Planning Commission Agenda, 2025-02-13

The municipal agenda for the Planning Commission meeting on 2025-02-13 is 👉here👈

2160 Celebration Dr NE

On 2023-01-26 the Planning Commission approved a change to the Planned Redevelopment (PRD) of Celebration Village [located at Knapp & the East Beltline] to allow a five-story (5) mixed-use building - including 250 residential units. Once approved by the Planning Commission the initial approval must be adoped by the City Commission, which this was on 2023-03-14. Such approvals have an expiration date of ~2 years from the effective date; the project must begin "substantial" work within that time or the approved changes revert back to their previous or default status. Work on this project has not begun, and it is nearly two (2) years since the approval

The city's ordinance allows for a developer to apply to the Planning Commission once for a one (1) year extension of the approval. The developer of this project is claiming that the project will begin construction this summer (2025).

• City Commission Agenda Item: Consideration of a Major Amendment to the Celebration Village SD-PRD (Special District-Planned Redevelopment District) to facilitate development of 2160 Celebration Drive NE, 2023-03-14
• Planning Commission Agenda Item: 2160 Celebration Dr NE - Residential Building, 2023-01-26

News

• Financing hurdles delay 250 apartments at last undeveloped parcel in Celebration Village, Crains 2025-01-28
• Financing hurdles delay 250 apartments at last undeveloped parcel in Celebration Village, Crains 2025-01-28
• Developer closes on last Grand Rapids property to complete Celebration Village, Crains 2023-06-26
• Five-story, 250-unit apartment building planned for Celebration Village in Grand Rapids, MLive 2023-02-13
• 250 apartments OK'd on last vacant plot of Grand Rapids entertainment hub, Crains Detroit 2023-01-27

Zoning Amendment Potpourri

A variety of, mostly minor, zoning text amendments are on the agenda for recommendation to the City Commission.

Section 5.2.05. Lot and Yard Requirements

This amendment would change the setback requirements for window wells relative to the side and rear lot lines. Window wells large enough to facilitate egress [exit] are necessary for living space below grade; renovating a structure to "finish" the basement or expand the living area into the basement always requires the installation of window wells. In most cases the provisioning for such additions was not considered in the original placement of the structure, or the structure predates current building and zoning ordinances. The current requirement is for window wells to be three (3) feet from the side or rear property line. If a property owner wishes to pursue installation of window wells, and cannot meet this requirement, there only option is the file a case with the Board of Zoning Appeals which is a long and expensive process with no certainty of the outcome.

Data: ~50,000 of the housing units in Grand Rapids were constructed prior to 1959, of those ~30,000 were constructed prior to 1939.

The amendment would allow for an "Administrative Departure" for window wells up one (1) foot from the property line if the applicant can demonstrate such a location is the only practical location for the well. An "Administrative Departure" is one that can be granted by Planning Department staff, without a hearing before the City's Planning Commission. A clear path to public right-of-way is a requirement of the departure, as well as protection of adjacent properties during excavation for installation off the window well.

This seemingly tiny change could have a significant impact on additional housing capacity. Going down is as much a path to greater density as going up, especially at the scale of neighborhood buildings.

Section 5.3.06. Nonconforming Site Elements

A property is considered "nonconforming" if elements of its design or layout do not correspond to the current ordinance. It is a provision of state law that a city or other local government is prohibited from harassment of residents or owners, related to the non-conformity, if that non-conformity predates the current regulations; the state of the property is effectively grand-fathered as far as the city is concerned. A common such non-conformity is commercial spaces in traditional neighborhoods which have parking in the front - this is not permitted under the current ordinance, but if the property was designed and constructed at a time when that was allowed it is a grand-fathered non-conformity. This seems very reasonable, yet it does immediately create a problem: when a site is substantially changed or renovated at what point does the non-conformity become ungrandfathered. Obviously the city has an interest in properties becoming conforming over time, while the owners and/or residents may prefer to make only selected changes to their property rather than all the changes which may be required to become fully conforming.

The proposed amendment clarifies the particulars for when full compliance is required as well as creating a range of accommodations which can be granted by Administrative Departure rather than pursing a Special Land Use with the Planning Commission. Most of the cases which come before the Planning Commission for non-conforming lots relate to front parking and the conversations around those requests often focus on landscaping, driveways, and lighting. This amendment addresses both of those concerns.

