2026-09-10 - Planning Commission

00:03[music]

00:09[music]

00:13[music]

00:18[music]

00:24[music]

00:36[music]

00:42[music]

00:56[music]

01:04[music]

01:10[music]

01:30Heat

01:48up

01:53here.

01:57>> [music]

02:20>> Heat. Hey, Heat.

02:26[music]

02:35[music]

02:39[music]

02:49>> [music]

02:58[music]

03:12>> Oh,

03:13hey.

03:17>> [music]

03:23[music]

03:28[music]

03:38[music]

03:43>> Heat. Heat. N.

03:48[music]

03:57[music]

04:01[music]

04:16>> [music]

04:20[music]

04:22>> Heat. Heat.

04:29[music] Heat.

04:40[music]

04:49Hey, Heat. [music]

04:59>> [music]

05:13[music]

05:20[music]

05:30[music]

05:47>> Heat.

05:58Heat.

06:07Heat. Heat. N. [music]

06:13[music]

06:17Heat. Heat.

06:21[music]

06:28[music]

06:38>> [music]

06:43[music]

06:53>> Heat. Hey, Heat.

06:56[music] Heat.

07:07Heat.

07:12[music]

07:16Heat. Heat. N.

07:22[music]

07:28>> [music]

07:52>> Heat. Heat.

07:56[music]

08:02[music]

08:11[music]

08:33>> [music]

08:40>> Okay, welcome everybody. body to um the

08:43city of Grand Rapids Planning Commission

08:44meeting on September 10th, 2026. Um we

08:47are going to start the public hearings

08:49here soon, but I'll just run through our

08:51procedures. Um for each case, we'll have

08:54staff come up and give us their report.

08:57Um and then we'll have an opportunity

08:59for the applicant to add additional

09:01information. Um at that point we'll open

09:03up the public uh hearing and anyone who

09:06wants to um provide their thoughts on

09:08that specific case can come up to the

09:10microphone and address comments to um

09:12the planning commission for up to three

09:14minutes. Um we'll close the public

09:16comment and the applicant will have an

09:18opportunity to respond to any of the

09:19public comments um that have been um

09:22stated and then planning commission will

09:25deliberate and make a decision. Um

09:29couple things to note. We are uh the

09:31meeting is being streamed live on

09:32Facebook and YouTube and um staff if you

09:37see anyone reading when we're making

09:39resolutions um staff does provide um

09:42some draft language with draft findings

09:44both um approval and denial. And so um

09:48we as commissioners have complete

09:50latitude to modify those and change

09:53those. Um but if folks are reading just

09:55know that no decisions have been made

09:57ahead of time. Um, with that I will um

10:01ask Oh, you have something before

10:03conflict of interest?

10:04>> I just wanted No, I don't. Sorry. Sorry.

10:06Oh, um I Yeah. Does uh let's do conflict

10:10of interest. Does anyone have a conflict

10:12of interest um that they need to

10:15state here today? Okay. Seeing none. All

10:18right. Go ahead, Kristen. Sorry. I just

10:20wanted to check in if we were okay with

10:23the setup. Elizabeth.

10:25>> Yeah, this is this is a supplemental

10:29recording.

10:30>> Okay,

10:30>> it's the video's recording, so I think

10:33we're okay even if we can't get it to

10:34work.

10:35>> Okay, just wanted to check in. Thanks.

10:42>> For sure.

10:45>> Okay, whenever you're ready, depending

10:47on the recording situation, we'll start

10:49with 834 Livingston.

11:03Okay. So, this first item is a request

11:07to reszone property from the open space

11:11zone district to the TNLDR

11:15traditional neighborhood lowdensity

11:17residential zone district. And the

11:21intent of the resoning is to facilitate

11:25a multifamily development.

11:28The subject property is located on

11:30Bellnap Hill. It's um east of the

11:34unimproved Livingston Avenue. And well,

11:40you can't really Here's We've got

11:41Livingston. It goes around um uh we have

11:45a water uh it's an underground water

11:49tank. Um and this property is part uh

11:53it's city property and it's controlled

11:56by the water department and uh

12:01the re the the

12:05uh portion of the property is to be

12:07purchased from the city from the water

12:10department um to go to uh support this

12:14multifamily residential property. Um

12:18because uh the property is currently

12:22zoned open space. In order to facilitate

12:25that development,

12:27it would need to be reszoned to TNLDR.

12:32It's a wooded parcel of about 19,000

12:36square feet surrounded by residential

12:39um and it's in the mixed housing

12:43um uh area of the Bellnap area specific

12:48plan and that

12:52uh mixed housing designation

12:55um suggests that a diversity of housing

12:57is encouraged to support changing needs

13:00and different life stages

13:03uh while uh well here I'm going to show

13:07you um the uh the proposed development

13:11and uh while working um on uh uh this

13:16development

13:17uh the applicant approached the city

13:19about purchasing a portion of the

13:21subject property and that would um that

13:25would uh facilitate a more developable

13:29site. We've got some steep slopes on the

13:32site. Uh the project it did already get

13:37uh variances from the board of zoning

13:38appeals, but this makes it um um a

13:41rectangle rather than an irregular site.

13:45So this would just facilitate that

13:48development. Um, it would allow the

13:50development to meet the rear setback,

13:52allow for additional parking spaces, and

13:55increase the overall green space and

13:57tree canopy for the um for the project.

14:02Um so uh the applicant will be

14:09purchasing about 4500

14:12square ft from the city but only um 2400

14:17square ft needs to be reszoned.

14:21So that is what is before you today. um

14:29um reszoning about 2400 square ft of um

14:35of property currently owned by the city

14:38from open space to TNL to facilitate a

14:42residential development and I'll be

14:46happy to answer any questions or turn it

14:48over to the applicant's representative.

14:50>> Awesome. Thanks, Elizabeth. Any

14:52questions for Elizabeth?

14:54Okay. Nope. And we'll have the applicant

14:56come up.

15:00Hi,

15:00>> my name is Greg Metsz from Lat 3 Mets

15:02Crutcher Architecture, uh, representing

15:05the clients on this project and also the

15:07architect for the project. Um, when we

15:09started working on this, um,

15:1212unit development, uh, as as Elizabeth

15:16stated, it's steep slopes. It's a very

15:19challenging site. um early on. Then once

15:24we got some concepts developed, we met

15:26with uh the Newberry Co-ousing Group,

15:30which is right next to it. And it was a

15:32really good turnout. Um I want to say

15:33close to 20 people. We had a

15:36tremendously great conversation.

15:39And one of the suggestions that came out

15:43of that conversation was, "Hey, did you

15:46approach the city ever about buying that

15:48little piece of property that would make

15:51this a complete rectangle and wow, you

15:53could have a few more parking spots?"

15:55And we could probably re get rid of a

15:58few BZA items. And

16:01I was skeptical the city would even want

16:04to entertain selling the property, but I

16:06did. I reached out to the city and the

16:08city was amendable to it and um that's

16:10what brings us here today. And so by by

16:13being able to purchase this property, it

16:15did allow us to have one parking spot

16:18will allow us to have one parking spot

16:20per unit plus an additional barrier free

16:22space. Um also it allowed us to get rid

16:26of uh the rear yard setback requirement.

16:28So we did not need BCA um relief from

16:32that. Also,

16:34while I did have we did have to get some

16:37steep slope relief, this did allow us to

16:41eliminate even more relief. So, it

16:44really it really made it simpler to

16:47construct the project and tried to keep

16:49it within the bounds of the zoning

16:50ordinances as best we could. Um,

16:54and as Elizabeth said, it's a small

16:57parcel and only half of that parcel,

17:01see if I can navigate this. There we go.

17:02Aha. Only half only the northern half of

17:05the parcel is uh zoned OS. The southern

17:09half of this proposed parcel that we

17:11want to buy is LDR. So, what we're

17:13asking today is just that little tiny

17:16sliver to be reszoned to LDR to be in

17:19compliance with the with the rest of the

17:21property. And um and as all of you

17:24probably have surmised, I will be back

17:26someday

17:28to present the 12unit property to see if

17:30we can get that allowed on the LDR site.

17:32So So this does not mean that I'm

17:34allowed to do the 12unit, but it's one

17:36step closer. So that's why I'm here. Any

17:40uh questions? Happy to answer.

17:43>> Sure. I just want so what I'm getting

17:46from this is that you'll disturb less of

17:48the steep slope as a result of the

17:52reasonzoning of this half of the

17:53>> we did we we were we I did not have to

17:56have relief from as much steep slope as

17:59I did without this piece of land.

18:01Without this piece of land I would need

18:03more steep slope relief.

18:06>> Okay. Can so you by needing more less

18:10steep slope relief does that mean you

18:13are building into less of the steep

18:15slope?

18:16>> Yes.

18:16>> Okay. Thank you. That's okay.

18:18>> Thank you very much. Any other

18:19questions? Go ahead.

18:21>> There was some density issues raised at

18:23the zoning meeting on this.

18:25>> If you have this extra bit of land, will

18:28it ease the the the crowding towards the

18:32co-op that was uh expressed in that

18:34meeting?

18:37the whether we get to land or not would

18:39not change the amount of units nor would

18:42it change the relationship to the

18:44co-ousing group. Um it pretty much yeah

18:47stays the same.

18:53Any other questions for the applicant?

18:57>> Okay, thank you. Thank you.

18:58>> Um all right, I will open up the public

19:00hearing. If you are here and would like

19:02to provide comments on this case, make

19:03your way up to the microphone.

19:08Seeing none, I will close the public

19:10hearing. commissioners.

19:16So, I've seen similar situations on

19:19other sites just looking at them for

19:20potential clients, but I um I think

19:23there's a number of places in the city

19:25where it makes a lot of sense that um

19:28city-owned parcels were zoned OS, but as

19:32we're looking at additional housing

19:33density in the city um and

19:39opportunity sites in the city, there are

19:41a few OS sites that probably don't make

19:44as much sense as open space as maybe

19:47they did at one point or it was just

19:48easy to zone them open space because

19:50they're adjacent to a park and they're

19:52city-owned. Uh so I looking at the depth

19:55of the lots to the south of this among

19:57other things. There's um

20:00I think

20:02this makes a lot of sense to me that it

20:04would be zoned uh as LDR and not as OS.

20:08And it also cleans up an issue where one

20:11parcel zone two things which is always

20:13fun.

20:19>> Anyone else?

20:22>> Yeah, I think it uh I think this makes

20:23sense. I think uh the scale is

20:25appropriate for the location and the in

20:27the neighborhood and some of the changes

20:28that have happened there. Um uh yeah,

20:32seems to make sense to me.

20:37Paul, did you have

20:39>> Yeah, I was just going to say I walked

20:40this several years ago looking at it

20:42with some other people that were trying

20:44to figure out what they could do there

20:46and it it really is an awkward site. I

20:49think it's better off having the extra

20:52space to, you know, build a more

20:55traditional opportunity there and not

20:57inflict on that slope. So, yeah, I would

21:00be supportive.

21:03Yeah, I think this is pretty

21:04straightforward. Surrounded by LDR

21:06consistent with the pattern of

21:07development and all of that. Um, would

21:10anyone be willing to make a motion?

21:11>> Yeah. Um,

21:16now therefore, be it resolved that the

21:17planning commission recommends approval

21:20of the request of Hillside on quite LLC,

21:24Francisco

21:25Melendez, to reszone the northerly half

21:28of the southernly 58 ft of 836

21:33Livingston Avenue Northeast from SDOS

21:37Special District Open Space to TNLDR,

21:40Traditional Neighborhood Lowdensity

21:42residential zone district to facilitate

21:44a lot split combination

21:47and future residential de development

21:49for the following reasons.

21:51The proposed zone district changes will

21:56be consistent with the purpose intent of

21:57the master plan and the zoing ordinance

21:59because the future land use and the f

22:01including the future land use map

22:03because the 2024

22:06community master plan future land use

22:09map designation of the property supports

22:12residential development and new housing

22:13types.

22:15The proposed zone district will further

22:18the themes and objectives of the master

22:20plan as well as any relevant and adopted

22:22area specific plans because the resoning

22:26will more closely align with the 2024

22:28community master plan great

22:30neighborhoods recommendation to allow

22:32greater variety of housing types in

22:34lowdensity residential zone districts 1B

22:371.b.2 two and the resoning will provide

22:42an opportunity for residential

22:43development that will promote

22:44neighborhood diversity as recommended in

22:47the mixed housing areas of Bellnap

22:51neighborhood ASP.

22:57The property to be reszoned can

22:59reasonably accommodate the requirements

23:01of the proposed zone district because it

23:03will meet the minimum law area and myth

23:05require and width requirements of the

23:07zone district.

23:09The neighborhood or the proposed zone

23:13district designation is compatible with

23:15the existing zone districts,

23:18excuse [clears throat] me, in the

23:19neighborhood because other properties

23:20with a TNLDR designation are located

23:23immediately adjacent to the subject

23:24parcel.

23:26The physical, geological, hydraological,

23:28and other environmental features of the

23:30property to be reszoned are compatible

23:33with the full range of uses in the prop

23:35proposed zone district because there are

23:37no apparent environmental features on

23:39the property that would inhibit the full

23:41range of uses on the property as the as

23:43proposed to be zoned. adequate public

23:46facilities that will safeguard health,

23:48safety, and general welfare of the

23:50public already exist and will or will be

23:53provided at no additional public cost.

23:56The proposed zone district or

23:57neighborhood classification will not be

23:59detrimental to the financial stability

24:01and the economic welfare of the city

24:03because the proposed zone change will

24:05facilitate development and use of the

24:07property and development will be outside

24:10the city water main on adjacent

24:12property.

24:14The proposed zone district is consistent

24:16with the trend of development in a

24:18neighborhood because the existing

24:19neighborhood consists of TNDR zoned

24:23properties.

24:25>> Second that.

24:27>> Okay, we have a motion and support. Any

24:30additional discussion?

24:32All those in favor say I.

24:34>> I.

24:34>> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thanks.

24:38Okay, we will now go to our next case

24:43which is

24:45um 1038 Leonard Street Northwest.

25:02The next case, 1038 Leonard Street

25:05Northwest, is request for a groundf

25:09flooror co-working office to also serve

25:12as a lounge accessory to a fitness gym

25:15with 24-hour keycard access. That all

25:19sounds very confusing, I am sure, and

25:23that's why we have our applicant here

25:25today to answer all those questions

25:27about how all this will work. But what I

25:30can tell you is the subject property is

25:33located in a TNTBA zone district. We've

25:37got the LDR zone district to the south.

25:42The subject property uh you know, we're

25:45looking at the back here. We're looking

25:46north, but you can see on uh the east

25:49and the west there is uh a parking lot

25:53on either side. Oops. Um, the property

25:57to the west is the proposed Matthews

26:00House building that came to the planning

26:02commission about a year ago. Um, we have

26:06uh a a church across the street, um,

26:09library and, uh, various other uh,

26:13commercial uses in the area.

26:16The propertyy's about uh, 19,000 square

26:19ft.

26:21It's at the corner of Pine and Leonard.

26:24Um, so it has frontage on two streets.

26:27Um, and there was formally I don't know

26:30if we have any Oh, doesn't look like we

26:32have any uh photos, but it uh formerly

26:36housed a Chinese restaurant. I think the

26:39new Great Wall restaurant and a retail

26:42store.

26:44Um, I mentioned the parking and um it

26:47doesn't look like we have a a trash

26:49enclosure at this time. So the prop the

26:53the building will be divided into

27:00three

27:01separate commercial suites. The rear I'm

27:05going to start with the rear of the

27:06building. it uh it will be occupied by a

27:10bakery and cafe and then there will be

27:15um two suites. Suites one and two

27:20fronting Leonard.

27:22Suite one will be a 24-hour fitness gym

27:26and then suite two is our subject suite.

27:30All three will share a common corridor

27:34that includes uh restrooms and perhaps

27:38some storage.

27:45The suite that the co-working space will

27:49occupy

27:51will be shared by a combination of uses.

27:55a 24-hour co-working office space, which

27:58is the subject of your consideration

28:00today. I should mention both the 24-hour

28:04use as well as the the ground floor

28:07office use require your consideration.

28:12Um, so it will be this 24-hour

28:15co-working office space and then in the

28:19evening from I believe 4 to 11

28:24will be a dry bar which is a

28:30non-alcoholic cocktail lounge.

28:34Um, and

28:36then the space will also serve as a

28:40lounge for the adjacent

28:44fitness gym.

28:47And again, I'll defer to the applicant

28:49about any of those de questions on any

28:52of those details um about those uses

28:55relative to the co-working space. Um,

28:59though there will be a conference room

29:00that can be reserved by members. The

29:03applicant estimates that the co-working

29:06space can accommodate about 50 people.

29:10Um, it will be unstaffed

29:14and it will be key card access only for

29:17members when it's not open for the dry

29:21bar. Um, this space will also serve as

29:26as I mentioned a lounge for um folks um

29:31me members of the gym uh to to relax. Um

29:38although the co-working space is not

29:42open to the public. It's keyc card

29:44access only between the hours of 4 and

29:4711. uh it will be open to the public for

29:50that dry bar use. There is a kitchen

29:55behind uh or there's a a kitchen

29:58adjacent to the suite that will be

30:02located um that will use be used by the

30:05bakery but will also be shared with the

30:08dry bar and perhaps also the co-working

30:12space. I'm not sure. The the applicant

30:15could could speak to that. Um, according

30:18to the applicant, there'll be two to

30:21three employees on duty at any given

30:24time.

30:25There will be um three uses

30:30[clears throat] on site. Um, but we have

30:33calculated I should I should mention

30:36there are three uses on site. The

30:38applicant has submitted a building

30:40permit uh for the the bakery use and uh

30:44to white box the other two suites and uh

30:48based on on that we've deter determined

30:51that parking will be adequate for uh the

30:55shared uses. We have not received any

30:58correspondence to date. Um but the

31:02applicant did do some neighborhood

31:03outreach. um he they can um uh uh

31:07provide additional details. I did

31:11correspond with the West Leonard

31:13Corridor Improvement Authority. The this

31:16project uh was presented to them for a

31:19facade improvement grant. Uh there were

31:22no objections to the use at that time

31:28and I'll be happy to answer any

31:30questions that I can or turn it over to

31:32the applicant. Thank you, Elizabeth. Any

31:34questions for Elizabeth at this point?

31:37>> You I believe Elizabeth, you mentioned

31:40what [snorts]

31:42maybe help specifically. What are we

31:44asked for?

