AGENDA. EAST GRAND RAPIDS PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, :30 PM Community Center Commission Chambers

AGENDA EAST GRAND RAPIDS PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 2018-5:30 PM Community Center Commission Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes: August 14, 2018 3. 2128 Wealthy Street-Special Land Use request 2 nd floor residential dwelling in C-1 zoning district (Public hearing and consideration to recommend or not recommend to City Commission) 4. Front yard setbacks for front porches (Discussion) 5. Report of the City Commission 6. Public Comment 7. Next Regular PC Meeting: January 8, 2019 8. Adjournment

PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EAST GRAND RAPIDS August 14, 2018 East Grand Rapids Community Center Commission Chambers Present: Chairman John Barbour, Commissioners John Arendshorst, Kevin Brant, Jeff Dills, Tom Getz, Mary Mapes, Michael Naltner and Jeff Olsen Absent: Commissioner Brian Miller Also Present: Assistant City Manager Doug LaFave, City Zoning Administrator Alek Mizikar, City Planner Paul LeBlanc of PLB Planning Group, City Attorney John Huff and Recording Secretary Lynda Taylor 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Barbour called the meeting to order at 5:29 PM. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 10, 2018 A motion was made by Commissioner Olsen and supported by Commissioner Mapes to approved the minutes amended changing a reference to the east side of Hall Street to the south side. Yeas: Commissioners Arendshorst, Barbour, Brant, Dills, Getz, Mapes, Naltner, Olsen - 8 Nays: -0-3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING APPLICATION REQUEST OF MARIEL DI MUSTO- POORTENGA FOR HER PROPERTY AT 2755 HALL STREET TO HAVE HER ENTIRE PROPERTY REZONED TO R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. City Planner Paul LeBlanc reviewed the rezoning request and explained the criteria for review from Section 5.108B of the zoning ordinance. The three considerations are listed below. Is it consistent with the Master Plan and consistent with recent development trends? o If rezoned as proposed, the property will stay consistent with the City's Master Plan because it will remain single family residential. Rezoning to R2 would open a potential to create a second lot. A split would conform to the requirements of the R2 district, but it would result in two much smaller lots surrounded by lots of nearly a half -acre or larger. The potential uses allowed in the proposed zoning district shall also be compatible with surrounding uses. o Uses are the same for the most part single family residential. o There is a significant difference in terms of density on the north and south side of Hall Street. Amending the zoning would create the ability to divide the property, resulting in two lots whose density is not consistent with that of all other lots abutting the subject site and for some distance to the west. Is the property capable of accommodating the uses that are allowed? o It is. There is a single family home there. The addition of one more home would not tax the City's ability to provide services. From a traffic standpoint, the national standard is that a single family home generates 10 trips per day, so the addition of one more home would add potential of 10 more vehicles. There is no reason that would strain the capability of Hall Street to handle traffic.

Mr. LeBlanc added that the ordinance also talks about consideration of other factors deemed appropriate by the commission. Whether the existing zoning allows a reasonable use of the property. o There is a home there now; existing zoning allows a reasonable use. There is nothing in zoning or planning that says everyone is entitled to the maximum financial gain from the use of their property. It is only a reasonable use of the property. There is reasonable use there. Has there been a change in circumstances that warrant reconsideration? o There have been no new developments or major changes to the zoning in the area. Those criteria would not be satisfied. Mr. LeBlanc stated that based on the facts presented, he recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Commission denial of the rezoning request. In addition to the factors above, it was noted that the subject lot is not the only one on Hall Street with two zoning districts. It would be possible to rezone five lots from R2 to R1 to eliminate current zoning irregularities without creating nonconformities. Commissioner Dills asked if rezoning the five lots would be consistent with what was done off Argentina where 23 lots were rezoned. Mr. LeBlanc replied that it would. Rick Pulaski of Nederveld, Inc. the planner and engineer for Mariel Poortenga. Mr. Pulaski stated that Ms. Poortenga had purchased the property fairly recently and gave some background regarding the property and the rezoning request. R2 is the dominant zoning along Hall street The website zoning map shows the property zoned as R2. He said this map is used when people purchase property and or to study what can be done to a property. This map was used to create some drawings. The R2 district is consistent from the westerly limits of the City almost to Lake Drive. At Lake Drive a couple parcels touch Hall Street, but access is made from Lake Drive. Commissioner Olsen asked if a disclaimer was on the map regarding accuracy. Chairman Barbour responded that there was one. Mr. Pulaski added that all municipal maps have a disclaimer on them but the average person would rely on the information as represented on the map. Mr. Pulaski gave more information about the property The property is in a plat called Eastwood Estates which was recorded in 1940. The rezoning would make the property consistent with all the R2 lots and all the lots that have driveways on Hall Street. If they got creative and finagled some things, they could get two lots fairly easily. The house would have to be demolished, but it is something that could be done. Another potential to finagle the lot lines so that the majority of the property was in the R2 zone. He presented a drawing showing the lot line configuration. Ms. Poortenga talked to the majority of her neighbors and most were okay with the rezoning, however a couple were opposed to it. Mr. Pulaski concluded his presentation with the following statements for rezoning to R2: The fact that the zoning map of record that normal people look at showed the property as R2 The lot has been in existence for a long time The lot being zoned R1 and R2 is not something Ms. Poortenga created They could make the lot R2 by robbing and finagling enough property They could demolish the home and create two lots Because of the above facts, they think it is a reasonable request and the lot should be zoned to R2.

