2026-10-08 - Planning Commission

00:16[music]

00:21[music]

00:26Heat. Heat.

00:30[music]

00:36[music]

00:47>> [music]

00:53[music]

00:58[music]

01:04>> Heat. Heat.

01:06[music]

01:14>> [music]

01:21[music]

01:28>> Heat. Heat.

01:34Heat. Heat.

01:48[music]

01:53[music]

01:54Heat. Heat. N.

01:59[music]

02:09[music]

02:15[music]

02:16Heat. Heat.

02:25[music]

02:30[music]

02:39>> [music]

02:47[music]

02:52[music]

02:58[music]

03:02>> All right, welcome everybody to the city

03:05of Grandpa's planning commission meeting

03:06for October 8th, 2026.

03:09Um we have a few public hearings today

03:12and a site plan um review. Um but before

03:16we start, I'll go through kind of our

03:17process here. Um for every case, um a

03:20member of the staff will come up and

03:22give us their staff report. Um after

03:24we've had an opportunity to ask them

03:26questions, the applicant come up can

03:27come up and give us additional

03:29information. Um we'll then open up the

03:31public hearing. If a member of the

03:33public would like to provide comments on

03:35a case, they can come up to the

03:36microphone, introduce themselves, and

03:38address commission with their comments.

03:40Um after the public hearing, the

03:42applicant will have an opportunity to

03:44address any comments from the public

03:46hearing and then um planning commission

03:48will deliberate and make a decision. Um

03:52we are being streamed live on Facebook

03:55and YouTube just as an FYI. And um and

04:00then one last thing. So if you see one

04:03of the commissioners reading when we're

04:05making resolutions, um staff has

04:08provided us with language, draft

04:10language both with findings for and

04:12against um that we are able to modify as

04:15we see fit based on um the case. And but

04:18I just want to let you know if you see

04:20us reading, folks may be reading, but no

04:22decisions have been made ahead of time.

04:24Um, with that, we'll get back to the

04:27agenda and start with conflicts of

04:29interest.

04:33>> Uh, I have a conflict with the 1150

04:36Adams case and that I sit on the board

04:38and executive team and uh, for Habitat

04:41for Humanity was a partner in that

04:43project.

04:47>> Discussion on that motion.

04:50I think this is consistent with how

04:52we've treated this historically.

04:55>> I would move that um Commissioner Yoner

04:58does have a conflict of interest.

05:00>> Support.

05:01>> All right. Motion support. Any other

05:02discussion? All those in favor say I. I.

05:05Any opposed?

05:07>> Motion carries.

05:10Uh, I have a potential conflict or a

05:12conflict with um our third hearing or

05:15third public hearing 1155 front for

05:18Merkantile Bank because I'm working on

05:19the project

05:21>> and thus have a potential financial

05:24stake in it. Yes.

05:25>> Hope so.

05:25>> Yeah. Okay. Well, then I'd definitely

05:28like to hear a motion for that one.

05:32>> I'll motion to approve the conflict.

05:36>> Second.

05:37>> All right. Motion support. Any

05:38discussion? All those in favor say I.

05:41>> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay.

05:45So, now any others?

05:48All right. We'll get started with our

05:49first case. 3127 Planefield AB

05:52Northeast.

05:57Our

06:03first case is a request for a drive-thru

06:06uh with a new fast casual restaurant. A

06:09drive-thru in the MCN zone district is

06:13the excuse me, the MCN commercial, a

06:17mid-century neighborhood commercial zone

06:18district is a special land use. The

06:21subject property is on the north side of

06:23Planefield. It is flanked on the the

06:26north and east and part of the south

06:28sides with I 96 roadway um and

06:33commercial to the south and lowdensity

06:35residential to the west. This project um

06:39has been on the agenda and postponed

06:41several times. Um the applicant was

06:44waiting on a traffic study that was

06:46requested by MDOT. um anytime there's a

06:49vehicle oriented use um that may have

06:52impact to the adjacent roadway system um

06:56traffic studies often are a requirement.

06:58In this case, because um much of the

07:00adjacent roadway system is controlled by

07:03MDOT, it was imperative that they um see

07:07the traffic study and um approve the

07:10potential impact that a development may

07:12have. So the traffic study was completed

07:15and submitted both to MDOT and the city

07:18traffic engineer. Um the study was

07:20reviewed and it was determined by both

07:23MDOT and the city of Grand Rapids that

07:25the anticipated impact of traffic

07:29resulting from this development will

07:31will have will not be impactful to the

07:33adjacent roadway system.

07:36So that is why this case is before you

07:39today. Everything has been completed and

07:41was given the green light to go forward.

07:44The subject property is approximately

07:4761,000 square feet in area. It has 225

07:52linear feet of street frontage on

07:54Planefield and the the property is

07:57mostly level. Um, as you can see in this

07:59image, it's already developed and there

08:02is a slope on the north and the east

08:04sides, a steep slope just off the

08:06property as that that goes down to the I

08:0996 corridor.

08:11You can see uh south of the property

08:14across Planefield is an on-ramp and

08:17off-ramp to I96.

08:19And that ramp is aligned with a single

08:22curb cut that provides access to the

08:24property. And there's a traffic signal

08:26there that um controls the traffic um on

08:30planefield and exiting the subject

08:33property and then entering or exiting

08:35that on-ramp and offramp.

08:39Here's a just a street view image to

08:41show that where the signal is. The the

08:43I96 ramp is to the right of this image

08:46and the subject property is to the left.

08:50And this is a survey of the existing

08:53conditions. Um, as you could see, it is

08:56improved with an approximately 4,000

08:58square foot building that was a former

09:00Denny's restaurant.

09:03There are there's a retaining wall on

09:06the the east side of the property line

09:09and then a fence on the north um to

09:12delineate the property from the MDOT

09:14roadway or the M dot right ofway and M

09:17dot property.

09:19There are two pull signs on the

09:20property.

09:22Um, there's a pole sign at the back of

09:25the property visible from the freeway

09:28and there was one at the front of the

09:31property. As you can see in this image,

09:32you can see the top of the pole behind

09:34the building. The cabinet has been

09:36removed from both of the poll signs.

09:39This zone district does allow a poll

09:42sign at the front of the property. Um,

09:44the pole sign at the rear is considered

09:46to be nonconforming.

09:48And so when the zoning ordinance says

09:51with redevelopment any non-conforming

09:54signs including pull signs would be

09:56removed. So one of the questions for the

09:58planning commission today is um

10:01consideration of whether or not the pole

10:04sign um at the back of the property must

10:07be removed. The cabinet has been

10:09removed. Typically, when cabinets are

10:11taken down, um anything replaced must

10:14conform to the zoning district um and

10:16the zoning ordinance standards.

10:23This is a site plan of the proposed new

10:26development. Um approximately 4,100

10:29square ft building will be constructed

10:32on the westerly side of the property. Um

10:35there will be surface parking generally

10:37to the east. That surface parking lot

10:39will have two drive aisles and three

10:42rows of parking. Um, and the drive-thru

10:45will enter at the north side and travel

10:47in a counterclockwise motion around the

10:50west side of the building exiting out um

10:53to Planefield.

10:55And there is a 32 seat outdoor patio

10:59seating area um between the building and

11:02Planefield Avenue.

11:04Um, this project went to the board of

11:07zoning appeals in July for two specific

11:10requests. One was to allow parking in

11:13the front yard. This zone district does

11:15not permit front yard parking. The board

11:18of zoning appeals approved that request

11:20on the condition that they reduce the

11:22number of parking spaces from what was

11:24proposed to be 30 parking spaces and um

11:28it should be reduced. um

11:31seven seven of those spaces were

11:33required to be removed. The applicant

11:36pushed the building closer to Planefield

11:38Avenue um and was able to remove 10 of

11:41those front yard parking spaces. So um

11:44now there are 20 spaces considered to be

11:46in the front yard that are allowed by

11:49that variance approval.

11:52The second variance request um that was

11:55approved was the parking lot exceeding

11:5750% of the lot width. A condition of

12:01that approval was that the the drive

12:03aisles in the parking lot and the depth

12:06of the parking spaces be reduced to the

12:09minimum standard allowed in the zoning

12:11ordinance. That was that was

12:13accomplished and that reduced the width

12:16of the parking lot by 10 ft. That

12:19additional 10 feet increased the the

12:22sideyard buffer on the east side of the

12:24parking lot by 10 feet.

12:29And as you can see in this image, um the

12:33building is oriented to the parking lot.

12:36The zone district um does require that

12:39the building building orientation face

12:41the street. Um the planning commission

12:44has the authority to approve an

12:47alternative entrance location um where

12:50consistent with adjacent development.

12:54We'll go back to the overhead image

12:57there. The adjacent commercial

12:59development is across the street um on

13:02the south side of Planefield. There is a

13:04gas station and um a building that has

13:07been a number of things, most recently a

13:09medical office. Here

13:19are the proposed building elevations.

13:21Um, I'd like to take note of the

13:23building materials. The materials to be

13:26used are architectural aluminum cladding

13:29panels, um, stone veneer and ephus.

13:33The front of the building facing

13:35planefield is this south elevation

13:39second from the top. The main building

13:42materials on this elevation facing the

13:44street is it is the aluminum cladding

13:47and the stone veneer

13:50and the ephus that on the front of the

13:52building facing Planefield is used as an

13:55accent around the windows. There are

13:57fabric the blue on these images are

13:59fabric awning on the windows.

14:03The zoning ordinance allows um the

14:05planning commission to approve metal

14:08siding as a main um primary material

14:11where combined with a masonry foundation

14:14a minimum of 2 ft above grade. So one of

14:18one of the questions for the planning

14:19commission today is um if whether this

14:23requirement is met. So the the metal uh

14:27panels may be used as the primary

14:29material on the front. The sides of the

14:32building, the primary material is ephus

14:36um with aluminum cladding accents and

14:39stone veneer. Um in this zone district,

14:42ephus may only be used as an accent

14:45material. However, the planning

14:47commission does have the authority to

14:49approve other materials um if found to

14:52be appropriate.

14:54Um, and if we'll talk for a minute about

14:57transparency, the minimum transparency

15:00requirements on the sides of the

15:01building, the east and the west sides,

15:04that is met on the front. Again, we're

15:07talking about the south elevation,

15:09second from the top. A minimum of 40%

15:12transparency is required. 38% is

15:15provided. Um again the planning

15:18commission has authority to allow for a

15:20reduction um in the amount of

15:23transparency that is provided. Um

15:26typically a reduction is granted where

15:28the transparency

15:30um additional transparency would be

15:33detrimental to operations or the

15:35security of um the business.

15:41This is the floor plan of the proposed

15:43restaurant. Um the main entrance um

15:46facing the parking lot is at the bottom

15:48of the page

15:50and there's a secondary entrance at the

15:53top of the page that is adjacent to the

15:56drive-thru pickup window.

15:59So we'll talk about the drive-through

16:00operations next.

16:03There will be two order lanes um that

16:06will filter into one drive-thru lane.

16:10Um the the amount of stacking provided

16:13is will accommodate 13 vehicles and to

16:17the west of the drive-through lane

16:19there's additional pavement to provide

16:20an escape lane.

16:23On this image as well at the after the

16:26drive-through window there are six pull

16:28ahead spaces and I'll let the applicant

16:32describe the operations for those pull

16:34ahead spaces.

16:35The use requirements for a drive-thru um

16:38are intended to minimize potentially

16:42adverse effects on surrounding

16:44residential properties, pedestrians, and

16:46traffic flow.

16:48Um some of the roo some of the use

16:51requirements um speak to lot area and

16:54depth, hours of operation, and stacking.

16:57All of those requirements are met, and

17:00so I won't go into those details.

17:03the [snorts]

17:04um drive-thru lanes

17:07and the the the vehicle stacking and the

17:10menu boards, speakers, and the service

17:13window. Um the zoning or ordinance

17:15prohibits those to be on a um street

17:18facing side or within 25 ft of a

17:21residential property. In this case, all

17:24of those elements are set back more than

17:2625 ft.

17:28The pavement of this escape lane is

17:31closer than 25 ft, but that's not

17:34intended to be the drive-thru lane. The

17:37drive-thru lane is 25 ft um at least 25

17:41ft from the neighboring residential

17:43properties.

17:46The menu board and speakers while they

17:48are positioned on the west side of the

17:50property close to the residential um

17:53properties, they have been positioned um

17:56to face as far away from the residential

17:59properties as practicable

18:03and pedestrian walkways are required

18:06through um to provide safe passage

18:08through and across drive-through lanes.

18:11There is a new walkway proposed to

18:13connect the the building walkways to the

18:16public sidewalk. I will note that this

18:19walkway at the south side of the

18:21building runs between two of the

18:24pullthrough parking spaces. Um, I would

18:27like the planning commission to consider

18:29um the practical safety of having a

18:31walkway between two two vehicles that

18:34may be pulling ahead and whether this um

18:38last pull ahead space might be

18:40eliminated from the plan.

18:44I will also note that there are four

18:46parallel parking spaces um in the

18:49northeast corner of the development.

18:52These are intended to be employee

18:55parking spaces. And I would also like to

18:57the planning commission to consider

18:59whether a walkway to connect the

19:02building sidewalk to these parking

19:04spaces should be incorporated in the

19:07plan.

19:10The use requirements for drive-throughs

19:12also um speak to the landscape

19:15screening. A minimum of a 10-ft buffer

19:17is required. In this case, the buffer is

19:2018 feet, exceeding the 10- foot

19:22requirement.

19:2419 new trees will be planted, and there

19:27is an existing 6-ft wood privacy fence

19:30that will remain.

19:33Um, the landscape plan does not show um

19:36all of the required shrubs that would be

19:38needed and um the the landscaping will

19:42need to meet the minimum standards. I

19:44would ask the planning commission to

19:46consider if um the minimum minimum

19:49standards for landscaping is adequate to

19:51screen the drive-thru use from the

19:53neighboring residential properties to

19:55the west.

19:58And then the last site plan element I'd

20:00like to discuss is the exit from the

20:03property. The traffic study um described

20:07that um there will be a single exit lane

20:11as you see here and that is controlled

20:13by the signal. Um 68% of the vehicles

20:17exiting the site will need to wait for

20:18that signal change to either go straight

20:21onto I96 or turn left to go north on

20:24Planefield.

20:25And at peak times when um there's

20:29anticipated

20:30potentially 45 vehicles per hour, um I

20:34would like the planning commission to

20:35discuss with the applicant um any

20:37potential uh traffic conflicts or

20:42circulation conflicts that might occur

20:44if vehicles are queuing to wait for that

20:46signal change to exit the site.

20:49And then lastly, the application um was

20:52pre presented to the Cresten

20:54Neighborhood Association. Um the Cresten

20:58board is supportive of redevelopment and

21:01an active use on this site. Um however,

21:03they did not submit a letter um because

21:07they were not comfortable supporting a

21:10drive-thru use.

21:14So in some

21:17I would like the planning commission to

21:18consider the the consistency of the

21:21project with the recommendations of the

21:23community master plan, the building

21:25materials, transparency and orientation

21:29that are presented um whether they are

21:32in line with the purpose and intent of

21:33the MCNC zone district. whether the the

21:37site can support the use given this

21:39constraints of the irregular shape and

21:42the fixed drive entrance

21:45and the drive-thru regulations whether

21:47um potential negative impacts to

21:50neighboring residential properties um

21:52has been minimized. Are there any

21:55questions for me?

21:57Thank you, Laura. Any questions for

21:58Laura?

22:02Nope. Okay, we will welcome the

22:04applicant up.

22:10Hello, my name is Gary Kilgore. Um, I

22:12will be the operator for the property if

22:14we were granted uh the use for it. Uh,

22:16just wanted to come up really quick and

22:17put the the face to the project up here.

22:19Um, I'm a local of Grand Rapids. I grew

22:21up in Rockford, graduated out of Lel.

22:23Uh, spent six years living between

22:25Easttown um on Paris Street. Uh, two

22:27years living up in the Crestston

22:28neighborhood up on Aberdine. Um, still

22:31have friends and family that live around

22:32Huff Park through the Riverside area. Uh

22:34currently I'm the owner of the Culver's

22:36in Greenville, Michigan and Rockford,

22:38Michigan. Uh both my restaurants have

22:40been consistently recognized as top of

22:41system. We're currently 10% the top of

22:43guest satisfaction. Uh multiple

22:45operational and hospitality awards

22:47throughout the years. Um just really

22:49excited to get through the area. We've

22:50been working a long time on this

22:51project. We started working on uh

22:52Planefield Avenue in uh 2019. Uh so

22:55about seven years we've been working on

22:56this project, trying to get something in

22:57the area. Um we're committed to it. Uh

22:59my family lives here, my friend lives

23:01here. Um I'm excited for everything that

23:02we can do for the community. Um, one

23:04thing that Culver's requires is 1% of

23:06gross sales goes back to uh, community

23:08organizations. Um, the average Culver's

23:10does between four and $5 million a year.

