well that's five o'clock hello everyone welcome to the march twenty sixteen planning commission meeting i need approval of minutes for the february ninth regular meeting so m for i proposed next communications from the audience for items that are not on the agenda tonight can come to the podium state your name and address evening bill circle forty two east lake with boulevard i'm here on behalf of m c b r properties and i want to address just briefly the text amendment regarding off street parking in the r t r and district which you're going to be considering later this evening i notice that there's not a public hearing scheduled for that so i thought i'd take this opportunity to just make a couple of comments i know we've been here several times before i think this is the third or fourth meeting we've had on that issue and as you're aware your ordinance as it's written now limits the number of cars that can be parked on a property to six regardless of the size of the property regardless of the number of units so just by way of example if you have a fourplex unit on a single lot you're allowed a maximum of six cars i think the problems with the ordinance are best demonstrated by mike one of my clients properties at forty two east thirteenth street as you know that property is a duplex and he has allowed my clients lawfully allowed ten unrelated adults at that property and he was awful lawfully allowed to create twelve parking spaces on that property the one thing he can't do is use the twelve spaces so he can have ten adults he can have twelve parking spaces but he cannot use any more than six parking spaces at any one time which seen seems to create somewhat of a disconnect in your ordinance but one of the other problems i think with the ordinance is that it does not take into account the size of the property and by way of example of that my client's property is nearly thirteen thousand square feet  is ninety seven feet wide in the end zone district the minimum lot size would be five thousand square feet with a forty foot lot with so on my client's property even though it has a single duplex he could be allowed to create two separate lots and build two separate single family homes within that same amount of area and if he did so would be allowed to have a total of twelve cars six cars on each lot but by creating one duplex on that same lot he still subject to the six car limitation again which seems to be somewhat of a disconnect my suggestion what i would urge you to do the seeding would be to consider an amendment that would take into account the size of the property something along the lines of saying if you meet the minimum lot square footage requirements you would be allowed six cars and then if you have more square footage on your lot that you'd be allowed bonus cars for for additional square footage which would seem to taken into account the concerns that we've talked about here this evening so thank you thank you all trip thirty four easter team since mr circle has had opportunity to speak on this topic i'd like to say oh one thing at the end of the last meeting it was determined to seek the city council's intent in that passage of the amendment in the ordinance apparently the city manager thinks the city council can't remember back eighteen months as to what the city council intended but i think it's very clear in the zoning ordinance itself in section thirty nine to eighty purpose in or exist in an area of holland central neighborhoods defined as hope neighborhood area where historically there's been a balance of long term owner occupied homes and trent transitory short term student rental this area is now being challenged selectively reading is being challenged by significant pressures for change and housing stock and density of activity these changes challenge the desirability and sustainability of this neighborhood as a single family neighborhood this is been probably problematic due to the accompanying high density of individuals often with divergent lifestyles activity patterns and schedules in a typically high density of automobile possession and use it is the intention of the city council to encourage and sustain opportunities for single family occupancy as a stabilizing force within all areas of the stone district preservation and handsome of the city's neighborhoods for the benefit all of all as a significant city objective continues on section two eight four in the hope neighborhood district the amount of pay parking areas for vehicle access and parking located in or near side yard areas shall be generally consistent with that of the adjoining properties and neighboring properties on the same block plans to provide pave areas in the ho neighborhood area for vehicles that are determined to be greater in area than the amounts of paved areas generally consistent with the adjoining properties in the neighborhood properties in the same block may be permitted so be permitted up to a maximum of six parked vehicles per property so in this ordinance this city council is actually expanding the available parking to allow six places over there what would be traditional in the neighborhood which would be two maybe three cars in terms of mr cyclist comments about having adequate space approve over the last two weeks that has not been the case parking has been a real issue and people have not had enough pep paved space the landlord put up a barrier around the lawn so people couldn't do that so the students were driving through my front lawn to get in and out of the property and tell the police put a stop to it so i think the ordinance as stands alone as six per property is appropriate thank you for your time thank anyone else to come to the podium for anything that is not on the agenda right next item unfinished business and table items tacksman section thirty nine us two eighty four the zoning last week i'm going oh my goodness we first started talking about this back in november and it's now march so we've had five months that we've been going back and forth on this planet commissioners the fed a series of  four to four votes on this and we're continuing to move forward and and i was looking and i see you have seven members here tonight so i think we're going to have a final vote  not going