31:45>> Um it's the 24-hour use and well, I

31:49should say let's the co-working space is

31:52the primary use. So co-working,

31:55we consider it an office. You might uh

31:58remember uh when Bamboo came before you

32:02at Fulton and um division that was also

32:07a co-working space that we considered an

32:10office use. So it need you know it needs

32:13um uh planning commission appro special

32:17land use approval for uh that ground

32:20floor office use. Secondarily, it will

32:24be operating 24 hours a day. Um, when

32:28it's, you know, not daylight hours or

32:30when there is no one there to um, man

32:33the office, it will be key card access

32:36only.

32:37>> Okay. Thank you.

32:40>> Anything else right now? Okay. Thank

32:43you, Elizabeth. We'll have the applicant

32:45come up.

32:49Good afternoon, commissioners, and thank

32:51you for giving me the opportunity to

32:52speak with you today. My name is Olivia

32:54Mendes, and I am the growth and brand

32:56manager for the 1038 Leonard Street

32:58location. I'm here to talk about a

33:00concept that I believe can bring

33:02something valuable to our community, a

33:04communal lounge and co-working space

33:06during the day that transitions into a

33:08dry bar and social space in the evening.

33:10At the core, this is about creating a

33:12space where people can come together.

33:14Grand Rapids has a strong social scene,

33:16thriving food and beverage and nightlife

33:19culture. We think there's an opportunity

33:21to complement that culture with

33:22something more unique, a space where

33:24people go to have a good time, meet new

33:26people, build relationships, or simply

33:28spend time in the community while being

33:30alcohol-f free.

33:32Our goal is not to compete with the

33:33businesses that already exist. It is to

33:35compliment them. During the day, our

33:38space can function as a lounge styled

33:40communal office and co-working

33:41environment. Someone could bring their

33:43laptop, meet with a client, work on a

33:46project, or simply get out of the house

33:47and work around other people. But beyond

33:50having desks and Wi-Fi, we wanted to

33:51feel like a community space. Business is

33:54booming here in Grand Rapids. There are

33:55so many people who now work remotely,

33:57are entrepreneurs, starting small

33:59businesses, freelance, or just want

34:01somewhere outside of their home to feel

34:03productive. Having a space like our

34:05Leonard location where those people can

34:06naturally cross paths create even more

34:08opportunities for networking and

34:09collaboration that doesn't necessarily

34:11happen when everyone works alone. Then

34:14when the evening comes, the same space

34:16can transform into a social lounge and

34:18dry bar. And I believe that distinction

34:20to be important. We want people to be

34:22able to go somewhere after work, meet

34:24their friends, make new friends,

34:26participate in networking, and just

34:27enjoy a drink without alcohol being the

34:29centerpiece of the experience.

34:32A community is not just built through

34:33major developments or large events. It

34:35is built through everyday interactions,

34:37people sitting next to one another,

34:39meeting a neighbor, talking with another

34:40business owner, discovering a local

34:42organization, or making a connection

34:44that potentially turns into something

34:46bigger. And at our Leonard location,

34:48that's what we want to encourage. We

34:50also believe that this can benefit the

34:51surrounding business community. When you

34:54give people another reason to spend time

34:55in an area,

34:57you're creating additional foot traffic

34:59and opportunities for neighboring

35:00businesses. Some might come to our space

35:02for work or a meeting, grab lunch

35:04nearby, visit another local business, or

35:06attend an event, and continue spending

35:08time in the neighborhood afterwards. We

35:10want to be a part of the Grand Rapids

35:12community, not simply operate a business

35:14within it. We are interested in hosting

35:17happy hours for the neighborhood,

35:18building community, and other

35:20opportunities to connect. Most

35:22importantly, we want this to be a

35:23welcoming place for the community. You

35:25shouldn't have to drink alcohol to have

35:26a social life. You shouldn't have to be

35:28at home to work. And you shouldn't have

35:30to belong to a traditional private club

35:32to have access to a place where you can

35:33meet people and feel connected to your

35:35community. We believe that our upcoming

35:37Leonard location can help fill that gap.

35:39A space where work and community

35:40overlaps. A place where businesses can

35:42connect and thrive. Where individuals

35:44can pursue their dreams, meet their

35:45neighbors, and socialize in an

35:47alcohol-free environment that welcomes

35:48all. Grand Rapids is a city that values

35:51entrepreneurship, small businesses,

35:53community, and innovation. We believe

35:55this concept reflects those values.

35:57We're excited about the possibility of

35:58creating a space that isn't just another

36:00business, but another piece of

36:01community. Thank you guys so much for

36:03your time and consideration.

36:06>> Thank you. Um, questions for the

36:09applicant.

36:13>> Yeah, thank you. Uh, sounds like an

36:15interesting uh Yeah, I like the I like

36:17the concept. I'm I'm wonder if you're

36:19going to help with a few clarification

36:20things. So, from what I understand,

36:22suite 3 is going to be a bakery cafe,

36:25right?

36:25>> And is is that what are the hours of

36:27that intended to be?

36:29>> Um, I believe that we're working on

36:30hours of operation, but similar to our

36:32prior bakeries, we operate from about

36:346:00 a.m. to 2 p.m., but it could go

36:37longer.

36:38>> Okay. And that kitchen

36:41Oh, let me get to that. So, okay. So,

36:43which suite one and two, which one is

36:45the gym, which one's co-working? Suite

36:47one is going to be the gym. Suite two is

36:49going to be the co-working lounge.

36:51>> Okay. And the gym members will all have

36:54access to the co-working space 247.

36:57>> Um yes.

36:58>> And that space is not staffed at any not

37:02staffed consistently at a any time.

37:05>> We are going to have two to three staff

37:07um that are going to be in the building.

37:09They could you know it could be a manned

37:11area, it could be a not manned area, but

37:12they will be in the building at all

37:14times.

37:15>> Okay.

37:16And then if I'm a co-working member, do

37:18I have access to the gym at all times as

37:20well? Is it reciprocal?

37:21>> I believe that we're still developing

37:22that. Um, but I mean, we're open to

37:25>> both are 247 spaces though.

37:27>> Yes.

37:28>> Okay. Uh, and then

37:35the the dry bar space, the co-working

37:37space.

37:38>> Mhm. will then share

37:42the kitchen with the with the bakery

37:45during those right during the 4 to 11

37:47hours and then it's open to the public.

37:49>> Yes.

37:51>> Gotcha.

37:52Okay.

37:54Oh, I Yeah, I think that's helpful for

37:56now. Thank you.

37:58>> So, I heard that the co-working um space

38:02will have space for about 50 people. Is

38:05that kind of the occupancy limit for the

38:08lounge and the

38:11um kind of 4 to11

38:14um time frame as well or do you have a

38:17different occupancy expectation

38:20for those parts of the use?

38:22>> I believe it will be similar. I think we

38:24are keeping it at 50.

38:26>> Okay.

38:31And do y'all have an operations plan?

38:34I'm not sure of that at this time.

38:36>> Okay.

38:42>> Other questions for the applicant? Yeah.

38:45>> So, am I hearing you correctly that

38:47you've

38:49this space is similar to others you've

38:52done like this?

38:53>> We we have two bakeries. Yes.

38:55>> And the bakeries, do they have gyms and

38:57common spaces as well?

38:59>> I meant the operational hours are going

39:00to be similar to our bakeries.

39:02>> Gotcha.

39:04So this is kind of new.

39:06>> Yes.

39:07>> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you.

39:11>> So at any given time, meaning 247, there

39:14will be at least one if not two

39:16employees in one of the three spaces. Is

39:18that

39:19>> Yes, we we plan on having two to three.

39:22Um and we're also working with the

39:24police department to have our staff

39:26trained for safety requirements.

39:28>> Okay. So, two to three employees at any

39:31given time in one of the spaces that

39:34would then be presumably roaming to

39:36ensure safety of the other spaces.

39:38>> Yes, ma'am.

39:39>> Okay. And

39:44presumably suite 2 could not there's no

39:48thoughts of enter. So, you called a

39:50lounge space for as an accessory to the

39:52gym. There's no anticipated live

39:54entertainment or um DJs or events or

39:57anything like that. No.

39:58>> No. And there's no ability to rent that

40:01space separately?

40:03>> No.

40:03>> No. Okay. So, it after 11 p.m.

40:08the facility would only be available to

40:11individuals that had a membership for

40:13co-working or those that have a

40:17membership to the gym. Yes. Which may be

40:18the same people or not.

40:20>> Yes.

40:20>> Okay. Thank you.

40:27I think two questions. Um,

40:30are the members allowed to bring guests?

40:34So, right now we're in the process of

40:37developing our membership and what

40:38that's going to look like. Um, so I I

40:41don't think at this time we're doing

40:43like a a plus one for the members right

40:45now, but that's something we could look

40:47into if you guys would recommend that.

40:49>> Okay. Okay. And then did you have I

40:51think you probably already said this and

40:52I'm sorry if you're repeating yourself.

40:54Did you have a max number of of members

40:56that you were going to allow?

40:58>> Um

40:59>> so it depends on the occupancy space

41:01that we're using. You know um suite one

41:04suite two um they could all be different

41:06but we know that in the lounge space

41:07right now it would be a 50 occupancy

41:10rate.

41:11>> Okay. But 50 members doesn't necessarily

41:14equate to 50 people in the space at the

41:17same time.

41:17>> Yes. So 50 people in the space. Maybe it

41:21could be a little bit more than 50

41:22people for the membership. We haven't

41:24looked at those numbers quite yet.

41:26>> And then do you have plans for cameras?

41:29>> Yes, we do. We we want to space it out

41:32throughout the suite. We want exterior

41:33lighting, exterior cameras for the

41:35parking lots to ensure that our guests

41:37are safe.

41:38>> Okay. Thank you. Uh-huh.

41:45>> Could you talk about the I understand

41:47there was neighborhood meetings

41:48conducted. Um could you talk about those

41:52>> the neighborhood meetings? So are you

41:55talking about the surveys that we we

41:57took to Yeah. Okay. So we we surveyed

42:00around a hundred people and I think a

42:03little more than 100 people and a 100

42:04people said that yes they were

42:06interested in you know having those

42:08things in their neighborhood. Um but

42:10yeah that's that's um we want to do do

42:14outreach to make sure that this was

42:15something that would fulfill the

42:17neighborhood.

42:26>> Okay. Thank you. Um, I will open up the

42:29public hearing if you would like to

42:32provide comments on this case. Please

42:34come up. Great.

42:48Hello, my name is Tim Ozinga. I live at

42:501154 Pine, which is right across the

42:53street to the east. I've been there 25

42:55years, which is hard to believe. and I

42:57lived on Powers within sight of that

43:01property 7 years before that. So, yeah,

43:03you can see uh just to the east, that's

43:07where I am. Um I did get a postcard a

43:11while back about taking a survey. What

43:12do you want to see on this property? So,

43:14I thought that was a nice thing. Um like

43:17everyone, I was kind of intrigued and my

43:20head was spinning when I read all the

43:21details about what they're proposing,

43:24but um sounds like a good thing. I don't

43:26see anything

43:28any red flags. Um I'm glad somebody

43:31wants to

43:33own a building near me and keep it

43:35going. So I would be in favor of it. Uh

43:38thank you.

43:39>> Thank you very much. Anyone else?

43:45Okay, I will close the public comment

43:47period and turn to commissioners.

44:00I just based on the the testimony, the

44:04conversation of the commission um and

44:06the uniqueness of the of the use um if

44:09the planning commission was uh moving

44:11forward with a an approval. I just had a

44:13number of conditions that following this

44:17presentation thought might be helpful

44:18and that would be that the building

44:20shall be staffed with at least two

44:21employees at any given time. That suite

44:242 shall not have more than 50 persons at

44:26any single time.

44:29Can finesse that language. That suite 2

44:31shall not be rented separately nor have

44:32live entertainment or ticketed events.

44:35Um and that the operations plan shall be

44:36developed in partnership with the Grand

44:38Rapids Police Department which

44:40apparently is underway.

44:45Yeah, I think that I think that those I

44:47think it's a really unique concept. I

44:49think it could be really valuable and

44:50and really unique asset to the

44:52community. I think there um are some

44:56fuzzy pieces of it that that uh I think

44:59could be worked out. Many of those I

45:01think uh that the director mentioned as

45:05conditions I think would would serve to

45:07start addressing those. Um, I think

45:10anytime you have um

45:13a a 247 operation um and the uniqueness

45:17of the three uses trying to work

45:19together, it just it, you know, it could

45:21be fantastic or it could create some

45:23issues. I think that those types of uh

45:25conditions set to it uh would be would

45:29be helpful and um would probably be

45:32enough to gain my support.

45:37Yeah, I I think the concept of like a

45:39third space is

45:42in inviting. I think it's a good thing

45:44for the community, especially if people

45:46are, you know, if we're trying to get

45:47affordable housing and we're putting

45:49people in smaller houses, sometimes it's

45:50nice to have somewhere to go outside of

45:53your house that's somewhat private

45:54that's more of a um where you can just

45:58connect with people. So, I think it's a

46:00cool concept and I I I'm in support with

46:03the recommendations

46:06uh presented by staff.

46:14Yeah, I agree. My um

46:17I wouldn't even call them concerns, but

46:19my questions were more related to like

46:21the operations plan and all of that. So,

46:23um, with that being developed, um, in

46:26coordination with staff and, um, our

46:29police department, I'm I'm comfortable

46:31with that, too. I'm also wondering if

46:33it's appropriate to request a trash

46:36enclosure

46:38be provided

46:42just based on the level of redevelopment

46:44just for from staff's perspective. Um so

46:48typically we have not uh required trash

46:52enclosures. If there's a tra enclosure

46:56constructed or um set put on the site

47:00then an enclosure is required. No

47:02>> if a dumpster is put on site then

47:04enclosure is required. Um,

47:07>> okay. Then I guess my question are I'm

47:09so sorry. I don't want to cut you off,

47:10but are you planning to use bins for

47:14trash?

47:16I'm sorry, Krista.

47:17>> No, we would be uh proposing a trash

47:20dumpster. Um, and in talking with Rowan

47:24um from the planning department, it

47:26would go right here and it would be just

47:29like a fence. It would be on the alley

47:31side of the um of the building.

47:34>> Okay. So,

47:35>> all right. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, that

47:37sounds perfectly fine.

47:38>> Okay.

47:45>> I I think it's up to you what what's

47:47under your per purview is the co-working

47:49space and the 24-hour nature. And so

47:53>> I think it might be a little bit

47:55challenging to suggest that that space

47:56would generate enough concern for trash,

47:59whereas I could definitely see the

48:01bakery, which is more of a a staff level

48:04discussion.

48:04>> Yeah, for sure. Thank you.

48:09>> I'm hearing consensus and seeing

48:13potential toward a motion here.

48:20I'd be delighted. Now, therefore, it be

48:22resolved that the planning commission

48:24approves the special land use and site

48:26plan review request of 1038 Ventures

48:29LLC, Houston Moyer, for a ground floor

48:32co-working office with 24 key card

48:34access to also serve as a lounge

48:36accessory to a fitness gym at 1038

48:39Leonard Street Northwest for the

48:40following reasons. One, the proposed use

48:43will be consistent with the purpose and

48:45intent of the master plan and zoning

48:47ordinance, including the zone district

48:50because the proposed use will contribute

48:51to the mixeduse character of the

48:53neighborhood business district and will

48:55support the 2024 community master plan a

48:58strong economy recommendation to utilize

49:00an underutilized commercial building to

49:02support non- retail businesses to

49:04encourage additional investment and

49:06activity which will better enhance the

49:08potential for future retail use.

49:11Two, the proposed use will meet the site

49:13plan review standards of section

49:145.12.8.E

49:16because the existing building will be

49:18brought closer to current provisions of

49:20the zoning ordinance. 3A, the proposed

49:22use will be compatible, harmonious, and

49:24appropriate with the character and uses

49:26of the neighborhood, adjacent

49:28properties, and the natural environment

49:30because activity associated with the

49:32proposed use is not anticipated to

49:33impose a burden on other uses in the

49:35area, and the proposed use will support

49:37the desired mixeduse character of the

49:39neighborhood.

49:403B. Potentially adverse effects arising

49:42from the proposed development on the

49:44neighborhood and adjacent properties

49:46[clears throat] will be minimized

49:48through available off- streetet parking,

49:50on street parking, and transit. 3C. The

49:52proposed uses will not be detrimental,

49:54hazardous, or disturbing to existing or

49:56future uses or to the public welfare by

49:59reason of excessive traffic, noise, or

50:01visual clutter. Because the office use

50:03with proposed 24-hour access is not

50:05anticipated to generate additional

50:07traffic during late night or early

50:08morning hours that may disturb nearby

50:10residents, and the use will occur

50:12indoors. 3D. The proposed use will not

50:15adversely affect the walkability of the

50:17neighborhood, impair pedestrian

50:18circulation patterns, disrupt the

50:20continuity of the urban street wall, or

50:22otherwise hinder the creation of a

50:24pedestrianoriented environment because

50:26the building is existing and the site

50:28layout is not proposed to change. 5B.

50:31The proposed use will not be detrimental

50:32to the financial stability or economic

50:34welfare of the city because the use will

50:36encourage other investments in the area

50:38and members of the co-working office

50:40space will have the opportunity to

50:41patronize nearby businesses. 5C. The

50:44proposed use will comply with all other

50:46applicable city ordinances and policies

50:49and all applicable state laws. Be it

50:52further resolved that the following

50:53conditions of approval shall apply to

50:55this project. Standard condition set a

50:58approvals. One that the application and

51:00plans submitted by the applicant and

51:01signed, dated, and stamped by the

51:03planning director shall constitute the

51:05approved plans except that the plan

51:06elements do not meet ordinance

51:08requirements and/or as amended in this

51:10resolution. Two, that the use shall

51:12operate according to the application and

51:14per testimony. Three, that this approval

51:16does not include any proposed signs and

51:18any future signs shall be the subject of

51:21the requirements of article 15 of the

51:22ordinance and permits received prior to

51:24installation. Four, that a land use

51:27development services leds permit,

51:29building permit, and all other required

51:30permits be obtained from the city of

51:32Grand Rapids prior to construction,

51:34demolition, or operation.

51:36Five, that any expansion of the approved

51:38special land use requires an additional

51:39special land use review and approval by

51:41the planning commission. Six, that the

51:43proposed use will comply with all other

51:45applicable city ordinances and policies

51:47and all state laws. and seven, that this

51:49approval shall take effect 16 calendar

51:52days after the date of the planning

51:53commission's decision. Item two, that

51:56group gatherings shall be limited to 4

51:58to 11 p.m. Does that sound good to

52:01everybody?

52:03>> Bar hours.

