Why We Oppose the Seventh Street Development
Our Concerns
The 32 townhomes proposed for 2450 Seventh Street NW are the wrong kind of development for our neighborhood.
The Shawmut Hills neighborhood has been part of Grand Rapids for nearly 70 years. Minutes from downtown and with plenty of green space, it’s no surprise to many of us that it caught developers’ attention.
Our city’s housing needs are real, and every neighborhood has a part to play in the solution. But new development must be balanced with the needs and concerns of existing residents.
Preserving neighborhood character
The City of Grand Rapids classifies Shawmut Hills as a Low-Density, Mid-20th Century neighborhood. Stretching from Leonard Street to Lake Michigan Drive, and Oakleigh Road to Collindale Avenue, the neighborhood consists entirely of single-family homes.
Grand Rapids zoning laws require all new housing developments be “compatible with the valued characteristics of the existing built environment.” While the city is looking to amend its zoning laws to allow more intensive development, Planning Commission members must evaluate the proposed 7th Street development based on the laws we have today—not the laws they might wish to have in the future.
The development proposed for 2450 7th Street NW, 32 townhomes packed onto a 5-acre parcel, is not only unprecedented for the area; it is completely out of character with the existing neighborhood.
Residents should have a say in what their neighborhood looks like—and how it grows. Shawmut Hills residents overwhelmingly oppose the plan put forward by Adam Rogalski and his partners.
This alone should be reason enough for the Grand Rapids Planning Commission to send them back to the drawing board, to come up with a plan more compatible with the character of our neighborhood and acceptable to existing residents.
Balancing legitimate housing needs with optimal neighborhood density
Addressing the city’s housing needs and maintaining neighborhood character are not mutually exclusive. Grand Rapids officials seem to agree, at least on paper. The city’s master plan, Bridge to Our Future, calls for neighborhoods to evolve in ways that:
“Build on the local identity and aspiration of the place”
“Minimize differences in scale between existing and new development”
The city’s master plan also directs that higher-density housing projects be situated along transit corridors or other major roadways, in transition areas, or in mixed-use zones. This proposed development, however, would be located in the exact middle of a low-density neighborhood.
We want the City of Grand Rapids to follow its own rules when evaluating the proposed 7th Street development.
In this case, the “difference in scale” is massive: 32 townhouses on 4.95 acres. This is 2.5 to 3x greater than the current neighborhood density.
We don’t expect every new development to exactly match the density of the surrounding community, but the developers should not expect us to accept a plan this far out of sync with the rest of the neighborhood.
We want Adam Rogalski and his partners to put forward a plan more compatible with the existing density and character of our neighborhood—and start treating residents with the respect we deserve.
Traffic and pedestrian safety
Building 32 townhouses will add a projected 283 additional vehicle trips to our streets per day, according to the Trip Generation Analysis produced by Rowe Professional Services Company. The developer characterizes this impact as “minimal.” It is anything but.
Our neighborhood is home to two schools and an in-home daycare directly across from the proposed development. Yet our roads are already poorly equipped to handle traffic and ensure pedestrian safety.
None of the streets surrounding the proposed development have sidewalks, forcing pedestrians and school children to walk along the streets, with no protection from speeding traffic.
Residents have been raising traffic and pedestrian safety concerns to the city for years—to no avail. While the posted speed limit on all neighborhood streets is 25 mph, vehicles routinely travel through the area at much faster speeds, endangering pedestrians. During a single 3-1/2 hour patrol in April, police stopped nearly 20 vehicles for speeding on Oakleigh between 7th and Lake Michigan Drive—one every 12 minutes.
Grand Rapids Police Department Data showing nearly 20 stops in 3-1/2 hours on Oakleigh
Adam Rogalski’s proposed development will put pedestrians at even greater risk.
Other traffic concerns not addressed by Rogalski’s proposal include:
His design for this development includes only one entrance and exit, which could become a chokepoint during peak hours.
There are barely enough parking spaces for the anticipated number of cars. Many residents are likely to use their garages for storage rather than parking, given the lack of basements—in which case there will be more cars than available parking. Any street parking will make it almost impossible for emergency vehicles to get in and out of the development.
Key intersections, such as Lake Michigan Drive and Oakleigh, already experience backups during the day. Adding 283 vehicle trips will only compound this problem.
No development should be approved without adequate measures to minimize negative traffic impacts—including:
Sidewalks
Speed bumps
Other traffic calming measures
Drainage and flooding concerns
There’s a good reason the parcel at 2450 7th Street NW has gone undeveloped for nearly 70 years, despite being bought and sold multiple times. The site is confirmed to contain at least 4 natural wetlands within its boundaries. The vegetation, soil, and hydrology are consistent with wetland presence and groundwater. At least two streams run through the property, depositing water onto neighboring lots. And there is evidence of additional wetlands beyond those identified so far.
City law requires a 75-foot buffer between any confirmed wetland and new construction. Rogalski wants special permission to reduce this buffer to just 25 feet. Doing so would damage the natural environment and homes surrounding the lot.
7th Street development site plans, annotated to show evidence of groundwater and additional wetlands, as well as the impact of a 75-foot wetland buffer vs. the 25-foot proposed by the developer.
The soil in and around this lot is highly unstable. Homeowners to the west of the property have lost parts of their backyards to erosion. Those whose properties border the proposed development—and even those across the street from it—have spent years battling wet basements and saturated backyards.
And that’s before developers pour almost a thousand tons of concrete on this lot.
Adam Rogalski promises to make water mitigation a priority—namely, by building a storm water basin that, in his words, will be capable of handling a “once-in-a-century rain event.”
However, these plans do nothing to address groundwater issues already impacting homes. These issues will only be worsened by paving over most of the site’s green space and uprooting more than 200 trees, which are responsible for absorbing up to 17,000 gallons of water per day.
There is further reason to doubt the effectiveness of the developer’s rainwater mitigation plans. Former Kent County Drain Commissioner William Byl once acknowledged that a once-in-four-years rain event is enough to overwhelm the neighborhood’s drainage capabilities.
There is precedent for the city protecting and even establishing new green space to better manage water in our neighborhood. In 2012, 8 nearby houses were razed and the land converted to green space because of recurring flooding issues.
The developers and the city would be wise to learn from recent history—and work with nature instead of against it.
What this isn’t about
We’re not opposed to any development of the 7th Street parcel. We oppose irresponsible development that conflicts with city zoning laws and disregards legitimate safety concerns and the established character of our neighborhood.
We want our neighborhood to be accessible and inclusive. We want it to grow responsibly with the rest of the city. We want it to continue to be a safe, welcoming place to raise a family.
Property values and crime rates—two of the more common arguments invoked to oppose new housing developments—are not the concern here.
Adam Rogalski has a responsibility to work with the community toward a solution that’s a win for everyone—existing residents, potential new residents, and the city as a whole. That requires true collaboration, rather than trying to force their plan down our throats.
We want responsible development that preserves our neighborhood character and protects our homes.
Get the latest on the proposed Shawmut Hills development.
If you are part of the Shawmut Hills, sign up to be emailed the latest on plans impacting our neighborhood. Your information will not be shared with anyone else, ever.