GRAND RAPIDS PLANNING COMMISSION
July 11, 2013
1:00 P.M., RM. 201, DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Members Present: Stephen Ruis, Mary Angelo, Rick Treur, Kyle VanStrien, Paul Potter, Paul
Rozeboom
Members Absent: Nate Koetje, Walter Brame and Reginald Smith
City Staff: Planning Director Suzanne Schulz, Asst. City Attorney Tom Forshee, Kristin
Turkelson, and Recording Secretary Carol Gornowich
Approval of the Minutes of June 13, 2013: Motion by Mr. VanStrien, supported by Ms.
Angelo, to approve the minutes of June 13, 2013. Motion carried unanimously.
Election of Officers:
Ms. Angelo nominated Mr. Ruis for the position of Chair and Mr. VanStrien for the position
of Vice-Chair. Supported by Mr. Potter.
There were no other nominations. Mr. Ruis and Mr. VanStrien were unanimously
appointed.
Mr. Ruis nominated Mr. Smith for the position of Secretary. Supported by Mr. Potter.
There were no other nominations. Mr. Smith was unanimously appointed to the position of
Secretary.
Planning Director’s Report:
Ms. Schulz related that the multi-million dollar project of Karl Chew will likely be administratively
approved as it meets all the requirements of the Ordinance. Ms. Schulz also reviewed the
agenda items.
Conflict of Interest:
Mr. Ruis recalled that he had previously abstained from participating in requests related to
Martha’s Vineyard. He also related a conflict regarding Wealthy Street Bakery, a business
adjacent to his business, Art of the Table.
The Commission discussed whether Mr. Ruis had a conflict regarding the Lyon St. request.
Mr. VanStrien moved that Mr. Ruis does have a conflict regarding the 610 Wealthy request
but no conflict with respect to the 609 & 623 Lyon request. Supported by Mr. Treur.
Motion carried unanimously.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1006 S. Division Avenue – Special Land Use – Bob Tidey requesting approval to operate an
automotive repair business. File No.: PC-SLU-2013-0044
Ms. Turkelson introduced the request to use a former equipment rental facility for auto repair,
which requires Special Land Use approval. She reminded the Commission that they previously
considered a night club request in this location, which was denied. During that hearing it was
discussed that there was an auto repair business located on the parcel. The business has been
in operation for just over a year. The property is over 51,000 sq. ft. The majority of the property
is located in the TBA zone district with approximately 4,000 sq. ft. located in the LDR district. In
addition to the primary structure, there are two accessory structures on the property. The auto
repair shop is located in the primary structure, which has four bays and one lift. The larger of
the accessory structures is personal storage for the lessee and the smaller of the two is for the
storage of auto repair parts.
Ms. Turkelson related that the property owner is leasing the property to a person who is utilizing
the larger of the accessory structures for personal vehicle storage and he has partnered or
sublet to a mechanic who is utilizing the primary building for auto repair.
Ms. Turkelson referred to the site plan as well as an aerial view of the property. Along the north
end of the site there were a couple of vehicles present in 2012. Since then it appears there is
more outdoor storage. It doesn’t appear to be paved. It may have been paved at one time but
has since deteriorated so it is part gravel and part pavement. It appears it has been that way
since approximately 2006 based on aerial photography.
The vehicle repair takes place Monday through Saturday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The use has not
been inspected by the fire department for compliance with operational permit requirements.
The fire department is currently looking at that and will be working with the owner or lessee.
The applicant is not proposing any physical changes to the site. There is a chain link fence
running along S. Division and minimal screening/landscaping. No additional screening or
landscaping is proposed. There is also a non-conforming sign located adjacent to the entry off
of Division that currently isn’t being used.
Ms. Turkelson related that no letters have been submitted. It is important to remember that the
use runs with the land. Therefore, any approval granted and the conditions imposed would
apply to future owners who may operate as an auto repair without coming back to the Planning
Commission.
Ms. Schulz added that while the site was previously used for auto repair the Zoning Ordinance
changed in 2007. The site was vacant for several years and then they began the auto related
use. One of the changes to the Ordinance was that this area was designated TBA and auto
oriented uses are treated differently than when this was zoned C-4, which permitted the
proposed use by right. The TBA was debated quite a bit and found important because of the
BRT line that is going in at Franklin and Division and at Hall and Division. The TBA seeks to
minimize some of the auto related uses anticipating that there will be changes over time. If the
Commission is inclined to approve the use then bringing it up to what is currently required by
code would be appropriate.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 3
Bob Tidey related that he is the property owner. He explained that when the building was
originally constructed it was the Nickel Equipment Building. They leased and sold small
industrial equipment such as air compressors and backhoes. They sold the property to a
company called to RSC and they did the same thing. The history of the property is similar to the
existing use. Mr. Tidey explained that he leases the building to Don Lamsey and he uses it for
more of a personal use than a business. He doesn’t really operate a profit and loss repair
business; he keeps his personal cars in the center building and he works with social agencies,
churches and people in the neighborhood and lets them use the building to repair their own
vehicles. Paul Teusink is a mechanic that does repairs there for other neighborhood
organizations and people. They don’t have a business; they just do the work on a cash basis.
The intent is not to form a high profile repair business here. Mr. Tidey stated that he basically
leases the property to him for taxes and insurance only. It is a temporary use until he gets a
higher profile tenant that will take the property and make better use of it. Because there isn’t
enough money in this arrangement he can’t make changes to the property. If the request is
denied it will likely sit vacant again. The property is for sale and is on a month to month lease
with Mr. Lamsey. He doesn’t intend to build a big auto repair business there.
Mr. Ruis invited public comment.
Nathan Love, 1041 Sheldon, related that his property is adjacent to the rear of the subject site.
The property is a nuisance with all the cars, old mattresses and other debris. They are trying to
get their garden together but the mess is overflowing into their yard. Mr. Love responded to Mr.
Potter relating that he has lived here for approximately 27 years.
Cindy Hicks, 1049 Sheldon, related that Mr. Love’s brother owns the house between her home
and his. It is not that she doesn’t appreciate business and neighborhood growth. At the last
meeting for the proposed night club there was mention of a small mechanic operation but if you
drive by now there is a minimum of 100 cars. There is run off of gas and antifreeze going into
neighboring gardens. Ms. Hicks stated that she is concerned about the number of auto repair
businesses in the neighborhood; more than six within a few blocks. Across from United
Methodist Community House there are tires and other debris. She finds that to be a nuisance
and detrimental to their property values. With the train coming in they would like to see some
restaurants or more senior housing making it easier for seniors to get around. They do
welcome new businesses that will help improve the neighborhood. Ms. Hicks also stated that
she and her husband observed the mechanic leaving the property at 12:45 a.m. There is
usually music they can hear also.
Ms. Schulz asked the activity that takes place on site; oil changes or more extensive mechanic
repair?
Ms. Hicks stated that the entire lot has cars and there isn’t much room to go in or out. There are
also mattresses and other dumping. The space isn’t being monitored and maintained. She
questions the quality of the soil and where all the fluids go. During the evening there are cars
and music and it operates until 10 p.m. and later. It has been a bit quieter this summer but
when a car leaves at 12:45 it is startling and disturbs her dog.
Mr. Potter asked if she has personally witnessed leaking antifreeze and oil.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 4
Ms. Hicks replied yes. There are liquids dumped and you can see the colored water when it
flows. She is worried about the run off. Mr. Love works hard on his garden and there is
nothing to block the run off.
Don Lamsey stated that he leases the property. Someone stated that there was a car going
east close to Mr. Love’s house but he doesn’t believe a car can go through there. Mr. Lamsey
stated that the number of cars on the property is closer to 50. Cars are stored because people
have asked him to let them store their disabled vehicles and he has let them. The vacant
property adjacent to the small shed belongs to the night club property on the corner. If
someone puts tires there they can’t control that but they aren’t putting them there. Mr. Lamsey
stated that he tries to help people out. If someone has a problem with a vehicle he refers them
to Mr. Teusink because his rates are very reasonable. Mr. Teusink belongs to an area church
and many of his customers attend the church. They appreciate the dependable service he
provides. Mr. Lamsey stated that in terms of antifreeze, if a customer in the neighborhood has a
problem with a hose or water pump and they have the car hauled in it is possible that some
could be spilled on the ground but they are very careful about disposal. They have a large tank
for oil storage that is emptied by Crystal Flash. They don’t dispose of fluids on the ground.
Tires are stored in the large shed. The sides are cut off of them so that they can be disposed of
at a landfill. They too are concerned about the environment. Mr. Lamsey stated that he
encourages the gentlemen to keep the music down and be considerate of the neighborhood.
Paul Teusink stated that he subleases from Mr. Lamsey and works in the back section of the
large building. He agrees that the property was somewhat messy but they have gotten the
weeds cleaned up. Someone else was to do the site cleanup and they haven’t done it so he
has started. They don’t want the business to look bad. He feels that he has been called to do
this work but doesn’t know if this is the location it will occur. He wants to comply with Zoning
regulations and he is working on getting all of the proper licensing. He would like to have the
necessary approvals in place and wants the neighbors to be happy. Mr. Teusink stated that he
is also trying to help men get job skills and share his mechanical abilities. He provides honest,
affordable repairs. He is also considering the possibility of a body shop but understands there
are a number of regulations associated with that work.
Ms. Schulz stated that she has observed vehicles up on blocks that were completely stripped
down. She asked if they do body work on the property now.
Mr. Teusink replied that they don’t. There are vehicles on site that might have a dented fender
or bumper but any of the vehicles with major damage have been removed from the site. He
responded to further questions stating that the site is not licensed by the State but they are
working on that.
Mr. Potter recalled his comments that he wants to run a good looking business. In reality this is
a business. He asked if he has a business license or pays business taxes.
Mr. Teusink replied that he doesn’t have a license but all of that is in the works. He has been
there for a short while and when the night club was trying to buy the property he backed off.
When they got turned down he began earnestly to get that in order. Someone then approached
and expressed their desire to buy the property and employ him as manager of a non-profit car
ministry. The draw back for them was the price of the property so those plans have gone by the
wayside. He stated that he will get his license whether the work continues here or elsewhere.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 5
He has a good thing going. He has counselors he works with at Arbor Circle, Mel Trotter and
Guiding Light that refer customers to him.
Mr. Potter advised that the Commission has to consider the fact that any approval stays with the
land.
Mr. Teusink understands that they desire to have good looking businesses. He is excited about
the Silverline because it provides customers an option of using the bus if they have to leave
their car overnight.
Matt Falk, 926 S Division, expressed his appreciation for the explanation of the applicants’
business venture. He supports their intentions and what it sounds like they have been able to
achieve to this point. His concern is the aesthetics of the property. In conversation with other
business owners in the proximity they don’t see any difference between what occurs on the
subject site and a country junk yard. It is good to hear that they are providing a good service for
the local community and he supports that but the concern is the aesthetics. Mr. Falk suggested
that if the Commission is inclined to approve that there be some kind of compromise or standard
of appearance that they can be held to and perhaps limit the number of cars permitted on site or
that they provide a visual barrier. Currently it looks like a storage area or junk yard.
Mr. VanStrien clarified with the applicant that they aren’t proposing any property improvements.
Mr. Tidey stated that they could make some minor improvements but the budget doesn’t allow
for installing privacy fences, landscaping and remodeling. He isn’t generating an income from
the lease.
Mr. VanStrien noted that they aren’t in compliance with City, State and other laws and can’t
afford to bring the site into compliance for the use. Therefore, he doesn’t feel approving would
be appropriate. He would prefer to see the site vacant compared to what it looks like now.
Mr. Potter agreed. Additionally, from a land planning perspective he doesn’t feel that is the way
they should proceed in that area.
Mr. Treur agreed, especially with the BRT coming in. The owner testified that as soon as
something better comes along they will change it over. Mr. Treur appreciates the service they
are trying to provide but feels they have to be compliant if they are going to be doing it.
Ms. Schulz referred to the Standards and noted that Mr. Treur alluded to the BRT and the
Master Plan for the area.
Ms. Angelo MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
denies the Special Land Use request of Bob Tidey to use 1006 S. Division Avenue for
automotive repair, 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 decrease the quality of life in the City, doesn’t promote investment in the area,
and heavy auto oriented use is not what is envisioned for the TBA district.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 6
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 proposed use will not support the desired mixed use
character of the neighborhood. While the neighborhood may not be perfect in all
ways there is potential for transition. With respect to the BRT, this site has 334 linear
ft. of frontage and an auto oriented use in the center of two BRT stations may hinder
potential redevelopment in the area.
3. The proposed use will have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because
effective screening, fencing, landscaping and buffers will not be provided and the
owner has testified that he is not able to make improvements on the property.
4. The site design for the proposed use will not be environmentally sensitive as per
testimony of neighbors that have witnessed issues on the property and it will not
result in additional green space because none has been proposed by the applicant.
Additionally, there is no State licensing of the site or for storage and disposal of
hazardous materials.
5. The proposed use will be detrimental to the financial or economic stability of the City
because the use will make nearby properties less desirable and will result in
nuisances that require code enforcement actions.
