Development Center
1120 Monroe Ave NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
January 12, 2017
I.
Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor
12:00 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. - Lunch - Conference Room 303, 3rd Floor
II.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM by Chair Kyle Van Strien
PRESENT:
Van Strien, Rozeboom, Smith, Brame, Davis, Koetsier, Ross, Treur
ABSENT:
Kelly
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Suzanne Schulz, Elizabeth Zeller, Landon Bartley,
Courtney Mendez, Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth White, and recording secretary Carol
Gornowich
III.
Approval of Minutes
Approval of Minutes from December 8, 2016
Approval of the 12/08/2016 minutes: Motion by Mr. Treur, supported by Mr. Rozeboom, to
approve the Planning Commission minutes of 12/08/2016 with one clarification under the
final Public Comment; Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception was declared the
patroness of our country in 1846, not Ms. Hickadee. Motion carried unanimously.
RESULT:
MOVER:
SECONDER:
YEAS:
ABSENT:
IV.
ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
Rick Treur, Member
Paul Rozeboom, Vice-Chair
Van Strien, Rozeboom, Smith, Brame, Davis, Koetsier, Ross, Treur
Tim Kelly
Business
A.
Planning Director's Report
 Agenda items were briefly reviewed.
B.
Conflict of Interest
None expressed.
V.
Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in the Public Hearing Room,
2nd Floor
A.
(1:00 p.m.) 15 Ionia Ave SW - Banquet Hall
Address:
Applicant:
Generated 1/17/2017 10:04 PM
15 Ionia Avenue SW
MKKA, LLC (d.b.a. Divani)
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Requesting:
Zoning:
Requirements:
Case Number:
Staff Assigned:
Type of Case:
Effective Date:
Page 2
January 12, 2017
(Molly Kopen)
Approval to expand an existing alcohol sales & service use
associated with an existing restaurant to include a banquet hall
as well as live entertainment/dancing.
TN-CC
Traditional Neighborhoods – City Center
Article 6
Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts
5.9.05.
Alcohol Sales
5.9.06.
Auditorium, Theatre and Banquet Hall
5.9.11.
Entertainment
5.9.17.
Multiple-Family Dwellings
5.12.08.
Standards for Site Plan Review
5.12.12.
Special Land Uses
PC-SLU-2016-0127
Landon Bartley
Special Land Use
January 28, 2017
Mr. Bartley introduced the request to expand an existing alcohol sales and service use associated
with an existing restaurant to include a banquet hall as well as live entertainment/dancing. He
identified the location of the site on the west side of Ionia Ave., south of Fulton. The property is
zoned TN-CC, as are surrounding properties. Mr. Bartley also identified nearby uses. The
request is to add a banquet hall use in the existing building. The floor plan was displayed with
the existing restaurant demarcated in one color and the proposed banquet space in another. Mr.
Bartley noted that there is no direct access from the banquet space to Ionia Ave. There is
emergency egress into the alley from the space. Access to the space is gained through a hallway
with a vestibule entrance. The restaurant and banquet space are separated. The proposed
banquet room is approximately 2,800 sq. ft. divided into two rooms. Total occupancy as
advertised by the applicant is 160 for standing room and 80-100 seated. Example diagrams from
different events that have been held show seating for 20-40 guests. The space is intended to be
used for private events such as a party or reception. Mr. Bartley’s understanding is that it would
not be utilized for public events, ticketed events, or live music concerts. A Change of Use permit
may be required by the Building Dept. If so, the Building and Fire Departments would review
the space for maximum occupancy. Events would end at or before 2 a.m. and may include live
music and dancing.
Mr. Bartley commented on parking advising that normally there would be a parking requirement
associated with a banquet hall use. However, there is no parking required in this downtown
district for buildings/businesses existing prior to 1988. If the Planning Commission feels the use
necessitates parking they have the authority to require it as part of a Special Land Use approval.
Mr. Bartley concluded his presentation relating that staff has received no correspondence in
support or opposition and the Police Dept. has expressed no concerns.
Ms. Schulz noted that live entertainment is part of the request. She asked if there is any nearby
residential uses/potential for conflict.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 3
January 12, 2017
Mr. Bartley replied that there are a number of residential uses, even within the same block, on
upper stories of buildings. His understanding is that the live entertainment requested would be
limited to the private events and not a concert venue with ticketed sales.
Molly Kopen was present to discuss her request. She related that, per the fire code, the
occupancy is limited to 170. She also related that they enlist the services of At Your Service
Valet. They are present nightly, Tuesday through Saturday, for Divani and tickets for parking
can be pre-purchased by the host of an event. When large events are booked Ms. Kopen enlists a
security firm if she feels the culture or nature of the event warrants. Ms. Kopen related that she
signed a purchase agreement for Divani in July, 2014 and closed the deal in January 2016. She
has been present running the business and now owns it. It took some time to put the event space
package together, including the installation of a new kitchen. The event space is a large
component of the business. The majority of the events held are corporate, weddings, reunions,
and birthday parties. Often the hosts desire live entertainment. There have been events that
included ticketed sales. Ms. Kopen provided an example of a ticketed sales event. Helen DeVos
Children’s Hospital held a fundraiser with 180 in attendance. Security was enlisted due to the
size of the event. Tickets were sold for that event to raise money for the charity. The proceeds
from the ticket sales were used to purchase the food chosen by the host and as a fundraiser for
the charity. Ms. Kopen indicated that she wasn’t aware she needed Special Land Use approval
for those functions and the opportunity to sell tickets. She clarified that she doesn’t sell the
tickets; the host sells the tickets.
Mr. Rozeboom asked if tickets would be available to the general public or to the guests of the
lessee.
Ms. Kopen noted that Facebook is a social forum. If they are selling tickets to their Facebook
friends it could be considered the general public but to the host it is their Facebook friends. The
number of their friends can obviously multiply. When the Children’s Hospital hosted their event
there two years prior they only had approximately 80 in attendance and they doubled that
attendance at their most recent event.
Discussion took place to determine whether the public notice for this request included the
ticketed sales. Mr. Bartley clarified that it did not. Staff was not aware of the request for
ticketed sales.
Mr. Van Strien explained to the applicant that, per code, it doesn’t matter who is selling the
tickets. It would be considered a ticketed event open to the public and the public notice sent out
should have included that as part of the request.
Ms. Schulz suggested the Planning Commission entertain public comment and table the request
for proper public notice. She asked the applicant if the space is leased or owned.
Ms. Kopen replied that she leases the spaces. She didn’t realize that the ticketed sales were a
separate issue; she thought it was included in the night club component of the banquet hall/night
club Special Land Use.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 4
January 12, 2017
Ms. Schulz explained that night club was not included in the public notice either. Mr. Van Strien
added that that is a more intense use that would also need to be noticed. It will be necessary to
re-notice the request. Ms. Schulz asked that Ms. Kopen describe the night club use.
Ms. Kopen explained that the advice she was given by Ms. Turkelson was that the proposed use
would fall into the banquet/night club use. That is what she thought she was applying for; to be
allowed to hold the ticketed events, serve alcohol until 2 a.m., and to be allowed to have
entertainment.
Mr. Van Strien suggested that a night club would imply a more regular use; a nightly basis where
people could come, pay a cover, dance, etc. as opposed to a private event facility that would
include an entertainment component and potentially fundraisers.
Ms. Kopen explained that events wouldn’t be nightly. She provided the example of a friend that
leased the event space for a birthday party. She sold tickets on line for her birthday party and
promoted it primarily through social media. That event was considered a night club use by staff.
That isn’t something she would do regularly but at times that is what a guest wants.
Mr. Van Strien suggested that the applicant should work with staff to clarify the exact nature of
the use before the public notice is sent out.
Mr. Van Strien invited public comment; there was none.
Mr. Bartley explained that his understanding is that when the space isn’t being rented out for an
event it isn’t otherwise being used, which is why they felt it fell under banquet hall vs. night
club. Staff was not aware of ticket sales for events.
Ms. Schulz suggested the applicant provide a business plan, including the number of ticketed
events anticipated.
Ms. Kopen indicated that potentially there could be 4 ticketed events per month.