to go over the entire staff report everything everybody knows this issue that's really kind of been debated the new information that we do have for you tonight is we did  back and check the city council minutes the appropriate meetings back in two thousand and fourteen in trying to discern if there was any intention by council at that residents was reduced from six per unit down to a four and then a non conforming properties were allowed to continue dead to have six of them and looking through those city council minutes we were not able to discern really anything one way or another with councils of original intent and i think the record probably shows also in previous meetings that the the mayor and council member birch were kind of scratching their heads on this one also i know brian was like going i was against it all the time so i so i mean you were very you know you knew where you were who were standing at least when you took the vote a full year and a half ago so  squarely this is just it's basically in the planning commission's alap here tonight again to take some action on this if you if you so desire so staff staff is recommending  that you at a minimum take action to restore some of the language if you can remember back four or five months ago we first started this staff kind of the the  to two eighty four last year and at a minimum we want to have that that restored and and so what is that language again that is specifically to have the rear yard side yard parking and paving requirements that that apply to the entire central neighborhood district ok and that was inadvertently struck out so you can see you can see that in in the staff report and there's some also some additional language in there that isn't that a minimum we'd like to have restored and then really kind of that the major issue that mr circle was talking about tonight is do you move forward with with allowing some additional parking in residential properties or not ok so there is two particular drafts that plan a commission has been looking at in the last page of your own of the report pertaining to this and i think it really kind of boils down to you again kind of deciding one or the other with this certainly you have the prerogative to change the language tonight if you want to do that ultimately this will be you know whatever your recommendation is if it's a negative recommendation or or a positive one we will be bringing that to city council for their information so i'll just briefly read these again the kind of central issues and both of these are under sections and title plans for paving in the central neighborhood and the first one would read for one to four residential two alan units a maximum of six parked vehicles are allowed on site for the first well in unit and two additional part to be of cols are allowed on site for the remaining dwelling units up to a maximum of eight parked vehicles per property and then the second one that was discus quite a bit goes is this it says plans for paving central neighborhood in central neighborhood and this is going to be somewhat redundant but i read it for one to four residential dwelling units a maximum six part vehicles are allowed on site for the first well in unit and two additional part vehicles are allowed on site for the remaining two and the units up to up to a maximum of eight park vehicles per property so that's the same change starts here in that is for legal non conforming duplex properties that have more than four residents per dwelling unit the number of vehicles to be allowed to park on the property at any one time shall coincide with the number of occupants allowed for the property as long as the parking meets the paving and landscaping criteria of that property size so that basically is is what you have in front of you again all right be original intent of this i mean it seems the you see the issue when the paving question is with non residential properties or commercial use or church for sure we want to fix that because the way the ordinance is reviewed right now technically speaking in any church or school is limited to six per property and that makes perfect sense to me that that that's the logic where i have a problem is changing the ordinance to change the six per property to me that seems reasonable under the current ordinance of what we've allowed which allows six is a max non related so that's to me i don't i don't know where that change happens or if it's only in the in the coverage of the paving restriction but that seems to me adequate enough but that's my comment i guess i should have been here you really got three options because i mean if you look down there is that other section c and staff is really saying if you all can agree to one or the other with the two above that it least go with that one because that really kind of speaks to what brian is is indicating here that that would restore it to saying that we have six parked vehicles are allowed per property for properties that contain one before residential unit so that's that gets it back to so you can only have you can have a maximum of a six for residential properties then there is no maximum for schools and churches and other permitted not residential properties in the t r n district but if you have a confirming duplex that has a six and six how does that play out does it play it differently then if you just went with this third one here then you're just allowed to have six total i read that marvin you had a motion so i would move that we accept the status recommendations relative section thirty nine to eighty four the text changes to be indicating the central neighborhood district inclusion of b two language rows of side yard fencing and that and i would like to go with what i'm going to call the second c which is the one that incorporates  plus allows us the number of cars per occupant as long as they meet the requirements for paving landscaping do we have a support for that one favor oppose and then the third c plans for paving in the central neighborhood a maximum of six park vehicles are allowed per property for properties that contain wonder for residential dwelling units correct as their support for before that the city council thank goodness moving on to new business letter a request