Chairman Barbour asked when the property was purchased by Ms. Poortenga. Commissioner Mapes responded that it had been purchased on November 20, 2015. Commissioner Getz asked if split, would both properties be zoned R2. Mr. Pulaski responded that they would. Brian Gill 2760 Lake Drive, SE: Opposed (Correspondence was also received.) Backyard neighbors of the property. Grateful to hear arguments in support of rezoning and splitting the property, but the images projected reinforced his concerns. Hearing the words rob and finagle says there is not an easy solution in terms of delivering a result that is aesthetically please for the neighborhood and in the best interest of East Grand rapids. The property as-is is very consistent with the triangle between Lake Drive and Hall Street and with the houses on the north side of the street. A split would interrupt the visual integrity and aesthetic beauty of the area. Dividing the property would make the lot very different from all the other lots around it including those on the north side of Hall. The slope on the east side of the property would have to be regraded to build a house. Utilities in front would have to be relocated If the request was a good idea, words like rob, finagle, regrade and relocated utilities would not have to be used. The property is very good looking and is a beautifully renovated mid-century modern home. Asked that the Planning Commissioners err on the side of caution when making their decision. Additional Correspondence received: Adam and Christine Panter 2820 Lake Drive: Opposed Chairman Barbour closed the public hearing. 4. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION Assistant City Manager Doug LaFave offered that any Regis maps show a disclaimer. He showed that the City Zoning Map on the City's website had been corrected. Mr. La Fave also presented the development pattern of the original platted lots and showed how people had purchased portions of lots to make larger lots on Hall Street and Lake Drive to be more of an R1 development pattern. A motion was made by Commissioner Dills and supported by Commissioner Brant to approve rezoning the entire parcel at 2755 Hall Street, S. E. to R2 Single Family Residential. Commissioner Dills asked about the procedure to move platted lot lines or creating a new lot line different from a plat. City Attorney Huff said that any land division needs to be approved by the City Commission, even if it is to approve two conforming lots. Mr. Huff added that in regard to the finagling issue, that it had been tried a number of times and has never been successfully approved. The suggestion that the house could be removed and there would be enough room for two lots is a valid statement, but anything short of that would be difficult because you would have to look at it and come up with some kind of approval. The problem is the house is off centered toward the east and doesn't leave sufficient space between the east property line and where the house is with the setbacks. Commissioner Comments are listed below. Commissioner Arendshorst Since the majority of the property is in R2, the fact that is has been underbuilt is a happy accident for the neighbors.