52:04>> I was wondering if maybe the other

52:05conditions that would be a replacement

52:08of

52:09>> All right. So, strike that one and then

52:10if you'll read the other ones.

52:11>> Sure. I mean, your motion. Um, but based

52:14on the the testimony and the

52:16conversation here, I I struck that one

52:18and went with the four or five that I'm

52:21about to read, if that's okay.

52:22>> Yes.

52:23>> That the building shall be staffed with

52:24at least two employees at any given time

52:26to ensure coordination of the three

52:28suites.

52:30That the occupancy of suite 2 be limited

52:32to 50 persons.

52:35That suite 2 shall not be rented

52:37separately, nor have live entertainment,

52:39DJ, or ticketed events. that an

52:41operations plan addressing security for

52:43shared spaces and the 24-hour use be

52:45developed in partnership with the Grand

52:46Rapids Police Department.

52:50>> So moved.

52:53>> Second.

52:54>> All right, we have a motion and support.

52:57>> Sorry, can I just clarify? Did did the

53:0050 person occupancy did like is that are

53:04you comfortable with that occupancy at 2

53:08a.m. for example? is if that were to

53:10happen,

53:15>> it's not going to be rented separately.

53:17Maybe it maybe it's covered. I just want

53:20to make sure that we again in light of

53:22the unique use, we just want to make

53:23sure that we don't have any um

53:26unanticipated um impacts. Could we make

53:29a motion that says that the the police

53:32department while establishing the

53:34operations plan has the authority to

53:37decrease it if they find it's

53:38appropriate? I feel like they would be

53:40the one that have has the most

53:41information. Whether that would be okay.

53:44>> I would suggest no because that could be

53:45a very arbitrary um

53:47>> okay

53:48>> number for them.

53:49>> Your attorney shaking her head.

53:50>> Is the is the 50 person occupancy based

53:54on building code for like the square

53:56footage of that suite in particular? It

53:58it was based on the testimony of of how

54:01they anticipated using that space.

54:04>> Of course, if if the building official

54:06determines that it can only support 40

54:08persons, then that would that would

54:10supersede you,

54:12>> right?

54:13>> I think I'm fine with it because

54:16it closes to the public at 11 p.m. So

54:19then it would be

54:2150 members accessing the space via their

54:24key card. So I'm I'm less concerned.

54:26only if your condition limits it to

54:29>> members because per testimony they're

54:32still trying to figure out if it would

54:34include a plus one or not.

54:36>> I see

54:42>> it. May I ask one other question now

54:45that I'm

54:47understanding a little bit better? uh

54:50the

54:52architectural or maybe engineered

54:54drawings here with the the hand sinks

54:58and the plumbing and things like that.

55:02Are those in suite 2 as well or just in

55:06suite three where the bakery cafe is

55:08proposed?

55:10>> Those are the common spaces that are

55:12accessible to all three suites. No, I'm

55:15I'm saying suite three shows multiple

55:18hand sinks because that is a service

55:20area proposed as a cafe and bakery.

55:23There there it looks like maybe there's

55:25a a sink proposed in suite 2, but no

55:29hand sinks shown. And I'm just curious

55:31if additional plumbing plans are being

55:34developed or if this is what your your

55:37proposal is.

55:39that was submitted for the

55:40>> you lost me with the with the last

55:42sentence, but this sink right here is in

55:45suite too.

55:46>> It's more of a I don't know if it's a

55:48hand sink, a service sink, or like a

55:50cure egg sink, right?

55:52>> So, I guess my follow-up question is

55:54>> if this is a dry bar where staff will be

55:58serving

56:00drinks,

56:03where is the hand sink? Where is the

56:06wearashing?

56:07>> Yeah. so that they don't have to go

56:09through the door.

56:11>> There would probably be a small um like

56:14um what would you call it? Like a bar

56:16sink. Um the bar would be proposed to be

56:20here.

56:20>> Okay.

56:21>> Um and then like the wearashing would

56:24happen in the shared kitchen.

56:26>> Okay.

56:26>> Um and and that would really be

56:28developed, you know, in accordance to

56:31health department guidelines and

56:33regulations. Will outside food and

56:35beverages be permitted to be brought

56:37into this space at any time?

56:41>> Um, I mean, no.

56:43>> Okay.

56:44>> I mean, I'm sure snacks, you know, a bag

56:47of chips or something, but not like food

56:49that would be um like catered or, you

56:53know, like a party, that sort of thing.

56:55>> So,

57:00>> okay. Any follow-up thoughts from staff

57:03on additional condition or revision of

57:07conditions?

57:08>> I I did not, but just to clarify the

57:10record, we were talking about the bar

57:12being at the um top or the I believe

57:15that would be the south end of suite 2,

57:19the south wall.

57:26I don't have a strong enough opinion to

57:27change the motion, but certainly would

57:29defer to other commission members if

57:31they want to amend it.

57:35>> Okay, it's discussion time, so any

57:39suggestions?

57:40>> Uh, I'm fine with the motion as is.

57:41There's a bunch of building code hurdles

57:43they're going to have to jump through

57:44when they um [snorts] when they get a

57:47permit for that bar. Uh, but none of

57:48that's under our purview. So, um, and

57:53ultimately the occupancy is going to go

57:55down when they do that. So, um, I'm fine

57:58with the motion as is.

57:59>> Okay.

58:01>> Any else? Okay. We have a motion

58:03support. We've had good discussion. Um,

58:05all those in favor say I.

58:07>> I. I.

58:07>> Any opposed?

58:09>> Motion carries. Thank you very much.

58:14And now we are going to break for 7

58:17minutes um and start our next case at

58:20two.

58:38Heat. Heat.

58:57[music]

59:02[music]

59:04Heat. Heat. N.

59:10[music]

59:14Heat. Heat. N.

59:24Heat. Heat.

1:00:01>> [music]

1:00:09[music]

1:00:14[music]

1:00:31[music]

1:00:36>> Heat.

1:00:37[music]

1:00:56[music]

1:01:00Heat.

1:01:14Heat. Heat.

1:01:15[music]

1:01:35Heat. Heat. [music]

1:01:43[music]

1:01:51>> [music]

1:01:57[music]

1:02:02>> Heat. Heat.

1:02:06[music]

1:02:08Heat.

1:02:14[music]

1:02:23[music]

1:02:37Heat. Heat. Heat.

1:02:42[music]

1:02:50[music]

1:02:58[music]

1:02:58Heat. Heat.

1:03:05[music]

1:03:49Heat. Heat.

1:04:02[music]

1:04:18>> [music]

1:04:26[music]

1:04:34>> Heat.

1:04:51Heat.

1:04:57Heat.

1:05:05[music]

1:05:15Heat.

1:05:19[music]

1:05:25>> [music]

1:05:32>> All right, it's 2:00. We can go ahead

1:05:35and get started on 863 7th Street.

1:05:40This nice next item is a request from

1:05:43Commonwealth Development for approval of

1:05:46a 48 unit multiple family development on

1:05:50the site of the former Stocking

1:05:53Elementary School.

1:05:58This is before you today because

1:06:00multiple family residential use in the

1:06:03TNLDR zone district

1:06:06is uh does require planning commission

1:06:08approval

1:06:10um uh as a special land use.

1:06:15So the subject property is located where

1:06:187th Street and Stocking become Walker

1:06:21Avenue

1:06:24and it Oops.

1:06:26Um, so it's uh bounded on the south by

1:06:31seventh street that everyone thinks is

1:06:33stocking or walker

1:06:36uh Fremont um and Ally and Janette.

1:06:41It's improved with the former stocking

1:06:45school that has been vacant for several

1:06:47years.

1:06:51The site is about three and a half acres

1:06:54in area with improvements typical of a

1:06:57school campus.

1:06:59The building is a twostory 37,000 square

1:07:03ft brick building.

1:07:06I'll show you a couple of the uh go a

1:07:10couple of these Google Street View

1:07:12images.

1:07:14There are paved and unpaved uh

1:07:17playgrounds. There's a parking lot.

1:07:20There is an access uh to Janette

1:07:25and which I think I don't this is the

1:07:28alley. There is an access on this

1:07:31Janette side. Um there's a large lawn

1:07:36and as you can see um on the left side

1:07:38of the screen there's an existing

1:07:40playground. [snorts]

1:07:44Uh we're showing you this slide. So you

1:07:48can see the relationship of the school

1:07:51and the surrounding houses on Fremont.

1:07:54So if we need to go back to this uh we

1:07:57can. [snorts]

1:08:00The site is generally flat with a slight

1:08:03elevation change from south to north.

1:08:07And there's a a small retaining wall. I

1:08:10I should have um mentioned that earlier.

1:08:13There's a small retaining wall um on the

1:08:16Janette side u

1:08:29the development plan includes

1:08:31rehabilitation of the existing school

1:08:34building and construction of two new

1:08:37buildings for a total of 48 dwelling

1:08:41units.

1:08:43As part of the development, the

1:08:46southwesterly

1:08:48halfacre or so that includes the school

1:08:51playground equipment is intended to be

1:08:55dedicated to the city to be a public

1:08:58park. Uh earlier this year, anou between

1:09:02the city and the property owner was

1:09:03approved.

1:09:05The re remaining uh three acres would be

1:09:10developed for multiple family use. The

1:09:13school building would be renovated to

1:09:16include 24 apartments, a community room,

1:09:19a leasing office, and a fitness room.

1:09:22The developer is seeking historic tax

1:09:26credits for this renovation, which

1:09:29really dictates where the other

1:09:31buildings can be located on the lot. Um

1:09:36during our discussions with the

1:09:38developer on the site plan, uh there was

1:09:42discussion about possibly locating a a

1:09:46building in this southwest area where

1:09:49the playground currently is, but that

1:09:52isn't feasible because the views to the

1:09:56building need to be maintained. and I'll

1:09:59defer to the applicant to talk a little

1:10:01bit about how the tax credit um process

1:10:06uh will shape or inform the site plan.

1:10:14Building number two will front Fremont

1:10:18Avenue and will consist of 14 dwelling

1:10:21units. Building number three, fronting

1:10:24Janette,

1:10:25uh will consist of 10 dwelling units. A

1:10:3059 space surface parking lot is proposed

1:10:35um uh in the back of all uh three of the

1:10:39of the buildings.

1:10:42The access to the parking lot would be

1:10:44from Fremont Avenue.

1:10:50Relative to density, the maximum allowed

1:10:53density in the TNLDR zone district.

1:10:57The density requires 2,000 square ft per

1:11:01dwelling unit. And based on the density

1:11:05allowed, this property could support 80

1:11:09dwelling units. um 48 are proposed and

1:11:14so uh the the prop the um the density is

1:11:19well within what could be allowed.

1:11:27I do want to mention the street types.

1:11:30Um zoning the zoning ordinance use

1:11:33regulations for multiple family district

1:11:36uh for multiple family development

1:11:40restricts multiple family um from being

1:11:44located on a neighborhood on

1:11:46neighborhood residential streets. We do

1:11:49have um uh three three of the streets on

1:11:53which the project has frontage um are

1:11:57I'm sorry, let me back up. Of the three

1:11:59streets on which the property has

1:12:01frontage, Janette is a neighborhood

1:12:03residential street um the the stocking

1:12:07seventh street walker portion as well as

1:12:11Fremont is are both link residential.

1:12:15So, it does meet the requirement that it

1:12:18be located on uh something higher than a

1:12:22neighborhood residential street.

1:12:25Um, but we uh the planning commission

1:12:28does have the ability to wave that

1:12:30regulation based on um the nature of the

1:12:34development and surrounding uh

1:12:36neighborhood context.

1:12:43The plans that we have are uh very

1:12:46conceptual in nature. They're not

1:12:49engineered plans at this time. Um so

1:12:53really um

1:12:56um that part of that is because um the

1:13:00applicant does not own the property, but

1:13:02they do need um site plan approval of

1:13:06the use and site plan for the project

1:13:09financing. So, um, the planning

1:13:12commission should consider whether we do

1:13:13have enough site and architectural

1:13:16detail for that preliminary approval

1:13:20and whether final site plan review can

1:13:24be considered or conducted by staff at

1:13:27permitting

1:13:35relative to the um the building

1:13:39setbacks.

1:13:40Um really um as I've mentioned before

1:13:44the existing school is driving a lot of

1:13:47the the sighting um of course um and

1:13:50partially because of those historic tax

1:13:53credits on the Janette side that that

1:13:58building setback is driving this this

1:14:02building setback.

1:14:05our

1:14:07our um default uh setback

1:14:12um if is 27 ft from back of curb. And um

1:14:17although the um plan does not indicate

1:14:21what that setback is, you can see that

1:14:24it's greater than that 27 foot setback.

1:14:27Um and again that's driven by the um

1:14:33need for uh to maintain the historic

1:14:37context of the of the school. So that

1:14:42building number three is set back a

1:14:44little bit further than what we would

1:14:48generally like to see if if there were

1:14:51no other improvements on the site. But

1:14:54given that the building is set back so

1:14:57far, um this would be a that would be

1:15:00consistent with the built environment in

1:15:03this location

1:15:08on the west side. Um again, um we uh

1:15:14because of um you know uh the the school

1:15:18um and the um inconsistency of the

1:15:23setbacks on Fremont Avenue, we have

1:15:26defaulted to the default of 27 ft from

1:15:30back of curb. The building as shown is a

1:15:34bit further back than um we might like

1:15:38to see. So, I would like the applicant

1:15:41to talk a little bit about why the

1:15:44building is placed where it is. Um,

1:15:47because it it could be it could be

1:15:49closer

1:15:53[clears throat]

1:16:01on the side on the alley side. The um

1:16:04both buildings are uh at least 10 ft

1:16:08from the lot line which is appropriate

1:16:13and the parking lot is um I believe it's

1:16:1713 ft from the alley with a 10-ft

1:16:20landscape buffer which is um exactly

1:16:23what we'd want to see. [snorts]

1:16:27Although we don't have a landscape plan

1:16:30um at this time um the applicant

1:16:33indicated that the minimum 30% green

1:16:35space and 30% tree canopy would be met

1:16:40and that could be consider uh confirmed

1:16:43at permitting.

1:16:47I'd like to move on to the building

1:16:51elevations.

1:16:54The existing building will be maintained

1:16:58with the exception of um repair and

1:17:01window replacement. Um I'm very excited

1:17:04about the window replacement. Uh I uh I

1:17:08don't think uh the the renovations over

1:17:11the year years have done this any favor

1:17:14any favors. Um so uh the the building

1:17:17the existing building should look great

1:17:20and that will have 24 units in it. This

1:17:23is uh a rendering and elevations of the

1:17:27west built of the yes the west building

1:17:30number two.

1:17:33The new the two new buildings uh both of

1:17:36them will be about 23 feet in height

1:17:39well within the 2 and 1/2 stories and 35

1:17:43ft allowed.

1:17:45Materials are not indicated on the

1:17:47plans, but the applicant has indicated

1:17:50that it will be a mix of vertical and

1:17:53horizontal engineered wood siding.

1:17:58There are uh building uh projections and

1:18:02recesses to provide a uh a facade

1:18:06variation, which is what we do want to

1:18:09see.

1:18:11The zoning ordinance requires that there

1:18:14be main entrances facing the street and

1:18:19both of the new buildings will meet that

1:18:22requirement.

1:18:24There will be four common entrances for

1:18:27each building. Uh two facing the parking

1:18:31lot and two facing the street. For

1:18:34building number two, the the common

1:18:37entrances are in uh this sort of smaller

1:18:41portion. I'm pointing to one here and

1:18:44then there's another one on the this

1:18:47other portion of the slide. And then

1:18:49I'll go to the building number three.

1:18:53Here's the common entrance and the other

1:18:56common entrance.

1:19:05So each um in addition to the common

1:19:08entrance

1:19:10common entrances, each first floor unit

1:19:13facing the street will have a private

1:19:16exterior entrance with a covered porch

1:19:19of six feet deep and 11 ft long.

1:19:27relative to these um the both the common

1:19:32entrances and the private entrances.

1:19:36We would ask that the planning

1:19:38commission consider the proportions of

1:19:43or the size of the porches relative to

1:19:47the proportions of the building as well

1:19:50as the design of these doors. um they

1:19:55seem to have a bit more of a suburban

1:19:57look than um what we might see in our

1:20:01urban context and so I I would ask that

1:20:05the planning commission consider um

1:20:09uh you know consider that element.

1:20:13Additionally,

1:20:15the Westerly building number two is

1:20:19about 175 ft long. So, I would ask that

1:20:23the planning commission discuss the the

1:20:26the scale and massing of this single

1:20:30building on this side of the street

1:20:33relative to the existing built

1:20:35environment in the neighborhood. Um,

1:20:38where we see um, you know, they're

1:20:40they're mostly single family or smaller

1:20:44or um, smaller multifamily buildings.

1:20:50So the uh the slide that I'm showing you

1:20:52here is building number two on Fremont

1:20:56and then uh and and that has 14 dwelling

1:21:00units. And the smaller building,

1:21:02building number three facing Janette has

1:21:0710. Um, but they're both generally the

1:21:10same design.

1:21:17Relative to transparency, the applicant

1:21:20indicated that the buildings will have

1:21:22transparency between 20 and 25%.

1:21:26Um, it does appear that the building

1:21:28would meet that um that minimum. Um, and

1:21:32that can be confirmed at permitting.

1:21:42And I already did mention the scale and

1:21:45massing of the building, but I'd also

1:21:48like to talk about that in terms of

1:21:51transitional features, whether these

1:21:54buildings are have an adequate

1:21:57transition into that into the

1:22:01neighborhood based on their size as well

1:22:04as what the context is in the

1:22:06neighborhood.

1:22:13I'm going to skip over the the floor

1:22:17plans. Um, but if we do need to uh talk

1:22:20about them, we can.

1:22:23Relative to parking,

1:22:26multiple family requires one and a half

1:22:29parking spaces per dwelling unit um with

1:22:33an additional quarter space for each

1:22:35bedroom above two units.

1:22:51for the for the mix of one, two, and

1:22:54threebedroom units. This 48 unit

1:22:56development requires 76 parking spaces.

1:23:0059 parking spaces are shown on the site

1:23:03plan.

1:23:05We um we slightly revised uh the site

1:23:10the the staff memo since it originally

1:23:13went out.