Mr. Davis pointed out that if they are going to permit ticket sales for birthday parties there is
potential that it could be used nightly.
Motion by Mr. Smith, supported by Mr. Brame, to table the request until February 9, 2017.
Motion carried unanimously.
RESULT:
MOVER:
SECONDER:
YEAS:
ABSENT:
TABLED OPEN [UNANIMOUS]
Reginald Smith, Secretary
Walter M Brame, Member
Van Strien, Rozeboom, Smith, Brame, Davis, Koetsier, Ross, Treur
Tim Kelly
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
B.
Page 5
January 12, 2017
(1:20 p.m.) 50 Antoine Street SW Emergency Housing
Address:
Applicant:
Requesting:
Zoning:
Requirements:
Case Number:
Staff Assigned:
Type of Case:
Effective Date:
50 Antoine Street SW
Covenant House Michigan
(Gerry Piro)
To construct a new emergency shelter with associated supportive
services.
TN-MDR
Traditional Neighborhood–Mixed-Density
Residential
Article 5
Residential Zone Districts
5.9.33.
Transitional or Emergency Shelters
5.12.08.
Site Plan Review
5.12.12.
Special Land Use
PC-SLU-2016-0130
Elizabeth Zeller
Special Land Use
January 28, 2016
Ms. Zeller introduced the request of Covenant House Michigan to construct a new emergency
shelter with associated support services. Covenant House Michigan provides social services and
emergency housing for young people, ages 18-24, who are homeless or at risk of becoming
homeless. A new three-story, 15,000 sq. ft. facility with 28 private rooms, common and
programming areas, and associated administrative offices is proposed to be added to the campus
of Covenant House Academy, which is an alternative charter school. Ms. Zeller recalled that the
property was recently rezoned from OS to TN-MDR to facilitate the proposed use.
Ms. Zeller identified surrounding uses as Campau Park, Campau Commons and various
residential and institutional uses.
The subject property is approximately 3.5 acres meeting the size requirements to support the
proposed use. The building is proposed to be located immediately adjacent to the Covenant
House Academy. A number of students that attend the adjacent school have been identified as
homeless and may be served by the subject facility. The facility will have a capacity of 28
individuals. The program offered is a 90-day program. The ground floor will consist of intake
and programming and the second and third floors will provide accommodations with males on
one floor and females another. The facility will be staffed 24/7 with approximately 10-12 staff
on site from 9 to 5 and from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. approximately 4-6 staff members will be on site.
Residents will not be permitted to own or operate vehicles as part of the program.
Ms. Zeller explained that Article 9 requires that transitional or emergency shelters with more
than 12 individuals shall be located at least 1,500 ft. from any other similar uses. Staff is not
aware of similar uses in the vicinity, although it is possible that they do exist.
Ms. Zeller commented on the site plan and layout. The front setback of the new building will be
consistent with the setback of the adjacent portion of the school, meeting the minimum setback
requirement. The side setback will be 10 ft. and the rear setback requirement will be met as well.
The 20% greenspace requirement will be met and the tree canopy requirement will likely be met
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 6
January 12, 2017
as well, which will be confirmed at the time of LUDS permitting.
Nineteen parking spaces are required for the use and the development area includes 20 parking
spaces. The applicant feels the 20 spaces will meet their needs. Ms. Zeller again stated that
residents will not be permitted to have vehicles.
With respect to building elements, the building will be three stories in height. Front transparency
of 40% and side transparency of 20% is required. The proposed front transparency is 18%,
which is deficient. The Planning Commission may reduce transparency if found to be
appropriate and if the applicant has demonstrated that additional transparency would be
detrimental to the operation or security of the use. Ms. Zeller noted that there is quite a bit of
articulation and different types of materials on the elevation fronting Antoine, which the
Commission may wish to take into consideration. Building materials proposed consist of metal
panels, concrete block and glazed concrete block. The applicant has provided a document
including further information on the type of materials proposed. They are also present with
samples.
Ms. Zeller commented on building orientation. The main door is on the side facing the school.
The zone district requires that the building entrance be located on the front façade parallel to the
street. Alternative orientations may be considered where such alternative orientations are
consistent with existing adjacent development.
Ms. Zeller related that staff has not received any communication about this application. The
applicant held a neighborhood meeting prior to the rezoning with approximately 11 in
attendance. At the October public hearing regarding the rezoning there were some comments in
support and one resident of Campau Commons expressed concerns about the proposed use.
Mr. Rozeboom asked if there is an Area Specific Plan for Division Ave.
Ms. Zeller replied that there is no ASP at this time. However, the process for an ASP has begun.
Ms. Schulz added that a multi-year planning process will begin soon. The first step will be
engagement and capacity building before creating the plan. The City Commission will be
briefed on “next steps” next week. Following that, a group of advisors will be sought to aid in
choosing a cultural competency expert. Based on that work, steering committee and facilitator
training will be conducted. A Plan was done for Campau during the Master Plan process. That
Plan resulted in the redevelopment of Campau Commons, adding the street grid back in and
changing the configuration. The Plan resulted in the demolition of residential units along S.
Division and that is now open space. The subject property is former GRPS property and not park
land. Even though there isn’t an ASP for this portion of the City the proposal is in accordance
with the Plan done in 2002.
Gerald Piro, Executive Director of Covenant House of Michigan, related that this project is
important for several reasons. They’ve worked with a number of non-profit providers that serve
youth relative to the homeless population of this age group. There is a significant population that
has been identified that could be served by what they propose offering. Covenant House is a
program vs. just a shelter someone may stay in for a night or two. When a potential resident
comes forward and seeks services they are at the beginning of making a commitment to try and
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 7
January 12, 2017
end the homeless situation they’ve found themselves in, many of which are not their fault. After
an intensive intake process, where they are evaluated medically and psychologically, they are
then placed and become part of the daily program. The program is approximately 5 hours a day,
5 days a week, addressing issues to help them gain more control over their life and reorient
themselves back into the community. Those issues include anger management, how to write a
resume, work place behavior, etc. The other factor is the adjacent school. They’ve identified
approximately 24% of that population at any one time is homeless. The proposed would be a
wonderful segue from what they are accomplishing in school and gaining a diploma. It would
provide a place to reside and allow them to concentrate on their life and getting back on track,
from start to finish of their day. The facility will also have an employment center working with
various employers throughout the City to identify job placement for the residents. These
programs are currently offered on the east side of the state and throughout the country. There are
23 Covenant House locations in the United States, Canada and Latin America.
Mr. Smith asked if it is possible to increase the transparency.
Mr. Piro replied that he is not opposed to increasing the transparency. He deferred to the
architect to respond.
Architect Dave Trost explained that the reason for the minimal transparency on the front façade
relates to the programming. There is a stairwell and private space in that area so they are using
transparency strategically on the building in the more common spaces to let in more natural light.
They are willing to work toward achieving the 40% requirement if the Commission doesn’t wish
to grant a reduction.
Ms. Schulz asked if there is glass proposed in the stairwell.
Mr. Trost replied that there is. He referred to the front elevation identifying the location of the
transparency in the stairwell.
Mr. Smith clarified that they would be willing to work with staff to meet the 40% requirement.
Mr. Trost replied affirmatively.
Mr. Koetsier asked if there is a specific reason for orienting the entrance as proposed vs. toward
the street.
Mr. Trost replied that one reason is that they wanted the entry to be in the center of the program
space. Secondly, it faces an entry to the existing school. Residents will be eating a lot of meals
in the school building so the proposed entry has direct access to a door right across from it that
they will be accessing frequently. The buildings are interrelated and will have traffic between
them.
Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Jason Coppens, Covenant House Academy School Board Chair, offered support for the project.
The student population benefits from services such as this and the proximity to the school is
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 8
January 12, 2017
advantageous.
Ryan Schmidt, Inner City Christian Federation, related that they do a lot of work nearby noting,
in particular, the Tapestry Square development at Wealthy and Division. A component of that
development is for youth that are aging out of the foster care system in the same age group
Covenant House serves. There is an incredible need in the community and they are very excited
about Covenant House coming to the area to assist. Mr. Schmidt related that they are also
working to assist Covenant House with some owner representation through the development and
construction process. They have been very sensitive with their site design and their relationship
to the school with the programming in the school and the proposed building. ICCF feels this will
be a great addition to the community.