They could demolish the house and build a house on the NE corner of the property which would cause much concern for the neighbors as splitting the lot, but that would be permitted. Not persuaded that splitting the lot and building an additional home would severely change the character of the neighborhood. Hall Street is entirely zoned R2 except for the two lots on the end that access Lake Drive. Lots on the north side of Hall Street are a little underbuilt, but doesn't see that as a reason why this lot needs to stay R1simply because the other neighbors have more space than necessary. This mess is caused by an accident of historical lot splits, acquisitions and changing ownerships. Would like to see this cleaned up so all lots are one zone and best was would be to make the lot entirely R2, which is a reason to approve rezoning. Commissioner Arendshorst left the meeting at 6:12 PM. Commissioner Getz The request is to rezone the lot to R2 and has nothing to do with the lot split. That would be a separate request. If this was rezoned to R2 and the Planning Commission recommended it, it would still have to go to the City Commission to be actually rezoned R2 and then there would have to be a separate request to split the lots. If there is a lot split request and both lots would be conforming, those almost always go through. City Attorney Huff responded that this was a correct statement. Commissioner Brant R2 is the appropriate zoning for the street. An additional house would affect neighbors in a negative way Commissioner Olsen Generally in favor of lot splits because a larger tax base is good for schools. Density keeps getting more and the City is losing open space at a rapid pace. Supports lot splits and recognizes that houses need to be refreshed, but there is open space and a utility box on this lot and we don't know what the plan would be for that or the plan for grading. Struggling with the zoning map issue. Title work is done at closing and the issue has been in front of the Planning Commission before and denied. Someone is astute enough to come in and get their lot split presumably has enough awareness upon acquisition. The zoning map is not the premise he would have used to articulate the presentation. Would be more in favor if someone wanted to come back with a plan showing how it would workout with AT&T, the grading and a storm water plan. Need to make a decision with awareness of what is going to happen in the future. Commissioner Dills Was on the Commission the last time this was requested. The slope of the property is a big concern if the lower lot is developed and a house goes in there because each property owner's responsibility is to control the water off their property. It would be a tough spot for someone to develop down below. Wants to maintain consistency to the west on the north side of Hall Street. Doesn't see rezoning a single property is in the best interest of our City. It wasn't done off of Argentina and doesn't think it should be done here. If looking at a bigger picture and more properties were viewed, it would be a wiser decision. For a single piece of property, not voting in favor. Chairman Barbour Was involved in the previous rezoning decision on this lot. The new piece of information is that there may be a different technique for the owner to accomplish rezoning which would involve demolishing the existing home. Will not be voting in favor of recommending rezoning. Chairman Barbour requested a roll call vote be taken. Olsen No, Naltner Yes, Brant Yes, Dills No, Getz No, Mapes No, Barbour No

Yeas: 2 Nays: 5 Chairman Barbour added that the rezoning request would be going to the City Commission and thanked the applicant and representative for their input and participation. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comment was received. 6. REPORT OF THE CITY COMMISSION Assistant City Manager Doug LaFave reported the following: Taste of East will be held on Thursday, August 17 from 5:30 PM 8:30 PM Criterion Bike Race will be held this weekend from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Breton Road construction is complete except for punch list items. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:26 PM. 8. NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING September 11, 2018 Respectfully submitted, Lynda Taylor Recording Secretary

CITY OF EAST GRAND RAPIDS 750 LAKESIDE DRIVE SE EAST GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49506 (616) 949-2110 www.eastgr.org ALEKSANDER P. MIZIKAR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Alek Mizikar, Zoning Administrator DATE: November 29, 2018 RE: Special Land Use Request 2 nd Floor Residential Dwelling in C-1 Zoning District 2128 Wealthy Street SE (PPN: 41-14-33-252-001) Action Requested: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the Special Land Use request of An Ly for the property at 2128 Wealthy Street SE in order to allow a residential dwelling on the 2 nd floor above a commercial use. It is also requested that the Planning Commission vote to either recommend or not recommend the approval of this request to the City Commission. Background: Residential dwelling units on the 2 nd floor of a commercial building in the C-1 zoning district require a special land use permit per Section 5.36 (Schedule of Uses) of the city s zoning ordinance. The applicant is requesting to turn the space into one residential dwelling unit. This would be an interior remodel, and would not require any new exterior construction. A floor plan of the apartment is attached with this memo. The space seeking a special land use is currently not being used for anything. The space used to contain an apartment, but it has been many years since the space has been used for a residential dwelling. Due to this lack of continuation in residential usage, a special land use permit is now required. Section 5.36 also lists Section 5.74(B) as an additional requirement for 2 nd floor residential dwellings. Section 5.74(B) is attached for your reference. As of the date of this writing, the applicant has not submitted a parking agreement to meet the requirements of Section 5.74(B). For your reference, there are five (5) other 2 nd floor residential dwellings in the C-1 zoning district. They are as follows: 2184 Wealthy (Above Crazy Charlie s) 3 parking spots on property (variance granted, 6 needed) 2162 Wealthy (Above Olive s Restaurant) no parking on property 2143 Wealthy (Above State Farm and Rosa s Closet) shared parking agreement amongst adjacent businesses with approximately 20 parking spaces all together. 725 Bagley (Above Snapdragon Boutique) shared parking in rear with business next door, 9 parking spots located on 725 Bagley, with approximately 13 parking spots total 662 Croswell (PUD Townhouses and work/live building) garage parking on ground level