6. The proposed use does not comply with all other applicable City ordinances and
policies and all applicable State laws.
SUPPORTED by Mr. VanStrien.
Discussion took place with respect to how long they would have to vacate the site. Mr. Forshee
advised that it would go through the normal code enforcement process. Ms. Schulz added that
they would have approximately 30-60 days to comply.
The question was called. MOTION CARRED UNANIMOUSLY.
____________________________________________________________________________
629, 635, 643-45, and 701-705 S. Division – Special Land Use – Vanco III, LLC (Daniel
VanEerden) requesting approval to demolish the commercial buildings on the subject properties
without a plan for redevelopment. File No.: PC-SLU-2013-0045
Ms. Schulz introduced the request for approval to demolish the commercial buildings on the
subject properties without a plan for redevelopment. The properties in questions consist of two
metal sheds, three one-story brick buildings and two two-story brick buildings on four properties.
Per the applicant, the buildings are dilapidated, unsafe and unusable. There have been
numerous issues with the buildings. One was a former bar that had multiple police complaints
which required the City to eventually shut the bar down. Given the population in the
neighborhood, particularly to the north, there has been a lot of homeless activity in the area and
people have actually been found deceased on these properties. There have been a number of
nuisance issues as well. These issues were not completely under the ownership of the current
applicant. It has just been an ongoing issue in this area for a number of years because there is
a void there. There is daytime activity with the food distribution center; VanEerden Foods. Light
industrial activity is located to the north and west and on the other side is a former industrial use
that is currently vacant and a vacant lot and a neighborhood as you get closer to Sheldon. It is
not an active commercial strip at the current time. The proposal is to demolish all of the
structures. It will be done through a program provided by MSHDA that would fund the
demolition of the properties. The applicant has expressed a desire to redevelop this area and
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 7
understands the importance of the BRT being located here. This is very similar to the block to
the south just discussed by the Commission in that there will be a BRT station at Wealthy and
one at Franklin. Therefore, this property is ideally situated as a redevelopment opportunity for
transit oriented development. In the meantime the applicant would like to have it remain as
vacant green space. They would erect a 7’ tall chain link security fence with barbed wire around
the property, consistent with the existing fencing around the VanEerden facility.
Ms. Schulz indicated that Mr. VanEerden is present and may be able to explain the need for the
barbed wire. There are certain exceptions in the ordinance where there are security concerns
and in this case it is food safety concerns, which makes it more challenging because they have
been proactively trying to eliminate barbed wire along the corridor. If the Commission is inclined
to approve they may wish to consider the placement of the fence and how landscaping and
buffering should occur in front of the fence rather than having the fence located right at the
property line.
Ms. Schulz stated that what the Commission is considering is not necessarily the demolition of
the structures but the existing use to the future use; existing buildings and potential for future
reuse of those buildings or redevelopment of that entire area with green space in the interim.
Ms. Schulz presented an aerial view of the properties and identified the buildings proposed for
demolition.
Dan VanEerden was present to discuss the request. He explained that the business is located
at 650 Ionia, adjacent to the subject properties. With respect to the proposed fencing, they fall
under the Homeland Security requirements as a food handler and that puts them at odds with
different municipality requirements. Because they handle food and the problems that have
occurred over the last 5-10 years there is a strict security requirement, which is why they have
fencing, barbed wire and gates that open and close according to tight security measures.
Mr. Ruis asked about future plans for the subject sites and their reason for taking them down at
this point.
Mr. VanEerden indicated that their image is very important to them. They desire a clean
environment that represents something worthy of the food they are handling. Therefore they
feel it is important to clean these sites up. They are very interested in development. They have
worked with the City and other individuals in the past to do development. The issue at hand is
that the development is just beginning in this section of Division between Wealthy and Franklin
and it is premature to develop anything now before seeing what the trend will be; they’d like to
let the market dictate what might develop there and it is too early to determine what type of
construction would make sense.
Mr. Potter asked if there are other food production facilities in the City with similar fencing.
Ms. Schulz replied El Matador Chip Factory. Mr. VanEerden added Columbian Storage, and
Herron Brothers, both of which have barbed wire.
Mr. Ruis asked if they had the current structures evaluated.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 8
Mr. VanEerden replied that they considered relocating their offices and had a construction
engineer come in who determined it wasn’t feasible to convert the space to offices and bars are
not a business they care to be in. Those buildings aren’t conducive to retail space. Two of the
buildings were auto repair garages and that isn’t where this section of Division is headed.
Mr. Ruis asked if they are considering office development for the future.
Mr. VanEerden replied that that is a possibility. Retail or some other type of development that
makes sense are also possibilities. They’ve been in contact with a number of leaders in Grand
Rapids and if the vision was clear right now they would likely have something in play. He would
suspect it will be along the lines of retail and perhaps office. They’ve had some drawings done
and it will be urban development. The family has been in business in Grand Rapids since 1920
and it will be something the City would be proud of.
Mr. Potter noted that it is easier to market a clean property.
Mr. VanEerden clarified that they don’t intend to grow their parking lot or truck storage to the
Division frontage. It is natural for them to use Grant St. for ingress and egress for the office
area. They feel what they have set up off of Ionia, where there is less traffic, is appropriate.
They have no intention, at this point, of consolidating utilities and bringing everything under one
lot. It will stay as it is now.
Ms. Schulz clarified that the request is to make it green space. The Commission could condition
an approval stating that anything other than green space would require Planning Commission
approval, unless it were a building that would be permitted by right.
Mr. Ruis noted from the site plan that they are planning to use an existing gate on Grant St.
from the back of the bar into the parking lot.
Ms. Schulz explained that there was an alley there at one point that was vacated. It is
VanEerden property now.
Mr. Ruis asked if they will keep the existing pavement in place and green the remainder of it.
Mr. VanEerden stated that the asphalt in that area isn’t what they would like it to be so they will
likely make some improvements to fill holes and allow it to function like a driveway should
function.
Ms. Schulz suggested Mr. VanEerden discuss the utilities and some of the issues that must still
be worked through.
Mr. VanEerden related that there is an informational highway on one property. It is a clearing
house for Grand Rapids and sends signals to Chicago and then over to Detroit. There are
some interesting fibers underground that need to be handled very carefully. They had some
requests for others that want to come in and do more of that but so far they haven’t moved on
that.
Mr. Ruis invited public comment; there was none.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 9
Mr. Potter feels that the green space would be great and easier to market or reuse. If they can
vacate the street there would be continuity. He sees no down side to the request.
Ms. Angelo agreed.
Mr. VanStrien suggested that the down side is that there is no report on the viability of the
buildings themselves and potential for reuse. The applicant testified that they couldn’t be used
for offices for their use but the overall condition isn’t known. They might be able to be reused.
Mr. Treur added that knowing that these buildings are similar to the stock that is located just
north, he has concerns taking them down without a plan in place.
Mr. VanStrien stated that the trend may be reuse of single story brick buildings.
Ms. Schulz asked if single story brick buildings are envisioned for the future of the corridor and
is preservation of them in keeping with the goals of the Master Plan as a major transit corridor.
On one hand historic structures play a role in building the character and sense of place of a
neighborhood. On the other hand this might be an under-utilization of the property when four or
five story buildings could be developed.
Ms. Angelo added that if two of the buildings were used for automotive work they likely couldn’t
be converted to a restaurant.
Mr. Potter added that to rehab an old building would likely cost twice what it would to redevelop
Mr. Treur argued that others have found cost effective ways to rehab old buildings downtown.
Mr. Ruis expressed appreciation for Ms. Schulz’s point. When thinking about the TBA near the
transitional city center and different modes of transportation, the goal is for higher density than
the existing buildings would provide for. Reuse might make sense if they were on a less dense
corridor. Additionally, having the sites clear will make the property more marketable. The
applicant doesn’t seem to be looking to expand their commercial use here; they are looking to
provide what the Master Plan is calling for in this area once the area is ready to absorb it.
Ms. Schulz noted that another consideration may be the proximity of the site to the downtown
market and the rehabilitation of the Baker Furniture factory and the intensity of that building and
the proposed redevelopment of the Klingman Warehouse building, which is also proposed for
high density residential. Development is beginning to emerge with the new downtown market.
Mr. Potter stated that the potential reuse of the property is much more intense than the existing
buildings would allow.
Mr. Rozeboom MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Vanco III, LLC (Daniel VanEerden)
for approval to demolish commercial buildings at 629, 635, 643-45, and 701-705 S.
Division Avenue without a plan for redevelopment, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed demolition will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master
Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District, because the demolition will
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 10
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
remove structures that are in poor condition, improve the quality of life in the City and
provide green space.
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 use will support the desired future character of the
neighborhood by preparing the way for future development as referenced by the
redevelopment taking place in the area.
The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood
because effective screening/fencing/landscaping buffers will be provided.
The proposed demolitions will not adversely affect the walkability of the
neighborhood because the demolition is intended to improve the quality of the
properties in the neighborhood by removing structures that are in poor condition.
The site design will result in green space, landscaping and storm water retention
improvements that will enhance the current conditions on the site.
The proposed use will safeguard the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
public because the properties have posed a safety hazard to the community.
The proposed development will not be detrimental to the financial stability and
economic welfare of the City.
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability of the City because
the use will not require additional police or fire services, will not result in nuisances
that require code enforcement actions and will potentially enhance property values.
The proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies
and all applicable State laws, per the resolution to approve.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this
project:
1. That the plans prepared by Moore and Bruggink, Inc., dated June 5, 2013, submitted
to the Planning Commission, and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning
Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except as amended in this resolution.
2. That the Planning Commission has found that the applicant has adequately
demonstrated the need for a 7’ high chain link security fence with barbed wire for the
protection of the food production facility.
3. The security fence shall be located to provide 20-25 feet of landscape buffer between
the fence and the sidewalk and it shall be appropriately landscaped, subject to the
review and approval of a landscape plan by the Planning Director.
4. That a LUDS permit with plans showing that the property shall be properly improved
with topsoil, grass, fencing, and landscaping shall be obtained prior to demolition of
the buildings.
5. There shall be no expansion of the parking lot area unless otherwise approved by the
Planning Commission.
6. That Grant Street be modified to replicate a private drive, rather than a public street,
in coordination with the Engineering and Traffic Safety Departments.
7. That this approval shall take effect on July 27, 2013 and shall be valid for a period of
one year, provided the property is used as approved or work has substantially
commenced in that period.
SUPPORTED by Ms. Angelo. YEAS: 5. NAYS: 1 (Treur). MOTION CARRIED.
____________________________________________________________________________
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 11
601, 607, 613, 615, 619, 623, 627, 629, 633, 635, 637, 641, and 643 Clancy Avenue NE; and
216 Fairbanks Street NE – Zone Change to Planned Redevelopment District – JB Holdngs
Clancy, LLC (Joe Modderman) requesting approval to demolish twelve residential structures
and rezone the subject properties from TN-LDR Traditional Neighborhoods – Low Density
Residential to Planned Redevelopment District (PRD) to facilitate a 67 dwelling-unit multiplefamily development. File No.: PC-SLU-2013-0030
Ms. Turkelson presented the request noting that this request has been before the Commission
on May 9 and June 13. She highlighted the changes of the application and invited questions.
The applicant is seeking to demolish 12 residential structures and rezone the property from TNLDR to Planned Redevelopment District to facilitate a 67 dwelling unit multiple-family
development. The project was reduced by one dwelling unit from 68 to 67. Front porches were
added along Clancy. Decks/patio areas were added to all top-level units; the third story will be
recessed 12 ft., the goal being to limit the massing at the street level. The 67 units would be
comprised of 8 one-bedroom units, 41 two-bedroom units and 18 three-bedroom units. The
average building heights of all buildings is less than 35 ft. The details of the building heights are
provided in the Commission packet. The smaller structures average 30 ft. in height and the
larger structure averages approximately 35 ft.
Ms. Turkelson provided density information. The current proposal is 850 sq. ft. of lot area per
unit/51 dwelling units per acre. The subject lots would be combined. Typically the PRD would
require a minimum lot size of 5 acres and the proposed is 1.31 acres. The applicant is seeking
an exception to the minimum lot area requirement. The proposed density is closest to the
density permitted in the TN-TCC District, which permits 750 sq. ft. of lot area per unit. The
Master Plan considers the proposed density to be high density; 15 units or more per acre.
Ms. Turkelson indicated that there haven’t been any significant changes to the site layout.
However, the neighborhood association suggested a couple of different configurations. They
explored the idea of relocating the parking deck toward Fairbanks putting all of the residential
structures in line and the parking deck at the end of the development adjacent to the
commercial use. From a staff perspective they were somewhat concerned about what that
would do to the individual property at the end. The applicant continues to propose the parking
deck in the middle of the development as shown but wished to acknowledge that they explored
the idea of the neighborhood association.
With respect to building elements, they have made some good strides. Front porches have
been added on Clancy. The details of the elevations are somewhat lacking. However, there is
some horizontal and vertical siding, some of which appears to be vinyl. Staff would expect that
more detailed drawings be submitted at a later date for review and approval.