Mr. Brame asked how many students will be served by this facility and where the residents are
recruited.
Mr. Piro replied 14 males and 14 females; a total of 28. Those served will be students of the
adjacent school, which is directed toward the homeless and those that have been faced with
barriers to achieving a diploma. They also have an outreach team that goes out daily and
familiarize themselves with where these young people congregate. They have skills in
approaching them and engaging them in conversation. They will also be a part of the HMIS
system, which is the Homeless Management Information System. They are the referring body
when someone approaches another organization representing themselves as homeless. When
they have someone in the age group Covenant House serves they reach out to them first to
determine if there is room to place them. If someone hears about them and comes to the front
door in need they would not be turned away; they would go through the same intake process.
Mr. Van Strien recalled that they are willing to work on meeting the transparency requirement.
Mr. Rozeboom agreed that that is important.
Mr. Treur noted however that there really isn’t a side of the building parallel to the street. As
viewed from Division there appears to be plenty of transparency, which is also seen from
Antoine. He is pleased they are willing to increase the transparency but he also supports the
orientation on the site. Mr. Treur stated that he is also comfortable with the location of the
entrance because of the relationship to the school building.
Ms. Schulz added that what is also unique is that there is a parcel between the subject site and
Division that the applicant doesn’t own.
Mr. Rozeboom agreed. If the property was on Division the placement of the door would be more
difficult to support.
Brief discussion took place regarding building materials. Ms. Schulz asked for further
clarification on the materials.
Mr. Trost related that the upper portion is proposed as all metal panel. The blue portion will be
glazed block, a sample of which was circulated. The materials complement the school but in a
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 9
January 12, 2017
modern way. Another element they will utilize is a ground face block that will somewhat match
the brick on the adjacent school. The blue on the subject building will match the school colors,
which is present on the top of the school and in infill panels in the windows.
Ms. Schulz explained that new requirements are being proposed for metal panels. Currently it is
not allowed as a primary building material. The Ordinance amendments going to the City
Commission would allow it, subject to a certain gauge and profile.
Mr. Trost expressed his understanding of the requirements; 24 gauge.
Mr. Treur MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Covenant House Michigan (Gerry
Piro) to operate an emergency shelter with associated supportive services at 50 Antoine
Street SW, 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 protect
the character and quality of established residential neighborhoods, preserve the overall
quality of life for residents and visitor, provide a diverse range of housing types and it is
located near public transit.
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 the establishment of the proposed use is not anticipated to be a high-impact use
and the building and site design will meet all zoning requirements.
3. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the
building and site improvements will be appropriately located.
1. The proposed uses will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or
future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter
because the proposed use is not anticipated to result in excessive traffic, noise, or other
impacts, residents will not be permitted to have vehicles on site, and many residents are
anticipated to also attend the adjacent school.
2. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic
welfare of the City because the use will result in upgrades to the building and property.
3. The proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and
all applicable State laws.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this
project:
1. That the plans prepared by Progressive AE, dated 1/9/2017, and submitted to the
Planning Commission shall constitute the approved plans, except as amended in this
resolution.
2. That all site layout and building elements shall be met, unless specifically waived by the
Planning Commission.
3. That the Planning Commission has found that the proposed building orientation is
consistent with existing adjacent development and the proposed orientation is
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 10
January 12, 2017
approved. There is a parcel between this site and Division Ave. and there is no direct
access onto Division Ave. and it is part of the overall Covenant House campus.
4. The applicant will work with Planning staff to increase façade transparency insomuch
as is practicable.
5. That the use shall operate per the submitted application and per testimony.
6. That an operations management plan for resident intake, discharge, and on-site rules
and regulations be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Director.
7. That all Michigan licenses and approvals shall be current and accreditation by
legitimate accreditation bodies will be in place.
8. That a development compliance/LUDS permit shall be obtained for all site, landscaping
and lighting.
9. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and
policies and State laws.
10. That this approval shall take effect on January 28, 2017.
SUPPORTED by Mr. Smith. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESULT:
MOVER:
SECONDER:
YEAS:
ABSENT:
C.
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS]
Rick Treur, Member
Reginald Smith, Secretary
Van Strien, Rozeboom, Smith, Brame, Davis, Koetsier, Ross, Treur
Tim Kelly
(1:40 p.m.) 1711-1715 S. Division Social Service Agency
Address:
Applicant:
Requesting:
Zoning:
Requirements:
Case Number:
Staff Assigned:
Type of Case:
Effective Date:
1711-1715 S. Division Avenue
Alpha Women’s Center
(Colleen Geisel)
Approval to establish a social service agency on the ground floor.
TN-TBA (Traditional Neighborhood-Traditional Business District)
Article 6
Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts
5.9.31.
Social Service Agency
5.12.08.
Site Plan Review
5.12.12.
Special Land Use
PC-SLU-2016-0129
Elizabeth Zeller
Special Land Use
January 28, 2017
Ms. Zeller presented the request of Alpha Women’s Center, which is a pregnancy resource
center. They are proposing a fatherhood center for the male counterparts of their female clients.
The request is before the Planning Commission because social service facilities on the ground
floor require Special Land Use approval in the TN-TBA zone district.
Ms. Zeller related that TN-LDR is located to the west. The site is located on Division, between
Burton and Hall. There is existing housing on some of the smaller parcels, including the subject
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 11
January 12, 2017
parcel. To the north, across the street, is Alternative Directions probation residential services.
There are also various commercial uses along the corridor.
Ms. Zeller noted that Alpha Women’s Center is located on two parcels. The two southerly
parcels extend into the TN-LDR zone district to the west. The main building is located in the
TBA district. There is a garage structure and related parking at the rear of that property. The
second parcel consists of just parking. The northerly parcel is the site in question today. That
parcel is approximately 4,700 sq. ft. Combined with the two existing Alpha Women’s Center
parcels the overall site is nearly an acre in size. There are 48 shared parking spaces on the lots.
Ms. Schulz asked if the house on the subject parcel has been demolished.
Mr. Zeller clarified that it has not been demolished yet. The property was purchased from the
Land Bank. The house is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new two-story 3,800
sq. ft. building.
Ms. Zeller explained that there is no Area Specific Plan that addresses this property. Ms. Zeller
recalled the information provided during discussion of the last agenda item with respect to a
proposed ASP. The part of the Master Plan that would likely be relevant in this case is the Vital
Business Districts. The Planning Commission should consider the concept of nodes of strong
commercial areas and connectors and what is appropriate in the connectors. Ms. Zeller would
suggest that the subject area is a connector area.
Ms. Zeller presented a rendering of the building proposed for the site. The building has been
designed to echo traditional residential building styles. It will include a community room,
kitchenette, offices, classrooms, a rec room, and an unfinished basement.
Ms. Zeller presented the site plan. She identified the location of the existing Alpha Women’s
Center building and parking to the north. There are 48 parking spaces present. The improved
areas of the site are not proposed to change. The new facility will use the existing parking
spaces. Parking on site is expected to be adequate. Per code, the site will be over-parked even
when considering both uses.
Ms. Zeller presented a survey of the property and identified the location of the house present on
the site now. It lines up with the house to the north. The applicant proposes demolition of the
existing building and construction of new in its place and basically in the same location. They
propose a setback of approximately 37’ from back of curb. Because this is a TBA zone district
the Required Building Line is intended for buildings to be fairly close to the street. If existing
buildings are greater than 20 ft. from back of curb then it is deemed that there is no established
building line and 17 ft. is the RBL for regional streets without on-street parking, which is the
situation here. The Planning Commission has the authority to adjust the RBL by up to 10 ft.
maximum. Therefore, if the applicant desires a setback greater than 27 ft. from back of curb it
will require a Zoning Variance.