to rezone for twenty nine east fortieth street from the r three residential district to the i to industrial district mark can you pronounce that name for ideally how we've been when i bought the property was to just to live there i bought it from a friend of mine and then it came with one point eight five acres so it's pretty open and we thought hey why don't we use that i own a trucking company as well and at this time it's been kind of rough with our industry so we've been trying to find any way that we can minimise and expenses and one of them was to rezone the property to use it for basic maintenance and woods on the north we thought it would be you know ideal just to give it a try and see if that's something that we could do but to be honest i wasn't really this is my first time here so i wasn't sure what to prepare for but kind of that's all we have as a right now are you prepared for questions from oh yeah ok yeah that's fine questions or comments from commission members that's that's correct right questions comments from commission member going to do any maintenance checking repairs on there which that would be noisy as far as noise it would be just to run in truck which i there is already manufacturers there and running trucks all the time we are not planning to work in third shift or second shift it's just go results yes but no buffer and no nothing at this point in time well we kind of in our in our staff recommendation we hedged a little bit i should say i hedged a little but i did not know and i mean we still need to have the public hearing but you know if if the neighborhood really kind of pushed back and if there was a lot of pushback i think one potential thing you could look at is do you could you reduce the amount of property that's that's been rezoned here or potentially rezoned it is a large piece of property about two acres in size one avenue you could look at us potentially just basically rezoning the east half of it and then retaining the the part where tony's house is on their basic way as a as a buffer going into the future keeping in mind that any industrial improvements to the site should it be rezoned any kind of a structure would need to go through a site plan review process we'd be looking closely at screening requirements and in the whole b of other requirements too so even things such as just pouring the pavement and so forth would probably trigger a review by our city engineer for stormwater prove mints and stuff like that so it would be we would be looking at it in there are regulations that would have to be met yes and it would not be correct to say though that tony may use this property for any use that's allowable in the i two or any anyone that has comments questions can come to the podium state your name and address then you have up to five minutes come right up to the mike you my name is leonard giggling my wife here is you know we own the last back duplex nine five six nine five four montrose excuse me montrose avenue red with redwood properties l l c owns the other one the closest one to forty a street one of our concerns is that was brought up about the noise level that she brought up it seems to me that if they start you know would driving semis in and out of there often and dropping trailers and hooking back up to trailers it could get quite noisy at times also our concern is how many trailers and semi tractors would be parked on the property visually maybe impacting the area for in negative way s far as the close proximity to to the residential areas another concern is would they have their own access just to the property that would be  rezoned presently montrose avenue was vacated at the end of our property it used to be going to continue through the woods and end up at the end of vassar street but that won't happen we just repaved that driveway mr and ourselves to our duplexes because it was really bad repair so that was done just last summer is there any adjacent right of way property that they could drive north along side our driveway to access to the rezone property or would they just have it off from fortieth street and either direction either into the property or out of it those are some of our concerns thank you for listening to my thank you question for staff once a property once a street right away is vacated traditionally have a ghost of your property are either gratis or for free they are now the owners of that property so if the city really wanted to put that street back in they'd have to do eminent domain to do review we were on a limit them to access to forty of those probably be a good thing i'm looking at the map here i want to say that it looks like there's some kind of  well called a double strip of land of the property owner to the north looks like there's a little strip probably five or ten feet wide between tony's property and montrose avenue and if that's the case then tony would not have legal access on to the montrose without getting approval of the property or to the north so just for clarification that montrose avenue is a driveway it is a public right of way and however it's not developed to public street standards it's just it's just developed as a driveway i'm going to assume the city has some type of agreement with the property owners i don't know that for a fact but i'm just assuming that you know that they allowed just a driveway to be developed there to access those properties so we don't have all the information on that  up but no i don't have it in front of me right now the public hearing is still open so if you want to speak to this issue you may come back to the podium the a two and a half minutes left should be all i need  you i don't know if gardner development group out of kalamazoo owns the property to the north where all the woods is but that was scheduled for eight apartment buildings and if i remember correctly along side the east side of montrose avenue there is a wider access for a driveway back into that complex i don't know i don't have the the planning for that and just appear which is getting vague because it  goes back quite a few years that would probably have to be some research and if that property is still maybe someday it's going to be part of stone creek apartments but a second development of