Section 5.94 of the zoning ordinance outlines seven (7) review standards that need to be met. These standards are as follows (the applicant has also addressed these standards in their narrative): A. The proposed use will comply with the general objectives and land use policies of the City of East Grand Rapids Master Plan. Staff Comments: This proposed use complies with the Master Plan s Gaslight Village Urban Design by promoting mixed-use development in Gaslight Village: Mixed use, including ground floor office spaces with second floor residential may be considered for future change for boundary parcels between commercial and MFR to create transitional zoning use. (p. 31) With all of Lovett Street being listed as MFR in the city s future land use map, this makes the proposed property in the ideal spot to be a buffer property between possible future MFR and the current Commercial district. B. The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so it is appropriate and harmonious with the intended character and appearance of the surrounding area; will be compatible with the intent of the zone district; and will not change the essential character of the surrounding area. Staff Comments: This will only be an interior remodel of an existing space, so the character of the building will not change. As mentioned before, this space was once an apartment in the past, so the returning to this past use will be compatible with the surrounding area. C. The establishment, maintenance, location, or operation of the use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in that zone district. Staff Comments: The use of a residential dwelling on the second floor will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. D. The establishment, maintenance, location, or operation of the proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the health, safety, or general welfare of any persons; will not be injurious to or conflict with the use or enjoyment of neighboring property for the purposes permitted; and will not result in any significant adverse impact on the natural environment. Staff Comments: This proposed use will not endanger any nearby person or property. E. The proposed use will not involve activities, processes, materials, and equipment or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Staff Comments: This proposed use will be no different than other existing second floor residential units in the area. F. Adequate utilities, highways, streets, access, drainage structures, police and fire protection, refuse disposal, schools, and other necessary services or facilities have been or will be provided to serve the proposed use; the proposed use will not place undue demands on public services or facilities that result in exceeding their capacity. Staff Comments: This proposed use will not place undue demands on public services or facilities.

G. The proposed use will, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the zone district in which it is located, specific requirements of Article 8, all conditions of approval, and all other applicable provisions of law, ordinance, or statute. Staff Comments: As mentioned above, the applicant has yet to provide a parking agreement to satisfy the requirement of Section 5.74(B) in Article 8. Besides the parking requirement, this request meets all other applicable provision of law, ordinance, or statute. The Planning Commission may consider conditional approval subject to the applicant securing a parking spot. Brain Donovan, City Manager

2128 Wealthy Street Front View

2128 Wealthy Street Diagonal View

2128 Wealthy Street Side View

2128 Wealthy Street 300 ft radius from dwelling front door

Article 11 Section 5.91 SPECIAL LAND USES Intent Special uses are generally consistent with the purpose of the zoning district in which they are permitted but, due to unique operational characteristics, may not be desirable or compatible in all locations. Factors such as traffic, hours of operation, noise, odor or similar potential effects require that the special use be evaluated relative to its appropriateness on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, special uses may be permitted within a zoning district, with city approval, following a review of the use and its potential impact on its surroundings. This article establishes the review procedures for special uses and the general standards that must be met for all special uses. Some specific uses are also subject to additional standards and requirements to mitigate their potential negative impacts. Section 5.92 Scope A special use shall be permitted only when the City Commission has approved the proposed use and the associated site plan, as provided by this article and other applicable provisions of this ordinance. Except as otherwise expressly provided by this ordinance, the general procedures, standards, and requirements in this article shall apply to all special uses and shall be in addition to any other requirements applicable to particular special uses. In those cases where the specific requirements of this article are more restrictive than other provisions of this ordinance, the special use requirements shall apply. Section 5.93 Procedures A. Application. A person owning or having an interest in a property may apply for a special use as provided in this ordinance. B. Filing. An application shall be filed with the Director of Public Works at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting at which it is first to be considered. Further consideration and scheduling before the Planning Commission shall not occur unless the application is found to be complete. C. Fees. A non-refundable fee shall be paid when an application is filed. The application shall not be considered until all fees, established by resolution of the City Commission, have been paid in full. D. Application requirements. A completed application, signed by the property owner, must be accompanied by the following: 1. Copies of a site plan that meet the standards and requirements of Article 10. 2. A statement indicating that the proposed use complies with the general standards for approval in Section 5.94, any specific requirements for the use and with all other applicable ordinance requirements.

3. Any additional information deemed necessary to determine the impact of the proposed special land use on adjacent properties, public infrastructure, and the community as a whole. Information may include, but is not limited to traffic impact analyses, environmental impact assessments, market studies (to determine market demand and feasibility), fiscal impact analyses or reports and/or testimony by officials representing state, county or local departments of public safety (police and fire), health, highways or streets and/or environment. Any additional studies deemed necessary may be completed by an individual or firm of the city s choosing, but at the applicant s expense. E. Scheduling for special use and site plan review. The Director of Public Works will review the application and if determined to be complete, shall schedule the special use request before the Planning Commission. F. Review and Action. 1. The Director of Public Works or designee shall review the application and, if determined to be complete, shall schedule a public hearing to consider the special land use. The public hearing shall be noticed as required by the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. 2. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing and also review the site plan submitted with the application. 3. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall consider the comments heard in relation to the special use standards of Section 5.94 and the standards of Section 5.87 for site plan approval and shall recommend to the City Commission approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the special use application. 4. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Commission for final action. Prior to making its decision, the City Commission shall conduct a public hearing, notice of which shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Act. Following the hearing, the City Commission shall consider the application, public comment, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the accompanying site plan and the standards of Section 5.94 and shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the special use request. 5. Upon approval or approval with conditions of both the special use request and the site plan, the Director of Public Works shall issue a special use permit, which shall be subject to the conditions of approval, if any, and all other applicable requirements for the proposed use and the zone district.