There have been no significant changes made to the parking proposed. One and a half spaces
per unit are required for a total of 106 spaces. Based on the current layout the applicant is
proposing 86 spaces. 52 spaces are located in the parking deck. The lower portion of the deck
is accessed off of Clancy and the upper level from the alley. The remaining spaces would be
accessed off the alley. The spaces themselves are located on private property but they would
reverse and back onto the alley. The Planning Commission has the discretion to reduce the
required number of parking spaces based on alternate transportation and the availability of on
street parking.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 12
Ms. Turkelson noted that a letter from the neighborhood association was provided to the
Commission.
Mr. VanStrien recalled Ms. Turkelson stating that there may not have been enough information
provided about building materials.
Ms. Turkelson agreed. They desire more detailed information on the elevations in terms of what
materials are being proposed. While the sketched plans are attractive, it is difficult to determine
if the porches lead to doorways or if there are only windows. The sketches show brick but it
isn’t labeled.
Ms. Schulz noted that the Commission also received the ASP in their packets. A portion of the
Master Plan was also provided.
Steve Witte, Nederveld Associates, was present to discuss the request on behalf of JB
Holdings. He noted that the area is Master Planned in the ASP as mixed use housing. The
existing TN-LDR zoning doesn’t fit that Master Plan. The proposed PRD does fit the Master
Plan. The Master Plan mixed use housing district allows for a variety of housing types including
apartments and center hall apartment buildings. The ASP actually provides photo examples of
apartment buildings and center hall apartment buildings. It is easy to conclude from the photos
that what is proposed for the site is less dense and has less mass than what is shown in the
ASP. The project has been the subject of many meetings and has been modified a number of
times to address concerns of both the neighborhood and City staff. The layout was originally for
two larger buildings along Clancy. It was then modified to three buildings and later to five
buildings and then to the current plan, which gives the feeling of five smaller buildings along
Clancy. The architecture of the buildings has also evolved throughout the process. The
number of units has been decreased from the originally proposed 75 units to 67. Additional one
bedroom units have been added. There have been approximately 6 meetings with City staff
and approximately 10 with the neighborhood association. The end result is a very attractive
project that meets the standards of the Ordinance and the ASP.
Mr. Witte indicated that four residential buildings are proposed for the site consisting of 67 units.
The three buildings along Clancy will be 3 stories and the building on Trowbridge will be 3 ½
stories. The buildings are positioned perpendicular to Clancy thereby helping the spacing along
Clancy and creating courtyards between the buildings for the residents’ enjoyment. Parking is
provided along the alley and in the parking deck between the two southernmost buildings. In
addition to the parking spaces there will be bicycle parking provided outside as well as inside
the buildings. Approximately 50 bicycle spaces will be provided. A bus stop is present at the
corner of Trowbridge and Lafayette. There is also on street parking available. Mr. Witte
recalled from the last Planning Commission meeting that neighbors indicated there are no
available street spaces. While school is out at this time of year, the applicant and architect have
been tracking the available parking and found, at the most, only 5 of the 22 parking spaces
being used. Therefore, they feel there is some on street parking to be considered.
Mr. Witte stated that landscaping and streetscaping will be provided per the ordinance
requirements. There is a substantial grade difference from the alley going down toward Clancy.
As one stands in the alley looking east the buildings will appear to be 2 stories. When standing
on Clancy they will appear to be 3 stories. There is sufficient water and sanitary sewer available
to the site. Materials Testing Consultants have done soil borings and indicate that the site soils
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 13
are extremely permeable. Therefore, the storm water management will consist of infiltration and
possibly some porous pavement.
Mr. Witte identified changes since the last meeting. One unit has been eliminated. Porches
have been added along Clancy. The top level of each of the buildings has been recessed from
Clancy to soften the appearance.
Mr. Witte indicated that throughout the process he has heard three major concerns; height,
density and parking. The ordinance permits 55 ft. tall/4 stories. The ASP suggests a maximum
height of 35 ft. The three northernmost buildings are approximately 30 ft. in height and the
southern building at 35 ft. The proposed density is in line with what the ordinance allows for the
TN-MDR district. Under normal situations the TN-MDR allows for one unit per 1,250 sq. ft. but it
also provides an exception that you could get down to 1 unit per 750 sq. ft. If they did the
project seeking that exception they could get up to 75 units on the property. 67 units are
proposed and therefore, they feel what is proposed is in line with what the ordinance allows.
Ms. Schulz clarified that in order to qualify for the exception to 750 sq. ft. mixed income housing
has to be provided. The reduction is to incentivize the creation of some affordable housing units
in a development and they aren’t proposing that for this project.
Mr. Witte agreed. He commented on parking noting that the Ordinance requires 106 spaces.
They are providing 86 and approximately 50 bicycle spaces. The Ordinance allows every 4
bicycle spaces to count for one parking space. That bumps the spaces they are providing up to
approximately 98 spaces. The Ordinance also gives the Planning Commission authority to
waive parking requirements. They feel the 86 spaces provided is in line with what the
Ordinance would allow.
Mr. VanStrien asked if there are doors off the front porches and if so, whether they are main
entrances.
Richard Craig, Craig Architects, replied that there are doors but the way the floor plans are now
it is not the main entrance. They are considering possible revisions. It would be nice if it could
be the main entrance. What happens when making that change is one bedroom ends up
without a window.
Mr. Rozeboom asked on what basis they are suggesting the Planning Commission waive the
minimum parking requirement.
Mr. Witte replied that the City promotes walkability and biking. There is a bus stop within one
and a half blocks. There is also on street parking available. He has heard that some in the
neighborhood want more parking and others don’t want it. He feels the 86 spaces provided,
plus the bicycle spaces, gets them very close to what the ordinance requires.
Mr. Craig explained how he and Ms. Zeller calculated the building heights. There are doors off
of the front porches. It would be favorable to have that be the main front door but he can’t
commit to that at this point. Mr. Craig spoke to materials identifying areas of brick, hardy board
siding, and vertical board and batten siding. Mr. Craig referred to the site plan identifying the
access to the upper deck of parking as well as the parking along the alley.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 14
Developer Joe Modderman clarified that there are doors off of the porches. He would not
classify them as the main door but they will be functioning doors.
Mr. Craig clarified that the main corridors are on each side of the buildings. The front doors
would access a unit but not a common hallway.
Ms. Schulz clarified that the front porch entries are not building entries; they are entries for the
particular units that front on Clancy.
Mr. Modderman agreed.
Ms. Schulz asked the typical width of a unit.
Mr. Modderman replied 24 ft.
Ms. Schulz stated that that is where floor plans would be helpful; to understand the building
spacing.
Mr. Ruis invited public comment.
Jane Johnson, 614 Fairview, stated that she is not opposed to the project. The applicant has
made concessions but the architecture doesn’t fit the character of anything in the neighborhood;
they are getting closer but it isn’t there yet. Ms. Johnson expressed safety concern about the
main entrances being between the buildings rather than at the front or back. The ASP states no
parking structure should be seen from the street. She isn’t necessarily concerned about the
parking not meeting the ordinance but she is concerned about the safety issue of the cars
pulling out into the alley. She is also concerned about the handicapped. The handicapped
spaces might be wider but you would have to pull a wheelchair out into the alleyway to access
the building and that is not acceptable.
Steve Faas, 817 Clancy and Chair of the neighborhood Association, related that he is a
marriage and family therapist and talks with people. There has been some concession but not
much and there doesn’t seem to be much working with the neighborhood. He reached out to
get a meeting going since the last Planning Commission hearing and they had one meeting and
then saw the revisions this past Tuesday night. It is difficult to digest that and then come and
offer an informed opinion here. Mr. Faas stated that he feels the letter submitted identifies why
they remain opposed to the development. Staff has made statements that it would be nice to
have certain information. The applicant isn’t ready yet. They haven’t provided a full
understanding of what is proposed. It seems to the neighborhood that they haven’t listened or
responded to them very well.
Brian Bramer, 749 Livingston and owner of several properties in the area, related that he was
on both of the ASP steering committees and has been involved in the neighborhood for over 20
years. The developer has stated that they met with the neighborhood 8 times and that they are
done. He would agree that there hasn’t been much cooperation or concessions. He feels their
mind has been closed throughout the process. Mr. Bramer stated that he read the letter
submitted by the neighborhood association and he agrees. The proposed development is too
much for this street and the characteristics don’t fit the ASP in terms of the parking and the
looks.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 15
Nicole Bettinghouse, 632 Clancy, agreed that there has definitely been progress since the first
proposal. However she doesn’t feel the porches look right; there should be two on each of the
front facades of the buildings. Her main concern here is poor business practices and not being
forthcoming with the neighbors. The buildings have been open for a couple of months since
residents were evicted and she has witnessed squatting, drug use, and prostitutes in the
buildings and the property owners don’t care. She would like to know when they will begin to
care about the neighborhood in this process of taking it over. It is a dangerous situation for her
family and neighbors. She would like to see positive development for the community and she
doesn’t want the residents of the neighborhood treated like they know nothing.
Mr. Singh, owner of 647 Clancy and the party store at 649 Clancy, offered support for the
development; it is better than vacant houses all the way down the street. He agreed that
squatting and break-ins have been a problem. Mr. Singh offered support for the project.
Andy Guy, 800 Fairview and member of the ASP steering committee, offered support to the
letter submitted by the neighborhood association. Additionally, the ASP prioritizes green design
principles. The developer’s representative has related that that remains in question and that
should be an important dimension they insist on in this project. The ASP also mentions
modifications to streets and alleys. His understanding of the project at this point is that there is
at least some minimal modification to the alley and that should be looked at closely. The plan is
inconsistent at this point with the vision of the ASP. It is also inconsistent with the Master Plan
for the City. Mr. Guy added that it is at risk of being inconsistent with the Michigan Street Plan
that will come to the Planning Commission soon. Mr. Guy related that he serves on that
steering committee as a representative of the neighborhood as well as the Parking Commission.
They have spent the last two years on the project trying to figure out how to manage the traffic
situation on Michigan St. They have developed some very good goals, much of it having to do
with trying to maintain the existing level of traffic present on Michigan and shifting people into
other modes. One of the quickest ways to work against that goal of making sure that Michigan
St. is moveable is to land parking garages and decks in the middle of residential areas. There is
a lot of orange colored property in the ASP and the plan creates a lot of opportunity for
development on those parcels identified. If they are so aggressive with parking supply, that will
work against what they are trying to do on Michigan St. He encouraged the Commission to
consider what is going on in the broader corridor as they consider this project.
Angel Gonzalez, area homeowner and member of the ASP steering committee, agreed that
there is no question the homes present need to be demolished. The argument that anything is
better than what is present now is flawed. It should not be the standard used when deciding
whether or not a proposal should be moved forward. The neighborhood and neighbors are not
in any way trying to be obstructionists. The consensus is that the proposed buildings lack
character, function, and do not promote the values they defined to be important in the ASP.
Page after page they talk about architectural character, enhancing the quality of life with smart
design, and promoting walkability. The community is ready for development and most of the
residents want to see something happen here, which says a lot about the personal character of
the community and how much they’ve grown and how far they’ve come. It is an exciting time for
the neighborhood having a community willing to work with developers to get it right. The
process hasn’t been easy or perfect but it is a process they have and the community has
handled itself well. They expect the work that they’ve done to be honored. Mr. Gonzalez stated
that he personally doesn’t believe that density is at the root of the problem. The parking deck is
an issue. Not at any point in the ASP did they indicate that is the approach that needs to be
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 16
taken. Mr. Gonzalez feels the problem is the design and the site plan. It is a confused mess
and he feels they can and should do better. There are other ways to do it that would allow the
developers to hit their financial marks, get the density they need to move the project forward,
and also give the neighborhood the kind of architectural care and quality it deserves. In the long
run they will all be better served for making sure it is done the right way. Mr. Gonzalez related
that he is in a precarious situation with this project. The Modderman’s are before the
Commission because of him; he has a financial interest and ownership in this project but this is
a precedent setting project and the precedent needs to be of the highest standard and thought
out as carefully as possible. Mr. Gonzalez noted that when the steering committee was sitting
at the table for the last time before presenting the ASP to the rest of the community, going over
colors and the reason for the colors, when they got to the 600 block of Clancy and began to
discuss the reason for orange at this location if someone had pulled out the current proposal
and asked if this was the vision for the 600 block of Clancy in terms of character, function and
promoting the values they thought were important, the answer would have been no and there
would have been a swift rebuke from the community that entrusted them with the decisions and
choices they were tasked to make. The developers are good people and if given more time
they can get the development right.
Mr. Witte responded to comments. He commented about the safety with the entrances on the
sides. There will be many security cameras and sufficient lighting on site. With respect to
squatting in the existing houses, the leases of the tenants had expired and they were either
relocated or their leases were not renewed. His understanding is that the houses can’t be
demolished until an approval is granted so their hands are tied. Mr. Modderman would like the
project to go forward. He is incurring significant holding costs on the project. With regard to
barrier free, building one will have barrier free units and there will be handicap spaces provided.