23:12Uh, 1% of that would be 40 to $50,000

23:15per year uh, into local charities,

23:17nonprofits, uh, youth athletics, things

23:19like that that we do on a consistent

23:20basis. Um, and things we love to

23:22support. So, um, really excited for the

23:24project. Um, the wonderful things we can

23:25do with you guys. Um, looking forward to

23:27it. Thank you. [snorts]

23:32My name is Matt Cole. I'm with Rosin and

23:34Associates. I'm the engineer for the

23:36project. So, uh, appreciate everything

23:38that Laura explained. So, that leaves a

23:40lot less for me to cover. I just wanted

23:42to kind of recap a little bit that, um,

23:45for this site, we have, uh, when we

23:47develop it. Currently, it's a vacant

23:49Denny's building. And while we've been

23:52developing this and the plans, we've had

23:54calls from the police. There's people

23:56out there, uh, taking equipment off the

23:58roof. Uh we went there to check on the

24:00condition of this existing signpole

24:02along the expressway. There's there were

24:04seven homeless people sleeping out in

24:06the parking lot. So I definitely think

24:07it'd be good for this property to get

24:10developed as soon as possible. So um

24:13that's one thing that I just wanted to

24:14touch on. And then also when we went

24:17with this layout, we didn't try and go

24:19for the minimum on anything. Uh as Laura

24:21mentioned, we have um more green space

24:25along the west property line uh than

24:27were required. We moved the drive-thru

24:30farther away from the west property line

24:32uh than required. We understand that,

24:35you know, having the drive-thru right

24:37next to those residences might not be

24:39ideal. Um but because of the layout

24:41constraints on this, I mean, we worked

24:43with city staff. We brought multiple

24:45different layouts with the building

24:47shifted to the north and trying

24:49something on the east. this is really

24:51the only thing that would work well

24:53operationally and meet the requirements

24:55from the the ZBA to get that building as

24:57close to the road as possible. So,

24:59that's kind of where we're at now. Um,

25:02and as Laura mentioned, we don't have

25:04all the shrubs along the west. What we

25:06did is we put more trees than required

25:08because our thinking is a three-foot

25:10shrub on our side of a six foot high

25:12solidwood fence isn't going to do the

25:14neighbors any good. So what we did is we

25:16swapped out those shrubs and put in

25:18additional evergreen trees which will

25:20help benefit the neighbors with that

25:22buffering. So that's kind of how we

25:23approached that. Again, if city says,

25:26you know what, let's do less evergreen

25:28and throw in shrubs, we'll definitely do

25:29it. We just try to give the neighbors

25:31the best that we could. Um, also wanted

25:34to talk to uh oh, explain our

25:38drive-through lanes. So I'm not sure if

25:39you're all familiar or not, but Culver's

25:41what they do. Unlike a a Burger King or

25:43a Denny's which might have prepared the

25:45food ahead of time, they don't make

25:47anything until you order it. So, you go

25:49through the drive-thru, you place your

25:51orders, you go up to the window, you

25:53pay, and then unless you're just getting

25:56a beverage or maybe an ice cream, you

25:58pull up, and then the runners will will

26:00bring the food out to you. And that's

26:01why we need those six pull- ahead spaces

26:04that we show on the plan that maybe your

26:06typical uh restaurant wouldn't have. Um,

26:09and that's because they'll pull up and

26:11that way we can keep the orders going

26:12and then they'll have the runners bring

26:14out the food. And then Culver's has 15

26:17to 18 employees where, you know, maybe a

26:19typical restaurant has closer to six.

26:21And so that's why we have we needed more

26:24parking on the site than than what we

26:26might normally have. So that's why we'll

26:28have those four in the back. The

26:29thinking is that'll be staff and um

26:33staff will park there. It won't have as

26:35much turnover. there'll be less conflict

26:37with uh with the drive-thru. Um so

26:41that's kind of how we laid that out

26:42there. Um and then this is having a

26:46drive-thru in these pull ahead lanes.

26:48This is typical for Culver's. And so I I

26:50know Laura touched on the fact where

26:51we've got uh access from the sidewalk

26:54system coming up and and going through

26:56that drive-thru. That that's typical. We

26:59have to do that just because the

27:01drive-through has to go around the

27:02building. and and so what our thoughts

27:04were on how we laid it. Originally, we

27:06had additional pull ahead spaces on the

27:08south side of that drive. City asked us

27:10to remove those, so we did. Um, but as

27:14far as safety goes, we're thinking it's

27:16safer to have that extra pull ahead

27:18space on the other side of the of the

27:21walkway because if a car is sitting

27:23there waiting to get food, then

27:25someone's not able to blast through that

27:27area as quickly. Um and so and

27:30operationally we need every bit that we

27:33can get for those pull- ahead spaces. So

27:34that's why we've um requested that one

27:37to stay. Uh let's see what else we have.

27:40I just wanted to touch on the previous

27:42use that was open 24 hours. This we're

27:45not even open in the morning. So it'll

27:46be a lot less hours and a lot less time

27:50of impact to the neighbors. Um we did

27:53get positive feedback uh from the

27:55Crestston Neighborhood Association. We

27:58did go out door to door on all the

27:59neighbors and knocked. Uh the people

28:01that weren't there, we left a business

28:02card and request if they had any

28:05questions to let us know. We talked to

28:06three people while we were there.

28:08They're all for the project. They all

28:10were excited about it and and mentioning

28:12that they love to be able to just the

28:14fact that they can walk over and not

28:16have to drive. So, we haven't had any

28:18negative feedback on this project at

28:20all. So, that's been great. Um

28:24and then trying to think if there was

28:27anything else. Oh, and then to touch on

28:30the the traffic. So the track we did

28:32provide a traffic study to both the city

28:34and M DOT. Um it shows that there will

28:39not be a negative impact and that the

28:42most the peak hour the traffic we see

28:45leaving the site will be about 63 cars

28:47an hour. So just over one a minute. and

28:51we went out there and they they timed

28:53the traffic signal and it's about a 100

28:55second cycle. So, worst case scenario,

28:57you're looking at two cars leaving per

28:59light. Uh, and so again, that's why we

29:02look at the driveway and and it's not a

29:04long throat, but on our busiest hours,

29:07just needing to have two cars get out

29:09that light, we think that's absolutely

29:12fine and sufficient. So, um, I'm here to

29:14answer any questions that you may have

29:17and that's it.

29:19>> All right. Thank you. questions.

29:22>> Um yeah, uh thanks for your explanation

29:26and for the plan. Um I

29:29I'm wondering about the um the traffic

29:33leaving. Like it looks like there's two

29:35lanes coming into the parking lot. Is it

29:38possible to make one coming in and two

29:40going out if if that's where the delay

29:42is going to be? Um, and then wondering

29:45about uh pedestrian connection to those

29:48four spaces up at the top. Uh, where

29:51would they essentially enter the

29:53building and are they crossing through

29:57the drive-thru to do that? And also the

30:00additional

30:01uh pedestrian connection at the bottom

30:04going through those two um pull ahead

30:07spots as well.

30:09>> So let's see the first one regarding

30:11traffic. Um, MDOT was very clear. They

30:14didn't want us to change that driveway

30:16entrance. They said they want one out

30:18and one in. So, we said, "Okay, that's

30:20it. That's the existing width that's out

30:22there right now." You're right. It is a

30:24wide in and a narrower out, but we said,

30:28"Okay, you're you're the pros on this.

30:30We won't touch it. We understand that

30:32there's 30 plus thousand cars a day, so

30:34we kind of kept it as is." Um, as far as

30:38to the north, if if city, again, our

30:41thoughts are four cars out there,

30:44workers only. So, someone crossing, you

30:46know, every four hours or so or four

30:49four cars every four to six hour shift.

30:51If if you desire a sidewalk out that

30:54way, we could take that sidewalk uh that

30:56goes past the dumpster and we could

30:58extend that out. That that's not a deal

31:00breaker. And then lastly, I kind of

31:03touched on it already, but that pull

31:04ahead spot. We really need that

31:06operationally, and we think actually

31:08having it, it's safer for people who

31:10have to walk across the drive-thru

31:12anyway, but now you've got another car

31:14there to make sure that traffic stays

31:16slower.

31:20>> And I guess one other question is the

31:22the six foot fence that's along the west

31:25side of the property, does that run the

31:27entire length of the property?

31:29That's my recollection. Yes.

31:31>> Okay.

31:33>> Thanks.

31:34>> I had a question about the fence as

31:36well. Do we have any What's the

31:38condition of the fence?

31:40>> My understanding is it's uh in good

31:42condition. Okay. So, that's why because

31:44the other thought was, well, do we tear

31:46it down and we put a new fence up on the

31:48property line because it's inside our

31:49property 5T. the fence appears to be in

31:52good condition and we thought we didn't

31:54want to upset any neighbors by all of a

31:56sudden them perceived losing five feet

31:58of land. So we thought well we can keep

32:00it there and that's another reason why

32:02we made that green space buffer on that

32:04side of the property bigger to make sure

32:06we get trees in there still got

32:11>> I have a question about the transparency

32:13on the southside. It sounds like you're

32:152% away from conforming. Is there an

32:17opportunity to get to conforming?

32:19>> Yes, I talked to the architects. They

32:20said there's two windows they can widen

32:22four to six inches to meet that. So that

32:23won't be a problem.

32:24>> Thank you.

32:29>> Yeah, I'm glad that you answered the

32:31transparency. It seems like an easy one.

32:33Um is there a reason that your materials

32:36are not meeting the requirement um

32:38material requirements of the zone

32:40district?

32:41>> Uh the these are the standard ones. Um

32:45usually Culver's um the buildings look

32:48really really nice. So if there's

32:50something that needs to change, we can

32:53go ahead and address that.

32:54Unfortunately, I'm not the architect, so

32:56I'm not the expert on that, but I can

32:57relay the message.

32:59>> Was there an attempt, you know, to

33:01>> So So my understanding, and I guess

33:03Laura can correct me if I'm wrong, is

33:04the south side of the building meets

33:06them as long as you're okay with the

33:08stone being a substitute for the

33:10masonary. And then on as far as the the

33:13other side of the building, I guess the

33:15question is, is the ephus too much? And

33:18I know that um I think they have Hardy

33:21Plank or or something else that we could

33:23put in if Ephus is seen as not

33:25acceptable.

33:26>> Thanks.

33:34>> Go ahead. Uh the two spaces to the

33:38closest to playing field there that are

33:40kind of on the one the right hand side

33:42of that drive out, are those intended to

33:44be parking spaces or are those part of

33:46the sort of uh the what do you whatever

33:48you call them where you wait for your

33:49food, right?

33:50>> Pull ahead. Yeah.

33:50>> The thought is if we need those as pull

33:52ahead, we'll use those. We have that

33:55option. But um if we don't, then they'd

33:58be parking because like I said, because

34:00we have 15 to 18 employees, we need a

34:02lot more parking than a typical. So,

34:04this is low for us, but it it's what we

34:07have.

34:08>> Yeah. Okay. And then

34:09>> we had other ones, but we had to change

34:10it for the PBA. [clears throat]

34:12>> Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Okay. Uh, and

34:15then I I know you said some stuff about

34:18parking. I know there's a study in

34:19there. It's it's it's

34:21deep. Um,

34:24talk to just if you could help me

34:25understand again the exiting. So, you

34:27have a light that has a 100 second cycle

34:30approximately.

34:31>> Yes.

34:31>> So, you're getting

34:34What? Two to three cars out.

34:36>> One to one to two on the peak hour. Yep.

34:38On average.

34:38>> Okay. How many? And And are you certain

34:41that the the amount of traffic that

34:43you're processing at a peak time isn't

34:45going to end up with five cars in three

34:47different directions trying to get out

34:48of that parking lot?

34:49>> Yeah, that's what the numbers say. So,

34:52let's assume that the first car that

34:54gets there, you know, because only what,

34:55a third of them, I think this traffic

34:56study said, will turn right. So,

34:58assuming they want to go straight or

34:59left, they're going to block it until

35:01they get out. But again, the peak hour,

35:04we only have 63 cars leaving and we've

35:06got a green light every 100 seconds. So

35:09that's why we're like, "Okay, so we'll

35:11have two cars. It turns light green and

35:14and they can go ahead and pull out."

35:16>> Yeah. Okay. All right. I'm set.

35:20>> Um I have a question on the the front of

35:23the building there, the south side. Is

35:26that outdoor seating in front?

35:29>> Yes. And is there an entrance to the

35:32building from there?

35:33>> There isn't. Um, again, I don't know if

35:36you're familiar with a lot of Culver's,

35:37they like to have them come in because

35:40obviously when people come in, either

35:41they need the restroom or they're

35:43placing an order generally. And so

35:45that's why they have those those doors

35:47closer to the order. So that way if

35:48you're sitting in the front,

35:51it's a little bit quieter, right? Not as

35:53chaotic. You're not trying to eat dinner

35:54and you have a ton of people walking

35:55right by. So that's why they they don't

35:58put that that door there. They have them

36:00to go to the patio. You go out the side

36:02and then come down from either end. So

36:04usually if someone goes out there and

36:06they're waiting for their food, um the

36:08door on the drive-through side is where

36:10staff will run out and bring their food

36:12to them.

36:13>> Um and then that's how that's usually

36:16facilitated.

36:19>> Okay.

36:22>> Other questions?

36:26Nope. Okay, then you may have a seat.

36:28Um, I will open up the public hearing.

36:30If you would like to make comments on

36:32this case, please approach the

36:34microphone.

36:39Seeing none, I will close the public

36:41hearing um and turn to commissioners.

36:54Fine, I'll start. Um, so I think I think

36:59important things to consider here is

37:00this is a pretty unique situation. It's

37:03stuffed between an expressway and

37:06residential housing. So,

37:09um,

37:13yeah, I don't know if appropriate is the

37:15right word, but I think it's okay for

37:16this location. Um, I think [snorts] the

37:19use is acceptable for this location

37:20given it's

37:22um straight off of an offramp from an

37:24expressway and [snorts]

37:26be really difficult to develop outside

37:28of

37:30a large mixeduse project. Um, you know,

37:34I don't think there's very much

37:37I don't think there's very many uses you

37:39would see in this location that would um

37:42be more ped, you know, be pedestrian

37:44oriented and serve the surrounding

37:46residential. So,

37:48um I think I'm okay with use

37:51the

37:54I think for the landscaping and the

37:56fence. I think as long as the fence

37:58stays and it's in good repair, that I

37:59think that solves a lot of you headlight

38:01issues amongst other things. Um and so

38:06>> looks like it's in good repair from the

38:07Google Maps.

38:09>> Yeah. So, I think um I don't have any

38:11issues meeting the minimum standards for

38:13landscaping as long as the fence remains

38:15in place.

38:16>> [sighs]

38:17>> Um what were the other things we were

38:20supposed to talk about? Uh certainly

38:22don't have any issue with the

38:26um the emergency lane or the pass the

38:28bypass lane crossing over that 25 ft

38:31barrier. Uh the number of cars that lane

38:34shouldn't have cars sitting there idling

38:36like you might have in a drive-thru. And

38:38I'm assuming that's the concern.

38:41>> Um

38:42>> building materials. I knew somebody's

38:45going to make me talk about building

38:46materials. I don't know if I have a good

38:47answer about that yet. So, I'm going to

38:49sit on that one and let somebody else

38:50talk.

38:54>> I can I I think um you know I mean I

38:57know ephus is sort of a dirty word and

39:01um

39:02however I think it can be done well. Uh

39:06it can be done appropriately. Um, and I

39:09and I

39:11the the the Culver's that is on

39:14uh M37 East Belt Line between Burton and

39:1728th Street um has instead of Ephus, it

39:21is all I think it might be Hardy. It it

39:24looks though like it's vinyl sided and

39:26to be honest with you, I don't think

39:27that's better. Um, so I think for me,

39:30I'm I'm comfortable with this. I like

39:32the differing materials in there. The

39:35three, you know, really four with the

39:37with the awnings. Um, I think the other

39:40culvers that I've seen, a little older

39:42variations, have more of a a broad

39:45consistency of materials, and I don't

39:47think it it provides the same detail um

39:51or appearance that this does. So, I

39:53think I'm comfortable with the Ephus um

39:57given that and it's not on the front

39:59facade, uh which will be the primary,

40:01you know, that you'll see as you drive

40:03by. So, I I think I'm comfortable with

40:04it. I like the idea of increasing the

40:07transparency just ever so slightly to

40:09match that. um

40:12somewhat concerned if I lived in one of

40:14those three houses there um with the

40:17with the uh drive-thru speaker until

40:2111:00 p.m. Um

40:25but I don't know that there's, you know,

40:27too much way around that and I think

40:28they're they're doing a pretty good job

40:30given the situation they have to work

40:31with. So, um, and I would like to see

40:36the sidewalk, uh, extend from the

40:39dumpster area to at least the curb on

40:42the south side of where the drive-thru

40:43starts to give an employee. They're

40:45going to have to, you know, kind of run

40:47across the drive-through lane there.

40:49But, um,

40:51you know, I don't think of that as the

40:53same as even running across a parking

40:54lot. They're people are generally, you

40:56know, moving a little slower, pretend

40:58silly queued there. So, I think with

41:00caution and it's not and it is employee

41:03like most likely using that spot. So,

41:04I'm okay with that. Although, I do think

41:06it'd be nice to have that sidewalk

41:07extend just so they don't have to go

41:09through the whole parking lot.