Section 5.94 Review Standards A special use application and shall be approved only when it meets all of the standards of this section and any specific standards that apply to the use as listed in Article 8. A. The proposed use will comply with the general objectives and land use policies of the City of East Grand Rapids Master Plan. B. The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so it is appropriate and harmonious with the intended character and appearance of the surrounding area; will be compatible with the intent of the zone district; and will not change the essential character of the surrounding area. C. The establishment, maintenance, location, or operation of the use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in that zone district. D. The establishment, maintenance, location, or operation of the proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the health, safety, or general welfare of any persons; will not be injurious to or conflict with the use or enjoyment of neighboring property for the purposes permitted; and will not result in any significant adverse impact on the natural environment. E. The proposed use will not involve activities, processes, materials, and equipment or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. F. Adequate utilities, highways, streets, access, drainage structures, police and fire protection, refuse disposal, schools, and other necessary services or facilities have been or will be provided to serve the proposed use; the proposed use will not place undue demands on public services or facilities that result in exceeding their capacity. G. The proposed use will, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the zone district in which it is located, specific requirements of Article 8, all conditions of approval, and all other applicable provisions of law, ordinance, or statute. Section 5.95 Validity of Permit The special use or activity must commence within one year of approval or it shall expire. The City Commission may approve one extension for up to one additional year, if a request is made by the applicant in writing prior to the initial expiration. Section 5.96 Amendments, Expansions and Change in Use The site plan approved in conjunction with the special land use shall become part of the approval record. Any improvements relative to the authorized use shall be consistent with the approved site plan, unless a change is approved, in accordance with Section 5.90. Any change in use shall

be subject to the applicable requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located and site plan review in accordance with Article 10. Section 5.97 Revocation of an Approved Special Land Use The City Commission shall have the authority to revoke a special use permit when the applicant has failed to comply with any of the applicable requirements of this article, other applicable sections of this ordinance, or the conditions of approval. The City Commission may revoke a previous approval if it finds that a violation exists and has not been remedied. The special use permit may be suspended or revoked according to the following procedures: A. Conditions that may result in a suspension or revocation include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The special use was not constructed in conformance with the approved plans, or the property is not being used in conformance with the approved special use, or 2. Compliance with the special use permit and any conditions have not been consistently demonstrated, and administrative attempts to secure compliance have been unsuccessful; or 3. The special use permit has been issued erroneously based on incorrect or misleading information supplied by the applicant and/or his/her agents; or 4. The operation of the use granted by the special use permit has created a risk or danger to the public health, safety or welfare; or 5. The special use violates any provision of this ordinance or other city, county, state or federal regulations. B. If the Director of Public Works determines that a special use permit should be suspended or revoked he/she shall prepare a report specifying the factual details of the violation and the reasons to suspend or revoke the permit. C. The Director of Public Works shall file the report with the City Commission and provide a copy to the owner, authorized agent or employee by certified mail, return receipt requested. D. Within 30 days of filing the report with the City Commission, a hearing date will be set for the City Commission to consider the alleged violation(s) to determine if the special use permit should be suspended or revoked. The owner or authorized agent shall be notified personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, not less than 15 days before the scheduled hearing. E. The owner shall have an opportunity to respond to any allegations made by: questioning adverse witnesses; presenting witnesses on his/her behalf; and presenting arguments, personally or through legal counsel in his/her own behalf.

F. The City Commission shall prepare a written report of its findings within 30 days of completing all hearings and provide them to the owner either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. If the City Commission concludes that the special use permit must be suspended or revoked, the owner shall immediately cease to conduct, operate or carry on the business or use for which the special use permit was granted. Section 5.98 Appeals The City Commission s decision regarding approval or denial of a special use application may not be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, prior to consideration of a special use, a variance to a dimensional requirement related to the building or property in question may be filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Section 5.99 Restrictions on Resubmittal of a Special Land Use Request A special use application that has been denied may not be re-submitted for one year from the date of denial, except when new evidence or information found sufficient by the Director of Public Works justifies an earlier re-application.

