Getting Ready for the Planning Commission

If you are planning to speak at theJuly 9 Planning Commission hearing, please choose one main area of concern to address. Speakers will have just 3 minutes each–expect the Planning Commission to enforce this limit. 

Three minutes comes to about 400 words when speaking at a comfortable pace. You won’t have time to get your point across if you try to cover every problem with the proposed development. Our best chance of success is if each speaker picks one thing to focus on, so that together we can present all our concerns to the Planning Commission.

Below are three things to help you prepare for the hearing: 

• Key messages for the four main areas of concern: environmental & stormwater impact, traffic & pedestrian safety, density, and community engagement 

• Summary of specific city ordinances that will be taken into consideration and how this proposed development stacks up to each  

Our strongest argument is that the city should follow its own rules in reviewing this proposal. So it’s important to know what these rules are and how they should be applied.

In your comments, be sure to emphasize that we are not anti-development, but want any new development to be compatible with our neighborhood. Arguing the lot should be left undeveloped—or raising concerns about rentals or property values—will not be taken seriously by the Planning Commission and may hurt our case in their eyes.

Key Messages

1. Environmental & Stormwater Concerns

Wetland buffer

• There is no justification for reducing the legally required buffer from 75 feet to 25 feet. 

• In a meeting with neighbors last Friday, the developer acknowledged his only reason for seeking a reduction is so he can avoid reducing the footprint of his development. He has not submitted any alternative plans, or shown evidence that he can preserve natural features to the maximum possible extent while reducing the protective buffer.  

• At that meeting, the developer also threatened to go around the City Planning Commission to get permission from EGLE to destroy the 4 confirmed wetlands altogether, if denied planning permission. This shows contempt for the Planning Commission’s authority and the neighborhood’s existing residents.

• As noted in the analysis provided by Elise Tripp, a retired wetland scientist with 37 years of experience, there are strong indicators the delineation may have overlooked two wetlands on the southeast part of the lot, within the proposed construction envelope.

• EGLE must be brought in to confirm all wetland boundaries before construction begins, and the city must enforce the zoning law requiring a 75-foot buffer.

Stormwater

• Developers initially said the stormwater basin would be able to handle a 100-year rainfall event. Now they’re saying it will only be capable of handling a 25-year rainfall event—something we almost had earlier this year.

• The developer is not doing anything to address flooding and water issues caused by the stream on the southeast corner of the lot. His plans mistakenly label this area a wetland, contradicting the delineation report.  

• The proposed stormwater system lacks the environmental benefits of existing wetland and vegetation—which don’t just absorb water but also filter contaminants.

• The 213 trees to be removed are capable of absorbing up to 17,000 gallons of water per day. The loss of so many trees is ill-conceived, given the water issues associated with this lot.

• The developer’s plans fail to take into account the presence of a second, intermittent stream on the property, flowing west to east.

Groundwater

• Evidence of groundwater at this site includes:

  • Erosion on the western side of the lot, behind homes on Fairfield

  • Flooding and water issues impacting homes on Fairfield, despite the higher elevation

  • Skunk cabbage in one of the wetlands, indicating groundwater

• Many of the surrounding homes built before the neighborhood was annexed by the city have decommissioned wells—further suggesting groundwater in the area.

• The developer does not plan to test for groundwater until after Planning Commission approval. This is irresponsible, given the strong indicators of groundwater.

• Groundwater could compromise the effectiveness of the stormwater basin, which will be lined with clay. It could also compromise the integrity of any structures built on affected areas of the lot. 

Erosion

• The steep banks along the southwest portion of the lot have experienced considerable erosion in recent years, with at least one resident losing several feet of their backyard, including trees.

• Erosion will be worsened by intensive development, especially if groundwater is present.

• Doing nothing to mitigate existing erosion issues is irresponsible. 

2. Traffic & Pedestrian Safety Concerns

Traffic:

• 283 additional vehicles is not “minimal” impact when you take into consideration:

  • Existing traffic

  • Cars traveling at high speeds and ignoring stop signs—as confirmed by Grand Rapids Police Department data

  • Poor road conditions, particularly on 7th and Fairfield

  • Already long backups at the Oakleigh/Lake Michigan Drive traffic light

  • Only one entry & exit point planned for the new development

Pedestrian safety:

• None of the surrounding streets have sidewalks or traffic calming measures, despite the fact that children must walk to and from Shawmut Hills Elementary School every day. 