Most important to pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users is that the requirement for the removal of non-conforming driveways, whenever possible, is still a requirement of the ordinance. Curb-cuts and driveways are some of the most dangerous features of the urban landscape.Their design - and potential elimination - is essential to improving safety.

Downtown Height Overlay District DH-2(a) Amendment

The downtown height overlay district is a complex arraignment - as "overlay district" describes - where a layer of zoning is applied on top of zoning. An overlay district is like slathering zoning flavored cream cheese on a zoning bagel; if you just can't get enough zoning with your morning latte. Rather than simply updating the underlying zoning the city chose this method to encourage a particular type of development in the downtown, especially along the river front. Why? I have no idea. I fear knowing that reason would be to glimpse whatever Lovecraftian horror dwells beneath the central offices of the American Planning Association; so, we'll say that's just how it is and move on.

This amendment to this overlay attempts to clean-up how the overlay interacts with the underlying zone district. The current overlay overrides the use regulations of the underlying zone with those of the TN-TCC (transitional city center) zone, whereas the change is to continue to respect the use regulations of the underlying zone. That is a more transparent overlay, The amendment then goes on to additional regulations relating to how the development must interface with the river front. Given that the [theoretical] intention of the overlay seems to be to maximize the value of the river front this is more in keeping with that intent than the original text.

Additional regulations include:

• 60% or more of a building facing the river must be transparent. Any other requirements which would apply to a street facing wall will apply to a wall which faces the river.
• The primary entrances of buildings must be located on the primary street
• An "expression line" will be part of the design, delineating the lower portion of the structure from the upper portion. The lower portion is that which presents the street and pedestrian experience of the structure.
• Parking on the river front is discouraged by design requirements.
• The area between the building and the water front will be considered open space for pedestrian use.
• Service areas and mechanicals will be integrated into the building design and not located on the river front.

All good. I, for one, do not want to be strolling along the river and have to shout to my friends over the roar of some tower's air-handing equipment. For noxious vapors and constant noise we have the Michigan Department of Transportation, they provide both in abundance.

Section 5.11.15. Alternative Energy

Over years the city has been slowly relaxing its regulations about the installation of solar panels; this amendment is another step in that process. Previously solar panels were not permitted on any street facing surface unless that surface faced south. With the amendment the south facing restriction is eliminated and text is added requiring that the panels be integrated which the architectural character of the structure. Additional flexibility can also be granted by Administrative Departure provided "neighborhood character" is not compromised. Ugh, that term.

I imagine that the south facing requirement made a least a kind of sense, once upon a time, when solar panels were far less efficient. But today, given the givens, put the damn things everywhere.

Downtown Height Overlay District

Wait, didn't we already cover this? Nope. There is more. The changes related to the text of the overlay amendment are above; there is an additional change. Back in 2023-12-14 the Planning Commission recommended to the City Commission that an area on the east side of the river be rezoned from from Transitional City Center (TCC) to City Center (CC). The City Commission subsequently made the recommended rezoning.

However, these properties were never added to the Downtown Height Overlay District. Whoopsie! Wouldn't all this be simpler to manage if it were, I don't know, simpler? Anyway, the related agenda item will add the properties to the "DH-2(a) subarea" of the overlay district - which is described in table 5.8.02.D 🙂 - as prescribing a minimum height of three (3) stories and a maximum height of twenty (20) stories. In the CC zone, which the properties now are, the minimum ground floor height is twelve (12) feet and a maximum of twenty four (24) feet. Then any subsequent floor is fourteen (14) feet. In total, this allows buildings from ~42ft tall (3*12) up to 290ft tall ((19*14)+24).

Related Properties: 748, 750, 830, 936, 942, 954, 1010, 1060, 1116, & 1155 Front Ave. NW; 260 & 282 Leonard St. NW; and 800, 832, 902, 934, 960, 1000, 1014, 1030, 1044, 1058 Scribner Ave. NW.

The Planning Commission could also choose to recommend the properties be assigned to the DH-2(b) zone which only permits ten (10) stories, if for some reasons they feel that is more appropriate to the context: sandwiched between the river and MDOT's thundering car sewer (aka: US-131) which is perpetually spraying down the area with microplastics. Personally, a line of taller buildings to shield the river and the east side from MDOT's villainy sounds like a great idea.