Section 5.36 Schedule of Uses Uses permitted in the nonresidential districts are listed in Table 5.36. Additional requirements related to a specific use, if any, are referenced in the Specific Requirements column. Any use not specifically listed shall be prohibited, unless the use is determined to be a similar use according to Section 5.75(A). Table 5.36 Schedule of Uses: Commercial District P = Permitted use by right S = Special Land Use C-1 Additional Requirements Accessory Accessory uses clearly ancillary to the principal use (accessory structures are not permitted) P Accessory outdoor customer service activities such as delivery of products to customers vehicles, grocery cart use, escorting of customers P Section 5.70(C) and home delivery Accessory outdoor dining P Section 5.70(C) Accessory outdoor sales and display (including P Section 5.70(C) temporary sales) Accessory outdoor storage S Section 5.70(C) Dining and Entertainment Microbrewery or brew pub S Section 5.71(A) Restaurants, including standard service and carry-out, excluding drive-through service and entertainment/floor shows Soda fountain, ice cream shop or candy store Recreation/Cultural Art gallery/studio Parks and recreational facilities, publicly owned Public facilities (government buildings, public museums, public galleries, public libraries, etc.) Residential Residential dwellings above the ground floor of a commercial building Retail Retail sales other than food/groceries, up to 10,000 sq. ft. gross floor area Retail food/grocery, up to 50,000 sq. ft. gross floor area, which may also include food items prepared on site for sale on the premises Services Automatic teller machines, walk-up only, accessory to or separate from a bank or similar financial institution Banks and similar financial institutions, without drive-through facilities Barber or beauty salon Business service establishments, including printing/copy centers, postal centers, travel agents, graphics services P P P P S S P P P P P P Section 5.74(B)

Table 5.36 Schedule of Uses: Commercial District P = Permitted use by right S = Special Land Use C-1 Additional Requirements Dance or music studio P Drive-through facilities for banks and pharmacies, but not including any other uses S Dry cleaner/laundry (including pick-up stations and self-service laundries) P Health clubs and fitness centers, not including physical therapy clinics staffed by medical P professionals Personal service establishments, including small electronics/ appliance repair, shoe repair, dressmakers/tailors, tanning salons, decorating P and upholstery shops Photographer P Other Uses Essential services P Section 5.59 Radio and television broadcasting stations S Similar uses P/S Section 5.75(A) Wireless telecommunications systems S Section 5.75(D) Offices On ground Above ground floor floor Medical/dental offices and clinics of physicians, dentists, psychologists, chiropractors, optometrists, physical therapists and similar or allied professions (not including veterinary establishments) Non-profit professional, civic, social, fraternal, political and religious organizations Professional office services such as: insurance, real estate, legal, sales and similar or allied professions Specific Requirements (special land uses only) S P Section 5.72(A) S P Section 5.72(A) S P Section 5.72(A) Serviced offices S Section 5.72(B)

Section 5.74 Residential Uses B. Residential Dwellings Above the Ground Floor in a Commercial Building. 1. Dwelling units shall not be located on the street level. 2. Nonresidential uses, including storage, shall not be located on the same floor as a dwelling unit. 3. One on-site parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit; provided, the required parking may be permitted to be located off-site if the following requirements are met: a. The required parking spaces are located off-street within 300 feet of the entrance to the dwelling unit; b. The parking area meets all applicable requirements of this ordinance for off-street parking; c. The owner provides written assurance that the spaces will be permanently available; and d. A maintenance agreement is provided to ensure the continued upkeep of the parking area.

CITY OF EAST GRAND RAPIDS 750 LAKESIDE DRIVE SE EAST GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49506 (616) 949-2110 www.eastgr.org ALEKSANDER P. MIZIKAR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Alek Mizikar, Zoning Administrator DATE: December 3, 2018 RE: Discussion on Front Yard Setback Requirements Action Requested: That the Planning Commission conduct a discussion on front yard setback requirements for covered unenclosed front porches within residential zoning districts. Background: At the November 19, 2018, City Commission meeting, the City Commission, acting as the Zoning Board of Appeals, approved a zoning variance to allow a covered front porch to exceed past the established average front yard setback of 38.8 by 4.6. After approval of the variance, the Mayor requested that the Planning Commission conduct a review of the city s front yard setback requirements for covered front porches in residential zoning districts. This review was requested because the Zoning Board of Appeals has approved a large percentage of requests within the past few years. The Planning Commission s recommendation should then be forwarded on to the City Commission for consideration and approval. I have attached Section 5.28 and 5.61 for your review. Section 5.28 of the zoning ordinance lists setback requirements in residential districts, and section 5.61 lists out allowable encroachments into required setbacks. Below is a list of front yard setback variance requests for covered front porches within the past couple years: Year Address Type of addition Required Requested Difference Decision 2018 947 Lakeside Covered front porch 38.8 34.2 4.6 Approved 2017 1132 Eastwood Covered front porch 33.5 29 4.5 Approved 2016 2073 Hall Covered front porch 28.5 26.7 1.8 Approved 2016 1222 Eastlawn Covered front porch 25 16.8 8.2 Approved 2016 2360 Lake Covered front porch 58.4 38.5 19.9 Approved 2016 509 Manhattan Covered front porch 29 24.2 4.8 Approved To get a better idea of what surrounding communities do in regards to covered front porches, I reached out to a group of planners and zoning administrators in nearby communities. Below is some of the feedback that I received: City of Kentwood o Unenclosed covered front porches are allowed to encroach 10 feet into the required front and rear yard setbacks. Holland Charter Township o Covered porches follow principle structure setbacks. Grattan Township o Covered porches follow principle structure setbacks.

