5a
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF PAGE
Hearing Date: March 8, 2012
1:00
5a)
File No: PC-ZON-2012-0018
Assigned Staff: Dale Fitz
Address:
2811, 2835 & 2859 Bradford Street NE and 844 & 922 Leffingwell Avenue
NE
Applicant:
Spectrum Health (Jonathan Flyte, VP Facilities)
Zoning:
SD-PRD Planned Redevelopment District
Type of Case:
Special Land U se ( SLU) and Major A mendment t o an approved P lanned
Redevelopment District
Requesting:
To am end an ex isting P lanned R edevelopment D istrict t o per mit t he
demolition of a s ingle family home and the construction of a b uilding to be
used as a data center.
Requirements:
Section 5.7.06.
Section 5.12.08.
Section 5.12.12.
Section 5.12.14.
Effective Date:
City Commission Approval of the Major Amendment
Planned Redevelopment District.
Site Plan Review.
Special Land Use.
PRD Amendments.
Overview
Spectrum H ealth ha s pr oposed t he c onstruction of a n ew dat a c enter i n A rea 3 o n t heir
phasing map, previously shown as being located in Area 2.
The demolition of a single family home is also requested.
The proposed development is subject to the requirements of the original PRD and the SDPRD Zone District.
History
Spectrum Health received the original PUD approval in 1993.
In 2003, t he PUD w as a mended t o al low t he de velopment of t he West M ichigan H eart
building at its current location south of Bradford St NE.
Master Plan
The Master Plan designates this area as Institutional.
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
North:
SD-IC
Cornerstone University
East:
SD IC
Cornerstone University
5a
2859 Bradford Street NE
PC-ZON-2012-0018, Staff Page 2 of 3
West:
South:
I-96
I-96
Site Information
The entire PRD is 78.57 acres with this phase of the PRD being 11.83 acres.
The property contains wetlands along the north edge.
Building Information
A one-story, 11,440 sq. ft. building is proposed, setback 280 ft. from the property line.
Minimum setback in the PRD zone district is 20 ft.
Hours of Operation
Periodic inspections and maintenance from staff.
Proposed Setbacks
The south s ide of t he bui lding f acing B radford S t N E has a 280’ setback; the west side
facing Leffingwell Ave NE has a 413’ setback.
Landscaping and Fencing
A landscape plan has not been submitted. T he parking area will need t o meet one of the
screening types outlined in the zoning ordinance.
A s ix ft. high c hain link fence is proposed along the entry drive and in front of the building
along B radford S t N E. A t en f t. hi gh c hain link f ence i s pr oposed around t he r est of t he
building site.
Building Elements
60% transparency facing the street is required. The building elevations show no w indows
on all sides of the building.
Parking
5 spaces are proposed in the parking lot.
Neighborhood Concerns
No written correspondence either in support or opposition has been received.
Significant Considerations
The lack of transparency on the street side facing Bradford St NE.
The 280’ setback from Bradford St NE.
This is a major change from the previous plan for this area. A revised phased plan for this
development is needed to understand the placement of buildings in this 2 nd phase.
Please review condition 4 from Ordinance No. 2004-04. This refers to the Developer’s
contribution to area-wide improvements.
Site Plan Review Standards (Section 5.12.08.D.)
Site Plan approval shall be granted only if the Site Plan meets all the applicable requirements of
this Chapter and the following standards.
2859 Bradford Street NE
PC-ZON-2012-0018, Staff Page 3 of 3
Standard
Finding
Master Plan/
Zoning Ordinance
Site Design
Consider the consistency of this plan with the master plan.
Environment
The proposed building is setback more than 180’ from the wetlands at the north
end of the property.
Consider adequacy and locations of parking and driveways
Vehicular and
Pedestrian Circulation
Public Facilities
Does not meet transparency requirements of the PRD zone district.
The scale and design of the project will not place an excessive burden on City
services.
5a
5b
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF PAGE
Hearing Date: March 8, 2012
1:20
5b)
File No: PC-SLU-2012-0020
Assigned Staff: Jay Steffen
Address:
1200 Walker Avenue NW
Applicant:
MDR Inc. (Carl A. Del Raso)
Zoning:
TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhood – Traditional Business Area
Type of Case:
Special Land Use (SLU)
Requesting:
Approval for the Triangle Bar to expand an existing Class-C license to add
a rooftop deck with seating for 31 persons operating until 10:00 p.m. daily.
Requirements:
Article 6
Section 5.9.05.
Section 5.12.08.
Section 5.12.12.
Effective Date:
March 24, 2012
Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts
Use Regulations Alcohol Sales
Site Plan Review
Special Land Use
Overview
Rooftop seating is proposed for the Triangle Bar, a neighborhood bar.
The rooftop seating will be located over the front of the building facing Walker Avenue
Master Plan
Master Plan designates this area as Traditional Business Area.
Surrounding Land Uses
North:
TN – TBA
mix of commercial uses
East:
TN – TBA
mix of commercial uses, upper level apartment immediately adjacent
South:
TN – TBA
1 ½ story house
West:
TN – TBA
residential
Site Information
+/- 11,486 sq. ft. (.26 acre)
The property has frontage on both Walker and Garfield Avenues.
Two buildings on site; one story vacant at the corner and the Triangle Bar building.
Building Information
Existing Triangle Bar is a cinder block building – 2,400 sq. ft.
5b
1200 Walker Avenue NW
PC-SLU-2012-0020, Staff Page 2 of 3
Types of MLCC Licenses Requested
The ap plicant already h as a Class C l icense t o per mit on -site c onsumption of al cohol ( wine,
beer and distilled spirits) and a Sunday sales permit.
Existing and Proposed Hours
Indoor bar:
Rooftop deck seating:
currently until 2:00 a.m. daily
proposed until 10:00 p.m. daily
Outdoor Seating
The rooftop outdoor seating area will have seating for 31 people.
The rooftop outdoor seating area is proposed to be constructed atop the building facing Walker
Avenue.
The applicant would like to keep the rooftop outdoor seating area open until 10:00 p.m. daily.
The rooftop outdoor seating area will not have a roof or canopy of any type.
Access a nd ent ryway t o the d eck w ill b e via a new s taircase t o be built inside t he existing
building.
The entire deck will have a continuous 42 inch railing. The north side has railing and is open to
Walker A ve; the other t hree s ides ( south, west, east) w ill hav e a 6 f t. hi gh wooden fence to
serve as a visual and sound barrier.
No entertainment is proposed, nor is outdoor sound amplification.
The r ooftop s eating w ould m ost i mpact t he adj acent r esidential pr operty to t he s outh an d
upper-level apartment in the building immediately adj acent on Walker Avenue, as well as the
residential properties to the west across Garfield Avenue.
Parking
Available Parking
The site plan indicates 14 existing on-site parking spaces.
On-street parking is permitted in the vicinity on both Garfield Avenue and Walker Avenue.
Required Parking
The existing es tablishment has s eating for 53 people, requiring 18 parking s paces (1.0 per 3
occupancy). The site is currently non-conforming relative to parking.
The 31 outdoor seats require an additional 2 spaces (.25 spaces per 4 occupancy).
At 20 required parking spaces, the site does not meet current parking requirements.
The Planning Commission may waive all or part of the required parking spaces as part of this
Special Land Use request.
Site Issues
The parking lot is not improved with parking lot landscape screening at the street frontages or
the r equired 10-foot landscape buf fer between the p arking l ot and t he a djacent r esidential
property.
A 6-foot fence in good repair is located between the parking lot and adjacent residence.
An unenclosed dumpster is located next to the vacant building at Garfield Avenue.
The Planning Commission has the discretion to determine the extent of site upgrades required.
Other Staff Reviews
The Police Department has no objection to the proposed rooftop deck outdoor seating area.
Neighborhood Input
The building project was presented to the West Grand Neighborhood Organization (WGNO).
WGNO does not object to this request. Their letter is attached.
5b
1200 Walker Avenue NW
PC-SLU-2012-0020, Staff Page 3 of 3
Letters of support from the West Leonard Business Association and West Grand Neighborhood
Association are attached. No letters of opposition have been received.
Other Establishments in Vicinity
The following establishment within (+/-) 1,000 feet of the subject property serve or sell alcohol.
Establishment
Address
Liquor License
Type
Other Permits
Walker Street
Pharmacy
1181 Walker NW
Class C & SDM
N/A
Class C = Beer, wine and liquor for on-site consumption
SDM = Beer and wine for off-site consumption
Significant Considerations
Neighborhood concerns, if identified at the public hearing.
Impact of outdoor seating and evening hours on neighboring uses and residents in vicinity.
Adequacy of parking.
Site Plan Review Standards (Section 5.12.08.D.)
Site P lan approval s hall be gr anted only if the S ite P lan meets all the applicable requirements of
this Chapter and the following standards.
Standard
Finding
Master Plan/Zoning Ordinance
Acceptable.
Site Design
Environment
Consider the extent to which adequate
parking will be provided.
Acceptable.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
Acceptable.
Public Facilities
Acceptable.
West Leonard Business Association
February 28, 2012
Planning Commission
1120 Monroe Ave NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
RE: 1200 Walker Avenue, Triangle Bar
Dear Planning Commissioners,
West Leonard Downtown District supports the request of MDR Inc for approval to add a
rooftop deck to the Triangle Bar with seating for `31 persons operating until 10:00 p.m.
daily.