41:11Um, and on the south side, the sidewalk

41:13between the between the um sort of

41:16stacked cars there, I don't think that

41:19bothers me either. I do think that car

41:21that's that's going to end up east of

41:24that of that crosswalk,

41:26I I buy it. I think it it does give you

41:30pause if you were not going through the

41:32drive-thru. If you went into the

41:33restaurant and you're pulling out there,

41:34there's a car sitting there. I think

41:35you're going to hopefully um move

41:37through that space a little slowly

41:39because of that car stack there. So, I

41:41think I'm pretty comfortable with that

41:43as well.

41:51Yeah, I generally agree with my fellow

41:54commissioners. I also don't have a

41:55problem with the use of the materials

41:57here. Um, and as far as like the

42:02entrance being on the side of the

42:04building and not the front of the

42:05building, I'm also okay with that given

42:08the use and um the way the the the front

42:13is designed with the awnings um and the

42:17and the the seating out front. So, I I

42:19don't have a a problem with that either.

42:22and I generally yeah approve of the

42:25plan.

42:27>> I agree with thoughts of other

42:31commissioners. My one of my main

42:33concerns is the just that the condition

42:35of the fence is such that it provides

42:37adequate screening. So I don't know if

42:39that's something we make up one of the

42:42conditions without having any I mean

42:44without having any graphic depictions of

42:47what it currently looks like. Um,

42:51I didn't hear any mention of the poll

42:53signs in the so wondering how we feel

42:57about I mean I I personally kind of

43:00echoing Commissioner Swam's statements

43:02of the unusualness of the parcel itself

43:06and where it's located. I really don't

43:09personally have an issue with them

43:11keeping both pull signs.

43:17I feel the other direction.

43:19>> Same. Yeah.

43:21>> Yeah. You you don't get an opportunity

43:22to get rid of non-conforming pole signs

43:24very often. And if we have them, I think

43:26that we should take them

43:33others.

43:36I uh am in support of this project as

43:38well. I'm noticing a draft condition uh

43:41about one of the pull ahead spaces being

43:44removed. I'm just curious about that as

43:45we've not discussed it.

43:50>> Yeah, the one on the trying to get my

43:53orientation. I think the east side of

43:54the walkway. Yes.

43:56>> Yeah, that was the intent, right, Laura?

43:58Yep.

44:00Right.

44:00>> So, I think we've heard some folks are

44:03comfortable with it as is. If there are

44:06others that

44:09would like to see it. Yeah, go ahead. If

44:11you

44:11>> No,

44:13>> okay. Sorry that I missed that.

44:15>> All good.

44:21>> I can make a motion for

44:23>> Fantastic. Yeah.

44:25>> Okay.

44:32Forgive me.

44:33Now therefore be resolved the planning

44:35commission approves the special land use

44:36and site plan review requests of KR

44:38restaurant group Michael Brand to

44:40construct a drive-thru for proposed fast

44:42casual restaurant at 3127 Planefield

44:44Avenue Northeast for the following

44:46reasons. The proposed use will be

44:48consistent with the purpose and intent

44:50of the master plan and zoning ordinance,

44:51including the zone district because the

44:52proposed use will support the 2024

44:54community master plan intent of a

44:56community activity center to provide

44:58places to live, work, and shop around

44:59key intersections and will reflect the

45:02purpose and intent of the MCNC zone

45:04district to accommodate vehicles at an

45:06appropriate level while still

45:08emphasizing the importance of

45:09pedestrians in public transportation in

45:11the built environment.

45:13Proposed use will meet the site plan

45:14review standards of section 5.12.0e. and

45:16OEE because the proposed development

45:18will not impede the normal and orderly

45:20development or improvement of

45:21surrounding property. Drive aisles and

45:23other elements are designed to promote

45:24safe and efficient movement within and

45:26existing

45:30the within and exiting the site to the

45:32public roadway and safe and convenient

45:35and well- definfined vehicular, bicycle

45:36and pedestrian circulation within and to

45:38and from the site will be provided.

45:42The proposed use will be compatible,

45:44harmonious, and appropriate with the

45:46character and uses of the neighborhood,

45:47adjacent properties, and the natural

45:49environment because the intensity of the

45:50use and site layout are appropriate to

45:53its surroundings and the building

45:54materials transparency and orientation

45:56are appropriate.

45:58Proposed use will not have adverse

45:59effects on the neighborhood because the

46:01landscape buffer will adequately screen

46:02the drive-thru use from the adjacent

46:04residential uses and adequate vehicular

46:06stacking will be provided.

46:09The proposed use will not be

46:11detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to

46:12existing or future uses or to the public

46:14welfare by reason of excessive traffic,

46:16odors, or noise because the city traffic

46:18engineer in MDOT concurred with the

46:20conclusions of the traffic study. That

46:22the new drive-through would not

46:23adversely impact the surrounding roadway

46:25system as a significant portion of

46:26visits to the site will be from vehicles

46:28already traveling to the site by the

46:30site. and the position and location of

46:32menu boards and speakers will be and the

46:35proposed landscape buffer will

46:36effectively mitigate the effects of

46:38noise and glare from the drive-through

46:40use on the adjacent residential

46:41properties. Proposed use would not

46:44adversely affect the walkability of the

46:45neighborhood, impair pedestrian

46:46circulation patterns, disrupt the

46:48continuity of the urban street, or

46:49otherwise hinder the creation of a

46:50pedestrian oriented environment because

46:53pedestrian sidewalks will provide

46:54additional connections to and within the

46:57site.

46:595 A, adequate public or private

47:00infrastructure and services do already

47:02exist and will be provided at no

47:04additional cost. And 5B, the proposed

47:06use would not be detrimental to the

47:08financial stability and economic welfare

47:10of the city because the proposed

47:12improvements will encourage additional

47:13investment in the neighborhood.

47:16Be it further resolve the following

47:18conditions of approval shall apply to

47:19this project. Standard condition set a

47:21approvals. One that the application plan

47:24submitted by the applicant and signed

47:26dated in stamp by the planning director

47:27shall constitute the approved plans

47:29except if plan elements do not meet

47:30ordinance requirements and or as amended

47:32in this resolution. Two, that the use

47:34shall operate according to the

47:35application and per testimony. Three,

47:38that this approval does not include any

47:40proposed signs or in any future signs

47:42shall be subject to the requirements of

47:43article 15 of the ordinance and permits

47:45received prior to installation.

47:48Four, that a land use development

47:49services, LUD's permit, building permit,

47:51and all other required permits be

47:52obtained from the city of Grand Rapids

47:54prior to construction, demolition, or

47:56operation. Five, that any expansion of

47:58this approved special land use requires

48:01an additional special land use review

48:02and approval by the planning commission.

48:05Six, that the proposed use will comply

48:07with all other applicable city

48:09ordinances and policies and all state

48:11laws. Seven, that this approval should

48:13take effect 16 calendar days after the

48:15date of the planning commission's

48:16decision.

48:18uh and two that this approval shall

48:21permit the following building elements

48:22consistent with submitted elevations.

48:26Uh I'm going to strike A. So A will be

48:28primary building materials including

48:29architectural aluminum cladding, stone

48:31veneer as a masonry base and ephus on

48:33the building sides and B primary

48:36building entrance and orientation to the

48:38east facing

48:40to the east facing the parking lot.

48:43I'm going to strike two. So, three, that

48:46a pedestrian walkway to connect the

48:48northerly employee parking spaces in the

48:50building walkway shall be incorporated.

48:52Four, that the landscaping west of the

48:54fence adjacent to the residential

48:56property shall meet the buffer

48:57requirements of section 5112.

49:00I'm going to add to that that the fence

49:02uh verify the fence is in good repair

49:04and uh repair uh missing

49:08panels as necessary.

49:12maybe better language for that. But and

49:14then five, that the non-conforming pole

49:15sign at the rear of the property shall

49:17be removed.

49:22>> Did you Oh, sorry. That's okay. Um, did

49:26you want to modify for um I didn't hear

49:30concern with the elimination of some

49:32shrubs and supplemented with trees? And

49:35so if if we're comfortable with that um

49:39proposal, then I think you can strike

49:41that condition

49:43with the and then supplement for that

49:46the 6ft tall solid fence along the west

49:49side lot line shall remain and shall be

49:51kept in good condition.

49:53>> That's fine. I would accept that

49:54modification.

49:57>> Okay.

49:58Okay. Motion in support. Any additional

50:00discussion?

50:02All those in favor say I. I. Any

50:05opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very

50:07much.

50:10Okay, our next case is 2036 Sweet Aka

50:182110 East Belt Line.

50:22And

50:25Elizabeth, walk us through this.

50:34Okay.

50:37A major amendment is requested to the

50:39village at Naps Crossing Development, a

50:42mixeduse commercial development approved

50:45as a PRD in 2014. The request is to

50:51increase the number of drive-throughs

50:53within the development.

50:59The development is at the northeast

51:03corner of Nap in the east belt line.

51:07Uh it's anchored um by a uh DNW uh store

51:13and then um we have uh a a large strip

51:16center and a number of out um out

51:20buildings. Um and it is uh one of the um

51:25the outlots that we'll be discussing

51:27today. Um, in 2014 when this was

51:32approved by the city commission, the

51:35adopted ordinance for the planned

51:37redevelopment district allowed the

51:40project to incorporate a maximum of two

51:44nonrest drive-thrus. Um, they could be

51:47food related but lower um lower volume.

51:51One of them is a pot belly and we

51:55allowed that because it's not like a

51:57McDonald's or something like that that

51:59has that higher volume. Um, and then the

52:02other one's a PNC bank. So, we already

52:05have two drive-throughs within the

52:08development.

52:10Um, and uh, the drive-thru that is being

52:15proposed today operates a little bit

52:19different than um, some of the typical

52:22drive-thrus. I mean, it actually uh

52:24operates differently than the Culver's

52:26that we just heard about where uh you go

52:29there, you put in your order, and then

52:30they make the food. In this case, um uh

52:34Chipotle is proposing um an online or

52:38mobile app ordering only and then you um

52:42you pick up your food at the window. So,

52:45there'll be no ordering associated with

52:49this setup.

52:57the [sighs] let's see here the

53:01let's see here um

53:06I'll actually go I described I was

53:10describing um some of the um the the way

53:16that um the operational procedures um

53:19like I Um everything will have to be

53:21ordered online um through the app and

53:24everything will be uh paid for in

53:26advance. Um they're calling it the

53:29Chipotle lane and uh in the in the

53:33packet there is a a traffic study or a

53:37queuing analysis I should say that was

53:40uh prepared um by looking at other um

53:46other fac uh similar uh Chipotle

53:48facilities. Um and because of the way

53:52they operate, only four vehicle stacking

53:58spaces are being proposed.

54:02We did pass that by our um traffic

54:07safety engineer and he did concur with

54:10the findings that the four spaces should

54:14be sufficient.

54:16Uh let's see here. Um,

54:20as I mentioned previously, we have two

54:22other drive-thrus. Um, we have the pot

54:26belly uh restaurant, we have a PNC bank,

54:30and then uh the building that I'm

54:32pointing to um building L is the subject

54:38building. It uh contains three

54:41storefront suites. It previously held a

54:45physical therapy

54:47um

54:49uh office um that uh the Chipotle will

54:53replace. There's a hair salon in the

54:55middle and then a mattress store on the

54:58end.

55:00The building has parking on three sides.

55:04Um I don't know which one I can see

55:07best. Um you can see parking in the

55:09front and on this um and on both both

55:13sides.

55:20The back of the building is currently

55:23improved uh with uh two dumpster

55:26enclosures. So we've got back of house

55:28operations at the back. [snorts]

55:37The way this operation um is intended to

55:41work is that I think it will be better

55:43if I go to the next slide. Um that

55:47traffic will enter in the back. the um

55:50one of the uh trash enclosures will be

55:53removed. Um and uh customers will will

55:57enter at the back, drive around the side

56:01and then pick up their meal and exit.

56:05To facilitate this, all the parking

56:07spaces on the north side as well as

56:12several in the front will be removed. Um

56:15that is a total of

56:19uh 16 um shared parking spaces will be

56:24removed. In addition, two of the parking

56:28spaces in the front will be designated

56:31for pickup parking spaces.

56:34Uh a uh a nice outdoor seating area is

56:38proposed in front of the building.

56:42The trash enclosure that will need to be

56:45removed is proposed to be replaced at

56:49the end of a parking aisle um just east

56:53of the building. Uh it uh it is

56:57identified on the plan that um it will

57:01be landscaped but the that treatment has

57:04not been identified.

57:08Um, additionally, I would like some

57:11clarification about um the nature of the

57:15the barrier. I believe it's going to be

57:18a raised curb. Um, and I'm going to

57:21assume that it will be landscaped, but

57:24I'd like some clarification on that.

57:35Um

57:37I think I have gone over everything that

57:40I need to. Um so in some we're looking

57:44at what is a major amendment to a

57:49planned redevelopment district to allow

57:52a pickuponly drive-thru lane for a

57:55proposed Chipotle. Do you have any

57:58questions for me? Thanks, Elizabeth. Any

58:01questions?

58:03Nope. All right. Um, I'll invite the

58:05applicant up to give us some additional

58:07information.

58:12I'm Bill Mast. I'm with the I'm one of

58:15the owners in the development. Yeah, we

58:18took this over for the failed state it

58:19was in with Steve Benner 14 years ago or

58:22so. and uh feel like we've

58:25we've been told we've done a nice job of

58:27building it, maintaining it, filling it,

58:29and keeping it a quality addition to the

58:31area. Um it it's it is a pickup window,

58:36not a drive-thru. You drive through the

58:40area, but it's to pick up your food

58:42that's already been ordered and

58:43prepared. So, it will it's only supposed

58:45to have the one car at the window for in

58:48Q. Uh the reduction of 14 spaces

58:52is nonconsequential. We're I think on

58:56the whole 32 acre project of quarter

58:58million square ft or so we're 471 cars

59:01overparked over the requirement right

59:03now. So it does not uh affect that. Uh I

59:07I in my write up answering the standards

59:11number 2A

59:13I realize that I I did a drawing. Does

59:16this thing work on the ceiling?

59:20No.

59:21>> Show a drawing.

59:22>> I did a little drawing that shows what

59:25any house on Dunigan would be able to

59:28see between DNW and the next building to

59:30its north. Two houses 930 ft plus away

59:35behind trees might be able to see the

59:37back of that building. And I guess if uh

59:40if they could see that in the dead of

59:42winter, they would see effectively, I

59:45guess, 12 fewer cars than they could see

59:47today in the 14 parking spots that get

59:49eliminated.

59:50>> If you want us to look more closely at

59:52it, you can pass it down the dis. Yeah.

1:00:00Uh I did just for context, I did a

1:00:03little drive through study the other day

1:00:05and in the northwest

1:00:07uh quadrant of that intersection. I

1:00:10counted in the Celebration Village area.

1:00:12I counted 20 food service related

1:00:14establishments for a total of four uh

1:00:18drive-through windows.

1:00:20And it not all for drive through for the

1:00:23food service, but there are four

1:00:24drive-throughs and there are 20 food

1:00:26service establishments. That includes

1:00:28what looks to be a Lake Michigan Credit

1:00:31Union replacing the IHOP. The Southwest

1:00:34and Meer area, eight food service, six

1:00:36windows. We have nine food service with

1:00:39this. Uh this would be a total of three

1:00:41for us.

1:00:43Um,

1:00:45I don't know that I have a lot more to

1:00:47add from what Elizabeth said so

1:00:49succinctly and but I'd be happy to

1:00:51answer any questions.

1:00:53>> Would you confirm the um the nature of

1:00:57that barrier along the

1:00:58>> Yeah, that'll be just 6 in curb and we

1:01:00can land we will find the landscaping

1:01:02within it. And then so

1:01:05we had the queuing study which I

1:01:07appreciate and in our in our staff

1:01:10report it says both that the length of

1:01:15the queue length of four cars or fewer

1:01:17is expected approximately 98% of the

1:01:20time but then it also says the queue

1:01:22exceeds four cars for approximately four

1:01:24hours a day which seems pretty

1:01:27>> four hours a day

1:01:28>> seems like a

1:01:32Uh that's that's

1:01:34>> staff report.

1:01:35>> That's their study. So they would know

1:01:36it better than we do because uh they've

1:01:38studied many many

1:01:39>> Oh 15 minutes. Okay. I see that. Okay.

1:01:42>> It must have just been a typo that I'm

1:01:44seeing. All right. Thank you for that.

1:01:46No, that's fine. Thank you.

1:01:50>> Oh, and I I did uh get emails that both

1:01:53engineering and traffic have uh noted no

1:01:55issues with this application.

1:01:58>> Great. Great.

1:01:59>> Not not not our engineers, the cities.

1:02:01>> Thank you. Any questions for the

1:02:04applicant at this time?

1:02:07>> No. Okay, you can have a seat. Um, we'll

1:02:09open up the public hearing. If you would

1:02:12like to provide comments on this case,

1:02:14please approach the microphone.

1:02:23Seeing none, I will close the public

1:02:25hearing. commissioners.