Ms. Schulz asked if the proposed building is in alignment with the buildings on either side.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 12
January 12, 2017
Ms. Zeller agreed that it is. However, if the RBL is greater than 20 ft., that is not the RBL taken
into consideration. Ms. Zeller commented on other setbacks. If considering the parcel alone,
Division would be considered the front, there would be two sides and a rear. Given that the
parking will be shared and site improvements such as sidewalks are intended to go to the lot line,
and the shared nature of the use, staff recommends that the three parcels be combined. That
affords the subject parcel some advantages. If not combined it would be subject to an 18 ft. rear
setback. If combined then the north and rear can be considered sides. At the north, because
there is an adjacent residential use, the required setback is 10 ft. As proposed there is a 6 ft.
setback. Therefore, some modifications will need to be made. At the rear a 10 ft. setback is
required and as proposed they are very close to meeting that setback.
Ms. Schulz added that by joining the parcels they aren’t required to provide a landscape buffer
between the parking lot and the proposed building. That will allow them to move the building
further south to meet the required setback on the north.
Ms. Zeller continued the presentation relating that no bicycle parking is shown on the plan but
will be required. That can be addressed at the time of LUDS permitting. The Ordinance also
requires that a sidewalk be installed from the street to the building and from the parking lot to the
building. That matter can also be addressed at the time of LUDS permitting. Proposed green
space appears to be adequate. There is existing parking lot landscape screening. The applicant
will be asked to provide tree canopy calculations at LUDS permitting to ensure that requirement
is met.
Ms. Zeller related that the proposed building meets the two-story requirement for the zone
district. With respect to materials, the building has been designed to echo traditional residential
building styles. They propose vinyl siding, which the applicant has been advised does not meet
the requirement of the zone district. It is an appropriate material for residential construction in
residential zone districts but it is generally not permitted in this district. The Ordinance suggests
that vinyl siding should only be used for accents. The Planning Commission may allow
materials of equivalent or better quality as deemed appropriate for the building, site, and area.
With respect to building orientation, the main entrance is proposed on the side of the building.
However, an entrance is proposed at the front as well. In terms of transparency, Ms. Zeller
indicated that she didn’t calculate the front transparency but she doesn’t believe that it meets the
60% requirement because it was designed as a residential building. 30% transparency is required
on the sides, which is met on the north and south sides but only one window is proposed on the
west. Therefore, a waiver is requested for transparency. The Planning Commission can grant
that waiver if it is found that additional transparency would be detrimental to the operation or
security of the proposed use.
Ms. Zeller related that she has received no communication in support or opposition. The
applicant has reached out to the neighborhood association.
Ms. Schulz comment on the grades on site noting that at the front there is a retaining wall. It
appears they intend to grade the front with some steps, a slope, and a few more steps.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 13
January 12, 2017
Ms. Zeller related that her understanding is they propose to eliminate the retaining wall and
generally keep the grading consistent with the neighboring property, sloping it up. She deferred
to the applicant for further explanation.
Collen Geisel, Executive Director for Alpha Women’s Center of Grand Rapids, related that she
has been the Executive Director for three years but Alpha Women’s Center has been serving the
community for 31 years. They began in 1985 serving 71 women and today they serve thousands
of families each year. Last year they were able to give away nearly 51,000 diapers to those in
need. WIC and other subsidy programs do not cover diapers and other items that they are able to
provide the community with. The programming allows women in need to come one time for an
emergency visit. After that they are told about the programming and from there they need to join
a program in order to continue receiving material resources. Ms. Geisel explained that they are a
pregnancy center, they provide educational services and material resources for those in the
programs. Alpha Women’s Center is open 40 hours a week. They provide pregnancy tests,
ultrasounds, a single mom support group where a meal is provided, as well as step up mentoring.
The educational facility offers GED, English as a second language, pregnancy and parenting
classes, and a Spanish speaking support group. They are also in the Kent County jail.
Approximately 5 years ago they looked at their vision, which is changing hearts, lives and
generations and considered how they can help make generational impact if they aren’t helping
the fathers. How children are helped the best is by helping parents. They help children grow up
in good homes by providing parents the tools they need to be successful. Ms. Geisel explained
that when the subject property became available by the Land Bank, and being directly adjacent to
their property, they felt they should begin pursuing that. Two churches helped them to purchase
the property and they have a lot of area support for the facility and for the proposed project. Over
the last year they have done research in the community and have done surveys among the men of
the clients that come through their building. Every man that has filled out the survey has said
they are somewhat or absolutely interested in the program. No one has expressed less than a fair
need for this. They have been asked specifically what they need and the response has been that
they need the same things offered to the mothers. Ms. Geisel related that that is what they
propose to do. She is in favor of collaboration within the city and cooperating with others that
are doing things like this. Strong Beginnings is a government supported agency but they are
only able to reach a very small percentage of the population that needs to be reached.
Mr. Treur asked for more detail on proposed building materials, specifically the vinyl siding, and
the question of transparency, particularly on the back of the building.
Ms. Geisel stated that they are very intentional about the beauty of the Alpha Women’s Center
property. When women walk it they feel like it is a home. They feel safe, comfortable and
secure. They use different coloring to focus on different ethnicities that come through the
building. When they designed the fatherhood side they wanted a similar feel but not similar;
similar in the sense that men feel comfortable, but not similar because men and women feel
comfortable in different types of environments. Therefore, they included design elements that
would make a man feel comfortable. They wanted it to look like a home. While Alpha
Women’s Center is a large structure, which was formerly a funeral home, it still has a very home
feeling. They wanted the house next door to feel like that also. Additionally, there are adjacent
residential properties so they designed it, at least from the front elevation, to look like a home.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 14
January 12, 2017
Mr. Treur agreed that the design fits the neighborhood and he appreciates that. He is somewhat
concerned about the quality and longevity of the building material.
Ms. Geisel indicated that that is one area they can compromise if the Commission feels that
would be best. However, they don’t receive any government assistance; they are completely
funded by philanthropy. As such she strives to do things as economical as possible and yet
provide quality in terms of programming and the facility.
Mr. Rozeboom asked if they considered positioning the structure to the west of the existing
building vs. to the north. It feels like they are going for a residential feeling building and it is
right in the middle of a commercial zone district. The Commission’s role is to contemplate how
appropriate that is.
Ms. Geisel replied that she doesn’t know that there would be enough space to locate it to the
west of the existing facility. There is parking there now. Additionally, while it will be a
combined effort under one 501C3 she wants the men to feel like it is a separate facility from the
Women’s Center and that it has a separate feeling about it. The location on Division was
advantageous for them as an organization for that kind of exposure. Additionally, the Silver
Line is located in front of that parcel and approximately 95% of their clientele live in poverty.
Having the access to transit is therefore advantageous.
Mr. Smith asked if they’ve had an opportunity to talk with Alternative Directions and the Fire
Dept. nearby.
Ms. Geisel replied that they have spoken with and have great relationships with both. They hold
an open house once a year for the neighborhood and they also attend that. Ms. Geisel related that
she has discussed the proposal with the Director of Alternative Directions. The Director is very
excited because they will offer some programming that Alternative Directions hasn’t been able
to offer. The men from their facility will be welcome to come over and participate in that
programming if they are fathers.
Mr. Van Strien asked about the garage door on the south elevation.
Ms. Geisel noted that the appearance on the south elevation is that it has two garage doors. The
one at the center of the building is where a pool table will be located and they wanted to be able
to open that up, provide more room for congregating, and provide an open air feel. The one at
the back doesn’t open like an overhead door but it would open to the rec room to create an open
air feeling during summer months.
Ms. Schulz noted the presence of egress windows on the north side asking staff whether that was
taken into consideration in terms of the setbacks.
Ms. Zeller explained that 6 ft. is required for egress windows and the required setback of 10 ft.
will be met. The site plan will require some modification to meet the setback requirement.
Kurt Lang, Woods Builders, was also present on behalf of the request. He clarified that the
original intent was to use vinyl siding but after further consideration they’ve decided they will
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 15
January 12, 2017
use cement board. The soffits and fascia will likely be aluminum and windows will be vinyl.
The trim will also be composite material resembling cedar.
Mr. Treur asked if there was anything limiting the addition of more transparency on the west.