When they exit the car they would go to the sidewalk and not be in the alley. Some indicated
that there have been no changes to the plan. Mr. Witte doesn’t understand that statement
because there have been a number of changes since the initial proposal. Mr. Modderman has
made concession after concession based on what he has heard. The difficulty is that everyone
has their own opinion with respect to density, parking, and architecture. They feel that what
they’ve done does meet the ASP and the standards of the Ordinance. The neighborhood might
not believe that but in looking at the ASP and the photos of what is allowed they maintain that
what is proposed is well within the guidelines. They have heard conflicting desires from the
neighborhood and they need direction.
Mr. Modderman stated that the project is better today than the first proposal and that is because
of ideas from the neighborhood. They have had a number of meetings with the neighborhood
and he is beginning to feel like it is starting over again. As a developer he is trying to do what
he can for the project, for the neighborhood and for the City. He doesn’t know specifically what
the issue is; is it the density, parking, look of the building? When parking was stated as a
concern they tried to address it and considered what is possible. When they proposed two large
buildings that wasn’t desirable so they responded to suggestions of breaking them up and
turning them to make it look more like a neighborhood. He feels they have come a long way
and hopes that the Planning Commission can see where they came from, where they are at
today, and pinpoint any issues for them because they want this development to happen and be
a part of the City. He asked that they be specific with what they need to work on.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 17
Ms. Angelo stated that before the hearing today she was on the fence with the project. Clearly
they can’t table the matter again but she doesn’t feel the project is ready. As it relates to the
Master Plan and the ASP the residents feel firmly that this plan doesn’t meet those standards.
Mr. Treur agreed. The developer is asking for specifics and there are a lot of specifics of the
Master Plan that he doesn’t feel are being met; the orientation of the main entrance is supposed
to be to the street, parking is supposed to be shielded or to the back of the building, they don’t
meet the minimum parking requirements. The Master Plan provides a lot of direction. He
agrees that they can’t continue to table. They’ve had an opportunity to make it right and he
doesn’t feel it is there.
Mr. VanStrien stated that he likes and wants density and doesn’t particularly care for a lot of
parking. He doesn’t mind that there is less parking proposed than is required. As the Master
Plan states they should aim for maximum parking requirements and not minimum parking
requirements for medium and high density residential developments. Mr. VanStrien referred to
the Master Plan as to why he is not inclined to support the proposal. Section 10.9.2 speaks to
transition and edges and blending with the neighborhood. Even though the upper levels are
setback he isn’t certain that the building heights are compatible for this block and surrounding
buildings. 10.9.3 speaks to scale being compatible with the surrounding block. 10.9.3 also talks
about orientation. Per testimony they heard that the main entrances are oriented toward the
middle of the buildings and that is desired toward the public realm; toward the sidewalk and
street. Also in 10.9.3 the architecture should define the main entrance. What is seen here is
that the architecture doesn’t define the main entrance but rather hallways to particular units.
10.9.3 speaks to parking and parking structures that shouldn’t dominate the primary frontage of
the development; it should be to the rear of the site. Mr. VanStrien realizes that the parking
deck is proposed in response to the neighborhood concerns for more parking but he doesn’t feel
it is the answer; especially in the center of the block. Additionally, there was a lack of detail
provided about how the parking deck would be screened from the sidewalk and street. 10.9.4
relates to project details and Mr. VanStrien doesn’t feel they were provided with adequate
information to know exactly what materials will be and they don’t have floor plans to fully
understand how the entrances or non-entrances or architectural designs were actually utilized in
the buildings.
Mr. Potter agreed with the comments offered. At times a project begins with a plan that when
modified doesn’t get much better; that the design doesn’t match the character of the
neighborhood and the impact is too great. In addition to the other statements made he would
not be comfortable proceeding at this point.
Mr. Rozeboom suggested they seem to be more focused on the letter of the guidelines and less
on the spirit of the guidelines. The main spirit of the guidelines is looking for consistency of
context with the neighborhood and he doesn’t feel they’ve demonstrated that to the satisfaction
of the neighbors.
Mr. VanStrien noted that often a developer comes to the Commission with a plan and they are
kicked back to the neighborhood. He suggested anyone interested in a potential development
start with the neighborhood and work up a plan before coming to the Commission.
Ms. Schulz appreciated Mr. VanStrien addressing the Standards. Additionally, Mr. Rozeboom’s
comment about the spirit vs. the letter is true. The developer is well intentioned but it is difficult
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 18
when there are different people at the table at different times. Overall she recognizes a desire
for redevelopment on the block. It is possible to happen, which is very different than what has
been heard in other neighborhoods. There is definitely the opportunity for redevelopment at this
location. It is a matter of meeting halfway. She empathizes with the developer that no matter
what changes are made they won’t make everyone happy. One of the struggles for the
Planning Commission is that the design component is the most important piece. That is also
reflected in the well written letter from the neighborhood association. The density and parking
are issues that are always addressed but when you’re in the center of a neighborhood and
demolishing an entire block the design is absolutely critical and how it works with the context it
is within. While the developer isn’t a mind reader as to what is desired, there is also a certain
art to working with a community to really understand what they’re talking about. With more work
Ms. Schulz feels this could come back and be easily supported by the neighborhood and
Planning Commission. They’re getting there but the pace at which they’re getting there has
been a frustration.
Ms. Schulz noted that this is a rezoning request and the Planning Commission is making a
recommendation to the City Commission. It can move forward to the City Commission and it
would be at the discretion of the applicant as to whether they would want to proceed to the City
Commission given the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mr. VanStrien MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission recommends denial of the request of JB Holdings Clancy, LLC (Joe
Modderman) for approval of a Planned Redevelopment District to facilitate a 67 dwellingunit multiple-family development at 601, 607, 613, 615, 619, 623, 627, 629, 633, 635, 637,
641, and 643 Clancy Avenue NE and 216 Fairbanks Street NE, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed zone change will not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Master Plan, including the Future Land Use Map because it is out of context and will
detract from the character of the residential neighborhood and as previously stated
during discussion related to 10.9.2, 10.9.3 and 10.9.4 of the Master Plan in relation to
context, scale, orientation, parking, project detail and materials, as well as the
inconsistencies identified by the neighborhood in their letter to the Planning
Commission.
2. The property to be rezoned cannot accommodate the requirements of the proposed
Zone District because the property cannot meet the minimum lot area requirements
and setback requirements of the Zone District.
3. The proposed Zone District will not be compatible with the Zone Districts, spirit of the
ordinance, and Neighborhood Classifications in the neighborhood because the
proposed buildings are proposed to be scaled, oriented, and designed in a manner
inconsistent with other development in this neighborhood and the TN neighborhood
classification.
4. The proposed use may have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because
parking could be considered inadequate and the proposed buildings are to be scaled
in a manner not consistent with other development on adjacent properties.
5. The proposed Zone Change could encourage future development not desirable to the
neighborhood by potentially setting a standard for other future development with the
scale, orientation and massing of this proposal.
6. The proposed Zone District is not consistent with the trend of development in the
neighborhood. While this may be one of the first of its kind it is significantly higher
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 19
density than surrounding properties and would impede transitions and blending that
is desired.
Ms. Schulz noted that there has been redevelopment in the neighborhood; Newberry Place and
another project on Fairbanks that was approved at a higher density than the existing. There
have been gradual increases in densities in the neighborhood and that isn’t inconsistent with the
ASP. However, given what is across the street and the surrounding context it may be a little
higher than the 20 units to the acre such as Newberry Place. Density is not necessarily the
overwhelming factor here.
Mr. VanStrien agreed.
Mr. Ruis added that the property in question also presents challenges. Therefore, context
sensitive design is a large challenge for the developer.
SUPPORTED by Ms. Angelo. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2016 Clyde Park Avenue SW – Special Land Use – Guillermina Flores requesting approval to
permit concession sales on a property otherwise used for a coin-operated laundry. File No.:
PC-SLU-2013-0046
Ms. Schulz presented the request noting that the property is located in the TBA zone district.
There has been a concessions truck on the site without Special Land Use approval for some
time. Ms. Schulz noted that this is the Commission’s first opportunity to review and consider
allowing concession sales on a site that already has a primary use. The Ordinance was
amended to allow concession sales as an additional use on a piece of private property or as a
stand-alone use after special consideration by the Planning Commission. The reason for
requiring Planning Commission review was to allow neighbors an opportunity to provide input.
Ms. Schulz noted that the property has ample parking. It would have to meet all clear vision
requirements. Site circulation, how utilities are run to the property and how trash is handled
must also be addressed. Proactive considerations should be considered by the Planning
Commission on a site by site basis, with input from interested parties. The Planning
Commission also has the flexibility to waive parking, hours of operation and other performance
standards if it is found that there will be no impact to surrounding uses.
Ms. Schulz related that the applicant proposes selling tacos, fruit and soda from the truck. No
signage other than the sign on the truck. The applicant operates Wednesday-Sunday, 2 p.m. to
10 p.m. seasonally, generally May – September. The taco truck currently occupies four parking
spaces in an existing paved parking lot. The applicant also has a tent and seating. There is
sufficient customer parking available both for the primary use as well as the taco truck. The
truck will not impede safe traffic and pedestrian circulation. No additional lighting is proposed;
the parking lot has adequate lighting. Three trash receptacles are used on site and trash is
disposed of at the applicant’s restaurant at 334 Burton SW. Restroom facilities are located in
the laundry. There are no other restaurants in the immediate vicinity.
Ms. Schulz presented photos of the truck and tented seating area.
Mr. Potter asked if the language on the side of the truck is considered signage.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 20
Ms. Schulz explained that if the truck moves it is considered part of the vehicle but if a truck is
parked in front of an establishment they tend to be considered signage. In this case the truck is
the approved use.
Mr. Rozeboom asked about the tent.
Ms. Schulz explained that the tent requires fire department approval with respect to its fire rating
and safety. A tent permit is required.
Ms. Angelo asked if aesthetics were included in the ordinance amendment.
Mr. VanStrien pointed out that there are review standards in Section K of Article 9. The
Commission should consider whether the proposed stand, trailer, wagon or vehicle contributes
to the general aesthetic of the business district and include high quality materials and finishes.
Ms. Schulz recalled from the discussion that the Commission desired general aesthetics to be
included. There was no desire for tents and trailers everywhere that didn’t express a quality
statement. Even though it is a temporary use they are permanent fixtures for an extended
period of time. Design standards were not established but discussion did take place as to
whether that was desired. Correspondence has been submitted by the neighborhood
association that addresses concerns about the physical appearance of the property, the truck
and tent.
Ms. Flores was present to discuss her request. She related that she is willing to work with the
neighborhood association to make it look more presentable because they don’t feel it looks
pleasant. She is willing to do what the City allows her to do. She wasn’t aware that a special
permit was required. The tent is put up and stays in place. It is pinned down for safety reasons.
The site is cleaned up daily and trash taken off site.
Mr. VanStrien invited public comment.
Monte, from Parker Brake, related that their business has been on the corner approximately 60
years. The neighborhood is looking good and there are plenty of restaurants available. He
doesn’t understand this type of business at all. He doesn’t particularly care for it and he is
curious why the restaurants down the street aren’t present voicing their opinion. He doesn’t feel
this is what they need in the area.
Mr. Potter indicated that his concern is that one of these could locate in front of every gas
station.
Ms. Angelo feels the standards seem somewhat subjective at this point.
Mr. VanStrien indicated that it is part of the free market; if there is an audience/customers for
this type of business then he is in favor. If a brick and mortar restaurant wants to stay in the
game they should get in the game. This particular site isn’t a bad place for this because the
parking lot is large enough to accommodate something like this. His concern with this particular
truck is the aesthetics. As stated in the neighborhood association letter there are some issues.
He appreciates that the applicant is willing to work with the neighborhood association. Mr.
VanStrien feels it would be easier to address if the design standards were in place.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 21
Mr. Potter indicated that he has more of a problem with the tent than the truck.
Mr. Treur added that it makes it seem semi-permanent. The general aesthetics aren’t great with
having a tent set up and tied like that.
Ms. Angelo wondered if they would permit something like this in East Hills. The answer may be
no. There might be a relatively simple fix for this. She suggested the applicant work with the
neighborhood association and reach a mutual agreement.
Mr. VanStrien asked what kind of time frame would be involved in establishing design
standards.
Ms. Schulz suggested they could research what other communities have done.
Mr. Forshee advised that standards they establish now would likely not apply to this applicant
because they already have their application in.
Mr. Rozeboom asked if the site is relevant. To him part of what makes the current situation
unattractive is that the site isn’t attractive and it is a major traffic route. He asked if that is
relevant.
Ms. Schulz felt that is part of the Commission’s consideration. The traffic and visibility is the
reason the business wants to locate here. It is a balancing act between wanting it to look good.
Mr. Forshee advised that the Commission can also impose conditions.