• Grand Rapids Police data confirms the prevalence of cars speeding through the neighborhood—including 18 stops in one 3-1/2 hour period last April. 

• Periodic police patrols are not an effective long-term solution. The problem just returns once the patrols move on.

• The city has indicated there are tentative plans to make unspecified improvements in 2030. This is not good enough. Pedestrian safety must be addressed before new development, not after.

Parking:

• Few, if any of the proposed townhouses will have basements—making itlikely garages will be used for storage rather than parking.

• This means the development could have dozens fewer available parking spaces than the plans suggest.

• Overflow and on-street parking will make it difficult for emergency vehicles to enter and exit the development.

3. Density

• Shawmut Hills is classified as a low-density neighborhood, consisting almost entirely of single-family homes.

• The city’s master plan calls for new development to be compatible with existing neighborhood characteristics.

• The proposed development is 2.6 times the density of the surrounding area—this is not remotely compatible with the existing built neighborhood.

• The proposed development is not on the periphery of the neighborhood or near a major road—where higher-density development would make more sense—but right in the middle of the neighborhood.

• The need for new housing should be balanced with the needs and concerns of existing residents.

• The proposed development must be approved or denied based on existing zoning laws.

4. Community Engagement

• The developer’s community engagement efforts have been inadequate, given the level of concern his plans have generated.

• 519 residents recently signed a petition opposing the development in its current form.

• 95% of comments to the city’s survey earlier this year expressed opposition to the development.

• Written comments submitted to the Planning Commission are overwhelmingly opposed to the development.

• The city has a responsibility to listen to existing residents and respect their wishes for how the neighborhood grows.

City Ordinances

The following ordinances are noted in the agenda for Thursday’s hearing, indicating these are what the Planning Commission will take into consideration when making their decision. 

Sec. 5.9.06. - Attached Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings

Details minimum requirements for lots, building size, yards, and other features of each unit.

Sec. 5.9.20. - Multiple-Family Dwellings

Regulates the location of multi-family dwellings. Unfortunately, the City’s definition of multi-family dwelling excludes attached single-family dwellings, i.e. townhomes. Therefore the restrictions on multi-family dwellings in this ordinance appear not to apply to the proposed 7th Street development.  

However, 7th Street NW is a Link Residential Street, which means it is meant to carry moderate amounts of traffic. Most of the surrounding streets are classified as Neighborhood Residential, which are designed to support even less traffic. 

The proposed development is located not on the periphery of the neighborhood but in the middle. Because high-density developments generate more daily vehicle trips, require stronger multimodal infrastructure, they should be placed on streets designed for this kind of development, not smack in the middle of a low-density residential neighborhood. Building this many units on 

7th Street does not technically violate Sec. 5.9.20, but it is ill-advised all the same.

Sec. 5.11.06. - Natural Feature Protection: Water Resource Protection

Prohibits any building, paving, grading, or removal of vegetation within 75 feet of any confirmed wetland. A reduction to 50 or 25 feet can be sought if certain conditions are met, including:

• Preserving site landscape features by minimizing the removal of trees and vegetation, alteration of natural drainage courses, and the amount of cutting, filling, and grading.

• Natural features are incorporated in the site design to the maximum possible extent.

These conditions have not been met by the proposed 7th Street development.

Sec. 5.12.08. - Site Plan Review

Requires the Planning Commission to approve a final site plan if the developer requires a Special Land Use Permit (as is the case here). 

Specifically, this ordinance requires the following conditions be met before a site plan is approved:

• “All elements of the site design are harmoniously and efficiently organized in relation to topography, the size and type of lot, character of the neighborhood and adjoining property, and the type, size, and proportions of buildings.”

• “Site landscape features, such as notable mature vegetation and steep slopes, will be preserved in their natural state insofar as practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal, alteration to the natural drainage courses, and the amount of cutting, filling and grading.”

• “Natural features and site topography are incorporated into the proposed site design to the maximum extent practicable.”

Sec. 5.12.09. - Special Land Uses

Defines the criteria by which a Special Land Use request must be reviewed. 

These criteria include (among others):

• Consistency with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District

• Minimizing any adverse neighborhood impact by ensuring the design: 

  • Is “harmonious and appropriate with the existing or planned character and uses of the neighborhood”

  • Will “not adversely affect the walkability of the neighborhood”

  • Will “retain as many natural features of the landscape as practicable, particularly where the natural features assist in preserving the general character of the neighborhood”