Regards,
West Leonard Downtown District
Johnny Brann Jr., President
Sean Ellis, Vice President
Mark Alcock, Treasurer
Jane Grischke, Secretary
401 West Leonard  Grand Rapids MI  Phone: 616.308.0699  johnnybrannjr@branns.com
West Grand Neighborhood Organization
415 Leonard NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504
Telephone: (616) 451.0150 Fax (616) 451.3856 wgno@att.net
February 28, 2012
Planning Commission
1120 Monroe Ave NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
RE: 1200 Walker Avenue NW
Dear Board Members,
Triangle Bar has been monitored by West Grand for the last two years during the summer months via West
Grand Mobile Watch. We have observed the smokers standing in front of the bar; not once have we noticed
any behavior that would warrant a police call. Furthermore, West Grand has spoken to several residents about
the proposed changes and we have not heard anything negative regarding this issue.
We support the request of MDR Inc for approval to add a rooftop deck to the Triangle Bar with seating for `31
persons operating until 10:00 p.m. daily, with the following conditions:
That all proposed changes adhere strictly to the application presented
o Not open after 10 p.m.
o No music on the deck
o All lighting meets standards put in place by the City Codes
Sincerely
Jane Grischke
Jane Grischke
5c
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF PAGE
Hearing Date: March 8, 2012
1:40
5c)
File No: PC-SLU-2011-0077
Assigned Staff: Elizabeth Zeller
Address:
863 7th Street NW (Stocking Elementary School)
Applicant:
Ojibway Development, LLC (Bruce Michael)
Zoning:
TN-LDR Traditional Neighborhoods – Low -Density Residential
Type of Case:
Special Land Use (SLU)
Requesting:
To convert the former Stocking Elementary S chool building into a 36dwelling unit multiple-family residence.
Requirements:
Article 5.
Section 5.9.17.
Section 5.12.08.
Section 5.12.12.
Effective Date:
March 24, 2012
Residential Zone Districts
Multiple Family Dwellings
Site Plan Review
Special Land Use
Overview
Grand R apids P ublic S chools ha s agreed t o sell t he s ubject pr operty t o O jibway
Development.
The former school building will be converted into 36 apartments with 54 parking spaces.
Ojibway has agreed to split the property into two parcels, with the intention of donating ~1.7
acres to t he C ity of G rand R apids f or d evelopment i nto a pu blic par k. T he p ark w ill be
separately developed under the auspices of the City and Friends of Grand Rapids Parks.
Master Plan
The Master Plan designates this area as Medium-Low Density Residential.
The pl an i s c onsistent w ith t he r ecommendations c ontained i n M aster P lan S ection 10. 7
School Reuse in a Pre-World War II Neighborhood Context.
The P lan r ecommends gi ving pr eference to office, educ ational and r esidential reuse of
former school buildings and the preservation of greenspace.
Surrounding Land Uses
North:
TN-LDR
low density residential
East:
TN-LDR
low density residential
South:
TN-LDR
low density residential
TN-TBA
neighborhood commercial
West:
TN-LDR
low density residential
863 7st NW (Stocking Elementary School)
PC-SLU-2011-0074, Staff Page 2 of 3
Building and Site Information
The total school property site consists of 3.57 acres with ~ 1.87 acres to be retained for the
residential development.
The building consists of 2 stories and has a footprint of ~21,177 sq. ft.
The pr operty i s improved w ith t he s chool bui lding, a par king l ot, pl ayground an d bl acktop
play area.
Building Placement
The Master Plan discourages major expansion of the existing b uilding footprint to maintain
existing open spaces and parks. No building expansion is proposed.
Original front building entrances will be maintained as recommended in the Master Plan.
Section 5. 9.17.B. r equires multiple-family dw ellings t o b e per mitted on a R egional S treet,
Major City Street, or City Collector Street, or within 200 feet of such a street. The property
meets this requirement, as both Walker and Stocking Avenues are major streets.
Building Elements
Changes are not proposed for the building exterior.
The building has a significant amount of windows, and meets transparency requirements.
The proposal is c onsistent with the Master P lan recommendations that the s ize of or iginal
window openings be maintained.
Density
The property can support up to 40 dwelling units (2,000 sq. ft. lot area per dwelling unit).
36 dwelling units are proposed.
The unit mix is represented below:
RESIDENTIAL MIX
UNIT TYPE
# OF UNITS
1 BR
2 BR
3 BR
12
22
2
TOTAL
36
Multi-family uni ts ar e be st s ituated ad jacent t o p ublic par ks an d open spaces t o pr ovide
residents space for recreation and physical activity in the natural environment. The offer by
the developer to donate a portion of the site for a public park assists in off-setting the density
that is requested in the former school building.
Open Space
Section 5. 9.17.D. r equires op en s pace ( 65 s q. f t. per uni t x 36 units = 2 ,340 sq. ft.) fo r
multiple-family dwellings, to be located in the rear yard.
There is adequate open space on t he property to meet this requirement – except that it is
located i n t he f ront y ard. The de velopment w ill a lso be i mmediately adj acent t o publ ic
recreational space.
The P lanning C ommission c an a pprove t he r equested w aiver if t he S pecial Land U se
standards are substantially met (per Section 5.9.02.B.).
5c
5c
863 7st NW (Stocking Elementary School)
PC-SLU-2011-0074, Staff Page 3 of 3
The proposed park property offered by the developer helps to maintain the citywide Green
Grand Rapids master plan goal of a no net reduction in publicly owned land and insuring a
park within a ¼ mile walking distance of every resident.
Parking
54 parking spaces are proposed, which meets the parking requirements.
Parking i s pr oposed i n an ex isting and ex panded parking l ot on t he north side of the site
between t he building and t he al ley. T he existing hardsurfaced play ar ea will a lso be
incorporated into the parking lot.
The existing parking lot has access from both Jeanette Avenue and the alley to the north.
The al ley ac cess w ill be el iminated a nd the J eanette A venue dr ive entrance ex panded t o
accommodate ingress and egress.
Traffic Safety has reviewed the plan and is amenable to the changes.
Landscaping
Street trees exist along the perimeter of the site.
A f inal landscape pl an r eflecting par king lot landscape s creening and s treet t rees w ill be
required at the LUDS permitting process.
The Master Plan recommends that existing mature trees be maintained. One street tree will
be lost due to the widening of the Jeanette Avenue entry drive.
Neighborhood Input
No letters of support or opposition have been received to date.
Significant Considerations
Neighbor concerns, if any.
Compatibility of multiple family residential units with existing neighborhood character.
Appropriateness of other uses for this building.
Site Plan Review Standards (Section 5.12.08.D.)
Site Plan approval shall be granted only if the Site Plan meets all the applicable requirements of
this Chapter and the following standards.
Standard
Finding
Master Plan/Zoning Ordinance
Acceptable.
Site Design
Acceptable.
Environment
Acceptable.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
Acceptable.
Public Facilities
Acceptable.
SLU Application & Review Standards
Application
Special Land Use
A. Property and Project Information
Property Address __________________________________________________________________________
èêí 鬸 ͬ®»»¬ô ÒÉ
Parcel Number ________________________________
Lot Size
Frontage: _____
íçî ft
Depth: _____
ìïê ft
Zone District ______________
ÔÜÎ
Area: íòéë
_______ Acres/Sq Ft
Rectangle
ì Irregular
ª¿½¿²¬ °«¾´·½ -½¸±±´
Current use of property _____________________________________________________________________
³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ¿°¿®¬³»²¬- ¿²¼ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ °¿®µ
Proposed use of property ____________________________________________________________________
Number of parking spaces on site
ëð -°¿½»_______________
Will the proposed use include any of the following activities? (Check all that apply)
Sale or Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages
(if checked, include supplemental application for
alcohol uses)
Live Entertainment and/or Dancing
Banquet Facility or Theatre
Outdoor Seating and/or Other Outdoor Activity
ì
Off-Site Parking Lot
Drive-Through
24-hour Operation
Religious Institution
Social Service Facility
³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ¿°¿®¬³»²¬Other ________________________________
B. Applicant Information
1. Applicant
Identify the person or organization requesting the Special Land Use:
Name ______________________________________________
Þ®«½» Ó·½¸¿»´
Organization _________________________________________
Ѷ·¾©¿§ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ô ÔÔÝ
Mailing Address ______________________________________
íîéð ݱ±´·¼¹» Ø·¹¸©¿§
Þ»®µ´»§
Ó× Zip ________
ìèðéî
City _________________________
State ___
Cell Phone
__________________
îìèñéðíóìêëí
Business Phone __________________
îìèñéîïóïëîï
îìèñççêóçéèì
Fax
__________________
E-Mail ___________________________
¾®«½»³·½¸à¹³¿·´ò½±³
2. Applicant Interest
The applicant must have a legal interest in the subject property:
Property Owner
Purchaser by Option or Purchase Agreement
ì Purchaser by Land Contract
ì Lessee/Tenant
ì Check here if Applicant is also Property Owner
Identify the person or organization that owns the subject property:
êïêñéèðóéééï
Name ______________________________________________
Cell Phone
__________________
Õ»² Õ´±³°¿®»²êïêñèïçóíðíð
Organization _________________________________________
Business Phone __________________
Ù®¿²¼ ο°·¼- Ы¾´·½ ͽ¸±±´Mailing Address ______________________________________
Fax
__________________
øêïê÷ èïçóíðïî
çðð ˲·±²ô ÒÛ
Õ´±³°¿®»²-Õ๮°-òµïîò³·ò«City _________________________
State ___
E-Mail ___________________________
Ó×
ìçëðí
Ó× Zip ________
3. Property Owner
4. Agent
Identify any person representing the property owner or applicant in this matter:
Name ______________________________________________
Cell Phone
__________________
Organization _________________________________________
Business Phone __________________
Mailing Address ______________________________________
Fax
__________________
City _________________________ State ___ Zip ________
E-Mail ___________________________
Development Center
1120 Monroe Ave NW
July 2009
SLU Application & Review Standards
Page 2 of 8
Planning Department
grcity.us/planning
616.456.3159
Review Standards
SLU Application & Review Standards
Special Land Use
In addition to the Site Plan Review Standards of Section 5.12.08.D., the Planning Commission shall consider
whether the proposed Special Land Use meets the following standards:
Standard #1. Master Plan/Zoning Ordinance.