Ms. Schulz added that if the Commission feels Standards A – D are met and E is outstanding
the options would be to table and staff can research other communities for examples and also
provide the applicant an opportunity to meet with the neighborhood association or approve it
subject to those conditions; that the applicant has to work with the neighborhood association.
Mr. Potter noted that if the request is approved this truck could go away and another come in.
Mr. VanStrien pointed out however that a new truck would have to meet the same conditions.
Ms. Schulz agreed. The approval would be approval of the property for a concession sales use.
Mr. Potter feels that adding the tent adds a different element to it.
Mr. Treur agreed.
Mr. VanStrien asked if it would be more favorable to take the tent down during hours the truck is
not in operation.
Mr. Potter felt it would be better if the tent went away.
Ms. Schulz suggested they might have umbrellas with the picnic tables or some other methods
that the applicant might suggest, knowing that the tent is an issue for the Planning Commission.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 22
Mr. Potter feels the idea of something temporary like umbrellas would be a fine alternative. The
tent structure is more permanent and has more impact on the site.
Ms. Angelo MOVED TO TABLE TO THE AUGUST 8, 2013 MEETING TO ALLOW THE
APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION AND FOR STAFF TO RESEARCH DESIGN STANDARDS. SUPPORTED by
Mr. Potter. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Planning Commission directed staff to provide a review of the Standards. Ms. Schulz
indicated that she would bring that before the Commission as a separate item – aesthetics.
609 & 623 Lyon Street NE – Special Land Use – Innes St., LLC requesting approval to
demolish the building at 623 Lyon Street NE and redevelop the subject property as a parking lot.
In addition, the applicant is seeking approval to revise a previously approved site plan for a
parking lot intended to serve Martha’s Vineyard and the adjacent building at 615-621 Lyon
Street NE. File No.: PC-SLU-2013-0047
Ms. Turkelson introduced the request. She recalled that this request has been presented in part
previously. At the May 10, 2012 meeting the Commission approved the demolition of an
existing structure, which has been done, at the 609 Lyon site. In place of the building a site plan
for a parking lot was approved. On May 23, 2013 the Commission considered a revised layout
of the parking lot and that request was denied. Today the Commission is considering the
request to demolish another building, located at 623 Lyon, to be replaced with a parking lot
providing four additional spaces. The plan for the 609 parcel is fairly consistent with what was
presented at the May 23, 2013 meeting. The changes from the plan approved in May of 2012
include going from 14 - 45 degrees spaces to 18 – 90 degree spaces. The green space
proposed in 2012 is the same as is proposed today; 15%. The previous approval included
pervious asphalt and the proposed project would utilize impervious asphalt with catch basins.
Internal pedestrian sidewalk was included in the 2012 approval along the east side of Martha’s
Vineyard. The current proposal includes only a pedestrian sidewalk connecting barrier free
space with the Lyon Street sidewalk and no sidewalk at the back of Martha’s Vineyard.
Ms. Turkelson explained that at 623 they propose the demolition of the existing building to
facilitate improved internal vehicular flow around the back side of the adjacent mixed use
building and would include four parking spaces. A landscape buffer is required along the east
side of the lot. In general the plan appears to be consistent with what the ordinance requires.
With respect to the overall layout, property combinations may be appropriate. It would make
sense for the 609 parcel to be combined with Martha’s Vineyard on Union as the parking lot
could then support that commercial use. It would then make sense that the 623 parcel be
combined with the adjacent 615 Lyon to provide parking for the commercial mixed use
development. Ms. Turkelson presented photos of the building at 623 Lyon. The applicant’s
attorney was asked for a copy of the building assessment report and it wasn’t available. The
attorney indicated that the architect would be present and able to speak to the condition of the
building.
Ms. Turkelson noted that at the back of 623 Lyon there is generally just green open space with
a dilapidated fence that would need to be fixed as part of the redevelopment plan.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 23
Included in the Commission’s packet was a plan for Union that was conceptually approved by
Traffic Safety accounting for the changes considered at the May of 2012 meeting. The idea was
to tie those plans in to this proposal. There is no change being proposed to that configuration.
The applicant indicates that they will continue to follow through with those upgrades to Union.
The idea was to tie it together with this request.
Mr. VanStrien asked the number of residential units in the 615 building.
Applicant, Kameel Chamelly replied that there are four 1-bedroom units in that building.
Attorney Matt Zimmerman indicated that there would be no problem combining the properties as
suggested by staff. There are two different requests before the Commission as part of this
request. The 623 Lyon request is for Special Land Use approval for the demolition of the
structure and redevelopment into a parking lot. Mr. Zimmerman noted that he addressed the
Special Land Use requirements in the application material. With respect to the Master Plan,
given the amount of investment that has gone into the commercial development to the west,
those sites will remain commercial for some time. Therefore, what they propose for this Special
Land Use will be consistent with the future use for quite some time. The proposal is compatible
with the commercial uses to the west. There is a residence to the east. There is currently a
driveway on the east edge of the 623 parcel that can accommodate two parking spaces. They
are proposing going from two spaces to four and those spaces will be relocated from being
immediately adjacent to the neighboring structure to 40 ft. to the west, angled away and facing
away from that residence. Additionally, they will provide the screening that the ordinance
requires. There is additional green space at the southwest corner of the parcel that will help to
soften the parking that would be provided on this parcel. Mr. Zimmerman doesn’t believe there
would be any detriment to adjacent uses. The 615-621 Lyon building will be retail space on the
main level and four 1-bedroom apartments on the upper level. There will be 8 parking spaces
on the north side of the structure; one space for each residential unit and one employee parking
space for each of the four commercial units on the first floor leaving the east side four spaces
for patrons, likely for the two easternmost commercial uses at 619 and 621 Lyon. There is
insufficient width to have right in and right out onto Lyon; there is only enough width for one
way. Because the alley to the north is one-way, west to east, they propose the single lane
would exit south onto Lyon. Therefore, they are seeking approval of a right in and right out for
the parking lot at 609 in part to facilitate customer parking on the east side of the 615-621 Lyon
building. Mr. Zimmerman spoke to walkability of the development. He feels that anytime you
can take parking off the street to an area that doesn’t detract from the aesthetics of a
neighborhood you help. He also pointed out that there are a large number of people in the
neighborhood that utilize Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Bakery on a daily basis for their food
services. Mr. Chamelly envisions bringing additional services to this neighborhood such as a
butcher or meat establishment and other services necessary to those that are limited to
pedestrian mobility.
Mr. Zimmerman stated that with respect to environment it would be a net increase of two
vehicles on the 623 site. He also feels it is a better transition from the residential uses to the
east and the soon to be commercial uses at 615-621. With regard to public facilities, the only
public facility that would be added to this area would be storm water management and that
would involve grading, a catch basin, and infiltration basin. Mr. Zimmerman stated that they will
comply with all of the other ordinances. Financially this will be a benefit to the City as it will
facilitate the leasing of the 615-621 building.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 24
Mr. Potter asked staff if the Commission previously approved a parking lot some time ago.
Mr. VanStrien recalled that they approved a different version. They came back in May of 2013
with a different variation.
Ms. Schulz added that the first request was to take down the building at 609 and provide a
parking lot. The approved plan had angled parking, pervious pavement, and a sidewalk along
the back of the Martha’s Vineyard building. Prior to that staff had been working with the
applicant on improvements on Union. The 623 site is a new request. She felt it would be
appropriate to package the entire request so that the Commission would understand the entire
context of the Special Land Use.
Mr. Zimmerman clarified that he wasn’t present at the May 2013 meeting but Mr. Amicasabe
referenced the 623 piece as instrumental to the flow and the concept change but that request
was not before the Commission at that time. Therefore, they have now submitted this as one
project. Mr. Zimmerman circulated the plan for Union that they worked out with Traffic Safety.
They are willing to tie those improvements to this as well. They are also happy to combine
properties as suggested by staff.
Mr. Rozeboom recalled that the initial proposal had pervious pavement, which was part of the
decision to allow the demolition. That is no longer being proposed.
Mr. Zimmerman clarified that at this point he has only presented the 623 proposal.
Mr. Amicasabe of Heritage Craftsman related that he went through the building at 623 Lyon
yesterday. At some point someone cut out all of the ceilings joists on the second story, which
has removed the structural integrity. It caused the east wall to move a quarter of an inch per
foot. The façade has separated from the south wall by approximately 3” from the top.
Additionally someone also knocked off all of the limestone ornamentation on that façade. There
is no west wall to the building; it is attached to the brick wall of 621 Lyon, which also raises
issues. The roof run off is causing deterioration in that common brick wall. They have replaced
some of the brick but it is a continuous problem. There is also black mold in the structure.
Mr. Amicasabe responded to Ms. Angelo relating that someone had been squatting in the
building but it is now vacant.
Mr. VanStrien asked if there is a structural report available.
Ms. Schulz replied that it would be possible to get a report but she would suspect that it wouldn’t
be much different than the testimony provided. The other building had suffered fires a number
of times, which isn’t the case here. However, the challenge is the level of investment needed
for the building. Staff can request an evaluation from the Building Dept. It has not been
condemned, which is typically one of the thresholds for staff approval of a demolition. There is
potential to rehabilitate the building but that is based on judgment and the ability of the applicant
to do that work.
Mr. Forshee advised that if the building were in the historic district HPC would be looking at the
structure. The Commission should focus more on what the proposed new use will be.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 25
Ms. Schulz added that it is definitely a consideration and was considered for 609. The question
is whether it is appropriate to replace the building with a parking lot, which is the Special Land
Use request.
Mr. VanStrien acknowledged that staff allowed them to bundle the request. However, he asked
if the 609 request is different enough that they need to go through it again.
Ms. Schulz replied that there is some merit in going through it. One of their arguments is the
need for additional parking. The modifications to 609 do provide for additional spaces and they
are requesting four spaces for 623.
Mr. Zimmerman offered one last comment on the 623 building relating that the cost to repair it
outweighs the value of the property in a repaired condition. That is one consideration and the
need for the parking is the second consideration.
Mr. Zimmerman spoke to the parking proposed at 609 Lyon. At the May 2013 meeting there
were three concerns raised. One concern was that the green space was being reduced. The
current proposal returns the amount of green space back to the amount that was approved in
May 2012. Additionally they have added green space at 615 Lyon just north of the building,
which will be to the benefit of 609. He clarified that the 15% required by code is provided on the
609 parcel and in addition to that they have added green space to the 615 site. Returning to the
15% green space on the 609 site resulted in the loss of one parking space, which is why it is 18
spaces now as opposed to the 19 proposed in May 2013. The two primary reasons for asking
for the site plan revision from what was approved to what is now proposed is the right in and
right out from Lyon and to add more parking spaces. The second concern raised in the May
2013 meeting related to the pervious asphalt that was part of the proposal approved in May
2012. The pervious asphalt looks great on paper but the prior contractor they had was over
aggressive with green. What they are proposing is just as green but is old school. They are
grading it with asphalt but collecting the water in infiltration basins. Given the nature of the soils
on site they will be able to infiltrate the water on the site; they won’t be adding to the storm
sewer in the street. The pervious asphalt wasn’t practical for this site due to the climate and the
truck traffic they intend to have use the parking lot. Vendors and contractors indicated that
pervious pavement wouldn’t handle the weight of the trucks. Mr. Zimmerman stated that he
doesn’t believe the ordinance mandates one method of storm water management over another.
Mr. Zimmerman noted that the third concern related to the elimination of the sidewalk at the
back of Martha’s Vineyard. In the approved plan there was only a sidewalk on the west side of
the parking lot. When 609 was torn down there had been some structural damage done and a
new wall had to be built to support the west side of the 615 building consuming a foot of the
property. Additionally, in order to have right in and right out from Lyon the angled parking had to
be straightened out. In order to provide the aisle width required by the ordinance they had to
push the western parking spaces up to the wall and eliminate the sidewalk. Mr. Zimmerman
stated that it was a decision to balance the benefits that that sidewalk would provide to half the
parking lot vs. the ability to have right in and out on Lyon and the ability to add four additional
parking spaces. With respect to the number of parking spaces, because Martha’s Vineyard and
Nantucket Bakery are non-conforming uses the requirements for parking don’t strictly apply but
the ordinance does suggest a number of off-street spaces that buildings of that size would
generate. Those two buildings, if constructed new, would require 24 parking spaces. The 615621 building, constructed new, would require 23 parking spaces, for a total of 47 required
spaces. They are proposing 30 spaces, which is an increase of 8 from what was approved.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 26
Therefore, they are getting closer to what the ordinance recognizes as a need generated by the
buildings. Right in and out is the leading consideration for requesting this amendment. Lyon is
one-way going west. The City’s bike plan calls for a two-lane bike path for Lyon near the north
side of Lyon next to parallel parking on the north side. Currently Lyon is used for deliveries for
both Martha’s and Nantucket. When the 615-621 building is done vehicles will likely be using
the parallel parking on Lyon more frequently than they do now. When the bike lane is in there
will only be one lane on Lyon and having semi-trailers parked bumper to bumper won’t be
feasible. The vehicles are too large to make the turn from Union onto the alley and then access
the 609 parking lot. Therefore, they can’t get the vehicles off the street for loading unless they
come in off of Lyon. To do that they need to widen that to two lanes and in order to widen it to
two lanes they had to eliminate the sidewalk along the building.