1:02:32>> I think non-consequential was the word

1:02:34that he said that I'm like, you know,

1:02:36it's

1:02:39that development is fully commercial

1:02:41suburban. Like that that area is so

1:02:44overparked. It's not to Elizabeth's

1:02:47point a drive-thru like McDonald's that

1:02:49has this constant kind of fast food

1:02:52feel.

1:02:55Um I I just don't see any major negative

1:03:00impact over time on this though I invite

1:03:04my fellow commissioners to disagree if

1:03:06they do.

1:03:08>> I I agree with Commissioner Hendrickk. I

1:03:12I don't see I mean that's it's within

1:03:14the character of the overall

1:03:17development.

1:03:19Um I don't have any issues with it

1:03:21personally.

1:03:23I think where we've uh struggled a

1:03:25little bit with maybe Chipotle

1:03:26specifically is that the uh zoning

1:03:28ordinance is is pretty clear about what

1:03:29the definition of a drive-thru is. Um

1:03:32whereas drive-thru operations have

1:03:35changed perhaps since the time that this

1:03:37original PRD uh was created. And so it

1:03:41it's operates quite a bit differently

1:03:44than what the Culver's case that

1:03:45Elizabeth referenced um where you go and

1:03:48you sit and you order and you wait where

1:03:50now everything is done ahead of time. Um

1:03:53and so the impact is is different than

1:03:56what a traditional uh fast food

1:03:58drive-thru is and yet our ordinance

1:04:00definition isn't quite as nuanced um as

1:04:03perhaps maybe we would like it or

1:04:05certainly the applicant would like it to

1:04:06be. Um, so we have struggled with that

1:04:08and I I think that that's something to

1:04:10keep in mind as we um look at how we

1:04:13either create PRDS with such

1:04:15restrictions andor look at our

1:04:17definitions moving forward to be able to

1:04:19give a little bit more flexibility or

1:04:21discernment um between uh in this case

1:04:24drive-throughs that don't operate the

1:04:27same as maybe what we have traditionally

1:04:29thought of as a drive-thru.

1:04:38Is that something that you want us to

1:04:40articulate in the motion that like the

1:04:43scale of why it's appropriate for this

1:04:46type of drive-thru?

1:04:49Well, I presume that that would be

1:04:50something that's um a part of the the

1:04:52findings already um is that it is

1:04:55operating a little bit differently. I

1:04:57guess I'm just feeling um hearing you

1:05:01use the word inconsequential and such.

1:05:03I'm just trying to explain why it's

1:05:05before you and it's because of how

1:05:08>> the ordinance reads and perhaps also how

1:05:10we originally created the approval um in

1:05:1420 what was it 2014 um way back when

1:05:17when things were different. So maybe I'm

1:05:18just feeling a little bit sheepish about

1:05:20>> feeling like I'm putting an

1:05:22inconsequential project before you and

1:05:24and time in an application process.

1:05:26>> And I guess I should say I think we do

1:05:28need to make, you know, serious consider

1:05:30considerations of drive-throughs and the

1:05:31way that they impact

1:05:34projects as a whole, but for this

1:05:36specifically this scale, this scope,

1:05:38what they're doing on in the

1:05:41consideration of the whole site, it does

1:05:43seem appropriate.

1:05:49Excellent. Um, yeah, seeing consensus

1:05:53around. Yep.

1:05:56All right. Now therefore, it be resolved

1:05:58that the planning commission recommends

1:05:59approval of the request of East Belt

1:06:01Line Development 2 LLC William Tass for

1:06:04a major amendment to the Village of

1:06:06Knaps Crossing Planned Redevelopment

1:06:07District to allow a drive-through pickup

1:06:10window for a proposed fast casual

1:06:12restaurant at 2036 Sweet Aka

1:06:162110 East Beltline Avenue Northeast for

1:06:18the following reasons.

1:06:213A and 3B. The proposed mix of uses and

1:06:25design of the amended PRD are consistent

1:06:27with the master plan and the purpose and

1:06:29intent of the zoning ordinance because

1:06:31the use reflects the site's designation

1:06:33in the 2024 community master plan as a

1:06:36[clears throat] community activity

1:06:37center intended to provide places to

1:06:39live, work, and shop around key

1:06:41intersections and along corridors. The

1:06:44intensity and mix of uses are consistent

1:06:46with the site's designation as a town

1:06:47center commercial node in the northeast

1:06:49belt line overlay district. The

1:06:52relatively low intensity of the

1:06:53drive-through lane comports with the

1:06:55intended character of the development.

1:06:583D. The proposed PRD amendment will

1:07:01ensure efficient development on the

1:07:03property and will result in a logical

1:07:05and orderly development pattern in the

1:07:07neighborhood because the existing

1:07:08vehicular connections to the public

1:07:10street and the adjacent development will

1:07:12remain as they are and all queuing will

1:07:14be accommodated on the subject property

1:07:16and will not impede traffic within the

1:07:17larger development.

1:07:20Two, the proposed use will meet the site

1:07:22plan review standards of section

1:07:235.12.8.e

1:07:25because the capacity of the drive-thru

1:07:27will be adequate for intended operations

1:07:30and the site is designed to minimize

1:07:31conflict with traffic operations within

1:07:33the existing development. The site is

1:07:35designed to promote safe and efficient

1:07:37movement within the drive-through lane

1:07:39and at its access point. 4. A the

1:07:42proposed development will be compatible,

1:07:44harmonious, and appropriate with the

1:07:45existing or planned character and uses

1:07:47of the neighborhood and adjacent

1:07:48properties because the intensity of the

1:07:50use and site layout are appropriate to

1:07:52its surroundings and the use will

1:07:54enhance the mix of uses and vitality of

1:07:56the development. 4 B. Potentially

1:07:59adverse effects arising from the

1:08:00proposed development on the neighborhood

1:08:02and adjacent properties will be

1:08:04minimized through adequate vehicular

1:08:06stacking and on-site parking and

1:08:07additional landscaping. foresee the

1:08:10proposed development will not be

1:08:11detrimental, hazardous or disturbing to

1:08:13existing or future adjacent uses or to

1:08:16the public welfare by reason of

1:08:17excessive traffic, noise or visual

1:08:19clutter because the use is anticipated

1:08:21to be used by many patrons already

1:08:22within the shopping center and the

1:08:24number of vehicles queuing is

1:08:25anticipated to be minimal. 4 D

1:08:28pedestrian and vehicular connections

1:08:30will be provided between buildings,

1:08:32uses, and amenities within the property

1:08:34as well as connections to and from the

1:08:36surrounding properties. and 6A, adequate

1:08:39public or private infrastructure and

1:08:40services already exist or will be

1:08:43provided at no additional cost.

1:08:466B, the proposed development will not be

1:08:48detrimental to the financial stability

1:08:50and economic welfare of the city because

1:08:52the project will bring a vacant tenant

1:08:54space back into productive use and the

1:08:56proposed improvements will encourage

1:08:58additional investment in the

1:08:59neighborhood. Be it further resolved

1:09:01that the following conditions of

1:09:03approval shall apply to this project.

1:09:05One, standard conditions set a approvals

1:09:08striking items five and seven. And two,

1:09:10that the barrier separating the

1:09:12drive-through lane and adjacent parking

1:09:13lot drive aisle and the area surrounding

1:09:16the relocated trash enclosure be

1:09:18landscaped consistent with other

1:09:19landscaping within the development.

1:09:23>> Support.

1:09:24>> All right, we have a motion and support.

1:09:26Any discussion?

1:09:28All those in favor say I. I. Any

1:09:30opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

1:09:36Okay, moving right along.

1:09:41We'll go to 1155 Front Avenue and 1058

1:09:46Scriber Northwest.

1:09:48And yes, Brian already left.

1:10:00The applicant is requesting approval to

1:10:03demolish the existing building at 1058

1:10:07Scribner

1:10:09to expand the existing Merkantile Bank

1:10:12surface parking lot. This will result um

1:10:15in an addition of 51 spaces for a total

1:10:19of 283 parking spaces.

1:10:29property is located on south side of

1:10:31Leonard, east of 131, west of the river.

1:10:36And now we've just changed our

1:10:37orientation. So um uh north is to the

1:10:41left here. So, um, we've got, uh, the

1:10:46Merkantile uh, bank and that's a

1:10:49fourstory 74,000

1:10:52square foot building. It's on about 2

1:10:55and 3/4 acres. It has a surface parking

1:10:59lot. It's very nicely landscaped

1:11:03and there are approximately 173 parking

1:11:06spaces.

1:11:081058 Scribner is about a half an acre.

1:11:13It has an 8,200

1:11:16square foot building

1:11:18um with three separate units and it has

1:11:22surface parking of about 17 parking

1:11:25spaces on site kind of squeezed in

1:11:28there.

1:11:30Um there is transit um along um on

1:11:35Leonard um along uh the West Leonard

1:11:39route, Rapid Route 7 runs along Scrier

1:11:43and does stop um within a quarter mile

1:11:47of the subject property and there is

1:11:49paved bicycle lanes on on front um and

1:11:53there's no street parking in the

1:11:54vicinity and I'm bringing that up

1:11:57because of the nature of this request.

1:12:00because they are asking for an increase

1:12:02in parking over and above what they are

1:12:05allowed. Okay. So, I'm just setting the

1:12:08stage of what kind of facilities are

1:12:10there. So, I'll let um the applicant um

1:12:15talk about um their uh their operations

1:12:20there, but what I know is they are uh

1:12:23adding about 67 work stations in the

1:12:27existing building.

1:12:29And uh apparently they are experiencing

1:12:34uh a dire need for parking. They even um

1:12:39uh rent some parking spaces across the

1:12:41street at 10 I think it's 1050 Scriber.

1:12:45And now I can't is is it this 1060

1:12:51>> 1060? Is it this building here?

1:12:54>> Yeah. Okay. Um, [laughter]

1:12:58I got disoriented so I couldn't find it.

1:13:00Um, so they they rent some parking

1:13:03spaces um on this site um for their

1:13:06employees and um they want to add more

1:13:10employees uh to uh this building um

1:13:14where they already have a parking

1:13:15problem. So, in order to do that,

1:13:18they're proposing to um demolish the

1:13:22adjacent building and add more parking.

1:13:26It will result in uh a net of uh 51 uh

1:13:33spaces

1:13:35for a total of 283 spaces.

1:13:39This is relevant because for the size of

1:13:42the building about 74,000 square ft

1:13:46they are allowed

1:13:4874 parking spaces because it's in the

1:13:52city center zone district

1:13:55and um where it it it's in the city

1:13:58center zone district where there is no

1:14:01parking requirement. Um, I do want to

1:14:03mention that at the time this building

1:14:05was built, uh, it wasn't in the city

1:14:08center. The city center has moved um,

1:14:11west and um, uh, I think, well, you know

1:14:16what? I'm not sure what the zoning was,

1:14:18but I I know that they needed a variance

1:14:20for something when this was built. Um, I

1:14:23don't know if it was for use or for

1:14:25height, but they did get they did get a

1:14:27variance. Um uh the

1:14:30city center has expanded and so now no

1:14:35parking is required but we're here on

1:14:38the fringes a little bit. Um so a

1:14:42maximum of 88 parking spaces is allowed

1:14:46120% of the of the required um if they

1:14:51want to provide parking. So only 88 is

1:14:54what is allowed and they're asking for

1:14:57um 283

1:15:01parking spaces. Now because of um the

1:15:05nature of this request parking in excess

1:15:08of what uh is uh allowed they are

1:15:12required to submit a parking demand

1:15:14study which they did. Um, and

1:15:19the I I'll let the applicant go into

1:15:22details, but suffice it to say um the

1:15:26the parking demand study did find high

1:15:31uh usage of uh both their own parking

1:15:34lot, I think it was 95%

1:15:38um and then um the uh parking lot uh

1:15:42across the street an average of 60%. %.

1:15:47So, um, you know, their own parking lot

1:15:50is for all intents and purposes at

1:15:53capacity.

1:15:54Um, so

1:15:57for those reasons, the applicant is

1:16:00asking um for this uh

1:16:05waiver for additional parking.

1:16:08So in the planning commission's

1:16:12um consideration, we would ask um you to

1:16:16consider, you know, is this warranted?

1:16:19Um

1:16:21are there any other options for the

1:16:24applicant uh to pursue? And I'll let you

1:16:27uh I'll let them talk about what they

1:16:29have done. Um, and um, I I do also want

1:16:34to add, I probably should have started

1:16:35out with this, that because this is in

1:16:37the city center, the city center um,

1:16:40generally um, the the community master

1:16:44plan as well as the GR Ford plan

1:16:47generally does not um, advocate for an

1:16:50increase in the surface parking. So,

1:16:54those are the things that we would ask

1:16:56the planning commission to um consider

1:16:59and balance in making your decision.

1:17:03>> And I'll be happy to turn it over to our

1:17:05applicant.

1:17:06>> Thank you.

1:17:09>> Good afternoon. My name is Scott

1:17:11Satlock. I'm the chief operating officer

1:17:13of Merkantile Bank and my office is

1:17:15located at this site on Leonard. Thanks

1:17:18for the opportunity to share our project

1:17:20with you. Merkantile has been a part of

1:17:23the city of Grand Rapids since we were

1:17:25founded on North Division in 1997. In

1:17:282003, we acquired this Leonard site and

1:17:32we have continued to invest in it, the

1:17:34Westside, and the city of Grand Rap

1:17:36Rapids ever since. Today, Merkantile is

1:17:40the largest bank headquarter in the

1:17:42state of Michigan. We have over 800

1:17:44employees and over 50 locations.

1:17:47We remain we remain committed to the

1:17:49city and are seeking your support to

1:17:51allow us to grow in place both in the

1:17:53near and the long term. Would mention

1:17:56that the fact that this is our

1:17:57headquarters is relevant. Um it is not

1:18:00only our headquarters uh but it also is

1:18:03a retail branch and so part of the

1:18:05parking is designated for our clients

1:18:06that come in. Much of our commercial

1:18:09banking activities also happen from this

1:18:11site. Um and um and we invite every new

1:18:16employee that's hired throughout the

1:18:17state to come into the city of Grand

1:18:18Rapids, start their training here. We

1:18:20host number of meetings from this site

1:18:22as well, all adding to the demand for

1:18:24parking.

1:18:26But fundamentally, our request today is

1:18:28about supporting continued job growth in

1:18:30the city of Grand Rapids. We do plan a

1:18:33renovation at this site uh that will

1:18:35allow us to accommodate 67 additional

1:18:37employees. Um, however, we have already,

1:18:41as stated by Elizabeth, an immediate and

1:18:43documented need for parking as it is.

1:18:46Without solving for that parking, we

1:18:48won't be able to add these additional

1:18:49employees. And in fact, last year, we

1:18:52did relocate 36 employees out of this

1:18:54site to a a location in Kentwood. Our

1:18:58desire is to avoid future relocations

1:19:00out of the city.

1:19:02At the same time, we recognize that the

1:19:04city has important goals related to

1:19:06transportation choice, walkability,

1:19:09reducing dependence on surface parking,

1:19:12and we support these goals. In fact, we

1:19:14have surveyed our employees to better

1:19:16understand their willingness to consider

1:19:18alternative transportation, transit

1:19:20incentives, car pooling programs,

1:19:22off-site parking options, and bicycle

1:19:24related incentives. While interest

1:19:27exists, it is not enough to offset our

1:19:29overall parking demand and uh our

1:19:32planned employee growth at this time.

1:19:35One of the challenges, primary

1:19:37challenges we face in this uh scenario

1:19:40is that the transportation and parking

1:19:42infrastructure surrounding our

1:19:44headquarters does not yet provide

1:19:46practical alternatives for a significant

1:19:48portion of our workforce. About 86% of

1:19:52our employees at this site live more

1:19:54than 5 miles away.

1:19:56Our need is real and immediate. While

1:19:59many of the long-term transportation

1:20:01solutions the city is pursuing will take

1:20:03some time to develop.

1:20:06We understand that removing a building

1:20:08for surface parking is not generally the

1:20:10preferred parking solution. At the same

1:20:12time, the condition of the subject

1:20:14building is important context.

1:20:16Although the building has an entrance on

1:20:18Front Street, it is set back from the

1:20:20sidewalk with paved parking between the

1:20:23sidewalk and the facade of the building.

1:20:26So its relationship to the street is

1:20:28already primarily autooriented rather

1:20:30than pedestrianoriented.

1:20:33We are not removing a building that

1:20:35currently uh strongly contributes to the

1:20:37future pedestrian character envisioned

1:20:40for this area.

1:20:42Furthermore, I think it's important to

1:20:44note that the current site is entirely

1:20:46impervious and we will add green space

1:20:48and canopy.

1:20:50The proposed surface lot may be less

1:20:53than ideal land use, but allows us to

1:20:55address our immediate need while

1:20:57improving the site with a

1:20:59well-maintained, professionally

1:21:00landscaped parking area integrated into

1:21:02our current campus. This site will

1:21:05include landscaping, fencing, lighting,

1:21:07and maintenance standards that are

1:21:08consistent with our current parking lot.