it so that would have to be examined to see how access to that property would go thank you you thank you have with what the gentleman was talking about i mean you can see the arrow this is stone creek apartments up here they do have plans i'll be at their probably dated plans now but to put a dish of hartmann's in up here there's a creek that runs through here also but i've seen plans that show  several partment down off from the north into montrose avenue in this area here the site plans that the validity of them they've all expired by now but it certainly does have the proper zoning that there could be apartments here in mark if the r three districts were to come in and say we want to develop the south side of that property and we have a public right away there and they maybe do indeed have a ten or twelve foot wide piece of dirt there maybe twenty are we going to allow them to use that as their access when we have a perfectly good city right away connecting to their property i just want to get this on the table because potentially that could be a road that's a yes yeah and so any any any safety of having trucks on that is going to be wholly dependent upon what is allowed in a site plan for the property right i do you know i mean should this get to the site plan level i think it would be a prudent condition of put on there that access would have to be directly off for i'm sorry green but i just want to make sure everybody  i currently own only seven shocks and as far as the trailers probably levon twelve of them am i looking to go to use that street no i am not above what we kind of were thinking it was awful fort just similar to the way i have a driveway i would put another one i'm not sure exactly what the legal limits are for that but that it would not affect any of that if we were not even looking to have the trucks turn around they were just looking to back you know back out type of if the residence is included in the i to zone district that then becomes a non conforming use correct that is correct which limits the expansion or improvement thereof in the future absolutely is it possible to re the back half of it well some is going to come in with a request for the other we have to decide that now i see but yes that is that is possible i mean it just was noticed out to rezone the entire parcel if you wanted to do less than that you could do that if if the owner was interested in that i just had to have tony come in and try to put in a swimming pool and be told no good in the questions or come away i'm sorry a public hearing is still open does anyone want to speak to this ok i will close the public hearing any other questions or comments from commission members or motions yes marvin i'm going to suggest that we table this and have tony and staff get together and work of the nuances of this property if there is actually a spoiler strip if he tony that just means it goes to the next regular meeting will move it from the table and we'll have some more discussion maybe after you and the city staff get together and work out some of those things good thank you very next item under new business letter b request to rezone eighteen properties located in eleventh street between lincoln and fairbanks ave from the our tyrann traditional residential neighborhood district to the e d education district hope college is the applicant and the applicant is here i'm kyra slater the director of the physical plant at hope college i don't have anything to add from what our application already says but i'm open for any questions you may if you want to just quickly summarize the process and we currently own eighteen properties along levin street across the street from the device field house parking lot and there are two older houses on these properties right now that currently house students we would like to tear those down and build new units basically an extension of cook village not exactly the same design but that would reflect the same character going down to the east down eleventh street all right if that's there are no questions or comments then i will open a public hearing you can sit tight public hearing is open if you would like to comment on this item you can come to the podium back and did whatever against these new units and so i guess i was wondering i don't know if if you if there is any very policies when you build multi level units one question they had in mind was if there are any requirements for some kind of visual barriers or whatever so that very large dormitories don't look down on a single family female housing were or that there are perking what's in large lights into their backyards i was just wondering if there are if hope it has some some plans or if if there is there are certain things that you normally put into place for that just curious ok ok thank you the thing this item is actually just a rezoning we're not addressing any sort of life plan review that would be a site plan question if you want to talk to city staff about what the education district has as far as those kind of stipulations then i would advise you to talk to them right yes i guess we might want to ask the applicant if they have a notion of the scale of the buildings  the becoming a leader this spring summer yeah we are currently working on the site plan and going through some budget process what it looks like right now would be would be a continuation of cooke village but maybe even a little shorter we'd like the buildings to be not have full basements underneath them so they'll be lower to the ground and more accessible and so right now there are two story multiple two story buildings we're not looking at building a dormitory in this location ok thank you make it quick the site plan review that will happen on this property is administrative correct it will not be a public site plan review hearing that is correct that that being said though as a part of the administrative process we send out older still notice it to everybody within three hundred feet however if anybody within three hundred feet that receives a notice wants to push this up the planning commission so to say they can do that we need to receive a written letter or an e mail from somebody but it could end up in your lap if somebody wanted it to happen yes just