Grand Haven Charter Township o Grand Haven Township currently allows a 3 overhang into the required front yard; however, they are also running into similar situations where homeowners want a nice covered front porch. They are in the process of rewriting their zoning ordinance, and one of the provisions they are adding is an allowance to encroach 30% into the required front yard setback. City of Grand Haven o The City of Grand Haven allows a 5 foot x 5 foot covered porch into the required front yard. (Uncovered porches, decks, and stoops may project 50% into the required front yard). Georgetown Township o Georgetown s ordinance allows a covered (unenclosed) porch to extend up to 12 feet into a required front or rear yard setback (not side). Plainfield Charter Township o Covered porches and decks are required to meet the setback for the principle structure. Uncovered porches and decks are allowed to encroach into a front or rear yard a maximum of 10 feet. Village of Middleville o Steps can be covered but not enclosed, to extend up to 5 feet into the required yard setback with a max of 25 square feet coverage.

Section 5.61 Encroachments into Required Yard Setbacks The following elements and appurtenances may encroach into or over a required yard setback as provided in Table 5.61: Table 5.61 Encroachments into Required Yard Setbacks Type Accessory structures, residential, detached Accessible ramps, wheelchair lifts and similar structures Allowed Encroachment into a Setback Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard See Section 5.70 Least encroachment necessary to meet state or federal requirements, but no more than 8 ft.; must maintain a 3-foot side yard setback Air conditioning units, generators and 3 ft. 3 ft. other mechanical equipment 1 None No more than 5 ft. from the building Arbors, trellises and pergolas (attached to principal building) 5 ft. 3 ft. 10 ft. Awnings and canopies Balconies 5 ft. None 10 ft. Bay windows 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. Chimneys 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. Eaves and gutters 1 foot 1 foot 1 foot Fences and walls Flagpoles Light poles (not including groundmounted lights) Paved patios and similar at-grade structures (not including driveways and sidewalks), un-roofed and unenclosed 2 See Section 8.61 of the City Code of Ordinances Permitted up to 6 ft. from all lot lines 10 ft. Permitted up to 6 ft. from all lot lines Up to 3 ft. from a side lot line Up to 3 ft. from a rear lot line Porches, decks and stoops, uncovered and unenclosed 2 5 ft. 3 ft. 10 ft. Signs See City Code Chapter 83 Stairways (not including steps to main None 3 ft. 10 ft. floor entry) and below-grade stairwells Swing sets and similar play structures Up to 3 ft. from a Up to 3 ft. from a None (attached) side lot line rear lot line Window wells and egress windows, below grade 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. Footnotes: 1 See Section 5.68 for screening requirements. 2 Any covered or roofed porch, deck, patio, stoop or similar structure shall be considered part of the principal building and shall comply with the required setbacks for the principal building.