Mr. Lang replied that they could add windows in the stairwell and rec room. The reason for not
including more transparency is that there is an alley to the rear.
Mr. Van Strien suggested that having eyes on the alley can be positive.
Ms. Geisel added that they have security cameras at the Women’s Center and would also have
them on this area of the site. They’ve also met with the Police Dept. and discussed crime
prevention through environmental design.
Mr. Van Strien invited public comment; there was none.
Ms. Schulz asked for clarification on the exterior material.
Mr. Lang replied that they propose using LP Smartside, which is similar to Hardi; just a different
brand name.
Mr. Van Strien recognized that they have agreed to increase the transparency on the west. He
feels what is proposed for the front is sufficient. Mr. Smith added that it fits in the
neighborhood.
Ms. Schulz asked how the Commission feels about building placement.
Ms. Zeller clarified that the applicant will most likely have to go to the Zoning Board and seek a
variance for the desired setback.
Ms. Schulz asked if they will utilize the existing foundation.
Mr. Lang replied no. They will do a complete demolition and put in a new foundation. He
explained that the retaining wall is in poor condition and needs to come down. The further the
building is moved forward the more issues they have with the grade.
Ms. Schulz agreed they may need to seek a variance. Given that the other houses to the north
have a setback similar to what is proposed it would look odd to have it meet the 17’ RBL.
Mr. Rozeboom noted that the main consideration for the Commission is the social service use on
the ground floor in a commercial district. The Commission has engaged in a number of
discussions about non-retail uses in commercial districts.
Ms. Schulz agreed. She suggested they consider the context of the neighborhood and this
particular location. There are two buildings left on the short block. Both of the structures to the
north are residential. There is a similar type social service facility across the street and the Alpha
Women’s Center is a social service facility.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 16
January 12, 2017
Mr. Van Strien added that they’ve discussed long stretches of TBA district in the past where it
makes sense to have hubs of commercial with some residential mixed in where they are more
amenable to allowing office type uses on the ground floor. He feels this is a good fit for this
particular block with the limited number of parcels and what is already taking place here.
Ms. Schulz added that the character of the structures on this block is residential or institutional.
They are increasing the intensity of the use a bit by going from residential to institutional.
Mr. Rozeboom added that they will be combining the parcels creating a campus.
Mr. Koetsier MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Alpha Women’s Center (Colleen
Geisel) to establish a social service agency on the ground floor in the TN-TBA (Traditional
Neighborhood-Traditional Business District) at 1711-1715 S. Division Avenue, 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 protect
the character and quality of the established residential neighborhoods, preserve the
overall quality of life for residents and visitors, provide a diverse range of housing types
and will be located near public transit.
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 the establishment of the proposed use is not anticipated to be a high-impact use
and the building and site design will meet all zoning requirements.
3. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the neighborhood because the
building and site improvements will be appropriately located.
4. The proposed uses will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or
future uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, or visual clutter
because the proposed use is not anticipated to result in excessive traffic, noise, or other
impacts and many of the clients will use public transportation.
5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and/or economic
welfare of the City because the use will result in upgrades to the building and property.
6. The proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and
all applicable State laws.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this
project:
1. That the site plan prepared by Roosien and Associates, dated October 31, 2016, and the
floor plans dated August 31, 2016, shall constitute the approved plans, except as
amended in this resolution.
2. That the use shall operate per the submitted application and per testimony.
3. That the two parcels that comprise the Alpha Women’s Center property and the lot on
which the fatherhood center will be located, shall be combined.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 17
January 12, 2017
4. That the Planning Commission has found that the proposed building materials, as
represented in testimony vs. the submitted plans, are of an equivalent or better quality
and are appropriate for the building, site and area.
5. That the Planning Commission has found that the proposed building orientation is
consistent with existing adjacent development and is approved.
6. That the building shall fully comply with the transparency requirements of Table
5.6.08.A., with the exception of the east elevation, which is approved as presented.
7. That a development compliance/LUDS permit shall be obtained for all site, landscaping
and lighting.
8. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and
policies and State laws.
9. That this approval shall take effect on January 28, 2017.
SUPPORTED by Mr. Rozeboom. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESULT:
MOVER:
SECONDER:
YEAS:
ABSENT:
D.
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS]
Thomas H Koetsier, Member
Paul Rozeboom, Vice-Chair
Van Strien, Rozeboom, Smith, Brame, Davis, Koetsier, Ross, Treur
Tim Kelly
(2:00 p.m.) 3665 28th St SE Drive-Through
Address:
Applicant:
Requesting:
Zoning:
Requirements:
Case Number:
Staff Assigned:
Type of Case:
Effective Date:
3665 28th Street SE
Chick-Fil-A, Inc.
(Jason Hill)
Approval to construct a new drive-through restaurant.
MON-C
Modern Era Neighborhoods - Commercial
Article 6
Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts
5.9.09.
Drive-In or Drive-Through Facility
5.9.21.
Outdoor Seating Areas
5.12.08.
Standards for Site Plan Review
5.12.12.
Special Land Uses
PC-SLU-2016-0128
Landon Bartley
Special Land Use
January 28, 2017
Mr. Bartley presented the Special Land Use request. He identified the site as an outlot at the
southeast corner of the Centerpointe Mall development. The request is for a drive-through
associated with a new Chick-fil-A restaurant. The subject property and properties to the north
and east are zoned MON-C. To the south, across 28th St., and to the west, across the East
Beltline, are the City of Kentwood. Mr. Bartley noted that commercial uses are present on both
the East Beltline and 28th St. The proposed restaurant will be a single-story, 4,800 sq. ft.
building. It will be constructed on a lease area of nearly one acre in size. The overall
Centerpointe mall parcel is approximately 65 acres. The applicant proposes landscape, dumpster
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 18
January 12, 2017
access, parking and drive aisle improvements. Some of those improvements are outside the lease
area or on MDOT right-of-way. The applicant and landowner are working with MDOT on
agreements/easements for access and improvements outside the lease area. The draft resolution
includes a condition requiring they submit those agreements should the Commission approve the
request.
Mr. Bartley clarified that the Special Land Use focus is on the drive-through aspect of the use. A
two-lane drive-through is proposed. Entry to the drive-through would be from the south with
traffic traveling north around the east side of the restaurant. The single-lane pick-up would be
located on the north side of the proposed building and exit to the west. There are two existing
entrance drives to this area of the site. One drive is from the East Beltline, to the north of the
proposed restaurant. Vehicles can also enter from 28th St. to the southeast of the proposed
restaurant. Stacking is proposed for approximately 22 vehicles. Traffic Engineering has
performed a preliminary review. They had some concerns related to the existing Centerpointe
Mall sign and the parking layout. They inquired as to whether the sign could be moved but it
doesn’t appear to be feasible. Traffic Engineering is generally fine with the drive-through use
itself however.
Mr. Bartley explained that 15% greenspace is required and the plan shows 14.6%. Additional
landscaping will be required during the LUDS process to achieve the minimum requirement.
Mr. Bartley provided further detail on the proposed building. The main entrance will be located
at the southwest corner of the building. The dining area will be located along the south half of
the building. A secondary entrance is also present on the south wall. A large amount of
transparency is present on the south wall along with a play area at the southeast corner. The
order area is near the main entrance. The majority of the north half of the building will be
dedicated to the kitchen and drive-through area. Because of that there is very little transparency
on the north and west facades. The requirement for the south and west elevations is 30% and
15% for the north and east sides. The south and east elevations meet or exceed the transparency
requirements. The west street-facing elevation does not meet the requirement as only 25%
transparency is proposed. An earlier plan had 59% transparency but the plans were revised.
Transparency on the north side is approximately 4%. The applicant is requesting a waiver due to
the service nature of the floor plan and drive-through lane on that side.
With respect to parking, the restaurant is proposed to have indoor seating for 104 and a
maximum occupancy of 148 for the building. 16 seats are proposed in an outdoor seating area.
A total of 65 parking spaces are required. 95 spaces are proposed on the leased area and there is
ample parking elsewhere on the Centerpointe site. A bike rack is proposed at the southeast
corner of the building.