1:21:11Importantly,

1:21:13we do not view this proposal as an

1:21:15excessive request. We view it as a

1:21:17necessary step to address our need that

1:21:20allows us to continue growing jobs and

1:21:21investing in the west side while looking

1:21:24for and working together for long-term

1:21:26solutions in this area. We met with

1:21:29every neighbor within 300 ft of both our

1:21:31current and proposed site. Our

1:21:33discussions were uniformly positive and

1:21:36no opposition was noted. In fact, most

1:21:38wrote letters of support that were

1:21:40submitted with our application.

1:21:43As our campus evolves in the future, we

1:21:45do anticipate the need to evaluate

1:21:48structured parking. We also anticipate

1:21:51the need to consider additional office

1:21:53space

1:21:56and we are hopeful that at the time the

1:21:59city's uh parking and transportation

1:22:01initi initiatives and infrastructure

1:22:03will mature around this site when that

1:22:05time comes. We've been a long-term

1:22:08partner in this corridor and we intend

1:22:10to remain one. We respectfully ask for

1:22:12your support so that we continue

1:22:14investing in our headquarters, create

1:22:16the capacity for these additional

1:22:17employees in the city, and remain a

1:22:20strong contributor to the economic

1:22:22vitality of Grand Rapids and the west

1:22:24side.

1:22:25I'd invite Jack from Neville to come up.

1:22:30Jack with Neerville. quickly. Um,

1:22:32driving home the point of there's really

1:22:35not a public either on street parking

1:22:39component in this area or structured

1:22:41parking in this area. There's just

1:22:42nothing available for them to uh rent

1:22:45spaces or buy spaces for their

1:22:47employees. And then I'll just say from a

1:22:50uh a landscaping standpoint, you know,

1:22:52that the existing parking lot is well

1:22:54done with uh fencing and screening

1:22:56around the perimeters that would also um

1:23:00be expanded on this new parking area.

1:23:03And of course, we'll we've met with uh

1:23:06storm water engineer and all the

1:23:07engineering folks at the city and um we

1:23:11have no problem complying with all those

1:23:12types of things if you approve this.

1:23:14Thank you.

1:23:16>> Great. Thank you. Any questions for the

1:23:20applicant? Go ahead, Kristen.

1:23:22>> I was just wondering if you could come

1:23:23back up because I I felt like the

1:23:24convers Yeah, sorry. um conversations

1:23:26that we've had. Um, I think the detail

1:23:31around the the training and the um,

1:23:36community meetings and such is important

1:23:38because I I I don't think that I think

1:23:41it might be a little bit more impactful

1:23:43than maybe what the planning commission

1:23:45might understand if they're not familiar

1:23:47with the site because I I feel like in

1:23:48our early conversations they're they're

1:23:50quite frequent that you have a number of

1:23:52individuals in addition to the employee

1:23:54count.

1:23:55>> Yeah. So I that might be helpful for you

1:23:57to expand on that.

1:23:58>> Yeah, thank you. Um so on our first

1:24:00floor um within the building we have a

1:24:03100 and 50 person capacity community

1:24:06room. We uh of course use that for

1:24:09internal purposes but and inviting

1:24:12employees from around the bank to come

1:24:13in. Um but we host a number of outside

1:24:17parties and organizations to use that

1:24:19room. A lot of nonprofits a lot uh right

1:24:22here in Grand Rapids. And so of course

1:24:25their meeting times often are um in in

1:24:28the middle of the day when we're already

1:24:29using our parking uh as we would for

1:24:31operational purposes. And so um when we

1:24:35expanded our building um so we have

1:24:37expanded this building once in uh in

1:24:402019. That was the time when we

1:24:42introduced the least parking across the

1:24:44street um to both accommodate the growth

1:24:46in workstations at the building but also

1:24:48to help accommodate the needs that come

1:24:50with such a community room. And so we're

1:24:53pleased to offer that to the community.

1:24:55We're pleased uh to build relationships

1:24:57through that space. Um but it is already

1:25:01very difficult sometimes navigating the

1:25:03traffic constraints uh that uh or the

1:25:06parking constraints that come from uh

1:25:08welcoming people into our building.

1:25:11>> What are the frequency of of some of

1:25:13those either employee trainings or the

1:25:16community meetings that you have? Yeah,

1:25:18you know, if I were to look back, you

1:25:19know, year to date, we're using that

1:25:21training room uh probably three out of

1:25:23five days a week. Um sometimes more,

1:25:25sometimes less, but I'd say that would

1:25:26be the average. And I would say the it's

1:25:28not always 150 people. I'll be clear on

1:25:30that. But I would say usually the the

1:25:33it's 20 to 50 people um 80% of the time

1:25:37and then 20% of the time it's more than

1:25:39that.

1:25:42>> Thank you. I I just remember that

1:25:44sticking with me from our conversation.

1:25:45And so I wanted to make sure the

1:25:46planning commission was aware of the

1:25:48intensity of of the employee training at

1:25:51the headquarters as well as the

1:25:52community meetings that do tend to have

1:25:55um a number of individuals that come to

1:25:57the site during regular operations.

1:26:00>> Yeah, that context's helpful. I do have

1:26:02a couple questions if you wouldn't mind

1:26:04staying up.

1:26:05>> Um

1:26:07are you keeping those leased spots?

1:26:10>> Our intention is to keep the lease

1:26:12spots.

1:26:12>> Okay. Y

1:26:13>> um and then I want to say that I

1:26:15appreciate the effort that you took to

1:26:17survey your employees to get a better

1:26:19understanding of the specific

1:26:22um needs and potential for alternatives

1:26:24here at this site. I am just curious

1:26:26about what incentives you explored as

1:26:30part of that survey process.

1:26:32>> Yeah, the survey question proper was

1:26:35pretty broad. Um, would you consider

1:26:38some form of a stipend to park either

1:26:40offsite or um or to carpool or to take

1:26:44other means into the building? We did

1:26:46not tag anything monetarily to that. Um,

1:26:50but uh we found that there is indeed

1:26:53some interest but not enough to offset

1:26:55um kind of the demand or the the the

1:26:58crunch that we have. Um, but what I

1:27:01think it gives us is it it plants the

1:27:02seed and it gives us I think hope that

1:27:04as we continue to grow employees at this

1:27:06site and continue to grow as an

1:27:08organization beyond our c what will be

1:27:10our new capacity um that we will have

1:27:13options especially if some new

1:27:14optionality comes into this area from

1:27:16both parking and transportation. You

1:27:19know the dash route was reduced and so

1:27:22that kind of came out of our area a bit.

1:27:24So that was one less option that we've

1:27:26had um for our employees. And again,

1:27:28very few employees live within even a

1:27:31five mile area.

1:27:33>> Thank you.

1:27:33>> Yep.

1:27:35>> Any other questions?

1:27:39Okay, I will open up the public hearing.

1:27:41If you would like to provide comments on

1:27:43this case, please approach the

1:27:44microphone.

1:27:46Great.

1:27:52>> Good afternoon. [clears throat] I'm Paul

1:27:53Hendris. I'm a neighbor um right across

1:27:56the street 1150. If you look on the map,

1:27:58I'm towards the top of the screen there.

1:28:00So, I've been in front of here and uh

1:28:03you know um been we our um business has

1:28:07been there since 1998 and we were up

1:28:09Front Street before that. Um their

1:28:12building is beautiful. They were the

1:28:13anchor of this area. If you if we really

1:28:16think back to the area and what it was

1:28:18like, they came in and built the

1:28:19building and uh um I really support

1:28:23their um their work here. You know, we

1:28:25uh uh when they built this uh they were

1:28:28able to do four stories. the planning

1:28:29commission has done a great job and

1:28:31actually the the zoning and and um and

1:28:35got the ability for them to go uh now

1:28:38people to come in and maybe go higher

1:28:39with higher densities and stuff, but

1:28:41they're just looking to um be able to

1:28:43utilize their existing building and do

1:28:45the parking for that while you know

1:28:47things are in transition there. The

1:28:49zone, we talk about the zoning, but it

1:28:50actually just changed and they're part

1:28:52of the legacy, you know, how it was

1:28:54before and uh we can't just think that

1:28:56that's going to happen overnight. My

1:28:58experience at my own company is is we're

1:29:00seeing some of those folks bike to work,

1:29:03Uber, you know, some busing. It's coming

1:29:05slow. There's also some physical

1:29:07barriers there with the uh connection to

1:29:10the west side of the highway. If you've

1:29:13ever been over there, we don't have

1:29:14anybody able to really walk between

1:29:16there very easily now. Bike between the

1:29:19bike, there's not really a bike lane

1:29:20there. It's kind of it's kind of crazy

1:29:22in that intersection. So, we're still

1:29:24seeing like some adoption, but just not

1:29:26at scale. So, we just want to be able to

1:29:28see these folks be able to use uh use

1:29:30the building that they have acquire this

1:29:32and if they keep growing like they're

1:29:33growing, you know, we kind of anticipate

1:29:35that this is going to be like their, you

1:29:37know, be able to be used as their

1:29:38campus. And hopefully we can take

1:29:40advantage of some of the new uh um

1:29:42zoning that's there and put a nice tower

1:29:44in and have uh um you know, the ramp

1:29:46that uh that they're going to need in

1:29:47the future. So, I'd strongly recommend

1:29:49that uh that we allow this to happen as

1:29:52we go through this transition here and

1:29:54uh um and uh know that Mercantile's just

1:29:57been a great neighbor and um and their

1:29:59their space is very very nice. So, and

1:30:01we we really like having them. Thank

1:30:03you.

1:30:04>> Thank you.

1:30:06Anyone else?

1:30:09Okay, I will close the public hearing.

1:30:12Commissioners.

1:30:24>> Yeah, I generally don't, you know, love

1:30:25surface parking, but I also love that

1:30:27they're headquartered here and they want

1:30:29to continue to grow here and invest in

1:30:31the city. And um given the area where it

1:30:35is right next to the highway and the

1:30:38changes in zoning coming like I and

1:30:41their their look towards future growth

1:30:44um I would feel comfortable approving

1:30:46it.

1:30:52I I feel like it's not as cut and dry to

1:30:55me. I'm I guess there's a little bit of

1:30:58um

1:31:01frustration thinking about like the

1:31:03development process for cannabis and how

1:31:04we have these standards that people try

1:31:07to promote um

1:31:10hiring local and

1:31:13building density and we did reszone this

1:31:15area to city center. There is definitely

1:31:18some transportation challenges with the

1:31:21highway but we have icon on bond. We

1:31:24have Michigan State um new buildings

1:31:28right there. We have this building that

1:31:30just turned into residential apartment.

1:31:32We have way too much office space in

1:31:35this area generally. Um and it's there's

1:31:38not a lack of office space that could be

1:31:41utilized for expansion. I understand

1:31:46the convenience of having everything in

1:31:47one place and I think that the neighbor

1:31:49made a really good point about this

1:31:51being an incremental step that you have

1:31:53a parking lot and then potentially you

1:31:55could build there later. It just

1:31:59it feels like a huge

1:32:03direct 180 from the goals of our master

1:32:05plan and reszoning this area to CC

1:32:08to city center to then go and approve

1:32:13parking. And I feel like I need more

1:32:20I I need more of a reason why I would

1:32:22vote yes to this. And maybe my vote

1:32:23doesn't make a difference, but I don't

1:32:25feel like it meets the requirements of

1:32:27the it meets the goals and objective of

1:32:29the master plan that we just did, and we

1:32:31just reszoneed this area. Um,

1:32:38I mean, there was a survey,

1:32:41but it seems that that's always kind of

1:32:42how it is. Like, we did a survey and it

1:32:45just wasn't enough. So, it didn't work

1:32:46in our business plan and it just so

1:32:49we're not going to do it. and then

1:32:52plans move in the direction of the

1:32:55easiest path forward for that business.

1:32:57But maybe not looking at the entirety of

1:33:00what we're trying to do. Our master says

1:33:02our master plan says that we want to add

1:33:0410,000 units to the downtown. We need

1:33:08density here. We need people to live

1:33:09here to be able to frequent the

1:33:12businesses. And then we're saying, well,

1:33:13that's okay. We'll just make more

1:33:14parking for people that live 5 miles

1:33:16away because this business has been

1:33:17here. There's things I feel like need to

1:33:20be considered, especially being a city

1:33:21center zoned to property.

1:33:26Sorry for my rant.

1:33:28>> No, I I I think you raised important

1:33:30points. um you know h having had maybe a

1:33:34bit longer to to think about this in in

1:33:37previous meetings um you know I I I

1:33:40think I started where you were as well

1:33:42um a little bit challenged by the

1:33:44efforts we're trying to make and and

1:33:46where I ultimately I think landed in my

1:33:48review of this was

1:33:51the city center reszone and the vision

1:33:53to expand is a in in planning and zoning

1:33:57world a very it's it's still little baby

1:33:59right like it it it's really new and we

1:34:02have um a solid anchor business that is

1:34:07going to and has helped this area of the

1:34:09city move forward and stabilize it. And

1:34:12it's in an area of the city, this is on

1:34:14my way home every day and there are some

1:34:17really challenging mobility um um

1:34:21disconnects in this area to make it

1:34:24inhospitable to pedestrians. And I don't

1:34:28know that adding parking uh for this

1:34:30particular user is going to uh

1:34:32exacerbate that. I I think it's more of

1:34:33an city infrastructure issue as well as

1:34:37a a land use issue with the the lack of

1:34:39density in this location. Um I think

1:34:42it's it's still a challenge when it

1:34:45comes to uh mobility for bikes and of

1:34:47course the dash uh no longer circulates

1:34:50through here. And so for me, I I almost

1:34:52look at it as, you know, you take two

1:34:54steps forward and and one step back

1:34:56sometimes in order to make progress and

1:34:58progress isn't always clearly uh us

1:35:00moving forward. Um sometimes we we have

1:35:04to look holistically at what's really

1:35:06happening and providing support to

1:35:08institutions that are um hugely critical

1:35:10to the stability of of this area and in

1:35:14light of all the other mobility

1:35:15challenges that we know exist in this

1:35:17location. So, I guess that would be a

1:35:19little bit counter again just from me

1:35:22having the benefit of being able to

1:35:23think about this for um quite a bit

1:35:25longer than than what you've had it

1:35:26before you.

1:35:30>> I wonder if um I'm reflecting back on a

1:35:33on a similar proposal that we rejected

1:35:37I don't know in the last 18 months or

1:35:38so. Um,

1:35:42and

1:35:46uh, I I don't know that the facts of

1:35:48this are much different. Um, and so I

1:35:51wonder I'm not not just for director

1:35:54Turkelson, but just for others who were

1:35:56on the commission at that time, maybe

1:35:58you could help me understand or or help

1:36:00me help clarify some of the differences

1:36:02in the in the cases and the ideas behind

1:36:05this.

1:36:08Well, I I can start if if you'd like me

1:36:11to. Um, for me, I I think some of the

1:36:14significant differences are um we now we

1:36:18understand with this particular site

1:36:20what is the actual occupancy and usage

1:36:23of this parking and it's it's heavy. Uh

1:36:25you can see that um and the data

1:36:28supports that. um we have information

1:36:31from the operator, from the business

1:36:34owner, um better understanding what the

1:36:36needs and desires are um of their uh

1:36:40employee base. Um I don't think any of

1:36:43that information was uh provided or

1:36:47available to the planning commission

1:36:48with um other applications that were

1:36:51maybe similarly situated. Um and by that

1:36:54I mean just the nature of the request. I

1:36:56I also think the physical location of

1:36:59this is significantly different. Um

1:37:01being adjacent the highway that Leonard

1:37:04and and Turner the Leonard and um front

1:37:07intersections are challenging at best.

1:37:10Um so I think it's physical constraints

1:37:13here are different than um what we saw

1:37:16with a previous application on the other

1:37:18side of the river. That would be where I

1:37:20would start. Others may have different

1:37:22thoughts.

1:37:23>> Can you remind me what the other

1:37:25location was? I don't know if I was on

1:37:26the commission then or not.

1:37:29>> I I think the most recent example would

1:37:31be uh Corwell's request uh for the

1:37:34demolition of structures in the Monroe

1:37:37North area um just uh north of here um

1:37:41and the construction of surface parking.

1:37:46Yeah, I tend to agree with um everything

1:37:49that Director Turkelson said here in

1:37:52terms of what's being provided in this

1:37:54case versus what was provided in the

1:37:56past. I think

1:37:58talking specifically about the most

1:38:00recent other example,

1:38:04we had asked for some of that

1:38:05information regarding

1:38:08an actual understanding of where

1:38:10employees are coming from or how far and

1:38:13potential for different um for

1:38:15alternatives or study of different

1:38:17alternatives and did not receive that

1:38:19information. Um so that is

1:38:24I think a substantial difference here in

1:38:28addition to the constraints and

1:38:31different kind of context um that has

1:38:34already been talked about.

1:38:38>> Yeah. Yeah, and I I understand

1:38:40Commissioners Hendrick's concern about

1:38:42um saying there's plenty of office space

1:38:44available, but they are currently in the

1:38:46space and there's a huge cost incurred

1:38:48with trying to move and relocate

1:38:50employees and all that type of thing.