Describe how the proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, including the Zone District.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Ю±°»®¬§
½«®®»²¬´§ ¦±²»¼ ®»-·¼»²¬·¿´ò Ë-» ·- ®»-·¼»²¬·¿´ò Ò± ²»© -¬®«½¬«®»- ¾»·²¹ ¿¼¼»¼ò Ñ°»² -°¿½» ¾»·²¹
°®»-»®ª»¼ô
³»»¬·²¹ ½®·¬·½¿´ Ý·¬§ ±°»² -°¿½» ²»»¼-ò
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Standard #2. Neighborhood.
a. Describe how the proposed use will be compatible, harmonious and appropriate with the existing or planned
character and uses of the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and the natural environment.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Ò±
»¨¬»®·±® ½¸¿²¹»- ïð𠧻¿® ±´¼ -½¸±±´ ¾«·´¼·²¹ò Ò± ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ °¿ª·²¹ ±® °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿- ¿¼¼»¼ò ̸» «-» ±º ¬¸»
_________________________________________________________________________________
¾«·´¼·²¹
©·´´ ¾»½±³» ®»-·¼»²¬·¿´ô ³¿¬½¸·²¹ -«®®±«²¼·²¹ «-»-ô ¿²¼ ³¿¬½¸·²¹ ³¿-¬»® °´¿² ¿²¼ ¦±²·²¹ º±® °®±°»®¬§ò
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
b. Describe how potentially adverse effects arising from the proposed use on the neighborhood and adjacent
properties will be minimized through the provision of adequate parking, the placement of buildings, structures and
entrances, as well as the location of screening, fencing, landscaping, buffers or setbacks.
_________________________________________________________________________________
É·´´ °®±ª·¼» ±²ó-·¬» °¿®µ·²¹ ·² »¨½»-- ±º ³«²·½·°¿´ °¿®µ·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬-å °¿®µ·²¹ ©·´´ ¾» -½®»»²»¼ °»® ³«²·½·°¿´
_________________________________________________________________________________
®»¯«·®»³»²¬-ô ±°»² -°¿½»- ©·´´ ¾» ¼»»¼»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±® ·¬- ¼»-·¹²»» º±® üïòððô »¨·-¬·²¹ ©·´´ ¾» ³¿·²¬¿·²»¼ ¿³«½¸ ¿- °±--·¾´» ¿²¼ ¿«¹³»²¬»¼ò Ì®¿ºº·½ ¹»²»®¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ·³°¿½¬- ©·´´ ¾» ´»-- ¬¸¿² °®»ª·±«- «-» ¿- ¿ -½¸±±´ò
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
c. Describe how the proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future adjacent
uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odors, glare, visual clutter, and
electrical or electromagnetic interference.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Ì®¿ºº·½ ´»-- ¬¸¿² °®»ª·±«- «-»ò ß´´ «-»- ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹ ©·´´ ¾» ®»-·¼»²¬·¿´ ¿²¼ ©·´´ ¹»²»®¿¬» ·³°¿½¬- -·³·´¿® ¬±
_________________________________________________________________________________
-«®®±«²¼·²¹ ®»-·¼»²¬·¿´ «-»-ò п®µ·²¹ ´±¬ ´·¹¸¬·²¹ ©·´´ ¾» -¸·»´¼»¼ ¿²¼ ¼·®»½¬»¼ ¬± ³·²·³·¦» ¹´¿®»ò
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
d. Describe how the proposed use will not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood, impair pedestrian
circulation patterns, disrupt the continuity of the urban street wall or otherwise hinder the creation of a pedestrianoriented environment.
_________________________________________________________________________________
ß´´ »¨·-¬·²¹ -·¼»©¿´µ- ©·´´ ¾» ³¿·²¬¿·²»¼ ¿²¼ »¨·-¬·²¹ º»²½·²¹ ©·´´ ¾» ®»³±ª»¼ô ·³°®±ª·²¹ °»¼»-¬®·¿² ¿½½»-_________________________________________________________________________________
¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» -·¬»ò
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Development Center
1120 Monroe Ave NW
July 2009
SLU Application & Review Standards
Page 4 of 8
Planning Department
grcity.us/planning
616.456.3159
Review Standards
SLU Application & Review Standards
Special Land Use
Standard #3. Environment.
Describe how the proposed use will retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable, particularly
where the natural features assist in preserving the general character of the neighborhood.
_________________________________________________________________________________
ß´´ ²¿¬«®¿´ º»¿¬«®»- ±º ¬¸» ´¿²¼-½¿°» ©·´´ ¾» ³¿·²¬¿·²»¼ò ß¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ´¿²¼-½¿°·²¹ ©·´´ ¾» ¿¼¼»¼ò Ò± ²»© °¿ª»¼
_________________________________________________________________________________
¿®»¿- ©·´´ ¾» ¿¼¼»¼ò
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Standard #4. Public Facilities.
a. Describe how adequate public or private infrastructure and services already exist or will be provided at no
additional cost, and will safeguard the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Û¨·-¬·²¹ -»©»®ô©¿¬»®ô -¬±®³ ô ¹¿-ô »´»½¬®·½ô ¬»´»°¸±²» ¿²¼ ½¿¾´» º¿½·´·¬·»- ¿´®»¿¼§ -»®ª» ¬¸» »¨·-¬·²¹ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¿²¼
_________________________________________________________________________________
²± ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ½¿°¿½·¬§ ·- ²»»¼»¼ò
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
b. Explain how the proposed use will not be detrimental to the financial stability and economic welfare of the
City.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Ю±°±-»¼ º¿½·´·¬§ ©·´´ ¿½¬«¿´´§ ·³°®±ª» Ý·¬§ º·²¿²½·¿´ -¬¿¾·´·¬§ ¾§ ¿¼¼»¼ ¬¸·- ½«®®»²¬´§ ¬¿¨ »¨»³°¬ °®±°»®¬§ ¿- ¿
_________________________________________________________________________________
°®·ª¿¬» °®±°»®¬§ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ù- ¬¿¨ ®±´´-ò
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
c. Describe how the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and policies and all
applicable State laws.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Ý·¬§ °¿®µ·²¹ô ´¿²¼-½¿°·²¹ ¿²¼ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¦±²·²¹ ±®¼·²¿²½»- ©·´´ ¾» ½±³°´·»¼ ©·¬¸ò ̸» ¾«·´¼·²¹ ½±¼» ½±³°´·¿²½»
_________________________________________________________________________________
±º ¬¸» »¨·-¬·²¹ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ©·´´ ¾» «°¹®¿¼»¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ -«½¸ ¬¸·²¹- ¿- º·®» -«°°®»--·±²ò Û²»®¹§ »ºº·½·»²½§ ±º ¬¸»
¾«·´¼·²¹ ©·´´ ¾» ·³°®±ª»¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ³»½¸¿²·½¿´ô »´»½¬®·½¿´ô ¿²¼ ´·¹¸¬·²¹ -§-¬»³ «°¹®¿¼»-ò
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Standard #5. Sale and/or Consumption of Alcohol.
Alcohol-related uses tend to have a particularly detrimental effect on a neighborhood where there is a
concentration of such uses in proximity to each other. The standards of review for alcohol sales in
Section 5.9.05.E. shall be used in conjunction with the Review Standards of this Section.
Development Center
1120 Monroe Ave NW
July 2009
SLU Application & Review Standards
Page 5 of 8
Planning Department
grcity.us/planning
616.456.3159
GR SCHOOLS LOFTS
Narrative
Grand Rapids
February 2012
Project Overview / Location
The Grand Rapids public school system has closed three existing elementary
schools in the City of Grand Rapids. All of the facilities are well maintained and
located in the central part of the City within 2 miles of downtown in stable
neighborhoods. The existing buildings were built in the early 1900’s, have all
brick exteriors, and are 2-4 stories tall.
The proposed project would adaptively reuse and renovate the closed schools for
affordable apartments for moderate income individual families. The project
would create 103 new dwelling units with a minimal number of efficiencies the
rest 1,2,3, and 4 bedroom units. The project design reuses existing hallways and
classroom, keeping high quality masonry walls as unit demising partitions. The
unit finishes and style will loft apartments with high ceilings and refinished wood
flooring.