1:23:15The um uh affordable housing

1:23:18developments

1:23:19do have access to a reduction for

1:23:24parking. Uh the one and a half parking

1:23:27space requirement can be reduced by half

1:23:30a space. So the 48

1:23:33units could have 48,

1:23:37you know, um, uh, be required to have 48

1:23:40parking spaces. Um, in this case, the

1:23:44applicant isn't actually requesting a

1:23:48parking reduction, but I did want to

1:23:51bring this up just in light of uh the

1:23:56letter from West Grand, which did

1:23:59express some concern about the amount of

1:24:02parking um that perhaps um the amount of

1:24:06parking could be reduced. So, um,

1:24:10parking is not deficient in any way and

1:24:14it meets the parking requirement for,

1:24:17um, a market rate development, but

1:24:21is higher than we might see for an

1:24:24affordable housing development. So, I

1:24:26just wanted to put that out there as

1:24:28something for discussion

1:24:33relative to public input. The applicant

1:24:37did have a public meeting that was

1:24:41facilitated by West Grant that was held

1:24:46on August 10th. There were a number of

1:24:50um items discussed.

1:24:53Details are in um there are details in

1:24:57the staff report and in the packet. I'll

1:25:00defer to the applicant and I know that

1:25:02Wes Grand is here. So, um I'll defer to

1:25:05them to talk about um their their

1:25:08concerns

1:25:10um

1:25:12or or to talk about that meeting. Um

1:25:15West Grand did submit a letter um

1:25:18expressing some concerns about this

1:25:21development. I'll let them uh expand

1:25:24upon that. The Westside Corridor

1:25:26Improvement Authority submitted a letter

1:25:29expressing support for the development

1:25:32specifically for the additional dwelling

1:25:34units and the preservation of the

1:25:37historic school building.

1:25:39Um,

1:25:44we also did receive a letter expressing

1:25:48support for renovation of the school

1:25:50building, but concerned about the lack

1:25:53of parking and uh, traffic resulting

1:25:56from the additional dwelling units. So,

1:26:00with that, I'll be happy to answer any

1:26:02questions or turn it over to the

1:26:05applicant.

1:26:06>> Thank you, Elizabeth. Any questions for

1:26:08Elizabeth?

1:26:12Okay, we'll have the applicant come up,

1:26:14please.

1:26:18Hi, I'm uh Sam Orshaw with Commonwealth.

1:26:21Um, I appreciate Elizabeth giving that

1:26:23presentation. She covered a lot of the

1:26:24bases here and I appreciate all of your

1:26:26time here as well. Um, like I said,

1:26:28Elizabeth covered it really well. So,

1:26:30what I really just kind of want to get

1:26:31into is why this uh kind of matches the

1:26:34five special land use review standards.

1:26:37Um, so the first standard is compliance

1:26:39with the master plan and zoning

1:26:41ordinance. Um, so it preserves and

1:26:43reuses the historic stocking school. It

1:26:45converts the underused public property

1:26:46into long-term affordable housing.

1:26:48Provides one, two, and threebedroom

1:26:50units. Um, the new construction is

1:26:52limited to two stories. Um, multifamily

1:26:55residential is appropriate for the

1:26:56current zoning. We just need the special

1:26:58land use um due to it be being more than

1:27:01six units. Um 2722 ft of lot area per

1:27:05unit exceeds the city's 2,000 square ft

1:27:08requirement. Um and approximately like

1:27:10as Elizabeth said uh 31% green space and

1:27:1337% tree canopy which are above the uh

1:27:1630% thresholds or requirements. Um for

1:27:19the site planner view number two the

1:27:21second standard uh the adaptive reuse

1:27:23minimizes disruption to the existing

1:27:24area. Um the new buildings have been

1:27:27redesigned following neighbor feedback

1:27:29to better fit uh the surrounding

1:27:30neighborhood.

1:27:32um adequate adequate ingress, egress and

1:27:34emergency service access uh is there and

1:27:37has been chatted with with the city and

1:27:39these fire and police departments.

1:27:42Um the storm water will be underground

1:27:45which will meet city requirements um you

1:27:47know further down the line in this

1:27:48process. Um pedestrian connections are

1:27:51maintained uh three different covered

1:27:53bicycle parking spots and uh there's

1:27:56existing water, sewer, streets and

1:27:58municipal services already present on

1:28:00the site.

1:28:01Um the third standard is neighborhood

1:28:03effects. So the residential use is

1:28:04compatible with the surrounding

1:28:06residential neighborhood. Um historic

1:28:08school remains the sites and the

1:28:10neighborhood's visual anchor and will be

1:28:11largely untouched due to trying to go

1:28:13for those historic tax credits. Um the

1:28:16parking is primarily internal and

1:28:18buffered. So um you know it's not a

1:28:20parking that abuts right up to the

1:28:22street um and maybe doesn't look the

1:28:23best. Uh no industrial activity, smoke,

1:28:26odors or unusual noises. um

1:28:29approximately 391 daily uh traffic trips

1:28:32with 30 a.m. and 30 pm peak trips. Um we

1:28:36hired a an analyst to do that traffic

1:28:38study and these 30 trips are well below

1:28:41the 100 peak hour trip threshold that

1:28:43would trigger the need for um a full

1:28:45traffic study. Um and lastly, it's a

1:28:48walkable location near businesses and

1:28:50route 7 transit as well. Uh the fourth

1:28:53one here of the review site or the

1:28:55special land use review standards is

1:28:57environmental. Um so it preserves the

1:28:59historic school as already mentioned. Um

1:29:01existing trees will be retained where

1:29:03feasible and replacement trees will be

1:29:06provided where required. Um it's less

1:29:08grading and site disturbance than if

1:29:10this was an entirely new construction

1:29:12project where there would have to be

1:29:13demo and all of that. Um and storm water

1:29:17improvements like I said before will

1:29:18comply with the city and DNR

1:29:20requirements. Um and then fifth and last

1:29:23uh public facilities. So existing water,

1:29:25sewer, storm water, uh streets and

1:29:27police services are available at the

1:29:29site. Um no major public inf

1:29:32infrastructure extensions are

1:29:33anticipated. Uh the project specific

1:29:36improvements will be developer funded.

1:29:38Um resident programming and community

1:29:40space is still there and is underway. Um

1:29:43we do have anou with Katherine's Health

1:29:45Center in place to provide monthly uh

1:29:47health programming services. So that

1:29:49came to fruition uh over the last month

1:29:50and we're still actively working to to

1:29:52set up more of those partnerships. Um it

1:29:56creates construction and permanent

1:29:57economic activity for the city and it

1:29:59provides 48 affordable homes uh with a

1:30:0245-year affordability covenant. [snorts]

1:30:06And then lastly, I just want to go into

1:30:08the neighborhood meeting that was held

1:30:10on the 10th. So, the West Grand

1:30:12Neighborhood Organization did a great

1:30:13job uh setting that meeting up in the

1:30:15gymnasium uh coordinating food and

1:30:18setting up all the equipment. Um and

1:30:20from that meeting there was, you know,

1:30:21obviously some feedback from neighbors

1:30:23what they want to see in the project.

1:30:24So, we took all of their uh you know,

1:30:27all of their uh suggestions into

1:30:29consideration um and incorporated as

1:30:31many as we could feasibly. So, um some

1:30:34of those changes include parking. So, we

1:30:36were originally at 67 spaces. Uh we

1:30:38reduced this to 60 spaces. um based on

1:30:42neighborhood feedback that all this

1:30:43parking might not be necessary and we

1:30:45replaced those seven parking spaces with

1:30:47green space and landscaping and trees um

1:30:49to make it look a little nicer.

1:30:52Um for overall green space, we did add a

1:30:54community garden space in the courtyard

1:30:56of the building. Um that is intended to

1:30:58serve the broader neighborhood and

1:30:59community as well as our residents. Um

1:31:02we know that a lot of what WGNO is

1:31:04interested is this food cultivation. So,

1:31:06we do want to have this community garden

1:31:08uh on site um and to serve the broader

1:31:10uh neighborhood and community.

1:31:13Um the community space. So, you know, as

1:31:16we kind of already mentioned, we're

1:31:17retaining the historic gymnasium that is

1:31:19inside of the school. Um we have talked

1:31:21to our property management partner,

1:31:23which will be the associate management

1:31:24company as well as our own asset

1:31:26management team. And with the layout of

1:31:28the school, the historic gym should be

1:31:30able to be reserved for anyone in the

1:31:32community. Reserv reservable space

1:31:34through our property management. Um so

1:31:36that can be used as a place to have, you

1:31:38know, neighborhood meetings. It is a gym

1:31:40too, so there is still basketball courts

1:31:42to play basketball and do sports like

1:31:43that. Um but that will be retained um as

1:31:46reservable community space.

1:31:49Uh the building design, so it was

1:31:51substantially redesigned on the new

1:31:52construction part um to better fit the

1:31:54surrounding neighborhoods. We initially

1:31:56had something in there that was maybe a

1:31:58bit too modern uh for to fit in kind of

1:32:00to the west grand neighborhood. So we

1:32:02adjusted it to nearby house colors,

1:32:04nearby apartment structures to make it

1:32:06look um a little bit more suitable for

1:32:08that neighborhood.

1:32:10Um porches. So another big theme at the

1:32:14neighborhood meeting was that uh West

1:32:15Grand Neighborhood residents love to

1:32:17utilize their porches to connect with

1:32:19the neighborhood. Um you know, just

1:32:21relax with nice weather. So we did add

1:32:23those porches with privacy railings. So

1:32:25you know the resident has some sense of

1:32:27privacy on the porch but can still

1:32:29connect with with neighbors uh in that

1:32:30regard. Um project identity. So we

1:32:34initially had um the foundry at stocking

1:32:36as the name and you know that was not

1:32:37received very well at the neighborhood

1:32:39meeting. So we want to retain the

1:32:40school's history by just naming it

1:32:42simply stocking school apartments and

1:32:43not uh the foundry at stocking and the

1:32:46park into the playground area. So since

1:32:48the neighborhood meeting andou has been

1:32:50signed up between us and the city parks

1:32:51department um somewhat agreeing to when

1:32:54the project if the project comes to

1:32:55fruition that southwest corner there

1:32:57that already has uh those multiple

1:32:59playgrounds on site will be preserved

1:33:01and deeded from us to the parks

1:33:03department so that they can be in charge

1:33:05of what goes there. Um and they could

1:33:07possibly connect with WGNO to see if

1:33:09WGNO wants to have any of those uh

1:33:11outdoor community programs um in this

1:33:13park space.

1:33:15Um, do you want ahead?

1:33:17>> Yeah,

1:33:18>> yeah,

1:33:19>> thank you, Sam. Uh, Justin Mitchell also

1:33:21with Commonwealth Development. I thought

1:33:23I would just give a little bit of

1:33:24additional context. Um, we are currently

1:33:27present in your community. So,

1:33:28Commonwealth is was the developer and is

1:33:31the owner of Lexington School, which is

1:33:33just over in the neighborhood. Um,

1:33:35similarly, a historic school adapter for

1:33:38use project. Um and then also the uh the

1:33:42the um the Seawward project that's right

1:33:45by there as well, Edge Flats on

1:33:46Seawward. So we do already have two

1:33:48affordable housing uh uh developments in

1:33:50the neighborhood. Um we have one other

1:33:53in Michigan um in in Manaste 167 unit

1:33:57development. Um our company in general

1:33:59has done 26 historic projects uh

1:34:02including nine that blend um historic

1:34:05with new construction. Um part of the

1:34:08basis for the new construction is that

1:34:12um when you put a project together the

1:34:16uh project has to be self- sustaining.

1:34:17So it has to be able to afford its debt

1:34:19and its operations and that becomes very

1:34:22very difficult with a very expensive

1:34:24project. Adaptive reuse projects are

1:34:26very expensive um when you have small uh

1:34:30unit counts. So the fewer unit counts,

1:34:33the fewer rent income that you're you're

1:34:34coming in uh or that's coming in and

1:34:37then further it's restricted due to

1:34:38being an affordable housing project. And

1:34:40so um you uh by the addition of

1:34:44additional units you uh achieve a

1:34:46greater economy of scale and um

1:34:49you know in general we would love to see

1:34:5360 70 units but um the project is

1:34:58achievable or financially feasible at

1:35:0048. Um and that lower number uh aligns

1:35:04with uh some of the neighborhood goals

1:35:07uh for the site regarding the um setback

1:35:12of um the this building over here. Um

1:35:17that is movable uh if uh requested by

1:35:21the the city. The basis is that it it

1:35:24provides a bit of uniformity between the

1:35:26two sides. And then also um if you look

1:35:29on the uh this parcel right here um

1:35:33across the street, it quasi aligns with

1:35:36that setback. Um and so we thought that

1:35:39having some front yard space would be

1:35:41more conducive to the neighborhood. But

1:35:43if you, you know, need to see that or

1:35:45would like to see that moved uh 2 3 4

1:35:48feet closer to the road, that is

1:35:49achievable. um uh potentially then you

1:35:53know makes the units a bit further from

1:35:55the parking lot uh which is fine. Um

1:35:59and uh trying to think if oh the other

1:36:02item I just wanted to note and I think

1:36:04you have a slide here. Am I able to

1:36:06change these?

1:36:07>> Yeah, go ahead.

1:36:08>> Um

1:36:10back too far

1:36:11>> other way.

1:36:13>> Got it.

1:36:16We have a floor plan I believe there.

1:36:19Yep.

1:36:20>> So, uh I love these historic projects

1:36:22because what they do is they maintain

1:36:23the in all of the integrity of the

1:36:25building um the the sele area all of the

1:36:29uh ornate um design on the outside the

1:36:31the posts and whatnot that all is

1:36:33maintained. Um and we don't have the

1:36:35authority to not follow that. So when

1:36:37you uh participate in the historic tax

1:36:40credit program, um historic uh

1:36:42specialists from the National Park

1:36:44Service and then the state historical

1:36:45preservation um organization will come

1:36:47in and they will basically tell us what

1:36:48we can and cannot do. Um and so in

1:36:51general all of the um uh features the

1:36:55historic features of the facility are

1:36:57maintained whether it be um uh uh

1:37:01chalkboards to uh in this case the

1:37:04gymnasium and Sam did mention the

1:37:06gymnasium um

1:37:09which uh he indicated is reserv it can

1:37:11be reserved um and I'd just like to note

1:37:14that um free we we make that space

1:37:16available to the neighborhood

1:37:17association and other community groups

1:37:19and members ers at no cost. And uh you

1:37:22know, two examples of that we're looking

1:37:23to incorporate, it's not finalized, um

1:37:26but we're looking to incorporate a sort

1:37:28of uh uh I guess home owner incubation

1:37:32um setting. So uh we have partnered with

1:37:34the um uh housing commission of Grand

1:37:37Rapids. In fact, they are uh would be a

1:37:39part owner of this project. Um and it

1:37:41will be serving as a a place for up to

1:37:4540 of their current units where they are

1:37:47looking to modernize their portfolio. Um

1:37:50but in order to do so, you have to have

1:37:52a qualified location for the residents

1:37:54to go to. Um and that can be hard um to

1:37:57find those those avenues. So this uh

1:37:59would potentially serve as uh an avenue

1:38:02for

1:38:04um uh facilitation of the uh HC uh Grand

1:38:08Rapids uh portfolio. As part of that,

1:38:11they have a family self-sufficiency

1:38:13program and they have a home ownership

1:38:15program for their housing uh choice

1:38:16voucher program. So um we have invited

1:38:19uh both of those programs to provide uh

1:38:22at a minimum monthly workshops at the

1:38:24site. We also had a a wonderful

1:38:26conversation this morning um with ICCF

1:38:29and um they are putting together a

1:38:31proposal for us where we would uh

1:38:33contract with them to provide on-site

1:38:35services in financial literacy um home

1:38:38home ownership and then a a youth type

1:38:41um uh financial program as well. Um and

1:38:44those would be made available to the

1:38:45neighborhood as well as to residents at

1:38:47at no cost.

1:38:50I think that about covers it unless

1:38:52there was any other items that she

1:38:54wanted us to go over, but I guess I'll

1:38:57turn it over to you guys. Thank you.

1:38:59>> Thank you. Any questions for the

1:39:02applicant?

1:39:05>> Hi. Um, I shared with my fellow

1:39:07commissioners that this project is

1:39:09particularly meaningful to me as I

1:39:11served on the Grand Rapids public

1:39:12schools board of education when we first

1:39:14launched our facilities master plan,

1:39:16subsequently the transformation plan and

1:39:18dreamt about what um our buildings would

1:39:20become for our community. So, I'm

1:39:21delighted to see that those values have

1:39:23come through through affordable housing

1:39:25and um certainly community benefit and

1:39:27spaces. So, thank you for that. Um my

1:39:30question is did you consider the

1:39:32affordable housing parking space limit

1:39:35of 48 in your design ever?

1:39:37>> Yeah, I mean I it was kind of made news

1:39:39to us a little bit this morning that the

1:39:40affordable parking covenant is there. Um

1:39:43so you know obviously we already

1:39:44decreased from 67 to 60 um based on the

1:39:47neighborhood feedback but you know it'd

1:39:49be a question for our asset management

1:39:50team if they think we need more parking

1:39:51spaces. Um but if it were to be

1:39:54decreased to the 48 units then um I

1:39:56think it is something that we could

1:39:57accomplish. Okay, great. Thank you. I

1:40:00think you answered the rest of my

1:40:02questions. So, that's it for now.

1:40:05>> Uh, this is probably more of a question

1:40:06for staff. Um, is there a reason why the

1:40:09access to the parking can't be off the

1:40:11alley instead of a new curb cut on the

1:40:13street?

1:40:15>> We had a lot of conversation about that.

1:40:17Um, and I think that there was some um

1:40:21mixed feelings on how the uh design was

1:40:24originally presented. Uh, and the fact

1:40:26that the current alley width is about 10

1:40:29ft. And so

1:40:31>> pavement,

1:40:33>> that's what I was trying to say. The

1:40:35pavement width of the alley itself is 10

1:40:37ft. The alley right ofway is much

1:40:40larger. Uh, I don't do you remember how

1:40:42much that is? 20 ft. Thank you. So the

1:40:45alley right ofway is 20 ft. So, if alley

1:40:49access is preferable, there would be a

1:40:53need to

1:40:55reconstruct the alley to widen it in

1:40:58order to accommodate uh fire truck

1:41:00access um and potentially um uh snow

1:41:05removal, etc.

1:41:08So

1:41:10while I think it's possible for alley

1:41:12access to be provided for uh vehicular

1:41:15access maybe in the current conditions

1:41:18to have sole alley access would

1:41:21necessitate some larger improvements.

1:41:24>> Thank you.

1:41:25>> So um we are you know I think one of the

1:41:28recommendations or potential conditions

1:41:30is that we are happy to continue to

1:41:32explore that. I think that was the

1:41:34original design that Commonwealth came

1:41:36forward with, but there are some

1:41:37limitations.