1:38:51And they've already lost we've already

1:38:53lost 30 employees to Kentwood. I mean, I

1:38:55love our neighboring city, but I would

1:38:57rather have them in the city and paying

1:39:00taxes here and working here and

1:39:02contributing to the life um and vitality

1:39:04of the downtown area. And so if this

1:39:07helps them do that, um, you know, I

1:39:10think it's another financial,

1:39:13um, I guess it's it contributes to the

1:39:16financial viability of the city to to

1:39:18have them here and to have this business

1:39:21headquartered here.

1:39:32Others

1:39:34Would

1:39:38anyone like to make a motion?

1:39:44>> I will make a motion.

1:39:47Now [clears throat] therefore, be it

1:39:48resolved that the planning commission

1:39:49approves a special land use and site

1:39:51plan review approval request of

1:39:53Merkantile Bank Scott Setlock to

1:39:55demolish the building at 1058 Scriber

1:39:58Avenue to expand the bank's existing

1:40:00surface parking lot at 1155 Front Avenue

1:40:02in excess of the maximum number of

1:40:04spaces allowed for the following

1:40:05reasons.

1:40:07Number one, the proposed use will be

1:40:09consistent with the purpose and intent

1:40:11of the master plan and zoning ordinance,

1:40:13including the zone district, because the

1:40:15request supports the goal of 2024

1:40:17community master plan, a strong economy

1:40:20goal to offer a range of employers and

1:40:23job choices.

1:40:25Number two, the proposed use will meet

1:40:27the site plan review standards of

1:40:29section 5.12.8.E

1:40:33E because the site is designed to comply

1:40:36with all provisions of the zoning

1:40:39ordinance and safe, convenient, and

1:40:41well- definfined vehicular, bicycle, and

1:40:43pedestrian circulation within and to and

1:40:46from the site will be provided. 3A. The

1:40:50proposed use will be compatible,

1:40:51harmonious, and appropriate with the

1:40:53character and uses of the neighborhood

1:40:56and adjacent properties because adequate

1:40:58parking will be provided

1:41:00on site to meet anticipated parking

1:41:02demand and a TDM transportation demand

1:41:05management plan is already in place and

1:41:06intended to encourage strong encourage

1:41:09alternate modes of transportation.

1:41:11Street parking is not available on front

1:41:13or scrib necessitate necessitating

1:41:17additional on street parking and several

1:41:20neighbors have written letters of

1:41:21support for the addition.

1:41:24Potentially adverse effects arising from

1:41:26proposed uses will be minimized because

1:41:30the need for additional parking has been

1:41:32demonstrated based on land use and a

1:41:34development character of the area

1:41:36including the relative intensity of uses

1:41:38requiring parking availability of

1:41:40transit, proximity of nearby employment

1:41:43centers and residential uses and

1:41:46adequate parking will adequate parking

1:41:49lot screening and landscaping will be

1:41:52provided. The proposed use will not be

1:41:54detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to

1:41:56existing or future uses or to the public

1:41:58welfare by reason of excessive traffic

1:41:59noise, smoke, or orders because

1:42:03no public testimony in opposition has

1:42:05been provided. And the proposed use is

1:42:07not anticipated to result in excessive

1:42:09noise, glare, or visual clutter. The

1:42:12proposed use will not adversely affect

1:42:14the evoc walkability of the

1:42:16neighborhood, impair pedestrian

1:42:17circulation patterns, disrupt the

1:42:19continuity of the urban street wall, or

1:42:21otherwise hinder the creation of a

1:42:23pedestrian oriented

1:42:25environment because site improvements

1:42:27will result in removal of several cur

1:42:29curb cuts on both street frontes in the

1:42:32surface. Parking lot will be

1:42:34appropriately landscaped to enhance

1:42:36neighborhood walkability.

1:42:38The proposed use will not be detrimental

1:42:40to the financial sta stability or

1:42:42economic welfare of the city because the

1:42:44use is not anticipated to result in

1:42:45nuisances that require police or code

1:42:48enforcement

1:42:51actions. And the use will support the

1:42:54expansion of an office use and encourage

1:42:58other investments in the area and

1:43:00potentially more uh employers or

1:43:03employees in the in the building as

1:43:05well. Be it further resolved that the

1:43:08following conditions of approval shall

1:43:10apply to this project. Standard

1:43:12conditions set a approvals as on the

1:43:16screen and that is it.

1:43:22Support. All right. We have a motion and

1:43:25support. Any additional discussion?

1:43:28All those in favor say I. I. Any

1:43:31opposed?

1:43:32>> I.

1:43:33>> Okay. One opposed. Motion carries. Thank

1:43:36you very much.

1:43:39All right. Will you have Brian come back

1:43:40in?

1:43:56Yes, we'll take a five-minute break.

1:44:04[music]

1:44:21>> [music]

1:44:27[music]

1:44:34[music]

1:44:42>> Heat. Heat.

1:45:15>> [music]

1:45:56[music]

1:46:02>> Heat. Heat.

1:46:23Heat. Heat.

1:46:45Heat. Heat.

1:47:13>> [music]

1:47:56[music]

1:48:06[music]

1:48:21>> Heat.

1:48:27Heat.

1:48:30Heat. Heat.

1:48:56>> [music]

1:49:07[music]

1:49:17>> get back to it. Um, we have a site plan

1:49:20review, including a public hearing for

1:49:221150 Adam Street Southeast.

1:49:26So, our last case today is a final site

1:49:30plan review for the town home

1:49:31development area of the Boston Square

1:49:34Planned Redevelopment District. Um this

1:49:37PRD is part of a larger we this the town

1:49:41home development is a part of part of a

1:49:43larger development plan um for the

1:49:46Boston Square business district known as

1:49:48Boston squared together. Um the PRD um

1:49:52you can see in this screen is the area

1:49:55shaded in green was adopted by city

1:49:59commission on August in 2020

1:50:02and then it was amended earlier this

1:50:05year. um to allow for some changes to

1:50:08the down the town home um development

1:50:11area. The property is located east of

1:50:14Kalamazoo Avenue and bounded by Adam

1:50:16Street to the north and Fuller Street to

1:50:19the east. Um their um surrounding

1:50:22property is lowdensity residential to

1:50:24the north. uh traditional business

1:50:26district to the west and south and MDR

1:50:30mixed um density residential the Grand

1:50:33Rapids Housing Commission is directly to

1:50:35the east.

1:50:37So this project the PRD is in

1:50:40development. The Boston Square community

1:50:42hub the is open and operational. It is

1:50:46technically not part of the PRD but it

1:50:49is part of the overall Boston Square

1:50:51Together development. The um there are

1:50:53two family buildings, the F1 and F2

1:50:57building, um, excuse me, the F2 and F3

1:51:01buildings. And so it's mixed use,

1:51:03residential and commercial. The F2

1:51:06building, you can see, um, that the

1:51:09certificates of occupancy have been

1:51:11issued for that building. Construction

1:51:12is complete. And in this, um,

1:51:15construction area at the where my cursor

1:51:18is is where the F3 building is currently

1:51:20underway. Construction of that building.

1:51:24This image shows the general plan for

1:51:27development to um occur from south to

1:51:29north just for the entire PRD. That's

1:51:33the intent of development. And this plan

1:51:36is the plan that was approved as amended

1:51:39earlier this year. It should look

1:51:40familiar to most of you as you uh I

1:51:44think we're all part of that um

1:51:46amendment approval.

1:51:48The town home development area is the

1:51:51northern area of this PRD. Um, in this

1:51:55site, um, I've included this because it

1:51:57it shows the where shared use agreements

1:52:01will be in place for different elements

1:52:03elements of the entire PRD,

1:52:06um, including the internal drive running

1:52:08through the town home um, portion of the

1:52:11development.

1:52:13The existing site, as a reminder, is um

1:52:18currently improved with a school

1:52:20building and there's a slope running

1:52:22from um Adam Street to the south.

1:52:27[snorts] And part of that slope allowed

1:52:29for the development to um to provide

1:52:33zero entry accessible units from that

1:52:36internal drive. And so the the this

1:52:40development is taking advantage of that

1:52:41for the benefit of the future residents.

1:52:46The approval included three three-story

1:52:50buildings fronting Adam Street. They

1:52:52will be two stories at Adam Street and

1:52:55three stories from the internal drive.

1:52:57The T4 and T5 buildings on the south

1:53:00side of the internal drive will be

1:53:02twostory buildings with basement.

1:53:06There are sidewalks on both sides of the

1:53:09internal drive

1:53:12and this future um the future

1:53:15development will connect the internal

1:53:17drive to Fuller Avenue

1:53:21as a condition of the amendment

1:53:23approval. Um the planning commission

1:53:25required additional streetscape elements

1:53:27to be included in the plan. Um

1:53:30specifically to um along the internal

1:53:33drive to provide appropriate physical

1:53:36separation from the town home units

1:53:38fronting the drive to to the drive

1:53:40itself enhance pedestrian sa safety and

1:53:44resident visibility and to bring the

1:53:46internal drive closer to the vital

1:53:49streets standards overall.

1:53:51the [snorts] window wells in the T1

1:53:54through T3 buildings um at Adam Street

1:53:56were required to meet the setback

1:53:58requirements and the final site plan

1:54:02review should would include the building

1:54:04elevations as well. So those are some

1:54:06things we're talking about today

1:54:08regarding the landscape or regarding the

1:54:10site plan. three bulbouts um two on the

1:54:14north side of the drive and one on the

1:54:16south side of the drive were added to

1:54:18the plan um to help provide some of that

1:54:21separation from the drive to the public

1:54:24sidewalk and also to help align the

1:54:26pedestrian crossings across that

1:54:28internal drive. the T4 and T5 buildings

1:54:32were shifted south

1:54:35um to allow for a new parkway to be

1:54:37installed between the p the public

1:54:40sidewalk and that internal drive.

1:54:43And within that 4 foot wide parkway, um

1:54:46it allows for landscaping including 11

1:54:49new street trees.

1:54:52The shift of these buildings, T4 and T5

1:54:54buildings south um placed the T5

1:54:57building a little bit closer to this

1:55:00retaining wall at the edge of this uh

1:55:02the uh parking lot to the south of that

1:55:05building. It is now approximately just

1:55:08shy of 8 ft from that retaining wall. Um

1:55:11another result of moving these buildings

1:55:13south was that there were originally

1:55:15patios

1:55:17uh planned uh for these units. Those

1:55:19patios have now been removed

1:55:27on this plan. Also, you can see that

1:55:29there are future sidewalk connections to

1:55:32connect the town home development to the

1:55:35uh additional um future development to

1:55:38the south. And a roll out dumpster

1:55:42enclosure or trash enclosure is located

1:55:46just west of the parking spaces that are

1:55:49provided on the south side of the

1:55:50internal drive. Um you the planning

1:55:53commission may wish to confirm with the

1:55:56applicant how that will work given the

1:55:58slope of the street and the curb and

1:56:01sidewalk that are between the the the

1:56:04trash enclosure and the street itself.

1:56:12So, if we move on, oh, one last thing

1:56:14about the plan. This is a landscaping

1:56:16plan. You can see the new street trees

1:56:18that have been added in the parkway. And

1:56:20also on this plan, you'll notice that

1:56:22there has there's landscaping that has

1:56:24been pro been provided on all of the

1:56:27sides or on the sides and between the

1:56:31buildings. Um, I will also add that move

1:56:36shifting the T4 and T5 buildings to the

1:56:38south has allowed for additional

1:56:40landscaping to be provided between each

1:56:44unit and the public sidewalk.

1:56:47And the the small um walls delineating

1:56:52each private patio of the northerly town

1:56:55homes um are identified as planters. So

1:56:59there can be additional landscaping in

1:57:01those in those little walls.

1:57:06So now if we can shift and talk about

1:57:08the building elevations. There's a

1:57:10conceptual conceptual plan or rendering

1:57:14of of the buildings from Adam Street.

1:57:18The front of the buildings will be clad

1:57:20with brick and the sides and the rear of

1:57:22all the buildings will be engineered

1:57:24wood siding.

1:57:26The egress windows at the front of the

1:57:28buildings fronting Adam Street have been

1:57:30removed.

1:57:32So that was to eliminate the

1:57:35the needing to meet that setback.

1:57:41And here are the elevation drawings for

1:57:43the the T1 through T3 buildings. We'll

1:57:46start with those first. So the egress

1:57:49windows in the basement have been

1:57:51removed. Um instead there are plans the

1:57:55plans indicate that um a future bathroom

1:57:58will be included in the basement level

1:58:00of those units. Um I will note that

1:58:03removal of the egress window eliminates

1:58:05the possibility of having a separate

1:58:08sleeping area um to be constructed in

1:58:11that space. And so that might be a

1:58:13conversation to have with the applicant

1:58:15of the intent of the use of that lower

1:58:18level and the inclusion of the future

1:58:20bathroom and how um residents may want

1:58:23to use that space and um anticipating

1:58:26any potential um conversions that the um

1:58:31owners of these units might want to

1:58:33implement in the future.

1:58:38The front porches of these units um you

1:58:41can see the front of these buildings are

1:58:43shown in the bottom image on the right

1:58:46hand side. I'll go back to the

1:58:48rendering.

1:58:50You can see the front porches of the

1:58:51units will be recessed

1:58:55and the architectural plans. The

1:58:58elevations indicate that there will be

1:59:01um

1:59:03aluminum rails along the front and along

1:59:06the stairs.

1:59:10I'll zoom in here a little bit. You can

1:59:13see that there is at at the top of each

1:59:17recessed front porch and at the top of

1:59:19each building there's a brick soldier

1:59:21course to provide some architectural

1:59:23interest to those elements.

1:59:26And um I also will make note that the

1:59:29building foundation

1:59:31um there is no landscaping shown on the

1:59:34on the civil plans or the landscape plan

1:59:37at the front of the buildings and it

1:59:39would appear that the foundation may be

1:59:41exposed at the front of the buildings.

1:59:43So that would be um a talking point with

1:59:45the applicant whether whether there's

1:59:47treatment planned at the front of the

1:59:49buildings to mitigate um the exposed

1:59:52foundation.

2:00:01If we look at the the um the back of

2:00:06these units along Adam Street, um I

2:00:09would like to also mention that there

2:00:12are um the mechanical

2:00:16um the mechanical um equipment is

2:00:20intended to be located within the

2:00:23private patio area. Um I um wonder if

2:00:28the planning commission could ask um why

2:00:31the inclusion in the patio rather than

2:00:33on the roof. Um and whether or not the

2:00:38um the location of the mechanical

2:00:40equipment and that's really only on the

2:00:41internal units, the units on the on the

2:00:44ed the end units of each building, the

2:00:46mechanical equipment is on the side of

2:00:48the building and um screened by

2:00:50landscaping.

2:00:53But if all of the equipment were to be

2:00:56located on the roof of the buildings,

2:00:58then there would be no um loss of patio

2:01:01space for those internal units at the

2:01:05rear of the building. Now, I'll go back

2:01:06to the the renderings.

2:01:11Shows this very well. At the back of

2:01:12these buildings, there are um downspouts

2:01:16running the the length from the roof to

2:01:19the ground to help provide um separation

2:01:22or you know delineation between the

2:01:24units.

2:01:29The um elevations show that there will

2:01:33be um a notch in the parapet between

2:01:36units to provide that separation or

2:01:38delineation and that there will be um

2:01:44a a a gap um a recessed area of brick.

2:01:50um the details of that aren't specific

2:01:52and it's not consistent between the the

2:01:55civil plans and the architectural plans.

2:01:57And so that's one detail that I I we ask

2:02:01that the planning commission discuss

2:02:03with the applicant to determine exactly

2:02:06how that might be um finalized. And it's

2:02:10my understanding that's still um they're

2:02:12still trying to make a determination of

2:02:14how to provide that delineation between

2:02:17units.

2:02:19The plans also um say that the building

2:02:24heights, you can see in this rendering,

2:02:26the building heights vary to accommodate

2:02:29for the slope on the street. Um the the

2:02:32civil plans and the building elevation

2:02:34and the architectural plans do not

2:02:37demonstrate how this will be

2:02:38accomplished. Um the planning commission

2:02:41may wish um to consider a condition of

2:02:44approval that the the final um product

2:02:49might match what's illustrated in the

2:02:51renderings or discuss alternatives with

2:02:53the applicant. Um the building

2:02:55elevations and the civil plans show all

2:02:57the buildings at the same height. But I

2:03:00I believe that that also is a detail

2:03:02that is still um being deliberated.

2:03:07And if we talk about the the T4 and T5

2:03:11buildings, these in this image are the

2:03:13buildings that front on the internal

2:03:16drive.

2:03:17These buildings have cement block that

2:03:21will be exposed at the back of the

2:03:23buildings. similar to the front of the

2:03:26buildings along Adam Street. Um I would

2:03:29like the applicant to describe any

2:03:31potential um treatment, landscaping or

2:03:35screening that might be um included to

2:03:38help mitigate the exposed foundation.