All buildings are set in the middle of established neighborhoods and all units will
be good views and access to the surrounding neighborhood parks.
Neighborhood Parks
The developer has been working cooperatively with the City of Grand Rapids and
Friends of Grand Rapids parks. The developer will deed the playground and
open space portions of each site to the Friends of Grand Rapids Parks. The City
and Friends will agree in writing to maintaining, operating and improving the open
spaces and playgrounds as public neighborhood parks in perpetuity.
As part of this effort, the City has established a Brownfield TIF for each of the
schools sites to fund eligible activities in the redevelopment of the properties.
This TIF will extend to 30 years.
Type of Financing and Federal Subsidies
Financial sources for GR School Lofts include primary debt from HUD using the
221d4 program (~$7.3 million), low-income housing tax credit equity (~$3.6
million), and federal historic tax credits (~$2.5 million). Other sources include
CMS and federal energy efficiency incentives ($340,000), equity from the sale of
1
a charitable contribution deduction for donation of the parkland to Grand Rapids
($800,000), sale proceeds from the sale of a fourth school ($200,000) and cash
equity from investors ($230,000). The Brownfield TIF will result in very low net
real estate tax bills allowing more debt to be used.
Bedroom Mix and Market
GR Schools Lofts sites are located in central Grand Rapids, outside of
Downtown. This is an area that has limited rental apartment housing available.
GR Schools Lofts will provide a larger percentage of larger units with 70% of the
unit mix being 2,3, and 4 bedroom units. This takes advantage of two factors: 1)
most of the existing competition offers virtually no 3 bedroom units and only an
average supply of two bedroom units; 2) families with children will be attracted to
the larger units as their children will have direct access to the adjacent open
space/neighborhood park. The mix of units is seen below:
UNIT TYPE
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR + DEN
2 BR
2 BR + DEN
3 BR
4 BR
TOTAL
NO OF
UNITS
0
28
0
68
0
5
2
% OF
TOTAL
0%
27%
0%
66%
0%
5%
2%
103
100%
AVE
UNIT/SF
0
706
0
861
0
1,230
1,382
Tenants Served
GR Public Schools Lofts will function as workforce housing for those with jobs in
the lower echelon of the economic strata. Rents will be as follows:
Project Milestones
Contract Rents
Unit
Sq. Ft.
1 bedroom/1 bath
$612
486-995
2 bedroom/1 bath
$700
704-1046
2 bedroom/2 bath
$734
1050
3 bedroom/2 bath
$845
1182-1332
4 bedroom/2 bath
$940
1382
The following is an abbreviated listing of the major development milestones to
serve as an indicator of the project’s timetable:
2
Oct
2011
Jan
Feb
2012
2012
Feb
2012
Mar
Jun
Jul
Dec
Dec
Jul
Aug
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2013
2013
Special Land Use Permit and Brownfield applications
submitted. Federal historic tax credit part 1 and HUD 221d4
initial applications
Public hearings for SLU and Brownfield
HUD preliminary loan approval. City grants SLU and
Brownfield approvals. Federal Historic Part 1 approved.
Submit to MSHDA for 4% Tax Credit and Part 2 historic
application.
Final plans prepared.
HUD final commitment issued
Commence Construction
Initial Unit Completion
50% Construction Completion
100% Construction Completion
Lease up Complete
3
5d
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF PAGE
Hearing Date: March 8, 2012
2:00
5d)
File No: PC-SLU-2012-0019
Assigned Staff: Dale Fitz
Address:
1425 Eastern Avenue SE
Applicant:
O&E Party Store (Leon Yarbrough)
Zoning:
TN-TBA Traditional Neighborhoods – Traditional Business Area
Type of Case:
Special Land Use (SLU)
Requesting:
Approval to ad d t he sales of di stilled s pirits ( SDD l icense) t o an existing
party/convenience store that sells beer and wine (SDM license).
Requirements:
Article 6.
Section 5.9.05.
Section 5.12.08.
Section 5.12.12.
Effective Date:
March 24, 2012
Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts
Alcohol Sales
Site Plan Review
Special Land Use
Overview
Sales of distilled spirits for off-premise consumption, for a store with 25,000 Sq Ft. or less of
GFA, is a Special Land Use approval in the TN-TBA zone district.
Police Department has no concerns for additional sales of distilled spirits.
Master Plan
The Master Plan designates this area as Medium Low Density Residential.
Surrounding Land Uses
North:
TN-TBA
Residential
East:
TN-TBA
Commercial
South:
TN-TBA
Commercial
West:
TN-LDR
Residential
Site and Building Information
The building is a one story former service station, with a footprint of approximately 1,900 sq.
ft.
There is only one small window in the front of this building. Transparency requirement in
the TN-TBA zone district is 60% with a cash register viewing window of at least 20 sq. ft.
The dumpster will be moved to the side of the building and screened.
5d
1425 Eastern Avenue SE
PC-SLU-2012-0019, Staff Page 2 of 2
The applicant also owns 1419 and 1411 Eastern Ave SE. These houses are directly to the
north of the convenience store. T he applicant has mentioned the possibility of using 1419
Eastern together w ith t he c onvenience s tore as p ossible s torage a nd or of fice s pace.
Expanding the use to the north would require Planning Commission approval.
Parking Considerations
The western portion of the lot is not paved and is open to vehicles.
Parking is in f ront of t he s tore, w hich does n ot m eet the r equirements of t he z oning
ordinance.
The existing exterior lighting is creating glare and spilling off their property.
The applicant has also mentioned screening the parking lot at the corner of their lot.
Nearby Alcohol Uses
There are no other alcohol sales uses within 1000 feet.
Use Considerations
The addition of the SDD (Specially Designated Distributor) license would allow this
convenience store to sell distilled spirits for consumption off the premises.
Hours of operation are Monday–Thursday 10 am–1 pm, Friday–Saturday 10 am–11 pm, and
Sunday 12 pm–10 pm.
Site Plan Review Standards (Section 5.12.08.D.)
Site Plan approval shall be granted only if the Site Plan meets all the applicable requirements of
this Chapter and the following standards.
Standard
Finding
Master Plan/Zoning Ordinance
Acceptable – meets the intent of this district.
Site Design
No exterior changes are proposed.
The site is fully built out and there is little environmental impact
expected.
No impact is expected on pedestrian circulation.
Consider impact of use on need for public resources.
Environment
Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
Public Facilities
5e
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF PAGE
2:20
5e)
Hearing Date: March 8, 2012
(Tabled from February 9, 2012)
File No: PC-ZON-2011-0001
Assigned Staff: Landon Bartley
Address:
2420 Coit Avenue NE
Applicant:
G.A. Haan Development (Gerald Haan)
Zoning:
SD-OS
MCN-LDR
Type of Case:
Zone Change/Special Land Use
Requesting:
Approval to rezone 2042 Coit Avenue NE from SD-OS (Special Districts – Open
Space) t o M CN-LDR ( Mid-Century N eighborhoods – Low-Density R esidential)
to f acilitate t he r euse of t he f ormer R iverside E lementary S chool f or s enior
housing. The building will be expanded by approximately 8,000 square feet and
the existing parking areas reconfigured.
Requirements:
Article 5
Section 5.12.08.D
Section 5.12.12.E
Section 5.12.13.
Effective Date:
City Commission Approval of Rezoning
Special Districts – Open Space
Mid-Century Neighborhoods – Low-Density Residential
Residential Zone Districts
Site Plan Review Standards
Special Land Use Review Standards
Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments
Overview
The Planning Commission first reviewed this request at its February 9, 2012 meeting. The
Zone Change request was approved at that time (which will go t o the City Commission on
March 13, 20 12) but t he Special Land U se r equest was t abled w ith a r equest f or t he
applicant to meet with the neighborhood again.
The appl icant m et w ith nei ghbors at a meeting ar ranged by t he C reston N eighborhood
Association on February 2 8, 20 12. While P lanning s taff w as u nable t o at tend, it has b een
reported that the meeting was positive in nature.
The applicant is seeking to reuse the building as a senior living center.
Senior housing is a Special Land Use in the MCN-LDR zone district.
Master Plan
The Master Plan designates this area as Institutional.
Surrounding Land Uses
North:
MCN-LDR
East:
MCN-LDR
South:
SD-OS
One- and Two-unit Residential
One- and Two-unit Residential
Riverside Middle School
5e
2420 Coit Avenue NE
PC-ZON-2012-0001, Page 2 of 2
West:
MCN-LDR
One- and Two-unit Residential
Special Land Use
The proposed use would be a senior housing (assisted living) facility. No Section 8 or
voucher subsidized housing is proposed.
There is no proposal for any sort of medical rehabilitation or mental health facility. This is
also not proposed to be a nursing home, but an assisted/independent living center.
Site Plan Review
Site Considerations
The applicant proposes to construct a new driveway with a circle drop-off area, including
three accessible parking spaces, and a 31-space parking lot to the east and south of the
building.
There is also an existing 29-space parking lot to the west of the building that would remain.
Parking is adequate; screening would be required per the requirements of Section 5.11.07.
of the Zoning Ordinance.
The combined addition and new parking area would reduce the green space on the property
and result in 68% green space. MCN-LDR requires 30% for multi-family residential uses.
