Broadway and 1st Condos

[joeDowntown]

You're preaching to the devil here. I don't think that is why I want to save the church.

I'm just wondering if the protest is fueled because it's a church as opposed to say the cinamini. To ME, it doesn't change things much because it's a church, but maybe because I'm not really a religious person.

Jdkacz,

Man, is it that easy? I just go down and vote for any project I like or dislike? Where the hell have I been.

Regarding this debate, I do apologize if I'm stepping out on a limb here, but it appears that many are upset about the demo of the church which I understand. However, as gr town planner said it was 40-1 in support of the development.

I would only ask, if this is so bad a deal to those that oppose the demo of the church for this development, where were your letters, voices, opinions, etc of opposition when it counted?

[Veloise]

Regarding this debate, I do apologize if I'm stepping out on a limb here, but it appears that many are upset about the demo of the church which I understand. However, as gr town planner said it was 40-1 in support of the development.

I would only ask, if this is so bad a deal to those that oppose the demo of the church for this development, where were your letters, voices, opinions, etc of opposition when it counted?

It's not like there was a public referendum. The PC was presented with a plan, and while it's possible to specify approval conditions, usually these are for minor design elements (must provide a brick knee wall topped by wrought iron, must provide a grease trap and filtration elements for a restaurant, etc).

Wasn't a Chinese menu selection. Development including church building and/or nunnery. It was pretty much "take it or leave it."

[JimInGR]

I would only ask, if this is so bad a deal to those that oppose the demo of the church for this development, where were your letters, voices, opinions, etc of opposition when it counted?

I agree with Joe, when exactly did it count?

[tamias6]

Regarding this debate, I do apologize if I'm stepping out on a limb here, but it appears that many are upset about the demo of the church which I understand. However, as gr town planner said it was 40-1 in support of the development.

I would only ask, if this is so bad a deal to those that oppose the demo of the church for this development, where were your letters, voices, opinions, etc of opposition when it counted?

I heard nothing about this church being demoed until I read this forum which must have been after the 40-1 vote. I heard nothing about it via any other local media outlet. So this raises the question. How could I as a common person voice my oppinion to where it counted the most WHEN it counted the most?

[egrguy]

It's not like there was a public referendum. The PC was presented with a plan, and while it's possible to specify approval conditions, usually these are for minor design elements (must provide a brick knee wall topped by wrought iron, must provide a grease trap and filtration elements for a restaurant, etc).

Wasn't a Chinese menu selection. Development including church building and/or nunnery. It was pretty much "take it or leave it."

I agree with Joe, when exactly did it count?

I heard nothing about this church being demoed until I read this forum which must have been after the 40-1 vote. I heard nothing about it via any other local media outlet. So this raises the question. How could I as a common person voice my oppinion to where it counted the most WHEN it counted the most?

Wouldn't this lead to a conclusion that the devolopment process isn't fully functional towards involvement from the community? The outcry here is pretty strong, (the general community seems pretty ambivalent towards this) However, this community here within UP is arguably the most informed group of people regarding development within the city. So why didn't anyone know about this before concerns with the project could be raised? Under this assumption, to me, there appears to be something wrong with the process.

[civitas]

It's not like there was a public referendum. The PC was presented with a plan, and while it's possible to specify approval conditions, usually these are for minor design elements (must provide a brick knee wall topped by wrought iron, must provide a grease trap and filtration elements for a restaurant, etc).

Wasn't a Chinese menu selection. Development including church building and/or nunnery. It was pretty much "take it or leave it."

I would assume that it was a request to rezone the land to a higher classification that allowed attached buildings and higher density from the existing detached single family designation. If so, the planning commission had a tremendous amount of leverage to get anything they wanted. They do so all the time. If they thought the church was important they would have approved the plan subject to keeping the church. They did not think the church was important.

Remember that the city lost the old Purple East battle in court. They are no longer able to deny demolition of a building without formal historical status and protection.

Ironically Judge Soet ruled on the Purple East case and now sits on the planning commission in his retirement.

[Allison Slater]

I think we all had forwarning that there were plans to demo it. The ground layout plans which were posted very early on showed there being no church, and it was even discussed briefly as well, very early on. I believe sparky posted his own renderings of ways to incorprate the church into the plans, but obviously none of that was official. Only now, after the final deciscion has been made to demo it, now do people get upset about it.

It seems to me like everybody seeing a glass of milk teetering on the edge of a table, thinking "oh that could fall", talking about fixing it but not doing anything, then crying once it spills over.

[Mark Miller]

When did your voices count?

How can you make a difference on the way the planning commission reviewed this project (or any other project for that matter) and influence the way that they voted?

"It's not like there was a public referendum. The PC was presented with a plan, and while it's possible to specify approval conditions, usually these are for minor design elements (must provide a brick knee wall topped by wrought iron, must provide a grease trap and filtration elements for a restaurant, etc)."

"I heard nothing about this church being demoed until I read this forum which must have been after the 40-1 vote. I heard nothing about it via any other local media outlet. So this raises the question. How could I as a common person voice my oppinion to where it counted the most WHEN it counted the most?"