Ms. Schulz asked how the trucks will get out of the parking lot.
Mr. Zimmerman replied that they will likely back in and then pull straight out. He clarified for Ms.
Angelo that they haven’t taken this to Traffic Safety for review but would be happy to do that as
a condition of approval.
Ms. Schulz clarified that the layout for the Lyon bikeway will be parked cars at the curb on the
north side of the street, travel lane, parked cars on the south side of the street and the cycle
track on the south curb line.
Mr. VanStrien asked which way the angled parking was in the approved plan.
Ms. Schulz replied that it was from the alley to Lyon.
Mr. VanStrien asked if would be possible to reverse that so that it remains one-way in the
parking lot.
Ms. Schulz replied that it may be possible. She seemed to recall that Traffic Safety looked at it
at that time and the concern was that if they only had the entrance from Lyon then people may
go the wrong way on Lyon from Union to access the parking lot rather than going all the way
around. The two-way might help mitigate some of that. Loading is preferred off the street. If
the Commission is inclined to allow the 90 degree parking then a condition should be included
that there shall be no loading or unloading of commercial vehicles on Union; that it has to be
done on premise unless there is available on-street parking on Lyon. The modifications
proposed on Union shows a deflection of the traffic headed north on Union and the travel lane
will technically be where they currently load and unload because the extra space was needed to
provide for the sidewalk along the building on Union.
Mr. Zimmerman added that Union is a narrow street. It isn’t just the angled parking that causes
the one lane north of Lyon. There is no parking on the west side of Union south of Lyon and
there is parking on the west side north of Lyon. Even if the parking on the east side of Union
were parallel parking there would only be room for one lane north of Lyon on Union.
Mr. VanStrien asked what the penalties would be if trucks went against the one way direction in
the parking lot if the design remained as approved with one way traffic from north to south.
Trucks would cause congestion if deliveries take place during the day when people are trying to
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 27
park there. Therefore, if deliveries are before or after business hours could they go against the
one way flow.
Ms. Schulz stated that it is their parking lot. How they park delivery trucks on their private
property isn’t an issue. The question will be running a turning template to determine whether
they can actually turn in and out.
Mr. Zimmerman offered a final point stating that it is also a customer preference, especially for
the eastern suites of the newly developed space in the 615-621 building. The spaces in the 609
lot will appear inaccessible unless there is a way to get in and circle the building. It would be a
challenge to help people figure out that they have to go to Union, access the alley and come
back, which is what they would have to do under the current plan to utilize the 623 parking
spaces. If there is in and out in the 609 lot it makes the use of the 623 space easier. It may be
inconvenient enough for some that they go elsewhere. Mr. Chamelly has built up a very
successful business known throughout the State. He has added the Nantucket Bakery, a
catering business nearby and desires to add additional business.
Mr. Zimmerman submitted petitions that were signed between the May 2013 meeting and today
with approximately 2,000 signatures in favor of the proposal as presented today. There have
been a lot of comments from customers that it would be a lot easier to have a parking lot that
they could come in and out of from Lyon and not have to go around through the alley. Mr.
Chamelly would like to keep his businesses in town and not move them out to the suburbs and
he doesn’t think this is too much to ask.
Mr. VanStrien related that he observed the presentation in the store and it may have been
incomplete information that people were getting. It was presented as what was approved and
what the new proposal is; it wasn’t clear what was to be presented today.
Mr. Treur asked the need for so much more parking when a building was actually removed and
there is no building going in.
Mr. Zimmerman stated that there are four commercial uses and four residences that are coming
in. For the last 20 years there has only been one business in the 615-621 space.
Mr. Treur asked if there weren’t cars 20 years ago and wasn’t there adequate parking at that
time. He also asked if they have any agreements with the church across the street on Union to
use their parking lot during the week.
Mr. Zimmerman replied that the church has been gracious enough to allow parking to happen.
They haven’t provided an easement or written agreement. They have been gracious and he
doesn’t know how much further they can push that. Additionally, it would likely be too far for
people visiting the 615-621 building.
Ms. Schulz provided some history of former Planning Commission actions. They had looked at
residential properties and the preservation of the structures yet allowed the back yard to be
used for commercial parking in some cases. The public notice in this case was to demolish the
building. An alternative may be to keep the building yet allow the rear to be used for parking.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 28
Mr. VanStrien asked if it would be feasible to allow an exit drive on the east side of the building
and still provide for 2 angled parking spaces behind 623.
Ms. Schulz referred to the aerial and pointed out the presence of a parked car. It appears there
are two to four parking spaces on the site now. The alternative would be to allow the drive to
continue through to the alley with some buffer and then have parking, per their parking plan,
straight across the back.
Mr. Zimmerman indicated that the building is 23 x 21. He stated that he doesn’t believe they
could fit the access plus parking between the subject building and adjacent residence because
they would also have to provide screening. Additionally, there are grade issues at the back; the
grade of the back yard is substantially higher than the alley. The point where the site is at grade
is about mid-point of the 615-21 building.
Ms. Schulz indicated that the plan as shown with the parking would imply that it is physically
possible for it to be one contiguous parking lot.
Mr. Zimmerman agreed but the parking is along the building and not the alley.
Ms. Schulz argued that that is because they need that for circulation. Without having the grades
it is difficult to tell for sure.
Mr. Zimmerman again argued that the building has no unique features, is in bad shape, and
doesn’t have the redeeming features you would want to have to invest in it to bring it back up to
code.
Mr. VanStrien invited public comment.
Pat Hazenberg stated that she lives one block south of Lyon. She has one block to walk to get
to the Vineyard and Bakery. Since she is legally blind she appreciates the location of these
businesses. The nearest grocery store is Family Fare and she has to get people to drive her
there. She can get nearly everything she needs at Martha’s. She appreciates all the work Mr.
Chamelly has done and everything he does is quality work. It is a beautiful, first class building.
Josh Leffingwell, 323 Washington, commented on the land use. He is also a patron of the store
and agrees Mr. Chamelly runs a great store. It is disappointing to see that a building was
demolished for parking. This is an opportunity not to continue that type of event further. With
the Michigan Street Planning Process they are learning that they need more and more housing
and more density and single-handedly the Innes St. LLC is tearing down buildings and
eliminating buildings that could have potential for productive use rather than parking.
Demolition isn’t always bad if you’re putting a new building in its place but demolition for the
sake of parking is not a productive use of land. Approving this would not be consistent with the
Master Plan, the Green Grand Rapids Plan and the future Michigan Street corridor plan, which
all call for walkability and creating a sense of place. Tearing down a building and putting in a
parking lot is a detraction. Adding parking only encourages people to use their car when the
desire would be to encourage other modes of transportation. Saying that customers would
leave if they don’t find a parking spot is false. Mr. Chamelly has been running this business
without this parking for all of these years. It is also inappropriate to threaten that he may move
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 29
the business out to the suburbs if this isn’t approved. Mr. Leffingwell expressed his opposition
to the request.
Elana Chamelly, resident on Prospect and employee at Martha’s, feels a parking lot is
necessary for the development of the area, Michigan Street and Heritage Hill. They appreciate
that the 609 parking lot was approved. She related that she has personally talked to customers
who have indicated that they have driven on by when it is busy and they can’t park in front.
Having the parking would help grow their business and allow them to provide more products for
the community. It is the clientele that demands the parking. Ms. Chamelly encouraged the
Commission to go by the building. It will be an improvement to demolish the building and install
the parking and greening.
Mr. Treur related that he drove by the site. He has a difficult time knowing for sure that it isn’t
feasible to repair. However, that isn’t what they are considering; they have to decide if the
proposed use as parking is an appropriate use for the site. It seems that there is room at the
back if they are permitted to use that area for parking. They are already gaining a lot of parking
on the 609 site and he doesn’t feel this building has to come down too.
Mr. Potter asked how he would feel about demolition if they had a plan to put another building in
its place.
Mr. Treur replied that he doesn’t want to see it demolished just for parking.
Ms. Schulz indicated that if they were taking it down and replacing it with another building it may
be permitted by right.
Ms. Angelo felt Mr. Leffingwell made a good point.
Mr. VanStrien added that at the very least they are gaining the already approved 14 parking
spaces.
Ms. Schulz agreed clarifying that if the Commission is inclined to approve the 2-way drive aisle
then they would be gaining 18 spaces. The Commission can consider the request in whole or in
part.
Mr. Treur stated that he drove through the alley and it isn’t in great condition.
Mr. VanStrien recalled that part of the proposal was that the property owner would improve the
alley.
Mr. Rozeboom asked about the condition on which the previous demolition was granted; the
use of pervious pavement. Evidently what was proposed they didn’t really understand or
believe in. He asked how they deal with the current proposal given that history.
Ms. Schulz explained that when conditions of approval are imposed the only body that can
revise them is the Planning Commission. The conditions can’t be appealed to the BZA because
that might change what the original intent of the approval was. The proposed revisions were
noticed and there have been no expressed concerns as to the parking lot layout. From a
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 30
procedural standpoint the Commission has the ability to change the conditions of approval as
part of this request if desired.
She explained further that staff runs into issues during the LUDS process at times; what they
think will work on a site may not necessarily be the case. Therefore, they do end up having
some site alterations. It isn’t uncommon to see porous asphalt proposed and then have them
change to another method of storm water management. That change has been approved in the
past provided it is approved by the Environmental Services Dept. The applicant has added
additional green spaces since they were last before the Commission. Durability may also be a
consideration when considering the porous asphalt. Truck parking on Union isn’t desirable so it
would have to take place in the parking lot or on Lyon. Part of the justification for approval of
asphalt would be adding a condition that they can’t use Union for the commercial activities of
the trucks.
Mr. Rozeboom clarified that he wasn’t necessarily suggesting an argument for going back to
pervious; he was just suggesting that that was what was approved.
Ms. Schulz explained that it would depend on how much that swayed the Commission’s opinion.
Mr. Potter shared his experience relating that when you have large trucks they will tear up the
pervious asphalt.
Ms. Schulz suggested they may want to consider concrete here. The BRT stations will have
concrete pads at the stops rather than asphalt because of the wear.
Mr. VanStrien felt that it wasn’t approved just because of the surfacing material but the package
overall was more palatable. He understands the rationale for the change in the pervious
pavement material. However, he isn’t quit convinced about the need for the 2-way travel in the
lot causing the loss of the sidewalk. If they were to return with a report from Traffic Safety that
they need it to accommodate the turns, that may be a factor. However, if they are pulling in and
backing out that wouldn’t make a difference. Mr. VanStrien feels it is important that they have a
walkway in the parking lot. They are gaining a minimum of 14 spaces with the previously
approved plan. Mr. VanStrien agrees with Mr. Treur and would be in favor of approving parking
at the rear of the 623 building but in terms of land use he would be inclined to deny the request
for demolition of the building to put a parking lot in its place, especially considering that they are
adding a new parking lot at 609.
Ms. Angelo agreed. However, she would be inclined to approve the change in the surface of
the 609 parking lot.
Ms. Schulz advised that the Commission can amend that condition. It wouldn’t be necessary for
them to reapply in order for the Commission to approve parking to the rear of 623 as it is less
extreme than removing the building and using the entire lot for parking.
Ms. Schulz noted that she typically advocates for sidewalks in parking lots but she isn’t certain
as to the level of importance of that sidewalk given the lot is only 14 spaces.
Mr. Treur related that he didn’t feel strongly about the sidewalk. He is pleased that there is at
least the connection for the handicap space.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 31
Ms. Angelo clarified that what has been approved includes a sidewalk.
Ms. Schulz suggested the Commission split the motions; one motion for 609 and another for
623.
Ms. Angelo MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
denies the Special Land Use request of Innes St., LLC to demolish the building at 623
Lyon Street NE for the following reasons:
1. The proposed use will not support the desired future character of the neighborhood
due to the loss of a commercial building.
2. The proposed use will have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because
the proposed plan will eliminate a building in a vibrant commercial node and create
gaps in the street wall.
3. The proposed use will be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future
uses or to the public welfare because parking lot noise could be a nuisance and will
be a detriment to the public welfare.
4. 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 the
removal of another building along Lyon will disrupt the continuity of the urban street
wall especially since the demolition of 609 Lyon in 2012 and 623 is located in a
residential zone district.
SUPPORTED by Mr. Treur. YEAS: 4. NAYS: 1 (Rozeboom). MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Angelo MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVES THE SPECIAL LAND USE OF INNES ST., LLC TO ADD THREE
COMMERICAL PARKING SPACES IN THE BACK OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 623
LYON STREET NE AND APPROVES A MODIFICATION TO THE PARKING SURFACE, TO
ALLOW THE USE OF IMPERVIOUS ASPHALT, AT 609 LYON STREET NE, FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. 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
allow for additional parking for the applicant without the removal of a building.