A detailed landscape and photometric plan would be required during final plan review.
Building Considerations
The applicant intends to construct a ~7,655 square foot, one-story addition on the east side
of the existing building. The addition would bring the building to ~44,000 square feet.
The architecture is meant to match up with the existing structure.
The interior of the entire building (incl. the new addition) is proposed to be reconfigured to
include approximately 45-50 residential units, as well as a dining hall, offices, and a
recreation area.
45-50 units on a parcel of ~7.5 acres is a density of 6-7 units/acre. (The density of the
surrounding neighborhood ranges from 4 to 6 units/acre).
Neighborhood Considerations
No support or opposition has yet been received from neighbors or other interested parties.
Site Plan Review Standards (Section 5.12.08.D.)
Site Plan approval shall be granted only if the Site Plan meets all the applicable requirements of
this Chapter and the following standards.
Standard
Finding
Master Plan/Zoning Ordinance
This use is generally acceptable within the residential
zone district.
Generally conforms to the requirements of the Zone
District.
Generally conforms to the requirements of the Zone
District, but additional green space may be required.
Generally acceptable.
Site Design
Environment
Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
Public Facilities
No additional public facilities or services will be
required.
January 12, 2012
Re: Proposed Development Operation
G.A. Haan Development plans to rehabilitate the Riverside School building at 2420
Coit NE Grand Rapids. The vacant building will become home to 45 to 50 seniors
and a place of employment to members of the community.
The majority of the existing building footprint will remain intact with an
approximate 7,000 square foot addition being made on the southeast side,
replacement of windows, doors and some exterior material will be needed.
Additional vegetation will be installed to soften the exterior appearance and blend
the facility with its residential surroundings. There will be some removal of existing
asphalt and play ground equipment, and new asphalt laid to accommodate the
required number of parking spaces. On the northwestern side a new Porte cachet
and circular drive will be constructed for more convenient access for residences and
families.
The interior will be completely redesigned to accommodate 45 to 50 living units.
The size of these rooms range from 400 to 500 square feet with a percentage of them
designed to be handicap accessible. Each of the rooms will be equipped with its
own complete bathroom and kitchenette.
In addition to the resident living units the building will be made up of several
common areas including; an exercise room, kitchen and dining facilities, family
gathering spaces, TV viewing areas, offices and back of house areas. The interior
finishes will be a complete new package. The architect and designer work very close
to ensure specifications of all interior, exterior finishes and furniture specifications
meet or exceed standards.
Staffing will be determined by occupancy, senior housing similar to Riverside have a
fulltime manager, a fulltime marketing person, a maintenance person and a dietary
consultant, these positions are usually preformed during normal business hours.
This is a residential (24 hour) facility. Universal workers are added as occupancies
grow at a rate of one worker to six residents. The universal workers are present at
the facility in 8 hour shifts 24 hours per day. At 100 percent occupancy, during
normal business hours, Riverside would have a maximum of 12 employees.
P.O. Box 556 380 Franklin Street Harbor Springs, MI 49740
Voice: 231.526.7380 Fax: 231.526.7390 www.haandev.com
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 14
1. That the plans prepared by Winter-Troutwine Associates, Inc., dated January 5, 2012,
and signed, dated and stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the
approved plans, except as amended in this resolution.
2. That development compliance/LUDS and building permits shall be obtained for the
change of use and for any alterations requiring a building permit, prior to occupancy
of the building.
3. That the operation of the proposed use and hours of operation (of Monday –Friday,
7:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.) shall be as described in the application and during testimony.
4. The Planning Commission has found that the applicant has adequately demonstrated
that meeting the transparency requirements of Section 5.6.08. would be detrimental to
the operation or security of the proposed use, and as such waives those
requirements. Waiving the requirements protects residential neighbors from
additional noise by limiting the amount of openings that would face residential
neighbors.
5. That the Planning Commission waives the minimum lot area requirements of Section
5.9.36.
6. That bicycle parking will be added as required by Section 5.2.21.
7. That outdoor repair on the site shall not be permitted and all repair activities must
take place indoors, and that there shall be no outdoor storage of any goods or
materials, except for automobiles.
8. That lot combination of the subject properties shall be completed by Kent County
prior to occupancy of the new portion of the building.
9. That the requirements of Section 5.11. of the Zoning Ordinance for parking lot
landscape screening, buffers, and street trees shall be met, which may require a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Landscape screening, buffers and street
trees shall comply with plans submitted and with review and approval by the Planning
Director.
10. That any signage, landscaping, demolition, or new construction is subject to
applicable regulations and required permits, as necessary.
11. That the proposed use will comply with all other applicable City ordinances and
policies and all applicable State laws.
12. That this approval shall take effect upon the effective date of the City Commission
approval of the zone change for 836 & 840 E. Fulton Street and 11 Dwight Avenue SE.
SUPPORTED by Mr. Hamilton. YEAS: 3 (Angelo, Doezema, Hamilton). NAYS: 3 (Ruis,
Koetje, Treuer). MOTION FAILED.
Ms. Angelo MOVED TO TABLE THE SPECIAL LAND USE REQUEST TO THE FIRST
MEETING FOLLOWING THE MEETING OF 3/08/12 TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE PLACING THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE NORTH OF
THE EXISTING BUILDING. SUPPORTED by Mr. Hamilton. YEAS: 5. NAYS: 1 (Doezema).
MOTION CARRIED.
____________________________________________________________________________
2420 Coit Avenue NE – Zone Change/Special Land Use – G.A. Haan Development requesting
approval to rezone one parcel from SD-OS (Special Districts – Open Space) to MCN-LDR (MidCentury Neighborhoods – Low-Density Residential) to facilitate the reuse of the former
Riverside Elementary School for senior housing. The building will be expanded by
approximately 8,000 sq. ft. and the existing parking area reconfigured. PC-ZON-2011-0001
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 15
Mr. Bartley presented the two-part request; zone change and Special Land Use. The zone
change is requested from SD-OS Open Space to Mid-Century Neighborhoods – Low Density
Residential. The Special Land Use request relates to reusing an existing building on the
property. The building was formerly a school and is proposed for assisted living, which is a
Special Land Use in the MCN-LDR district.
Mr. Bartley explained that the property was also formerly known as 265 Eleanor NE and is the
former Riverside Elementary School. Riverside Middle School is located on property to the
south. The entire site was previously 21 acres. The property has been divided. The site in
question is 7.5 acres and is the site proposed for rezoning. The Master Plan, with both schools
on the site, refers to the large parcel as institutional. As the Planning Commission is aware, the
Master Plan is drawn with a broad brush. The uses shown on the Future Land Use Map
surrounding the site are medium-low density residential. All of the zoning around the property is
currently LDR with one and two-family residential uses. To the south is Riverside Middle School
and then more residential.
With regard to the Special Land Use request the proposal is to reuse the former school as
assisted living. The assisted living is not Section 8 or voucher subsidized housing nor is it
proposed for any sort of medical rehabilitation or mental health facility. It is not proposed as a
nursing home but rather an assisted/independent living center. The applicant proposes 45-50
rooms with a dining hall, offices and recreation area.
Mr. Bartley related that the applicant proposes constructing a new driveway with a circle drop-off
area creating accessible spaces and a southern drive down to a 31-space parking lot. During
the LUDS permitting process staff will look for parking lot landscaping, etc. but in general the
site plan conforms to the ordinance. There is a 29 space parking lot located to the west of the
building that will remain. Although the parking area and proposed building addition would
reduce total green space on the property, the remaining green space far exceeds the required
green space; required is 30% and remaining would be approximately 68%
With respect to the building, the existing building is a single story. The proposed addition, of
approximately 7,700 sq. ft., is also one story and is designed to match the existing building. A
canopy would be constructed at the entrance over the circular drop off area and is meant to
match the existing character of the building. The building design conforms to the zoning
ordinance. The total building area would be approximately 44,000 sq. ft., including the addition.
While the plans show an addition of 7,655 sq. ft. it is still somewhat conceptual. The idea is that
there will be an addition of approximately 8,000 sq. ft. with additional rooms and dining area. If
the Commission were to approve the plan today and the applicant returns with a plan that
increases the intensity/number of rooms substantially it would require a return trip to the
Planning Commission for further approvals.
Ms. Schulz asked about the time line of the proposed addition; whether they anticipate coming
in for permits within the next year.
Mr. Bartley replied that that is his understanding. They are currently in the process of
purchasing the property from GRPS. The purchase agreement is contingent upon zoning and
Special Land Use approval.
Mr. Bartley continued the presentation relating that the addition would be designed to match the
style and transparency of the existing building.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 16
Staff has received phone calls and emails with questions for clarification of the proposal. Staff
has done their best to answer those questions. There has been no expressed support or
opposition to this request.
Mr. Ruis asked if there has been any offer of public park space in this case, as was the case
with recent GRPS properties the Commission considered.
Mr. Bartley replied that his understanding was that there was a discussion at some point but that
won’t be the case with this request. To the south Riverside Middle School is still in operation
and the remainder of the green space belongs to that property.
Ms. Schulz related that her understanding is that when they were looking at how to segment this
parcel off they tried to draw the line as close to the existing building as possible to be able to
retain the playfield. Her understanding is that the line on the aerial is closer to accurate than
what is shown on the site plan.
