City of Grand Rapids Committee of the Whole Regular ...

City of Grand Rapids

Committee of the Whole Regular Meeting Agenda

Tuesday, September 24, 2019, 9:30 AM City Hall, 300 Monroe Ave NW, 9th Floor, City Commission Chambers

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ITEMS

1. Resolution setting the date to consider adoption of Chapter 105 of Title VII of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids entitled "Marihuana Related Municipal Licensing"

2. Resolution establishing an Industrial Development District for FALK Production, LLC at 1782

Northridge NW in the Walkerview Industrial Park 3. Resolution approving an application for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate filed by

FALK Production, LLC for an $8 million project located at 1782 Northridge NW in the Walkerview Industrial Park

4. Resolution establishing an Industrial Development District for eAgile, Inc. at 1880 Turner

Avenue NW 5. Resolution approving the transfer of the personal property component of Industrial Facilities

Exemption Certificate 2011-391 filed by eAgile, Inc. from 110 Hynes Avenue SW to 1880 Turner Avenue NW

6. Resolution establishing an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District, pursuant to PA 146 of

2000, for Pottery Lane, LLC at 710 Wealthy Street SE 7. Resolution approving a ten-year Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate,

pursuant to PA 146 of 2000, for Pottery Lane, LLC at 710 Wealthy Street SE 8. Resolution accepting the Southtown Business Area Specific Plan for release for public

comment for amendment to the 2002 Grand Rapids Master Plan 9. Resolution authorizing certain special events subject to Chapter 53 of the City Code 10. Update On timeline for filling the Comptroller Vacancy

DATE: September 24, 2019

TO: Mark Washington, City Manager

COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole

LIAISON: Mark Washington, City Manager

FROM: Joel H. Hondorp, City Clerk

City Clerk's Office

SUBJECT: Resolution setting the date to consider adoption of Chapter 105 of

Title VII of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids entitled

"Marihuana Related Municipal Licensing"

The attached resolution will provide for the publication of the proposed ordinance entitled Marihuana Related Municipal Licensing. This ordinance will establish the local licensing and regulation of marihuana establishments and facilities as authorized under the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA) and the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act (MRTMA). The City Commission must have an ordinance in effect no later than November 1, 2019, in order to avoid a default opt-in status while lacking reasonable regulations on marihuana uses. The proposed ordinance will effectively permit all marihuana facilities licensed under MMFLA and MRTMA to operate within the City once the entire regulatory framework is in place, subject to current and future zoning requirements, including: Medical Marijuana Facilities (MMFLA) Recreational Marijuana Facilities (MRTMA)

Provision Center Retailer

Processor Processor

Grower Grower

Safety Compliance Facility Safety Compliance Facility

Secure Transporter Secure Transporter

Microbusiness

Designated Consumption Establishment

Temporary Marijuana Event

Marijuana Event Organizer

Under the existing Zoning Ordinance, as adopted and amended in 2018, medical marihuana facilities are all currently allowed within the City of Grand Rapids with the appropriate zoning approval and in line with buffer requirements.

1

Packet Pg. 2

In addition to serving as a formal action by the City to opt in on recreational marijuana, the licensing ordinance will provide an important tool by which the City can follow up on agreements made by the applicant during the application and review process, for enforcement actions if needed, and also to help support the City’s sustainability and accessibility goals. The growing of cannabis requires a significant amount of energy and water usage. Growing 4 cannabis plants to maturity has been found to have an equivalent energy consumption as 29 refrigerators. In Denver, with a population of 700,000, 4% of the total amount of electricity used across the entire city is attributable to marijuana growing. Given these findings, City staff from the Planning, Sustainability, and Environmental Services departments worked with representatives from cannabis growers as well as local power and water utilities to introduce reasonable energy efficiency and reporting requirements into the proposed marijuana licensing ordinance. Several other communities have reported similar usage trends. Under the proposed licensing ordinance, all marijuana establishments are required to report basic energy usage data to the Grand Rapids 2030 District, which will help us to better understand the energy and water needs for this industry. As proposed, energy efficiency requirements are applicable only to marijuana uses that involve the growing of cannabis – that is, any class of grower (A, B, C, and Excess) and microbusinesses. Additionally, Universal Design requirements are also proposed. Universal Design allows for true accessibility to marijuana facilities, both for customers and employees. Accessibility advocates point to trends that nearly 20% of the nation’s population has or experiences a disability, and as such are often profoundly restricted by lack of access to many kinds of buildings, regardless of the land use within. Further, at a time when one focus area by the City is to plan ahead for a rapidly aging population with its Age-Friendly Grand Rapids initiative, introducing the proposed accessibility requirements is both timely and desired by the community. While the building code requires compliance with the Michigan barrier free code, this is considered a minimum standard, and is not required in all circumstances. Universal Design has been found to offer far more adequate accommodations to those in need. City staff developed the proposed ordinance language in collaboration with Disability Advocates as well as representatives in the cannabis industry. In late 2018, both requirements were proposed as incentive items in the Marijuana Industry Voluntary Equitable Development Agreement (MIVEDA). However, City Commissioners decided to remove both from the MIVEDA and instead proposed inclusion in the pending licensing ordinance. City staff has been in ongoing discussions with industry representatives and applicants about both energy/water efficiency as well as accessibility and universal design and has found little concern from the industry regarding up-front costs associated with meeting these regulations. Rather, the proposals have been welcomed, with a recognition that initial costs associated with compliance will translate into long-term benefits for the business, consumers, and the City as a whole. Once approved, there will be a six (6) month waiting period before the City will begin accepting applications. Medical marihuana facilities licensed under the MMFLA that

1

Packet Pg. 3

have already obtained special land use approval will be allowed to continue to operate medical marihuana related operations under their existing SLU permit until the six (6) month period has expired at which point a license application will need to be submitted. The six (6) month waiting period will provide for time to draft license applications, assess the application and review process, establish license fees, review enforcement policies and amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide a regulatory structure for marihuana facilities licensed under the MRTMA.

..

1

Packet Pg. 4

YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution providing for the publication of a proposed ordinance adopting Chapter 105 of Title VII of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids entitled Marihuana Related Municipal Licensing and setting the date of October 8, 2019, to consider adoption of the ordinance. WHEREAS:

1. The Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA) was adopted by the Michigan Legislature in 2016 and allows for a commercial supply chain of medical marihuana, including growing, processing and retail sales through provisioning centers, secure transport and safety compliance testing; and

2. The City of Commission adopted a set of zoning ordinance amendments on July 24, 2018, which opted Grand Rapids in as a participating municipality in the MMFLA, followed by subsequent amendments adopted on December 18, 2018; and

3. The Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act (MRTMA) was passed by voters in 2018 allowing for the consumption, possession and both personal and commercial production of recreational marihuana; and

4. The State of Michigan’s Regulatory Agency (MRA) published a set of rules on July 3, 2019, that clarified license types and set procedures for regulating recreational marihuana uses which are intended to assist with local implementation of MRTMA; and

5. The City Commission may choose to opt out or use another reasonable alternative for regulating marihuana facilities and establishments such as licensing, but must have an ordinance in effect no later than November 1, 2019, in order to avoid a default opt-in status while lacking reasonable regulations on marihuana uses; therefore

RESOLVED: 1. That the City Commission approve a resolution to set the date to consider

adoption of Chapter 105 of Title VII of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids entitled Marihuana Related Municipal Licensing on October 8, 2019; and

2. Pursuant to Section 10 of Title V of the City Charter, the City Clerk shall publish the attached ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.

Prepared by Amanda Bradshaw

1

Packet Pg. 5

AN ORDINANCE TO ADD CHAPTER 105 OF TITLE VII TO THE CODE OF THE CITY

OF GRAND RAPIDS ENTITLED “MARIHUANA RELATED MUNICIPAL LICENSING”.

ORDINANCE NO. _______

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS DO ORDAIN:

Section 1. That Chapter 105, entitled “MARIHUANA RELATED MUNICIPAL LICENSING” be added to Title VII of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids, to read as follows:

“Sec. 7.361. – Purpose and Intent.

The City of Grand Rapids intends to license and regulate marihuana facilities and establishments as authorized under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA), Public Act 281 of 2016, MCL 333.27101 et seq., and the Michigan Regulation & Taxation of Marijuana Act (MRTMA), Public Act 1 of 2018, MCL 333.27951 et seq., and to exercise authority as a home rule city to enforce ordinances under its police power in order to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. By requiring a license and compliance with the requirements of this Chapter, the City intends to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by:

(1) Promoting the safe, regulated manufacturing, production, and sale by state-licensed marihuana establishments and facilities;

(2) Discouraging the sale of unsafe and unlicensed marihuana products;

(3) Preserving and protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City and the general public by minimizing unsafe and unregulated marihuana production and sale;

(4) Minimizing the impact of the cannabis industry’s intensive use of water and energy, particularly the growing process of cannabis plants. It is the City of Grand Rapids’ intention to minimize the impact marihuana establishments have on public infrastructure and the environment by maximizing efficiency and reducing the need for the use of nonrenewable resources wherever possible.

Sec. 7.362. - Definitions The following terms shall have the definitions indicated for the purposes of this Chapter: (1) Terms contained in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act

(MMFLA), Public Act 281 of 2016, MCL 333.27101 et seq., and the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act, Public Act 1 of 2018, MCL 333.27954 et

1.a

Packet Pg. 6

Att

ach

men

t: M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed L

icen

sin

g O

rdin

ance

__09

2419

dra

ft (

Res

olu

tio

n s

etti

ng

dat

e to

co

nsi

der

ad

op

tio

n o

f M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed

seq., as amended (MRTMA), apply to the terms found herein. This Chapter contains some words and phrases that are defined in the MMFLA & the MRTMA. As used in this Chapter, they have the same meaning as provided in the MMFLA & MRTMA, unless the term is otherwise defined in this Chapter or the context requires a different meaning.

(2) “Applicant” means a person who applies for a Marihuana Related Municipal License

under this Chapter.

(3) The words “Establishments” and “Facilities” are used interchangeably and refer to any marihuana related locations at which a licensee is licensed to operate under either MMFLA, MRTMA, or both.

(4) “Licensee” means a person or entity issued a marihuana establishment or facility license under this Chapter or by the State, including safety compliance facilities, Marijuana Event Organizers, temporary events, and secure transporters.

(5) “Municipal Marihuana license” or “license” means a required Marihuana Related Municipal License issued pursuant to this Chapter that allows the licensee to operate within the City as one of the following, as specified in the license:

(a) Grower, including Class A Grower; Class B Grower, Class C Grower, and

Excess Grower; (b) Processor; (c) Provisioning Center; (d) Retailer; (e) Designated Consumption Establishment; (f) Microbusiness; (g) Safety Compliance Facility; (h) Secure Transporter; (i) Marihuana Related Event Coordinator; (j) Marihuana Related Temporary Event.

Sec. 7.363 - Marihuana Establishments & Licensees Authorized to Operate within the City.

(1) Pursuant to the MMFLA & MRTMA, the City of Grand Rapids authorizes the operation in the City of the following marihuana licensees, provided they possess a state operating license issued under the MMFLA, MRTMA, or both and they comply with the additional requirements of this Chapter, Chapter 61 (Zoning), and all other applicable laws and ordinances:

(a) Class A Grower; Class B Grower, Class C Grower, and Excess Marijuana Grower;

1.a

Packet Pg. 7

Att

ach

men

t: M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed L

icen

sin

g O

rdin

ance

__09

2419

dra

ft (

Res

olu

tio

n s

etti

ng

dat

e to

co

nsi

der

ad

op

tio

n o

f M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed

(b) Processor;

(c) Provisioning Center;

(d) Retailer;

(e) Designated Consumption Establishment;

(f) Microbusiness;

(g) Secure Transporter;

(h) Safety Compliance Facility;

(i) Marihuana Related Event Coordinator;

(j) Marihuana Related Temporary Event.

Sec. 7.364 - Marihuana Related Municipal License Required.

(1) No person shall operate a marihuana establishment or hold a marihuana event in the City

of Grand Rapids without first obtaining a municipal license and/or permit to do so as required by this Chapter.

(2) For co-located marihuana establishments, as authorized by this Code and state law, a separate Marihuana Related Municipal License is required for each type of establishment operated.

(3) For marihuana establishments with stacked and/or excess grow operations as authorized by this Code and state law, a license is required for each stacked and excess marihuana grower license.

(4) For Marihuana Events organized by state licensed Marihuana Event Organizers, a Temporary Event License and/or temporary use permit shall first be issued by the City to the licensee through the City prior to events being held.

(5) The license requirement in this Chapter shall be in addition to any other requirements imposed by any other state or local law, including but not limited to state or local laws applicable to commercial entities performing functions similar to the functions performed by marihuana establishments.

(6) A license issued under this Chapter shall be valid for one (1) year after the date of issuance. The expiration date of the state operating license that corresponds to a marihuana facility license issued under this Chapter constitutes the expiration date of the Marihuana Related Municipal License. Expiration of the Marihuana Related Municipal License does not affect a person’s licensure under MMFLA or MMRTA but does affect the person’s ability to operate a marihuana establishment in the City.

1.a

Packet Pg. 8

Att

ach

men

t: M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed L

icen

sin

g O

rdin

ance

__09

2419

dra

ft (

Res

olu

tio

n s

etti

ng

dat

e to

co

nsi

der

ad

op

tio

n o

f M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed

(7) This Chapter does not apply to, or regulate, any patient or caregiver conduct protected by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 et seq. (MMMA).

Sec. 7.365 - General Provisions.

(a) A Marihuana Related Municipal License is a revocable privilege and not a right. Nothing in this Chapter may be held or construed to grant a vested right, license, permit or privilege to continued operations within the City.

(b) A license issued under this Chapter is valid only for the applicant named on the license, the location of the establishment, and type of establishment identified on the license. Each license is personal and exclusive to the licensee.

(c) The revocation, suspension, and placement of restrictions by the state on a state operating license apply equally to a license issued by the City.

(d) An applicant or licensee has a continuing duty to provide information requested by the City and to cooperate in any investigation, inquiry, or hearing conducted by the City.

(e) Acceptance of a license from the City under this Chapter constitutes consent by the licensee for the City to conduct inspections of the licensed premises to ensure compliance with this Chapter.

(f) The issuance of any license pursuant to this Chapter does not create an exception, defense, or immunity to any person with regard to any potential criminal or civil liability the person may have under any federal or state law or city ordinance.

(g) No Marihuana Related Municipal License may be sold, assigned, mortgaged or otherwise transferred.

Sec. 7.366 - Application Requirements.

(1) An application for a marihuana facility license shall be submitted to the City Clerk

on a form provided by the City. Any application that does not include all information requested by the application form or is not supported by the materials required by this Chapter or the license application shall be denied and/or rejected.

(2) The application may require information that will enable the City Clerk to make a fair determination as to the applicant’s fitness and ability to comply with the provisions of this Code and all other applicable laws, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to:

(a) The name and address of the facility and any other contact information requested on the application form.

1.a

Packet Pg. 9

Att

ach

men

t: M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed L

icen

sin

g O

rdin

ance

__09

2419

dra

ft (

Res

olu

tio

n s

etti

ng

dat

e to

co

nsi

der

ad

op

tio

n o

f M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed

(b) The name and address of all owners (entities and individuals) of the real property where the facility is located.

(c) A copy of official paperwork issued by LARA indicating that the applicant has successfully completed the prequalification step of the application for a state operating license.

(d) Proof of applicant's ownership, legal possession, or otherwise legal interest in the premises.

(e) Proof that the appropriate zoning approval has been received.

(f) Copy of the security plan required by State Administrative Rule 35, R. 333.235.

(g) Evidence of a valid and effective policy for general liability insurance within minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and a $2,000,000 aggregate limit issued from a company licensed to do business in Michigan having an AM Best rating of at least B++ shall be produced that includes the name/s of the insured, effective and expiration dates, and policy number. The City of Grand Rapids and its officials and employees shall be named as additional insureds. The City shall be notified of any cancellation, expiration, reduction in coverage, or other policy changes within five business days of the event.

(h) If the application is for a grower’s license, the maximum number of plants that the applicant intends to grow.

(i) Proof of universal design plan conforming to the requirements of this Chapter.

(j) Proof of environmental sustainability plan conforming to the requirements of this Chapter.

(k) Other information and materials specific to the type of establishment or activity being licensed as indicated on the license application.

(3) Payment of a non-refundable application fee per marihuana license sought and/or proof that the applicant has, within the prior 365 days, paid the zoning application fee for zoning approval associated with the marihuana facility type identified in the application as required in Chapter 61, Sec. 5.9.19. Fees shall be offset to ensure the annual fees required by marihuana facility ordinances or zoning regulations promulgated pursuant to the MMFLA & MRTMA do not exceed $5,000 annually.

Sec. 7.367 - Environmental Sustainability

(1) All establishments, with the exception of event locations used by event coordinators shall enroll in the Grand Rapids 2030 District prior to operation. Enrollment shall be, at a minimum, as a building owner or substantially similar enrollment option that enables the reporting of marihuana facility performance data on a confidential basis and at no cost to the licensee. Energy consumption data shall be reported via Energy

1.a

Packet Pg. 10

Att

ach

men

t: M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed L

icen

sin

g O

rdin

ance

__09

2419

dra

ft (

Res

olu

tio

n s

etti

ng

dat

e to

co

nsi

der

ad

op

tio

n o

f M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed

Star Portfolio Manager on at least an annual basis and no later than 16 months after operations begin.

(2) A grower of any class and microbusinesses shall be required to meet the following

environmental sustainability requirements:

(a) Create and submit an environmental sustainability plan to the City’s Office of Sustainability as well as all energy utilities serving the applicant, including electricity, natural gas, and steam, within six months after operations commence, that includes the following items:

i. Analysis of predictive energy load, including design energy use intensity (EUI);

ii. Estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the coming year and reporting on the past year’s GHG emissions;

iii. Identification of water efficiency measures planned or implemented;

iv. A list of wastewater pollutant loadings and toxics; and

v. A solid waste management plan detailing disposal plans for plants, soils and other wastes generated as well as reporting on the annual tons of each type of waste generated and disposed.

(b) At least 50% of plant canopy area that is partially or fully illuminated by electric

lighting shall be illuminated by fixtures with photosynthetic photon efficacy of at least 1.9 µmol/J at the time operations commence.

(c) Submit a whole building energy audit meeting ASHRAE Level II guidelines or better to the City’s Office of Sustainability within 16 months after operations.

(d) All applications for renewal of any license shall include the environmental sustainability plan submission required by this section and proof of compliance with the annual reporting requirements under this section.

Sec. 7.368 - Conduct of Business at Licensed Marihuana Establishment

(1) The operations at a licensed marihuana facility shall be conducted in compliance with the MMFLA and the MRTMA, and any rules promulgated pursuant to other laws, rules, and regulations of the state of Michigan and the City of Grand Rapids.

(2) All security measures required by the State shall be maintained.

(a) Security devices and all components of those devices required by the State, including but not limited to, video surveillance systems, alarm systems, and

1.a

Packet Pg. 11

Att

ach

men

t: M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed L

icen

sin

g O

rdin

ance

__09

2419

dra

ft (

Res

olu

tio

n s

etti

ng

dat

e to

co

nsi

der

ad

op

tio

n o

f M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed

locks, shall be in good working order.

(b) Licensees shall register their video surveillance systems with the Grand Rapids Police Department.

(3) All marihuana in any form on the premises of a licensed marihuana facility shall be cultivated, manufactured, tested, sold, and packaged in the State of Michigan.

(4) Access to the licensed marihuana establishment is restricted to the licensee, employees of the licensee, and adult patrons age 21 or older in establishments licensed for recreational marihuana, and the department, through its investigators, agents, auditors, or the State Police or authorized City employees acting within the scope of their employment. A separate waiting area may be created for visitors not authorized to enter the marihuana establishment.

(5) Recreational marihuana products must be separated from medical marihuana products.

(6) A licensee shall display all marihuana facility licenses issued under this Chapter and state operating licenses in plain view clearly visible to patrons, clients, city officials, and state authorized agents.

(7) A licensee shall not permit or allow the sale, consumption, or use of alcohol or tobacco products on licensed premises unless it is licensed to do so by the state and the city, and/or as otherwise permitted by law.

(8) A licensee shall not permit or otherwise allow the use, smoke, inhalation, or consumption of marihuana, in any form, anywhere within a licensed marihuana establishment or on the property of a licensed establishment unless it is licensed to do so by the state and the city.

(9) A licensee shall comply with the Michigan Construction Code and Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAA) meeting ANSI A117.1.

Sec. 7.369 – Reserved.

Sec. 7.370 - License Denial, Suspension, or Revocation.

(1) A license issued under this Chapter may be denied, suspended, revoked, or

nonrenewed for any of the following reasons:

(a) The applicant or licensee is ineligible or does not hold the appropriate state operating license under the MMFLA or MRTMA.

(b) The applicant or licensee, or his or her agent, manager or employee, has violated, does not meet, or has failed to comply with any of the terms, requirements, conditions or provisions of this Chapter, City Code, or with

1.a

Packet Pg. 12

Att

ach

men

t: M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed L

icen

sin

g O

rdin

ance

__09

2419

dra

ft (

Res

olu

tio

n s

etti

ng

dat

e to

co

nsi

der

ad

op

tio

n o

f M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed

any applicable state law.

(c) A license application contains any misrepresentation or omission of any material fact, or false or misleading information, or the applicant has provided the city with any other false or misleading information related to the establishment.

(d) Marihuana is grown, dispensed, possessed, distributed, or sold on the premises in violation of this Chapter or any other applicable state or local law, rule or regulation.

(e) The establishment is operated or is operating in violation of the specifications of the license application, license, any conditions of approval by the City or any other applicable state or local law, rule or regulation.

(f) The City, the county, or any other governmental entity with jurisdiction, has closed the establishment temporarily or permanently or has issued any sanction for failure to comply with health and safety provisions of this Chapter or other applicable state or local laws related to public health and safety.

(g) The establishment’s state operating license has been suspended, revoked, denied, or not renewed.

(h) The marihuana establishment has been operated in a manner that adversely affects the public health, safety or welfare. Evidence to support a finding under this Section may include, without limitation, a recurring pattern of conduct that violates City Code directly related to or arising from the operation of the marihuana establishment ; a recurring pattern or drug-related criminal conduct within the premises of the marihuana establishment or in the immediate area surrounding the establishment; a recurring pattern of criminal conduct directly related to or arising from the operation of the marihuana establishment; or an ongoing nuisance condition emanating from or caused by the marihuana establishment. Criminal drug-related conduct considered under this Section shall be limited to the violation of a State law, state regulation, or city ordinance.

(2) These grounds for denial, suspension or revocation of a license provided for in this Chapter shall be in addition to other grounds for denial, suspension or revocation of licenses or permits provided for in Chapter 91 and elsewhere in this Code.

(3) Prior to suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal of any license issued under this Chapter, the licensee shall be entitled to a hearing as provided in Section 7.16 of Chapter 91 of this Code.

(4) An applicant has the right to appeal the denial of a license as provided in Section 7.16 of Chapter 91 of this Code.

1.a

Packet Pg. 13

Att

ach

men

t: M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed L

icen

sin

g O

rdin

ance

__09

2419

dra

ft (

Res

olu

tio

n s

etti

ng

dat

e to

co

nsi

der

ad

op

tio

n o

f M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed

Sec. 7.371 - Revocation Not Exclusive Penalty or Remedy. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to prohibit the City from imposing other penalties or seeking other remedies authorized by the Grand Rapids City Code or other ordinance of the City, including filing a public nuisance action or any other legal action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Sec. 7.372 - Fees

The annual license fee shall be as specified in Chapter 92 of this Code.

Sec. 7.373 - Renewal of Existing Licenses.

(1) The same procedures that apply to applying for a new license shall apply to the renewal of existing licenses.

(2) An application for renewal of an existing license shall be submitted no sooner than 60 days before the existing license expires and no later than 31 days before the expiration date.

(3) If a license renewal is not submitted by the license expiration date, the license may be renewed within 60 days after its expiration date upon application, payment of applicable fees and penalties, and satisfaction of any renewal requirements if state licensure is still active.

Sec. 7.374 - Issuance of License and Authorization to Operate Under License.

(1) If, after investigation, the City Clerk shall be reasonably satisfied that the applicant

has successfully demonstrated compliance with all requirements for issuance of a license, the City Clerk shall issue the applicable Marihuana Related Municipal License or grant renewal of an existing license.

(2) A licensee is authorized to operate under a municipal license issued pursuant to this Chapter only after the following additional requirements are met.

(a) The licensee also holds a valid current state operating license for that location and establishment type. A copy of the valid current state operating license shall be provided to the City Clerk.

(b) A certificate of occupancy has been issued.

(c) The licensee is not operating in violation of any City ordinances or state law.

(d) Zoning is deemed appropriate by the City for the location and any and all Special Land Use permits and/or waivers have been approved.