2. The proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the character
and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment,
because there won’t be any negative visual impact and storm water will be mitigated
but in a different fashion than originally proposed.
3. The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood
because the building will remain in place and the parking lot will address storm water
in an appropriate fashion. The parking behind 623 will not create additional gaps in
the street wall.
4. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or
future uses or to the public welfare because the parking surface will not lend to
additional noise and will permit proper drainage.
5. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair
pedestrian circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or
otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment because retaining
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 32
the building preserves the street wall and preserving the originally approved site
layout for 609 Lyon allows for improved pedestrian access behind the building and
through the site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this
project:
1. That the plans prepared by PM Building Design amended June 5, 2013, submitted to
the Planning Commission, and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director,
shall constitute the approved plans, except as amended in this resolution
2. The building at 623 Lyon Street NE shall be retained and maintained. Parking spaces
at the rear of the lot shall be allowed.
3. That a development compliance/LUDS permit shall be obtained. Union Street
improvements shall be implemented prior to, or concurrent with, 609 Lyon Street NE
parking lot improvements. The LUDS permit shall include alterations within the Union
Street right-of-way, per plans dated 8/10/12 by Comprehensive Engineering.
4. That any signs, lighting and exterior improvements are subject to applicable
regulations and required permits, as necessary.
5. That the lots will be combined as recommended by the Planning Department.
6. There shall be no service/delivery trucks on Union Street with the approval to modify
the parking lot at 609 Lyon Street NE.
7. That the applicant shall work in cooperation with Traffic Safety, Engineering and
Environmental Services to improve the alley. A connection/driveway from the alley to
Lyon Street on the 623 Lyon property shall be allowed.
8. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and
policies and all applicable State laws.
9. That this approval shall take effect on July 27, 2013.
10. Any previous approval and conditions not in conflict with this approval and related
conditions remain in full effect.
SUPPORTED by Mr. Treur.
Ms. Turkelson asked if the motion includes removal of the parking pad in front of 623 Lyon NE.
Mr. Treur recalled from testimony that they had discussed having an exit there. Mr. VanStrien
added that condition 7 permits the addition of a drive from the alley to Lyon on the 623 Lyon
property. Therefore, that would involve improvements.
Ms. Schulz noted that there are currently two parking spaces on the side of the building. They
could retain one space there and use the other space for the drive. There are a couple of ways
it can be looked at.
Ms. Turkelson indicated that it may not be necessary to combine the lots if the appropriate
ingress and egress and drainage agreements were in place.
Ms. Angelo MOVED TO ELIMINATE CONDITION #5. SUPPORTED by Mr. Treur. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 33
610 Wealthy Street SE- Special Land Use – Wealthy Street Bakery requesting approval of
Class C and SDM liquor licenses to allow the sale of beer and wine for on-site and off-site
consumption. File No.: PC-SLU-2013-0050
Ms. Turkelson introduced the request relating that Wealthy Street Bakery is requesting approval
to operate a Class C liquor license to serve wine and beer to customers dining inside and
outside. They would also like to expand their outdoor seating area from 8 persons to 24. The
layout was included in the Commission’s packet. They are also seeking approval to operate an
SDM, which would allow customers to take beverages home with their meal. The application
indicates that no floor space would be dedicated to the display of packaged goods. Hours of
operation for the indoor dining would be 6:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. and outdoor dining from 6:30 a.m.
to 9 p.m. It was determined that a Special Land Use approval was required for the SDM license
in lieu of an administrative approval because, in the past, administrative approvals of an SDM
license were only given for corkage. This is not the case with this application.
Ms. Turkelson noted that this is an existing business. No interior changes are proposed. A floor
plan of the business has been requested and Mr. McClurg did provide a copy of the floor plan.
Although an SDM liquor license is being requested, the owner has stated that there will not be a
display area for the sale of beer and wine within the business. Ms. Turkelson also related that
she is trying to locate the building permit plans that would indicate an occupancy load. That
occupancy would not be changing as a result of this request. The business is 2,400 sq. ft. The
outdoor café is currently 8 seats and is going to 24. Ms. Turkelson presented the proposed site
plan. An email has been sent to Traffic Safety requesting they preliminarily review the sidewalk
café. An encroachment permit would be required. Traffic Safety expressed concerns with the
aisle/sidewalk width at 5’ 1”; they would prefer to see 6’. They were also concerned about the
proximity of the proposed fencing to the curb line; they would like to see at least 2’ from the
fence to the curb to allow vehicles parking on Wealthy to exit the vehicles without feeling
cramped.
Ms. Turkelson identified alcohol uses located within 1,000 ft. of the subject property; Art of the
Table at 606 Wealthy (next door). They carry an SDD and SDM license. The Winchester,
located at 648 Wealthy, holds a hotel and resort license. Correspondence from the
neighborhood was included in the Commission’s packet.
Jim McClurg was present to discuss the request. He thanked the Planning Dept. for getting the
request put together as they didn’t anticipate having to come to the Commission and putting the
package together while on vacation. Mr. McClurg explained that they are looking to expand the
business to provide what customers desire and improve the evening business. They have
offered pizza, sandwiches and salads for the past 10 years and the evening traffic isn’t
significant. They are blessed with a fantastic amount of business during the day. Some
evenings they are busier than others but for the most part the evening hours aren’t profitable.
When walking in the area in the evening there aren’t a lot of people in that area. What has
helped the area so much is having people there. When people are there others want to be as
well. During the evening it currently becomes very lonely. If they are able to improve their
business then the neighborhood vitality improves. Mr. McClurg stated that in addition to the
request for alcohol is the patio space and alcohol service on the patio. They currently have
patio seating for 8 and there is an existing encroachment permit for that area. They have four 2top tables that seat 8. What people do when they want to sit together is move the tables
together. Unless they really police that what they are doing is constraining the space and
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 34
moving chairs into the walkable part of the sidewalk and obstructing the flow of foot traffic. They
are proposing to place more tables out there to give people the opportunity to sit in larger
groups. The tables would be anchored to the sidewalk so they couldn’t be moved and placed in
the passable area of the sidewalk. The patio seating is a real benefit to the business during
summer hours, which is a slow season of the year other than on the patio. They’d like to
capture more business during the summer by offering the patio seating.
Mr. VanStrien asked why the SDM for off-site consumption.
Mr. McClurg replied that they applied for a Class C license to the Corridor Improvement Board
and had been working for a year and a half to try to find a private license that is available. All of
the licenses they were looking at had Class C and SDM with it and they assumed SDM went
with Class C. It is an additional $100 to have that license and they felt why not. If you have
inventory and someone wants to buy a bottle to take it with them why wouldn’t you do that; you
move your inventory and you keep it fresh. Additionally, if you had things that didn’t go over
well it would provide an opportunity to liquidate it. Mr. McClurg added that they have a decent
amount of carry out business and quite often people go next door to Art of the Table to grab a
beverage while they wait for their food order and the two stores work together in that fashion. It
may be that someone would like to take home a bottle of what they offer but it is something not
carried next door. Mr. McClurg stated that they will be adding a new menu at night and one of
the entrees uses both wine and port as components. Another is a fish brazed in chardonnay
and butter. The license would allow them to use the products for their production.
Ms. Angelo asked if they would have a problem providing the 6’ aisle and 2’ curb.
Mr. McClurg replied that both of them together would be difficult. The Ordinance requires 5’.
The distance between the curb and building is 12’ 1” and that works great with the 2-top tables
and 5’ of walkway. It allows for a patio area characteristic of any major city with a great urban
feel. If they provide 6’ for the aisle they are then limited to two 2-tops on the other side and he
suspects he will end up with the same problem of multi-person parties moving things together or
having to limit who can sit outside.
Ms. Schulz asked if they are eliminating the planters on the front of the building.
Mr. McClurg agreed. They will either put those planters on the ends of the fenced in area or
come up with another planter. There are tree wells but they are on the other side of the fence.
Ms. Schulz noted that the challenge now is that they have tables on both sides now and people
frequently have their chairs pointing in the other direction and pinching the sidewalk.
Mr. McClurg agreed. They would have to police the area and chairs wouldn’t be permitted on
the ends of those tables; it just wouldn’t be practical.
Ms. Schulz suggested that if the Commission is inclined to approve that the approval should be
subject to an encroachment permit. Given the level of pedestrian traffic in the area 6’ is the
preferred dimension. Whether or not there is enough door swing is a consideration also and if
they are doing a wrought iron fence that would require HPC approval.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 35
Mr. McClurg related that the fence was included in the plans because they were of the
understanding that it was a requirement of the MLCC. It is no longer a requirement. The
secondary reason for including the fence was to provide protection for the patrons in the outdoor
seating area. They would be willing to eliminate the fence or do it in another configuration so
doors could swing between tables but still provide a barrier for the table.
Ms. Schulz clarified for the Commission that the MLCC requirement is that you have the outdoor
alcohol service area as a defined space. It can be defined with planters or other means but it
has to be a defined area. They are allowed at back of curb taking into consideration parking
meters, trees, etc. in the public right-of-way. Ms. Schulz anticipates that 2-tops will be allowed
rather than 4-tops but staff will review it with Traffic Safety.
Mr. McClurg clarified that they aren’t proposing any interior structure changes but they are
planning to add tables. One of the CID license requirements is a minimum seating capacity so
they plan to add 12 seats to the interior of the building. They have 28 now and will add 12 to
bring it to 40. The Fire Dept. did approve the site as part of the licensing process and they are
permitted occupancy of 49.
Ms. Schulz asked that he speak to the SDM licensing piece because there was some confusion
from the CID and Wealthy Street Business Alliance on not understanding that beer and wine to
go was part of the proposal.
Mr. McClurg explained that the SDM is a small portion of the project. It is basically a question of
why not. It created confusion because when they applied for the CID license there is no box on
the City application to say you want an SDM but they assumed it was coming with it because
every license they saw had an SDM with it. Therefore, when they completed the Planning
packet they included the SDM. When they discussed that confusion with the CID they found
that out of 150 restaurants in the City 121 have them and it seems to be standard practice.
There is some confusion between SDM and SDD. When someone applies for a liquor license
the first thing that comes to mind is liquor. The SDM license is only for wine and beer.
Ms. Schulz indicated that there have been two requests to table due to the confusion.
Mr. McClurg stated that they spoke with the Wealthy Street Business Alliance today and they
felt it was prudent to get their approval prior to this meeting. He spoke with the president of the
Alliance and he thought she was okay with not tabling it but apparently she isn’t. What they
discussed was that getting their approval was the prudent thing to do but it wasn’t required. Mr.
McClurg indicated that he also spoke with Amy Ruis from Art of the Table and she was co-board
president at the time. They went through the CID process and that Board is made up of
representatives of all of the neighborhood associations. In talking with the Economic
Development team about the CID approval Ms. Wood told him he had approval from the CID
that represents all the neighborhoods and it wasn’t necessary to go to all of them.
Mr. VanStrien clarified that the confusion was that they thought it was just for the Class C.
Ms. Schulz stated that there is nothing in the application stating that they are adding 12 seats to
the interior and that wasn’t including in the notice.
Mr. McClurg stated that it was part of the CID application.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 36
Mr. VanStrien stated that if they decide to table that could be part of the re-notice.
Mr. McClurg asked to speak to the possibility of tabling. His concern is that the business is
trying to do a number of things in the City and every one of them is operating in difficult territory
that is hard to develop. They have to go back and forth on everything they are trying to do right
now. It would be really helpful if they could get one thing off of their list.
Mr. VanStrien invited public comment; there was none.
Ms. Angelo felt that if there was something that needed to be noticed, but wasn’t, then there is
no choice other than to table.
Mr. VanStrien agreed. He clarified that the additional indoor seating wasn’t part of the notice.
Ms. Schulz explained that the additional outdoor seating was part of the package but she isn’t
certain that was included in the notice. She feels tabling the request would be wise so that the
Commission would then know exactly what they are considering on the outside. It would give
time for Traffic Safety to review it and report back on what would be allowed by the
encroachment. Additionally, there is no floor plan that identifies where the seats are located.
Tabling would also allow time to provide that as well as meet with the business association.
Ms. Angelo MOVED TO TABLE TO THE AUGUST 8, 2013 MEETING. SUPPORTED by Mr.
Treur. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
____________________________________________________________________________
710, 720 and 748 Monroe Avenue NW – Special Land Use – Hotel Holdings Monroe LLC
(Brian Beukema) requesting approval for activities associated with a new hotel, including an
outdoor chef station; a restaurant and bar with outdoor service, lobby café with outdoor service,
room service, a sundry shop, a convenience store, banquet facility, and an outdoor terrace with
live entertainment, all of which would have alcohol sales or service available; and a Planned
Sign Program to permit signage exceeding the limits allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. File
No.: PC-SLU-2013-0042
Mr. VanStrien noted that this matter was approved at the last meeting. However, there was an
issue with the public notice.
Ms. Schulz recommended that the Chair invite public comment. If there is no public comment
the Commission would proceed to a vote.
Mr. VanStrien invited public comment.