Todd Olin, Land and Resource Engineering, stated that there are 29 existing parking spaces to
the west with the existing structure basically centered on the property. Proposed parking is
located to the east. The benefit he sees in a proposal like this is that they aren’t simply asking
for a rezoning. A rezoning to LDR would allow whatever uses are permitted in that district,
which are one and two-family homes. A development such as that would divide the site and
add roads and driveways. What they propose here is to basically keep the property the way it
is. As one goes by the property it will be basically what is seen today; open space with the
structure that is present and the proposed addition, which will mimic the existing architecture.
There are mature trees that line the road that will remain. Mr. Olin explained that the school has
been closed for approximately three years. When in operation there were buses and parents
arriving at peak periods in the morning, mid-day and afternoon. With assisted living units the
residents are independent. They can own a car but they rarely use them. In most cases there is
community transportation to grocery stores and churches and many of the residents ride those
buses.
Mr. Olin stated that both the rezoning and Special Land Use approval are conditions of the
purchase of the property. The proposal is unique in that they aren’t proposing something that
will be a significant impact on the neighborhood. In fact there are some aspects that will be a
reduced impact; traffic being one of them.
Ms. Schulz asked for an example of a comparable facility in the area.
Kathy Schorfhaar explained that they have senior living facilities in northern Michigan and it is
identified as a home for the aged. This facility will be licensed as a home for the aged. They
will have assisted living and there are five levels of care in assisted living. The most extreme
care is 4 and 5 and in their other facilities they have a lot of 1, 2, and 3. They have a memory
care facility and those residents obviously require more care. It is not a nursing home.
Architect Mark Post offered the Covenant Home on Lake Michigan Drive as an example of what
is proposed. The first building located directly on Lake Michigan Dr. is the assisted living facility.
They typically don’t have a car and may need help with feeding. Mobility tends to be more
limited than the independent living. Typically you go condo, independent living, then assisted
living, and then nursing.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 17
Ms. Schulz recalled that Eastgate, a recent proposal considered, has different levels of care.
One can move into the facility and live independently but if your health deteriorates there is
some nursing care. It depends on the levels, the 1 to 5, as to the degree of nursing care one
receives.
Ms. Schorfhaar agreed. If someone’s condition deteriorates the additional care is added to their
program. In this facility they propose levels one through five.
Mr. Koetje clarified that there won’t be any independent living; condo ownership.
Ms. Schorfhaar agreed.
Ms. Schulz explained that there have also been concerns expressed about income restrictions.
Ms. Schorfhaar indicated that this will be market rate housing.
Mr. Treuer asked if they would have to relocate to a nursing facility if they go beyond level 5.
Ms. Schorfhaar agreed.
Mr. Ruis noted that there is an existing sidewalk on Comstock. A clear path isn’t evident on the
site plan from the building to the public sidewalk.
Mr. Olin related that there are sidewalks throughout the site that connect this school to the
middle school to the south. They will retain the walks that lead to the public sidewalks. There
are a couple of sidewalks at the rear that connect to Swensberg. The playground equipment at
the back will be removed and the sidewalk connecting to that street will likely be removed as
well.
Ms. Schulz asked for clarification as to whether the sidewalk to the cul de sac would also be
removed.
Mr. Olin replied that the sidewalks that connect to the cul de sac will be removed. With the
proposed use being senior living they didn’t feel it was a good idea to have kids walking through
the site. The connectivity to Coit and to Comstock will remain. They also plan to have a
separate sidewalk that runs along the entrance to Coit. If they wanted to take a short walk
outside, the sidewalk would connect.
Mr. Koetje asked that Mr. Olin speak to the impact the neighbors can anticipate.
Mr. Olin explained that some of the residents will own a car. Those that use their vehicles are
very few. Therefore, the number of trips will be fewer than when the school was open. With
respect to utilities and infrastructure, there is no need for them to make improvements as those
are provided to the site. Fire protection will largely stay the same. There will be an 8,000 sq. ft.
addition so, if a fire occurred, the travel path around the building would be slightly increased.
The residents will be seniors and noise wouldn’t likely be an issue. When they drive they tend
to avoid the peak times of travel as well as busy roads. If I’m a resident in the community what I
will see is largely the same as what is present now. The streets are framed with mature trees
and there are trees throughout the site that will also remain. There may be a desire for a
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 18
garden or for planting flowers. It will be their home and treated as such. From a maintenance
standpoint he would anticipate this is maintained far better than the school was.
Ms. Schulz suggested that one difference may be the occasional ambulance to the site.
Mr. Olin agreed. He related that his wife is an occupational therapist working at these types of
facilities. When a person gets to the level of care where they need some assistance or need
additional care then they are transported with an ambulance. They work with social workers
and hospitals so that if they go into a hospital and need assisted care afterward then they
coordinate with the social worker. In most cases when looking at a use like this in a
neighborhood setting it usually serves the neighborhood.
Ms. Schulz asked if it is intended for neighbors living in the area knowing that they don’t want to
leave the area.
Mr. Olin replied certainly.
Mr. Koetje invited public comment.
Michael Postumus related that he grew up on the northeast side and attended Riverside
Elementary. He has recently returned to Grand Rapids and will be purchasing a home in the
area. One of the reasons they chose the location was the proximity to open green space and to
park space that Riverside provides. He agrees that the development seems like it will fit well
with the neighborhood but one of his largest concerns is the removal of the playground
equipment. He walks in the neighborhood regularly and often sees families using this facility.
By placing a parking lot there they would be removing an asset from the community. If there is
some way to develop some change in the plan that would allow a similar facility it would be
positive. Riverside Middle has basketball courts but not playground equipment. The
playground was a great appeal for them buying in this area. Additionally, he has some
concerns about water shed and would like to see the appropriate technologies put in place to
mitigate issues related to the additional hard surfacing.
Brian Preston related that his property backs up to the subject property. He doesn’t have a
problem with the proposal but does have a concern about the orientation of the proposed
parking lot. It will be a change from green space to now having cars in his back yard and the
related noise. Site lighting may also be an issue. It is very park like now. He understands the
traffic flow is low but now there will be a drive and cars.
Sam Cummings, 605 Aberdeen NE, related that they will soon be new residents in the
neighborhood. Reasons they chose this neighborhood are many of the things the applicant
mentioned; the infrastructure, the trees, housing stock, diversity of housing stock, the pedestrian
nature of the area and the people. It is a strong and caring neighborhood and that has been
evident over the last few days with all of the discussion taking place about this change. The
neighborhood has lost a school. A school is an anchor and asset to a neighborhood and it’s
important not to make a downward trade if the use is going to change. There are a few uses
that could be considered even trades and others downward. Mr. Cummings feels this is a good
use and has the potential to serve a lot of people in the neighborhood. His concern isn’t
necessarily with the use but with the future unknowns. Being in the property, development, and
asset management business they know what it takes to create lasting value. Based on the
comments he has heard from residents in the neighborhood that is the primary concern. What
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 19
does this mean five and ten years from now? There is very little information available about the
applicant and there hasn’t been a lot of discussion about management or their commitment to
the neighborhood or the project. Their website indicates they are an affordable housing
developer but doesn’t indicate they intend to make a significant commitment to the
neighborhood. Mr. Cummings would like to know more about who will manage the property,
how the value of the neighborhood will be upheld by that management, and providing a long
term asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Cummings concluded his comments indicating that the use
is complimentary. This is an extraordinary neighborhood that they are happy to have found.
They want to be welcoming but they don’t know the developers.
Dave Wykamp, resident on Cheshire, expressed his concern in the event this venture fails. This
is a nice facility and he has heard words like low income housing. He asked if it could be
converted to low income housing in the future. He is also concerned if they take more of the
school property. Will they put a drive off of Cheshire? Cheshire would then become a
thoroughfare with a gas station at one end and low income housing at the other end. He wants
to know how they can guarantee those things don’t happen. He doesn’t anticipate the proposed
facility would impact him but he is concerned about the long term consequences.
Mr. Koetje explained that if the request were approved and something happened in the future,
similar to what Mr. Wykamp described, they would have to come back for approval and that
would involve a public hearing.
Ms. Schulz explained that they are seeking rezoning to MCN-LDR. If it were to change from
senior housing to apartments it would have to come back for a public hearing. With respect to
the question about low income, there are Federal laws regarding the fair housing act and the
inability for jurisdictions to discriminate based on income. There can be no guarantee provided
on the income but most seniors fall into that category. Even in areas where there have been
lower income senior housing projects there has been no impact; very few visitors, low traffic,
etc. In this case that is not the request; they have testified that it is market rate. The City can’t
restrict whether it is low income vs. a market rate project based on Federal law. If it were to
convert to any form of multi-family rental it would have to come back for Planning Commission
review and approval and would involve a public hearing.
Betsy Hammerschmitt related that she grew up in the neighborhood and attended Riverside
Elementary, the junior high and Creston. When her parents moved into the area they were told
they would want to live in that neighborhood because it was the best place to send your kids to
school. Ms. Hammerschmitt stated that the friends and neighbors present feel the same way,
minus the school aspect because GRPS has run that into the ground. She feels the applicant is
very vague on their description. There are at least 51 facilities in the Grand Rapids area that
offer this senior living situation and they haven’t said what they will do to attract residents and
what they will do to separate themselves from the rest. Residents are concerned it may fail and
it doesn’t seem like it is adding value to the neighborhood. Ms. Hammerschmitt asked if they do
back ground checks. There are a lot of kids in the area and they are losing the playground.
