year unless significant changes have been made.

Mr. Davis indicated that he wants to vote to deny but doesn’t know that he can. He is very torn on this.

Ms. Collier feels the project would change the feel of the community.

Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Davis to explain.

Mr. Davis recalled spending the first year on the Commission trying to fight for what people were saying at the podium. This Commission tabled this request to allow an opportunity for more community input and they’ve come forward with their opposition. He wishes that he could make a decision on just the public input but he can’t, and that frustrates him. He would love to say thank you to the community for coming out. However, he has to look at what they are trying to do within the concept of the current development trends and the future development of Grand Rapids. There is a need for housing. The property is located on Michigan and transit is available. He recalled someone stating that if this were a block and a half over they would be for it. That is alarming to Mr. Davis. They are within one and a half blocks of creating 30 units in Grand Rapids, which is dying for housing.

Ms. Turkelson responded to Mr. Davis, with respect to density, that you have to look at patterns of development and neighborhood; it has to be contextualized. She isn’t sure that because there is open land in a neighborhood that it means it is appropriate to maximize density to achieve larger goals of the City.

Mr. Treur agreed. The City needs more industrial sites too but he wouldn’t approve an industrial use here.

Mr. Davis agreed that those are valid points. However, he goes back to the fact that it is an existing use.

Mr. Witte interjected that they are amenable to installing a fence, per his previous testimony.

Mr. Davis commented further that he isn’t passionately arguing for or against this. He is struggling because he sees the traffic and the density in the low density residential neighborhood. Then he sees an existing use in an existing location that is off of Michigan, within the Michigan Street Corridor Plan, that feels close to alignment.

Mr. Rozeboom indicated that he is torn as well. When going through the Standards he is finding that several speak to it and several against it. He agrees that the specific site does matter. Development pattern and transition from one neighborhood part to another neighborhood part does matter.

Ms. Collier feels Standard 4 is very impactful. The natural features that are present now provide a barrier. That buffer vs. a fence is very different.

Mr. Van Strien pointed out that they would require both a natural screen and a fence if approved.

Ms. Joseph pointed out that the proposed development doesn’t preserve as many natural features of the landscape as practicable or cluster the density.

Mr. Van Strien felt the key word in that Standard is practicable. With development they are to try to preserve what they can based on the site plan rather than clear cut and backfill.

Ms. Turkelson suggested that the choices in their site plan are what necessitate the grading.

Mr. Van Strien agreed that he doesn’t favor the site plan but the Commission’s position is not to design it.

Mr. Davis noted that the Special Land Use gives them the power to say no. The applicant is before the Commission because what is proposed is not by right and, while they aren’t designing the site plan they can say that it doesn’t warrant exception.

Ms. Collier asked if there is something in the ASP that speaks to this area.

Mr. Van Strien replied that the Michigan Street Corridor Plan does. It doesn’t specifically speak to this parcel but the parcel is within the low density residential area.

Ms. Turkelson recalled Ms. Zeller’s presentation that the proposed exceeds the suggested density of the 2002 Master Plan.

Mr. Davis recalled from the applicant’s presentation that they are exceeding the parking requirements, they are meeting the green space requirements, and that they are under the density allowance of the Zoning Ordinance. When considering those points, it seems that they are doing their best to take an existing use and expand that use on the site. Perhaps he is placing too much value on those things.

Mr. Van Strien agreed that those are big items because they speak to the potential negative consequences of a development. Often those are the things they have significant discussion about.

Ms. Turkelson added however that those are not the only three items that a decision should be based upon.

Mr. Davis asked if there are other Standards they need to consider more heavily or if there are things that are in opposition to these aspects, which would seem to be in line with an approval.

Mr. Rozeboom replied that the fundamental argument is that it is an increase in intensity of the use, which they often cite. That is the fundamental question. If you accept that that is okay then you make sure that it doesn’t have adverse effects. Mr. Rozeboom indicated that he is undecided enough that he could support the motion to deny.

Mr. Davis indicated that he was as well.

Discussion took place regarding the process to proceed with reconsideration.

Motion by Mr. Treur, supported by Mr. Davis, to reconsider the motion. YEAS: 6. NAYS: 2 (Behler, Brame). Motion carried.

Mr. Van Strien again called the question on the original MOTION TO DENY. YEAS: 6. NAYS: 2 (Behler, Brame). MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Van Strien clarified for those present that the motion that passed was a motion to deny the proposed project.

RESULT: DENIED [6 TO 2]

MOVER: Rick Treur, Board Member

SECONDER: Laurel Joseph

YEAS: Rozeboom, Collier, Davis, Van Strien, Treur, Joseph

NAYS: Stacie Behler, Walter M Brame

ABSENT: Paul Greenwald

VI. Planning Commission Discussion

· Mr. Bartley related that on 4/25/19, the day they have been discussing for a medical marihuana facility tour, there will be a conference in the afternoon in Lansing put on by the Michigan Association of Planning. One of the sessions that afternoon will be about recreational marihuana. Mr. Bartley asked if the Commission would be interested in foregoing one of the tour stops in order to attend that conference session as an instructional opportunity. Another option would be to postpone the tour and just attend the conference. The session will be in the range of 60-75 minutes in length. The original intent was to tour one grow operation and one provisioning center. If they opt in for the conference session, they would likely only be able to accommodate one of the tours. They may be able to find a grow operation that has a provisioning center as part of their use as well.