(e) Any other license specific requirements as stated in the license application have

1.a

Packet Pg. 14

Att

ach

men

t: M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed L

icen

sin

g O

rdin

ance

__09

2419

dra

ft (

Res

olu

tio

n s

etti

ng

dat

e to

co

nsi

der

ad

op

tio

n o

f M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed

been met.

Sec. 7.375 - Penalty for Violations.

(1) Any person who violates a provision of this Chapter shall be responsible for a municipal civil infraction and shall be subject to such civil infraction fines and costs as provided in Chapter 170, but the fee will not exceed the fee limitation set by the state.

(2) Each day of violation shall be a separate violation. Sec. 7.376 – Coordination with State Licensing Authorities. The City Clerk shall coordinate with the Michigan Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) to provide information that LARA or the MRA deems necessary to carry out licensing under the MMFLA and MRTMA, including but not limited to:

(1) Attestation as to ordinances and zoning regulations adopted by the City relating to marihuana establishments, and amendments thereto.

(2) Information regarding a licensee or applicant for a state operating license including:

(a) Information that the board deems necessary to determine whether a state operating license should be issued or renewed;

(b) Description of a violation of an ordinance or a zoning regulation committed by the licensee, but only if the violation relates to activities licensed under this Chapter, zoning regulations relating to marihuana establishments, or applicable marihuana laws;

(c) Denial, suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal of a marihuana facility license; or

(d) Whether there has been a change to an ordinance or zoning regulation relating to marihuana establishments and/or licensing since the state operating license was issued, and a description of the change.

(3) Recommendation to LARA that a state operating license for a marihuana establishment located in Grand Rapids be restricted or not renewed. The Clerk shall provide specific written input and information necessary for LARA to consider the recommendation.

Sec. 7.377 - Conflicts with Other Laws or Regulations Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in such a manner as to conflict with the MMFLA, MMMA, MMRTA, or other applicable state marihuana law or rules. If any

1.a

Packet Pg. 15

Att

ach

men

t: M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed L

icen

sin

g O

rdin

ance

__09

2419

dra

ft (

Res

olu

tio

n s

etti

ng

dat

e to

co

nsi

der

ad

op

tio

n o

f M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed

provision of this Chapter differs from a provision of any other applicable law, ordinance, rule or regulation, both the provision of this Chapter and the differing provision shall apply if possible. If the two (2) provisions are in conflict, then the provision establishing the higher or stricter standard shall apply, consistent with state law.

Sec. 7.378 - Severability The various parts, sections, and clauses of this Chapter are hereby declared to be severable. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section or clause is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Chapter shall not be affected thereby. Sec. 7.379 – Acceptance of Licensing Applications. The Clerk shall begin accepting license applications for the uses authorized herein six (6) months after adoption of this ordinance. Medical Marihuana Facilities previously licensed under MMFLA and granted special land use approval by the City Planning Commission prior to adoption of this ordinance may continue to operate using their special land use approval as a temporary license until the City begins accepting Marihuana Related Municipal License applications. All marihuana related businesses, including operating medical marihuana facilities, must obtain a Marihuana Related Municipal License once the City begins accepting applications for licensure. Operation of such a facility absent a license to do so once the City begins accepting applications is prohibited.”

1.a

Packet Pg. 16

Att

ach

men

t: M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed L

icen

sin

g O

rdin

ance

__09

2419

dra

ft (

Res

olu

tio

n s

etti

ng

dat

e to

co

nsi

der

ad

op

tio

n o

f M

arih

uan

a R

elat

ed





FROM: Kara Wood, Managing Director

Economic Development Department

SUBJECT: Resolution establishing an Industrial Development District for

FALK Production, LLC at 1782 Northridge NW in the Walkerview

Industrial Park

Attached is a resolution establishing an Industrial Development District, pursuant to Public Act 198 of 1974, as amended, (the “Act”), at 1782 Northridge Drive NW (the “Property”) for a project proposed by FALK Production, LLC. The Property is located in the Walkerview Industrial Park, which is the subject of the 425 Conditional Transfer of Property Agreement between the cities of Grand Rapids and Walker. A public hearing was held on September 10, 2019 as required by the Act. The subsequent agenda item contains a resolution approving an application for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate for FALK Production, LLC, and more fully describes the application and the project. KLW/jk Attachment

..

2

Packet Pg. 17

YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution establishing an Industrial Development District for Design Manufacturing, LLC at 1782 Northridge Drive NW.

WHEREAS:

1. Pursuant to P.A. 198 of 1974, as amended, the City Commission has the authority to establish Industrial Development Districts within the City of Grand Rapids; and

2. FALK Production, LLC has requested the establishment of a district on property which

is located in the City of Grand Rapids, pursuant to the conditional transfer approved by the Grand Rapids-Walker Development Cooperation Agreement, as amended; and

3. Construction, acquisitions, alterations or installation of a proposed facility has not

commenced at the time of filing the request to establish this district; and

4. Public notice has been given and written notice has been sent by mail to all owners of real property located within the district; and

5. The City Commission, on September 10, 2019, held a public hearing at which all

owners of real property within the proposed Industrial Development District and all residents and taxpayers of the City were afforded an opportunity to be heard thereon; and

6. The City Commission deems it to be in the public interest of the City to establish the

Industrial Development District as proposed; therefore RESOLVED:

1. That the parcel of land situated in the City of Grand Rapids, commonly known as 1782 Northridge Drive NW (PPN 41-13-03-600-022), is hereby established as an Industrial Development District pursuant to the provisions of P.A. 198 of 1974; and

2. That all other resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby

rescinded. Prepared by Regina Pell and Jonathan Klooster

2

Packet Pg. 18

FALK Production, LLC

1782 Northridge Drive NW – Proposed Industrial Development District

1782 Northridge Drive NW - ~24 Acres

Walkerview PA 425 Conditionally Transferred Property

2.a

Packet Pg. 19

Att

ach

men

t: F

alk

- M

ap (

(A)

Est

ablis

hin

g IF

T D

istr

ict

– F

AL

K P

rod

uct

ion

, LL

C)







SUBJECT: Resolution approving an application for an Industrial Facilities

Exemption Certificate filed by FALK Production, LLC for an $8

million project located at 1782 Northridge NW in the Walkerview

Industrial Park

Attached is a resolution approving an application for a 12-year Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate for a project proposed by FALK Production, LLC at 1782 Northridge Drive NW (the “Property”) in the Walkerview Industrial Park which is in the City of Grand Rapids for the purposes of taxation pursuant to the Grand Rapids – Walker Development Cooperation Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered into pursuant to Public Act 425 of 1984, as amended. A number of companies exist in the FALK family, including FALK Bouwsystemen and FALK Panel, which are headquartered in the Netherlands. The company supplies insulated metal panels for wall, roof and façade applications primarily for commercial, agricultural and industrial applications. FALK’s customers are general contractors, and installers of wall and roof systems. With contracts in North America expanding, FALK plans to open a production facility in the Walkerview Industrial Park to keep up with growing demand. FALK Production, LLC, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of FALK North America, Inc., will be the operator of the facility, and is the applicant for the project. In early 2019, FALK purchased 24 acres of land on Northridge Drive NW for their new location. The proposed project includes the construction of a 130,000 square foot manufacturing warehouse at an estimated cost of $8 million. In addition to the investment in real property improvements, the company will also invest approximately $11.5 million in personal property which consists primarily of the machinery and equipment required for production. As the personal property is primarily industrial, it is eligible to be exempt from property taxes, and the application therefore only applies to the real property improvements.

3

Packet Pg. 20

Over the next two years, as production ramps up, FALK Productions plans to hire 30 new employees, including semi-skilled operatives, sales support, and administrative support. Wages are anticipated to range from $20/hr to $25/hr with benefits provided to all employees. The overall average wage for all 30 employees is $20.94/hr. Pursuant to the Agreement, income taxes related to the conditionally transferred property are shared between Walker (2/3) and Grand Rapids (1/3). The table below provides projections for the tax implications of the project, including only those taxes that would be paid to the City of Grand Rapids. The project was approved by the Walker Planning Commission in November 2018. A public hearing was held on September 10, 2019 as required by the Act. The applicant is current on all its liabilities to the City.

PROJECT PROJECTIONS

Total Amount City of Grand Rapids

Portion

Investment – Real Property $8,000,000

Investment – Personal Property $11,500,000

Retained Jobs 0

New Jobs (FTE) 30

Average Hourly Wage $20.94

Total New Taxes Generated (1 year) $147,620 $25,370

Taxes Paid (1 year) $82,294 $12,685

Taxes Abated (1 year) $65,326 $12,685

New City Income Taxes* $4,645 * Includes 1/3 of estimated new City income taxes, as 2/3 will be distributed to Walker

KLW/jk Attachment

..

3

Packet Pg. 21

YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution approving an application for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate for FALK Production, LLC at 1782 Northridge Drive NW.

WHEREAS: 1. Pursuant to P.A. 198 of 1974, MCL 207.551 et seq., after a duly noticed public hearing,

the City Commission established an Industrial Development District at 1782 Northridge Drive NW on September 24, 2019; and

2. FALK Production, LLC has filed an application for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate with respect to a new facility to be installed within the Industrial Development District; and

3. Before acting on said application, the City Commission held a public hearing on September 10, 2019 at which hearing the applicant, the Assessor and a representative of the affected taxing units were given written notice and were afforded an opportunity to be heard on said application; and

4. Construction of the facility and installation of new machinery and equipment had not begun earlier than six (6) months before the filing of the application for the Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate; and

5. Completion of the facility is calculated to, and will at the time of issuance of the certificate, have the reasonable likelihood to retain, create or prevent the loss of employment in the City; and

6. The aggregate SEV of real and personal property exempt from the ad valorem taxes within the City, after granting this certificate, will not exceed 5% of an amount equal to the sum of the SEV of the unit, plus the SEV of personal and real property thus exempted; therefore

RESOLVED:

1. That the City Commission finds and determines that the granting of the Industrial

Facilities Exemption Certificate considered together with the aggregate amount of certificates previously granted and currently in force under P.A. 198 of 1974 and P.A. 255 of 1978, shall not have the effect of substantially impeding the operation of the City or impairing the financial soundness of a taxing unit which levies ad valorem property taxes in the City; and

2. That the application of FALK Production, LLC for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate with respect to a new facility to be installed within the Industrial Development District be and the same is hereby approved; and

3

Packet Pg. 22

3. That any limitations restricting the District which were included in any previous resolutions by which it was established, are confirmed and hereby waived; and

4. That the date of completion of the new facilities located at 1782 Northridge Drive NW subject to the Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate shall be December 31, 2020; and

5. That the Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate when issued shall be and remain in force and effect for a period of twelve (12) years; and

6. That upon approval as to form by the City Attorney, the Mayor is authorized to execute an agreement with FALK Production, LLC.

Prepared by Regina Pell and Jonathan Klooster

3

Packet Pg. 23







SUBJECT: Resolution establishing an Industrial Development District for

eAgile, Inc. at 1880 Turner Avenue NW

Attached is a resolution establishing an Industrial Development District, pursuant to Public Act 198 of 1974, as amended, (the “Act”), at 1880 Turner Avenue NW (the “Property”) for a project proposed by eAgile, Inc. A public hearing was held on September 10 regarding the establishment of this district. The subsequent agenda item would enable City Commission to consider approval of an application requesting a transfer of the personal property portion of Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate (IFEC) 2011-391 and more fully describes the application and the project. KLW/jk Attachment

..

4

Packet Pg. 24

YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution establishing an Industrial Development District for eAgile, Inc. at 1880 Tuner Avenue NW.

WHEREAS:

1. Pursuant to P.A. 198 of 1974, as amended, the City Commission has the authority to establish Industrial Development Districts within the City of Grand Rapids; and

2. eAgile, Inc. has requested the establishment of a district on property which is located

in the City of Grand Rapids; and

3. Construction, acquisitions, alterations or installation of a proposed facility has not commenced at the time of filing the request to establish this district; and

4. Public notice has been given and written notice has been sent by mail to all owners of

real property located within the district; and

5. The City Commission, on September 10, 2019, held a public hearing at which all owners of real property within the proposed Industrial Development District and all residents and taxpayers of the City were afforded an opportunity to be heard thereon; and

6. The City Commission deems it to be in the public interest of the City to establish the

Industrial Development District as proposed; therefore RESOLVED:

1. That the parcel of land situated in the City of Grand Rapids, commonly known as 1880 Turner Avenue NW (PPN 41-13-13-201-017), is hereby established as an Industrial Development District pursuant to the provisions of P.A. 198 of 1974; and

2. That all other resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby

rescinded. Prepared by Regina Pell and Jonathan Klooster

4

Packet Pg. 25

eAgile, Inc. 1880 Turner Avenue NW

Proposed Industrial Development District

Economic Development Department August 2019 1880 Turner Avenue NW

4.a

Packet Pg. 26

Att

ach

men

t: e

Ag

ile -

Map

((C

) E

stab

lish

ing

IFT

Dis

tric

t –

eAg

ile, I

nc.

)







SUBJECT: Resolution approving the transfer of the personal property

component of Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate 2011-391

filed by eAgile, Inc. from 110 Hynes Avenue SW to 1880 Turner

Avenue NW

Attached is a resolution that would approve the transfer of the personal property portion of Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate (IFEC) 2011-391 filed by eAgile, Inc. eAgile is a manufacturer of comprehensive lines of Automatic Identification (Auto-ID), Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and Real Time Location System (RTLS) infrastructures. All of these products identify, track, record, store and communicate data quickly and accurately and are used in a variety of industries. In 2011, eAgile applied for and received approval for an IFEC request for a project to be located at 1100 Hynes Avenue SW, Suite C2. The application described a project that would include $4,612,500 of personal property investment and building improvements estimated at $179,500. The company also committed to creating seven new jobs. To date, the company has added approximately 30 new jobs, and the actual investment in real and personal property since their application has been $4,216,570. eAgile is now relocating from their Hynes Avenue facility to a newly constructed project at 1880 Turner Avenue NW. The move will allow for continued growth at the company, which continues to add jobs, and currently employs approximately 43 individuals. The transfer request is necessary as the company will be taking their equipment to the new location and the IFEC must be reissued to reflect the new location. There is no new benefit to the company; however, by approving a transfer request, the company will receive the remaining benefit of the previously approved certificate for the property associated with the exemption which expires in 2025. Concurrent to this transfer application, an Industrial Development District must be

5

Packet Pg. 27

established at 1880 Turner Avenue NW, and the real property portion of the IFEC pertaining to the location that will be vacated by eAgile, Inc. will be revoked at the request of the company. KLW/jk

..

5

Packet Pg. 28

YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution approving the transfer of the personal property component of Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate (IFEC) 2011-391 filed by eAgile, Inc. WHEREAS: 1. Pursuant to P.A. 198 of 1974, MCL 207.551 et seq., after a duly noticed public

hearing, the City Commission established a Plant Rehabilitation District at 1880 Turner Avenue NW on September 24, 2019; and

2. The City of Grand Rapids, on August 23, 2011, via Commission Proceeding No. 80646, approved an application from eAgile, Inc. requesting an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate for real and personal property investments to be located within a duly established Industrial Development District at 1100 Hynes Avenue SW; and

3. The State of Michigan subsequently issued Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate

#2011-391 to eAgile, Inc.; and 4. eAgile, Inc. has requested to transfer a portion of the personal property subject to

Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate #2011-391 from the Industrial Development District located at 1100 Hynes Avenue SW to the Plant Rehabilitation District located at 1880 Turner Avenue NW as provided by P.A. 198 of 1974; and

5. Before acting on said application, the City Commission held a hearing on September

10, 2019, at which hearing the applicant, the Assessor and a representative of the affected taxing units were given written notice and were afforded an opportunity to be heard on said application; and

6. Construction of the facility and installation of new machinery and equipment had not

begun earlier than six (6) months before the filing of the original application for the Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate; and

7. The aggregate SEV of real and personal property exempt from the ad valorem taxes

within the City, after transferring this certificate, will not exceed 5% of an amount equal to the sum of the SEV of the unit, plus the SEV of personal and real property thus exempted; therefore

RESOLVED: 1. That the City Commission finds and determines that the granting of the transfer of

the personal property subject to Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate #2011-391 considered together with the aggregate amount of certificates previously granted and currently in force under P.A. 198 of 1974 and P.A. 255 of 1978, shall not have the effect of substantially impeding the operation of the City, or impairing the

5

Packet Pg. 29

financial soundness of a taxing unit which levies ad valorem property taxes in the City; and

2. That the application of eAgile, Inc. for a transfer of the personal property subject to Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate #2011-391 be and the same is hereby approved; and

3. That any limitations restricting the District which were included in any previous

resolutions by which it was established, are confirmed and hereby waived; and 4. That the date of completion of the transfer shall be December 31, 2019; and 5. That there shall be no change in the period for which the Industrial Facilities

Exemption Certificate shall be and remain in force and; and 6. That the Mayor is authorized to execute an agreement with eAgile, Inc. in a form to

be approved by the City Attorney. Prepared by Regina Pell and Jonathan Klooster

5

Packet Pg. 30







SUBJECT: Resolution establishing an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation

District, pursuant to PA 146 of 2000, for Pottery Lane, LLC at 710

Wealthy Street SE

The attached resolution approves the establishment of an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District, pursuant to PA 146 of 2000, for Pottery Lane, LLC (the “Developer”) for a project located at 710 Wealthy Street SE (the “Property”). The Property currently contains a one-story structure with 2,000 square feet and a separate garage of 760 square feet. The proposed project includes replacement of the mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems, as well as significant interior and exterior upgrades to prepare for commercial occupancy. The project is anticipated to create three full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs with an average wage of $15.40 per hour. The project is consistent with the requirements for the historic district, is permitted in the zone district, and is in accordance with the City’s Master Plan. The subsequent agenda item contains a resolution approving an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate for the project and provides additional details on the project, as well as project tax projections. KLW/cb Attachment

..

6

Packet Pg. 31

YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution establishing an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District, pursuant to PA 146 of 2000, for Pottery Lane, LLC at 710 Wealthy Street SE.

WHEREAS: 1. Pottery Lane, LLC has filed a request with the City of Grand Rapids for the

establishment of an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District, pursuant to PA 146 of 2000, at 710 Wealthy Street SE; and

2. Before acting upon said request, a public hearing was held on September 10, 2019, in

accordance with Section 3(3) of PA 146 of 2000; therefore

RESOLVED: 1. That based upon the facts and information submitted, the City Commission does

hereby establish an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District at 710 Wealthy Street SE (PPN 41-14-31-228-003); and

2. That based upon the facts and information submitted, the City Commission does also

hereby find and determine that the above-mentioned property is Obsolete Property as defined in Section 2(h) of PA 146 of 2000.

Prepared by Regina Pell and Christian Borg

6

Packet Pg. 32

710 Wealthy Street SE

Uptown Corridor Improvement Authority ±

710 Wealthy Street SEProposed OPRA District

Bridge Street NW

U.S. 131

Economic Development DepartmentAugust 2019

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community

Wealthy Street SE

Henry Avenue SE

Charles Avenue SE

6.a

Packet Pg. 33

Att

ach

men

t: 7

10 W

ealt

hy

- M

ap (

(E)

Est

ablis

hin

g O

PR

A D

istr

ict

- 71

0 W

ealt

hy)







SUBJECT: Resolution approving a ten-year Obsolete Property Rehabilitation

Exemption Certificate, pursuant to PA 146 of 2000, for Pottery

Lane, LLC at 710 Wealthy Street SE

Attached is a resolution approving an application for a ten-year Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate, pursuant to PA 146 of 2000, for Pottery Lane, LLC (the “Applicant”) for a project located at 710 Wealthy Street SE (the “Property”). The Applicant has entered into a purchase agreement on the Property and plans to rehabilitate the two obsolete buildings to be used as a professional pottery studio. The primary building at 710 Wealthy Street SE contains a one-story structure with 2,000 square feet, while a separate garage consists of 760 square feet. Both buildings were originally constructed in the 1920’s and have been used for storage of automotive parts since the 1960’s. The City Assessor has inspected the buildings and has determined that they meet the definition of “functionally obsolete,” as defined by Public Act 146 of 2000, and will require significant investment and rehabilitation prior to future use. The plan for rehabilitation of the buildings includes replacement of the mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems, as well as significant interior and exterior upgrades to prepare for occupancy. The proposed rehabilitation is consistent with the requirements for the historic district. Investment in the rehabilitation is currently estimated to be $252,000. Once complete, the project is anticipated to create three full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs with an average wage of $15.40 per hour. The proposed exemption will assist the Applicant in creating quality commercial space in buildings that have been boarded and underutilized for decades. The project is permitted in the zone district and is in accordance with the City’s Master Plan. The Applicant received support for the project from the Wealthy Street Business Alliance, the East Hills Council of Neighbors, and the Uptown Corridor Improvement Authority. The Baxter Neighborhood Association has also been contacted by the Applicant

7

Packet Pg. 34

regarding the project. There are no environmental concerns at the Property and the Applicant is current on all of its tax liabilities to the City.

Project Projections – 710 Wealthy Street SE

Total Amount City of Grand Rapids Portion

Investment - Real Property $252,000 -

Investment - Personal Property $30,000 -

Retained Jobs (FTE) 0 -

New Jobs (FTE) 3 -

Average Hourly Wage $15.40 -

Total New Taxes Generated (1 year) $5,795 $1,056

Taxes Paid (1 year) $1,805 $137

Taxes Abated (1 year) $3,990 $919

New City Income Taxes - $978

KLW/cb

..

7

Packet Pg. 35

YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution approving a ten-year Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate, pursuant to PA 146 of 2000, for Pottery Lane, LLC at 710 Wealthy Street SE.

WHEREAS, Pottery Lane, LLC has filed an application with the City of Grand Rapids for an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate under PA 146 of 2000; therefore

RESOLVED: 1. That the local unit is a Qualified Local Governmental Unit; and 2. That the Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District was legally established by the City

Commission September 24, 2019 after a public hearing held on September 10, 2019 as provided by Section 3 of PA 146 of 2000; and

3. That the taxable value of the property proposed to be exempt plus the aggregate

taxable value of property already exempt under PA 146 of 2000 and under PA 198 of 1974 (IFT’s) does not exceed 5% of the total taxable value of the unit; and

4. That the application is being approved after a public hearing held on September 10,

2019, as provided by Section 4(2) of PA 146 of 2000; and 5. That the applicant is not delinquent in any taxes related to the facility and that the

application is for Obsolete Property as defined in Section 2(h) of PA 146 of 2000; and 6. That all of the items required as attachments for the Application for an Obsolete

Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate have been provided to the Qualified Local Governmental Unit by the applicant; and

7. That the commencement of the rehabilitation of the facility did not occur before the

establishment of the Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District; and 8. That the application relates to a rehabilitation project that, when completed,

constitutes a rehabilitated facility within the meaning of PA 146 of 2000 and that it is situated within an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District established in a Qualified Local Governmental Unit eligible under PA 146 of 2000 to establish such a district; and

9. That upon completion of the rehabilitation facility it is calculated to, and will at the time

of issuance of the certificate, have the reasonable likelihood to increase commercial activity, create employment and revitalize urban areas; and

7

Packet Pg. 36

10. That the rehabilitation includes improvements aggregating 10% or more of the true cash value of the property at commencement of the rehabilitation as provided by Section 2(I) of PA 146 of 2000; and

11. That the date of completion of the Pottery Lane, LLC facility located at 710 Wealthy

Street SE, the subject of the Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate, shall be December 31, 2020; and

12. That the cost of the real property improvement is estimated at $252,000; and 13. That the State Equalized Value (SEV) of the real property, excluding land subject to

the obsolete property for the tax year is $36,600 and the taxable value is $6,380; and 14. That the certificate for Pottery Lane, LLC is approved for a period of ten (10) years,

pursuant to PA 146 of 2000, based on the jobs created, increase in commercial activity, increased revenue due to the increased value of the SEV as currently projected, and the economic value to the community as stated in the hearings; and

15. That the term of the exemption will not be extended beyond the term approved by this

resolution; and 16. That upon approval as to form by the City Attorney, the Mayor is authorized to sign the

Memorandum of Understanding for Pottery Lane, LLC. Prepared by Regina Pell and Christian Borg

7

Packet Pg. 37





FROM: Kristin Turkelson, Acting Planning Director

Design, Development, and Community Engagement

SUBJECT: Resolution accepting the Southtown Business Area Specific Plan

for release for public comment for amendment to the 2002 Grand

Rapids Master Plan

Background The Southtown Business Area Specific Plan (BASP) covers five of Southtown’s six business districts: Alger Heights, Boston Square, Franklin and Eastern, Madison Square, and Seymour Square. The sixth district, South Division, is part of a separate, parallel planning process. Efforts related to the Southtown BASP have been underway since December 2017 and were initiated by the Southtown Corridor Improvement Authority (Southtown CIA). The goal of the planning process was to create a roadmap that will lead to improved commercial cores and public spaces that support existing and new businesses, appeal to neighborhood residents, encourage pride in places, and attract visitors. A Steering Committee was formed to guide plan development that includes representatives from the Southtown CIA Board, neighborhood associations, business associations, the faith community, and non-profits, as well as residents. The Plan The culmination of community input and feedback, the BASP provides direction for future improvements that affect businesses, aesthetics, transportation, land use, housing, and development types along the corridor. The BASP provides physical, program, and policy recommendations to support Southtown business districts. The Plan is organized around four goals:

1. Be a more stable and thriving business community without displacement, 2. Be a highly valued business community that celebrates and promotes cultural

and neighborhood assets, 3. Be a more vibrant place to work, shop, play, learn, live and do business, and

8

Packet Pg. 38

4. Be a safer environment for everyone. Each goal has objectives and strategies associated with it. The strategies include tools, practices, design approaches, and more that highlight ways to bring investment, energy, and greater stability to Southtown. The plan provides strategies that are specific to each business district and overarching recommendations that cover the full district. Additionally, the Plan contains an Action Plan organized by goal and strategy that identifies steps and partners for implementation. Adoption Process and Public Comment Adoption of an amendment to a City’s Master Plan is governed by the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, which sets out a specific process for review and approval. As established in the Act, a minimum 42-day comment period is required before an amendment can be considered for approval. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft plan document in July and an amended version on September 12, 2019. The Planning Commission voted in support of forwarding the plan to the City Commission for distribution to surrounding jurisdictions, utilities, and other interested parties for review and comment. During the Planning Commission public hearing, Steering Committee members spoke in support of the plan. Homes for All representatives expressed concerns that were largely related to the Housing NOW! initiative. City staff, the Southtown BASP consultant, and Southtown Steering Committee members met with the Homes for All representatives after the meeting to hear their concerns and clarify their understanding of the BASP and Housing Now!. If the City Commission approves the release of the BASP for public review on September 24, 2019, public comment will be taken until November 6. Correspondence should be directed to:

City of Grand Rapids Planning Department 1120 Monroe NW, 3rd Floor Grand Rapids, MI 49503 or via email at: [email protected].