1:41:42>> Is another curb cut being closed

1:41:46on Janette with the building? Okay,

1:41:48>> there is an u an existing curb cut on

1:41:51Janette. Um the initial plans did have a

1:41:55reuse or expansion of that curb cut, but

1:41:57the misalignment with 8th Street um was

1:42:01problematic.

1:42:07Uh I would I would uh yeah reiterate the

1:42:11the just ask you to revisit the the

1:42:13parking you know size of the parking uh

1:42:16even if and I've I've built a lot of

1:42:18affordable housing developments and most

1:42:19of the parking spaces

1:42:21>> most but generally they're they're very

1:42:23overparked um

1:42:25>> so obviously you have your experiences

1:42:27with the Lexington project I'd just

1:42:28encourage you to look at that and even

1:42:30if you know your your parking layout

1:42:32lends itself to easily, you know,

1:42:34eliminate seven spaces and then you can

1:42:37always add them in later if you really

1:42:38need them.

1:42:39>> Yeah.

1:42:39>> Um I also would encourage thinking about

1:42:42um and and maybe work with the community

1:42:44because you do have community uses

1:42:46potentially on this site, right, with

1:42:47the with the playground being deed to

1:42:49the city and the and a gymnasium. Um you

1:42:52may have more more guests than than a

1:42:54typical affordable housing development.

1:42:56So something else to consider. Uh but

1:42:57anyway, uh the question I had for you is

1:43:01more related to the new builds. Um and

1:43:03and the question why

1:43:07two questions really why don't the um

1:43:11well how are the how are the how do you

1:43:13notate the common entrances versus

1:43:16private on the building if I'm a guest

1:43:18and I come up and I'm looking for

1:43:19apartment and curious about that. And

1:43:21then why don't the rear units that above

1:43:23the parking lot also have a private

1:43:26entrance on the first floor? That seems

1:43:28like it would be um and I guess while

1:43:31you're at it, I feel like the it maybe

1:43:34the the the um the choice of of doors uh

1:43:38just feels like they're almost designed

1:43:40to look like residential sliding doors

1:43:42versus a typical front door entry. And

1:43:44just kind of curious about that.

1:43:46>> Yeah, sure. So um you know the first

1:43:48question how do you differentiate the

1:43:50doors between each other? Most of the

1:43:52doors will they be fobbed in the other

1:43:54buildings that we have or

1:43:55>> but there'll be signage at the door.

1:43:57>> There'll be signage at the door saying

1:43:58you know room numbers common main area.

1:44:00So you know it'll say the room 208 or

1:44:03unit whatever it is. Um so it will be

1:44:05they will be marked uh pretty clearly to

1:44:07show between common and private spaces.

1:44:10Um, for the no private entries on the

1:44:12back, I believe it was just a safety

1:44:15concern since it abuts the parking lot

1:44:17and the parking lot is already pretty

1:44:18full at the 60 unit. So, I believe that

1:44:20was uh kind of the um the reasoning

1:44:24behind that.

1:44:27>> And then the and then just the type of

1:44:29door, it kind of just visually appears

1:44:31like it's a like it's a residential

1:44:32sliding door on these on these homes.

1:44:35That feels a little weird on a front

1:44:37entry.

1:44:37>> Yeah. No, we would never do, you know, a

1:44:39patio door or anything for the sliding

1:44:40door. Um, these almost look a little bit

1:44:42like French doors, which I don't think

1:44:44they are either. Um, but it will just be

1:44:46a standard uh open door, not a sliding

1:44:48door for sure.

1:44:50>> Yeah, if I can just add, we're not

1:44:52looking for any sort of like waiver or

1:44:54exception to the rule for the doors. So,

1:44:57I'm happy to work with the city on on

1:44:58whatever they would like to see as well

1:45:00as the neighborhood. Um, I I'm not sure

1:45:02that that's been fully finalized yet.

1:45:05Um, but uh, yeah, we're happy to to work

1:45:08with everybody on that.

1:45:10>> And the depths of the porches as well.

1:45:12Is that something that

1:45:14y'all would be able to work with like to

1:45:16make sure that folks can actually sit on

1:45:17them and engage with their neighborhood?

1:45:19>> Yeah, I think you know, our architect

1:45:20team did do a you know, a good job of

1:45:22making sure they are large enough. Um,

1:45:24but you know, we could go back to the

1:45:25drawing board if there is concerns. Uh,

1:45:27for it being six feet deep and 11t wide,

1:45:29uh, for residents, it is something that

1:45:31we could revisit for sure.

1:45:33Is there is there a preference that this

1:45:36body has um or or staff? I mean, happy

1:45:40to take a look. I'm not sure that we've

1:45:42received a a recommendation

1:45:45[clears throat] for a different number,

1:45:46but h happy to to attempt to incorporate

1:45:48that.

1:45:48>> Yeah, I think six foot um would tend to

1:45:51be uh the minimum for access. It doesn't

1:45:54necessarily allow for enough space to

1:45:56allow, you know, tables or chairs and

1:45:59congregate. I think um one of our

1:46:01recommendations was to maybe draw a

1:46:04little bit more from what is existing in

1:46:07the neighborhood. So doing more of a

1:46:10analysis about the architectural style

1:46:12of the porches of the doors and pulling

1:46:14in some of those architectural elements

1:46:16so that um there's further

1:46:18compatibility. I I I appreciate the

1:46:20changes that you've made. um they were

1:46:23very receptive as a team um to uh

1:46:26revisit some of the architecture based

1:46:27on staff's feedback and based on the

1:46:29community feedback. So I think that

1:46:31there's a little bit more that we can

1:46:32provide some guidance on for you.

1:46:34>> Okay.

1:46:40>> Any other Oh yeah, go ahead.

1:46:41>> I just have a question. If I understood

1:46:43your response to the question about the

1:46:45private doors on the back, you said it

1:46:47was because the parking lot was so full.

1:46:49like if you're able to reduce the amount

1:46:52of parking, are you able to include?

1:46:55>> So, I think it has Yeah, I think it's

1:46:57kind of twofold. So, you know, not

1:46:58wanting to have those balconies go right

1:47:00into the parking lot um just for, you

1:47:02know, aesthetic purposes, too. And

1:47:03having them on the front side, uh more

1:47:05so so those people on the front side can

1:47:07have those porches that feed into the

1:47:09front-facing neighborhood and can be

1:47:11more connected to the neighborhood. I

1:47:12mean, the porches on the back side of

1:47:14the parking lot, um, you know, or that

1:47:16the private entrances, too. Um, you

1:47:19know, it would be would be nice, but I

1:47:20feel like it would create, um, maybe an

1:47:23inconsistency between the two buildings

1:47:25then.

1:47:32>> Is that something you'd be willing to

1:47:33chat with staff about as well to see

1:47:36potential options? Yeah, I just think

1:47:38it's it would be nice for every unit to

1:47:41have that asset, right?

1:47:47>> I think yeah, I think because these are

1:47:50stacked units, it's not going to be

1:47:51possible for every unit, right? Because

1:47:53only first floor units have it. I I am

1:47:55curious actually um there's some

1:47:58comments about the scale of the building

1:48:00in relation to you know the single and

1:48:03some some small multif family homes in

1:48:05the in the surrounding streets. Um

1:48:09I'm kind of okay with rowhouse style

1:48:11design which this starts to approach but

1:48:13I'm curious the decision to go with

1:48:15stacked versus a townhouse style unit

1:48:18given that the units are all quite large

1:48:20um all threebedroom fairly large units.

1:48:23I wonder about that.

1:48:24>> Yeah. So, you know, a couple reasons for

1:48:26that. Um, one of the first reasons is

1:48:28accessibility. So, a lot of these new

1:48:30construction units are ones that are

1:48:32type A accessible. Um, so you can't have

1:48:34multiple level units those for the

1:48:36accessible units. Um, and secondly is,

1:48:39you know, we've used stack flats on most

1:48:41of our a lot of our new builds um

1:48:42instead of town homes and, you know,

1:48:44we've received really good feedback

1:48:45there. But um yeah, I would just say

1:48:47from an accessibility and visibility

1:48:49standpoint, especially for people with

1:48:50disabilities, um it makes it tough for

1:48:52every one of those to be a town home.

1:48:53Then

1:48:59>> could I ask a question about um your

1:49:02architectural limitations for the

1:49:04existing school? Um I know you can't do

1:49:07a lot of things, but if you're looking

1:49:08at the south face of the building, you

1:49:10have this beautiful front and then you

1:49:11have the air condition units that like

1:49:13pop up. And by the way, yes, that was me

1:49:15like walking around. I didn't [laughter]

1:49:16interact with you because I figured you

1:49:18were the applicant.

1:49:19>> Gotcha. Gotcha.

1:49:20>> Um, is there wiggle room in

1:49:24your design options to screen that unit

1:49:28with the historical requirements?

1:49:31>> Yeah, I think it's something that can be

1:49:33done. I think what the historic people

1:49:34are are most concerned about is you

1:49:36taking away elements or altering

1:49:38currently existing elements. So, you

1:49:40know, if you were saying the AC units on

1:49:41the outside of the building, um, behind

1:49:43the building, um, it is something that

1:49:45we definitely could buffer. Um, but what

1:49:48the historic people are more concerned

1:49:49about is you just, you know, altering

1:49:50the whole face of the building. Um, one

1:49:52of the reasons that there is this green

1:49:54space, uh, that Elizabeth mentioned in

1:49:57front is so that you have sight lines to

1:49:58the historic building. So, um, really

1:50:00inside the building and on the building,

1:50:02um, I would say, you know, remains

1:50:04largely untouched or we have to follow

1:50:06the historic guidelines. Um, but

1:50:08something like a air condition unit, you

1:50:10putting a screening fence around that, I

1:50:11don't think the air conditioners would

1:50:13be included in the historic package. Um,

1:50:15so they could probably be moved as well.

1:50:18>> Yeah, I personally would love to see

1:50:19something that was consistent with the

1:50:22architecture of the building that

1:50:23screened around that

1:50:26roof unit.

1:50:27>> Yeah. Um, as you saw, if you're familiar

1:50:29with Lexington, where there is a a small

1:50:32retaining wall, you'll note that it's a

1:50:34like brick appearance. we can't we would

1:50:37not be allowed to, you know, if it's

1:50:39brick, add modern siding as a barrier.

1:50:43So any um if there's a a garbage

1:50:46enclosure, if there's a screening for um

1:50:49you know utilities or anything like

1:50:51that, it would have to be something that

1:50:53aligned with the appearance um and like

1:50:55material of the the existing school. So

1:50:59>> thank you.

1:51:00>> Yeah, of course.

1:51:01Going back to the um the length of

1:51:05building two um along the Fremont side.

1:51:08Um I too I'm kind of generally okay with

1:51:11the the rowhouse um design, but just for

1:51:16kind of testimony sake, can you talk

1:51:18about why you're doing that as one big

1:51:21building instead of like maybe two

1:51:23smaller buildings in thinking about the

1:51:25scale of housing in the neighborhood?

1:51:27Yeah. So, you know, we're already pretty

1:51:28limited on space because one of the the

1:51:30big things that we did want to retain

1:51:32here is that southwest portion of the

1:51:34park to be to be preserved as parkland.

1:51:37So, I believe we did kind of toy with

1:51:39multiple buildings. Um, but, you know,

1:51:41we know the city didn't want any

1:51:42buildings on the north side. Um, and by

1:51:45having them on the east and west side

1:51:46and having them in one larger building,

1:51:47it kind of um, you know, allows us to

1:51:50take up less of that space, have that

1:51:52adequate uh, in ingress and egress off

1:51:54of Fremont. Um, so yeah, I mean on the

1:51:57other side why it's, you know, much

1:51:58smaller is just because it is abuing to

1:52:00the historic school. Uh, so you don't

1:52:02have space there. So it really came down

1:52:03to um a space and trying to preserve as

1:52:06much of that park space as possible.

1:52:09You know, one other item that you can do

1:52:11and and I don't want to over commit. We

1:52:13don't want to be blocking windows and

1:52:15walkways, but you know, one thing that

1:52:17you can do to kind of break up the

1:52:18visible um I guess flat board, if you

1:52:21will, is you know, planting a couple

1:52:23evergreen trees midway that you know,

1:52:26when you're walking through or driving

1:52:27by, it really creates that um

1:52:30differential uh appearance. It's not

1:52:33something probably that we've

1:52:34considered. Um but certainly happy to

1:52:36take a look at if that's um you know a

1:52:38route that you would prefer.

1:52:44>> Yeah. I one more question. I noticed

1:52:47when I'm looking at the renderings, I I

1:52:49was drawn to them. And then when I

1:52:51looked at the elevations, there's a

1:52:53pretty stark difference in that the

1:52:56renderings have steps leading up to the

1:53:01um to the doors, whereas

1:53:05the elevation is sitting at grade. And I

1:53:09think that that's a significant

1:53:10difference, especially the siding. It

1:53:13looks like there's some sort of masonry

1:53:15detail at the bottom of the rendering,

1:53:17but the siding goes all the way to grade

1:53:19and the elevation. Can you speak to that

1:53:21difference there?

1:53:22>> Yeah, so I would um definitely take the

1:53:25elevations uh into more account than the

1:53:28rendering. Uh, so there will be I can't

1:53:31see if you can see it too well, but

1:53:32there will be at least, you know, one

1:53:33step before those private entrances and

1:53:36porches to kind of create that porch

1:53:37area. And there will be an accessible

1:53:39entrance as well for not having to go

1:53:41over the stair if it needs to be ramped

1:53:42instead. But I would definitely go based

1:53:45off of the elevations over the

1:53:47renderings. Um, as you know, the

1:53:49rendering software can sometime make

1:53:51errors or make inconsistencies like

1:53:52that. But um, yeah, I would definitely

1:53:54go off of what you see in the elevations

1:53:56here. uh closer than the the rendering

1:53:58is what I'd say.

1:53:59>> Okay. In in that case, are you open to

1:54:02providing some sort of 18inch masonry

1:54:04base at the base of what is the

1:54:07elevation now to provide that maybe more

1:54:10traditional architecture?

1:54:12>> Yeah, it's something that we we could

1:54:14definitely consider. Yes.

1:54:15>> Okay.

1:54:17So, there will be a step,

1:54:21>> I believe. So, I'm looking at here and

1:54:22it looks like there might not be steps,

1:54:24but it's something that, you know, we

1:54:25could definitely confirm with our

1:54:26architect, but the elevations would

1:54:28definitely be more accurate here than

1:54:29than the renderings.

1:54:30>> Okay. And I I can appreciate the need

1:54:32for the the accessibility by all means.

1:54:34Um, I think our challenge is providing

1:54:38that accessibility, but also having a

1:54:41little bit of privacy. It tends to feel

1:54:43a lot more comfortable when your

1:54:44finished floors are, you know, in that

1:54:4712 to 24 in above the sidewalk grade. So

1:54:50that when people are walking by, you're

1:54:52not, you know, at eye level. So having

1:54:55that physical separation

1:54:57>> in height is sometimes um helpful.

1:55:01>> Sure. So that could just be whether

1:55:03that's through grading and architecture

1:55:05because you are set back a little ways.

1:55:07It might provide that ability to

1:55:09increase that grade so it's not flat

1:55:11with the sidewalk.

1:55:12>> Okay.

1:55:18>> Other questions for the applicant at

1:55:21this time?

1:55:24Okay. See none, I'll have you take a

1:55:26seat. Um, I will open up the public

1:55:28hearing if you would like to comment on

1:55:31this case. Um, make your way up to the

1:55:33mic, state your name, and um, address

1:55:36your comments to planning commission,

1:55:38please.

1:55:40Hello, my name is Annette Jackson, and

1:55:42we are the owners of 923 Walker, which

1:55:45is about three houses to the west of

1:55:48that area. And um I didn't get invited

1:55:52to the West Grand feedback, so I'm kind

1:55:54of surprised by that, but um and sad,

1:55:57but I would have liked to have given you

1:55:59some more input. Um it looks nice. I

1:56:01like the rendering better than I like

1:56:03the other the elevation. Um but it does

1:56:06look nice and I'm very happy to hear

1:56:08that something is being done with that

1:56:10area because it has been vacant for a

1:56:11while. Um my only concern, well, a

1:56:14couple of concerns is the parking. Um,

1:56:17if you have 48 tenants, is that correct?

1:56:21Um, with two and threebedroom homes, you

1:56:25might have more than two cars in that

1:56:28family. And then if they have guests and

1:56:31so I know how busy Walker gets um

1:56:34especially when I'm trying to back out

1:56:36of 923. Um, so it gets pretty intense

1:56:40with with cars coming and going because

1:56:42it is a bus route also.

1:56:45Um

1:56:46I think so that's my concern about that

1:56:49and you know when winter comes we lose

1:56:51parking spaces there is no doubt about

1:56:53that just because they have to pilot

1:56:55somewhere and Fremont is kind of tight.

1:56:59>> Can I'm Can you just make sure to just

1:57:00address commission and of course um the

1:57:04other thing is because the area is such

1:57:05a walkable area um we see a lot of

1:57:08people walking. I'm concerned with

1:57:10adding that many people. Um, which I'm

1:57:12I'm not opposed to, but you need better

1:57:16crosswalks on Walker. So, that would be

1:57:19one of my concerns. Um, you don't have

1:57:22really good

1:57:25um the striped crosswalks so that people

1:57:29can be aware that they need to stop as

1:57:30they're coming by. Um, so that is

1:57:33another concern that I have. Um, other

1:57:36than that, I I think it looks it's

1:57:39pretty neat. So, thank you very much.

1:57:42>> Thank you.

1:57:57Good afternoon, commissioners. My name

1:57:58is Annette Vandenberg. I'm the executive

1:57:59director for the West Grand Neighborhood

1:58:01Organization, and with me today is our

1:58:03chairman, Maurice Baker. Um, we did

1:58:05start working with Commonwealth late in

1:58:08July to work on this project and they

1:58:10did make some changes. However, the

1:58:13community really wanted me to express

1:58:14how disappointed they are that they will

1:58:16not have an outdoor basketball court.

1:58:18Um, that is really important. Um, the

1:58:21next closest basketball courts are

1:58:24Richmond Park. So, and so we're asking

1:58:27our kids then to cross Leonard to walk

1:58:30all the way up to Richmond to to play

1:58:31pickup games. Um, I know they said that

1:58:33we could use them indoors, but a lot of

1:58:35our adults love the higher basketball

1:58:38that is available outside at Stocking

1:58:40School. Um, our kids are out there

1:58:42playing every day. The kids are you

1:58:44families are using the green space for a

1:58:47dog park basically because we don't have

1:58:48a dog park in that area. So, um, while

1:58:51West Grand typically always says yes to

1:58:53housing, we're saying yes and we also

1:58:55need a healthy balance of green space

1:58:57for overall wellness of our community.