2:03:45I think that I have summed up all of the

2:03:48changes under consideration. Um, we are

2:03:52looking at specifically the parkway and

2:03:55streetscape changes

2:03:58and the architectural design and

2:04:00materials and whether they are

2:04:01consistent with a TN MDR zone district,

2:04:05the proposed facade treatment to

2:04:07delineate each of the units and the

2:04:10approach to varying building heights and

2:04:13whether the proposed uses are adequately

2:04:15buffered from one another and from

2:04:17surrounding property. Are there any

2:04:19questions?

2:04:21Thank you, Laura. Any questions?

2:04:25Nope. All right. Have you come up?

2:04:30>> Uh, good afternoon, Planning Commission.

2:04:32Uh, been here uh before uh discussing

2:04:34this project a couple of times. Uh

2:04:35really excited about uh how it's

2:04:37progressed over the last uh eight

2:04:38months. We are here uh back this past

2:04:41winter. uh [clears throat] talking about

2:04:42uh the overall site planning concept,

2:04:44talked a bit about uh the community

2:04:46engagement that we did and you know

2:04:48continue to receive great uh feedback

2:04:49from the neighborhood of just how to

2:04:51continue to uh uh create more detailing

2:04:54um in the architecture um and warming up

2:04:56the warm up the buildings a bit. And so

2:04:58uh you'll see that uh in the updated

2:04:59renderings. And so uh there's a lot of

2:05:01great work uh that both uh Pure

2:05:03Architects and Habitat have have led on

2:05:06this project. And I really just want to

2:05:08re-emphasize that this is a an

2:05:10affordable housing uh home ownership

2:05:12project. Um and so I think this is

2:05:14something for us all to be extremely

2:05:16collectively excited about. Um this

2:05:18really sets a high standard for what um

2:05:20affordable housing uh can look like in

2:05:22our community. Um and so as we work

2:05:24through um some of the detailing, I

2:05:26think I just want to continue to center

2:05:27that um in the context of um I think

2:05:30this project still is is very

2:05:31cost-sensitive in terms of how we

2:05:33approach it and making sure that uh

2:05:35we're creating uh true ownership

2:05:36opportunities for folks that uh

2:05:38traditionally do not have the means to

2:05:40do so. Um um I think with that I'll I'll

2:05:42turn it over to Adam um to discuss uh

2:05:44some of the the finer details and some

2:05:46of the questions related to building

2:05:47materials, uh setbacks, windows, and all

2:05:49that good stuff.

2:05:55Good afternoon. My name is Adam Wayne.

2:05:57I'm with Pure Architects. Uh appreciate

2:06:00John's introduction there and Lor's help

2:06:02going through this this project. Uh it's

2:06:04been an exciting one. Uh we've recently

2:06:07gone through community engagement um

2:06:09efforts to get community feedback and

2:06:12make sure that we are meeting the

2:06:14community's expectations about what this

2:06:16project should be. Um, we've tried our

2:06:18hardest to make sure that the look and

2:06:20feel is something that not only matches

2:06:23what's happening with the larger Boston

2:06:25Square PRD, but the the community on

2:06:28both sides of Adam Street and Fuller as

2:06:30well. Um, there are some some concerns

2:06:32about some of the detailing that's going

2:06:34on right now with our construction set

2:06:36and like the recess and then the between

2:06:39the buildings and also the exposed

2:06:41foundations. I would say that, you know,

2:06:43we're working through the construction

2:06:45drawing set right now. So, we're trying

2:06:47to evolve that um while also limiting

2:06:51the amount of going too far in our

2:06:53detailing before we've gotten approval

2:06:55uh on the set. So, we are trying to work

2:06:57through that. And then we've also worked

2:07:00with the planning commission to make

2:07:02sure we have their concerns met um on

2:07:04some of the site detailing as long as

2:07:07like trees, landscaping,

2:07:09um sidewalks, making sure that the the

2:07:13whole site just feels walkable and also

2:07:17a welcoming environment for the

2:07:19community. Um I'm open to answer

2:07:23questions or we can go through sort of

2:07:27further um explanation.

2:07:31>> Great. Thank you. Um I guess maybe just

2:07:35going through kind of the list that

2:07:36Laura had um talked about. Um I know you

2:07:40said you're still working through the

2:07:42details, but in terms of accommodating

2:07:44some of those um potential questions um

2:07:50related to mitigating that exposed

2:07:52foundation with landscaping. Is that

2:07:54something that you all are open to? Yes,

2:07:59definitely. And um so I'll go back to

2:08:01one of the other details about the the

2:08:03window wells that we originally had on

2:08:05the site and then the setback. So that

2:08:08was potentially going to make us have to

2:08:10move all the buildings down into the

2:08:12southeast. So part of that then is the

2:08:16grading and the topography of what

2:08:18happens around those foundation walls.

2:08:19It's kind of the reason we've left it

2:08:20exposed as we're trying to work through

2:08:22this. We felt felt like until we had it

2:08:25solidified, we wouldn't go and show all

2:08:28the landscaping and grading around those

2:08:30foundations. We're open to obviously

2:08:33blocking the foundation wall, making the

2:08:35topography go up a little bit higher or

2:08:37putting uh green space or greenscape

2:08:40around it.

2:08:41>> Okay.

2:08:41>> Um the the window wells themselves, I

2:08:45mean, part of the reason we went away

2:08:47from that is just because of that

2:08:49setback off of Adam Street. you know, if

2:08:52if if that requirement was, I don't

2:08:55know, reduced or something, we could

2:08:58bring those back and that might solve

2:09:00some of the issues that we're having or

2:09:02we're having with uh having to bring

2:09:05those window wells in and the site uh

2:09:07location of the buildings on the site.

2:09:10and then talk about the mechanicals in

2:09:15and yeah kind of how

2:09:18>> how much usable patio is actually

2:09:21available if the proposed is what

2:09:24happens.

2:09:24>> Yeah. Uh there is a building section in

2:09:28the set. Um

2:09:32>> it's pretty deep. It's pretty deep in

2:09:34like a A301.

2:09:37>> There you go. one back.

2:09:40Um, so if you can see on sheet A301 in

2:09:44the top left shows a building section.

2:09:46One of the issues we were running into,

2:09:48uh, we originally looking at putting the

2:09:50units on the roof is that the parapits

2:09:53are not very tall as they are right now.

2:09:56So the all those rooftop units would be

2:09:58visible from probably Adam Street,

2:10:00Fuller, and then even behind the site.

2:10:02So

2:10:04besides like raising those parapits up

2:10:06around the entire building, we thought

2:10:08it'd be a better idea to put them down

2:10:10at the the ground level. Unfortunately,

2:10:13you know, we only have sides of the

2:10:15buildings on top of those units, so we

2:10:16had to bring them back to the patio

2:10:18space. Um, our idea was to enclose them

2:10:21and with a sort of wrap, woodlook wrap.

2:10:26It does reduce the square footage on on

2:10:28the patio space. Uh, but it was kind of

2:10:31lesser of two evils as far as

2:10:34visibility. What we didn't want to do is

2:10:36raise the parapits up so much that the

2:10:38scale of the building doesn't seem

2:10:39appropriate for

2:10:41the community in Adam Street. So, that's

2:10:43kind of where that decision came from.

2:10:46How much how much space is left or like

2:10:49are you going with smaller units to

2:10:51minimize the space that's being taken up

2:10:54by the mechanicals? Like how how much

2:10:56will folks actually be able to use these

2:10:59patios?

2:11:00If I can find a floor plan here

2:11:08um on sheet

2:11:10A101

2:11:14I can zoom in there. Can't seem to zoom

2:11:16in. Um it's it's encroaching maybe like

2:11:19four feet it seems like onto the patio

2:11:22space.

2:11:23>> Can you zoom in?

2:11:24>> Awesome. Thank you very much.

2:11:34Thank you very much.

2:11:38>> Does that that view help um illustrate a

2:11:41little bit about the size of the the

2:11:43patio? There's there's roughly a 10 ft

2:11:48width left after that enclosure. Um,

2:11:55so it takes up a significant portion of

2:11:57it, but it's still a pretty sizable

2:11:59patio space.

2:12:04>> And then, um, we talk about the plans

2:12:06for how you're going to accomplish the

2:12:09variation in building elevation and then

2:12:11also, um, kind of that recessed brick

2:12:14area and gap in the parapets to

2:12:16delineate between units.

2:12:18>> Yes, definitely. So right now in our

2:12:20drawing set, it's just a it's just a

2:12:23simple

2:12:25drawing standard Revit issue that we're

2:12:26dealing with. So it was easier for us to

2:12:30have a replicable unit and they're all

2:12:32shown right now at the same height. Our

2:12:34intention is to drop those down once we

2:12:36are we're moving into the final stage of

2:12:38of development. So

2:12:41it's misleading. It looks like we're not

2:12:43planning to step those units down, but

2:12:45we are.

2:12:52Any other questions?

2:12:55No. Okay. Then um we'll open up the

2:12:58public hearing. If um anyone would like

2:13:01to provide comments, please come up to

2:13:04the microphone.

2:13:09Seeing none, I will close the public

2:13:11hearing. Commissioners,

2:13:16>> um, I'd like to ask the commission. I

2:13:18don't remember us having a conversation

2:13:21about the window wells, but it's very

2:13:22possible that we did. Did we talk about

2:13:24that? And does anybody recall why we

2:13:26made that determination?

2:13:32>> I don't think we made any determination.

2:13:34Yeah. On the window wells

2:13:36>> goes back to the ordinance requirement.

2:13:38Must be at least 10 ft from a front lot

2:13:40line. be a variance like

2:13:42>> it has to be done through variance

2:13:45>> in a PUD even.

2:13:47>> Yeah.

2:13:48>> Yeah, we

2:13:50>> Yeah.

2:13:51>> Okay.

2:13:54>> Did you want John to

2:13:55>> you? Go ahead if you want. Yeah.

2:13:56>> Um if we could get relief, we'd prefer

2:13:58to put the window wells back in there.

2:14:00It's just the 10-ft separation has

2:14:02forced us to remove those and that will

2:14:04impede the ability to have uh bedrooms

2:14:06in the future. So, if there is relief,

2:14:08we would prefer that. Is that something

2:14:10we can do as the planning commission or

2:14:12does that have to go before BZA?

2:14:15>> Um,

2:14:18so it is a PRD so variances layered on a

2:14:21a PRD are are tricky. Um, you do not

2:14:24have the authority to wave it through a

2:14:26a site plan review standard. Um

2:14:30uh the planning commission actually

2:14:33affirmed that 10-foot setback last year

2:14:36when we did have a conversation about

2:14:38what should the setback requirements be

2:14:41and the decision was to provide greater

2:14:44flexibility on window wells when it's in

2:14:46the side or rear yard but not in the

2:14:49front yard. So

2:14:52the more productive path in my opinion

2:14:56for this project would have been through

2:14:58a a policy discussion um unrelated to

2:15:02the project but versus the variance.

2:15:07Anything to add Laura?

2:15:12And and the last thing I I feel like

2:15:15those units not only are going I mean

2:15:18we're sorry we're losing space in those

2:15:21porch areas but they're also loud. And

2:15:22if you have an air condition unit

2:15:25running in your porch if you your air

2:15:27condition is on out inside it's because

2:15:29it's hot already. And then you have an

2:15:31air condition unit being loud and hot

2:15:35right next to you where you're trying to

2:15:36sit. I would prefer

2:15:39to go the route of functionality over

2:15:41aesthetics

2:15:42in that case. I don't know if there's a

2:15:44cost associated to it, but it seems I

2:15:46would rather have exposed units on the

2:15:50roof versus losing that space in my

2:15:54opinion.

2:15:56>> Yeah. Do others have thoughts on that?

2:15:58It's a lot of space to take out of those

2:16:00patios with with I mean that's that's

2:16:03almost half the spa usable space in the

2:16:06patios is taken up by either the

2:16:09enclosure itself or the door swing area

2:16:11of the enclosure. Um I agree with

2:16:15Commissioner Hendrick and Hendrickk and

2:16:17I also think that

2:16:19maybe we should have a policy discussion

2:16:21about those windows. I understand what

2:16:23was done in the past, but

2:16:27when this was most recently before us a

2:16:29few months ago, a lot of the talk was

2:16:31being able to use those basements as

2:16:34potential accessory dwelling units. And

2:16:36now without those

2:16:38egress windows, that that possibility is

2:16:41taken off the the table.

2:16:45>> And to add to that, it's not it's not

2:16:46just a preference. It's almost like, are

2:16:49we incentivizing somebody to do

2:16:51something illegal that would put them in

2:16:53danger by placing, you know, a room in a

2:16:56space without an egress window? It's not

2:16:58just this project. I've seen it on other

2:17:01projects, too, where I understand the

2:17:03site constraints, but

2:17:06I just don't want it, you know, I don't

2:17:09want zoning to impede safety.

2:17:15As far as the mechanical units are

2:17:17concerned, the experience of the

2:17:18homeowner was the first thing I thought

2:17:19of. So, I would love to see them

2:17:20relocated if it's not cost prohibitive

2:17:22to the owner.

2:17:27>> Is uh like centering those things on the

2:17:30roof of those interior units an option

2:17:33without touching the parapits?

2:17:37>> Yeah. Yes, I think we could definitely

2:17:38take a look at um either centering them

2:17:42or pushing them to the back of the unit

2:17:44and see what that would look like. Um

2:17:47but if it's a condition that it's a

2:17:49hangup like I think we could definitely

2:17:51look into it.

2:18:00Is it possible to do egress at least on

2:18:02the end units so that at least maybe

2:18:06like two of them are able to have

2:18:09[snorts] egress windows on the sides.

2:18:22>> Yeah. So what's interesting about these

2:18:23units too is technically you could

2:18:26egress out the rear of each of the

2:18:28units. Mhm. Mhm.

2:18:30>> Where the where the problem is, like you

2:18:32were alluding to, is that if somebody

2:18:35were to construct, let's say, a bedroom

2:18:37on the north side of it, then suddenly

2:18:39you have a bedroom and depending on how

2:18:41you build that out, you don't have

2:18:43direct access or egress out. So, the

2:18:46side units, you were asking if whether

2:18:47you could egress or have a side uh

2:18:50egress on the side. Um, it's possible.

2:18:55It's definitely possible. um we're

2:18:57trying to have consistency between all

2:18:59of the units. So that that's one of the

2:19:02issues um to not create sort of

2:19:06disadvantaged or unfair sort of uh

2:19:09situations between the units. Part of

2:19:12what we're trying to do is get all the

2:19:13streetscape requirements in there too.

2:19:16And so that's we keep moving the you

2:19:18know the whole building and the whole

2:19:19site and layout further south. So we

2:19:22just we've kind of run out of space. Um,

2:19:24there's still a little bit more we could

2:19:26shift it down, but not much. And that's

2:19:28that's kind of the the requirement that

2:19:30we're we're running into. Thank you for

2:19:32that explanation.

2:19:42>> Okay.

2:19:44Well, I don't I don't think we can do

2:19:45anything about the windows with this.

2:19:48>> Can we argue about whether or not it's

2:19:50actually defined like what a window well

2:19:51is?

2:19:52>> Oh, wow.

2:19:54start it off start us off again

2:19:56>> like if there's actually a definition

2:19:57for it in the zoning ordinance

2:20:04>> um I'm not

2:20:07think I'm not thinking that it's best to

2:20:09uh have a interpretation debate on the

2:20:12dis on the fly um

2:20:15>> we're happy to follow up I I don't think

2:20:17from the planning department's

2:20:18perspective we're adamantly against the

2:20:20window wells being in the front here we

2:20:22have a code to apply. Um, and if there

2:20:25we can relook at our interpret uh at our

2:20:28definitions. Um,

2:20:32but I'm I'm not going to do that right

2:20:34now.

2:20:36>> That was a great response.

2:20:39>> Thanks, Kristen.

2:20:40>> Yeah.

2:20:43>> Um, I think um I think this is a great

2:20:45project. I think um there's a few things

2:20:48that

2:20:50I think for clarity I mean everybody

2:20:52knows that I know quite a bit about this

2:20:54project but because of the grade on the

2:20:56site and the zeroep entries uh along the

2:20:59drive that's being created uh

2:21:03you have to step the building. Um

2:21:06there's too much grade to do each one of

2:21:08these on a flat plane. So, uh, unless

2:21:11they're getting rid of zeroep entries or

2:21:15moving way too much dirt, there's no way

2:21:19that each one of these buildings are

2:21:20going to have every unit at the same

2:21:23level. Um, so I would expect the

2:21:27renderings to be more accurate than the

2:21:29elev elevations with regard to that.