want to make sure they knew those options were public hearing still open you can come to the property by the city hauen to hope college the town squares the lincoln town squares and columbia town squares the citizens of holland lost to town squares no town squares protect your first amendment rights you have a right to assembly and regular parks that's not a true case you can be roasted from them by the authorities so it's only the designated town squares which those two were in we have one left centennial park that you can  protest and the police can not tell you to remove yourself if you're if you are grieving over some government thing that you don't believe in or some neighborhood thing you don't believe then you're allowed to do that first amendment rights in town squares they're very important and you sold ours you sold two of ours here a couple years ago and i know i think that's unfortunate but i would like um and i think it can be done that this is a win win situation on this i would like before you decide on this issue to to take the town square issue back onto your table and decide if we couldn't name a couple other city parks as town squares to replace that the cost is slight  the process is pretty clear it takes a little bit of work you have to go right to lansing and designate on your plot mayhaps and stuff so i would like to have you consider this issue and i would like you not to not to make a decision today intel you discuss this particular point because of the citizens lost in the past in the i would like to be assured that we don't lose that we both both again i am all for hope college i am all for that music building and i'm all for the our building i've been in both are great but the citizens lost some constitutional rights when you made a decision last time i'd like you not to do that again please anyone else to speak on this ite all right thank you applicant the applicant can come forward room that is an addition that was done to that building number years ago so we're going to take that off and create additional parking in the rear of that building and then renovate the interior for some of their spaces and other potential uses as well so we've submitted plans which you've seen and kind of lays out the new rear entrance of lays out a new window on the the other downtown buildings have whereas the south elevation facing ninth street will have a little more of a front door appeal like we've done it several buildings along eighth street and created this also has a public hearing which i will open at this time and he would like to speak to the site  know all right i will close the public looks good thank you the last two are very similar i we're going to do a public hearing for both the motions on them separately i'm going to read both of them together d n e request to rezone a portion of eleven east thirty second street from the r one one family residential district the p r t planned residential development district g m d n a n e is a rest haven is the applicant letter e's development plan review for a twenty four room assisted living facility to be located at seven forty college avenue in a portion of eleven east thirty second street g m d n a n e otherwise known as rest haven is the applicant  we will have a presentation by the applicant thank you my name is nancy friends and i'm the director of rest haven made towards the facility that we're looking to put another building on there i would like to say that rest haven is very committed to the holland area we're very proud of the fact that we are a local based not for profit organization and we have a long and rewarding relationship with the home community we currently serve about eighty five seniors at maple wards and we have ninety five percent occupancy with a waiting list so we know that there is a demand for or more of our services however our building dates from one nine hundred fifty five was one of the first buildings in that neighborhood and it's obviously aging we're not eighty eight compliant we cannot accommodate people in wheelchairs and as part of the rest haven continuum that leaves a gap in our services so people who live with us and then need wheelchairs but do not need nursing home we're not able to meet their needs and we're hoping this new facility will fill that gap we also need to keep up with market demand and we want to keep maplewood viable into the future we did commission a marketing study which confirmed the need for additional assisted living in our area especially for the middle class price point which is what we meet that need our first consideration was location we did consider moving elsewhere but we didn't think about that very well and we are committed to our location we love our neighborhood our residents love the neighborhood in fact a couple of our residents just who are current residents one moved from her backyard another move from around the corner so they obviously are very neighbors or intern and we serve them we also love our neighbors they look out for our residence which we very much appreciate the father sidewalks and they make sure that our residents are safe so we appreciate that there's also some financial considerations for us for staying on the site we also own we already own the land and keeping our building on the site makes economic sense we can utilize staff and services between the two buildings for example only need one for me and that will save some money so that's another consideration then as we look at designing the building we developed a pro forma and we determine that the ideal number of residents is twenty four it doesn't make sense to staff a full staff or less than that number it also is a number that will support the building financially so that we can sustain the building meet our debts and we needed that right number of residents we rejected the idea of a two story building on that site economically and elevator and all of those things are expensive but also we wanted to be on so we did realize that if we expanded to the east a little bit we'd be able to flex our building so we avoid that long office building look facade of the back we then did started talking to bethany christian from church where our neighbors good neighbors of ours and they agreed to sell