Why didn't anyone know about this before the public hearing!?

The planning commission, the city commission and even the historic preservation commission are citizen committees that, while interpreting ordinances, ultimately are answerable to the public. This is the democratic process at work.

This project was first posted on this forum back on August 12. The church demolition talk started soon after. The planning commission meeting was on September 14. That is an entire month to plan.

The planning commission meeting was a public meeting for this project, anyone could have attended and spoke for or against the project. Only people who were for the project spoke - there were no dissenters from the public. Why?

There was also the option of sending a letter to the commission to voice any concerns. There was one negative letter and about 40 positive letters. Why?

All of the discussion that went on here, much of which made valid points, was not heard by the planning commission because no one bothered to make their voices heard. Sitting at a keyboard does not cut it in this kind of democratic process. Initiative is needed in either showing up, or at the very least, writing a letter that can become part of the public record. As with any democratic process, public involvement is critical.

The planning commission reviewed this site as a PRD, which is a similar mechanism to a PUD. As part of this process, the commission rezones the property, while at the same time approving the site plan. Upon approval the site plan becomes the governing mechanism of what gets built. If there is any deviation from this, the plan must go back to the PC.

Because of this process, the PC has all kinds of control over what is approved. In this case they mandated brick and required the developer to come back with exterior material samples in order to get a final permit. They also required a landscape plan and a bunch of other conditions. The PRD allows them to mandate anything they want, including denying the application because the plan is not appropriate.

Was the commission affected by the number of people who were for the project, versus the number who were against it. Almost certainly.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has."

- M. Mead

[GRDadof3]

When did your voices count?

How can you make a difference on the way the planning commission reviewed this project (or any other project for that matter) and influence the way that they voted?

Was the commission affected by the number of people who were for the project, versus the number who were against it. Almost certainly.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has."

- M. Mead

It was only announced officially that the church would be demolished on Sept. 14th (five days ago). All the site plans read "preliminary". They actually received at least two letters to save the church. But even 10 letters would do little to combat the 40 people in favor.

[DwntwnGeo]

It was only announced officially that the church would be demolished on Sept. 14th (five days ago). All the site plans read "preliminary". They actually received at least two letters to save the church. But even 10 letters would do little to combat the 40 urban renewalists in favor.

Don't most or all site plans say "preliminary" until the project is approved?

[Mark Miller]

It was only announced officially that the church would be demolished on Sept. 14th (five days ago). All the site plans read "preliminary". They actually received at least two letters to save the church. But even 10 letters would do little to combat the 40 urban renewalists in favor.

The site plans, the architecture and the narrative associated with the PRD was formally submitted to the city of Grand Rapids on approximately June 27. Due to a quota on the number of applications that the PC reviews, the applicant had to wait until the August meeting, in lieu of the July meeting. At the time of the August meeting the applicant requested that the project be pulled, because they were working with traffic safety on ironing out details and wanted all their i's dotted.

At no time was the church ever shown as being saved in any of the public documents. There was no ambiguity.

This project was within the public realm in late June. The developer even had public meetings in the neigborhood between late June and early September. It was all there and the site plan for the most part never changed from the June 27 submittal. The church was always on the slate to be removed, as evidenced by the plans which are on this thread, first appearing on August 21. Certainly that is enough time to mobilize a resistance. I think about 4 people actually spoke in support of this last week (while it appeared that many more were there), while not a single person spoke against it. If 10 people would have expressed concern over this, the commission may have, at a minimum, tabled it.

My point of all this is not to talk specifically about this project, but rather to encourage people to get involved in this process. If you feel passionately about something, it is not enough to spout about it here (although this is certainly a very meaningful forum) - you need to get your voice out there in the public record. I can assure you that it does make a difference to the decisison makers, particularly at the local government level. Will you always get what you want? no. But you may influence a decision once in a while.

Not doing anything is akin to not voting and then complaining about the elected officials. This apathy is a systematic problem with the citizenry of the country in general. The very democracy depends on informed and active citizens at every single level.

[civitas]

Why didn't anyone know about this before the public hearing!?

Was the commission affected by the number of people who were for the project, versus the number who were against it. Almost certainly.

When is the rezoning scheduled to go before the City Commission?

Has the City Commissioned decided if they will hold a public hearing or not?

[torgo]

When is the rezoning scheduled to go before the City Commission?

Has the City Commissioned decided if they will hold a public hearing or not?

I think a publc hearing is required for a rezoning petition, isn't it?

[civitas]

I think a publc hearing is required for a rezoning petition, isn't it?

Public hearings are required at the Planning Commission but are optional at the City Commission. The City Commission, for example, opted not to have a public hearing on the Knapp and the East Beltline life-style center (future trailer park) that they recently denied.

[torgo]

Of course, even with no formal hearing, you can still go the city commission meeting where they consider the rezoning and voice your opinion.

[joeDowntown]

I actually did write to the planning commission speaking out against the church demolition. And I'm sure I was not the 1 vote they counted against. So I guess that would make me ask, where did my complaint go? I got a form letter saying the planning commission was "very interested" in public comments, but alas, I don't think they listened.