1:58:59So, in general, there's not much that

1:59:02we're concerned about the project, just

1:59:04the amount of green space that has been

1:59:06traditionally been there for the last h

1:59:07100red years. And a lot of our families

1:59:09don't drive to this parking or this

1:59:12park. They walk to it. It is the only

1:59:14park serving 5,000 residents or 2,700

1:59:18households approximately. So, most of

1:59:21our residents do walk to that park. Les

1:59:23Gran walks to that park every week with

1:59:26uh students who are learning about the

1:59:28area. Uh community service people who

1:59:30are cleaning it up and maintaining the

1:59:32park area. Um whether it's picking up

1:59:35trash, getting rid of weeds or or

1:59:37whatnot. Um it is a very vital park to

1:59:40our neighborhood. Um the other two

1:59:42projects they talked about aren't

1:59:44actually in the West Grand neighborhood.

1:59:45They are in the John Ball area

1:59:46neighbors. So, I can't really speak to

1:59:49how that interaction works with those

1:59:51other places, but yes, they're on the

1:59:53west side, but they're not in the

1:59:54neighborhood, per se. Um, and just

1:59:56recently, Walker Street Pharmacy did

1:59:57close. So, now our families are having

1:59:59to go up to Walgreens or out to Standown

2:00:00Meer or Alpine Meyer for their

2:00:02prescriptions. So, um, there's a lot of

2:00:05been a lot of changes lately in the

2:00:06neighborhood. So, we just ask that you

2:00:08consider like making sure that maybe

2:00:10they can work with the rapid and get our

2:00:12bus stop back on Walker Avenue because

2:00:14that got taken away a couple years ago

2:00:16and it was supposed something that was

2:00:17supposed to stay because we have another

2:00:19LITC project that is just across the

2:00:21street from them at 747 stocking. Um,

2:00:23and that has about 50 units in there and

2:00:25so now our families are finding it hard

2:00:28to get to things and and sidewalks

2:00:30aren't always plowed in those areas. So

2:00:33it makes it really difficult when your

2:00:34elderly are in a mobility chair to get

2:00:36back and forth. And so we just want

2:00:38those kinds of things to be considered

2:00:39because we want to say yes to

2:00:40everything, but we also want a healthy

2:00:42balance. Thank you for your time.

2:00:44>> Thanks.

2:00:48Would anyone else like to make comments?

2:00:56Okay, seeing none, I will close the

2:00:58public hearing and turn Well, would you

2:01:01like to address um any of the comments?

2:01:03Yeah,

2:01:06>> I just I texted the architect just to

2:01:10get clarification. So, as Sam indicated,

2:01:12that um it is an AI generated concept uh

2:01:16rendering um and that there are no no

2:01:19steps currently planned due to

2:01:20accessibility. Um and we can certainly

2:01:23take a look at um any require or

2:01:26requests that you might have for

2:01:27incorporating steps or a gentle slope,

2:01:30but um they did not include steps for

2:01:33the accessibility purposes. Um and then

2:01:36just regarding basketball courts, um I

2:01:38love it. Right. Right. Sam and I are

2:01:40were staying at the Marriott downtown.

2:01:42We learned that they have an rooftop

2:01:43basketball court. So we went and played

2:01:45some horse. Um I I won. Um, and uh, you

2:01:49know,

2:01:51I think there's an there's an

2:01:54opportunity with the park space that's

2:01:56being provided to potentially

2:01:58incorporate a a actual full court. So,

2:02:02right now there's two basketball courts

2:02:03that or hoops that they're not they

2:02:05don't form a court, right? They're

2:02:06separate right now. Um, you know, no

2:02:09five on five full court happening. I I

2:02:11think there's an avenue for doing that.

2:02:13Um, and I think that's a conversation

2:02:15with the parks department um for uh

2:02:18creating a public accessible uh uh

2:02:22playground that meets the requests and

2:02:24the interests of the neighborhood. Um,

2:02:26and we and we would certainly support

2:02:27that. Um similarly, it's not out of the

2:02:30question where we've um supported um um

2:02:34bus stop infrastructure on our projects.

2:02:36If that was something that um the

2:02:38transit uh department or whoever manages

2:02:41that with the city was interested in

2:02:43incorporating uh a sheltered bus stop or

2:02:45or anything like that, we would we would

2:02:47love to take a look at that and um in

2:02:49any way possible incorporate that into

2:02:51our project. a lot of our residents

2:02:52would um likely utilize public transit

2:02:54and um if [clears throat] we can support

2:02:56it in any way, let's do it.

2:03:00>> Yeah. And the only thing, you know, I

2:03:01would add in response to the public

2:03:02comments um you know, just with parking,

2:03:04it will kind of always it's always

2:03:06evolved. We, you know, haven't had

2:03:07enough parking that we had too much

2:03:08parking. So, um you know, it's just a

2:03:10conversation that will remain, you know,

2:03:12fluid with the city um and the

2:03:14community. Um but yeah, it's it's kind

2:03:16of a a double-edged sword. Some people

2:03:18think that there should be more parking

2:03:19and some people um think that there

2:03:21should be less parking. So, it's

2:03:22something that will just need to stay in

2:03:24conversation.

2:03:26>> Thank you. Regarding the um the bus stop

2:03:30infrastructure, so obviously there's not

2:03:31a bus line or stop immediately kind of

2:03:35on your property at this point. If

2:03:38something were to come up in the future,

2:03:39is that something that um like the

2:03:42whoever is managing are are you all

2:03:44still involved in terms of discussing

2:03:46future improvements if transit were to

2:03:48come there?

2:03:51>> Um

2:03:53yes. Uh so the way that a lot of these

2:03:56projects work is uh for for affordable

2:03:58housing uh uh tax credit developments is

2:04:02you try to get everything upfront so

2:04:05that when you're securing your financing

2:04:07you're you have it planned. And so um

2:04:11that said we don't have to have it done

2:04:12now. Our application goes in October

2:04:141st. And um I think there's a timeline I

2:04:18don't know but we have months we have

2:04:19many months more than half of a year to

2:04:21continue that conversation. And if it

2:04:24ends up being something that the city

2:04:25says we think we would like to do in the

2:04:27next 15 years, what we would do is we

2:04:30would put an escrow account for that so

2:04:32that that money would be funded upfront

2:04:34and then if we did it 12 years later, we

2:04:36have the money and it's not a concern.

2:04:39>> Gotcha. Thank you.

2:04:42>> Other follow-up questions?

2:04:48>> I'm going to belabor this. I'm sorry. Um

2:04:51all of the units on the ground floor are

2:04:54accessible through the common entries.

2:04:58So there there seems like there is room

2:05:00to discuss where those stairs and and

2:05:03finished floors are able to happen,

2:05:06right?

2:05:06>> Yeah.

2:05:07>> The common entrance I can appreciate

2:05:09might need a little bit more ramping and

2:05:11such, but the individual entrances seem

2:05:13like there could be some room to provide

2:05:15that traditional finished floor. Is that

2:05:18a fair statement?

2:05:19>> Yeah. No, definitely. Um, right now

2:05:21we're slotted for, I believe, you know,

2:05:22five fully accessible units. Um, but it

2:05:25remains to be seen which units we'll

2:05:26pick for those. Um, but yes, that is

2:05:29something that we can amend to.

2:05:31>> Okay. I'm sorry. I belvered that. I

2:05:32know, but

2:05:33>> no worries.

2:05:35>> I was also thinking through that,

2:05:37struggling.

2:05:41>> Okay. Thank you. We will discuss

2:05:44commissioners.

2:05:48So, uh, back to stairs.

2:05:51Um, I think this site has enough of a

2:05:54crown in it that from a site development

2:05:57standpoint, having these buildings be

2:05:59higher than the sidewalk is probably

2:06:01easy. They're going to have an

2:06:02accessible entry off the parking lot no

2:06:04matter what. Um, and so you can, if you

2:06:07decided to, you could make all of your

2:06:08first floor units fully accessible. I

2:06:10know you don't need to. Um, so I think

2:06:14that I think that elevation change and

2:06:16the stairs and that detail is critical

2:06:21to relate to the neighborhood. They're

2:06:23not going to look like porches if

2:06:24they're just a slab on grade with no

2:06:27steps and no detail. Um, and I'm

2:06:32I'm have similar comments about the

2:06:34rendering. The rendering is very clearly

2:06:36AI generated, but what it's doing is

2:06:38it's making a bunch of promises that

2:06:42don't exist. So, this building will look

2:06:44very different if it's detailed the way

2:06:47the rendering is, which it can be. Um,

2:06:50which is with um like purposeful trim

2:06:54profiles that add depth to the facade

2:06:57um and details that

2:07:02I think are making this more compelling.

2:07:03It's the fun thing about AI is it

2:07:05generally knows what people want to see,

2:07:07so it tries to show it to them. Um,

2:07:10without some of those details, this is

2:07:12going to look like a much flatter

2:07:13facade. So, with um with traditional

2:07:18cheap trim around the windows, um we're

2:07:20going to end up with some extra vents on

2:07:21the outside. So, I think um

2:07:27I'm not sure what to think about that.

2:07:29Uh I too have used AI renderings.

2:07:32So, um I understand

2:07:37that they can really help

2:07:40see the potential of a project early,

2:07:42but I we're also looking at two

2:07:45different buildings. the um

2:07:50and I think that probably isn't helping

2:07:53because I think the AI rendering is

2:07:57closer to easier to approve than knowing

2:08:01what the elevation's actually going to

2:08:03turn into. Um

2:08:05I agree with the entries on the street.

2:08:07I think they probably should look more

2:08:08like real porches and real entries. I

2:08:10think that goes to the steps up to the

2:08:13entry. um and working with staff on the

2:08:17the porch size. And I'm comfortable with

2:08:21you working with staff to figure out a

2:08:23door and sidelight situation is more

2:08:25representative of um this type of

2:08:29neighborhood. I don't have I don't think

2:08:31we need to match the neighbors houses

2:08:34per se, but um I do think that those

2:08:37entries need additional work. Uh given

2:08:41the way that they're currently in the

2:08:43elevation

2:08:45as full light French doors that go all

2:08:47the way to the floor. Um,

2:08:51you're

2:08:52basically what per testimony you have

2:08:55some you have people's living rooms with

2:09:00six foot of glass that goes all the way

2:09:02to the floor at the same height as the

2:09:05sidewalk. And what's going to happen is

2:09:09um there will be curtains or shades or

2:09:11something over those windows 247 because

2:09:14it's uncomfortable to be standing at eye

2:09:18level with the people that are outside

2:09:19on the sidewalk when you're in your home

2:09:22and you're supposed to be secure in your

2:09:23home. Um so you feel exposed and so

2:09:26that's why the elevation change between

2:09:28the sidewalk and the first floor

2:09:31I think can and should exist. And uh I

2:09:34think also why

2:09:36um a more appropriate entry design would

2:09:40help to mitigate some of those concerns.

2:09:41And then hopefully the shades aren't

2:09:43drawn all the time and people are

2:09:44actually comfortable having um [snorts]

2:09:47leveraging the transparency that we

2:09:48require in the zoning ordinance.

2:09:51Um I think that's it for the moment.

2:09:58Did you say that you're put you're

2:10:00planning to put this in for the October

2:10:02one? Not so or yeah, never mind. Yes,

2:10:05October one.

2:10:12I would agree with my fellow

2:10:13commissioners is in as far as the

2:10:16elevation change in the front and having

2:10:17those porches be higher. Um, and also

2:10:20with Commissioner Yoner, I it it is not

2:10:22clear to me that those are main entries.

2:10:25the the two with the lower roof. And so

2:10:28even if you know changing the front

2:10:30doors on the residences actually might

2:10:34help that because there I know you said

2:10:36there would be signage but um I don't

2:10:39know if there's another way to

2:10:40differentiate that as well. Um

2:10:44but overall I generally like the plan. I

2:10:48would be okay with um if you found at

2:10:51Lexington you s can survive with lower

2:10:54parking, I would be fine with that, too.

2:10:56Um and I appreciate that you're willing

2:10:59to work with the neighbors and uh staff

2:11:01to uh improve the plan. So, thank you.

2:11:11Yeah, I'm I'm uh I I agree with the

2:11:14comments about the steps particularly

2:11:15along um both uh Fremont

2:11:20uh and Janette. Um I think it can be

2:11:22done. I think it would help uh with

2:11:24bringing the design closer to the

2:11:26neighborhood. I'm probably a little less

2:11:29concerned than my other commissioners

2:11:30about about the rendering versus the

2:11:33elevations. I think the devil is always

2:11:34in the details and we don't usually get

2:11:36those details but I think um I am

2:11:39comfortable I mean this is asking a I

2:11:41think this particular

2:11:43uh proposal is asking a for us to to to

2:11:47trust staff to navigate several of these

2:11:49issues and and I do trust that. I think

2:11:52um I think that yeah, I'm I'm

2:11:55comfortable with uh staff navigating

2:11:59several of these issues as as the as the

2:12:01design sort of solidifies. Um I do like

2:12:05the idea of moving the Fremont building

2:12:07slightly closer to the road to to better

2:12:09mimic. And I also am comfortable with

2:12:12the Janette building where it is uh

2:12:15because I think it is more appropriate

2:12:16to have it more or less in line with the

2:12:19existing historic structure than maybe

2:12:22with the you know buildings across the

2:12:24street which I think it would feel like

2:12:25it was in the front yard of that school

2:12:26building then um despite the fact that

2:12:29it tends to sort of um yeah potentially

2:12:34reduce the opportunity for green space

2:12:36sort of interior to the site. Um, and

2:12:39then I think right we've we've got um

2:12:42we've got a about a halfacre dedicated

2:12:46park and I think that the comments

2:12:47around a basketball court are great. Um,

2:12:49but I think that conversation

2:12:51uh can be had with the parks department

2:12:53when it comes time to redevelop that

2:12:54space which hopefully the parks

2:12:55department can you know after they

2:12:57accept the space can can find some

2:12:59resources to do and involve the

2:13:01neighborhood and in exactly what happens

2:13:03there. Um, I think that's great. I know

2:13:05that um making a development of uh what

2:13:09do we have here? 48 units. Yeah, it's a

2:13:12that's a lot going on here for 48 units.

2:13:15Um meaning that it is hard to make deals

2:13:17that are that small work. I'm I'm aware

2:13:19of that. Um

2:13:21so they've got a lot kind of kind of on

2:13:24this site, but I don't know another way

2:13:26to make that work. Putting housing into

2:13:28an old school building is one of the

2:13:30most fun things and most expensive ways

2:13:33to create housing ever. Um, and I've

2:13:36I've done a bit of it. So, uh, so I

2:13:39appreciate the effort. I appreciate the

2:13:41willingness to to allow the community to

2:13:43use the community spaces in that

2:13:45building. Um, I I I feel like it will

2:13:48continue to be a benefit to the

2:13:50community uh for a long time. Um, and I

2:13:52appreciate the although it's not part of

2:13:54our decision-making here, I appreciate

2:13:56the affordability.

2:13:58um this is going to be an eminently and

2:14:00you know we can debate the term

2:14:02affordability but to have many of the

2:14:04units at 70% AMI or below um that's you

2:14:08know that's that's a great asset to this

2:14:11uh to the community as well. So, um, I I

2:14:14would say I'm generally supportive, I

2:14:15think, with a with a few comments that

2:14:17have already been mentioned.

2:14:27Also very supportive of the project. I'm

2:14:30trying to think about things that

2:14:31haven't been said and I'm I'm certain

2:14:32there's lots of conditions being written

2:14:34right now, too. Um, I am supportive of

2:14:37where the larger building is currently

2:14:39set back. I don't feel like that needs

2:14:40to be moved at all. I did like the idea

2:14:43that the applicant stated of possibly

2:14:45planting evergreen trees as u uh forgive

2:14:49me for not having the right language

2:14:50here, but a way to break up the length

2:14:51of that building. So, some sort of um

2:14:53landscaping there to to buffer the size

2:14:55of the larger building. Um I'd also

2:14:58support a masonry facade or brick-like

2:15:01product on those larger buildings to tie

2:15:03in the brick from the school.

2:15:07and love the idea about escrowing for

2:15:11the bus stop. So, very much in support

2:15:13of that. Okay, this might be an

2:15:16impossible idea, but you talked about

2:15:18escrow. So, the idea came to me. Um I I

2:15:21wonder Okay, this is really dreaming,

2:15:23but I wonder if there would ever be a

2:15:25way to escrow some funds to move the

2:15:27basketball court um so that the park

2:15:29could have that partnership with you to

2:15:31then redevelop it. I don't know if

2:15:33that's possible, but when you said

2:15:35escrow, it came to mind, so I'm saying

2:15:36it out loud. Um, yeah, I'm just again

2:15:40very excited to see this redevelopment

2:15:43come to light, and I appreciate the

2:15:44commissioner's discernment of this

2:15:46because we likely will see more schools

2:15:48uh become other things in our community.

2:15:50So, uh, this is a very good activity for

2:15:51us. Thank you.

2:15:57>> I think I have one question for staff.

2:15:59Um, is the location of the community

2:16:01garden, if we approve this, that's

2:16:02something that staff could

2:16:03administratively change if required. And

2:16:06like this is kind of like dorkying in

2:16:08the weeds, but [clears throat] it's on

2:16:10the east side of a really tall building

2:16:12and you kind of want your gardens in

2:16:14like a south location where they can get

2:16:15sun.

2:16:16>> Yeah. Typically, we would not look at

2:16:18that uh detail as

2:16:23um something that couldn't move around

2:16:25the site. It's in the plan, so we would

2:16:28expect it to be in the plan. But since I

2:16:30until you brought it up, uh hadn't heard

2:16:32from the commission that there was a

2:16:34specific reason why it had to go there.

2:16:36Typically staff would allow for that to

2:16:38that that level of detail to be adjusted

2:16:42administratively.

2:16:43>> Okay.

2:16:50>> We haven't talked about parking, so we

2:16:52probably should talk about parking. Um,

2:16:55I'm leaning toward further reduction,

2:16:58um, more aligned with what the minimal

2:17:01allowable is for affordable housing

2:17:04projects, just allowing more flexibility

2:17:06than in the site plan to make some of

2:17:08these changes. So, that's my motivation

2:17:10and I would be supportive of that

2:17:12reduction in a condition.

2:17:17>> I'm sorry, can I was working on other

2:17:20conditions. Can I make sure I I'm not

2:17:22sure I understood what you just said.