us a piece of their property so that we could expand and fit that better on that that was recently finalized and so that's the request for the zoning change that's what we're that's what we need that for we've also tweaked the design of our building several times  designed it so that the access to the building trashed the trucks a delivery trucks in our visitor and staff parking will move through the center of our property so that the neighbors behind would not have an access road running between their property and our so austin centered so they will not have that noise in their traffic we've been looking at the age back units kitchen exhaust and other potential eyesores and we've actually moved those when possible to the roof of the building and we've designed the roof access so that those will be concealed that will help with noise and also aesthetics we've also made some very conscious choices of heating and cooling in check systems because we recognize that the that is a noise issue for our residents and our neighbors and so we've been very conscious of trying to find something that's very fission and very quiet because that is a concern nobody likes to hear that in their backyard we've also worked on the exterior pick up perience appearance the building that you see the site that you see there are some updated we've added some porches we wanted more curb appeal we don't our residents have enjoyed that wooded site behind us for many years we have enjoyed it as well and we want to work with our neighbors to make the back of our property attractive so that we need to meet the needs of both our neighbors and our residents for privacy we want to be attractive we want it to be beautiful we went with our neighbors last week for an preliminary discussion we heard some suggestions of things that they would like us to address we're planning to meet with them again nico is going to speak next user site engine here he is going to be coming up with some ideas and we plan to meet again with the neighbors our goal is to make everyone as happy as we can realizing that it's going to be a big change for them i'd like to close by saying that we're committed to this project because we believe it's necessary for us to provide attractive amenities to the people we serve we believe i believe it's our mission to serve seniors with love and compassion we believe they deserve our very best i'm very proud to be part of the community part of breast haven in this beautiful neighborhood and one is sure that we will do everything we can to be good neighbors thank you thank hello my name is nate bosh i'm with g m the architects and engineers eighty five easy street i don't really know what else i could cover she's covered pretty well but i really want to kind of give you an idea as to what the planning process was and based on the  the recommendation we would hope that we would have to use zoning approved but the site plan would be delayed or tabled until we have additional information so great now we're at about a d d level design development level in our documentation we're working towards a mid april construction documents release so we would be continuing to develop that process which also would include storm water drainage and additional information that we received from the neighborhood input  session a few of those items that we discussed at that session that we would be updating on our plans would relate to the bar for him behind the building screen that effectively some of the staff recommendations included a mix of landscape as well as fencing and i think we will continue to work with the neighbors as to what they would like to see we plan to host another another meeting with them in a couple of weeks to kind of review the next steps in where we would be in some of the things that they would like to see some other items that they heard those and we are definitely working to address those we are not planning on any exterior lighting on there the rear portion of the building that would shine into the neighbors there maybe some low level landscape lighting if that patio continues to be a night option but that would probably be shut off at a relatively early hour and with that i would also mention that we are working really on the center portion of that site as well we want to add additional islands to add landscaping to that parking lot we're moving the dumpster enclosure away from the center or the front portion of the site and moving it more internal closer to the building to mid mass up from the street view and we are also going to try to work to save as many of the existing trees and that would that would but as we can so thank you great thank you very much any questions yet from the applicant how many parking spots are you putting i we're just making that you exercise currently there are twenty six spaces on the site and we would be adding three additional spaces i think first staffing needs at the existing facility there may be a need for about five additional parking spaces but part of the rezoning application is also a parking lot to the west that they have purchased from bethany and if needed or desired by the planning commission we could also look at a shared parking i'm agreement with them in writing  this time we will hold a public hearing for both of these items come to the podium state your name and address and you have up to five minutes guess my name is mark mellman i live in fifty two east thirtieth street directly behind the rest a then proposed building site i would request from the city planning commissioners to have an extended period of time to talk about items d and e to address d and e as well as a letter written from neighbors to the city planning commission and signed by twenty two of the neighbors we have that that's all right i'm not counting this towards your five minutes and i did ask for an extended period of time for d n d both items as i want to read the letter to read the letter  i said before i am a resident of fifty two east thirtieth street just want to read a letter that we wrote from you know to the city planning commission says dear honorable commissioners we are writing to request that the planning commission table decision on rezoning  plans of the proposed expansion of rest