Mr. Bartley related that staff has not received any communication in support or opposition to the
request.
Ms. Schulz referred to the elevations noting that some windows are shown with hash marks and
others that are not. She asked if those are opaque or all clear glass.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 19
January 12, 2017
Mr. Bartley expressed his understanding that they are all clear glass and deferred to the applicant
to confirm that.
Mr. Bartley summarized the key considerations as the appropriateness of a drive-through in this
location and transparency on the west side.
Mr. Rozeboom asked if the plans include a Planned Sign Program.
Mr. Bartley replied that detailed sign plans have not been submitted for the proposed restaurant.
Signage would have to come back or comply with the approved Planned Sign Program for
Centerpointe.
Mr. Van Strien asked about other drive-through uses in the immediate vicinity.
The drive-through uses identified nearby included Krispy Kreme, Starbucks, Biggby, Culvers, a
pharmacy and Burger King. Ms. Schulz added that there are also auto dealerships/auto-oriented
uses nearby.
Mr. Koetsier asked if traffic circulation issues are anticipated with the addition of the restaurant.
Mr. Bartley replied that he typically defers to Traffic Engineering on those questions. In some
cases they require a traffic study. In this case Mr. Bartley is not aware if they requested that.
There are two drive entrances to the site near this area of the parcel, as well as others for the
overall parcel.
Mr. Smith asked about the number of accidents at the 28th/East Beltline intersection.
Mr. Bartley was not aware of the number of traffic accidents at that location. He was aware that
there is a higher incidence at 28th and East Paris. Ms. Schulz added that the Knapp and East
Beltline intersection is one with a high rate of accidents but she is not aware of the statistics for
28th/East Beltline.
Jason Hill, Chick-fil-A, was pleased to relate that their first location in the Grand Rapids area
opened today. They received confirmation recently that the Wyoming location will open in
February and they are hoping to add one in Grand Rapids. Mr. Hill commented on the
transparency on the East Beltline façade. He clarified that that was an oversight when they
revised the floor plan; they inadvertently took the windows out. They will put some windows
back into the serving counter and queueing area and comply with the transparency requirement
on that façade. The reason for the lack of transparency on the north elevation is the back of
house operations within the building. That area has all of the kitchen equipment and storage and
there isn’t a good opportunity to introduce more transparency on that side of the building.
Mr. Van Strien asked if they could add some architectural details so that it isn’t just a flat wall.
Mr. Hill was amenable to that suggestion. He explained that what they’ve done in the past is
create a faux window appearance with the use of different color bricks and a different pattern to
make it look like a window. They can do that in this location as well.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 20
January 12, 2017
Mr. Smith asked if they’ve had an opportunity to discuss the proposal with other businesses in
the area.
Mr. Hill agreed that they have. They’ve waited for approximately two years for the landlord to
obtain specific approvals from those parties to allow Chick-fil-A to be part of this shopping
center.
Ms. Schulz asked if Traffic Engineering expressed any concern for the lack of a by-pass or slip
lane associated with the drive-through queueing.
Mr. Hill replied that it wasn’t brought up.
Mr. Van Strien suggested that adding one may impact the site plan with respect to parking.
Ms. Schulz asked if site circulation was discussed with the mall owner and other operators.
Mr. Hill replied that they felt the site plan helped to better define the circulation. His
understanding and observation is that it is currently a free-for-all with no definition. They
haven’t received any negative comments related to the obvious addition of traffic to the shopping
center site.
Mr. Van Strien invited public comment.
Attorney Leslie Dickenson was present on behalf of Centerpointe LLC. They are in support of
the proposed development and don’t anticipate any issues with traffic circulation. They feel the
existing site access points will sufficiently serve the development. They are working with the
applicant and MDOT on the reciprocal easements for access improvements outside of the leased
area.
Mr. Treur feels that this location for a drive-through seems to make sense. He isn’t concerned
about having a drive-through in this location as it is a very auto-oriented area of the city. Mr.
Treur appreciates that they are willing to meet the transparency requirement on the East Beltline
and add architectural detail to the north side.
Mr. Van Strien recognized that there are unique aspects related to this request vs. other
applications. There are a number of stand-alone drive-throughs. There is no ASP in place for
this site/area that dictates what should go here. The location within the site is also unique. It is
central to the intersection but it is necessary to access the overall site to get to it. Mr. Van Strien
is also pleased that they are willing to address the transparency issue. The previously proposed
elevation makes more sense, particularly with the floor plan as proposed. He would also
encourage the addition of architectural elements on the north elevation to add interest.
Mr. Treur MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission approves the request of Chick-fil-A, Inc. to construct a drive-through
restaurant at 3665 28th Street SE, for the following reasons:
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 21
January 12, 2017
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 support
the vitality of the business district, provide a mix of uses in a commercial area and
foster a strong economy.
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 the proposed use is consistent with the auto-oriented character of the
surrounding business area. There are several existing stand-along drive through uses
in the vicinity.
3. The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because
appropriate screening and/or landscaping will be provided and buildings, structures
and entrances are appropriately oriented on the site. The site improvements will help
to better define traffic circulation within the parcel.
4. The proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood because,
per plans, the proposed use will connect the existing sidewalk on 28th St. to this parcel.
5. The site design for the proposed use will add green space and landscaping to an area
that is currently characterized by broad expanses of pavement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this
project:
1. That the site plans prepared by Progressive AE, Inc. and dated 1/5/2017, and floor
plans and elevations dated 12/5/2016, including the increase in transparency per
testimony, and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the
approved plans, except as amended in this resolution.
2. That final site circulation shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s
Traffic Engineering Division.
3. That agreements or easements allowing improvements upon, and/or access to the lease
area from, adjacent properties and public right-of-ways, shall be submitted during the
permitting process. Sidewalk along the East Beltline shall be examined with the City
and MDOT, and shall be installed should it found to be feasible and appropriate.
4. That the Planning Commission has found that the applicant has demonstrated that
meeting the transparency requirements on the north façade would be detrimental to the
operation or security of the proposed use and approves the transparency as proposed in
testimony; the west elevation will meet the transparency requirement and the north
elevation shall include differentiation provided to resemble window openings, with
brick patterning.
5. That no signs, including menu boards, are approved by this resolution, and sign
permits and necessary approvals are required.
6. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and
policies and all State laws.
7. That this approval shall take effect on January 28, 2017.
SUPPORTED by Mr. Smith. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
RESULT:
MOVER:
SECONDER:
YEAS:
ABSENT:
E.
Page 22
January 12, 2017
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS]
Rick Treur, Member
Reginald Smith, Secretary
Van Strien, Rozeboom, Smith, Brame, Davis, Koetsier, Ross, Treur
Tim Kelly
(2:20 p.m.) 2900 Burton Street SE Electronic Message Center
Address:
Applicant:
Requesting:
Zoning:
Requirements:
Case Number:
Staff Assigned:
Type of Case:
Effective Date:
2900 Burton St. SE
Grand River Signs
(Russell Ramsay)
Approval to replace an existing ground sign with a double sided
ground sign with electronic message center, located within a
residential zone district.
MCN-LDR (Mid-Century Neighborhood—Low Density
Residential)
Article 5
Residential Zone Districts
5.12.08.
Site Plan Review
5.15.08.
Changeable Copy Signs
5.15.10.
Signs in Residential Zone Districts
5.12.12.
Special Land Use
PC-SLU-2016-0133
Andrea Hendrick
Special Land Use
January 28, 2016
Ms. Hendrick presented the request of Our Savior Lutheran Church for approval to replace an
existing ground sign with a new ground sign that includes an electronic message center. The
ground sign is permitted but the electronic message center requires Special Land Use approval
due to the proximity to a residential district. Ms. Hendrick noted that the site is surrounded by
low-density residential zoning and uses.
Ms. Hendrick provided specifics on the sign. The proposed sign meets the height limitations of
the Ordinance and the proposed area is less than the permitted 32 sq. ft.; the sign is 26.4 sq. ft.
The electronic message center portion of the sign cannot exceed 50% of the overall sign area.