Sue Schroeder, 801 Monroe, expressed her desire for an overview summary of the project. Her
specific interest is the nature of the 11th story use.
Ms. Schulz explained that the reason this matter is before the Planning Commission is for
activities associated with a hotel, including an outdoor chef’s station, a sports grill/bar with
outdoor service, lobby café with outdoor service, room service, a sundry shop, a convenience
store, banquet facility, and an outdoor terrace with live entertainment, all of which would have
alcohol sales or service available, and a Planned Sign Program to permit signage exceeding the
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 37
limits allowed by the Ordinance. For the benefit of the audience, all of the requirements of the
ordinance related to ground floor retail use, density, setbacks, and height of the structure are
met. There are no exceptions needed to construct the building. The request before the
Commission is related to the use.
Brian Beukema described the floor plans to Ms. Schroeder and presented the renderings.
Ms. Schulz suggested tabling the request to the end of the meeting to allow Mr. Beukema an
opportunity to describe the project to Ms. Schroeder in detail.
Motion by Mr. Treur, supported by Mr. Rozeboom, to table to the end of the meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
____________________________________________________________________________
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
3665 28TH Street SE – Site Plan Review – Centerpointe Development Co. LLC (Chris Brochert)
requesting approval for the following changes:
 Demolition of the Arnie’s Restaurant (Building F) and constructing a new 11,480 sq. ft.
outlot building.
 Removal of the former Menards building (Building A) and replacing the area with a
service area and driveway.
 Removal of the JoAnn Fabric truck well and construction of a new truck well within the
new service area.
 Renovate the former Menards building for new tenants.
 Minor parking reconfiguration and added landscaping to the north, east and south of the
Menards building.
 Construct a new dumpster enclosure on the east side of Golf Galaxy, and in the new
service area.
 Revision to Planned Sign Program.
File No.: PC-SPR-2013-0043
Ms. Turkelson related that this is a continuation for expansion of the Centerpointe Mall
renovations that the Commission has considered over the last several years. The area under
consideration is the former Menards building and the existing Arnie’s Restaurant. They are
requesting site plan approval to demolish the Arnie’s building and construct a new 11,480 sq. ft.
outlot. The outlot will be very similar in massing and architectural style that the Commission
recently approved for other buildings located along 28 th St. They are also seeking approval to
remove a portion of the former Menards building and replace with a service area and driveway.
Ms. Turkelson identified the subject area on the aerial view. The applicant also proposes the
removal of the JoAnn Fabric truck well and construction of a new truck well within the new
service area. Minor parking reconfiguration and adding significant landscaping to the north,
east and south of the Menards buildings are part of the plan.
Ms. Turkelson recalled that a couple of years ago the Commission approved a revised
landscape plan for the southern portion of the site and those modifications would be continued
to this northeast corner. The applicant also proposes a new dumpster enclosure on the east
side of Golf Galaxy and in the new service area. There are also revisions to the Planned Sign
Program proposed.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 38
The former Menards building would be renovated for new tenants by receiving a facelift;
relatively minor changes in terms of reorienting entrances and upgrading façade materials. The
new and renovated buildings will be consistent with architectural character and materials used
in the site renovations approved in 2011.
Ms. Turkelson related that the proposed plan does not include the installation of a new sidewalk
along Lake Eastbrook Blvd. The Planning Commission should consider this issue and
determine whether a sidewalk should be required. There is no sidewalk on the north side of
Lake Eastbrook except in front of the Phillip Anthony Salon and a medical office. There is
sidewalk along the connector street that runs to the east.
The Planned Sign Program is being amended to accommodate the new and relocated tenant
signage and is outlined in the summary provided by the applicant and on sheets Sign-1, Sign-6,
and Sign-7.
With respect to parking, 3.33 parking spaces per every 1,000 sq. ft. of retail floor area are
required. For the 584,827 sq. ft. of retail area, 1,930 spaces are required. Based on the revised
configuration, 4,107 parking spaces are proposed, which exceeds the maximum parking
permitted but greatly reduces what is present.
Ms. Turkelson identified the proposed changes to the Planned Sign Program. Exterior signage
for an interior tenant in the north section of the main building is proposed, which is somewhat
unusual for this development as well as others. A new category called “Major sign B” has been
added. Requirements are for every .75 linear foot of frontage they would be permitted 1 sq. ft.
of signage up to a maximum of 100 sq. ft. Major tenant signs B are shown on sheet Sign-1 and
have a “2b” label on them. The dimensional limits for all signs have been removed. Maximum
areas remain in place. Additionally, the Arnie’s ground sign is proposed to be relocated as
shown on sheet Sign-1.
Ms. Schulz commented on the sign package. The Arnie’s sign is being relocated. She asked if
the electronic reader included with that sign is being eliminated.
Ms. Turkelson replied that they didn’t indicate that would be removed. It sounded as though the
sign would simply be relocated. She anticipates that the tenant on the sign would be updated.
Ms. Schulz indicated that with the relocation it would be subject to the operational requirements
for electronic message centers.
Mr. Potter asked if there are major pylon signs associated with the project.
Ms. Schulz replied that there are two; one on 28th St. and one on the corner. There are no
changes to those signs. With respect to linear square footage and the signage shown on the
plan, it is consistent with what has previously been approved; it is just an expansion based on
the new buildings.
Ms. Turkelson agreed. There isn’t anything proposed that would be out of character with what
was previously approved; it is an expansion of that program to accommodate the significant
renovations taking place.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 39
Mr. Treur asked for more clarification of the exterior sign for an interior tenant.
Ms. Turkelson explained that there is an interior tenant within the development. They are
seeking approval of an exterior sign. Typically if you want a sign you have to have building
frontage. This would be an exception to how signage is normally viewed.
Ms. Schulz recalled that, when this was last before the Planning Commission, green space was
a significant topic of discussion.
Ms. Turkelson referred to the aerial view identifying the significant reduction of parking and
proposed green space. There is existing green space along the perimeter/Lake Eastbrook but
there aren’t any interior islands. The proposed landscape plan includes a number of traffic
islands and islands to help delineate parking areas. The area south of the former Menards
building will be better defined with landscape islands at the end of each parking aisle. The
islands will be landscaped and a tree added to each island. The area to the north of the former
Menards building will also have islands added and a landscape triangle in the northwest corner
of that area. Additional trees will be added along the perimeter to screen those spaces. There
is an overall increase in the green space.
Mr. Zarbo circulated a map of the additional green space proposed.
Ms. Schulz stated that building materials aren’t changing dramatically. Some of it is not typical
of the additional facades they have been doing but they are modifying what is there to some
degree.
Ms. Turkelson agreed. In short, it appears to be complimentary to what they have been doing
throughout the site. Each building is somewhat unique, likely to help identify the tenant space,
but in general the materials and general overall character is consistent.
Carl Zarbo, Director of Operations, stated that there are two essential components of the
proposal. One component is the demolition of the Arnie’s and construction of a new building.
The building will look like the other building that is well under construction. Landscape and
materials will be similar; all components that the Commission has seen will be repeated. The
new building will be 100% leased upon completion. Mr. Zarbo stated that they are on a sliding
concept with Arnie’s and they will start demolition on or before April 1 but it could be as early as
January 2. They control from Jan. 1 through March 31. Demolition will literally begin the day
they surrender the building and they will begin construction of that site within 30 days of
demolition.
Mr. Zarbo recalled that they were before the Commission nearly 2 years ago and understood
the concerns about Menards and asked the Commission’s patience and promised to get to it
when they could. They are now doing that. Sixty days ago they thought they would be at the
whole building. Today they have a lease on 38,459 sq. ft.; essentially half. That is triggering
the exterior renovation of the building and that interior space will be completely renovated for a
new tenant. What has changed is that they have looked at the paving. As they indicated
previously, they talked about limitations on where they were going to pave. By November of this
year their plan is to have everything in the front of the property and along the northwest area
paved; an approximate $4 million paving project. They realize they still have an issue in the
area they have nicknamed “Potterville” to address. The balance of the space is a work in
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 40
progress. They continue to actively consider marketing that space. The paving allows them to
address the entire storm water management concept. Mr. Zarbo stated that they appreciate the
Commission working with them on the landscaping, realizing that the phasing was necessary.
They have hit the Commission’s criteria in this component. It accomplishes the very clear
message that there was too much parking there. The pervious to impervious ratio is changing
dramatically.
Mr. Zarbo explained the issue of the exterior tenant sign for an internal tenant. That tenant
previously had frontage and a sign. They were relocated into the small amount of mall area left
and then didn’t qualify for a sign. Those are a couple of things they have run into. The throat
area is occupied and they have some work to complete but he would expect a couple of the
tenants will ask for the signage. They have made no promises however.
Mr. Zarbo stated that they feel good about their progress. The Commission was gracious at
taking them at their word. They have 90-120 days to go to complete phase one and they have
done what they said they would do and will continue to do so. If they receive approval they
have incredible time frames on this next phase.
Mr. Treur asked if they are demolishing Menards and rebuilding.
Mr. Zarbo replied no. The shell will remain in position. He identified the area they have a tenant
for and until they know the direction of the potential marketing of the last space they won’t touch
that.
Mr. Treur noted that the north and south elevations of the Menards building have a lot of brick.
He asked if they would consider doing any greening along that wall.
Mr. Zarbo stated that for all of the parking they do have, the irony is that they don’t have it here.
They are looking at potential elevation changes for the northeast wall.
Mr. Treur suggested a green wall and described the concept. Ms. Schulz indicated that she
could provide examples.
Mr. Zarbo stated that they would be happy to work with staff and consider that.
Ms. Angelo felt comfortable leaving that up to Planning staff.
Ms. Schulz clarified that the intent would be to mitigate and soften the southeast and northeast
elevations of the former Menards building.
Mr. Treur asked about sidewalk along Lake Eastbrook.
Mr. Zarbo replied that they don’t have anything in the budget for that this year. If they are
required to install that he doesn’t know what they would do. There is no way they could get it in
the time frame this year. He doesn’t see a need for it without it being surrounded by residential.
Ms. Schulz noted that there are transit stops on Lake Eastbrook and the Disability Advocates of
Kent County headquarters is located behind the subject property.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 41
Mr. VanStrien asked if there is no foot traffic because it is dangerous to walk there.
Mr. Zarbo replied no. They just don’t see a need without it being surrounded by residential.
Mr. Treur noted that there is a good deal of residential and affordable housing right behind.
Mr. Zarbo understands that it is up to the Planning Commission but he doesn’t have the
authority to say that they can do it.
Ms. Schulz indicated that the Commission could make that a condition of approval and provide
alternatives; either the installation of sidewalks or payment in lieu in cooperation with the City to
install the sidewalks. The City is working on a partnership on 28 th St.
Mr. Zarbo stated that what they are hearing from the public is not to spend money on sidewalks
but to fix the road.
Mr. Zarbo explained that they aren’t using Brownfield funds on this. They told the City from day
one that they wouldn’t look for any funding for this project but if they had it to do over again they
likely would have because the demolition of these old buildings would have made it worth it.
Mr. VanStrien invited public comment; there was none.
Mr. Treur MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
approves the request of Centerpointe Development Co. LLC (Chris Brochert) for Site Plan
Approval for renovation of Centerpointe Mall, at 3665 28 th Street SE, with the following
conditions of approval:
1. That all plans submitted as part of the application for Planning Commission
consideration, and that are signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall
constitute the approved plans, except as amended in this resolution.
2. That a development compliance/LUDS permit shall be obtained, demonstrating
compliance with Article 11 (Landscaping) and Article 2 (General Provisions).
3. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and
policies and all applicable State laws.
4. That the applicant shall work with the Planning Director for implementation of
sidewalk along Lake Eastbrook within the affected area of the project.
5. That the applicant shall work with the Planning Director exploring the potential for a
green wall on the southeast and northeast walls of the former Menards building.
6. This approval shall take immediate effect.
SUPPORTED by Ms. Angelo. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
____________________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC HEARING RESUMED:
710, 720 and 748 Monroe Avenue NW – Special Land Use – Hotel Holdings Monroe LLC
(Brian Beukema) requesting approval for activities associated with a new hotel, including an
outdoor chef station; a restaurant and bar with outdoor service, lobby café with outdoor service,
room service, a sundry shop, a convenience store, banquet facility, and an outdoor terrace with
live entertainment, all of which would have alcohol sales or service available; and a Planned
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
July 11, 2013
Page 42
Sign Program to permit signage exceeding the limits allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. File
No.: PC-SLU-2013-0042
Motion by Mr. Treur, supported by Ms. Angelo, to remove the item from the table. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. VanStrien invited comments from the citizen present.
Ms. Schroeder related that she is very happy with what is proposed and thanked the
Commission and applicant for the presentation.
Mr. Treur MOVED TO REAFFIRM THE MOTION TO APPROVE, FROM 6/13/2013 FOR
HOTEL HOLDINGS MONROE LLC, IN ITS ENTIRETY, WITH NO MODIFICATIONS.
SUPPORTED by Ms. Angelo. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
____________________________________________________________________________
ADJOURNED: 6:15 p.m.