2:17:23>> Yeah. So, I'm in support of reducing the

2:17:25number of parking spots. Uh, hold on,

2:17:27let me find my notes. So, uh, 48 is the

2:17:32calculation aligned with affordable

2:17:34housing standards. Currently, 59 or 60,

2:17:36I think, is what they have. So, I would

2:17:37support a reduction to 48.

2:17:39>> Okay.

2:17:40>> If my fellow commissioners agree.

2:17:43>> So, you would support a reduction,

2:17:44meaning require them to be capped at

2:17:46that number or just if

2:17:48>> I see what you're saying. Correct. We

2:17:50would cap at 48. So they could provide

2:17:52no more than

2:17:53>> correct.

2:17:53>> Got it.

2:17:54>> Thank you.

2:17:59>> Just clarification on that, Commissioner

2:18:01Shaki. Like so even if we have it capped

2:18:04at 48 right now and they find that there

2:18:06is a need for more parking and it is

2:18:08causing difficulties in the

2:18:09neighborhood, would they be able to go

2:18:10up to the 60

2:18:12>> then?

2:18:13>> Okay, great question. Um,

2:18:18yes. I don't want to limit that. I guess

2:18:20I just don't know how to make a

2:18:21condition that allows that variability.

2:18:23So

2:18:25that's where I need help.

2:18:26>> We do allow deferred

2:18:28parking. I'm trying to pull that up

2:18:30quickly. I don't know if Elizabeth or

2:18:31Sarah have that more quickly than I. Um

2:18:35where we allow for parking, Elizabeth,

2:18:37but does the language require them to

2:18:39demonstrate the need to add the part

2:18:43that was deferred?

2:18:44>> I think so. Give me just a moment.

2:18:50I think one thing to consider is where

2:18:52those parking spaces are going to come

2:18:53from. I don't think you're going to I

2:18:55don't think in from a site planning

2:18:57perspective, you're going to

2:18:59[sighs]

2:19:00um see a significant benefit in the

2:19:03overall site plan. Uh by losing 12

2:19:06spaces, you probably end up with green

2:19:07more green space next to the alley or

2:19:09something. Um, so I

2:19:13I think uh

2:19:16I guess they're already allowed to have

2:19:1848 spaces and they know it. So if it

2:19:20helps them solve some problems,

2:19:22um

2:19:24I'm certainly supportive of that. But

2:19:26from a requiring less spaces,

2:19:30uh, you know, if we we if we could see

2:19:32how it was going to noticeably improve

2:19:35the site or add to um

2:19:39usable green space to the development,

2:19:42but I'm I'm really struggling to see

2:19:44that with the current layout. I guess

2:19:48>> I would agree with those comments. I

2:19:49kind of went down the rabbit hole of

2:19:51redesigning the site in my head for like

2:19:52the basketball court and the parking and

2:19:55then accessing through the aisle and

2:19:57expanding that, but it seems like our

2:19:59staff has already kind of thought that

2:20:02through. And I would hate to just be

2:20:04like go back to the drawing board on

2:20:06this concept that you've already vetted.

2:20:08Um, but I agree like if they can do

2:20:10less, great. I don't want to limit them

2:20:13to that for not foreseeable benefit.

2:20:16>> Absolutely. Yeah, I I hear what both of

2:20:18you are saying. Thank you.

2:20:21>> I would agree with that too. That's

2:20:23where my mind was going. What are we

2:20:24gaining by forcing them to reduce the

2:20:27number of parking spaces? They're all

2:20:28very still very open to work with the

2:20:31the applicants working with the

2:20:32community on what's going to be best for

2:20:33both. And I I'm not sure I want to be

2:20:36involved in restricting that fluidity

2:20:39for them. Um unless a demonstrabably

2:20:43better design would come up from less

2:20:46parking spaces.

2:20:50Great. Anything else?

2:20:54Yeah, I mean, I'm excited about this

2:20:55project. I'm not going to repeat

2:20:58everything that's that's already been

2:21:00said. Um, but yeah, very grateful for

2:21:02the thought and the um working with the

2:21:05neighborhood and staff. Um the one thing

2:21:08um that we didn't kind of cover is this

2:21:12being multif family on a neighborhood

2:21:13residential street um which we are

2:21:15allowed to wave and I think it's

2:21:17appropriate here because of the strong

2:21:20pedestrian network that's here it being

2:21:22within reasonable walking distance to

2:21:24transit although not um directly on and

2:21:27also within the the micromobility

2:21:29service area. Um, and I appreciated the

2:21:33comments about from the public about um,

2:21:35crosswalks on Walker. Um, hopefully

2:21:38that's something I'm not sure what the

2:21:39city's plans are for um, Walker at this

2:21:42point, but yeah, as a busy street and

2:21:45adding more folks, we want to make sure

2:21:46that people who are using the great

2:21:48pedestrian network there are safe as

2:21:50well. So, um, thank you all for that.

2:21:53Um,

2:21:56and with that, I'm wondering if Oh, go

2:21:57ahead. Yeah.

2:21:59If the planning commission's inclined to

2:22:02approve, make a motion to approve. I I

2:22:04feel like I've got a number of

2:22:05conditions that we are working on. I I

2:22:08would appreciate having maybe five quick

2:22:10minutes. I'm sorry, but I just want to

2:22:12make sure we have this correct

2:22:14>> before I read them back to you. Can we

2:22:18pause for a second then?

2:22:19>> Thank you.

2:22:22>> Can we talk about the setback on the big

2:22:23building while you work on that?

2:22:26>> Sure. Are am I needed for that? No,

2:22:29>> let's do it.

2:22:30>> Uh, I just wanted to uh I had a couple

2:22:33thoughts about that. Typically, I am a

2:22:36huge proponent of maintaining the street

2:22:37wall and uh basically matching the

2:22:40setback of the buildings on the same

2:22:42side of the street. Um, here we really

2:22:44only have two homes uh to the north. And

2:22:50so because there's potential concerns

2:22:52about the length of the building and its

2:22:53presence in the neighborhood, setting it

2:22:55back a little bit more, I just wanted to

2:22:58chat about whether or not we think that

2:22:59helps or hurts. Um I know Commissioner

2:23:03Yoner already said something about

2:23:04pushing it forward. Um but and then

2:23:08again across the street there houses are

2:23:10set back quite a ways. Um, so

2:23:14I thought since it sounded like we had

2:23:17people on both sides of that maybe

2:23:19chatting about it a little more.

2:23:21>> I I agree that was one thing that was

2:23:25sticking to me and I think it's a

2:23:27compelling case that they're somewhat

2:23:29mimicking the larger setback across the

2:23:31street. Um, I know that typically we

2:23:34look at the same side, but um, based on

2:23:37the length of the building, uh, already

2:23:40some concerns about privacy from the

2:23:42sidewalk into living spaces, uh, I think

2:23:45a larger setback is actually preferable

2:23:49for from my perspective.

2:23:51And maybe if the depth of porches

2:23:55maybe if that's extended then it'll feel

2:23:58closer to that setback would wouldn't

2:24:01feel so much bigger as well.

2:24:05>> I agree with our chairwoman that once we

2:24:08start having a conversation about usable

2:24:11porches, I think that language to me is

2:24:13important to have something usable

2:24:14because right now there's no way you

2:24:16could put like tables in front of those

2:24:18two doors. So once they start talking

2:24:19about usable porches, that will likely

2:24:22expand a little more to the west side of

2:24:25the setback.

2:24:33>> Anything else we want to chat about

2:24:34while

2:24:35>> Yeah. How about the the concerns about

2:24:37identifying the the common entrances

2:24:40>> from private?

2:24:42Maybe there's a good planning reason

2:24:44against this, but if the common entrance

2:24:47connected directly to the sidewalk and

2:24:49the private entrances connected to that

2:24:52common sidewalk,

2:24:55>> would that help or is that uh does it

2:24:58feel more institutional?

2:25:01>> Yeah, I wondered about that. Or if that

2:25:04is at grade in their steps only on the

2:25:07front porches like I don't I don't know.

2:25:10and but I'm not an architect, but there

2:25:13are people around here who are. So,

2:25:17>> I wouldn't advocate for having a

2:25:19separate essentially sidewalk that

2:25:22connects to those um those common walks

2:25:25or a separate uh

2:25:28it I think the

2:25:32the whole intent of having in my mind

2:25:35the intent of having um entrances along

2:25:38the street

2:25:40are [snorts] that you're connecting to

2:25:41that public infrastructure. So,

2:25:44um I don't know that those are

2:25:48I don't know if that helps. Um

2:25:52I think that there probably are

2:25:54architectural ways to distinguish those

2:25:56entries. Then also it's all it's a it's

2:26:02um it's magnified in this instance

2:26:03because the number of units in this

2:26:05building, but these are issues that

2:26:08people in the neighborhood deal with

2:26:09every day. If you're walking up to

2:26:10somebody's house, you have to figure out

2:26:12which door is theirs. Um

2:26:15you know, even if uh in some of our town

2:26:17home developments all over the city, uh

2:26:20some of the units are pretty much

2:26:21exactly the same. So um I don't know. I

2:26:26think that

2:26:29uh with a material change or

2:26:33something that could help elevate or

2:26:35make the entries more obvious uh or the

2:26:38common entries more obvious uh that

2:26:40could be great but I don't

2:26:43>> I guess I don't know how much of a

2:26:45concern I really think it is. I also

2:26:47think, you know, a full light door with

2:26:48a side light like what they have shown

2:26:50now um starts to be is a more common

2:26:55common entry

2:26:57element. Anyways, so if you go to a more

2:26:59residential entry, a more single family

2:27:01residential entry on the dedicated

2:27:04entries, maybe that helps. Um,

2:27:08so I think it's all I don't really want

2:27:11to get too into the weeds about how to

2:27:12design it either, but I think some of

2:27:15the things we talked about before should

2:27:16help with that.

2:27:18>> Yeah, I was thinking the same thing in

2:27:19terms of like the double door situation

2:27:24on the common entries and then yeah,

2:27:26making the

2:27:28individual entries more just like the

2:27:31single typical traditional residential

2:27:34kind of feel. But I trust staff to work

2:27:37through that for sure.

2:27:45Are you

2:27:47I'm good I think for not a break. Um

2:27:50would you like me to read the conditions

2:27:52that I think I heard up front before we

2:27:54get into the actual motion?

2:27:58>> All right.

2:28:00um that a final grading, landscape,

2:28:02lighting, storm water, and soil erosion

2:28:04plan be submitted with the LEDs uh

2:28:06application for all phases of the

2:28:09proposed project to be approved by the

2:28:10planning director and all other

2:28:11applicable city departments. Two, that

2:28:14the submitted architectural building

2:28:16elevation drawings are approved in

2:28:18concept and that final architectural

2:28:20building elevations, comma, reflective

2:28:23of the concept renderings shall be

2:28:25reviewed and approved by the planning

2:28:26director prior to the issuance of the

2:28:28building permit.

2:28:31Keep going. Three, that the design of

2:28:33the building entrances facing the street

2:28:35be modified to have greater consistency

2:28:37with residential entrances currently

2:28:39existing in the neighborhood and that

2:28:41common entrances be differentiated from

2:28:42the private unit entrances.

2:28:45Four, that the finished floor of the new

2:28:47buildings be elevated as shown in the

2:28:49concept renderings necessitating steps

2:28:51to access the street facing units.

2:28:54Five that an 18 to 36 inch mason masonry

2:28:58base will be provided along the base of

2:29:00the new buildings. Please correct me if

2:29:03uh the dimension is incorrect. That

2:29:06landscaping adjacent the new buildings

2:29:08be varied in height to provide

2:29:09additional facade articulation and

2:29:11mitigation for building massing.

2:29:16I think I want to add something about

2:29:17the street facing there. Uh seven, that

2:29:19the applicant work with staff to explore

2:29:21options for vehicular alley access.

2:29:25That changes required for federal

2:29:26historic tax credits that affect the

2:29:28site layout, building placement, and/or

2:29:30building elements may be allowed. Just

2:29:32giving difference to anything required

2:29:34by the federal government in that

2:29:36regard. Nine, that construction activity

2:29:38shall be limited to between 7 a.m. and 7

2:29:41p.m.

2:29:44>> Yeah, that felt consistent. The one

2:29:45question I have related to the steps one

2:29:48is that you're just saying steps to the

2:29:51individual entrances and that the common

2:29:53entrances can be accessible and at grade

2:29:56or were you saying everything toward the

2:29:58street needs stairs?

2:29:59>> The way I wrote it was everything

2:30:00towards the street needed stairs

2:30:03understanding that there is the

2:30:04accessible entrance at the

2:30:08rear of the parking lot.

2:30:11But I we could modify that to allow to

2:30:14be specific to provide greater

2:30:16flexibility for the common entrances if

2:30:19>> I just wasn't I would be in favor of

2:30:21allowing more flexibility for the common

2:30:23entrances just because I mean if you

2:30:26need accessibility entry you shouldn't

2:30:28have to just get there through the

2:30:29parking lot. Um but

2:30:33I'm looking for Okay.

2:30:38Any other comments on the potential

2:30:40conditions?

2:30:42>> No, I I guess I do. Yeah, I appreciate

2:30:44the having the entrances be more

2:30:47consistent with the neighborhood, but

2:30:48can we mention something specifically

2:30:50about them having usable front porches

2:30:53so that that is clear

2:30:56as well?

2:31:05I had one more thing if we can condition

2:31:07if practical. the SC that the mechanical

2:31:11unit the rooftop mechanical unit units

2:31:14on the south side of the existing

2:31:16building be screened.

2:31:20>> I' I'd like to see that.

2:31:23>> I just wonder if I it's likely those

2:31:25will be replaced with a completely new

2:31:27system. So, I don't know if you want to

2:31:28be that specific, but we could and I

2:31:30think

2:31:31>> if practical were practical. I don't

2:31:33remember the historic what the folks

2:31:35will I mean generally they'll make them

2:31:37screen them anyway but

2:31:39>> I think something broad would be more

2:31:42appropriate there just that rooftop

2:31:44rooftop mechanicals would be screened

2:31:47>> from public view on the historic

2:31:49building

2:31:52>> I'm cool with that

2:31:56>> okay good discussion everybody um would

2:32:00anyone like to make a motion in.

2:32:06>> All right. Thank you.

2:32:08>> Do I have to read all of your conditions

2:32:10or not your our conditions that we've

2:32:12>> They are not mine. Yes. Um you you can

2:32:15defer to me and I can read them for you

2:32:16if you'd like.

2:32:17>> Thank you. Now therefore, let it be

2:32:19resolved that the planning commission

2:32:22recommend approval of the request of the

2:32:24Water Tower Place LLC, Jeff Edwards. Am

2:32:27I reading the right one?

2:32:28>> Yeah, that's what I was just going to

2:32:29say. I'm wondering would you Yeah,

2:32:31>> let's do the right one. Yeah. Thank you.

2:32:32Now, therefore, be it resolved that the

2:32:35planning commission approves the special

2:32:37land use and site plan review request

2:32:38for Commonwealth Development Corporation

2:32:40of America,

2:32:42Christy Morgan, of a 48 unit multifamily

2:32:46development consistent of the former

2:32:49Stockings Elementary School and two new

2:32:51two-story apartment buildings at 863

2:32:567th Street Northwest for the following

2:32:58reasons. The proposed use will be

2:33:01consistent with the purpose and intent

2:33:02of the master plan and zoning ordinance,

2:33:04including the zone district, because the

2:33:06proposed use will meet the underlying

2:33:08intent of the TNLDR zone district to

2:33:11allow medium to high density residential

2:33:13development along transit routes near

2:33:16business districts and along major

2:33:17street consistent streets consistent

2:33:20with the pattern of development of the

2:33:23area. And it will support the

2:33:25recommendations and goals of the

2:33:27Westside area specific plan to encourage

2:33:29infill housing that respects the massing

2:33:32and character of nearby h homes while

2:33:35retaining the historic neighborhood

2:33:37fabric.

2:33:40The proposed use will uh the proposed

2:33:43building and site will meet all of the

2:33:46standards of section 5.12.08e

2:33:48O ae because the elements of the site

2:33:52design are harmonious and effect and

2:33:54efficiently organized in relation to the

2:33:56size and character of the site and the

2:33:58[snorts] type and size type size and

2:34:01proportions of the building. Buildings

2:34:03will be situated in the at the street

2:34:06with parking at the back and access

2:34:09drives at Fremont Avenue will direct

2:34:12traffic to a higher volume street and

2:34:15eliminate turning conflicts at the

2:34:17intersection of Janette and 8th Street.

2:34:20The proposed use will be compatible,

2:34:23harmonious, and appropriate with the

2:34:25character and use of the neighborhood

2:34:26adjacent properties in the natural

2:34:28environment because the residential use

2:34:31is at an appropriate density for the

2:34:34size and nature of the site. Multiple

2:34:36family residents residential uses will

2:34:39support the desired mixuse character of

2:34:41the neighborhood.

2:34:43The proposed use will not have adverse

2:34:45ad effects on the neighborhood because

2:34:46the intensity of the use is appropriate

2:34:49to its surrounding. Transitional

2:34:51features including similar size

2:34:53architectural features, windows, doors,

2:34:55buildings,

2:34:57building material and in are

2:35:00incorporated into the building design

2:35:02and the proposed building setbacks are

2:35:05appropriate.

2:35:07The prop the proposed building will not

2:35:09be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing

2:35:12to existing or future uses or to the

2:35:15public welfare by reason of excessive

2:35:17traffic noise, odor and visual clutter

2:35:19because adequate on-site parking will be

2:35:22provided for residents. Landscaping

2:35:24buffers will be provided and a

2:35:26commercial waste enclosure will be

2:35:28provided.

2:35:30The proposed use will not adversely

2:35:32affect the walkability of the

2:35:33neighborhood, impair pedestrian

2:35:34circulation patterns, disrupt the

2:35:37continuity of the urban street wall, or

2:35:39otherwise hinder the creation of

2:35:41pedestrian oriented environment the of a

2:35:44pedestrianoriented environment because

2:35:46the building setbacks have been

2:35:48determined to be consistent with

2:35:50neighborhood properties, will preserve

2:35:53the sight lines of the historical school

2:35:55building and will reinforce the street

2:35:57wall on Janet on Janette and Fremont.

2:36:00The the additional activity resulting

2:36:03from the project and the dedication of

2:36:05the land for city parks will reinforce

2:36:08the neighborhood's sense of place and

2:36:10the connections provided to existing

2:36:12walkways and public sidewalks will

2:36:14promote walkability.

2:36:17Adequate public or private

2:36:19infrastructure and services already

2:36:21exist. Oh, wait. Am I missing something?