The proposed sign meets that requirement as well at approximately 33%. The proposed sign’s
EMC is positioned perpendicular to the adjacent residential properties so as not to disturb
residents. The sign will be located in the same general location as the existing sign but set back
3 additional feet to comply with the minimum setback requirements. The sign will not operate
between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Ms. Hendrick concluded the presentation relating that no letters of support or opposition have
been received.
Mr. Van Strien asked if the Ordinance has been recently updated for electronic message centers
within a TBA zone district.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 23
January 12, 2017
Richard Garbrecht, Sign Inspector, agreed that the Ordinance was recently amended. However,
Special Land Use consideration is necessary in this case because it is within 150 ft. of a
residentially zoned property.
Russell Ramsay, Grand River Signs, was present to discuss the request. Mr. Ramsay explained
that they designed the sign to meet the City regulations. The electronic message center is
controllable and programmable with respect to on/off times and brightness. Mr. Ramsay related
that when providing an EMC for a client they spend time with them training them on appropriate
content so that it isn’t flashy. The church’s goal with the new signage is to update their logo, to
improve the visibility of their signage, make it more aesthetically pleasing, as well as have the
ability to promote events they have at the church and Our Savior Lutheran School on
Ridgewood.
Mr. Van Strien asked if the church understands the code limits of how often the content can
change and hours of operation.
Mr. Ramsay replied that he believes so. They do inform the customers and his understanding is
that they also have to sign an affidavit as part of the permit.
Mr. Van Strien invited public comment; there was none.
Mr. Van Strien recognized that the proposed sign is smaller than what is permitted.
Mr. Koetsier MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission approves the Special Land Use request of Grand River Signs (Russell
Ramsay) to install a new ground sign which includes an electronic message center within
500 feet of a residentially zoned property at 2900 Burton Street SE, 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 enhance
the visibility of events and services for church members.
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 the proposed use will reinforce and support the desired character of the
district, and the proposed sign will be scaled, sited and architecturally designed in a
manner consistent with the character and development within the area.
3. The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because
the sign will be appropriately oriented on the site.
4. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future
uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive glare or visual clutter because
electronic sign functions will operate in accordance with the regulations for changeable
copy signs.
5. The proposed use will safeguard the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
public because sign placement will not interfere with pedestrian travel and vehicular
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 24
January 12, 2017
movements and lighting levels will be limited under operational requirements of the
zoning ordinance.
6. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare
of the City.
7. The proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and
all State laws.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply to this
project:
1. That the plan prepared by Grand River Sign (Russell Ramsay), dated 11/2/2016, and
signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved
plans.
2. That the sign must meet the minimum setback of 15’ from the lot line.
3. That the proposed sign will comply with all operational requirements of Section 5.15.08.
Changeable Copy Signs, including display regulations, light levels, and permitting
requirements.
4. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and
policies and all applicable State laws.
5. That this approval shall take effect on January 28, 2017.
SUPPORTED by Mr. Treur.
Mr. Garbrecht recalled from testimony that the church intends to advertise activities held at the
school on the proposed sign. Such advertising would technically be considered off-premise
advertising.
Ms. Schulz suggested that the school is an ancillary use to the church. The Planning
Commission could find that the school activities are related to the church as an ancillary
function.
Mr. Koetsier amended the motion to include:
6. Activities advertised using the electronic message center shall be directly related to the
church and ancillary functions.
SUPPORTED by Mr. Treur. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESULT:
MOVER:
SECONDER:
YEAS:
ABSENT:
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS]
Thomas H Koetsier, Member
Rick Treur, Member
Van Strien, Rozeboom, Smith, Brame, Davis, Koetsier, Ross, Treur
Tim Kelly
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
F.
Page 25
January 12, 2017
(2:40 p.m.) 2838 Eastern Avenue SE Vehicle Service
Address:
Applicant:
Requesting:
Zoning:
Requirements:
Case Number:
Staff Assigned:
Type of Case:
Effective Date:
2838 Eastern Avenue SE
Marcos Herrera
Approval of a vehicular service or repair use (used tire shop) on
a property of less than one acre.
MCN-C
Mid-20th Century Neighborhoods - Commercial
Article 6
Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts
5.9.36.
Vehicle Service or Repair
5.12.08.
Standards for Site Plan Review
5.12.12.
Special Land Uses
PC-SLU-2016-0119
Elizabeth Zeller
Special Land Use
November 26, 2016
Ms. Zeller recalled that the Planning Commission originally considered this request on
November 11, 2016. The matter was tabled at that time. The applicant requests approval of a
used tire shop on a property of less than one acre. The building was formerly occupied by a dry
cleaning facility and is located in an MCN-C zone district. Vehicle service facilities are
permitted in that zone district with administrative zoning approval. However, the site doesn’t
meet the minimum area requirement for the use, which is one acre. Ms. Zeller explained that the
Ordinance does allow, where a public hearing is held as part of an approval process, the Planning
Commission to waive or alter the use regulations. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the
minimum lot size provision.
Ms. Zeller identified nearby uses. Located to the north is a used car dealership and to the east is
the AMVETS parking lot. A salon/barber shop is located to the south and across the street to the
west is a Bosnian Cultural Center and massage therapy spa.
Ms. Zeller related that there is a pole sign on site. Pole signs are permitted in this zone district.
She commented on the Eastern Ave. curb cut noting that it appears to provide access to an alley.
However, it isn’t actually an alley. Approximately 1/3 of that drive approach is on the subject
property and the remainder is on the neighboring property. That drive approach situation was
one of the elements the Planning Commission asked the applicant to explore further. As of
yesterday they haven’t submitted any additional information on that item.
Ms. Zeller provided photos of the site. A drop off canopy is present on Laraway. At the back of
the site there is a significant part of the site that is unimproved and is currently green space.
There is nothing proposed for that area of the property. Ms. Zeller recalled that the Traffic
Engineering Dept. reviewed the original proposal and found a number of parking spaces to be
problematic. The Planning Commission requested a revised site plan removing those spaces.
The applicant has done that and provided a revised site plan and floor plan. A parking
management plan was also requested and has been received. Ms. Zeller displayed the original
site plan followed by the revised site plan. The new plan no longer includes a number of parking
spaces, leaving three spaces under the canopy as short term parking. Two overhead doors are
proposed. The applicant has identified the back of the shop as scrap tire storage and tire racks
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 26
January 12, 2017
will be located at the back of the repair bays. The office will be located at the front of the
building facing Eastern.
Ms. Zeller commented further on parking. Four spaces were eliminated. Eight parking spaces
are required. The applicant proposes three parking spaces plus the short term parking.
Following the meeting in November, Ms. Zeller discussed the request with the applicant further.
They explained that the nature of their business is such that there is no overnight storage of
vehicles. Vehicles that come in for service are serviced at that time and then leave. Unlike a
vehicle repair shop, they don’t have the same type of vehicle storage requirements and they feel
that what they have on site is adequate for their needs. The Planning Commission has the
authority to reduce the parking requirement if deemed appropriate.
Ms. Schulz clarified that they don’t intend to park on or use the green space for any purpose.
Ms. Zeller agreed that that is her understanding. The description of the use the applicant
provided stated that with ample room for two vehicles in the service bays they believe parking is
more than enough for the intended use. They will operate on a service and go basis and no
vehicles will be kept overnight inside or outside. The use description also states that scrap tires
will all be kept indoors and nothing will be kept outside. The revised site plan also shows
landscaping around the pole sign. A landscape area around signage is required and the proposed
landscaping brings the site closer to compliance. The specifics of the landscape material have
not been identified but can be addressed at LUDS permitting. Ms. Zeller recalled that the
applicant was also asked to explore a Fire Department inspection. The Fire Department has now
inspected the facility and finds it to be adequate for interior tire storage as proposed. The
applicant is also aware that a license to permit second hand sales is required from the City Clerk.
Ms. Zeller concluded the presentation relating that she has not received any letters of support or
opposition.
Mr. Koetsier asked if all of the concerns the Planning Commission discussed at the November
meeting have been addressed.