A tentative schedule of consideration is as follows:

Action Date

Planning Commission review, forward

to City Commission September 12, 2019

City Commission authorizes

distribution September 24, 2019

Letters sent to adjacent jurisdictions

and utilities for 42 day notice

September 25, 2019, begins

42 days

8

Packet Pg. 39

mailto:[email protected]

End 42 days November 6, 2019

Planning Commission public hearing November 14, 2019

City Commission adoption December 3, 2019

Upon conclusion of the public comment period, a public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the plan, it will be forwarded to the City Commission for review and adoption. The anticipated City Commission adoption date is December 3, 2019.

..

8

Packet Pg. 40

YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution accepting the draft Southtown Business Area Specific Plan and directing the Secretary of the Planning Commission to distribute said Plan for review and comment as specified in Act 33 of 2008, as amended, as a proposed amendment to the 2002 City of Grand Rapids Master Plan.

WHEREAS:

1. The Michigan Planning Enabling Act (MPEA) authorizes the Planning Commission to prepare a Master Plan for the use, development and preservation of all lands in the City; and

2. Efforts related to the Southtown Business Area Specific Plan have been

underway since December 2017, initiated by the Southtown Corridor Improvement Authority and guided by a Steering Committee representing the Southtown CIA Board, neighborhood associations, business associations, the faith community, and non-profits, as well as residents; and

3. The Southtown Business Area Specific Plan is a culmination of community input

and feedback and provides direction for future improvements that affect businesses, aesthetics, transportation, land use, housing, and development types along the corridor; and

4. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 12, 2019, for

initial public input on the draft plan, and recommended that the City Commission accept the draft plan for distribution; therefore

RESOLVED:

1. That that the draft Southtown Business Area Specific Plan is hereby accepted by

the City Commission for review and comment as a proposed amendment to the 2002 City of Grand Rapids Master Plan; and

2. That the City Commission hereby directs the Secretary of the Planning

Commission to submit a copy of the draft Southtown Business Area Specific Plan for review and comment to each of the parties identified in MCL 125.3801 under Act 33 of 2008, as amended. Prepared by Elizabeth Zeller and Layla Aslani

8

Packet Pg. 41

Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9-12-2019 (excerpt)

The Southtown Business Area Specific Plan includes the Alger Heights, Boston Square,

Franklin and Easter, Madison Square, and Seymour Square business areas.

Ms. Aslani recalled that they presented the Southtown Business Plan to the Planning

Commission on July 11, 2019. The Planning Commission offered feedback. They have worked

further on the Plan since then. They are present today to share what they have done since the

previous presentation and welcome a recommendation from the Planning Commission to

forward this Plan to the City Commission for release for the 42-day public input period.

Eric Meister, member of the Steering Committee, related that he is also on the Southtown CID

Board. Mr. Meister stated that the Plan represents a culmination of over 18 months of

community engagement with residents, business owners, property owners, and partner

organizations. That input was critical in developing the plan and identifying the unique strengths

and identity of Southtown, as well as providing a framework for strengthening the business

districts while at the same time promoting stability and wealth creation in the community and

also addressing concerns of displacement and gentrification. Mr. Meister thanked the members

of the Steering Committee for volunteering hundreds of hours in the preparation of this plan, as

well as members of the community that provided their feedback and input.

Oliver Kiley, SmithGroup, provided a summary of key aspects of the Plan. The Southtown CID

Board and CID District was formed to help empower the community’s voice and help guide and

shape positive change across the Southtown District. As a business corridor, the Business Area

Specific Plan is focused on the business and commercial interests although there is a very

important link with the residents/residential areas that surround it. The Southtown CID Plan

covers five business areas. Division South is part of the Southtown CID District but the actual

planning process for that area went through a separate planning effort which was recommended

forward to the City Commission last month to be released for public review.

Mr. Kiley related that the central opportunity of this Plan is about equity, ownership, and wealth

building across the business area, for residents and business owners, and to do it in a way that

minimizes displacement and impacts of gentrification. Equity is a concern across the City and is

a particularly acute concern and discussion topic in Southtown. This Plan helps to organize and

present a broad range of strategies to address that. As Mr. Meister mentioned, this was an 18-

month process, which started out to be a 9-month process. There was a very comprehensive

engagement effort involved.

Mr. Kiley identified the goals of the Plan: be a stable and thriving business community without

displacement; be a highly valued business community that celebrates and promotes cultural and

neighborhood assets; be a more vibrant place to work, shop, play, learn, live and do business;

and be a safer environment for everyone.

Mr. Kiley recognized that Business Area Specific Plans and Area Specific Plans are anticipated

by the Master Plan as a tool to get into specific localized areas at a greater level of detail. The

Southtown Business Area Specific Plan is in alignment with the overall Master Plan. Broadly

the Southtown Plan makes recommendations, called Strategies, around Future Land Use

recommendations. There are recommendations and strategies around physical improvements

8.c

Packet Pg. 42

Att

ach

men

t: D

RA

FT

PC

MIN

UT

ES

9-1

2-19

(E

XC

ER

PT

) (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)


across the district and strategies around programs and policies that can help build organizational

capacity, wealth building, encourage affordability, etc. Those filter down into a detailed action

plan. Once the Plan is approved they can begin to work on those action elements.

Mr. Kiley recalled from the July 11th meeting that there was discussion about the applicability of

the TN-TCC zoning and whether it made sense to consider that district for Southtown,

particularly in the Industrial area. There was also a request for clarification of TBA Transition

areas and the LDR Transition areas and what was included necessitating a new zoning

designation. There was a broader question about the alignment of the Southtown BASP with the

citywide Master Plan and making sure those are working in step.

Mr. Kiley displayed a map and identified an area in blue. Two months ago, the Plan continued

to identify that area as an industrial zone. The Plan, at the time, had a note and description

recognizing a need and desire for greater flexibility of uses in this industrial area but they didn’t

go too far into the nuance of explaining what that was, to the detriment of the Plan. The

Planning Commission encouraged them to go back and consider TN-TCC zoning and what they

really mean by a greater flexibility and mixture of uses and whether there is a way to clarify that

in the Plan. Mr. Kiley suggested that one of the more important things to remember, as an Area

Specific Plan, is that the Future Land Use maps included in the Plan are not zoning maps. The

Plan talks about a future land use designation vs. a specific zone district. Mr. Kiley explained

that they have reworked the description of the Industrial area into an Industrial Flex zone. The

intent is to provide a greater range of allowable uses. The Plan specifies that all existing

industrial uses, whether allowed by right or as a Special Land Use, would continue to be

allowed. In addition, all TN-TCC uses allowed by right or by permit, except for residential,

would be permitted as well. That provides an opportunity for a much broader spectrum of uses

within that zone. The Plan remains consistent with the current SD-IT zoning as it relates to

building height and number of stories, which is driven by the fact that where they want the

investment and density to happen is in the Traditional Business Areas, the core priority

investment areas, where investments will help benefit the immediate Traditional Business Areas

as opposed to syphoning energy out of those areas. Mr. Kiley summarized that the proposed

Industrial Flex is achieving a more flexible, much broader, range of uses than would otherwise

be allowed in the area and it remains consistent with the direction from the prior BASP draft. It

specifies in greater detail what is and isn’t allowed and it remains consistent with the citywide

Master Plan.

Mr. Kiley referred to a map indicating that the text in orange clarifies the difference between

priority investment areas, which are TBA zoned areas, that remain exactly as they are today, and

areas outside of those core priority investment areas, which become TBA Transition. The intent

of the TBA Transition is to allow a broader range of uses, particularly on the ground floor,

including commercial and business space, office, maker spaces, and professional services. Uses

that might require Special Land Use approval today, that are still business oriented, would be

allowed by right in this area in the future. It would also allow more opportunity for housing on

the ground floor as part of a Special Land Use permit. The idea is to create a greater flexibility

of uses within the TBA Transition area.

8.c

Packet Pg. 43

Att

ach

men

t: D

RA

FT

PC

MIN

UT

ES

9-1

2-19

(E

XC

ER

PT

) (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)


Finally, Mr. Kiley recalled discussion regarding Low Density Residential. Similar to the TBA,

they have created an LDR Transition area. With regard to Low Density Residential, there were

some changes that came through as part of Housing Now that affected some of the opportunities

for redevelopment within the LDR areas. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows vacant

properties up to 500’ from a TBA zone to be redeveloped by right with up to four attached

housing units. The Plan text has been updated to match/acknowledge that. In the LDR

Transition areas they reasserted that, if these areas are redeveloped, that attached style housing at

2 ½ stories would be acceptable and appropriate in those areas. One specific change is that a

live-work unit that incorporates a business growth or commercial activity element could be

allowed by right in the LDR Transition area vs. requiring Special Land Use approval.

Mr. Kiley summarized that the Future Land Use plan helps set the stage for updating the zoning.

As this moves forward through the approval process the actual zoning language would have to be

drafted and reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Turkelson has prepared a memo

speaking to how some of the zone changes could be implemented. Mr. Kiley added that the

proposed changes are broadly consistent with the Master Plan and gets into a greater level of

detail with an opportunity to better reflect the values and interests of the community.

Mr. Kiley explained that the Plan identifies, in each of the five business districts, the core area as

a priority investment area where the idea is to concentrate them in key areas to have a positive

impact on the community. Overall, through the Industrial Flex designation and the TBA

Transition, there is a desire to allow a greater flexibility of uses across the district, particularly

those that are business or commercially oriented. The Plan helps reinforce the desired character

and scale of development and buildings to be consistent with much of the historic character of

the area. Programs and policies are geared around wealth building and owner-occupied approach

to housing to help mitigate the impacts of displacement or gentrification. Finally, the programs,

policies and other projects are all tied to specific action items and specific partners that need to

be pulled together to help make those things happen and make the Plan a reality.

Mr. Kiley related that they spent a significant amount of time with the Steering Committee

reaching out to the CID Board and across the community for input on these changes and

clarifications. They feel it is important to move this process into the public review period for

feedback and input on the Plan. The community is ready for action. They have projects waiting

that they’d like to be able to do. Assuming this is approved today, they will go before the City

Commission on September 24 requesting the release for public review. Following the review

period, November 14 is the potential date to return to the Planning Commission for final

approval.

Sam Evans related that he was on the Steering Committee from the beginning representing the

Alger Heights Neighborhood Association. However, he is also a member of the Alger Heights

Business Association Board. His original focus was on Alger Heights. The more they got into

each individual business district they found that there was a lot of diversity in the neighborhoods

as well as business districts. They received a lot of great input from each area.

Christy Knetsch related that she serves at Madison Square Church on the Outreach Team and has

had the privilege of serving on the Steering Committee. She has appreciated the amount of time

8.c

Packet Pg. 44

Att

ach

men

t: D

RA

FT

PC

MIN

UT

ES

9-1

2-19

(E

XC

ER

PT

) (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)


taken to listen. She feels they’ve heard the unique needs of each of the business districts and

they are all very diverse and have very different wants and needs. Many of those things are

reflected in the Plan. Ms. Knetsch is also proud that they’ve included things like housing and

crime prevention so that hopefully the Business Area Specific Plan can be used by other

organizations to help bolster why the City needs different grants and opportunities that they can

apply for. She feels this will help move things forward in the City.

Mr. Van Strien clarified that the role of the Planning Commission today is to make a

recommendation to the City Commission with respect to putting the Plan out for public

distribution.

Mr. Van Strien invited public comment.

Joyce Daniels stated that she has an issue with what is shown in yellow in the Plan. Ms. Daniels

explained that they attended community meetings and understood the business section but when

it came to the neighborhoods they specifically didn’t agree with the by-right. The people moved

into these neighborhoods because they liked them. They don’t necessarily want developers

coming in and putting things in by-right and the neighborhood not having a say. Ms. Daniels is

very concerned after seeing the map because one such area is down the street from where she

lives.

Mr. Van Strien noted that what is shown in yellow is identified as Low Density Residential.

Ms. Daniels agreed. However, if they change the zoning and permit the attached multi-family

housing by-right, that is what they said they don’t want. The residents should have a voice as to

how they want their neighborhood to develop.

Albert Rice, Homes for All, expressed opposition to the by-right redevelopment approvals.

Residents have the right to have input.

Ms. Turkelson explained for those present that when Mr. Kiley mentioned that there would be

row houses that could be built by-right there are some layers of complexity that may offer

reassurance. That part of the discussion stems from the Housing Now initiative that the City

Commission and Planning Commission worked on several years ago. Specific to the LDR Zone

District, where there are vacant properties and where it is within 500’ of the Traditional Business

Area, someone could build attached single-family row houses with Administrative approval.

Those would be owner-occupied. That change was already implemented by the City

Commission earlier this year. Any other style of multi-family housing or row house

development that would require demolition of existing structures is not by-right development in

the LDR; those would be required to come to the Planning Commission for Special Land Use

approval. The only instance of by-right is already in effect and can only occur on vacant

property that is within 500’ of a commercial zone district. With respect to this Plan, the only

change, within the LDR Transition zone, is a recommendation to allow live/work units to be

changed from Special Land Use to a by-right use. Ms. Turkelson summarized that multi-family

development would continue to require Planning Commission approval. Row house style

8.c

Packet Pg. 45

Att

ach

men

t: D

RA

FT

PC

MIN

UT

ES

9-1

2-19

(E

XC

ER

PT

) (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)


development would continue to require Planning Commission approval when there is demolition

involved.

Mr. Davis asked about corner lots and if multi-family by-right use within 500’ is available.

Ms. Turkelson replied no. Another change that resulted from the Housing Now effort was that

where a corner property wishes to have a two-family home it could be converted to a duplex.

That is permitted by the Ordinance today and the Plan would not change those existing code

requirements.

Teresa Phillips, resident of the Madison Square area, asked that the Planning Commission

remember this is a community where people live. It might be labeled industrial but these are

people’s homes. They have their children there and they like their children to be safe. Ms.

Phillips stated that they aren’t opposed to this Plan but they don’t want 3-5 story structures

because they don’t fit into the neighborhood. They want new development to blend with the

neighborhood and to know that their children will be safe.

Deandre Jones, resident on the west side of Grand Rapids, related that he works with LINC UP.

Mr. Jones stated that the west side and south side have had the most calls for service to police.

He asked if housing will be in predominantly black areas where low income families will have

more opportunity for housing. LINC UP recently created 26 new units and received 500

applications for those units. He asked if they will be quality units available to people of color.

Mr. Kiley felt Ms. Turkelson clarified the Housing Now and LDR land uses sufficiently. One

resident brought up the point of density and fitting in with the character of the community. That

was very much a part of the Plan process. Currently there aren’t many buildings over three

stories in the commercial building areas and the preference was to keep the same feel in the

Traditional Business Areas and when the business areas interface with residential areas they

should be preserved as much as possible for owner-occupied housing opportunities for the

community and residents that live there today.

Ms. Collier stated that the Steering Committee put a lot of work into preparing for future

investment in the community. She believes the Plan has been dissected and proofed over and

over again to make it satisfactory to the community. Ms. Collier believes that those that served

on the Steering Committee will be pleased with the plans. There was ample opportunity for

community engagement/input. Ms. Collier hopes that this is the turning point where this plan

can be recommended to the City Commission for public release/input.

Mr. Greenwald noted that this is the second time the Planning Commission has discussed this

Plan. He believes they have obtained the clarification they asked for. He agrees it is time to

move this Plan forward to the next step.

Mr. Davis appreciates the clarifications they’ve been provided. He is curious how the people

will react to the Plan, which is the point of the public distribution. Mr. Davis is grateful for the

amount of energy that went into consideration of the TCC zoning. There is a very high desire to

protect the low-density residential area and make sure that single-family owner-occupied homes

8.c

Packet Pg. 46

Att

ach

men

t: D

RA

FT

PC

MIN

UT

ES

9-1

2-19

(E

XC

ER

PT

) (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)


are protected. However, they also want to grow and he doesn’t believe they will experience

growth if not finding a place to allow for density. To say yes to TCC except for the residential

aspects of that zoning feels odd. However, he would not oppose moving the Plan forward for

more conversation. It sounds like they want to attract talent. He is concerned that they are

drawing a hard line in the sand and he prefers they get the results they are after. If they are going

to attract residents, they have to have a place to put them.

Ms. Turkelson clarified that she didn’t hear in the presentation that they are requesting any

significant changes to the LDR zone district. This is a Business Area Specific Plan, which is

what the focus was on. There is some mention of the LDR and that there is a preference for

single-family but they aren’t recommending that the City remove multi-family. Therefore, Ms.

Turkelson believes there will be opportunities for Special Land Use requests for multi-family.

Mr. Van Strien recalled that they are proposing the Industrial Flex zone where it is essentially

TCC without the residential opportunity and with lower height limitations.

Mr. Davis clarified that he has no problem sending it forward. He just wished to offer the

observation from the two presentations they’ve heard from the steering committee.

Mr. Van Strien recognizes the amount of work that has gone into the Plan. He noted that he

wasn’t present for the first presentation but has reviewed the discussion and watched the

Facebook video. He has some concerns about creating three new zone districts. He resisted that

when the Grandville ASP was presented as well. That may be the subject of a broader discussion

but it may be that their fears during the Grandville Plan may be coming to fruition now with each

individual neighborhood potentially coming up with new zone recommendations. Mr. Van

Strien agrees that this Plan should move forward however. He wondered if perhaps a height

overlay would be more appropriate so they still have a consistent pattern of zone districts and

uses yet the heights more appropriate for the district.

Ms. Turkelson clarified that they aren’t asking for new zone districts. These are additional future

land use categories, which is not uncommon in land use plans. It would not be necessary to

create new zone districts as a result of this Plan. It is something that could be done but she

doesn’t believe it is a good idea. What these zoning designations would do, as projects come in

and need evaluation, is provide guidance to the Planning Commission as to the vision for that

parcel.

Mr. Van Strien clarified for Ms. Collier that this would be the second time they’ve considered a

recommendation to create a new future land use designation.

Ms. Turkelson clarified that with the Grandville Plan the future land use didn’t necessarily

change but the recommendations for the zoning districts did. There was an LDR district that

permits multi-family. The Grandville Plan was implemented and they can no longer consider

Special Land Use for multi-family in the LDR zone district on Grandville. In the TBA zone

district on Grandville and Clyde Park, ground floor office and residential are allowed to be

considered. Ms. Turkelson explained that that is partially why she prepared the additional memo

for the Planning Commission. It is also interesting that the Industrial Flex accounts for 69

8.c

Packet Pg. 47

Att

ach

men

t: D

RA

FT

PC

MIN

UT

ES

9-1

2-19

(E

XC

ER

PT

) (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)


parcels. Ms. Turkelson referred to packet page 152 noting that there are 195 parcels in the TBA,

124 in MDR, 326 in LDR. The Industrial Flex is a very small percentage of the total parcels that

are affected within this ASP. The memo also notes that these have been industrially zoned since

the inception of zoning in Grand Rapids. There was definitely more flexibility with the uses.

1951 was the turning point where industrial uses were identified. Residential has never been

allowed in industrially zoned districts. She doesn’t feel they are taking anything away since it

hasn’t been permitted since 1951 and they are actually expanding the opportunities, if this is

adopted, by continuing the industrial designation of today but providing additional opportunities

that are available in the TCC, excluding residential.

Mr. Rozeboom was pleased that neighborhood associations were involved in this Business Area

Specific Plan. This is the first time since he joined the Planning Commission that they’ve

considered a Business ASP. He believes it is better when it is an actual ASP and not a business

only plan.

Mr. Treur MOVED TO SEND THE SOUTHTOWN BUSINESS AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

FORWARD TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR DISTRIBUTION. SUPPORTED by Mr.

Greenwald. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Rick Treur, Board Member

SECONDER: Paul Greenwald, Member

YEAS: Rozeboom, Collier, Behler, Davis, Greenwald, Van Strien, Brame, Treur, Joseph

8.c

Packet Pg. 48

Att

ach

men

t: D

RA

FT

PC

MIN

UT

ES

9-1

2-19

(E

XC

ER

PT

) (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)

City Planning Commission

Meeting Full Page 25 July 11, 2019

Ms. Collier recalled from discussion that spot zoning has been done however.

Ms. Schulz clarified that she could not think of an example like this where one parcel has been

rezoned as an island. There have been conditional rezonings, which has different rules around it.

In the Tennis Connection example there was a commercial zone district and residential next to it.

The property that abutted the commercial zone district wanted to be used for commercial

purposes. The zone district was the same but the conditions on it were very specific to that

parcel. It wasn’t an entirely different zone district imposed on that property.

Mr. Rozeboom suggested that the ultimate test is whether it fits with the Master Plan. Spot

zoning is a concept but the Planning Commission’s judgement should be based on the Master

Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Joseph agreed that spot zoning is a concept and she wished to clarify that that is different

than looking at projects on a case by case basis.

Ms. Collier is pleased that the Planning Commission is in place because, in her opinion, Grand

Rapids has always spot zoned.

Mr. Davis stated that if this were to be approved it would not negate his desire to send the BASP

back. He was in favor of postponing that because he wants them to have the opportunity to

consider all of their options. Mr. Davis recalled that he was not present for the June 13th

discussion. He would be disappointed if the Planning Commission is the applicant and a denial

would result in a land use being inhibited for a significant amount of time.

Ms. Schulz clarified that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City

Commission. She also read the Ordinance language related to a denial and the resulting

limitations for reconsideration.

Brief discussion occurred on the appropriate action to take; tabling or withdrawing the request.

Mr. Davis MOVED TO TABLE OPEN. SUPPORTED by Mr. Brame. MOTION

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

RESULT: TABLED OPEN [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: James Davis, Member

SECONDER: Walter M Brame, Board Member

YEAS: Rozeboom, Greenwald, Collier, Behler, Davis, Brame, Treur, Joseph

ABSENT: Kyle Van Strien

D. (1:30 p.m.) Southtown BASP--initial public input

Address: The Southtown Business Area Specific Plan includes the Alger

Heights, Boston Square, Franklin and Eastern, Madison Square,

and Seymour Square business areas.

Case Number: Master Plan Amendment

8.d

Packet Pg. 49

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Staff Assigned: Layla Aslani

Type of Case: Area Specific Plan / Master Plan Amendment

Applicant: Planning Department

Requesting: Consideration of the Southtown Business Area Specific Plan as

an Amendment to the 2002 Master Plan.

The Planning Commission is seeking initial input on the plan to

make a recommendation to the City Commission relative to

distribution for public comment.

Requirements: Chapter 11 2002 Master Plan

5.12.15. Master Plan Amendments

Effective Date: City Commission approval

Verbatim transcript

Schulz Layla will come up and present to that, is my understanding. As she’s coming up,

just a reminder, the…an Area Specific Plan is intended to be a kind of a more detailed plan as

part of the overall Citywide Master Plan.

Greenwald Can we have about five minutes Mr. Chairman?

Schulz Oh sure.

Greenwald Thank you.

Schulz Do you want to do that first?

Greenwald Yes.

Rozeboom Yup. Five-minute brief recess.