She feels the applicants are outsiders and they don’t understand the true intensity of the
residents’ commitment to the neighborhood. They are looking to make a profit.
Sandy Stuckhardt, Board President of the Creston Neighborhood Assoc., stated that she is not
offering a vote of opposition or support from the Board of Directors. She is present to listen to
the residents. They didn’t do any prep work for this request. Staff at the Assoc. spoke with Ms.
Schulz but they didn’t have the pulse of the neighborhood when they brought it up at the Board
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 20
meeting the other night so there was no vote or discussion. The Board of Directors consists of
12 people representing the entire neighborhood. Only one of the Board Members lives in the
Riverside neighborhood area. Ms. Stuckhardt apologized to the neighbors that it wasn’t
addressed sooner. One of the problems is that the site isn’t in the general target area and staff
is not paid to work outside of that area. Ms. Stuckhardt suggested that the matter be tabled and
Creston Neighborhood Association would be willing to host a meeting and invite the developer
and residents to the meeting to consider the pros and cons.
Matt Mitulski, 2733 Sinclair, agreed with previous comments related to due diligence, use
alternatives and mitigation of risk. Like many others he purchased his property in the area
because he wanted his children to attend school in the Grand Rapids Public School District and
he wanted to live in the City. He likes the fabric of his neighborhood, not only his neighbors, but
the small businesses in the area. At the same time one of the things lacking in the
neighborhood is commercial diversity. He wonders what other possible alternatives are for the
space and he would like to see that considered. It is a great proposal but it is only one. He
would like to see some other options. Mr. Mitulski commended the school district on divesting
itself of properties to become a more effective financial institution but at the same time the use
should fit the fabric of the neighborhood and he isn’t certain that it does. They need more time
to determine that.
Deb Postumus stated that she attended the school, was a parent of students at the school,
worked at the school, and currently works for GRPS. Her main concerns include the loss of the
park, which is used frequently. Additionally, they have heard rumors that Riverside Middle will
be closed next. Ms. Postumus likes the idea of having another meeting with more people
involved, including people from GRPS as to what the plan is. They have heard that the property
line is actually nearer the tennis courts near the Middle School and that is a lot of green space.
She feels they need more information before moving forward with the plans.
Tom Casperzak agreed with the comments offered. He asked about staffing, whether it will be
minimum wage jobs or whether professionals will work there. How many shifts will there be and
how many per shift. Mr. Casperzak stated that he lives on Monroe and he experiences the
Veterans Facility traffic every shift. Mr. Casperzak also spoke to the sidewalk proposed for
removal at the back of the building. Those walks are used regularly to get from the dead ends
to the east to the Riverside Park area. That is a highly used green space and now he is hearing
that the Middle school may be closing.
Ken Klomparens, Grand Rapids Public Schools, clarified that the line shown on the plan is very
accurate. They worked to make sure that the line was set at the minimum setback from the
proposed building development so as to take as little land from the entire site as possible. The
agreement with the public schools was accepted and they are now in the investigation period,
which allows the developer to work through a number of issues such as financing, zoning, and
Special Land Use. If all of those conditions are met the sale would be completed. If any of
those are not met then the sale is discontinued and the property would go back on the market.
Mr. Klomparens indicated that he isn’t sure where the comments about closing Riverside Middle
have come from. There has never been any decision regarding Riverside Middle. On an annual
basis every school in the district is looked at because of the continuing drop in student
population. They are in transition and have a new superintendent and he is sure every school
will be looked at again, not just Riverside Middle. The focus is on trying to maximize each
schools use and population. Riverside Middle is not for sale and there has never been a
decision to put it for sale or to close it. It has been discussed just as every other school has.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 21
Mr. Koetje asked about the possibility of relocating the playground equipment onto the GRPS
property after the sale.
Mr. Klomparens replied that playground equipment standards have changed a lot and they
would have to look at whether it can be reinstalled. They try to keep the equipment age
appropriate to the buildings. They wouldn’t want the equipment adjacent to the middle school.
He provided the example of working with the City to put in the KaBOOM playground next to
Creston. It was great for the neighborhood young children but there were also a number of
complaints received about the high school students hanging out there.
Ms. Schulz asked about the path shown connected to the dead end streets. She asked if it is
possible for the paths to be relocated onto GRPS property or for the developer to keep the
paths as it does seem to be a major connector for the neighborhood.
Mr. Klomparens didn’t feel it would be difficult to take the northerly dip out to the back of the
building and connect the two sidewalks.
Ms. Schulz noted that the City has a lot of partnerships with the schools. Creston was an
example of that. She asked if there would be a space for a potential playground that would be
far enough away from the middle school that it could work or would it be difficult, given the
playfields, to site a playground.
Mr. Klomparens stated that he doesn’t feel site, distance and location are issues. The issue will
be cost.
Ms. Schulz noted that most of the playground equipment that is out there doesn’t meet today’s
standards. If it was audited it would likely fail and if relocating it it would be necessary to put
new in. That would raise the issue of raising funds but there are some options for doing that.
Mr. Klomparens indicated that the cost would likely be $100,000 or more to replicate the
playground.
Dee Heemstra, 325 Comstock, stated that the playground is directly across the street from her
driveway. If that will now be a parking lot it will affect her home and the value of her home. She
doesn’t see another location for the parking lot but it will impact her home. Traffic going in and
out will impede her ability to get in and out of her driveway.
George Heemstra clarified that the drive access across from their home is generally closed off
with a chain. No vehicles go in and out other than school vehicles and it was very rare. It was
plowed when the school was in operation. It appears that all the traffic for staff, residents and
the service traffic will now access directly across from his house. He asked what will happen
with the established parking lot and why can’t that lot get the majority of the use.
Joette Hanson, resident on Union, stated that she too attended Riverside Elementary. The loss
of the school is water under the bridge now and they can’t leave it empty. It is a beautiful old
building with great style and something has to be done with it. What is the worst evil? If she
had to pick a use, the assisted living use is probably a safer bet then apartment units. She is
interested in the track record of the applicant. Do they manage or is it outside management.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 22
Will it become a Clark Home or Porter Hills or a Metron? They have to know who will be in
charge.
Bradford Hammerschmitt asked what will make this facility successful having so much other
assisted living for the elderly throughout the greater Grand Rapids and Kent County area. Is it
going to be there for the neighborhood or is it going to be there just to turn a profit. Will there be
amenities in the facility that will be attractive to the public? From what they were able to learn
on-line there will be a cafeteria and a lounge and a few other amenities but not to the extent that
other homes offer. There are homes that are highly successful and respected and have very
happy residents that look forward to living there. Will that be the case with this facility? He
would like to have other uses for the property considered, including another school. His children
attend Grand Rapids Public Schools. His wife had commented on how the schools have gone
downhill over the years and he finds it a shame that GRPS is not reinvesting in itself and making
Grand Rapids a great city for education. People talk about local first in the community and
about having independent store owners, retailers and restaurateurs but they fail to look at what
attracts people to a community anymore and that is the schools. People are flooding to outlying
districts. Grand Rapids needs things that are attractive and rebuilding the neighborhoods. Until
those are present they will be in trouble as a City; they aren’t building a foundation anymore.
Mr. Koetje invited the applicant forward to respond to Commissioner questions. He asked that
Mr. Olin respond to the concern related to site lighting.
Mr. Olin replied that in a normal situation he would reply that there will only be enough provided
to light a parking lot when it is in use. In this particular situation they will have full cut off fixtures
so that the light won’t splash across the parking lots. Given the community and the way it is the
security isn’t a great concern. It is a beautiful area so the tall lights that splash an entire area
aren’t necessary. It will be lit according to safety, getting people in and out of parking lots.
Mr. Koetje asked about pole heights.
Mr. Olin replied that he would like to keep them to 15’ or less. They will go through a lighting
exercise and lay out all the lights for spacing and candle power.
Ms. Schulz asked if they would be agreeable to a condition that said pole height could be no
greater than 15’.
Mr. Olin felt that was acceptable.
Mr. Koetje asked that they speak to the playground.
Mr. Olin felt Ms. Schorfhaar may be able to respond better but he believes it was brought up by
a neighbor during the neighborhood meeting. The equipment is dated but even if it were new
equipment on the property they would have a significant liability issue to deal with. They are
more than willing to relocate the equipment if they want is elsewhere. If the school wants to
take it and put it on their property they would be more than happy to do that.
Ms. Schulz asked if they are getting Brownfield funds for the project.
Ms. Schorfhaar replied that they are.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 23
Ms. Schulz asked if they would be open to including playground improvements. She explained
how that is working with the other GRPS redevelopment sites. That may be an option here.
Mr. Olin felt that would be wonderful. Ms. Schulz stated that they could discuss it with Ms.
Wood when they go through the Brownfield process.
Mr. Koetje asked that they address the concern with the parking lot and what will happen with
the existing parking lot.
Mr. Olin replied that the existing parking lot is angled parking, primarily one-way. That lot will
remain. It will be resurfaced but the configuration will remain the same. On the east there is
additional parking for staff and residents as necessary.