Ms. Zeller replied that they have addressed everything except the easement issue with the
neighboring property. The operation plan submitted is somewhat less than would be submitted
for a vehicle repair shop because, as they’ve indicated, they don’t have the number of vehicles on
site that a repair shop would have.
Mr. Koetsier noted from the application submittal that their intended hours of operation are
Friday through Sunday. He asked if there is anything in the Ordinance that addresses not having
a full use in operation.
Ms. Schulz replied no. Hours of operation are regulated to make sure that it isn’t a 24 hour use.
The Planning Commission also has the authority to regulate days and times so as not to have a
detrimental impact on the neighborhood.
Ms. Zeller explained that the weekend only hours is intended to be a temporary condition. The
applicant can speak to that.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 27
January 12, 2017
Irma Rodriguez and Marcos Herrera were present to discuss the request. Ms. Rodriguez related
that she spoke with Gary Hall regarding the easement for site access. He was unable to attend
the meeting but he has indicated he is willing to work with them on that matter. With respect to
hours of operation, they weren’t sure if Sunday hours would be permitted so they listed
alternative hours as Thursday through Saturday, 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Mr. Herrera plans to
keep his current full time job until this business increases.
Mr. Van Strien invited public comment; there was none.
Mr. Smith pointed out that the applicant has addressed what they were asked to do.
Mr. Van Strien recalled that one concern of a neighbor was the lack of parking. The
management plan gives the City some guidance should there be an enforcement issue. The
applicant indicates in their plan that there will be no overnight parking and a limited number of
vehicles outside at one time. It is a different use than a full service auto repair facility.
Mr. Rozeboom related that his concern would be their success. Should the business increase the
site will be constrained.
Ms. Rodriguez responded indicating that they have discussed that. Their hope is that the
business will grow and they understand that at that point they would have to address it.
Mr. Smith MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission approves the request of Marcos Herrera for Special Land Use approval to
operate a used tire shop on a property of less than one acre at 2838 Eastern Avenue SE, 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 provide a
mix of uses in a commercial area and foster a strong economy.
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 the proposed use will be consistent with the current character of the
neighborhood; adequate parking is available for the use as it will be operated, per
testimony; residential uses are not located in the immediate vicinity; and landscaping
will be provided around the existing pole sign.
3. The proposed use will not have potentially adverse effects on the neighborhood because
auto service activities will be contained within the building and all necessary parking
will be contained upon the lot. Per the operations plan, no outdoor overnight parking
will occur. There will be no parking in the greenspace area and no tire storage will
occur outside.
4. The proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future
uses or to the public welfare because excessive noise, glare, or visual clutter is not
anticipated.
5. The site design for the proposed use will occur on a previously developed site and will
have minimal additional impact on the environment.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 28
January 12, 2017
6. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability or the economic
welfare of the City because the use will not result in nuisances that require code
enforcement actions and the active use will encourage other investment in the area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall apply:
1. That the submitted application and plans prepared by David A. Smart, signed, dated
and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans, except as
amended in this resolution.
2. That LUDS and building permits shall be obtained prior to any site work, construction,
occupancy or operation of the intended use.
3. That all use regulations of Section 5.9.36. shall apply, except that the minimum lot size
requirements of Section 5.9.36.A. are waived to allow this use on a parcel of
approximately ¼ acre.
4. That a detailed landscape plan consistent with the conceptual plan provided shall be
required as part of the LUDS submittal, subject to staff review and approval prior to
any site work, construction, or demolition.
5. That the operation of the proposed use shall be as described in the application and
during testimony.
6. That there shall be no outdoor storage of tires and no outdoor vehicle repair activity
and no overnight parking.
7. That all vehicles shall be stored on site in striped parking spaces. Vehicles shall not be
stored in the street or obstruct the sidewalk or be parked in areas identified as grass on
the site plan.
8. That there shall be no vehicle sales on site.
9. That the use shall comply with Section 5.6.08.H.4.d., which requires that no window
covering or screening shall cover more than twenty-five (25) percent of windows or
doors that are used to meet transparency requirements.
10. That, if outdoor storage of trash is desired, a trash enclosure shall be constructed in
accordance with the requirements of Section 5.2.14. of the Zoning Ordinance. Trash
bins shall not be stored outdoors without the construction of an appropriate enclosure.
11. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and
policies and all State laws.
12. That this approval shall take effect on January 28, 2017.
SUPPORTED by Mr. Treur. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESULT:
MOVER:
SECONDER:
YEAS:
ABSENT:
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS]
Reginald Smith, Secretary
Rick Treur, Member
Van Strien, Rozeboom, Smith, Brame, Davis, Koetsier, Ross, Treur
Tim Kelly
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 29
VI.
Site Plan Reviews
A.
235 Grandville Ave SW et al Planned Sign Program amendment
Address:
Applicant:
Requesting:
Zoning:
Requirements:
Case Number:
Staff Assigned:
Type of Case:
Effective Date:
January 12, 2017
235 Grandville SW, 248 Williams SW & 231 Bartlett SW
(Tabled from November 10, 2016)
Founders Brewing Company
(John Green)
An amendment to a previously approved Planned Sign Program
to allow a flag pole with a 375 sq. ft. flag to be installed on the
rooftop of the existing brewery building.
TN-CC
Traditional Neighborhoods – City Center
Article 6
Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts
5.12.08.
Site Plan Review
5.13.07.
Optional Plan Review
5.15.05.
Planned Sign Program
PC-SPR-2016-0120
Landon Bartley
Site Plan Review
Immediate
Mr. Bartley recalled that the request of Founders Brewing for approval of a large flag atop the
roof was tabled at the last meeting. The proposed flag exceeds the height and size allowances of
the Ordinance; a 375 sq. ft. flag at a height of approximately 143 ft. above grade. The Planning
Commission tabled the request to afford the applicant an opportunity to reconsider their request.
They have been considering other options but have not decided on an option to proceed with.
They are asking that the matter be tabled until the February 9th meeting. Mr. Bartley related that
he met with the applicant last week and discussed different alternatives but they weren’t able to
provide information in time to get it into the packet for this meeting. Mr. Bartley clarified that
they are trying to decide on a better location or a smaller flag on top of the roof, basically
weighing all the options.
Mr. Van Strien asked what they would be permitted by right, if anything.
Mr. Bartley explained that the Ordinance currently doesn’t allow business flags by right in the
downtown district. In other districts they are allowed to have 8 sq. ft. A national flag would be
allowed up to 40 sq. ft. on an 85 ft. ground mounted pole under the current Ordinance. As it is
now, the Ordinance doesn’t consider a national flag as signage. In this case Founders has an
approved Planned Sign Program. Therefore, any flag/sign proposed would have to come to the
Commission for approval.
The Planning Commission briefly discussed procedural options; to table further or deny the
request and let them come back with a new application when they’ve decided how they wish to
proceed. Mr. Bartley felt the applicant understood that the Planning Commission wasn’t
opposed to something but that there was not a positive feeling from the Commission with regard
to the proposed size, location and height. They wanted the opportunity to come back with
something that would be acceptable.
City Planning Commission
Meeting Full
Page 30
January 12, 2017
Mr. Van Strien suggested that a flag in the patio/plaza area may be more appropriate. Mr.
Rozeboom noted that because it is a Planned Sign Program they could propose eliminating a sign
to be replaced with a new sign. Mr. Koetsier felt that a flag similar to what is present on the
front of the Amway hotel might be more appropriate. Mr. Van Strien would prefer ground
mounted.
Motion by Mr. Rozeboom, supported by Mr. Smith, to table the request to February 9, 2017.
YEAS: 7. NAYS: 1 (Brame). MOTION CARRIED.
RESULT:
TABLED OPEN [7 TO 1]
MOVER:
SECONDER:
YEAS:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Next: 2/9/2017 12:00 PM
Paul Rozeboom, Vice-Chair
Reginald Smith, Secretary
Van Strien, Rozeboom, Smith, Davis, Koetsier, Ross, Treur
Walter M Brame
Tim Kelly
VII.
Planning Commission Discussion
VIII. Public Comment
IX.
Adjournment
The meeting was closed at 4:15 PM