2:36:24Oh, I'm still going.

2:36:27already exist or will be provided at the

2:36:29developer's cost and will be supported

2:36:32through dedication of land to the city

2:36:34of Grand Rapids public parks.

2:36:37The proposed use would not be

2:36:40detrimental to the financial stability

2:36:42and economic welfare of the city because

2:36:44the proposed development will encourage

2:36:46additional investment in the

2:36:47neighborhood and additional dwelling

2:36:49units will contribute to the tax base

2:36:51and support nearby businesses. Be it

2:36:54further resolved that the following

2:36:55conditions of approval shall apply.

2:36:59Standard conditions set A as stated on

2:37:02the screen.

2:37:04Two, that the F Okay. Yeah. Defer same

2:37:07name, right? What

2:37:08>> do you want me to Yep. Take Okay,

2:37:09>> I sure do.

2:37:11>> All right. Bear with me. There's 10

2:37:13conditions here. Uh I think all are

2:37:16similar to what I've read previously.

2:37:18that a final grading, landscape,

2:37:20lighting, storm water, and soil erosion

2:37:22plan be submitted with the LEDs permit,

2:37:24land use development services uh permit

2:37:27application for all phases of the

2:37:29proposed project to be approved by the

2:37:30planning director and all other

2:37:32applicable city departments.

2:37:34That the submitted architectural

2:37:36building elevation drawings are approved

2:37:38in concept and that final architectural

2:37:41building elevations reflective of the

2:37:44concept renderings shall be reviewed and

2:37:46approved by the planning director. prior

2:37:48to the issuance of the building permit.

2:37:51That the design of the private unit

2:37:53entrances and porches facing the street

2:37:56be modified to have greater consistency

2:37:58with residential entrances currently

2:38:00existing in the neighborhood. And that

2:38:03common entrances be differentiated from

2:38:05private unit entrances.

2:38:07that the finished floor of the new

2:38:09buildings be elevated at least 18 in

2:38:11above sidewalk grade as shown in the

2:38:14concept renderings necessitating steps

2:38:16to access the private units from the

2:38:19street

2:38:24that an 18 to 36 in ma inch masonry base

2:38:28be provided along the base of the new

2:38:30buildings.

2:38:32Six, rooftop mechanicals on the historic

2:38:35building be screened from view. Seven,

2:38:38that landscaping adjacent the new

2:38:40buildings be varied in height to provide

2:38:44additional facade articulation and

2:38:46mitigation for building massing.

2:38:51That the applicant work with staff to

2:38:53explore options for vehicular alley

2:38:55access.

2:38:57that changes required for federal

2:38:59historic tax credits that affect the

2:39:01site layout, building placement, or

2:39:04building elements may be allowed. That

2:39:07construction activity shall be limited

2:39:09to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

2:39:13>> I think the only thing missing is the

2:39:15porch

2:39:16>> porch usability.

2:39:17>> Yeah.

2:39:18>> Okay. I I added number three to say that

2:39:22the design of the private unit entrances

2:39:24and porches facing the street be

2:39:26modified to have greater consistency

2:39:28with residential entrances.

2:39:30>> Okay.

2:39:30>> Um my intent behind that was that

2:39:34existing porches tend to have greater

2:39:35depth and usability than what is shown

2:39:38here. Um if you'd like more specificity,

2:39:40I can do that.

2:39:44>> If you feel like that's clear enough,

2:39:45I'm okay with that.

2:39:47>> Okay.

2:39:49Thank you.

2:39:52>> I'll support. Okay, we have a motion and

2:39:54support. Any additional discussion?

2:39:57All those in favor say I. I. Any

2:40:00opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very

2:40:02much.

2:40:09Congratulations.

2:40:28>> That was never

2:40:37Here's

2:40:39my I don't know why that invited you. It

2:40:41should have. So yeah, that has my number

2:40:43and email on there.

2:40:46>> Yeah,

2:40:48>> we're just, you know, updating it based

2:40:49on the conditions and everything, but if

2:40:50there's, you know, specific

2:41:04>> just one.

2:41:06Yes,

2:41:08you have to go now.

2:41:12>> One, two, three, four, five. Yeah, it

2:41:14won't impact quorum.

2:41:16>> Yeah. Okay.

2:41:19Okay. All right. Thanks everyone. We

2:41:22will move on to Fuller Avenue. A couple

2:41:27of reasonzoning requests.

2:41:31Thank you. Um we have um 1911 Fuller

2:41:36Avenue and 1951 Fuller. They're two

2:41:41separate requests, but they're related.

2:41:43So I'm going to present them together.

2:41:46Please note that you will need to um uh

2:41:49do a separate resolution for each.

2:41:52However, okay, so um here is a zoning

2:41:58map of the subject properties in uh

2:42:02green shown here is 1951

2:42:08Fuller Avenue. It currently falls in two

2:42:12zone districts. the MCN C commercial

2:42:17zone district and a small portion is in

2:42:21the MCN LDR zone district.

2:42:24That makes it sort of hard to develop.

2:42:28So this um request is partially it well

2:42:32is to facilitate uh development by

2:42:36putting both of those or putting that

2:42:40lot into one single zone district.

2:42:45And you can see what the property looks

2:42:48like here. It was um partially improved

2:42:53at one time uh when

2:42:57when some of this commercial development

2:42:59went in. There was a we did find plans

2:43:02from maybe 1960 for a commercial strip

2:43:05center here that was never constructed.

2:43:09So there has been some earth moving here

2:43:12in the past.

2:43:14The the next part of this request is

2:43:191911 Fuller. As you can see, it today

2:43:23the lot doesn't have any frontage on

2:43:26Fuller, but it still has a Fuller

2:43:29address.

2:43:31It is owned by the city, another

2:43:34property controlled by the water

2:43:36department. Um and uh that um

2:43:43and so it has the it has the uh a water

2:43:46tower on it.

2:43:50The um the applicant has a redevelopment

2:43:55multifamily uh it's not even a

2:43:58redevelopment project. It is a

2:44:00development project because this project

2:44:02has never or this property has never

2:44:04been developed. They're proposing to

2:44:07reszone that n the all of 1951

2:44:13Fuller and a small portion of the

2:44:16cityowned property to MCN

2:44:21MDR

2:44:23midcentury neighborhood mixed density

2:44:26residential. Mixed density residential

2:44:29is our higher density residential zone

2:44:33district versus LDR which we which

2:44:37usually comes to you for special land

2:44:40use approval for multiple family

2:44:42development projects. If this property

2:44:46is reszoned to MCN MDR, the applicant

2:44:51could develop their intended multiple

2:44:56family um project without any planning

2:45:00commission approval. It would be a byite

2:45:02development. So

2:45:05that is what is being uh proposed today.

2:45:09the 1951 that falls into

2:45:13two zone districts

2:45:17plus a portion of the city property on

2:45:211911. That is it's about

2:45:2720 almost 22,000

2:45:30um 22,000 square ft or about a half an

2:45:34acre of the water tower property would

2:45:37be um would be uh purchased and

2:45:41reszoned. Um, of course, the city has

2:45:44given uh permission for this resoning

2:45:48request and the um the purchase would uh

2:45:52take place uh sometime after the

2:45:55resoning.

2:45:57I think uh I think I have it all there.

2:45:59Is there do you have any questions for

2:46:01me?

2:46:02>> Thanks, Elizabeth. Any questions?

2:46:06>> Nope. Okay, we'll have the applicant

2:46:08come up.

2:46:13Good afternoon. Excuse me, just getting

2:46:15over cold. Uh, John Castle, civil

2:46:18engineer with Native. Uh, so Elizabeth

2:46:21did a great introduction as usual. Um,

2:46:24one of the the key points of the the

2:46:26reszone ask is um, you know, we believe

2:46:30that the reszone does meet the area

2:46:32specific plan and the master plan intent

2:46:35of uh, creating a transition from the

2:46:37LDR to the commercial zone at this

2:46:40location specifically highlights this

2:46:42property as a uh, higher density

2:46:45location for residential. Um, I think

2:46:49that's, you know, it seems pretty

2:46:51straightforward. Um, you know, we we've

2:46:54been working with staff on a a concept.

2:46:57Um, certainly challenges. It's why this

2:46:59uh parcels remain vacant over the years,

2:47:02but the reszone's a first step that we

2:47:05need to take,

2:47:07excuse [clears throat] me, in this

2:47:08process. Um, in in the report, we did

2:47:12meet with uh the the [snorts] Crestston

2:47:15neighborhood and uh I thought they had

2:47:18provided the letter of support. Okay. So

2:47:21in in the report uh so we we did get

2:47:24favorable response uh some feedback um

2:47:28we've been uh talking with the neighbor

2:47:32adjacent to the parcel uh about future

2:47:35re uh development here uh trying to get

2:47:38their uh feedback and incorporate it

2:47:40into a future design. Uh, one of the

2:47:44challenges noted, um, we will

2:47:46potentially be, uh, requesting a

2:47:48variance for steep slope impact. Um,

2:47:52that's fairly hilly. Uh, there had been

2:47:55some disturbance. We're working on, you

2:47:58know, potential angle to avoid that,

2:48:00but, um, you know, as you can see,

2:48:02there's a a good amount of topography

2:48:05change. Some of it's just kind of

2:48:07natural, some of it's we think is

2:48:09disturbance, but um we are fully

2:48:12prepared to seek a variance uh if the

2:48:15reason goes forward. Uh and we feel like

2:48:18we have a a good case to make at that

2:48:20variance hearing. Um so, uh Joe's the

2:48:24the land owner can give you a little

2:48:26background about the the parcel and

2:48:28attempts previously.

2:48:31>> Thanks, John. So, my name is Joe Abdu.

2:48:33Um, I am one of the developers in Water

2:48:36Tower Place along with Jeff Edwards who

2:48:38is not here today. Um, my family's owned

2:48:41this property for about 20 years now.

2:48:43Um, we've looked at developing this in

2:48:46the past. Um, I believe around 2007.

2:48:50Um, we looked at doing a retail center

2:48:53there. Um, which as everybody knows that

2:48:56was a not not a great time in the

2:48:58economy. Um so kind of sheld that plan

2:49:01and the lot kind of sat vacant there for

2:49:04you know the next couple decades. Um

2:49:07then I happened to meet uh Jeff a few

2:49:09years back. We started chatting and felt

2:49:12that this would be a great uh infill

2:49:14residential site. Um and so that's

2:49:17really when we started to build our

2:49:18team. Um, and as John said, we've been

2:49:22working with the city um to try and get

2:49:24this project off the ground, and we

2:49:27really appreciate you guys considering

2:49:28our application to reszone um and look

2:49:31forward to delivering some much needed

2:49:33housing to the community.

2:49:36>> All right, thank you. Um, any questions

2:49:40from commissioners?

2:49:43Okay, seeing none, I will um open the

2:49:45public hearing. If you would like to

2:49:47provide comments on this case, please

2:49:48make your way to the microphone.

2:49:55Seeing no takers, I will close the

2:49:58public hearing. Commissioners,

2:50:06this seems to make sense to me. I think

2:50:09it's in um line with the master plan and

2:50:12looking for additional housing

2:50:14opportunities. Um, I would be in favor

2:50:18of it. And I think it's interesting that

2:50:20we're looking at two water department

2:50:23properties today that the city is

2:50:25willing to sell. So,

2:50:29yeah, two too hilly,

2:50:32hard to develop properties. But, yeah,

2:50:34it's it's a interesting concept. I I

2:50:37don't see a reason why we would not move

2:50:39forward.

2:50:43>> Yeah, I think it makes sense here. and

2:50:44and uh this is kind of a a parcel that

2:50:47it's a it's a buffer between some

2:50:49residential and some commercial. So uh

2:50:52given you know the marketplace that we

2:50:54have today and the need for housing as

2:50:55well as the housing that's directly

2:50:57across the street which incidentally I

2:50:59had a hand in designing some 25 years

2:51:02ago but uh um I think it I think it

2:51:04makes sense in this location. So uh I'm

2:51:06in support.

2:51:10>> Yeah, I agree. Um, as said, I think

2:51:13providing a transition um to the

2:51:15lowdensity residential with this mixed

2:51:18density makes sense and um regardless of

2:51:22the the steep slopes and whatever

2:51:24variances might need to be sought,

2:51:28something that meets the the zoning

2:51:30requirements um can be developed on the

2:51:32site if reszoned. So, I'm I'm in favor

2:51:35as well. Would anyone like to make a

2:51:38motion?

2:51:44I will do it again. All right, here we

2:51:46go. Now therefore it be resolved that

2:51:48the planning commission recommends

2:51:50approval of the request of Water Tower

2:51:52Place LLC Jeff Edwards to reszone the

2:51:55northerly 60x 364 ft area of the city of

2:51:59Grand Rapids water department property

2:52:01from MCNLDDR mid-century I'm sorry mid

2:52:0420th Century neighborhood lowdensity

2:52:05residential to MCN sorry again

2:52:08[clears throat] MCN MDR mid 20th century

2:52:12neighborhood mixed density residential

2:52:14zone district to facilitate a lot

2:52:16combination and future residential

2:52:18development at 1911 Fuller Avenue

2:52:21Northeast for the following reasons. A1,

2:52:24the proposed neighborhood classification

2:52:26and zone district changes, will be

2:52:28consistent with the purpose and intent

2:52:30of the master plan, including the future

2:52:32land use map because the 2024 community

2:52:34master plan future land use map

2:52:36designation of the property supports

2:52:38residential development and new housing

2:52:40types. A2, the proposed neighborhood

2:52:42classification and district changes will

2:52:45further the themes and objectives of the

2:52:46master plan as well as any relevant

2:52:48adopted area specific plans because the

2:52:51resoning will further the Crestston ASB

2:52:53community goal for affordable and

2:52:55inclusive growth by encouraging denser

2:52:57housing on key corridors such as Fuller

2:52:59Avenue.

2:53:01A3 of the property to be reszoned can

2:53:04reasonably accommodate the requirements

2:53:05of the proposed zone district because

2:53:08subsequent to reszoning in combination

2:53:10with 1951 Fuller Avenue, it will meet

2:53:12the minimum lot area and width

2:53:14requirements of the zone district. B.

2:53:17The proposed neighborhood classification

2:53:18and zone district designations are

2:53:20compatible with the existing zone

2:53:22districts in the neighborhood because

2:53:24the resoning will provide a transition

2:53:25from MCNC to the north to MCNLDDR zone

2:53:30district to the south. D2. The proposed

2:53:33neighborhood classification and zone

2:53:35district

2:53:37uh will not be detrimental to the

2:53:38financial stability and economic welfare

2:53:40of the city because the proposed zone

2:53:42change may encourage greater utilization

2:53:44of the subject property. and E1. The

2:53:48proposed zone district is consistent

2:53:50with the trend of development in the

2:53:51neighborhood because the resoning will

2:53:53allow for residential development and

2:53:55provision of much needed dwelling units.

2:53:58>> Support.

2:53:59>> We have a motion and support. Um any

2:54:01discussion?

2:54:03All those in favor say I.

2:54:04>> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Would

2:54:08someone else like to make the second

2:54:10motion?

2:54:11Oh,

2:54:16>> okay.

2:54:16>> Sure. Is is it the same? You going go

2:54:20for it. I can't find it.

2:54:21>> All right. Now there be for let

2:54:23therefore be it resolved that the

2:54:25planning commission recommends approval

2:54:28of the request of Water Tower Place LC

2:54:31Jeff Edwards to reszone 1951 Fuller

2:54:34Avenue Northeast from MCNC

2:54:38mid-century or mid 20th century

2:54:39neighborhood commercial and MCN LDR mid

2:54:4220th century neighborhood lowdensity

2:54:44residential to MCN MDR mid 20th century

2:54:47neighborhood mixed density residential

2:54:50zone district to facilitate

2:54:52Future residential development for the

2:54:54following reasons. Proposed neighborhood

2:54:56classification and zone district changes

2:54:59will be consistent with the ma the

2:55:00purpose and intent of the master plan

2:55:02including the future land use map

2:55:04because the 2024 community master plan

2:55:06future land use map designation of the

2:55:08property supports residential

2:55:09development and new housing types. the

2:55:11proposed neighborhood classification and

2:55:13district changes will further the themes

2:55:15and objectives of the master plan as

2:55:17well as any relevant adopted area

2:55:19specific plans because the reasoning

2:55:21will further the question ASP community

2:55:23goal for affordable and inclusive growth

2:55:25by encouraging denser housing on key

2:55:28corridors such as Fuller Avenue.

2:55:31The property to be reszoned can

2:55:33reasonably accommodate the requirements

2:55:35of the proposed zone district because it

2:55:36will meet the minimum lot area and with

2:55:38the requirements of the zone district.

2:55:40The proposed neighborhood classification

2:55:42and zone district designations are

2:55:44compatible with the existing zone

2:55:46districts in the neighborhood because

2:55:47the resoning will provide a transition

2:55:49from MCNC to the north to MCN LDR zone

2:55:53district to the south. The the proposed

2:55:56neighborhood classification zone

2:55:57district will not be detrimental to the

2:55:59financial stability of the e economic

2:56:01welfare of the city because the proposed

2:56:02zone change may encourage greater

2:56:05utilization of the subject property. The

2:56:07proposed zone district is consistent

2:56:10with the trend of development in the

2:56:12neighborhood because the resoning will

2:56:13allow for residential development and

2:56:15provision of muchneeded dwelling units

2:56:17and the property to reszone was

2:56:21not improperly zoned or classified when

2:56:23this chapter was adopted or amended

2:56:25because the property is currently

2:56:26situated within two zone districts.

2:56:30>> I think you meant was improperly zoned

2:56:32because it's in two zone districts. The

2:56:34current property

2:56:37Or you could just not use that

2:56:39condition.

2:56:41>> Yeah,

2:56:43[snorts] I guess I don't like the

2:56:44condition because I I don't want to say

2:56:46somebody improperly zoned it. We're just

2:56:48joining two. Can we just scratch that

2:56:50last one?

2:56:50>> Yeah.

2:56:53Consider that scratched.

2:56:55>> Okay.

2:56:55>> And support.

2:56:57>> All right. We have a motion and support.

2:56:58Any additional discussion? All those in

2:57:01favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion

2:57:04carries. All right. Thank you very much.

2:57:08Okay. Um any anything for planning

2:57:11commission discussion?

2:57:14All right. Then I will open up the

2:57:15public comment period. If you have any

2:57:17comments you'd like to make to planning

2:57:18commission, please come up to the

2:57:19microphone and let us know.

2:57:25Seeing none, I will close the close the

2:57:27public comment period and thank everyone

2:57:29today. We'rejourned.

```*