Break

Rozeboom Alright. We’re gonna reconvene us here. Bear with us, we have some

administrative things going on within the Commission here that we’re trying to understand for

our own edification so I just wanna ask, Ms. Beebe, if you would comment on

the…Commissioner Collier’s role on the steering committee for the Area Specific Plan and then

now as a Planning Commissioner. Is it…is that…how is that…how do we look at that in terms

of potential conflict of interest? Or not.

Beebe Clearly there have been some people that have gotten up today from that planning

process that have voiced their discontent at his application…or with this application, so it would

be my recommendation that you not vote on it.

Collier Pardon me?

Beebe That you not vote on this.

8.d

Packet Pg. 50

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Collier Okay. Or comment?

Rozeboom On item D, the Area Specific Plan? Or on the…

Beebe Are we talking about…which plan are we talking about?

Collier The Southtown…

Beebe The South Business Area Specific Plan. You’re on that steering committee.

Collier Yes.

Beebe So I would say there might be a conflict there.

Collier A conflict of interest if I vote on it because I was on it?

Beebe Mm, hmm.

Collier And not comment on it either, or?

Beebe I would say just to not be involved at all in this hearing.

Collier Mm, hmm. Okay.

Rozeboom Alright. So, we’ll take that under advisement. Does anybody want to make a

motion?

Behler Does Commissioner Collier have a point of view about her conflict?

Collier I don’t have a…well I’m not sure why I should not be involved because I did

work with the steering committee and that was clear (unintelligible) and I feel I add a certain

perspective because I intentionally…I purposely know all the plans that they were working

together to create the design for the community. I’m a resident there and I may have…I may be

able to…may have my own opinion about things.

Joseph I’m a little confused about, like, so, if we’re talking about a future Master

Planning effort where one or more of us is on that steering committee would then we not be able

to vote on the Master Plan?

Treur Right.

Joseph That’s where I’m confused about.

Treur ‘Cause I feel like it would be helpful to have her perspective shared with the

whole group if…if possible.

8.d

Packet Pg. 51

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Schulz We traditionally have not had steering…if a steering committee member has been

involved on a plan process they’ve typically not recused themselves.

Treur Have not recused themselves.

Schulz Correct.

Collier So I don’t have to recuse myself?

Schulz Well it’s up to…it’s not my…it’s up to the Planning Commission as a body

according to the Enabling legislation.

Collier Well our attorney just…

Schulz They have to vote.

Collier …said for me not to vote.

Rozeboom Well, she’s recommending that to us.

Collier Recommending that. Okay. So, it’s up to the body how you feel about that.

Rozeboom And just remember at our…a future training event, which we have currently

scheduled, we will spend more time on this topic. So, can we make a decision here to get us

through today knowing that…

Collier To be clear, no one else has ever done this before…be a part of a decision or

steering committee, has had to recuse themselves of it?

Schulz It seldom happens. I think they look…we looked back at the West Side Area

Specific Plan and Commissioner Van Strien was not part of the Planning Commission…or he

was not on the steering committee. He was aware of it but he wasn’t on the steering committee

so he did not recuse himself. Elizabeth, was there one other one that we did check?

Davis Reggie?

Zeller Yes, GR Forward. Mary Angelo and also Commissioner Treur were on the

steering committee and they did not recuse themselves and at that time there was even discussion

before the meeting and, at that time, the Attorney’s office did not find that there was any conflict

or did not recommend that they not participate at that time.

Treur I was on Sustainable Streets too and that…did that come to the…

Schulz We presented it. I’m trying to think if you…the City Commission adopted it so I

think it came to you.

8.d

Packet Pg. 52

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Treur ‘Cause it was my understanding that part of the…our…the reason to have the

Commissioners…the Planning Commissioners on these committees was to bring their

knowledge back to us as a body…

Collier Right.

Treur …and so that’s what’s confusing to me ‘cause I feel like Commissioner Collier

could add some information to this discussion that could be helpful.

Schulz Right.

Beebe So, is this…is this more of a liaison position? Is that what that is?

Collier As a community…as a community member I was added to give my outlook on

the community…the community…

Schulz But you were on the steering committee before you became a Planning

Commissioner.

Collier Yes, I was.

Comments about and adjustments to the volume of the microphone system.

Schulz It’s the Planning Commission’s decision. You have an opinion from the attorney.

I would suggest that you vote it up or down as to whether or not a conflict exists so that you have

it in the record.

Rozeboom And like I said, we’ll continue to be educated on this so, can someone make a

motion please?

Behler I’ll move that she does not have a conflict. That the Business Area Specific Plan

is in front of us and we all have equal access to the outcome of the planning work. My

understanding is many of the meetings were open to the public to attend, if we wanted to, so it’s

not…I don’t think that Commissioner Collier has unique information. She may have helpful

information but I don’t think that there’s a conflict there.

Brame Support.

Davis Discussion? I am in agreement and my question for legal counsel is how this

impacts decisions in conflict with the case we are about to hear? So, I agree with you that on this

current moment I will support that and gladly vote for it and, as that passes, then there will be

two cases we will hear that are in conflict with what’s being presented. So, it’s a different

question at that moment for me.

Joseph I also want to say that we are just recommending…taking action to recommend

this to be…go to City Commission for potential public…so it’s not like…for public…

8.d

Packet Pg. 53

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Treur It’s not for approval.

Joseph Yeah. It’s not for approval so…

Schulz But…I can talk…I can talk about that too, but yes, as it relates to this.

Joseph As it relates to this…it’s not…we’re not making a decision.

Rozeboom Alright. All those in favor say aye.

All Commissioners Aye.

Rozeboom Any opposed same sign.

Okay. Thank you. Now we’re moving on to Southtown Business Area Specific

Plan.

Schulz So, just as a reminder, I want to read, and we do this because you always don’t

have that Area Specific Plan in front of you. In the Master Plan, Area Specific Plans are allowed.

The text reads that it’s an effective way to ensure that land use and development goals for a

particular area of the City are identified to protect its unique character while encouraging

reinvestment and revitalization. These Plans provide a closer analysis of an area than a citywide

Master Plan by establishing a specific mix of uses and building types, roadway alignments and

design treatments, and necessary public facilities and amenities needed to make a neighborhood

mixed-use area or business district a success. It goes on to talk about that the goal is to

implement the citywide Master Plan. So, the goal…the role of the Area Specific Plan is to

advance Master Plan implementation where additional detail and additional information, and in

particular additional community engagement, will help inform both the development community

and provide a clearer vision to the businesses and neighbors of a specific geographic area to

more clarity so that there’s more clear direction and everybody is walking in step with one

another so that we can target investment for that…for that location. In this case, what’s

interesting about this Plan is it’s a Business Area Specific Plan and we actually do have text in

the Master Plan that speaks to it where there is a core and connector idea that is provided…it’s

shown…it’s illustrated with this little plus…we have pluses and dashes in between, but the

concept in the Master Plan was talking about trying to cluster core retail and then in between

residential or other uses so that you’re not having strip commercial development like on 28th

Street, that somehow there’s…there’s a rhythm to this and the Plan says both market analyses of

retail potential and more detailed Area Specific Planning will be needed to determine the

location and extent of each TBA cores and connectors. These Area Specific Planning efforts

should be collaborative, involving the City, area property owners, residents and business people.

Any restructuring needed to promote the future economic success of Grand Rapids TBAs will

predominantly be driven by the private sector. Nevertheless, public sector participation to

provide technical and financial assistance, supportive of private efforts, may be required. So, it

envisioned a Business Area Specific Plan to provide additional detail on what should happen in

those districts and that is really what the Southtown Plan aimed to do, is to provide that detail.

So, with that, I’ll let Layla talk about the Plan and the process.

8.d

Packet Pg. 54

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Aslani Thank you Suzanne. Hello. My name is Layla Aslani and I’m a Planning Project

Manager in the Planning Department here at the City. Thank you for having me. I’m here to

introduce the next agenda item so that’s the Southtown Business Area Specific Plan, which is a

plan for the business districts on our City’s southeast side, which includes Alger Heights, Boston

Square, Franklin and Eastern, Madison Square, and Seymour Square. As you know, an Area

Specific Plan is an amendment to the Master Plan. As stated earlier, what we’re looking for

today is a vote to recommend the Plan to City Commission to distribute it for the public

comment and review period. There is a schedule in your staff report in your agenda packet. If

you recommend this today, the Plan will come back to you for a public hearing in September

before going on to the City Commission for formal adoption. I have with me, one of our co-

chairs, Alex Thomas, of the steering committee, and our consultant, Oliver Kiley, from

SmithGroup in Ann Arbor and they’re going to tell you more about the plan and the work done

to date. But, before I turn it over to them, if you have any questions for me, I’m happy to answer

them.

Okay. Thank you.

Thomas To members of the Planning Commission, City staff, and interested others, good

afternoon. Thank you for allowing us to present the Southtown Business Area Specific Plan.

My name is Alexander Thomas, Jr. and I’m here with William DeJong, we are co-chairs for the

steering committee. I would like to preface this presentation by acknowledging the time and

efforts, and the repeated time and efforts, and the repeated efforts that the steering committee and

the CID Board, and some of them who are here now, I want to say thank you for your work. The

Business Area Specific Plan is intended to be a transformative opportunity to proactively shape

the environment in our business areas and, along with our commercial corridors, it should help

determine what, where, and maybe how the Southtown CID efforts can be directed with the

insight and vision of business owners and the concern of neighborhoods and residents. This

Business Area Specific Plan may appear to be more general than most but Southtown is

different. This Plan had to accommodate and allow enough flexibility for five business districts;

Alger Heights, Boston Square, Franklin and Eastern, Madison Square, and Seymour Square.

Division South, which is also part of the Southtown CID, has its own separate Plan that’s being

developed right now. To address the unique needs and goals of these five business districts, it

meant giving a diversity of views for potential and for current and future options of land use and

development opportunities. A normal eight-month process became a eighteen month process.

So, we had some challenges and one of those challenge…central to those…central challenge of

the Southtown BSA…BASP, which I trip up often, we had to identify a lot of strategies and we

found out that we couldn’t…there was no cookie cutter. Every one of those districts had

something different that we had to address. They had a lot of commonalities, but a lot of things

that we had to address, but there were some things we wanted to make sure was important. That

we looked at locally owned businesses and that the community would grow and thrive even

though there is a lot of development pressure that was coming at…at all of them at the same

time. Other things that were important to us was that equity, ownership, wealth building, and no

displacement. That thing was throughout the entire process, that we would not displace as much

as possible. Those were our desired outcomes. So, it took a lot of time, a lot of work and a lot of

back and forth and a lot of communication with the public and we changed our minds about

things quite frequently but we finally had a product that we were able to present to the CID

Board and they accepted unanimously. So, that’s why we’re in this process now. We were

8.d

Packet Pg. 55

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



fortunate to hire highly qualified planning consultants and here to assist us with this presentation

is Mr. Oliver Kiley.

Kiley So, with that, I know we’re running over so we’ll try and get through this

pretty…pretty quickly and get into some of the important discussion items. So, I do just want to

provide an overview for those who haven’t had a chance maybe to dig deeply into the Plan, or

aren’t as familiar with it. Kind of what our process was, what some of the key recommendations

are in terms of where the CID Board will take this Plan next, as well as with the rest of the

community, in seeing it implemented. So, who’s all involved in the process? As you have heard

throughout the meeting today, the CID Board was intimately involved. We had two

representatives from the CID Board that were part of our steering committee. Some of them are

here today. And, in addition to that, as Alex mentioned, the CID Board did unanimously

approve the current draft of the Southtown BASP to come before you in seeking your approval to

release it for broader public comment and review. In addition, we had a twelve-person steering

committee that we’ve been working with over the last eighteen months. We’ve had about fifteen

meetings with them to really dig into the nuts and bolts of the Plan, of the land use, of all the

specific recommendations and that’s been a very productive series of workshops, and then I’ll

touch on some of the other slides, get into the detail of some of the public engagement that we’ve

had. We had pretty extensive outreach, specifically to business owners but also to the broader

community, partner organizations, and Southtown residents and all of that, as well as getting

input throughout the process from City staff and other (unintelligible) members. Just a quick

note too, on the Southtown Corridor Improvement District and the CID Board and their role.

They’re really set up to help empower the community’s voice in guiding and shaping how

changes occur in Southtown and again, again with the business focus on these corridors, really

improving the health and success of the business districts and this Plan starts to set the stage for

what there is might be prioritized, what are the kinds of physical infrastructure improvements

that are desired so that the Southtown CID Board can align their investments and resources in a

way that’s supported by the community and the business community. So, very quick, our

process started back in January of 2018. It went through an extensive kind of outreach and

listening and learning period, gathering information, gathering feedback from business owners,

from residents, from people in the community. Throughout last summer we put together our

draft goals and objectives and strategies for addressing all of the kinds of things that we’ve

heard. Last fall we put our draft plan together and that has been in review period through March

and April of this year when we got CID Board approval and we’re now entering the adoption

phase for this.

So, just a couple highlights from the public outreach. Our first…and the outreach overall was

structured around three times throughout the process, big, multi-day, kind of charrette style

workshops that we were able to get a lot of involvement on. The first one was back in April of

2018. We had three days of workshops. We held different open house sessions that were open

essentially all day long, in different locations each day, in the district to try to reach different

residents. We had multiple public meetings that reported out and do more formal presentations.

We had a whole series of focus group meetings tied in as part of that to reach out specifically to

the business district, nearby institutions, City staff, a whole bunch of different focus groups. In

July ’18 the format was a little bit different. We ended up doing, over the course of three days, a

series of six kind of pop up workshops in each of the different business districts where we

bought…brought boards out right on the street corners, talked to patrons, talked to business

8.d

Packet Pg. 56

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



owners, talked to employees. We actually dragged our materials right into storefronts and talked

to people and say hey, you can’t make it to the meeting but we’re here now, can you give us five

minutes so we can hear from you. So, we were quite pro-active in reaching out to as many

people as we could. I mentioned to, on the April workshops, we also had a unified paper and

web-based survey that asked a whole series of things, particularly lots of mapping questions and

then, once we had our draft plan assembled, we went back out to the community in November of

2018 for another series of workshops and open house sessions, to get kind of final feedback and

discussion with the community on that, and I mentioned earlier, many of our ongoing

engagement activities. Also, as part of this process, and kind of the background research that

went into it, there was a retail market analysis that was conducted that inventoried all of the

commercial storefront space and commercial property space in the entire district. Started to look

at the mix of uses, the mix of active commercial uses throughout the corridor so that we had a

good base line understanding and knowledge going forward into some of the land use planning

activities. Looked at a lot of demographic information around jobs, employment, socio-

economic characteristics, all of those good things, and then also looking at other active and

ongoing planning efforts. So, referencing back to the citywide Master Plan, looking at Vital

Streets and the kinds of improvements to roadway infrastructure that’s being anticipated, through

all of that, so that this Plan was all in alignment. And just last, on this section, just want to

emphasize that, you know, from Southtown’s perspective, there’s lots of unique assets in that

community to be leveraged and to build upon. There’s tremendous diversity, culturally and

ethnically, not just in terms of the people but also in terms of the types of businesses, types of

buildings that are there, the types of land uses. It’s a very diverse place and that’s a strength to

build on and something that Southtown really does not want to lose, to Alex’s point about

displacement. There’s a good level of density there today. There’s a wide range of uses so these

are the things that we want to make sure that we can build on in the future.

So, the strategies, goals piece is pretty straightforward on this Plan. As you might expect, we

have a series of four big goals. Under each of those are a range of more specific objectives and

then there’s actions and strategies that are tied to each of those different goals and objectives.

(Skip this ‘cause I’m gonna go through each of these in a little bit more detail in the next slide.)

So, the first goal was be a more stable and thriving community without displacement and this

really encompassed a broad range of strategies that tied into both some of the future land use

recommendations but as well as a lot of the program and policy recommendations in the plan,

things that could really help drive support for locally owned businesses, helping to build

ownership. So, we talked a lot about how do we grow commercial and business ownership of

properties but then also thinking about that from a residential standpoint. There is a lot of

residential property that falls within the CID district and so we wanted to make sure that that has

an ownership focus to it as well. Goal two - be a highly valued community that celebrates and

promotes cultural and neighborhood assets. So, reflecting the tremendous diversity, history, and

character and uniqueness of this area. As Alex mentioned, there’s five separate business districts

that are all unified, along with S. Division, six districts, into this Southtown CID. So, how do we

make sure, through this Plan, that that whole corridor has a character that can be expressed but

that we’re also responsive to and respectful of the individual character of each of those different

business districts because they are all very different. Goal three - be a more vibrant place to

work, shop, play, learn, live, do business and so a lot of the strategies and recommendations are

geared around how can we support entrepreneurship? How can we support business growth?

Unlike maybe a lot of other Area Specific Plans, a lot of the meat of this report falls into more of

8.d

Packet Pg. 57

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



those programmatic kind of policy and recommendation pieces around trying to support

commercial activity and business growth. And then the last big goal, be a safer environment for

everyone. So, this is where a lot of the focus in the Plan looked at kind of street characteristic

and right-of-way, particularly within the more active commercial areas, to say, you know, how

do we make these the most welcoming places that they can be for patrons, for employees, for

visitors, regardless of how you’re getting there, whether it’s by car, by foot, by bike or by riding

the bus. So, that was really key…a key aspect of this Plan as well.

Most of Chapter 3 is describing all the individual strategies that are outlined in this Plan. So, this

is just an example of one of them on the screen. Each of those strategies looks at, and describes,

and what’s the idea behind it, why is it important, how does it connect back to the goals and the

objectives of the Plan, and then how is it implemented. And those how is it implemented pieces

also connect to the Action Plan, which is Chapter 5 in the report. I’ll touch on that in a little bit.

And the question of, you know, where does this idea or strategy apply, that’s really Chapter 4 in

the report that lays out the future land use plan but, on top of that, also identifies specific points

or nodes where many of these site-specific strategies can apply.

So, just a couple of snapshots from Chapter 4 when we were looking at kind of the future land

use plan. One of the things that I’ll touch on in a second that each of the five business districts

that we were looking at, there was kind of a core active commercial area within those that we did

an even deeper kind of physical land study on, looking at what might this area look like in the

future and we had the opportunity to vet all those ideas through our public engagement, through

reaching out to business owners to see, you know, do all these strategies, here’s what it could

look like in this spot. Does that make sense? Are you supportive of it? And so that was a very

effective tool.

So, some of the key strategies, one of the first ones to hit on, because this really feeds directly

into the future land use recommendations, was this idea of establishing investment priority

nodes. This came partly out of the retail market analysis that was done, which perhaps not

surprisingly found that there’s a lot more retail space that’s being built than there is demand for

retail space and so the question becomes how do we make sure that we can…how do we…you

know, where do we want to focus resources from the CID Boards perspective into areas that are

going to have a maximum benefit to really support active commercial uses in key areas and

provide a point that we can build out from. So, each of the five different business areas, there

was a small series of blocks, or kind of a node within that, that was identified as an investment

priority area where the CID Board may choose to prioritize some of their investments first that

they may want to make. That’s not to say that it’s precluding investment or the CID Board

taking action in other areas of their district and of the corridor by any means. So, we’ll come

back to this in a little bit.

As far as the future land use recommendations go, really the overall intent was to provide greater

flexibility for business and commercial investment throughout the corridor. So, trying to

understand, you know, how can we expand opportunities for more commercial and business

investment? How can we create more space for active commercial uses when those start to come

on line? Some of the other kind of overall points through our…through our surveying, our work

with the steering committee, just reinforcing the desired character and scale of development

throughout the district. Really most of the area that’s zoned is TBA zoning today allows by right

8.d

Packet Pg. 58

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



three-story buildings and three stories or less was kind of the preferred direction as far as density

of development and things like that were concerned. So, that was an overall layer that cuts across

the future land use planning. And then also you’ll see in some of the future land use

recommendations a really strong support for strengthening owner-occupied housing and that we

really look to building ownership in residential as well as in business properties.

So a couple of…digging into the weeds a little bit more in the future land use plan stuff, a lot of

the area today, and what shows up on the map in this kind of magenta color as well as this darker

red, or kind of brown color, today all of those areas are what falls into the TBA Traditional

Business Area zoning. And so much of that, what this plan did is it said what we want to do is

those priority investment areas, lets focus the TBA zone really around those investment priority

areas. TBA is the zoning code that would…is more of a mixed-use zone that really encourages

active commercial spaces on the ground floor, a lot of pedestrian activity, all of that. Lets really

try to concentrate that into those core investment priority areas and then the balance of what is

TBA today is proposed to switch into a TBA Transition future land use. This would be TBA

zoned areas that are outside of these priority investment areas and the intent here is really to

allow a broader range of flexible uses on the ground floor, which would be kind of a moving

requirement for active kind of commercial space on the ground floor. It could allow for more

live-work units, it could allow for kind of maker spaces or more entrepreneurial kinds of spaces

that has greater flexibility in their use. And just to note that this, you know, as a future land use

recommendation doesn’t have a direct corollary into any given zoning class that exists today so

that would be something that, as far as implementing this into the zoning, would require

additional work. And then on the residential side, as Suzanne was mentioning earlier, outside of

these cores are the kind of corridor section and most of those corridor sections today, in the CID

district, are single-family LDR Low Density Residential zoned properties. A very strong desire

to maintain that where it exits. There are locations in the plan where we’re recommending a new

future land use as LDR Transition and this would be places that are right adjacent to those TBA

or TBA zones facing out onto major primary streets where, if there is a shift away from single-

family housing, that it be kind of in a compatible scale, that it be more focused on attached

housing rather than taller, kind of high-story or multi-story apartment buildings but maybe more

townhouses, multi-plexes, things like that that have a little bit of that finer grain and are…serve

as a nicer transition back into the neighborhoods while also being able to link into the business

areas.

Broad range of other strategies - I’ll go very quickly through these. In terms of physical

improvement strategies, a lot of discussion around the importance of streetscape, particularly in

the commercial areas, designation of service and delivery zones, site furnishings, probably the

biggest one from an investment standpoint, from the CID Board’s perspective, is around street

lighting. That has a huge safety implication as well as an opportunity to kind of reinforce the

character and the pedestrian scale of these business areas. So, that was a very important one.

Thinking about mobility and kind of the equity dimension of how people are getting around and

moving in the corridor, accessing jobs, accessing goods and services, so the Plan is aligned with

Vital Streets recommendation and we know there’s a new bike plan that’s being adopted so this

Plan would be aligned with the new bike plan recommendations. Looking at certain corridors,

like Eastern Ave., has been identified as a major transit corridor so being aligned with that and

helping to actually site and locate, you know, where can upscale or higher level of service of bus

stops be located. Things like that. And then a lot of discussion around pedestrian safety and

8.d

Packet Pg. 59

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



comfort. So, there’s a lot of places in the districts today where very narrow sidewalks right

against fast…pretty fast-moving roadways. So how do we start to rethink the street design in

these core commercial areas to give more back to kind of place value of being in…in these

business districts and create a more safe and comfortable environment for everyone. On the

range of physical improvements were also strategies guided around the private property side.

We looked a lot at alleyways and how can we start to repurpose alleyways to be more inviting

and actually help, in many cases, connect people from parking lots that might be behind

buildings and connect them through to the front side of buildings where there’s a more active

street environment and using alleyways as a way to do that and create those connections, but also

create more useable outdoor space. On…with the parking facilities and those recommendations,

they help encourage property owners to coordinate on consolidating parking lots, on establishing

new spaces for public gathering spaces and small green spaces or plazas. And then lastly would

be recommendations around establishing a façade improvement program that the CID Board can

help facilitate. Here’s a couple of examples - just some imagery from the report. And then the

last set of recommendations are more of at the programmatic level and kind of fell into two kind

of buckets between equitable economy elements and then recommendations that really are

targeted around supporting business activities. So, a lot of the conversation has been how do we

enable business districts to learn from one another so that they can strengthen and help take a lot

of these recommendations and enact them at their individual business district level with support

from the CID Board. So, a lot of those recommendations were geared around that.

And then as I mentioned earlier, the last Chapter of the report is the action plan. So this has a

section, or a block, for every single strategy in the report. It says who, you know, what are some

of the specific steps that need to be taken to put this into effect. Who are…who are the

responsible parties? Who’s the lead party responsible for implementing this and kind of how

critical of a priority is it so that the CID Board has some direction that they can take moving

forward.

So, last slide, kind of some of the immediate next steps coming out of this effort, and

even…some of these are even starting as the approval process here goes underway for approving

this plan but the CID Board wants to establish a process for being able to review development

proposals or zoning changes and have a clear and transparent process that they use that other

partners in the community can use so that everybody can kind of get on the same page

through…via the CID Board before things maybe even come before this group too. So that’s

one process that’s being looked at. Certainly, some of the zoning…or future land use changes of

those tie into future zoning changes that is going to be a broader discussion citywide. There’s

been the point brought up that the T…the idea behind the TBA Transition is a more flexible

space, has applications in other areas of the city as well. So, that may be a bigger conversation in

shaping what that zoning ordinance or change ultimately looks like. And then last, just

continuing to build partnerships with the community.