haven at seven forty college avenue in east eleven east thirty second street for a future hearing until further study on the possible impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood and proper remediation to the site plans can occur as homeowners and neighbors of the surrounding area we believe that the short moratorium will ensure that this project is completed without undue negative impact to the privacy property values environment and quality of life of the surrounding residential homes rest david has been a valued member of our neighborhood for over sixty years the rest even provides a valuable service of affordable high quality elder care to the house and community at a time when most other facilities cater only to affluent seniors many of our residents move into maple woods as they age they can they are happy to remain in the neighborhood they call home at a time when they require a higher level of care furthermore many of the neighbors have loved ones in rest haven facilities the residents of maple woods are important members of our community many of whom walk the sidewalks daily talking and socializing with the neighbors we are pleased that the development of this property will help strengthen rest haven's admittedly precarious financial position enabling them to continue their delivery of moderately priced high quality elder care for holland seniors in fact many of us see a future use of this facility for our loved ones or ourselves we do believe however that rest haven in g m b architecture may have overlooked the true impact of this project on the surrounding community as it is currently designed additional planning time will ensure a seamless integration of the proposed assisted living facility in this neighborhood item one g of the site plan narrative completed by mr nathan g m b architecture and engineering and dated feb sixteenth thousand two thousand and sixteen page for the site plan for those of you that are scoring at home states that there should be no detrimental impact associated with the  property we believe that this project will have significant impacts to noise and light pollution of the neighborhood as well as the proper drainage of water currently this property contains a tree line and wooded area that separate maple woods from the homes on thirtieth street these mature trees provide protection from the noise light and traffic sounds of the operations of the current maplewood facility which include frequent visits from emergency vehicles noise from a large generator located in the back of the facility light pollution from a parking lot and noise from frequent parking lot traffic for a facility that is staffed twenty four hours a day in a residential neighborhood the current the current plans call for a lemonade in this natural the current plans  eliminating this natural buffer building a very large building within sixteen feet of the back property lines and placing two large industrial air conditioners at the point closest to the backyards of the thirtieth street homes additionally the current plans califor outdoor patio space one of three patios total for the the building four for the facility residents on the north side that is approximately twenty to thirty feet off the back property line this patio have direct sight lines into backyards and homes on thirtieth street this patio require twenty four hour lighting and decrease privacy all of these changes will have a significant impact to the neighborhood and this is the most important in addition to the impacts outlined above the current project could have significant environmental impact due to disturbing the natural flow of water of the low an area of this proposed building site the proposed building site is the lowest area of the block it currently access a natural drain for the area after a heavy rain water pools in this area until it is proper time to properly drain it has time to properly drain through the ground we believe that grating in elevating this area we could have dutch are mentally effects to the homes nearby increasing the water table causing resurfacing of water in low lying areas of backyards and flooding of basements during the two thousand  torrential rain storm that left many holland basements flooded this low an area retained all of the water and tell it could see through the aquifer it saved neighboring basements from flooding to make matters worse the soil in this area is extremely sandy  because of the cause of the soil consistency the size of the proposed bill of milling the close proximity to the properties on thirtieth street we are concerned that rainwater displaced by the new facility will resurface and pool in backyards or basements additionally we believe that the rating in elevating of this area will cause a damning effect in many of the backyards of the thirtieth street homeowners several of the homes such as fifty east thirtieth street and forty east there via street have low lying areas near the near their property lines in the back if the proposed building site is graded and elevated as indicated in the current site plans that will disturb the natural flow of water and create a damning effect in those backyards today the existing home owners of the properties of thirty st have never had problems with their basements or backyards we have had a promising discussion with the rest haven about our concerns we are hopeful that rest haven will be able to make small adjustments and accommodations to better fit this building into the neighborhood we have also encourage rest haven to explore alternative configurations for the proposed building that will increase their capacity while maintaining mature trees as a barrier between the neighbors on thirtieth street and the new facility this would also enable rest haven to build the facility with greater setback from the back properties which will improve drainage for the area and protect homes from why or damage or at seven minutes ok last couple of couple words we believe that that adding an additional assisted living units to this neighborhood is good for the community but that this should be done in a way that adequately address as a negative impact rest haven is planning to reconvene neighbors in april to present the updated site