Joe

The planning commission meeting was a public meeting for this project, anyone could have attended and spoke for or against the project. Only people who were for the project spoke - there were no dissenters from the public. Why?

There was also the option of sending a letter to the commission to voice any concerns. There was one negative letter and about 40 positive letters. Why?

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has."

- M. Mead

[civitas]

Based on the existing and proposed site plans in the Planning Commission packet, it still appears that the plan could support 45 townhouses while saving the church and apartment building.

There are 46 2-stall garages. The garbage truck needs to make the alley loop.

If the church and apartment buildings yield another 8 units there would be a total of 53 units.

What's with the one-way streets? I hadn't noticed them before.

[Mark Miller]

Based on the existing and proposed site plans in the Planning Commission packet, it still appears that the plan could support 45 townhouses while saving the church and apartment building.

There are 48 2-stall garages. The garbage truck needs to make the alley loop.

If the church and apartment buildings yield another 8 units there would be a total of 53 units.

What's with the one-way streets? I hadn't noticed them before.

While a garbage truck MAY be able to manuever around the alleys, the city's fire apparatus will not. On the plan above, units 36 through 39 will need to have fire truck access via the alley and the truck will not make it around all of this, so either garages and/or residences will be lost. Keep in mind that the truck can not go into the alley and then back out, it must make the loop. The argument could be used that these four units might be serviced with a hose going up throught the courtyard from second street, but most likely that is too far to run.

The garbage service is one thing that can usually be surmounted, but the fire truck access is a lot different. It needs to be proven that the city's largest fire apparatus can manuever through here, using AutoTurn software. Whether you agree with that or not is a whole different issue, but that is the way it is.

As more of these type of projects get built, this stance may soften, but at this time the comfort level is not there. Keep in mind that I am not bashing the FD, they are well intentioned and have only the public's safety in mind. But many of the design decisions that happen are influenced by traffic engineers and public safety officials.

There was a point in time, where the plan was jeopardized by having a clear vision triangle at the corners, which could have effectively removed a building from the corner or substantially changed the architecture in a negative way. This issue most likely was resolved at planning commission, but proves that traffic safety and public welfare statutes have a huge impact on our built environment both as infill and as greenfield development.

Also keep in mind, that as part of the PRD approval, the submitted plan is now the plan that is required to be built and that any changes require a re-submittal to the planning commission.

[twoshort]

Also keep in mind, that as part of the PRD approval, the submitted plan is now the plan that is required to be built and that any changes require a re-submittal to the planning commission.

So if they are required to remove buildings 36-39 or garages 36-39 or both they must then re-submit to the planning commission?

[GRDadof3]

So if they are required to remove buildings 36-39 or garages 36-39 or both they must then re-submit to the planning commission?

Those numbers 36 - 39 in that configuration are just what appear on civitas' site plan. That's not the developers' site plan.

[civitas]

While a garbage truck MAY be able to manuever around the alleys, the city's fire apparatus will not. On the plan above, units 36 through 39 will need to have fire truck access via the alley and the truck will not make it around all of this, so either garages and/or residences will be lost. Keep in mind that the truck can not go into the alley and then back out, it must make the loop. The argument could be used that these four units might be serviced with a hose going up throught the courtyard from second street, but most likely that is too far to run.

The garbage service is one thing that can usually be surmounted, but the fire truck access is a lot different. It needs to be proven that the city's largest fire apparatus can manuever through here, using AutoTurn software. Whether you agree with that or not is a whole different issue, but that is the way it is.

As more of these type of projects get built, this stance may soften, but at this time the comfort level is not there. Keep in mind that I am not bashing the FD, they are well intentioned and have only the public's safety in mind. But many of the design decisions that happen are influenced by traffic engineers and public safety officials.

There was a point in time, where the plan was jeopardized by having a clear vision triangle at the corners, which could have effectively removed a building from the corner or substantially changed the architecture in a negative way. This issue most likely was resolved at planning commission, but proves that traffic safety and public welfare statutes have a huge impact on our built environment both as infill and as greenfield development.

Also keep in mind, that as part of the PRD approval, the submitted plan is now the plan that is required to be built and that any changes require a re-submittal to the planning commission.

Make the E/W sidewalk throught the middle of the block a fire lane.

Has the City Commission approved the rezoning? If not, the plan could be amended by them without a trip back to the planning commission.

[PBJ]

Make the E/W sidewalk throught the middle of the block a fire lane.

I think this is how a lot of the Student Housing at GVSU Allendale is setup. They have nice, un-obstructed, sidewalks and such, but they're wide enough for a fire truck to get through if needed.

[twoshort]

Those numbers 36 - 39 in that configuration are just what appear on civitas' site plan. That's not the developers' site plan.

This isn't the developers plan?

[GRDadof3]

This isn't the developers plan?

No. It still includes the church and apartment building, so ...no.

[twoshort]

No. It still includes the church and apartment building, so ...no.

Where did it come from then? Looks like someone put a lot of time into it.