I think this outline is…the approval timeline is in…is in your packet so I won’t go over that. So,

with that, I’m gonna invite Alex back up. If you have any questions for us, thank you for bearing

with us as we went through this. There’s a lot of content super fast so…but yeah, we’d love to

answer any questions that you may have or, you know, to clarify things.

8.d

Packet Pg. 60

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Rozeboom Sure. And we will have a public hearing but let’s have the Commissioners

address any questions first.

Behler Can you speak more to the TBA and LDR Transition…the creation of those new

categories for use rather than just using existing uses like TCC?

Kiley Yeah, so, I can speak to the TCC in particular ‘cause that has bearing also on…on

the other agenda items. We were aware of that zoning district. We didn’t look at that one

specifically as a candidate for this. You know, our understanding at the time, and I don’t think it

had been used in any other areas in the City outside of literally as that transition outside of the

City Center. Certainly, the zoning, kind of the use table, is more similar in TCC to what the

TBA Transition is. Those are fairly similar uses. I think the scale and height of buildings is

something that may differ a little bit so that’s something that we could potentially take a look at.

Behler So, well, and I…I’m just using Boston Square as an example. You transition a lot

of TBA to this TBA Transition new zoning category and I’m just curious what the thought

process around creating a new category vs. just using an existing. Was it just about overlay?

Kiley It’s partly…partly that discussion and also partly, you know, our kind of

understanding at the time was that this may be different or may have been an erroneous

assumption that the TCC wasn’t being used outside of those kind of transition areas outside of

the actual downtown. If that was…that was our understanding at the time that we put that

together.

Behler Maybe staff can speak to that. It’s curious to me that they’d create a whole new

zoning category, use category, rather than use one that we are all now very familiar with because

we’ve talked a lot about TCC.

Thomas Can I add something to that?

Behler Sure.

Thomas While we were going through that process, TCC was not something that was on

the table as an option for us so we thought using TBA Transition was what we used. In fact, the

term TCC was only shared with this steering committee after we had submitted the plan so we

weren’t aware that that was an option for us to use.

Rozeboom Are there parts of this Area Specific Plan that you can point to that really are in

support of the City’s Great Housing Strategies ‘cause a lot of times there’s that big overarching

goal and then as the neighborhoods zoom in with the Area Specific Plans… I’m just wondering

how you see that moving the Great Housing Strategies forward.

Thomas We had to bring ourselves back to business at most of our discussions because we

started talking about housing quite a bit. So, housing was important to a lot of the steering

committee members but, during the process, we also realized that there were a lot of things

happening in support of housing. Our purpose was to make sure that the business and active

commercial portion of it was met. So, yes, we did…said that we did support housing…you’ll

8.d

Packet Pg. 61

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



see that, but we supported housing in the TBA where you would have retail or commercial on the

first level, especially on the street fronts. That was important and we supported the Housing

Commission and other housing programs in those areas but our whole focus…not whole

focus…but our intent was to make sure that the business active commercial part was addressed.

Rozeboom Primarily, yeah, okay. Thank you.

Kiley Can I just add one thing to that too…just, on page 92, where there’s the

description of the TBA Transition zone. You know the focus of the TBA Transition zone was to

get greater flexibility on the commercial and business side so there’s…on this…bullet point says

allowing a broader range of uses by right without requiring a special land use

permit…professional services, office uses, maker space, live-work units, which would include a

residential component. Then it says, you know, ground floor housing is not preferred in TBA

Transition areas, which would be consistent with the TBA zoning now, but may be considered

provided projects are supported by the Southtown CID, obtain a Special Land Use permit and

conform to the goals and visions of the BASP that address displacement or equity concerns. So,

it’s building in a little bit more wiggle room for housing within those TBA Transition zonings

than…at least on the…from the ground floor use standpoint than what there might be today in

the TBA zone.

Behler One of your action items on your first goal is around community benefit

agreements. Can you talk a little bit more about how you anticipate that process being created

through this plan?

Kiley Yeah, so, that was pretty, I think, central to the…pretty well connected in with the

Southtown CID Board and how they could interface and be kind of the liaison between groups

looking to do development projects in the Southtown corridor and starting to figure out, okay,

what are the key benefits that we need to put in place back to the community, whether it’s things

like advocating for either the affordability of housing…we talked also about models where part

of the community benefit agreement might be that the commercial space in a mixed-use building

could actually be…rather than being rented could actually be, you know, a lease to own sort of

situation, or another model, where you could really try to encourage ownership and greater

ownership through business development through…or when development projects come in

there’s opportunities for greater ownership. So that…that would be one example. I think exact

mechanism of what those agreements are would have to be kind of worked out through the CID

Board and that’s one of their tasks to kind of figure out what are the exact agreements that we

want to target for a package or a suite of potential community benefit agreements.

Rozeboom Oliver, perhaps you could comment on this based on your experience with other

cities but I’m gonna go back to Ms. Harp’s comment about the flood gates opening. So, I took

that to mean when you have more of a mixed-use kind of a zone district, like TCC or this

Transition TBA, transition area. It’s flexible. It adds to flexibility but it also allows for perhaps

uses to overtake other uses. So, part of the reason you have zones that are more exclusionary is

so that you make sure that that doesn’t happen, right? So, knowing that the districts…these

districts are already overbuilt from a commercial perspective, how does adding more mixed-use

zone areas help with that?

8.d

Packet Pg. 62

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Kiley Yeah, I think, you know, so in…from my understanding in working with co-

chairs, the steering committee, all the other partners on this, you know, as the point was brought

up earlier about the industrial area and wanting that to be an area designated for those light

industrial uses to be able to go, you know, were a project to come in that had, you know, a strong

mixed-use component, the future land use plan would say well, if they’re looking for a location

to go it wouldn’t be in the industrial area. We would want it to build off of or build right into

one of the existing areas that’s designated for more of a mixed-use kind of environment so that

you’re not fragmenting things and having things all scattered all over the place. That’s a little bit

different than…like in the other…in the other…in the other agenda items where you have a use

that largely fits within that industrial but there’s other smaller, ancillary parts of it that are

outside of that allowed industrial use but yet…but yet, you know, that’s an existing use that’s

trying to sort of grow out of where it is as opposed to something new coming into the district and

looking for a place to land so it’s a little bit of a tricky situation. You know we did… if you look

at the description for the Special Land Use District Industrial, listed on page 92, it says industrial

districts provide locations for industrial land uses. Industrial land areas are undergoing

significant changes as certain types of industries and businesses give way to new uses. So, there

was certainly a recommendation and a recognition, by everybody involved in the process, that

these areas are transitioning and parts of them are changing, yet we do want to kind of reiterate

the preference for those light industrial kinds of uses to be able to have a place, not just in

Southtown but even in the City overall. So, that was kind of a balancing act that was…that was

put together at that time.

Joseph What about…I’m sorry…what about heavy industry? So, we talked about the

light industry side but, in terms of especially those areas designated as industrial in the future

land use…future land use map in this plan, does…so…in…in terms of excluding heavy or light

or other…like…I guess where does heavy industrial fit in…fit into this ‘cause we’re talking a lot

about light industrial but not heavy, where light industrial would be allowed in these transitional

type of districts. Like what kind of heavy industrial uses are happening now? Does this plan

envision them coming…more coming in, in terms of heavy industrial, not just light industrial?

I’m stumbling.

Thomas We saw…and hopefully public comments that can add to that too…what we saw

was that what was there may not have been doing much as far as heavy or light. You know, like

the gentleman had mentioned before, it’s kind of stagnant but what we did not want to do was

take away that opportunity because some of the discussions that we were having, and things that

we were hearing from, I won’t say City staff, but from others was that the City wanted to have

some place for more industrial like places to go. We didn’t want to take that off the table

and…and we still think that’s important because even if you have housing and small and active

commercial there’s still the opportunity of having some industrial place for industry to go. As

far as we weren’t looking to exclude heavy industry but because it was already zoned that way

we cons…we thought that that future use still had some potential.

Joseph Thank you.

Rozeboom My last question is about the future land use map and I ask this of every ASP that

comes before us. Is this intended to be parcel specific or is it intended to be generalized?

8.d

Packet Pg. 63

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Kiley So, we did build this one based on parcel boundaries so that could hopefully set

the stage down the road for more zoning change through the formal zoning process so that was

the basis that was used to establish this, based on the existing zoning and looking at what that

meant in terms of land use and then as we thought about future land use it was tied…tied to that.

Rozeboom Parcel by parcel?

Kiley Yeah.

Rozeboom Alright. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission?

Davis I guess…and we’ve been talking a lot about this, I heard that we don’t want to

exclude industrial and I guess the question I want to hear an answer to is do we want to exclude

other mixed-uses where industrial opportunities exist now and I know that that sounds like the

same thing but they’re different slightly.

Thomas I would say no, we’re not looking to exclude other. We just did not see other in

the future. We did not have any inkling that something was going to be on the table so, without

that information, we felt that we should plan to stay the same because there is an opportunity in

the future for light industrial. So, no.

Davis Thank you. That was helpful and it makes a lot of sense actually.

Rozeboom Any other questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you very much. Now

we’ll open our public hearing and ask members of the public to come up. Again, state your

name for the record and try to keep your comments to three minutes or less. You may queue up.

Barrera Young Hi. I’m Marian Barrera Young. I sat on the steering committee and I am

also a part of the business district and neighborhood association. When you mention that spot

zoning, I think that’s…that would be something that would fit in with our plan because if you

just do a whole area you don’t know what’s coming in. So, if we can look at things one thing at

a time and evaluate it and see does it fit. We weren’t saying that this is just like Mr. Beene’s

business shouldn’t be there, and he shouldn’t grow, but I think that needs to come before the

Board to look at it, you know, like it came here but not just to do a whole…a holistic approach to

it. I think it needs to be individually looked at as what are your plans and what are you trying to

do. So that’s all I wanted to put in here. Thank you.

Rozeboom Thank you.

King Good afternoon. My name is JoAnn King and I am a resident that sat on the

steering committee. I live in the Boston Square area. The process was very intense. We tried to

engage business owners but those two I never saw before until this morning…or this afternoon.

The residents, there was an extensive effort to listen to concerns. There was multiple rounds of

open houses…open house workshops at different locations around the districts. One of the

guiding forces for us I guess is the mission of the City of Grand Rapids to elevate quality of life

through excellent city services and that means reinvesting and revitalizing these neighborhoods,

which some people say that we have been left back in the 19th Century. Residents had a concern

8.d

Packet Pg. 64

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



about gentrification, displacement because, in the Boston Square area, we do know that there is

an entity that came in and bought up several properties and the majority of them are industrial.

So, when you’re looking at rezoning you have to look at the fear of the residents that live there in

terms of if you, as sister…Mrs. Harp said…if you open the flood gates, and you’re not doing this

property or parcel by parcel, what will happen when this entity that has all this property that they

bought up, which they can do as they please with it, but our residents are very concerned because

on Wealthy Street it was a mono-ethnic, based on what I could see, it was mono-ethnic that went

on in terms of the businesses there. We don’t want that to happen in the districts that we work

with. We want them to be as the City of Grand Rapids says, is dedicated to advancing equitable

opportunities. We don’t want inequitable displacement of people…be displaced from homes

based on the fear of higher property taxes because what some of these entities will do in terms of

saying affordable housing the question is who is it affordable…for whom. So, we wanted to

make sure that the businesses were accountable, collaborative, that they dealt with equity and

that they were sustainable and innovative. So, when you’re looking at changing zoning, please

be aware that you should make sure you do your research, you’re looking at all aspects of who is

this going to help and who is it going to hinder because our residents are very concerned about

being hurt by an entity that has bought several properties and we have not a clue what they’re

going to do with them and will their property…their property taxes go up so far that they cannot

afford to keep their homes. So, when you’re looking at rezoning, make sure you, the plan was to

help guide the City in terms of how we dealt with the businesses, in terms of zoning for those

businesses, so that they would not circumvent the system by going a different way. So just be

mindful of that. Thank you.

Rozeboom Thank you.

Ross Darel Ross. I’m gonna speak for public comment. I am a business owner in the

area, property owner in Grand Rapids. I can say categorically that this CID, this ASP is the

function of failed economic development policy in the City of Grand Rapids in the

community…in the black and brown community. The citizens of the area never, especially in

the black and brown community, never asked to be grouped in with Alger Heights, never asked

to be grouped in with Seymour Square. The prioritization of how this is rolling out is a

economic development policy again saying that industrial, dirty sites, low paying jobs should be

concentrated on the southeast side. How many bodies or people have come before this body and

argued that we should be saving industrial space in the middle of communities? We should be

using these CIDs, we should be using these monies to attract high tech, high paying jobs, think

out of the box and so forth. I’m totally behind the work of Bethany. They do great work. I

think a spot of SLU is the way to go on this but this definitely does not represent anything except

the top down heavy handedness economic development policy of the City of Grand Rapids. This

did not come from the bottom up. This did not come from residents and I think we should be

very, very careful on keeping the autonomy of the minority community.

Rozeboom Thank you. Anyone else who’d like to comment on this and I’ll just remind us

the process, and it was displayed briefly. So, this is our hearing in order to forward this Plan on

to the City Commission for its consideration for posting publicly for further public comment and

then there will be a final public hearing here probably in late September. In the meantime, it will

be posted on the City’s website and available through the Planning Department. Lots of

opportunity to provide input beyond today.

8.d

Packet Pg. 65

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Knetsch My name is Christy Carlin Knetsch and I represent Madison Square Church and I

also served on the committee for the Southtown ASP and we, as a church, are in favor of the

Planning Commission’s approval and we believe that we have spent what was supposed to be an

eight month process turned into an eighteen month process because we did want to make sure

that gentrification, displacement, and advocacy for promoting stability and wealth-building in the

community for those who live in the community was essential and focused on. I would also just

like to speak to Madison Square Church’s support of a single-parcel approval for The Center for

Community Transformation in that, we as a committee…they didn’t come…we were done with

our process by the time they came to this committee. We didn’t get to hear…they didn’t have

their plan in place so we weren’t able to speak into and nor did we have TCC as an option for

zoning for them so I just want to make sure that that is clear, that we weren’t engaged in that

process for The Center for Community Transformation because it came later. Thank you.

Rozeboom Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. We’ll close the public hearing and back to the

Commissioners. Any further debate on forwarding this Plan to the City Commission?

Collier Well, I think this is a great and I’m in full support of it. As I said I worked…we

worked hard. We carried billboards out to the street corners and in front of businesses letting the

people know the plan that we were…not…not our plan but we were generating information from

the community to get a plan and the community wants to see a business community that is

business…that is healthy and working in collaboration with neighbors and, you know, being an

age friendly community and I recommend it highly because I know the tireless work that we did.

I know the effort. It was always cons…the first consideration was always not to displace people

and just to keep business…to attract businesses to come in and be healthy for our community.

That community has been desolate for so many years. I’ve been there. I know. I’ve been there

and I…always been encouraged to…the lighting to make it a safe community…I can’t even…I

don’t even have all the words to say but it’s just…my wish is that this is approved and it is

approved to move on to the City Commission.

Joseph I have a question. So, we heard a couple times that in this process they didn’t

see…we didn’t see TCC as an option. Do you think the future land use map would look

different if the steering committee had seen TCC as an option?

Collier I think that that is absolutely true. It was not even…ever even on the table. I

don’t even know…I was just surprised when it dropped into our lap. I didn’t even know it was

an option because we had never heard…we had not been exposed to or had that offered as an

idea or as a zone opportunity and then like Christy said, if the other business, Center for

Transformation, had information to work with us and to kind of let us know the plans I mean we

could have all collaborated but that was never presented to the…it was not presented and so it

may have looked differently.

Treur Could City st…I mean I’m just like confused why TCC would not have been

presented.

Collier I think because…we can’t be expected to right now just change the Plan. I mean

just because…I don’t know…the wishes have been expressed to keep it as a TBA and I don’t

think we should be expected to change it here in mid-stream.

8.d

Packet Pg. 66

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Treur I know. I’m just wondering why from the beginning TCC wasn’t an option.

That’s what I’m wondering about.

Collier That’s a very good question but, like I said, was a fear of gentrification. Was

always a lot of concern about gentrification, you know, people were concerned about that

possibly but I had never heard the term and I had been asking about these acronyms and finding

out more about ‘em because I had never heard TCC even when I joined the Planning

Commission.

Rozeboom Alright.

Greenwald Looking at today though is step one of a multi-step process. We’re being asked to

send this on to the City Commission for release and discussion and decision. I think…I think

we’re pretty much…after seeing all the work that these people have put into this whole process, I

feel an obligation to move this forward and send it on to the City Commission and get the

approval process moving.

Rozeboom That is the idea. However, we have sent these kinds of plans back for more work

so that it’s the best product possible before it goes out to the public but…

Davis In the spirit of that, with no desire to dictate any community’s work or tell them

what to do, I’m hearing very consistently that all of this work was done without an awareness of

an opportunity for a land use that I keep hearing people seeking and wanting. So, if this was all

done not knowing that TN-TCC, the Traditional Neighborhood - Transitional City Center, was

not available to them, what would have changed if they did know? So, I don’t want to stop this.

I don’t want to stall this. I am fine with it getting more public input and, if the intent and the

land use and all of the things I’m hearing were to have been informed that there is an

opportunity, that I believe is prime for what they’re hopeful for, they’re desirous of, would that

have ended up in this plan and if it doesn’t end up in this plan are we doing them a disservice as

a Commission by not asking them to consider it? I’m asking that of my colleagues here.

Rozeboom And there’s a lot to consider behind that but what’s your…what’s your feeling?

Davis I hate to admit that my fee…’cause I don’t like eight months turning into eighteen

months…I feel like if they knew this was there it sounds to me like they would have included a

TN-TCC district. That’s what it sounds like to me. I’m not putting words in their mouth. I’m

hearing opportunities for jobs, opportunities for growth, opportunities for transition, so much so

that they’re making a new zone district and they’re saying they didn’t know about it so now I’m

saying that’s perfectly okay. That is not anything to be pointed at or demonized or…and, would

it inform change? Would the community like to know that that’s there and include it in their

plan? It seems like a fair question.

Behler Can I ask a historical reference question as a newbie to the Commission? In other

Area Specific Plans, has the Planning Commission and then the City Commission approved new

land uses like as is proposed here? These new Transition zones vs…

8.d

Packet Pg. 67

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Treur Like a new zone?

Behler Yeah.

Schulz We have done some zoning amendments to do that. It’s not common. I mean

there might be a little nuance. For example, for Grandville we did that. Whether it was a little

change that they were recommending in the residential zone district so, they also, in their TBA

wanted to allow some office uses, which led us to a discussion about TBA and TBA - B with the

community and that…with all the business districts, who weren’t interested in it at the time, so

we only did it for Grandville. So, we have…we have done some of those changes. Ideally, you

don’t want a lot of new zone districts if we can keep it, you know, because you don’t want…you

want to treat similar properties the same and have some universality to that. Now, again, like the

Grandville example, with the office on the ground floor, that’s very similar to what’s being

recommended in this Area Specific Plan and I think, you know, you start to see that theme you

can generalize it into a new district that could be created and that would be a zoning amendment.

The question is, is just how close or how…how do you differentiate between these districts and

how different are they? Or are they close enough that there’s not a major change needed?

Behler To give an opinion as staff, looking at what they’ve proposed as these TBA

Transition vs. say TCC or an existing use description, do they feel pretty similar if they…

Schulz I think one of the Commissioners mentioned probably the biggest difference is

building height. Showing a preference for three stories and you even had a letter that was from

the Corridor Improvement District, the Eastern, about that. So, I think that’s probably one of the

bigger changes. We…the TBA zone district allows for a whole range of uses, including

residential, you know, and I think it’s just some…there could be some adjustments to those that

could be unique to Southtown without the creation of a new zone district and I think when we get

to the implementation phase of the plan those are things that we sort out as staff and…and work

with them.

Treur So, correct me if I’m wrong, but TN-TCC has been around for more than eighteen

months.

Schulz Yes.

Treur So, how…that’s what I…there’s still this disconnect with me about how people in

this planning process did not know that that was an option.

Collier That’s very true. We had consultants.

Rozeboom Transitional City Center, so it’s…

Schulz Well you rezoned God…

Rozeboom …intuitively connected with the City Center.

Schulz …you rezoned Godfrey.

8.d

Packet Pg. 68

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Treur Oh, because it’s not…the geographical…

Rozeboom Yeah.

Treur …is what you’re saying.

Davis I could see that. We heard testimony in strong support of this and I feel as though

Mr. Ross gave testimony in opposition to protecting industrial that seems exclusive to other

opportunities and I alm…the reason I asked the question about this zoning district is I’m not sure

eith…either the for nor the against arguments are in opposition of use or opportunities. It’s like

we want to make sure that industrial jobs could exist and that there’s opportunity for economic

growth and, if their interpretation of that is we have to keep IT because they didn’t know that this

other thing is there, don’t we owe it to the people that did all of this work to say do you mean

this? I mean like we just want to understand and if we put this forth to City Commission have

we already missed the opportunity because then it goes to the public and now we’re even further

removed from the understanding of these acronyms and concepts and then something gets

approved and unintentionally a very hard working group of people has locked themselves into a

district that they didn’t necessarily want. They wanted the opportunity for economic

development in the industrial field that TCC allows for. Again, a question I don’t have an

answer to and may be worth bringing anyone up to talk about but, that’s my concern.

Collier Would somebody like to comment on it from the Board maybe?

Rozeboom Or do we draw a line in the sand?

Behler Well, I mean I think, as deferential as we all want to be to the enormous amount

of work that has gone into this plan it is this body’s obligation to do a review and to

acknowledge and thank the work by improving it if it’s possible and I think what we’ve learned

today, from public testimony as well as just staff understanding and our conversation, is that

there may be an opportunity for improvement simply because there’s an understanding of the use

of TCC. So, I don’t think it’s our job to just say we have to thank these people by moving it

forward. It is our obligation to review it and, if possible, improve it so if a vote were to come to

approve this plan today and send it on to the next step I would oppose that because I think there

is an opportunity to appreciate the work that’s been done by pausing and seeing if there’s an

opportunity.

Rozeboom Sounds like a motion.

Behler I’m ready to make that motion if…if…

Rozeboom Head nodding? We ready for a motion?

Several Mm, hmm.

8.d

Packet Pg. 69

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Behler I guess my motion is to not move it forward, from an approval perspective. I don’t

know, Mr. Chairman, how you want me to do that but that would mean simply returning it to the

committee for further review or?

Rozeboom Or just not act on it.

Collier I would like to see it returned to the committee.

Schulz When you’ve returned…before, with the West Side Area Specific Plan, you

returned it to the committee and you stated what your expectations were so, to use the west side

as an example, you said we want to see more engagement of persons of color and especially the

Latino community to hear their voice because there hadn’t been an engagement strategy in

Spanish or anything else. So, that’s just an example of a decision that you made in the past so, if

you’re going to table this and allow them for more time to work on it, to come back with kind of

a definitive conclusion based on their review of TCC with the consultant, and in consultation

with the community and land owners, that would be something that, you know, you could…I

mean that’s the kind of input they would need to know what your expectations are so they know

when it comes back whether or not you’d be satisfied.

Davis Mm, hmm.

Rozeboom And how much time would we want to give them?

Treur Eighteen months?

Davis That’s a joke. For the record, that’s a joke.

Schulz I think I would rely on Oliver to say how much time that would take to be able to

do that work. Can you come up to the microphone please?

Kiley I think the…and I can also look to Alex to chime in too…I think the main thing is

if we’re going to do a change to the land use plan it does need to be vetted with the steering

committee and then also vetted with the Southtown CID Board so that there’s concurrence and

agreement again when we come back to you all that is clear from our perspective what the stance

is and how things changed or didn’t change and that…if that’s clear to you. So, I mean I’d like

to say we could come back next month but I think given those other approvals that we would

need it would probably be maybe two months would be the time frame for that but open to

alternative interpretations.

Thomas I think you heard our consultants volunteer to do that.

Kiley Yeah.

Thomas We have no more money to pay em. We understand what you’re asking us to do.

Again, the group that came before, which we are not in opposition, but they had no idea what a

TCC was either so they came asking for a TBA. We were totally against TBAs. TCC still opens

the gate to some things that we don’t want to see and so that means that our whole group has to

8.d

Packet Pg. 70

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



go back and talk about that again and basically for that one…that part of the Plan that we are

looking for…that all the work that we’ve done, everything else, 99% of the Plan makes sense I

hope. This 1% that we’re talking about is a snag. I believe that if it were to go forward that

process of going back to the public again and hearing their comments again and, even if

its…whether they approve it or not, we still have that option to change. We’re open to changing

that but we didn’t f…that’s like…right now we feel like the tail wagging the dog. We’re being

told to go back and look at the plan again for one thing in the Plan that we think could be

corrected in the process. So, I can’t say how long that would take. We have to talk to Oliver

again. Like I said we’re probably out of money for that, I believe. So, we’ll talk to Oliver and

see how long it takes for us to do that but again we feel that the process itself would correct this

that’s why we…that’s why we did not go back and change it at the last minute without having to

go back to everybody else in the process.