Section 5.28 Area, Height and Placement Requirements A. Dimensional Requirements. Building height, setbacks, lot coverage, and minimum lot area for development in the residential districts shall conform to the requirements of Tables 5.28-1 and 5.28-1a for the R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts, and Table 5.28-2 for the MFR District. The requirements in footnotes are an integral part of this chapter and shall apply in all instances. (Amended 10/2/15) Table 5.28-1 Dimensional Requirements: Single Family Residential Districts Requirement/District R-1 R-2 R-3 Minimum area (sq. ft.) 12,000 7,200 5,000 Distance from street line in which minimum area must be met (ft.) 1 120 100 100 Minimum lot width (ft.) 100 72 50 Front 30 25 25 Total 24 18 14 Minimum yard setback (ft.) 2 Side 3 Least side 10 7 7 Adjoining a street 24 20 12 Rear 4 25 25 25 Maximum Feet 35 35 35 building height 2 Stories 2½ 2½ 2½ 1 The minimum lot area shall be determined by measuring from the front street line the specified distance along the side lot lines from the intersection of each side lot line with the front street line, and connecting the points thus determined with a single straight line. The minimum lot area shall be met within the polygon thus created. 2 See additional requirements or exceptions in Sections 5.28(B), (C), (E), and 5.114(A). 3 The stated side yard setbacks shall apply only to the principal dwelling on single family lots. For all other permitted principal buildings, the side yard shall not be less than the stated requirement or 20 feet, whichever is greater. 4 A corner lot that adjoins in the rear a lot in a residential district may have no rear yard; see Sections 5.28(C) and 5.62. Table 5.28-1a Maximum Lot Coverage Lot Size (square feet) Maximum Building Coverage 1 Maximum Impervious Surface Maximum Not-to- Exceed Impervious Surface (square feet) < 5,000 SF 35 % 50 % 2,500 SF 5,000-7,199 SF 35 % 50 % 3,240 SF 7,200-11,999 SF 35 % 45 % 4,800 SF 12,000 SF 35 % 40 % 1 Includes principal and accessory buildings and structures, including covered walkways; but does not include unroofed structures such as porches, patios, or decks.

Table 5.28-2 Dimensional Requirements: MFR Multiple Family Residential District Requirement Single family Two family Multiple family Minimum area per unit (sq. ft.) 5,000 3,000 1 Minimum lot width (ft.) 50 80 n/a Front 25 25 30 Total 14 20 40 Minimum yard Side Least side 7 8 20 setback (ft.) Adjoining a street 12 12 30 Rear 25 25 25 Maximum building Feet 35 35 35 height Stories 2½ 2½ 2½ Maximum lot Buildings 2 45 50 coverage (percent) Pavement and buildings 2 60 75 1 Density for multiple family units shall not exceed 18 units per gross acre. 2 Lot coverage requirements for single family dwellings shall be as specified in Table 5.28-1a. B. Established Front Yard Setback (See Figure 1). In the R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts, if 25 percent or more of all of the parcels on one side of a street between two intersecting streets contain a principal structure, the minimum front yard setback shall be the average of the front yards established by the principal structures located on lots on the same side of the street within the same block that are within 200 feet in each direction from the subject property (not including corner lots where the front setback is on the intersecting street), provided: Figure 1: Established Front Setback, Single Family Districts 1. If this average results in a setback that is greater than the established front yard setbacks of the principal structures on both of the lots adjacent to the property in question, the

required setback shall be the average of the established setback of the adjacent lots. 2. For a double frontage (through) lot, the requirements of this subsection shall apply only to the established setbacks from the street upon which the lot is addressed. In the case of a row of three or more contiguous double frontage lots, these requirements shall apply only to the established setbacks from the street upon which the majority of the lots are addressed. 3. If less than 25 percent of the parcels on one side of a street between two intersecting streets contain a principal structure, the required front setback shall be as required for the zoning district." (Amended 2/27/15) C. Corner Lots. Where the rear yard of a corner lot in the R-1, R-2 or R-3 district adjoins any residential district, no part of the principal building within 25 feet of the common lot line shall be nearer the side street than the established front yard on the adjoining lot; however, any portion of the principal structure on the corner lot that lies beyond the established front yard on the adjoining lot may be erected to the minimum least side yard requirement of that zone district (See Figure 2). D. Through Lots. Figure 2 Corner Lot Setbacks 1. Primary Front Yard. The Director of Public Works shall designate the primary front street upon which the principal structure shall face and be addressed. The primary front yard shall abut the primary front street and the opposite street shall be the secondary front street. The primary front yard setback shall be determined through Section 5.28 B, Established Front Yard Setback. The designation of primary front street will consider the following:

a. Location and orientation of existing or proposed buildings on the through lot in relation to existing buildings on properties in the same general neighborhood, historic development patterns, and existing developed through lots. b. Location and impact of existing vegetation, water, or other natural features affecting the location of buildings or structures on the lot in question. 2. Secondary Front Yard. The secondary front yard setback shall be a line parallel to the secondary street and shall be established by a line that is the continuation of a required rear setback line of an adjacent interior lot addressed on the primary street. In the case of two differing rear setback lines on adjacent lots, the more restrictive shall apply. 3. Established Through Lot Development. In the case of three or more contiguous through lots recorded prior to the date of adoption of this ordinance, the secondary front setback shall be established by the minimum front setback requirements of the zoning district in which the lots are located. (Amended 2-27-15)