Mr. Van Strien indicated that he is less concerned about the grow operation impact on the community than he is the provisioning centers.

Ms. Turkelson related that noise and odor have been brought up as significant points of concern in other communities.

Mr. Van Strien noted that recreational is something they won’t be making any decisions on for some time. Mr. Bartley agreed. The City Commission hasn’t made any formal determination or even formal guidance. However, Mr. Bartley feels that it would be a worthwhile educational opportunity if the Commission is interested.

Mr. Van Strien suggested Mr. Bartley handle the scheduling. He feels it is probably more beneficial to do the tours at this point, unless Mr. Bartley is able to work the conference session nicely into their schedule.

· Mr. Davis related that he attended the Neighborhood Summit a couple of weeks ago. There was a great presentation that had to do with engagement around planning and he was thrilled to be there. He mentioned that to some of the people who were planning with the Urban Core Collective, Neighborhood Associations, and City staff. He stated that it was really great but he also felt that what they were doing was setting people up to be more upset. They are showing them how to engage a process but not teaching them how the process works. They are being told to feel passionate and get louder and not informing them of how decisions are made. Mr. Davis noted that they tabled a request because they wanted more community engagement. Is that what they wanted, why they tabled, and what swayed the decision? Mr. Davis didn’t feel they learned anything in the community engagement.

Mr. Treur replied that part of the reason he wanted it tabled was for better elevations and an understanding of how it would fit. He recalled that they had discussed how difficult it was to get in to the property and walk it. It wasn’t just community engagement for him. He was hoping to have some better site plans.

Mr. Van Strien added that it gave the neighborhood organization an opportunity to actually consider it.

Mr. Rozeboom stated that the role of the neighborhood testimony is supposed to fill the Planning Commission in on details they might not otherwise know and the possible adverse effects. Neighborhood input on a particular case has to do with details of the particular case. Area Specific Plans incorporate a lot of voices to come up with a Plan.

Mr. Brame feels that somewhere in the process it is necessary to communicate to applicants that they may require them to go beyond Standards. If the applicant comes in and demonstrates that they meet the Standards and still meet with defeat that has to be upsetting. He feels they need to be very clear with applicants on what they want. They need to be clear on what engagement means and what they expect to be the deliverables from that engagement process.

Ms. Collier stated that it is important to her to know that neighbors are aware of what is happening and that they are able to offer their input.

Mr. Van Strien advised that it is also important to remember that they don’t have a vote on the Planning Commission. They shed light upon things that the Commission may need to use in the decision-making process. It isn’t a popularity vote. It is part of the consideration.

Mr. Brame related that as a young organizer he used to go to meetings and for a number of years he thought the intent of giving your name and address was an invitation for the clan to visit you. The actual purpose is to establish your standing by virtue of you being a resident. Mr. Brame feels they need to be able to look at things from the vantage point of the oppressed and understand why they don’t respond. They assume that their response isn’t going to make any difference anyway. That is the challenge they have in terms of inviting people to participate in decision making.

Ms. Behler added that it is important to invite people to give input on developing the Standards on which the decisions will be made. It is important to have voices heard today as a data point but even more important to have people be a part of the process, the developing of the systems and governance that drive the decision making. That is where this Commission and community can improve. As they approach the Master Planning process, that is where they need to be mindful that that will establish how they make decisions. Making sure people are engaged in that process will be very important.

Mr. Davis explained that the reason he brought it up is that they asked the developers to go talk to more neighbors, which they did. The Commission heard loud and clear what they thought but when they came back every other Standard was being met. He felt like the people didn’t feel he was listening to them.

Mr. Treur didn’t feel that every other Standard was met, which was why he read through them and mentioned those he didn’t feel were being met.

Mr. Davis understood, and ultimately that motion passed.

Ms. Joseph felt the input about the traffic concerns was helpful because she doesn’t drive on those neighborhood streets.

Mr. Davis was pleased if the community input helped their decision. For him it didn’t change much.

Mr. Van Strien stated that to him the engagement process isn’t about coming to a meeting and saying whether you are for or against something; it is to help inform the project itself and create something that’s better.

Mr. Brame argued that their decisions are sometimes shaped by what they here. On any given occasion he knows that the issues of parking and traffic are going to come up. He needs a professional opinion on that. That helps him to make a decision. What is the impact of 30 units and related cars on this corridor? Is it going to be noticeable? He would suspect not, but it had weight here today as if it would.

Mr. Rozeboom asked Mr. Brame to clarify who the oppressed are in the statement he made.

Mr. Brame replied people outside the system of decision making.

Mr. Rozeboom asked, related to this case specifically, who he was thinking of.

Mr. Brame replied people that could potentially benefit from housing, who don’t have housing, but they don’t have a belief that the system is going to work for them so they don’t show up with a voice. He feels the scales are tipped when they invite citizens and they come because the system has worked for them.

Mr. Rozeboom expressed his understanding using the example that no one that currently resides in the existing apartment building came to comment.

VII. Public Comment

Virginia Morris asked if they can return with a different plan.

Mr. Van Strien explained that they do have the right to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision.

Ms. Turkelson explained further that, if they appeal the Planning Commission’s decision, the appeal would be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals and everyone within 300’ would receive another postcard notice. The applicant also has the option of starting over by significantly changing their site plan and resubmitting for Special Land Use approval. If they resubmit for the Special Land Use, with a significantly different plan, that would also require public notice and a public hearing.

VIII. Adjournment

The meeting was closed at 5:10 PM