Davis I have a question. When we look at traditional…excuse me…when we’re

reviewing cases that we’re going to approve or deny we’re able to make conditions of the

approval. This is not that. This is a recommendation to move it forward into a public discussion.

Can we do that with a condition, or not, and if so, can that condition be that this zone district that

was not considered be put in conjunction with, alongside, as this moves forward?

Treur That’s what I was wondering. If we move it forward for public comment if some

of those changes can be implemented during the public comment process.

Davis That’s a question for staff. I don’t…I just…having not seen that.

Schulz I think…and so they are required to have a 42-day hearing period basically so…to

collect public comment. You could have them work on this, with this expectation during that 42-

day comment period when they come back for public hearing. The concern would be that the

public might not know what they’re commenting on if the Plan changes.

Davis My two concerns, and then I can listen more, is that we have a beautiful, hard,

very hard working group of people that did a great job, that didn’t know an entire zone district

was available to them and I feel, as a Commissioner, obligated to make sure they know about

that so I don’t know how to act on that and then secondly, I’m not sure that they recognize that in

the Grandville ASP we were able to make nuances to existing zone districts instead of creating a

new zone district, which this does, and so I feel like those are two things that should be

considered before I move it forward.

Schulz One of the challenges with the Neighborhood Area Specific Plans, or this Plan is

a Business Area Specific Plan, is the community has put a lot of work into it and there is an

expectation for implementation that goes along with that Plan when it comes before you as the

Planning Commission and when it goes to the City Commission and I think it’s the obligation of

the Planning Commission to make sure that you can implement that vision and that you can

implement the Plan the way the community has envisioned and that it aligns with the Master

Plan. So, that’s to me kind of like the ultimate decision point is can you, with confidence,

implement this Plan for this neighborhood, as it is, and if you have difficulty saying this…I don’t

know how this aligns with that or I have these issues, you will run into challenges later on and so

that’s…that would be my concern. If you’re comfortable with it as it is and you can say I can…I

8.d

Packet Pg. 71

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



can implement this, I can work through this, then I would say move it to Commission but if you

have concerns about it then we need to identify those to honor the process and to honor their

work.

Davis Thank you.

Rozeboom This has been brought before but the idea of false hope or like expectations that

really have no chance of coming to fruition…yeah…that’s a very good point.

Collier I would like to say, with that clarification and since there has been exceptions

made to different ASP Plans and different nuances tweaked for those ASP Plans to come

forward, I would like to see that, since I’ve heard his comment…Mr. Thomas…he’s fully aware

of the TCC opportunity and, because he was one of the leaders on the steering committee I

would like to say that if it’s a possibility where this too can also have those same exceptions

made to the rule to allow the ASP to go forward…the BASP to go forward with the maybe spot

considerations instead of just making the whole zone change or making it possible for in the

future that it can be tweaked when necessary.

Joseph I don’t think what I’m hearing is that we’re suggesting whole swaths of the…of

the land…future land use map be changed. We’re potentially suggesting or giving the

committee the opportunity to consider a zone district that they didn’t think was an option before

so I don’t…I don’t think that we would…ask…we’re not asking for the whole thing to be

scrapped or to change…even to change what the priorities of the Plan are. Just to see if this zone

district is something that fits with the priorities that are outlined in this Plan.

Rozeboom I tend to agree with Mr. Thomas that it’s a…more of an administrative way of,

like what, how can we accommodate what the goals are and maybe there’s an asterisk version or

a re-zone definition version. I don’t think it’s wholesale rewrite.

Behler I don’t necessarily think it’s wholesale rewrite either. I don’t know. I think our

job as this body is to identify an opportunity, which is consideration of a zone class, if you will,

that they did not consider. Maybe they make zero changes. Maybe they come back and say we

want to reconsider the way we have identified these new zoning categories. I don’t know.

That’s not my job. That is the amazing work that that committee has already done so I don’t

think this is about the 1530 Madison location. I don’t think it’s necessarily just about TCC. I

think it’s, as a Commission, we have identified an opportunity for potential improvement. It

could be a small administrative change. I’m sure it is…it does probably feel a little bit like the

wag…the tail wagging the dog but to me it’s not. It’s about process and improvement and so

I’m still supportive of a motion to postpone the consideration for two months to allow the work

to consider potential zoning classifications that have not been…that were not considered before,

according to testimony.

Rozeboom Alright. So, I just want to take the temperature. I think we’ve got to make some

motion so, Commissioner Brame where are you at?

Brame I would concur with Commissioner Behler.

8.d

Packet Pg. 72

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Rozeboom That…send it back for more…

Brame Send it back. As painful as it is and as much problem it’s gonna cost me with my

friends who disagree with me, yes.

Rozeboom Rick?

Treur Yeah. I would…feel the same.

Rozeboom Anybody feeling different?

Davis I just want to make sure that before we send em off that we’ve given them a clear

expectation of what is possible in this moment and I heard in their presentation this LDR

Transition, this Low Density Residential Transition was about providing opportunities for

density without height and I just want to briefly find out if that requires a new zone district or not

because when they come back if we go “oh, I’m so glad you’ve affirmed all these things and you

could have…”. That would be awful. So, right now in this moment, LDR Transition as they

explained it to me, was this transition to Low Density Residential but as we’re talking it seems

like the reason we don’t want to go with what exists is out of height. Do they have to create a

zone district or could this Plan say “using what exists, we want to also emphasize that a

preference of our community is two and a half stories or less”? Is that a comment for Mr.

Oliver?

Schulz Oliver looked like he was going to come up.

Rozeboom Nope. Nope.

Schulz Nope. Okay.

Rozeboom We’re gonna move forward one way or the other.

Schulz So, I think my understanding, and I could be incorrect, was that for the LDR

Transition it was more of a preference of townhouses and not apartment buildings.

Davis Correct. Yup. So, a couple of things were said in that sentence, which was like

we’d rather see connected housing as opposed to scaled height.

Schulz Correct.

Davis Does that require them to give us a new zone district or could we…

Schulz It would…in those zone districts, apartment buildings are allowed so if you

wanted to prohibit apartment buildings in that shape it would probably require a different zone

district.

Davis And, when you shared earlier about the Grandville Plan, a different Plan albeit,

they gave some nuanced, we heard asterisized, without creating a zone district.

8.d

Packet Pg. 73

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Schulz What we did is we amended the Ordinance so that in the L…in the LDR zone

district we eliminated the possibility of Special Land Use for multi-family dwellings. There has

been unintended consequences as a result of that. We’ve had about five requests from Habitat

for Humanity for reuse of other structures that would have built more homeownership

opportunities in the community and it didn’t meet the Plan or the zoning so that’s something to

keep in mind.

Davis I just want to make sure they have the tools when they go back together.

Behler So, I’ll make a motion to postpone consideration of the Southtown Business

Area Specific Plan to afford the committee two months to consider additional existing land

use opportunities and come back to the Planning Commission at that time.

Davis Support.

Rozeboom Does that require a public hearing at that time? Additional public hearing?

Schulz I think I would recommend that you table it open in case there’s any comment or

if you feel that would be sufficient and then the public hearing…comment period would be

enough.

Beebe If you table it, it would be an indefinite process. With a motion to postpone

you’re going to set a specific date to come back.

Behler I think…I mean my motion includes specificity because what I’m hearing is that

these people don’t need that much time to do what they want to do and if we table it indefinitely

I don’t think that’s the intention of the conversation we’ve had nor what I’ve heard from the

people (unintelligible). So, I would still move consideration…postponing consideration for two

months to allow the work for additional consideration of existing land use.

Rozeboom Do we need to name a specific date?

Beebe If you’re postponing.

Schulz It would be September 12th.

Aslani May I ask a question. Could you clarify if you’re talking about the industrial

areas or the residential areas or what specific…all…like the whole map…like exactly what

would be helpful for when we go back.

Behler I think we’re talking just about an understanding and consideration of existing

land use qualification or identification so it’s really up to…from my perspective, it is up to you

to do that work. You go back and say we know what TCC is, we’re good, we’re staying with the

Plan, okay. You come up with a whole different set of ideas, I think that’s really up to you. So

do we need any different language for the motion or?

8.d

Packet Pg. 74

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)



Davis My support was exactly in that spirit.

Rozeboom All those in favor say aye.

Rozeboom, Behler, Brame, Davis, Greenwald, Joseph, and Treur Aye.

Rozeboom Any opposed say aye.

Collier Aye.

Rozeboom The motion carries.

RESULT: TABLED OPEN [7 TO 1]

MOVER: Stacie Behler

SECONDER: James Davis, Member

YEAS: Rozeboom, Greenwald, Behler, Davis, Brame, Treur, Joseph

NAYS: Paula Collier

ABSENT: Kyle Van Strien

E. (2:00 p.m.) 1815 Alpine Ave NW Marijuana Provisioning Center

Address: 1815 Alpine Avenue NW

Applicant: Green Skies – Healing Tree, LLC

(Victor Kattoula)

Requesting: Approval for a medical marijuana provisioning center and a

waiver for more than 50% of required on-site parking spaces.

Zoning: TN-TCC Traditional Neighborhoods – Transitional City Center

Requirements: Article 6 Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts

5.9.19. Marihuana Facilities

5.12.06. Neighborhood Meeting

5.12.08.E. Standards for Site Plan Review

5.12.09. Special Land Uses

Case Number: PC-MSLU-2019-0096

Staff Assigned: Landon Bartley [email protected]

Type of Case: Marijuana Special Land Use

Effective Date: July 27, 2019

Mr. Bartley introduced the Special Land Use request for a medical marijuana provisioning

center. The property is zoned TCC. There are industrial uses to the north and east, commercial

uses to the south, and to the west are residential uses. The property is located on the west side of

Alpine Avenue between Leonard and Ann. Immediately to the north is another commercially

zoned property, 1825 Alpine, which is not part of this request. Immediately north of that is

Indian Mill Creek. Mr. Bartley displayed an aerial view and identified the commercial use/gas

station across Alpine, the creek to the north, 1825 Alpine, and the industrial building to the

south.

8.d

Packet Pg. 75

Att

ach

men

t: P

C M

INU

TE

S 7

-11-

19 (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)

mailto:[email protected]

1

August 20, 2019 Memorandum Clarification of Southtown Business Area Specific Plan To: Grand Rapids Planning Commission From: Southtown Business Area Specific Plan Steering Committee The City of Grand Rapids Master Plan, adopted in 2002, provides a city-wide vision for future land uses and policy directions. Since 2002 the economy, development patterns, and socio-economic conditions across Grand Rapids have changed significantly. The Master Plan recognizes and identifies the opportunity for Area Specific Plans – and Business Area Specific Plans – to be created that provide greater clarity and detail at a neighborhood and district scale. This allows for more specific planning in response to unique local conditions and assets, and in response to changing circumstances in the city. The Master Plan cannot address every facet of planning, and so Area Specific Plans provide a mechanism for better clarifying local needs and desires. The Southtown Business Area Specific Plan (BASP) Steering Committee, would like to take this opportunity to clarify and reaffirm the plan direction for the City of Grand Rapids Planning Commission in response to questions raised following the plan’s presentation in July 2019. Specifically, these questions pertain to whether or not Traditional Neighborhood -Traditional City Center (TN-TCC) zoning was considered in lieu of or alongside side maintaining the Special District – Industrial Transportation zone (SD-IT). First, it is important to note that an Area Specific Plan is not a zoning plan. The maps within reflect desired future land uses, based on preferred mixes of uses, scale and form of buildings, and compatibility with the desired character of an area or district. While the Southtown BASP used existing zoning names as a starting point future land use designations, additional nuance and definition was given to these, consistent with descriptors used for future land use designations in other plans. The Southtown Steering Committee understands the intent, purpose, and definitions of the TN-TCC zoning category. However, TN-TCC zone was not considered for inclusion as a zoning code or as a basis for a future land use designation in the Southtown BASP for the following reasons:

(1) Historically, the TN-TCC zoning designation was only applied to areas directly adjacent to the downtown (City City) area, typically along the riverfront, and in areas where industrial uses were rapidly giving away for reuse projects (i.e. converting industrial buildings into lofts), creating an opportunity for more mixed-use type development. The planning team, at the time the plan was drafted and presented to Planning Commission, was not aware of any instances of TN-TCC

8.e

Packet Pg. 76

Att

ach

men

t: S

teer

ing

Co

mm

itte

e C

lari

fica

tio

n M

emo

(S

ou

thto

wn

BA

SP

--R

elea

se f

or

Pu

blic

Co

mm

ent)

2

zoning being used outside of the areas for which the zoning code was originally created.

Since this this time, we have been aware of instances were TN-TCC zoning was used outside of the downtown vicinity. In our review of these locations, many of the zoning requests were made in order to accommodate a broader mix of uses that included housing as a core part of the development proposal.

(2) During the planning process with the Steering Committee and broader community,

City staff noted the desire, city-wide, to retain SD-IT zoning to the extent possible, given the limited amount of industrial and job-centered zoning left in the city. Preserving areas emphasizing this business and job opportunity focus was consistent with the desire of the Southtown Steering Committee and engaged public.

(3) TN-TCC, while allowing lighter industrial uses to persist or locate in the district, nevertheless opens significant opportunity for mixed-use development at a scale greater than typically allowed in neighborhood commercial locations (i.e. Traditional Business Areas). The description of TN-TCC, from the zoning plan, describes this as follows:

“The Transitional City Center (TCC) District is the buffer district between the dense City Center Zone District and surrounding near-downtown neighborhoods. This District provides a transition in the intensity of the downtown development pattern for adjacent areas, however, it allows for more development than would ordinarily be allowed in general neighborhood commercial locations.”

The TN-TCC district allows four story buildings by right and up to five stories with bonuses, which is taller than allowed by the TBA zones, which constitute the core commercial and mixed-use areas of Southtown’s business districts, and that are desired to be the focus for reinvestment. There are concerns that expanding opportunities for higher density mixed-use development in these areas may lead to further disinvestment in the established TBA areas and also lead to a ripple effect of displacement and gentrification.

With these reasons for not including TN-TCC in the Southtown BASP, the Steering Committee proposes the following points of clarification moving forward:

A. Rename the SD-IT Industrial designation in the plan to “Industrial Flex”. This modified name is intended to reaffirm that these are future land use designations, not specific zoning designations. In addition, the description for Industrial Flex will note that a greater a range of uses is desired consistent with SD-IT and Mixed-Used use districts today, with the exception of housing, which is not a desired land use in the Industrial Flex area. Desired uses include those associated with business growth, workforce development, job training, employment opportunities, business entrepreneurship, industrial uses, and commercial activities are supported within the Industrial Flex areas. Permitted uses and special land uses allowed by SD-IT districts would continue as under the current zoning of SD-IT district. Additional uses, either permitted by right or by special land use permit, as described in the Mixed-Use

8.e

Packet Pg. 77

Att

ach

men

t: S

teer

ing

Co

mm

itte

e C

lari

fica

tio

n M

emo

(S

ou

thto

wn

BA

SP

--R

elea

se f

or

Pu

blic

Co

mm

ent)

3

Commercial Zone Districts for TN-TCC would be allowed as well – with the exception of residential use types. These use categories include:

• Educational, Government and Institutional, Auto-Oriented, Entertainment / Hospitability / Recreation, Office, Personal Service, Retail Sales, Industrial, Transportation, and Utility.

B. Building heights are desired to remain at 3-stories / 45-feet or less as per the

current SD-IT zone.

C. Regarding, specific parcels being re-zoned (or considered for re-zoning) to TN-TCC or to other zone categories in the Industrial Flex area, the plan neither supports not opposes these rezoning requests. Rather, it would look for consistency with the types of uses described by the Industrial Flex future land use designation to determine whether a specific re-zoning request was consistent with the intended purpose of the Industrial Flex area. This use of the BASP future land use plan is consistent with the purpose and function of other Area Specific Plans as described in the City of Grand Rapids Master Plan.

The City of Grand Rapids Planning Commission also asked for clarification regarding other future uses proposed by the plan (use of TBA Transition and LDR Transition), and whether other zoning categories could be used for these areas. As a reminder, future land use designations utilized by Area Specific Plans are not zoning categories explicitly – although they may be based on or closely aligned with zoning codes. These future land use designations are used to inform rezoning efforts and/or facilitate re-zoning request decisions. Nevertheless, the following clarifications are provided:

• TBA Transition: The TBA Transition future land use designation allows for a similar density and mix of uses as allowed by the existing TBA zoning category, but would further allow a greater range of commercial and business-oriented uses on the ground floor by right (such as offices, maker-spaces, professional services, live-work units). Additionally, housing on the ground floor, while not preferred, can be allowed with a special land use permit and with support from the Southtown CID. Such projects would need to demonstrate alignment with the Southtown BASP goals and address displacement and equity concerns.

• LDR Transition: These are locations where existing housing is desired to be maintained but where additional housing density, if it does occur, may be supported at heights no taller than 2.5 stories and designed as attached units. The LDR Transition areas are located along major roadways and are typically close in proximity to TBA and TBA Transition Zones. Additionally, live-work units would be allowed by right in order to support business growth along the corridors.

• Low Density Residential (LDR): The descriptions in the plan will be modified to note that the proposed 100-foot and 500-foot allowance for multi-family units near TBA zones was not passed into the local zoning ordinance. However, changes to the zoning ordinance through the Housing NOW program did occur, which are as follows: “Attached Single-Family Residential Use Restrictions. 1. Where four (4) or fewer units are constructed in a row on a vacant lot and no demolition is required, Attached Single-Family Residential dwelling units are a

8.e

Packet Pg. 78

Att

ach

men

t: S

teer

ing

Co

mm

itte

e C

lari

fica

tio

n M

emo

(S

ou

thto

wn

BA

SP

--R

elea

se f

or

Pu

blic

Co

mm

ent)

4

Permitted Use within the LDR zone district when the parcel is located within five-hundred (500) linear feet of a TBA, TOD, TCC or C zone district, as measured from the closest point of the parcels along the public right-of-way. 2. Where demolition of an existing structure is required, or more than five (5) units are constructed in a row, Attached Single-Family Residential dwelling units are a Special Land Use within the LDR zone district.”

For the Southtown BASP, in order to preserve the character of single-family neighborhoods, the plan recognizes this zoning change, which allows attached units by right only when proximate to TBA zoned areas, on vacant land, and when four units or fewer are constructed. A special land use permit is required when the above conditions are not met. Multi-family dwellings are not desired in the LDR zones (outside of the LDR Transition referenced above). The changes to LDR and LDR Transition, collectively, are an effort to be more deliberate about where attached housing is appropriate – recognizing that redevelopment of some parcels can occur if certain conditions are met – while seeking to preserve the integrity of single-family areas and prevent displacement of people and businesses. Overall, it is important to reiterate that an ASP / BASP’s future land use map is not a zoning map. Future land uses describe the intended mix of use and scale and character of buildings in an area in alignment with community interests. As such, these future land use designations are used a guide to inform broader zoning decisions, parcel-level re-zoning requests, or special land use requests and determine whether they are consistent with the goals and direction of the ASP / BASP. The Southtown BASP Steering Committee reiterates our request that the plan be released for broader public and agency review. Additional points of feedback are anticipated to be received and refinements made to the plan during the review process, as is the intended function of the review and comment period. While the clarifications outlined above are consistent with the draft plan’s intent – we can adjust and better clarify the future land use descriptions, in alignment with the above, during the plan review process. The Southtown CID Board is committed to continued engagement and work with area stakeholders, including business owners, property owners, entrepreneurs, residents, local organizations and agency staff. We recognize that plans need to be flexible and adaptable – but must maintain their integrity. We are eager to see this plan released for broader public and agency review in order to make it is as coherent and successful as it can be. Thank you, Alexander Thomas, Jr., Co-chair William DeJong, Co-chair

8.e

Packet Pg. 79

Att

ach

men

t: S

teer

ing

Co

mm

itte

e C

lari

fica

tio

n M

emo

(S

ou

thto

wn

BA

SP

--R

elea

se f

or

Pu

blic

Co

mm

ent)

1 | P a g e

Date: September 11, 2019 To: Planning Commission From: Kristin Turkelson, Acting Planning Director Subject: Southtown BASP Implementation Memo for “Industrial Flex”

OVERVIEW At the July 11th, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled consideration of the draft Southtown Business Area Specific Plan (BASP) and requested further thought to the Plan’s future land use recommendation that supported a continuation of an industrial zoning designation for parcels shown in blue in the map below (Figure 1.) and generally located on Madison and Cottage Grove.

Figure 1. DRAFT Future Land Use map (July 11, 2019): Southtown BASP

In general, the Planning Commission encouraged the BASP Steering Committee to consider whether a Transitional City Center (TCC) zoning designation would better advance the goals and objectives of the proposed Plan. In response, the Steering Committee took that counsel under consideration and refined their plan. The proposed future land use map now identifies these same parcels as Industrial Flex. The parcels are shown in blue in the map below (figure 2.).

8.f

Packet Pg. 80

Att

ach

men

t: S

taff

Mem

o r

egar

din

g Im

ple

men

tati

on

of

Ind

ust

rial

Fle

x (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)

2 | P a g e

Figure 2. DRAFT Future Land Use map (September 12, 2019): Southtown BASP

According to the draft Plan, the recommended Industrial Flex land use category is described as:

• Provides locations where business growth, entrepreneurship, workforce training, and economic activity is desired to flourish. This plan recognizes that industrial areas are changing and need to allow a more flexible range of commercial uses.

• Allow uses allowed under the SD-IT zoning category.

• In addition, permitted or special land uses allowed within the TN-TCC Mixed-Use Commercial District are generally desired, except for residential land uses, which are not a desired land use in this area.

• Building heights to remain capped at 3-stories or 45-feet, whichever is less, as per the current SD-IT zoning.

Following the July Planning Commission meeting, City staff worked with the Steering Committee and their consultant to help work through the Commission’s request to consider a TCC zoning designation. During our discussions, Steering Committee members asked staff how this recommendation could be implemented. It was thought that a memo outlining possible implementation strategies would be helpful as the Planning Commission reviews the Plan’s modifications specific to the Industrial Flex recommendation. BACKGROUND The subject parcels have been consistently zoned as industrial since 19231. However, it wasn’t until the 1951 Zoning Ordinance when uses within an industrial zone districts were limited to more traditional light and heavy manufacturing. Since that time, uses permitted within these designations have varied only slightly between zoning codes, but largely reflect uses permitted within the current Special District-Industrial Transportation (SD-IT) zone district (see Table 5.7.04.B – attached). The inclusion of medical marijuana uses is perhaps the most significant change to the industrial use tables since 1951. As stated in Section 5.7.04 of the current zoning ordinance, the purpose and intent of the SD-IT zone district is:

The Industrial-Transportation Districts (IT) are established to reflect the goals and objectives of the Master Plan for a wide range of light industrial and manufacturing uses, heavy manufacturing and processing of raw materials. Regulated adult uses are included within this Zone District to preserve the character and integrity of residential neighborhoods and family-oriented institutions, such as places of worship and

1 The 1923 Zoning Ordinance shows this entire area as D Commercial and Industrial District The 1951 Zoning Ordinance shows this entire area as D-1 Light Industrial District The 1969 Zoning Ordinance shows this entire area as I-1 Light Industrial Zone

8.f

Packet Pg. 81

Att

ach

men

t: S

taff

Mem

o r

egar

din

g Im

ple

men

tati

on

of

Ind

ust

rial

Fle

x (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)

3 | P a g e

recreation. Reasonable protection of adjacent land uses is also an important component of this Special District. Typical light industrial uses are permitted within this Zone District, while typical heavy industrial uses shall be considered as Special Land Uses.

Although the specific language of the purpose statement has varied, the purpose of the industrial zone districts has remained relatively consistent. The 1951 Zoning Ordinance, industrial zone districts were described as:

• “D-2” Heavy Industrial District. This Zone District is reserved for any type of business and industrial and

uses not prohibited or restricted herein (note. Residential was an excluded uses).

• “D-1” Light Industrial District. This Zone District is reserved for any type of business, light industrial and

manufacturing uses not prohibited or restricted herein (note. Residential was an excluded uses).

The 1982 Zoning Ordinance, industrial zone districts were described as:

• “I-1” Light Industrial Zone. This zone permits most light industrial and manufacturing uses, compounding,

assembling or treatment or articles or materials except for heavy manufacturing and processing of raw

materials (note. Use table is narrow and focus on industrial uses, did not permit residential or general

commercial).

• The “I-2” Heavy Industrial Zone. These uses, which include the manufacture or treatment of goods from

raw materials, are permitted in the heavy industrial (note. Use table identifies several types of uses

traditionally described as “heavy industrial” including Acetylene gas manufacture, Asphalt focus on

industrial uses. Residential or general commercial were not permitted).

A review of past zoning ordinances confirms that the parcels identified as Industrial Flex in the proposed future land use map of the Southtown BASP have been zoned industrial since 1923 and restricted to traditional industrial uses for the last 68 years. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES If the draft BASP plan were adopted, the next step in the process would be implementation. In the case of future land use changes, implementation is typically done in the form of a zoning map and/or text amendment. There are a few ways that the City could implement the Industrial Flex recommendation.