plans based on our feedback we asked at the planning commission table the rezoning and site plans decision until after rest haven has a chance to submit it mended plants the planning commission that adequately address concerns with noise light traffic and drainage thank you for taking this under consideration and we look forward to your decision and mark you got a copy ok thank you anyone else become this item see your name and address my name's michael flock and i live at fifty he's thirty a street right next to mark and i back up to rest a bit i've lived at that address for since one thousand nine hundred two and i think the major concern that i have is the water situation i would think that down down the road anecdotally i would probably tell you the information be it may be anecdotal but i've never had a problem with what basement ever and just so you know my property is probably the episode epicenter of this of this building i mean we said we look right at the patio so we'll be able to weigh it i guess and we're just concerned about the water as mark i just would emphasize what mark said in two thousand and nine when it rained like crazy there was a big pool of water back there but that's where it stayed and i just wonder what this project what what will happen with it i'm not an expert but i'm hoping that you take a little time and that we think about what is going to happen there because it doesn't take a rocket science for me at least to say that if you put a big building there the water's got to flow somewhere and maybe they've already figured that out i just didn't get that feeling when we had that meeting and so i would just reiterate what mark said if we took a little time and maybe figured that out that would be great and i think you very much for the time  anyone else to speak on th hello my name is melanie scott and i live at forty east thirtieth right next door in the other side of them as a neighbor whose property adjoins rest haven's maplewood complex and concerned about their plans to construct a large building at the back of their property i'm concerned about the size of the building and the loss of green space in our residential neighborhood i'm concerned with the fact that the building comes very close to our property lines i'm also concerned about increased noise from large air conditioning units and the loss of a natural buffer of trees between and our houses but i'm mostly concerned about possible water drainage into my backyard and possibly my basement the site plans for this new building call for the ground to be raised before the building is constructed my back yard slopes down in fact the point where rest havens property and mind meet is the lowest on the block i feel like further study needs to be done to determine what effect this raised area will have on our water and care taken to make sure we don't have any flooding before the site plans are approved at a neighborhood meeting last week we addressed our concerns to rest even they have indicated a willingness to work with the neighbors and mentioned a possible meeting in april but if their site plans are approved tonight we have no recourse if they choose to go ahead with their plans as submitted and ignore our concern am not opposed to rest haven building on this site they are a vital part of our neighborhood but i urge you to table the decision on rezoning and their site plans until they adequately address the concerns of their neighbors thank you thank you anyone else to speak on the site  no ok i will close the public hearing at this time any discussion or questions from commission members yes marvin mark we are doing is predominantly over the lack of drainage information from the city and the nurse office but that correct yes and if i could interject i mean you've got two items here staff in the staff report is recommending that you do proceed with a positive recommendation in regards to the rezoning aspect we are recommending tabling of the site plan though because there are city engineer has some questions about drainage i'm not an engineer but i get questions yes has there been any work about whether this is a wetlands area it's not designated is that we did not do an analysis of wetlands i mean i have walked the site i have not seen any kind of procedure we obviously can't mandate that these two groups talk to each other and we typically don't like to table things and definitely how are we going to determine a date table to that's probably not enough time for a rest even in these folks to have another discussion syria next me after that it believes april twelfth yes it might be appropriate to table if you're so inclined table the site planned staff clearly believes that it's in line with the master plan it is if it does make sense just point out here you know the rezoning request is really for this sliver of land and here it's about sixty foot sliver that rest dave is looking to buy from bethany church as well as this parking lot area here so these are current lays own are one you know currently it's a big old parking lot and it's kind of a law an area in here albeit there there does a there's a lot of function for absorbing surface ground water runoff and in this area here staff really does believe i mean as far as the use of the property it falls in line that it probably should be an extension of the peer rezoning to move forward with that the applicant has indicated that you know timing is does come into play as you get down the road if you look at the calendars for city council and so forth should you elect to to give a positive recommendation this could go to city council for first reading next week wednesday march sixteenth and then i believe the next city council regular meeting is not until april twentieth so that's like a full month away then that would be for second reading where they could potentially do a final vote on this so if you move forward with the rezoning at least you're going to have final you probably will have final closure of the site plan issue before city council actually communications and petitions scheduling a public hearings march twenty two site plan review for a new commercial building at four ninety lincoln avenue de interpreter as the applicant made a motion to schedule that