2:21:33Um,

2:21:34I feel the pain for

2:21:38having to move things around and try to

2:21:39make things fit. So, um, because I tried

2:21:43to do it, too. Um, really this project,

2:21:48uh, shows how much

2:21:52it it's a really good example of, um,

2:21:55how different rules in the city can

2:21:58create very different outcomes. I think

2:22:00accommodating

2:22:02um fire safety rules

2:22:06um came up as a really big deal here and

2:22:09I'm surprised at how much of the site we

2:22:10have to pave in order to accommodate it

2:22:13and the fact that we can't build

2:22:14neighborhood streets like we have

2:22:15everywhere else in the city. [snorts]

2:22:17But so all that to say that I think um

2:22:21in general this is a great project. I

2:22:23I'm not worried about the

2:22:24differentiation between um individual

2:22:27units. I think the renderings do a good

2:22:29job of showing that. Um, I probably

2:22:32should have asked, but I'm curious what

2:22:34the foundation is made of and what is

2:22:36going to be exposed. Um, whether or not

2:22:38it's concrete or something else. I think

2:22:41it said split face block on the

2:22:43elevations. But

2:22:46yes, we're currently showing uh CMU

2:22:49foundation walls. Uh, we're actually

2:22:52still debating with structural about

2:22:54whether that's going to be concrete or

2:22:56CMU. And then uh one of the things that

2:22:59had been discussed was um it's the T3

2:23:02unit, sorry, [clears throat] which is

2:23:04the furthest to the northeast and we are

2:23:08showing um brick actually in the

2:23:10renderings extending down through the

2:23:13foundation wall because that that side

2:23:16unit is going to have the most sort of

2:23:17visibility um from the corner and from

2:23:20Adam Street. So we're still working that

2:23:23detail out, but you can see that in the

2:23:24rendering. So that doesn't quite match

2:23:26up with the the drawings right now, but

2:23:29that that is the intent is what you see

2:23:31in the rendering.

2:23:33>> Is that true for the um separation

2:23:36between the patios too? Like is that

2:23:38intended to be brick or is that going to

2:23:40be siding or something else?

2:23:41>> That um that was going to be siding I

2:23:45believe. Okay. I think that's a issue in

2:23:47the rendering. So,

2:23:53and I just want to make sure you

2:23:54understand too that that that condition

2:23:56was only on the T3 unit on the east

2:23:58side. The we were going to have sort of

2:24:00an exposed foundation uh between the

2:24:03units and

2:24:06just put the cost and the price right

2:24:08there.

2:24:09>> Okay. Is um this is getting really nerdy

2:24:12and you might not know. Uh is the is it

2:24:15going to be flush?

2:24:17Like I'm assuming the foundation wall is

2:24:19going to be holding the brick up.

2:24:20>> It's gonna have to step.

2:24:21>> Okay.

2:24:22>> So there have to be a a transition

2:24:24between the two.

2:24:26>> Okay. [snorts]

2:24:31>> Yeah.

2:24:31>> Thank you.

2:24:32>> Yep.

2:24:38>> So yeah, I think overall the project's

2:24:40great. Um

2:24:43I think they're really good-looking town

2:24:45homes. So, I think most of the time

2:24:46we're not seeing brick, so it's nice to

2:24:48see brick. Um, and I think it'll fit in

2:24:52well.

2:24:55>> Yep. I agree completely. Um, yeah, I'm

2:24:59excited about this project to move

2:25:01forward for sure.

2:25:03Would someone like to make a motion?

2:25:08I guess maybe before we do that, we

2:25:10should take a pulse on some of these

2:25:12potential

2:25:14conditions. Um,

2:25:17so I guess the one I have the biggest

2:25:20question about is the movement of the

2:25:22mechanical equipment. Is everybody

2:25:26wanting to see that move to the roof?

2:25:33>> I don't feel like there's a great

2:25:34answer. I don't want to see I really

2:25:35don't want to see them if I'm driving by

2:25:36on Adams and like see them on the

2:25:38rooftop, but I also don't want to

2:25:42like create a terrible experience for

2:25:44the people using the patios. So,

2:25:46>> right.

2:25:49>> Well, I mean, rooftop mechanicals are

2:25:52common and

2:25:53>> yeah, it's just I think this has that

2:25:55flat roof and I think the just I think

2:25:59you probably will see them driving by.

2:26:00You don't usually see them on top of a

2:26:02residential

2:26:04unit.

2:26:06>> Maybe I'm wrong.

2:26:08>> Yeah, I don't think you're correct at

2:26:10least on new builds in that we do

2:26:12require the rooftop mechanicals for um

2:26:15multi or we try to um for multif family

2:26:18as well. Um it depends on their uh the

2:26:24geography of whether or not the

2:26:25screening or can it be screened by

2:26:27parapits and where they are on the the

2:26:29actual rooftop. if they're central to

2:26:32the building and they're not visible,

2:26:33then sometimes we've had a little bit

2:26:35more flexibility with uh screening

2:26:37requirements.

2:26:39>> Yeah. Well, and I and I think like a lot

2:26:41of multif family are usually more than

2:26:43three stories and they're harder to see

2:26:44from the street, you know? That's that's

2:26:46why I think this would be a little

2:26:48different because of the building

2:26:49height, but I don't have a huge problem

2:26:51with it. So, just my thoughts.

2:26:55So I'm sure that well

2:26:59uh I would guess that Habitat and

2:27:00Amplify care about how these look also.

2:27:03So would it be acceptable to say that

2:27:08if they do some studies like

2:27:11you know standing across Adams on the

2:27:13sidewalk if you can't see the

2:27:16um the units on top of the roof or you

2:27:19can only see a small amount of it. I

2:27:20mean those are really easy drawings to

2:27:22do. Um similarly um you know Amplify may

2:27:26or may not care if you can see those

2:27:27from some of the other buildings in the

2:27:29development. So but you can do those

2:27:31sighteline studies but

2:27:35um and I would think that

2:27:41having usable patios and spending all

2:27:44this money on this private street

2:27:47getting those out of there probably

2:27:49would be ideal also. So, I'm just

2:27:51wondering if we

2:27:53>> leave it up to

2:27:53>> No, I completely Yeah, that's fine. I

2:27:55completely agree. I was just expressing

2:27:57my concern is I would prefer to see as

2:28:00little as possible.

2:28:01>> Yeah.

2:28:03>> Um, so I was just Yeah, I'm wondering

2:28:05what people think about leaving it up to

2:28:06them and using their professional

2:28:09judgment to figure out what the

2:28:10appropriate solution is.

2:28:18What are folks thoughts about that?

2:28:25>> I I am fine with that.

2:28:29>> I can just go on the roof, too.

2:28:32>> Yeah,

2:28:33>> it was just an idea.

2:28:34>> Yeah, I'd like to see them on the roof,

2:28:36personally.

2:28:37>> Yeah, I would, too. I I really don't

2:28:39think they're going to get used at all.

2:28:41I I know how noisy mine is and that's

2:28:44not a place that I would hang out if

2:28:45that were the case.

2:28:50Okay.

2:28:54Everything else I think was addressed in

2:28:56terms of

2:28:59defaulting to those renderings related

2:29:01to the varying heights between buildings

2:29:03and the parapet detail and brick

2:29:05recesses. So, I'm not sure if those

2:29:10conditions still need

2:29:12>> I don't think anybody talked about I

2:29:14don't really want to, but the dumpster

2:29:16situation.

2:29:17>> Oh, thank you.

2:29:18>> Was there questions about that

2:29:20>> about whether there

2:29:22carts or

2:29:26time?

2:29:26>> Okay,

2:29:26>> maybe I'm wrong.

2:29:28>> If everybody's comfortable with the

2:29:30location shown and how it works, that's

2:29:32fine to me.

2:29:35Thanks for reminding us what we're what

2:29:37the question is. Laura, I think just the

2:29:40question of how it will work. Um the the

2:29:43road coming [clears throat] down from

2:29:45Adams is a steep slope coming down and

2:29:49then it has a has a curve. Um there are

2:29:53some

2:29:55um drawings in here that show the

2:29:57turning templates of a truck

2:30:00somewhere in here. Here's one. This is

2:30:03uh showing some of the turning template

2:30:05templates specifically for a fire truck,

2:30:07which is not the type of truck that

2:30:09would necessarily service the trash, but

2:30:12um mostly just clarifying that

2:30:14operations have been thought through and

2:30:16how it will work.

2:30:19>> Thank you. Could someone address that

2:30:21question?

2:30:22>> Yeah, thank you. So, the idea here is to

2:30:25create an enclosure and your typical

2:30:27residential cart that a lot of us have

2:30:29at our home would be what would occupy

2:30:30that, not a dumpster. Cuz putting a

2:30:32dumpster enclosure in there and creating

2:30:34the right angle with the amount of slope

2:30:36we have here for a traditional trash

2:30:38truck to pull in, scoop it and dump it,

2:30:41it's not going to work very well in

2:30:43there. So, we show a sidewalk in front

2:30:45of the dumpster enclosure. We may need

2:30:48to rethink that a little bit about um

2:30:51the curb height there. so that we can

2:30:53get those carts down to degrade or that

2:30:57the carts don't end up occupying the

2:30:58sidewalk space so we can look at that.

2:31:01But that was the intent.

2:31:03>> Okay, thank you for that.

2:31:11>> Okay. Um would anyone like to make a

2:31:14motion?

2:31:19>> I'll do it.

2:31:20>> Okay.

2:31:23Now therefore, be it resolved that the

2:31:25planning commission approves the request

2:31:27of Amplify GR John for final site plan

2:31:32review approval for the town home

2:31:35development phase within the Boston

2:31:37Square planned redevelopment district at

2:31:391150 Adam Street Southeast for the

2:31:42following reasons. The proposed

2:31:44development will meet the purpose and

2:31:46intent of the master plan and zoning

2:31:48ordinance because the site design and

2:31:50general scale of the town home

2:31:52development will reinforce and support

2:31:55the desired character for this area. The

2:31:58town home design, architectural details,

2:32:00and brick/engineered wood materials are

2:32:04consistent with the desired character of

2:32:06the TN MDR zone district.

2:32:112. A the site is not is designed to

2:32:16comply with all provisions of the zoning

2:32:18ordinance because streetscape elements

2:32:21along the internal drive, including

2:32:23bulboutouts, a parkway, street trees,

2:32:26and landscaping have been incorporated

2:32:28to enhance pedestrian safety and

2:32:31resident livability. 2B. The proposed

2:32:34site will be developed so as not to

2:32:37impede the normal and orderly

2:32:39development or improvement of

2:32:40surrounding property for uses permitted

2:32:43by this chapter because the site has

2:32:46been designed to connect to existing and

2:32:49proposed streets and will enhance

2:32:51circulation within the neighborhood. The

2:32:54streetscape elements incorporated into

2:32:56the internal street design are

2:32:58consistent with vital streets standards.

2:33:022 E. All elements of the site design are

2:33:06harmoniously and efficiently organized

2:33:09in relation to topography, the size and

2:33:12type of lot, character of the

2:33:14neighborhood and adjoining property, and

2:33:16the type, size, and proportions of

2:33:19buildings because the proposed buildings

2:33:21will be scaled, masked, oriented, cited,

2:33:25and architecturally designed in a manner

2:33:28sensitive to other development in the

2:33:31vicinity. The proposed building design

2:33:34and highquality materials meet the

2:33:36desired characteristics in the TN

2:33:39neighborhoods.

2:33:413B. Natural features and site topography

2:33:45are incorporated into the proposed site

2:33:47design to the maximum extent practice

2:33:50practicable because the required green

2:33:53space and tree canopy requirements will

2:33:55be met upon completion of the

2:33:57development.

2:33:593D landscape buffers or green belts are

2:34:03provided that ensure that the that

2:34:05proposed uses adequately buffered from

2:34:08one another. That proposed uses are

2:34:11adequately buffered from one another and

2:34:14from surrounding public and private

2:34:16property because landscaping will be

2:34:18provided around and between buildings

2:34:22and the building setbacks. Parkway and

2:34:24proposed landscaping provide adequate

2:34:27physical separation between the public

2:34:29and private realms. 4. A driveways are

2:34:33located to max minimize conflict

2:34:37with traffic operations on abuing

2:34:39streets and the number of driveways is

2:34:42the minimum needed to provide reasonable

2:34:44access to the site.

2:34:474 B. The width of streets and driveways

2:34:50are appropriate for the existing and

2:34:53anticipated volume of traffic because

2:34:55the drive is internal to the development

2:34:58and an adequate width to allow for on

2:35:00street parking for residents of the

2:35:02development.

2:35:054 D off streetet parking and loading

2:35:08areas are provided.

2:35:12Is that R or are not?

2:35:16Are not provided. Correct.

2:35:20>> R I think

2:35:21>> is it R? Okay.

2:35:22>> Y

2:35:23>> off- streetet parking and loading areas

2:35:25are provided with the particular

2:35:26attention to the effects of noise,

2:35:29glare, and odor on adjacent properties

2:35:31in the proposed development because

2:35:34adequate parking located on the internal

2:35:36drive will be provided on site.

2:35:42Safe, convenient, and well-defined

2:35:44vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian

2:35:46circulation within, to, and from the

2:35:50site will be provided because a

2:35:53landscaped parkway will separate the

2:35:55sidewalk from the internal drive on the

2:35:57south side, and bulbouts are aligned to

2:36:00enhance pedestrian safety and better

2:36:03align with the vital with the vital

2:36:05streets standards. Pedestrian access

2:36:07from the public sidewalk is provided at

2:36:10one or more points.

2:36:11Five, the scale and design of the

2:36:15proposed development

2:36:17will not place an excessive burden on

2:36:20services currently furnished by the city

2:36:23because the project has been found to be

2:36:26satisfactory by the relevant city

2:36:27departments.

2:36:29Be it further resolved that the

2:36:31following conditions of approval shall

2:36:33apply to this project. Number one,

2:36:35standard condition set A approvals

2:36:37striking numbers five and seven.

2:36:45Number two, that the T1 through T3

2:36:49buildings shall incorporate the varying

2:36:52heights between units and buildings as

2:36:55depicted in the submitted renderings.

2:36:59Number three, the front that the front

2:37:02of all buildings shall incorporate the

2:37:04parapet detail and brick recesses

2:37:07between units

2:37:09as described in the narrative and as

2:37:11depicted in the submitted renderings. Do

2:37:15we need to add anything there? I don't

2:37:17think so.

2:37:19Number four,

2:37:20>> I think I think you're fine.

2:37:21>> Yeah. Oh, sorry. No, you're good. Uh

2:37:23number four, that the mechanical

2:37:25equipment shall be placed on the roof.

2:37:29Um

2:37:31did we add any do we want to add any

2:37:35landscaping consisting of

2:37:41>> you didn't really talk?

2:37:42>> I wasn't sure if you were going to go.

2:37:43Um, I think the consensus of what I

2:37:46think I heard was that landscaping shall

2:37:48be used to mitigate um the base of the

2:37:51buildings, the exposed foundations and

2:37:53and we can work with the applicant if

2:37:55you're comfortable with that to

2:37:57>> So we should we just stay

2:38:00uh

2:38:00>> that landscaping shall be added

2:38:02>> landscaping shall be added to the front

2:38:04of buildings T1 through T3 and the rear

2:38:06of buildings T4 and T5 to mitigate for

2:38:10the exposed building foundations. s

2:38:13in conjunction with consultation with

2:38:17city staff.

2:38:20Number six, that this approval shall

2:38:22take effect after the date of the

2:38:23planning commission's decision

2:38:26support.

2:38:28>> Have a motion and support. Any

2:38:30additional discussion?

2:38:31>> Uh just the mechanical equipment on the

2:38:33roof again. Is it all units or do the

2:38:36end units are they still allowed to have

2:38:38it at grade between the units or is it

2:38:41just all the units have the equipment on

2:38:44the roof?

2:38:47>> So I think currently the condition is

2:38:49they're all on the roof,

2:38:51>> right?

2:38:55>> I guess I don't feel strongly either way

2:38:58about that. Um

2:39:01>> I mean I think the main impact is to

2:39:03those units with on the patios.

2:39:05>> Yeah.

2:39:07>> If if that was the concern then you

2:39:08could go on to suggest that the except

2:39:11that the end units may have mechanical

2:39:14units at grade on the sides of the

2:39:16building.

2:39:17>> I'm I'm good with that.

2:39:20>> Just real quick. So, if we end up

2:39:22putting rooftop units up there, we may

2:39:26just do it consistently across T1 and T3

2:39:28just we have the same detailing. Um,

2:39:31there are on the T4 and T5, we could

2:39:33potentially put those units on the grade

2:39:36level in the back of the units because I

2:39:38think those would be much more visible

2:39:40from the corner Adams and Fuller because

2:39:43they're at a lower level.

2:39:45>> So, that's a possibility. Uh, we don't

2:39:47we're not encroaching into the patio

2:39:48there on T4 through T5 because there

2:39:50isn't one.

2:39:53>> Should we just say instead that the

2:39:54mechanical units will not be placed on

2:39:56the patio and then allow them to make

2:39:57the decision about where they go?

2:39:59>> That seems like a smart idea.

2:40:01>> I like that. Let's change it to that.

2:40:03>> Okay.

2:40:03>> Number number four will be that the

2:40:06mechanical units shall not be placed on

2:40:08patios.

2:40:10>> Great.

2:40:11>> Still support.

2:40:12>> Still support. Okay. Any additional

2:40:14discussion? Good catch.

2:40:17All those in favor say I. I. Any

2:40:20opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very

2:40:23much.

2:40:26>> Okay, so now we're on to planning

2:40:28commission discussion. Anything for

2:40:30that?

2:40:32Seeing none, I will open it up for

2:40:34public comment. If anyone wants to make

2:40:36public comment, come on up.

2:40:41Seeing none, I will close the public

2:40:44comment period and we are adjourned.

2:40:46Thanks everybody.

```*