1. Create new zone district. This strategy would consist of a map and zoning text amendment. The subject parcels would be rezoned to the new district and use regulations, site and building placement standards and building element requirements would need to be developed. It is important to note that while technically feasible, the strategy would be contrary to our hybrid ordinance model. With the 2007 zoning rewrite the City moved from a traditional zoning ordinance to a hybrid ordinance which contained form- based elements within fewer districts. In addition, this strategy is not generally a preferred since the proposed future land use description largely reflects elements within the current zone districts.

2. Rezone the subject parcels from SD-IT to TCC. This zoning map amendment strategy would be typical but may fail to accurately implement the goals of the Plan as currently drafted. Two obvious discrepancies between the plan and the TCC zone district are:

a. Building height. The proposed plan expresses a desire to limit building to 3-stories or 45 feet. That height is consistent with the current SD-IT height limits, but up to 5-stories are permitted within the TCC zone district.

8.f

Packet Pg. 82

Att

ach

men

t: S

taff

Mem

o r

egar

din

g Im

ple

men

tati

on

of

Ind

ust

rial

Fle

x (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)

4 | P a g e

b. Residential Uses. The proposed plan wishes to restrict residential uses within the Industrial Flex designation. The current SD-IT district does not permit any residential uses, whereas the TCC district permits all types of residential uses up to a density of 58 units per acre.

3. Keep current SD-IT district but create a use exception. This strategy would require a text amendment within the Uses of Land sections of the SD-IT and TCC zone districts. The amendment would allow the subject parcels to be used for any use allowed within the SD-IT zone district AND the TCC zone district, excluding residential uses. This strategy would be a more a nuanced approach focused specifically on Southtown that could fully implement the intent of the Industrial Flex future land use designation. This strategy is consistent with traditional Euclidean zoning that utilizes a pyramid approach to use regulations where “each zoning district builds on the previous one. For example, an R-1 Residential may allow dwellings and duplexes. The R-2 Residential allows everything in R-1 plus apartment buildings. The C-1 Commercial district allows everything in R-2 plus retail and service establishments, and so on. One might illustrate this with a pyramid, with R-1 at the top, and under it, slightly larger, is R-2, and then C-1 forming the wide base2”. Similar strategies were used to implement several other planning efforts including GR Forward, the Grandville Avenue ASP and Housing NOW! In the GR Forward example, the plan identified Targeted Commercial Corridors which were zoned City Center but required to follow the land use regulations applicable to the Traditional Business Area (TBA) zone district.

SUMMARY Following the Planning Commission’s feedback given at the July 10th hearing, the Southtown BASP Steering Committee took the Commission’s counsel under consideration and has made changes to the draft plan in response. Parcels previously identified as Industrial have been changed to Industrial Flex and the land use description was changed to better align with the Commission’s suggestions. As outlined above, this specific recommendation could be implemented in a couple of ways. The third strategy would provide a more tailored solution given the specifics of the recommendation and would be consistent with the recommendations of the balance of the Southtown BASP. This strategy would significantly expand the use opportunities for parcels designated as Industrial Flex, allowing light and heavy industrial uses to locate in the district, allow current industrial uses to expand and allow the parcels to be used in ways that have not been permitted since 1951. No decision or action is being requested at this time. As previously stated, this memo was simply to help support the Industrial Flex discussion and outline ways that the recommendation could be implemented if adopted.

2 https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/there_are_multiple_ways_to_style_a_zoning_ordinance

8.f

Packet Pg. 83

Att

ach

men

t: S

taff

Mem

o r

egar

din

g Im

ple

men

tati

on

of

Ind

ust

rial

Fle

x (

So

uth

tow

n B

AS

P--

Rel

ease

fo

r P

ub

lic C

om

men

t)

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/there_are_multiple_ways_to_style_a_zoning_ordinance

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/there_are_multiple_ways_to_style_a_zoning_ordinance

90 SOUTHTOWN BUSINESS AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

MADISON SQUARE

ALGER HEIGHTS

SEYMOUR SQUARE

BOSTON SQUARE

FRANKLIN AND EASTERN

8.g

Packet Pg. 84

Att

ach

men

t: S

ou

thto

wn

BA

SP

Fu

ture

Lan

dU

seD

esig

nat

ion

s -

8-20

(S

ou

thto

wn

BA

SP

--R

elea

se f

or

Pu

blic

Co

mm

ent)

District Area Plans & Ideas 91

TRADITIONAL BUSINESS AREAS (TBA) � Currently, Traditional Business Area (TBA) zoned

parcels require ground-floor space be designed for retail uses. These areas would continue to function as they do today, with ground floor retail appropriate space being required. Upper floor uses such as professional services, offices, and residential would continue to be allowed.

� Building heights in TBA zones are preferred at 3-stories or less, consistent with existing TBA zoning and community survey results.

� TBA zones are intended to be a place to investment – such as for facade improvements or infrastructure projects (e.g. a CID projects for new pedestrian-scale street lighting). These areas are intended to help maximize the value of investments for the greatest number of local businesses (e.g. concentrating investment rather than spreading it out too thinly).

� This does not mean that investments by the CID or others can only be made in the priority investment areas. Investments outside of priority areas to support established, existing, business can certainly still be made.

� New businesses looking for a new location or existing businesses looking to relocate could be encouraged to locate into the priority areas to take advantage of improvements to those areas (e.g. CID-funded projects)

� The investment priority areas delineated are informed by the retail square footage forecasted to be supportable in the near-term. They have been distributed throughout the corridor in areas that have all or some of the following characteristics:

— Density of existing businesses, building patterns that create a walkable business district, continuous building frontage, buildings close to the street, and transparent building facades.

OVERALL DISTRICT PLANThe overall district plan, shown on the prior page and enlarged for each business district on the following pages, provides an overview of where different strategies described in the previous apply throughout the corridor. Underlying this district plan are proposed future land uses that go along with many of the recommended strategies. It is important to note just because an area is designated with a different future use, it doesn’t mean the change is required or necessary. Rather, it is suggesting that if land uses do change or properties are developed differently, that those changes conform to the identified future uses. Existing land uses can continue to remain in their current use patterns.

EXISTING & FUTURE LAND USES

SD-IT: Special District Industrial (no change

LDR: Low Density Residential (no change

LDR open space (no change

MDR: Mixed Density Residential (no change

TBA: Traditional Business

TBA to TBA T

LDR to LDR T

MDR to TBA

FUTURE LAND USE (CHANGE AREAS)

LAND USES (NO CHANGE)

SD-IT: Special District Industrial (no change)

LDR: Low Density Residential (no change)

LDR open space (no change)

MDR: Mixed Density Residential (no change)

TBA: Traditional Business Area (no change)

TBA to TBA Transition

LDR to LDR Transition

MDR to TBA



TBA: Traditional Business Area (195 parcels)

MDR: Mixed Density Residential (124 parcels)

LDR open space (2 parcels, cemeteries)

LDR: Low Density Residential (326 parcels)

ID-FLX: Industrial Flex (69 parcels)

LDR Transition - from LDR (127 parcels)

TBA Transition - from TBA (283 parcels)

MDR to TBA (1 parcel)

The following lists future land use designations used in the Southtown CID. The first group of land uses ("Existing Land Use Designations") refer to land uses where the zoning designation has not changed for a given parcel. However, there may be proposed revisions and changes in specific uses or physical building forms within these zones that are described in more detail in subsequent descriptions.

FUTURE LAND USE - ESTABLISHED DESIGNATIONS

The future land use designations below refer to new land use descriptions and where land uses are proposed to change from one type to another type.

FUTURE LAND USE - PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS

The intent of these designations are described in greater detail on the subsequent pages. The future land uses in the maps are assigned at the parcel-level.

SD-IT: Special District Industrial (no change

LDR: Low Density Residential (no change

LDR open space (no change


TBA: Traditional Business

TBA to TBA T

LDR to LDR T

MDR to TBA



8.g

Packet Pg. 85

Att

ach

men

t: S

ou

thto

wn

BA

SP

Fu

ture

Lan

dU

seD

esig

nat

ion

s -

8-20

(S

ou

thto

wn

BA

SP

--R

elea

se f

or

Pu

blic

Co

mm

ent)

92 SOUTHTOWN BUSINESS AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

MDR: MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL � Relates to existing areas of MDR. No changes are

proposed to these areas.

MDR TO TBA (PROPOSED CHANGE) � These are areas currently zoned MDR that are

located between existing TBA zones areas. From a future land use perspective, allowing a continuation of commercial land uses is preferred to create a more complete commercial space.

� There is a single parcel in the Madison Square area where this change in use makes sense for the above reasons.

LDR: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL � This plan prefers that areas within the Southtown

CID district that are zoned LDR should remain as single-family housing, with a preference for owner-occupied housing. There is concern that current zoning allows construction of multi-family housing within LDR zoned areas by use of a special land use permit.

� Recent zoning changes to the LDR district allows up to four attached units (i.e. townhouse-style units) by right on vacant property provided it is also within 500-feet of a TBA zoned area (including TBA Transition). Attached units that do not meet these requirements are permitted with a special land use permit.

� If LDR zones within the CID district are under consideration for redevelopment, the scale and character of housing is desired to have a height of no more than 2.5 stories and structured as attached housing units. A special land use permit should be required in this case.

TBA TRANSITION (PROPOSED LAND USE) � In order to provide greater flexibility in the kinds

of business-supportive uses allowed along the corridor, portions of the existing TBA zones are changed to TBA Transition.

� The TBA Transition Areas are intended to:

— Act as a transition between the core TBA areas and the adjacent residential areas.

— Allow a broader range of uses by-right, without requiring a special land use permit. These can include professional services, office uses, maker-spaces, live-work units, and potentially other uses that presently require special or conditional land use permits.

— Ground floor housing is not preferred in TBA Transition areas, but may be considered provided potential projects are reviewed and supported by the Southtown CID, obtain a special land use permit, conform to the goals and vision of the BASP, and adequately address displacement and equity concerns.

� Building heights in TBA Transition zones are preferred at 3-stories or less, consistent with existing TBA zoning and community survey results.

ID-FLX: INDUSTRIAL FLEX � Industrial Flex areas provide locations where

business growth, entrepreneurship, workforce training, and economic activity is desired to flourish. This plan recognizes that industrial areas are changing and need to allow a more flexible range of commercial uses.

� Industrial Flex areas would continue to allow uses allowed under the SD-IT zoning category.

� In addition, permitted or special land uses allowed within the TN-TCC Mixed-Use Commercial District are generally desired, with the exception of residential land uses, which are not a desired land use in this area.

� Building heights to remain capped at 3-stories or 45-feet, whichever is less, as per the current SD-IT zoning.

MDR: Mixed Density Residential (no change)




MDR to TBA


LDR: Low Density Residential (no change)

LDR open space (no change)





MDR to TBA


8.g

Packet Pg. 86

Att

ach

men

t: S

ou

thto

wn

BA

SP

Fu

ture

Lan

dU

seD

esig

nat

ion

s -

8-20

(S

ou

thto

wn

BA

SP

--R

elea

se f

or

Pu

blic

Co

mm

ent)

District Area Plans & Ideas 93

LDR TRANSITION (PROPOSED LAND USE) � LDR Transition areas areas currently zoned as Low

Density Residential (LDR). While the desire is for these areas to remain as single-family housing in order to prevent displacement, if land areas are to be redeveloped they should conform to the following:

— Preference for no high density multi-family housing within the LDR Transition areas (limit or remove special land use permit exceptions).

— Desire to limit medium density housing to townhouse style or similarly-scaled attached housing units that are no more than 2.5 stories tall.

— New housing should be owner-occupied housing. At a minimum, one owner-occupied unit should be provided for each existing owner-occupied unit that is lost.

— Allow live-work style units within the LDR Transition zone as a means of providing additional business growth opportunities within the districts.

LDR OPEN SPACE � The existing cemeteries are zoned as LDR – and we

simply colored these areas green to distinguish them from actual residential uses in other LDR zoned areas.

SPECIAL LAND USE PERMITS � Obtaining a special land use permit requires

meeting certain criteria and going through an approval process with Planning Commission.

� As part of the process of obtaining a special land use permit, this plan recommends that applicants engage with the Southtown CID board, well in advance, in order to ensure that such projects are in alignment with the goals and recommendations of the Southtown BASP.

8.g

Packet Pg. 87

Att

ach

men

t: S

ou

thto

wn

BA

SP

Fu

ture

Lan

dU

seD

esig

nat

ion

s -

8-20

(S

ou

thto

wn

BA

SP

--R

elea

se f

or

Pu

blic

Co

mm

ent)





FROM: Evette Pittman, Special Events Supervisor

Office of Special Events

SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing certain special events subject to Chapter

53 of the City Code

The attached resolution identifies certain Special Events occurring in September through December 2019, identifying the name of each event, location, sponsor, date and time as well as the insurance requirement. In addition, the resolution identifies any rule or City Code provision that shall be suspended within the boundaries of the event while such event is being held. Townsquare Media is requesting a Special Events Permit for a commercial grade fireworks display culminating the NYE Ball Drop Event occurring at Monroe North Lot Park on Tuesday, December 31, 2019. The commercial grade fireworks would be discharged between 12:00 AM and 12:30 AM on Wednesday, January 1st from the Monroe North Lot Park located at 601 Monroe Avenue NW. This resolution would suspend Section 9.907 of Chapter 173 Fireworks of Title IX-Police Regulations and would approve a Special Event Permit involving the use of commercial-grade fireworks at the Monroe North Lot Park on Wednesday, January 1, 2020. Both the Grand Rapids Fire Department and the Parks Department agree with this request and all requirements will be met.

Please consider this resolution at the September 24th, Committee of the Whole.

..

9

Packet Pg. 88

YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution designating the following special events subject to Chapter 53 of the City Code including the NYE Ball Drop event fireworks on January 1, 2020 as special events subject to Chapter 53 of the City Code, and suspending Section 9.907 of Chapter 173 entitled Fireworks, permitting the use of commercial-grade fireworks on public property as follows:

WHEREAS:

1. The City Commission has determined that the following special events are of general interest and importance to the community, and

2. The sponsors of the following events have submitted applications seeking

authorization for such events to be conducted at the dates, times and locations indicated; and

3. Townsquare Media is coordinating a special event to be held on December 31,

2019 that will involve the discharge of commercial grade fireworks from the Monroe North Lot Park on January 1, 2020 between 12:00 AM and 12:30 AM; and

4. Title IX of the City Code entitled Police Regulations, Chapter 173 entitled Fireworks, Section 9.907 entitled Firework Safety prohibits the use of fireworks on January 1; and

5. Title IV of the City Code entitled Streets and Sidewalks, Chapter 53 entitled

Special Events, Section 4.210 entitled Chapter to Control, Penalties, provides in pertinent part that it has the force of law and shall control and supersede any other general ordinances, licenses or regulations for the duration of said special events; therefore

RESOLVED:

1. That the following special events are hereby authorized and are made subject to the provisions of Chapter 53 of Title IV of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids for the duration of such events at the times and dates indicated herein; and

DAY/DATE EVENT

Event Setup/Tear

Down

LOCATION

Sunday, September 01,

2019

Wedding: Cisluycis & Williams

4P-5:30P 3P-5:45P

Blue Bridge

9

Packet Pg. 89

Monday, September 02,

2019 Labor Fest

11A-5P (8/30) 10A-

(9/2) 9P Ah-Nab-Awen Park

Tuesday, September 03,

2019 Swing Dancing

7P-9:30P 5:30P-10P

Rosa Parks Circle

Thursday, September 05,

2019 Relax at Rosa

12P-1P 10A-1:30P

Rosa Parks Circle


2019

Film: Veterans/Patriotism Ad

6:30A-10:45A Veterans Park

Saturday, September 07,

2019 Eastown Street Fair

9A-10P 6A-10P

Wealthy St. (Giddings - Lake)

Saturday, September 7-


2019

Grand Valley American Indian Lodge 58th Annual Pow Wow

10A-8P (9/6) 8A - (9/8) 8P

Riverside Park


2019 Church Street Ministries 11A-3P Madison + Hall

Saturday, September 7-

Saturday, October 26, 2019

Project 1 8A-10P Rosa Parks Circle + MLK Park +

Blue Bridge + Tanglefoot


2019 Back to School Relaxer

6P-9P 4P-10P

Joe Taylor Park


2019 St. Anthony Fiesta 11:30A-5P St. Anthony Parish

9

Packet Pg. 90


2019 Walk to Defeat ALS

12P-3P 8A-3P

Sixth Street Park

Monday, September 09,

2019 Film: Diabolical 4P-8P

GRPD + Leonard St + 17th Circuit Court + Fulton Ave


2019 Swing Dancing

7P-9:30P 5:30P-10P

Ah-Nab-Awen Park


2019 Relax at Rosa

12P-1P 10A-1:30P

Rosa Parks Circle


2019

Pure Barre on the Blue Bridge

7P-9P 5P-9P

Blue Bridge


2019 Dodgebrawl

5P-9P 12P-9P

Monroe North Lot

Friday, September 13, 2019

Cherry Park Live Summer Concert Series

6P-9P 5P-9:30P

Cherry Park


Cougar DASH 5K Run/Walk

6P-8:30P 3P-9P

Woodlawn + Alger + Barfield + Race Route


Park Millage Campaign Launch

10A-11A 9A-11:30A

MLK Park

9

Packet Pg. 91

Friday, September 13-Sunday,

September 15, 2019

Fiesta Mexicana 50 Aniversario

(9/13)12P-11P (9/14)10A-11P (9/15)10A-7P

(9/12) 5P- (9/15) 8P

Calder Plaza


2019 Wedding: Dyer & Bloom

5P-10P 12P-10:30P

Monroe North


2019 The Westside Streetfair

11A-6P 6A-9P

1st Street (Lexington - Seward) +

Winter Ave. (Bridge - Douglas)


2019 Garage Bar Block Party

5P-10P 4P-11P

Garage Bar + Ottawa Ave. (Mason - Newberry)


2019

16th Annual Mayors' Grand River Cleanup

8A-2P 6:30A-3P

Sixth Street Park


2019

Project 1: Blue Bridge Amplified

8P - 10P Blue Bridge




2019

150 Year Grand Celebration

12P-4P 8A-6P

Library Plaza


2019

Lake Michigan Credit Union Bridge Run

8A-10:30A (9/14) 3P- (9/15) 12P

Rosa Parks Circle + Race Route


2019 Swing Dancing

7P-9:30P 5:30P-10P

Rosa Parks Circle

9

Packet Pg. 92


2019 Relax at Rosa

12P-1P 10A-1:30P

Rosa Parks Circle


2019 NAEC Dregs Party

5P-9P 8A-10P

Gillett Bridge


2019 Funky Heart 5K

8:30A-11A (9/20) 7P- (9/21) 12P

Riverside Park


2019

Wedding: Ballard & Olsen

5P-5:30P 3:30P-5:30P

Riverside Park


2019 Pedal Project 1 8:30A - 11A

Bike Route (bike lanes + intermittent

intersection closures)


2019

CompRUNew: Race for Zero Waste

9A-11:30A 7A-2P

Garfield Park + Sidewalks




2019

Highland Park Family Fun Day

12P - 3P 10A-4P

Highland Park


2019

West Side Walk for Gilda's

11A-2P 8A-3:30P

Gilda's Club + Sidewalk Route


2019

Grand Rapids African American Art and Music

Festival

9A-11:30P (9/20) 8A (9/22) 12P

MLK Park

9

Packet Pg. 93


2019 Film: Aerial Photography 9A-8P Ken-O-Sha Park


2019 Swing Dancing

7P-9:30P 5:30P-10P

Ah-Nab-Awen Park

Thursday, September 26-


2019

Davenport University Football Homecoming

Game

(8/26) 10A (8/29) 10A

Davenport University

Friday, September 27-Saturday,

September, 28, 2019

Oktoberfest GR

(9/27) 5P-11P (9/28) 12P-11P

(9/27) 8A- (9/29) 5P

Riverside Park


2019

Women's Summer Street Fest

12P-10P 10A-10:30P

Sheldon (Library - Fulton)


2019

Light the Night Grand Rapids

6P-9P (9/27) 9A- (9/29) 5P

Monroe North Lot


2019

Wedding: Dozeman & Harling

5:30P-6:30P 4P-7P

Blue Bridge




2019

Strong Families Celebration

1P-3P 12P-4P

Garfield Park


2019

City of Grand Rapids Picnic

12P-5P 10A-6:30P

Riverside Park

9

Packet Pg. 94


2019

Kisscross Events CX Race Series

10A-4P 7A-4P

Richmond Park

Tuesday, October 01, 2019

Swing Dancing 7P-9:30P

5:30P-10P Rosa Parks Circle

Thursday, October 03, 2019

All A's Catholic Secondary Schools

Annual Walk

8:30A-12P 8A-12P

West Catholic + Catholic Central + Sidewalk Route


Bark in the Dark 5P-9P

10A-11P Riverside Park


Church Street Ministries 11A-3P Madison + Hall


Pulaski Days Parade 11A-12:30P 10A-12:30P

Fulton St. (Lexington-Valley)

Monday, October 07, 2019

Founders Employee Event

9A-11P 8A-11P

Grandville (Williams -Bartlett)



5:30P-10P Ah-Nab-Awen Park


The Cheese Lady Grand Rapids Anniversary

Celebration

1P-4P (10/12) 8A- (10/14) 5P

Fuller Park


The Great Pumpkin Run: Grand Rapids

9A-12P (10/10) 9A- (10/14) 12P

Riverside Park

9

Packet Pg. 95



Sunday, October 13, 2019

Kisscross Events CX Race Series

10A-4P 7A-4P

Highland Park

Sunday, October 13, 2019

WAP & Chili Cookoff 10A-9P 8A-9P

Sheldon (Library - Fulton)



5:30P-10P Rosa Parks Circle


Zombie Dash 5K 6:30P-8P 12P-10P

Sixth Street Park




Making Strides Against Breast Cancer

8:30A-12P (10/18) 10A- (10/19) 12P

Rosa Parks Circle + Sidewalk Route


Beer City Brewers Guild Annual Beer Festival

1P-5P 9A-10P

Riverside Park (Ballfield #4)


Walk for Freedom GR 9:30A-12P

8A-1P Ah-Nab-Awen Park/Gillett Bridge

+ Sidewalk Route


Run thru the Rapids 9A-10:30A 6A-12:30P

YMCA + Race Route

9

Packet Pg. 96


Grand Rapids Kids Marathon

1P - 2:30P 8A - 3P

YMCA + Race Route

Saturday, October 19-Sunday,

October 20, 2019

Metro Health Grand Rapids Marathon

(10/19) 8A-3P (10/20) 7A-5P

(10/18) 8A (10/20) 5P

YMCA + Race Route


Howl-oween 1P - 5P

10A - 7P Wilcox Park



5:30P-10P Ah-Nab-Awen Park


Garage Bar Block Party- Halloween Block Party

6P-11P 4P-11P

Garage Bar


Alger Heights 5K/10K Run Walk

9A-10:45A 6A-12P

Alger Heights



Saturday, November 02,



2019 GR .1K

11:45A-12:20P 11:30A-12:30P

Bridge St. (Winter - The Knickerbocker)



9

Packet Pg. 97


2019 Veterans Day 5

8:30A-11A 5:30A-12P

GR Home for Veterans + Race Route

Monday, November 11,

2019

Wedding: Rowley & Suchecki

5P-5:30P 4P-5:30P

Blue Bridge


2019

Garage Bar Block Party- UM vs MSU

6P-11P 4P-11P







2019 ArtVan Santa Parade

12P-1P (11/22) 12P- (11/23) 5P

Rosa Parks Circle + Parade Route

Thursday, November 28,

2019

Grand Rapids Turkey Trot

8A-10:45A (11/27) 3P - (11/28) 11A

Van Andel + Route

Friday, December 06, 2019

Christmas Tree Lighting 5:30P - 7:30P

10A - 10P

Rosa Parks Circle + Monroe Center

(Monroe - Ottawa)

Thursday, December 5-

Monday, December 9, 2019

Gymnastics on the Grand

(12/5) 12P- (12/9) 8:30A

DeVos Place

Saturday, December 14,

2019 Garage Bar: Santa-Con

6P-11P 4P-11P


Tuesday, December 31,

2019

New Year’s Eve Ball Drop

(12/31) 5:30P-(1/1) 12:30A (12/31)7A-

(1/2) 5P

RPC/Monroe/Louis

9

Packet Pg. 98

2. NYE Ball Drop event fireworks, shall be deemed a Special Event pursuant to

Chapter 53 of the City Code; and

3. That Title IX, Chapter 173, Section 9.907 entitled Use of Commercial Grade Fireworks Prohibited be suspended by Chapter 53 of the City Code entitled Special Events, and that use of commercial-grade fireworks on public property (Monroe North Lot) on the date and time stated above be approved; and

4. That the rules or ordinance provisions referenced in the table attached hereto as

ATTACHMENT A are hereby suspended for the duration of the event referenced therein.