Mr. Doezema asked where deliveries would occur.
Mr. Olin replied that the way it is shown is that the addition on the east building will have the
kitchen and dining and a couple of units and some storage. The deliveries would come to
where the pavement meets the end of the building. They would come in off of Comstock. It
would not be a semi but rather a 18-20’ panel truck. Deliveries would likely occur a couple
times per week.
Ms. Schorfhaar added that they do hire a management company; they continue to own the
facility but they don’t run them. Therefore, she doesn’t know the delivery schedule. They have
partnered with Capital Health Group out of Pennsylvania. They manage a number of facilities
throughout the US and run the two assisted living and memory care facilities that they have.
Mr. Koetje asked where staff would park and where residents would park.
Mr. Olin replied that staff parking would likely be split with most of it taking place on the east.
Most of the staff would be associated with the kitchen and therefore park closest to it. Other
staff members may park in the other area.
Mr. Koetje noted that staff traffic is likely to be more intense than resident traffic.
Ms. Schorfhaar indicated that they believe that shift traffic will be on the west side because that
is where they are anticipating the locker rooms for the universal worker. Kitchen deliveries may
take place off of Comstock but other deliveries would happen on the other side where the
garage is located. There are delivery doors in the alcove area.
Mr. Doezema asked how the parking on the west is accessed.
Mr. Olin related that there is an easement that provides access to the parking.
Mr. Doezema asked if they need all the parking on the west.
Mr. Olin replied that as proposed the parking meets the ordinance. They aren’t proposing any in
excess of what the ordinance requires.
Ms. Schulz asked about the path.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 24
Mr. Olin explained that the developer isn’t opposed to relocating the path to make the
thoroughfares work. They don’t want to cut Coit off. They understand there will still be a school
there and kids going back and forth as well as people walking their dogs etc. They would prefer
to pull the sidewalk away from the back of the building. Being that this will be senior housing
they don’t want kids or others walking next to the windows and surprising them. They are not
opposed to relocating the sidewalks.
Mr. Koetje indicated that they shouldn’t be sidewalks to nowhere.
Mr. Olin indicated that they can coordinate with their neighbor to the south and it should be
simple to make it work.
Mr. Treuer asked about the parking lot and mitigating the water runoff.
Mr. Olin explained that there really isn’t any storm water management on the site now. Water
either seeps into the ground or runs off into public facilities or adjacent properties. What they
propose is maintaining and keeping as much run off on site as possible and then infiltrate it into
the ground with overflow structures to accommodate the required storm event. They are routing
it and collecting it in detention areas and perforated pipes so as much of it finds the aquifer as
possible for recharging.
Mr. Doezema asked if they have any landscaping proposed for the east side.
Mr. Olin replied that they aren’t opposed to it but they don’t have anything planned at this point.
There is a 12-15’ slope down to the parking lot so there is a natural barrier.
Mr. Ruis noted that the conditions of the resolution include the standard landscape condition.
Ms. Schulz suggested augmenting the condition so it is more seasonal with a mixture of conifer
and deciduous trees.
Mr. Doezema asked what the zoning was for the other school redevelopment projects.
Ms. Schulz explained that those sites were already zoned LDR, not open space. The density
proposed for those schools met the ordinance requirements and zone changes weren’t needed.
Mr. Doezema asked if they would have to seek Special Land Use approval down the road if this
were to convert to apartments.
Ms. Schulz agreed. She noted that there has been a concern expressed about the preservation
of green space. They are limited in options and being able to split the property for additional
uses. There is also the option of a conditional rezoning upon the offer of the applicant based on
the proposed site plan and use, which would provide more control over the site and green space
than just a straight rezoning. Any modifications would then require that they come back. The
resolution does include a condition that any increase in the proposed number of approved units
may require Special Land Use approval by the Planning Commission. A percentage change to
the physical structure could also require a visit back to the Planning Commission. That is typical
in the Planned Redevelopment District. The condition could include a percent basis for any
proposed expansion to dictate when it would come back to the Commission for review.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 25
Mr. Koetje suggested they first focus on and address the rezoning request.
Mr. Doezema suggested that the LDR seems to make sense when looking at the zoning map.
Mr. Ruis agreed. He can’t find any argument against that.
Mr. Ruis MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the request of G.A. Haan Development (Gerald Haan) to rezone
2042 Coit Avenue NE, from SD-OS (Special Districts – Open Space) to MCN-LDR (MidCentury Neighborhoods – Low-Density Residential) to facilitate the reuse of the former
Riverside Elementary School for senior housing, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed Zone change will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Master Plan, including the Future Land Use Map because the Future Land Use Map
shows these generalized land use areas as well as low density residential and there is
no Area Specific Plan to refer to.
2. The proposed Zone District will further the themes and objectives of the Master Plan
because the Master Plan encourages reuse of vacant buildings and specifically of
school properties.
3. The property to be rezoned can accommodate the requirements of the proposed Zone
District because the proposed plan for the senior housing shows that the property
can accommodate the requirements of the Zone District.
4. The proposed Zone District or Neighborhood Classification will be compatible with
the Zone Districts and Neighborhood Classifications in the neighborhood because
rezoning the subject property to MCN-LDR is consistent with the zoning of properties
to the north, east and west. Per testimony, there is also likelihood that much of the
green space will be retained and potentially retain a favored neighborhood
playground.
5. The physical, geological, hydrological and other environmental features of the
property to be rezoned will be compatible with the full range of uses in the proposed
Zone Districts because the proposed redevelopment plan shows that the property can
be redeveloped consistent with current regulations.
6. Adequate public facilities already exist at the site.
SUPPORTED by Mr. Hamilton. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Koetje directed the discussion to the Special Land Use.
Mr. Hamilton stated that following the testimony from the residents he would suggest tabling so
that they can hold another meeting to get the details they are interested in.
Mr. Hamilton MOVED TO TABLE TO THE MARCH OR APRIL MEETING TO ALLOW THE
APPLICANT TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION/NEIGHBORS.
SUPPORTED by Angelo.
Ms. Angelo indicated that she would be inclined to approve but it would appear that there hasn’t
been enough communication with the neighborhood. She feels that some of the concerns can
be laid to rest.
The question was called. YEAS: 5. NAYS: 1 (Doezema). MOTION CARRIED.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
February 9, 2012
Page 26
Mr. Doezema indicated that he would be inclined to approve but it does seem to warrant
additional discussion to inform the residents of the area of the details.
Mr. Koetje clarified that the Commission has made a recommendation to the City Commission
to approve the rezoning. The Special Land Use, based on the concerns of the community, has
been tabled until March or April to provide an opportunity for the applicant to meet with the
residents.
____________________________________________________________________________
3665 28TH Street SE – Site Plan Review (SPR) – Centerpointe Development Co., LLC (Chris
Brochert) requesting approval of a Planned Sign Program associated with the partial
redevelopment of Centerpointe Mall. PC-SPR-2011-0071
Ms. Zeller presented the request. She recalled that Centerpointe Mall is being partially
redeveloped and that the Commission previously approved the building and site plan. Today
the request is for signage changes. Ms. Zeller explained that there was a revised page and
resolution included in the lunch packet, as well as an 11 x 17 copy of the plans. The proposal
relates to wall and pole signage on the site. The proposed limits of the sign plan are generally
consistent with the Planned Sign Program that was previously approved for the site. The text
included in the packet describes the various types of signs. The plan assigns signage based on
the amount of floor space occupied by each tenant; anchor tenants, major tenants, minor
tenants, and linear feet of frontage that each retail space has. The sign limits are also included
on the plan identified as 1, 2, 2b, 3, 3b, 4, 5, & 6. 1 through 3b are the different types of signs;
anchor sign through minor sign. The plan identifies existing signs that will remain and are
identified with a 4. Label 5 relates to existing signs that are to be relocated and 6 represents
existing signs that will be removed.
Ms. Zeller thanked the applicant for working with staff. They spent a lot of time making changes.
Ms. Zeller explained that most of the signage will be located above store entrances but there
are a couple of exceptions. The Secretary of State and Nordstrom Rack have signage on the
south face. There will be a small remnant of the interior mall that remains on the south side and
the Secretary of State and Nordstrom Rack will have entrances on the south side through that
small remnant. Dunhams also has an existing sign on the north side at an entry point. That sign
will remain but the sign program stipulates that if someone else takes over that space they will
no longer have rights to that sign. The building at the northeast area of the site has multiple
tenants. The sign plan indicates that future tenants in those spaces will be subject to the limits
of the sign program based on the amount of floor area they occupy. Buildings G & H are also
subject to the limits of the sign program based on their square footage.
Ms. Zeller explained that Building D, currently occupied by Toys R Us, is subject to a previously
approved sign variance and that variance remains with the property. Building E, occupied by
Krispy Kreme, was approved subject to an amendment of the previously approved Planned Sign
Program. Any new signage for that location would also be subject to the limits of that previous
approval. Building F, Arnie’s, was issued sign permits but staff was not able to determine
exactly what standards were applied; the Planned Sign Program or the former ordinance.
Therefore, Arnie’s signage can remain as it is and if they desire a change then it would be
subject to an amendment of the Planned Sign Program. Golf Galaxy also received a variance
and that variance will remain in force.