Prepared by Evette Pittman

9

Packet Pg. 99

Day/Date EventEvent Time

Setup/Tear LOCATION ATTEND. Event Type Contact Organization Alcohol GRPD

Parking

Services

Traffic

SafetyEquip.

Public

Services

Food

TruckNoise Vehicles Animals

Bicycle/

Skateboards

Hot Air

BalloonsFireworks Alcohol Type

Other

Suspensions

Sunday, September 01, 2019 Crossroads Cook-Outs11:30A-2P

8A-3P

Front Ave

(6th St-10th St)1,500 Participation

Judy Black

616-560-0032

Crossroads Bible

ChurchP

Sunday, September 01, 2019 Wedding: Cisluycis & Williams4P-5:30P

3P-5:45PBlue Bridge 100 Wedding

Evan Williams

231-632-2460Private P

Monday, September 02, 2019 Labor Fest

11A-5P

(8/30) 10A-

(9/2) 9P

Ah-Nab-Awen Park 2,500 ParticipationTracey Roerig

616-456-3458Local Labor Unions P P

Food

TruckServed/Sold

Tuesday, September 03, 2019 Swing Dancing7P-9:30P

5:30P-10PRosa Parks Circle 250 Participation

Steve Zaagman

616-617-4842

Michigan Council

of Arts and

Cultural Affairs

Thursday, September 05, 2019 Relax at Rosa 12P-1P

10A-1:30PRosa Parks Circle 500 Participation

Megan Catcho

616-719-4609DGRI P

Food

Truck

Thursday, September 05, 2019 Film: Veterans/Patriotism Ad 6:30A-10:45A Veterans Park 10 Film/Photography Alex TorneroThe Strategy

Group Company

Saturday, September 07, 2019 Eastown Street Fair9A-10P

6A-10P

Wealthy St.

(Giddings - Lake)15,000 Participation

Don Lee

616-451-3025

Eastown

Community

Association

P P P P P P P Served/Sold

Saturday, September 7-Sunday, September 8,

2019

Grand Valley American Indian Lodge 58th Annual Pow

Wow

10A-8P

(9/6) 8A -

(9/8) 8P

Riverside Park 10,000 ParticipationLori Shustha

616-364-4697GVAIL P

Food

Truck

Saturday, September 07, 2019 Church Street Ministries 11A-3P Madison + Hall 15 ParticipationNehemiah Israel

616-970-4869IUIC Grand Rapids

Saturday, September 7-Saturday, October 26,

2019Project 1 8A-10P

Rosa Parks Circle +MLK

Park + Blue Bridge +

Tanglefoot

50,000 + ParticipationDerek Call

323-369-2808ArtPrize P P P P P P

Food

TruckP P Served/Sold

Alcohol is not at all

events within the

date range of

Project 1; vertical

dancers

Saturday, September 07, 2019 Back to School Relaxer6P-9P

4P-10PJoe Taylor Park 200 Participation

OSE

616-456-3378

City of Grand

RapidsP P P

Bounce House

Sunday, September 08, 2019 St. Anthony Fiesta 11:30A-5P St. Anthony Parish 500 EquipmentChad Wieber

616-366-3780St. Anthony Parish P

Sunday, September 08, 2019 Walk to Defeat ALS12P-3P

8A-3PSixth Street Park 1,200 Run/Walk

Sharon Watton

248-680-6540

The ALS

AssociationP P

Monday, September 09, 2019 Film: Diabolical 4P-8P

GRPD + Leonard St +

17th Circuit Court + Fulton

Ave

3 Film/Photography John Mele

201-615-2228Lion Television

Postponed


5:30P-10PAh-Nab-Awen Park 250 Participation

Steve Zaagman

616-617-4842

Michigan Council

of Arts and

Cultural Affairs



Megan Catcho

616-719-4609DGRI P

Food

Truck

Thursday, September 12, 2019 Pure Barre on the Blue Bridge 7P-9P

5P-9PBlue Bridge 150 Participation

Ashley Owen

616-890-2626

Van Andel

Institute

Thursday, September 12, 2019 Dodgebrawl5P-9P

12P-9PMonroe North Lot 130 Participation

Paige Caligari

616-785-2662

Boy Scouts of

AmericanP P P

Food

TruckServed/Sold

Friday, September 13, 2019 Cherry Park Live Summer Concert Series6P-9P

5P-9:30PCherry Park 250 Participation

Cynthia Ayers

616-454-9079

East Hills Council

of NeighborsP

Food

TruckServed/Sold

Friday, September 13, 2019 Cougar DASH 5K Run/Walk6P-8:30P

3P-9P

Woodlawn + Alger +

Barfield + Race Route200 Run/Walk

Ashely Brennan

616-558-4478

St. Paul the

Apostle School

and Parish

P PFood

TruckServed/Sold

Friday, September 13, 2019 Park Millage Campaign Launch10A-11A

9A-11:30AMLK Park 50 Participation

Tori Power

616-288-7209

Friends of GR

ParksP

Friday, September 13-Sunday, September 15,

2019Fiesta Mexicana 50 Aniversario

(9/13)12P-11P

(9/14)10A-11P

(9/15)10A-7P

(9/12) 5P-

Calder Plaza 8,000 ParticipationGabriella De La

Vega

616-262-1015

Mexican Heritage

AssociationP P P P P Food Cart P Served/Sold

September

9.a

Packet Pg. 100

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

A S

epte

mb

er -

Dec

emb

er 2

019

Sp

ecia

l Eve

nt

Cal

end

ar (

Au

tho

riza

tio

n o

f

Saturday, September 14, 2019 Wedding: Dyer & Bloom5P-10P

12P-10:30PMonroe North 150 Wedding

Adrien Harding

616-454-6511Private P Served

Saturday, September 14, 2019 The Westside Streetfair11A-6P

6A-9P

1st Street

(Lexington - Seward) +

Winter Ave.

(Bridge - Douglas)

5,000 ParticipationAnne Baeten

616-710-8304

The Westside

ProjectP P P P P

Food

TruckServed/Sold

Saturday, September 14, 2019 Garage Bar Block Party5P-10P

4P-11P

Garage Bar + Ottawa Ave.

(Mason - Newberry)500 Participation

Kevin Farhat

734-347-3050Garage Bar P P P Served/Sold

Saturday, September 14, 2019 16th Annual Mayors' Grand River Cleanup8A-2P

6:30A-3PSixth Street Park 1,200 Participation

Ericka Popovich

616-451-3051

West Michigan

Environmental

Action Council

P P P Served/Sold

Saturday, September 14, 2019 Project 1: Blue Bridge Amplified 8P - 10P Blue Bridge 300 ParticipationDerek Call

323-369-2808ArtPrize P P P P P P P P Served/Sold



Sunday, September 15, 2019 150 Year Grand Celebration12P-4P

8A-6PLibrary Plaza 300 Participation

Conor Bardallis

616-459-8386

X 221

Fountain Street

ChurchP P

Bounce House

Sunday, September 15, 2019 Lake Michigan Credit Union Bridge Run

8A-10:30A

(9/14) 3P-

(9/15) 12P

Rosa Parks Circle + Race

Route2,500 Participation

Kyle Cutler

616-204-6648RunGR P P P P P

Food

TruckP

Lead bike



Steve Zaagman

616-617-4842

Michigan Council

of Arts and

Cultural Affairs



Megan Catcho

616-719-4609DGRI P

Food

Truck

Thursday, September 19, 2019 NAEC Dregs Party5P-9P

8A-10PGillett Bridge 200 Private

Emma Cashion

616-805-3057NAEC P P Served/Sold

Saturday, September 21, 2019 Funky Heart 5K

8:30A-11A

(9/20) 7P- (9/21)

12P

Riverside Park 300 ParticipationJennifer

Dougherty

616-644-6529

Pediatric

Congenital Heart

Association

Saturday, September 21, 2019 Wedding: Ballard & Olsen5P-5:30P

3:30P-5:30PRiverside Park 140 Wedding

Allison Ballard

231-492-3410Private P

Saturday, September 21, 2019 Pedal Project 1 8:30A - 11A

Bike Route

(bike lanes + intermittent

intersection closures)

150 Run/Walk/Cycle ArtPrize P P

Saturday, September 21, 2019 CompRUNew: Race for Zero Waste9A-11:30A

7A-2PGarfield Park + Sidewalks 80 Run/Walk

Sarah Laman

616-451-4400Comprenew



Saturday, September 21, 2019 Highland Park Family Fun Day12P - 3P

10A-4PHighland Park 100 Participation

OSE

616-456-3378

City of Grand

RapidsP P P

Saturday, September 21, 2019 West Side Walk for Gilda's11A-2P

8A-3:30P

Gilda's Club +

Sidewalk Route350 Participation

Shawn Ruetz

616-453-8300

Gilda's Club Grand

RapidsP P

Food

TruckServed/Sold

Saturday, September 21, 2019 Grand Rapids African American Art and Music Festival

9A-11:30P

(9/20) 8A-

(9/22) 12P

MLK Park 999 ParticipationTom Almonte

616-456-3183

Grand Rapids

African American

Art and Music

Festival

P P PFood

TruckP

Saturday, September 21, 2019 Film: Aerial Photography 9A-8P Ken-O-Sha Park 3 Film/Photography Paige Gabbert

231-670-7689

Paige Gabbert

PhotographyAerial Apparatus

and stage pole;

not open to public



Steve Zaagman

616-617-4842

Michigan Council

of Arts and

Cultural Affairs

Thursday, September 26-Sunday, September 29,

2019Davenport University Football Homecoming Game

(8/26) 10A

(8/29) 10ADavenport University 1,800 Equipment

Nicole Tibbe

616-773-0146

Davenport

UniversityP

9.a

Packet Pg. 101

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

A S

epte

mb

er -

Dec

emb

er 2

019

Sp

ecia

l Eve

nt

Cal

end

ar (

Au

tho

riza

tio

n o

f

Friday, September 27-Saturday, September, 28,

2019Oktoberfest GR

(9/27) 5P-11P

(9/28) 12P-11P

(9/27) 8A-

(9/29) 5P

Riverside Park 7,000 ParticipationPaul Starr

517-331-0528

Edelweiss Club of

Grand RapidsP P P

Food

TruckP Served/Sold

Saturday, September 28, 2019 Women's Summer Street Fest12P-10P

10A-10:30P

Sheldon

(Library - Fulton)200 Participation

Eric Zuniga

616-451-0815

The Apartment

LoungeP P P P Served/Sold

Saturday, September 28, 2019 Light the Night Grand Rapids

6P-9P

(9/27) 9A-

(9/29) 5P

Monroe North Lot 1,000 ParticipationMegan Worden

616-224-6242

Leukemia &

Lymphoma SocietyP P P P P

Food


Saturday, September 28, 2019 Wedding: Dozeman & Harling5:30P-6:30P

4P-7PBlue Bridge 150 Wedding

Emily Dozeman

929-286-2495Private P



Saturday, September 28, 2019 Strong Families Celebration1P-3P

12P-4PGarfield Park 100 Participation

Tabitha Truini

616-241-3300

Health Homes

CoalitionP

Food

TruckBounce House

Sunday, September 29, 2019 City of Grand Rapids Picnic12P-5P

10A-6:30PRiverside Park 1,500 Participation

Craig Thompson

616-456-3106

City of Grand

RapidsP P

Bounce House

Sunday, September 29, 2019 Kisscross Events CX Race Series10A-4P

7A-4PRichmond Park 99 Run/Walk/Cycle

Brent Walk

616-453-4245

Fun Promotions,

LLC



Parking

Services

Traffic

SafetyEquip.

Public

Services

Food

Truck/ Noise Vehicles Animals

Bicycle/

Skateboards

Hot Air


Other

Suspensions

October

Tuesday, October 01, 2019 Swing Dancing7P-9:30P


Steve Zaagman

616-617-4842

Michigan Council

of Arts and

Cultural Affairs

Thursday, October 03, 2019 All A's Catholic Secondary Schools Annual Walk8:30A-12P

8A-12P

West Catholic + Catholic

Central + Sidewalk Route1,000 Run/Walk

Megan Kulak

616-233-5869

West Catholic High

School

Saturday, October 05, 2019 Bark in the Dark5P-9P

10A-11PRiverside Park 600 Participation

Megan Ellinger

616-791-8089

Humane Society of

West MichiganP P P P Served/Sold

Saturday, October 05, 2019 Church Street Ministries 11A-3P Madison + Hall 15 ParticipationNehemiah Israel


Saturday, October 05, 2019 Pulaski Days Parade11A-12:30P

10A-12:30P

Fulton St.

(Lexington-Valley)1,000 Parade

Sue Uzarski

616-453-7201Pulaski Days P P P P

Monday, October 07, 2019 Founders Employee Event9A-11P

8A-11P

Grandville

(Williams -Bartlett)600 Private

Luke Sass

231-286-4675

Founders Brewing

Co.P P P

Food

TruckP



Steve Zaagman

616-617-4842

Michigan Council

of Arts and

Cultural Affairs

Saturday, October 12, 2019 The Cheese Lady Grand Rapids Anniversary Celebration

1P-4P

(10/12) 8A-

(10/14) 5P

Fuller Park 200 ParticipationHeather Zinn

616-443-2289

Rowerdink

IncorporatedP P

Food

VendorsP Served/Sold

Saturday, October 12, 2019 The Great Pumpkin Run: Grand Rapids

9A-12P

(10/10) 9A-

(10/14) 12P

Riverside Park 4,500 Run/WalkLily Clifford

616-635-6394Sour Fish Events P P P P P

Forklift to move

crate of pumpkins



Sunday, October 13, 2019 Kisscross Events CX Race Series10A-4P

7A-4PHighland Park 99 Run/Walk/Cycle

Brent Walk

616-453-4245

Fun Promotions,

LLCP

Sunday, October 13, 2019 WAP & Chili Cookoff10A-9P

8A-9P

Sheldon

(Library - Fulton)500 Participation

Bob Johnson

616-451-0815

The Apartment

LoungeP P P P P Served/Sold



Steve Zaagman

616-617-4842

Michigan Council

of Arts and

Cultural Affairs

9.a

Packet Pg. 102

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

A S

epte

mb

er -

Dec

emb

er 2

019

Sp

ecia

l Eve

nt

Cal

end

ar (

Au

tho

riza

tio

n o

f

Saturday, October 19, 2019 Zombie Dash 5K6:30P-8P

12P-10PSixth Street Park 300 Run/Walk

Raymond

Passchier

616-821-3948

Epic Race Timing P P



Saturday, October 19, 2019 Making Strides Against Breast Cancer

8:30A-12P

(10/18) 10A-

(10/19) 12P

Rosa Parks Circle +

Sidewalk Route900 Run/Walk

Susan Brogger

616-337-7961

American Cancer

SocietyP

Food

Truck

Saturday, October 19, 2019 Beer City Brewers Guild Annual Beer Festival1P-5P

9A-10P

Riverside Park

(Ballfield #4)750 Participation

Brad Stevenson

616-325-2691

Beer City Brewer

GuildP

Food

TruckServed/Sold

Saturday, October 19, 2019 Walk for Freedom GR9:30A-12P

8A-1P

Ah-Nab-Awen Park/Gillett

Bridge + Sidewalk Route200 Participation

Kaitlyn Geers

616-617-0638A21 Volunteer

Food

TruckP

Saturday, October 19, 2019 Run thru the Rapids9A-10:30A

6A-12:30PYMCA + Race Route 500 Run/Walk

Kent Mudie

616-459-6168

Grand Rapids

YMCA Service ClubP P P

Food

Truck

Saturday, October 19, 2019 Grand Rapids Kids Marathon1P - 2:30P

8A - 3PYMCA + Race Route 200 Run/Walk

Don Kern

616-293-3145Metro Health P P P

Food

Truck

Saturday, October 19, 2019 Howl-oween1P - 5P

10A - 7PWilcox Park 99 Participation

Don Lee

616-451-3025

Eastown

Community

Association

P P Served/Sold

Saturday, October 19-Sunday, October 20, 2019 Metro Health Grand Rapids Marathon

(10/19) 8A-3P

(10/20) 7A-5P

(10/18) 8A-

(10/20) 5P

YMCA + Race Route 5,000 Run/WalkDon Kern

616-293-3145Metro Health P P P P

Food

TruckServed/Sold



Steve Zaagman

616-617-4842

Michigan Council

of Arts and

Cultural Affairs

Saturday, October 26, 2019 Garage Bar Block Party- Halloween Block Party6P-11P

4P-11PGarage Bar 500 Participation

Kevin Farhat


Saturday, October 26, 2019 Alger Heights 5K/10K Run Walk9A-10:45A

6A-12PAlger Heights 700 Run/Walk

Donna & Sam

Evans

616-540-2107

Alger Heights P P P

Bounce House





Parking

Services

Traffic

SafetyEquip.

Public

Services

Food


Bicycle/

Skateboards

Hot Air


Other

Suspensions

Saturday, November 02, 2019 Church Street Ministries 11A-3P Madison + Hall 15 ParticipationNehemiah Israel


Saturday, November 02, 2019 GR .1K11:45A-12:20P

11:30A-12:30P

Bridge St.

(Winter - The

Knickerbocker)

1,500 ParticipationKyle Smith

616-901-8430GR .1K P P P



Saturday, November 09, 2019 Veterans Day 58:30A-11A

5:30A-12P

GR Home for Veterans +

Race Route500 Run/Walk

Kristen Aidif

616-862-2460

Grand Rapids

Event

Management

P P P

Monday, November 11, 2019 Wedding: Rowley & Suchecki5P-5:30P

4P-5:30PBlue Bridge 15 Wedding

Anne Rowley

517-614-2068Private

Saturday, November 16, 2019 Garage Bar Block Party- UM vs MSU6P-11P

4P-11P



Kevin Farhat






November

9.a

Packet Pg. 103

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

A S

epte

mb

er -

Dec

emb

er 2

019

Sp

ecia

l Eve

nt

Cal

end

ar (

Au

tho

riza

tio

n o

f

Saturday, November 23, 2019 ArtVan Santa Parade

12P-1P

(11/22) 12P-

(11/23) 5P

Rosa Parks Circle + Parade

Route5,000 Participation

Sarah Fales

616-723-5338

Grand Rapids

Junior ChamberP P P P P

Food

TruckP Served/Sold

Inflatable balloons

in parade; hot air

balloon baskets

with flame

Thursday, November 28, 2019 Grand Rapids Turkey Trot

8A-10:45A

(11/27) 3P -

(11/28) 11A

Van Andel + Route 5,000 ParticipationKurt Johnson

616-819-2010

Grand Rapids

Public SchoolsP P P P



Parking

Services

Traffic

SafetyEquip.

Public

Services

Food


Bicycle/

Skateboards

Hot Air


Other

Suspensions

Friday, December 06, 2019 Christmas Tree Lighting5:30P - 7:30P

10A - 10P

Rosa Parks Circle + Monroe

Center

(Monroe - Ottawa)

1,000 ParticipationOSE

616-456-3378

City of Grand

RapidsP P P P P P

Food

TruckP Served/Sold

Thursday, December 5-Monday, December 9,

2019Gymnastics on the Grand

(12/5) 12P-

(12/9) 8:30ADeVos Place 10,000 Equipment

Mark Bowen

616-885-0914

Grand Rapids

Gymnastics

Boosters

P

Saturday, December 14, 2019 Garage Bar: Santa-Con6P-11P

4P-11P



Kevin Farhat

734-347-3050Garage Bar P P P

Tuesday, December 31, 2019 New Years Eve Ball Drop

(12/31) 5:30P-

(1/1) 12:30A

(12/31)7A-

(1/2) 5P

RPC/Monroe/Louis 10,000 ParticipationKristen Aidif

616-862-2460

Townsquare

MediaP P P P P P

Food


December

9.a

Packet Pg. 104

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

A S

epte

mb

er -

Dec

emb

er 2

019

Sp

ecia

l Eve

nt

Cal

end

ar (

Au

tho

riza

tio

n o

f





FROM: Joel H. Hondorp, City Clerk

City Clerk's Office

SUBJECT: Update On timeline for filling the Comptroller Vacancy

The City Commission held a discussion at their September 10, 2019 Committee of the Whole meeting on the process for filling the vacated City Comptroller position. An update will be given on the timeline for selecting the City Comptroller.

Prepared by Joel H. Hondorp

10

Packet Pg. 105

City Comptroller

The Comptroller for the City of Grand Rapids is an elected officer within the City’s governmental structure, as established by the City Charter. The voters of Grand Rapids elect this officer to serve four-year terms of office. The current four-year term began January 1, 2018 and expires December 31, 2021. This position is filled by a City-wide election.

When a vacancy occurs in this office, the City Commission may fill the vacancy by appointment. The person appointed by the City Commission to fill this position will then be required to stand for City-wide election by the people of Grand Rapids at the next non-partisan primary election (August 4, 2021), in order to serve out the remainder of the unexpired term of office. Petition packets may be obtained in the City Clerk’s Office.

An appointee to this vacancy in the office of Comptroller must be a resident of the City for six months or more immediately prior to the date of appointment, and must be a registered and qualified elector of the City at the time of appointment.

The salary for this position is established by the Local Officers Compensation Commission, which meets in odd-numbered years. The annual salary of this office is currently set at $43,321. The fringe benefits for this position are established by the City Commission from time to time, and currently include health care coverage and an opportunity to participate in the City’s retirement system.

Application forms may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office. Applications for consideration for City Commission appointment to this position will be accepted by the City Clerk’s Office from October 1, 2019 through October 31, 2019 at 5:00pm.

Questions regarding the appointment or election process should be directed to the City Clerk at 456-3010 or [email protected].

10.a

Packet Pg. 106

Att

ach

men

t: C

om

ptr

olle

r P

rop

ose

d p

roce

ss (

Co

mp

tro

ller

Vac

ancy

Up

dat

e)

PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING A CITY COMPTROLLER FOR A VACANT SEAT

1. Interested individuals can make application to the City Clerk beginning October 1, 2019 at 9:00 AM. Application will be available at the City Clerk’s Office and on-line on the City’s website. Applicants should submit the completed application form, a biographical sketch and/or resume and one (1) professional reference and two (2) personal references.

2. The application period will expire on October 31, 2019 at 5:00 PM. All applications must be in the hands of the City Clerk by this date and time. No application received late will be accepted.

3. All valid applications will reviewed by the City Clerk to ensure eligibility. The City Commission will review applications and determine the process for first round interviews at their City Commission meeting on Tuesday, November 12, 2019.

4. Candidates will be reviewed by a sub-committee of the City Commission or the full City Commission the week of November 19, 2019. This process will be based on the number of applicants.

5. The selected top candidates will submit to a 45 minute interview by the entire City Commission meeting in public session on Tuesday, December 3, 2019.

6. The public will be invited to provide public comment on the top candidates at the 7:00pm City Commission meeting on December 3, 2019.

7. The City Commission will debate and then take a formal vote to elect a City Comptroller on December 17, 2019 at the evening City Commission meeting (7:00 p.m.).

8. The Oath of Office Ceremony will be conducted for the new City Comptroller at the evening City Commission meeting on January 7, 2020 at 6:30 p.m.

10.a

Packet Pg. 107

Att

ach

men

t: C

om

ptr

olle

r P

rop

ose

d p

roce

ss (

Co

mp

tro

ller

Vac

ancy

Up

dat

e)

Application for

City Comptroller Appointment

Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________

(First) (Middle) (Last)

Home Address: _______________________________________________________________________________

(Street Address) (City) (Zip Code)

Home Phone No. ___________________________________ Resident of City for ____ years ____ months

Registered to vote in Ward _________ Precinct _________

Employment: _______________________________________ Business Telephone No. ____________________

(Name of Employer)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

(Street Address) (City) (State) (Zip Code)

Occupation: _____________________________ E-mail Address: ___________________________________

Please indicate any information (experience, education, community activities, organizations, etc.) which you think should be

considered for your appointment to City Comptroller. Use additional paper, if necessary.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you currently hold, or are you a candidate for, any other public office? Yes _____ No _____

If yes, please explain. __________________________________________________________________________

Do you or your employer have business dealings with the City of Grand Rapids? Yes _____ No _____


Have you filed all income tax returns required by the City of Grand Rapids? Yes _____ No _____

Are you presently indebted to the City of Grand Rapids for overdue income tax, real or personal property tax,

special assessment, license fee or property lien? Yes _____ No _____


Please attach a biographical sketch and/or a resume and provide at least one (1) professional and two (2) personal

reference names and contact information with this application.

Return to: Joel H. Hondorp

City Clerk

300 Monroe Avenue NW

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Email to: [email protected]

Deadline: Thursday, October 31, 2019 5:00 p.m.

Late applications will NOT be accepted

10.b

Packet Pg. 108

Att

ach

men

t: 2

019

CO

MP

TR

OL

LE

R A

PP

OIN

TM

EN

T A

PP

LIC

AT

ION

(C

om

ptr

olle

r V

acan

cy U

pd

ate)

City of Grand Rapids Committee of the Whole Regular ...

Documents

Transcript of City of Grand Rapids Committee of the Whole Regular ...