Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Grand Rapids commission introduces Gaslight Investors PUD amendment after hours of public comment
Summary
The City Commission held a lengthy public hearing on a proposed Planned Unit Development amendment for Gaslight Village, heard dozens of residents' comments and introduced the ordinance amendment on a 4–3 roll call. Commissioners asked staff and the applicant to refine conditions — notably a requirement to ensure a public-facing "social hub" and a
The East Grand Rapids City Commission introduced an ordinance amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Gaslight Village site after a lengthy discussion and public comment period, advancing the proposal to a second reading for final consideration.
The vote to introduce the amendment passed on a roll call after debate: Mayor (yes), Commissioner Bryant (yes), Commissioner Westlake (yes), Commissioner Swartz (yes), Commissioner Skaggs (no), Commissioner Hunter (no), Commissioner Graf Lasik (no). The introduction does not finalize the PUD; staff and the applicant agreed to return with more refined language for conditions and the accompanying resolution.
The proposal would amend a PUD originally adopted in 2004 to allow a new concept plan for the 6-acre Gaslight Village site. Planning Commission recommended approval with additional refinements; the City Commission discussion focused on phasing, parking, a proposed ‘‘social hub’’ (a public-facing plaza/multipurpose space), facade articulation on taller buildings and protections should later phases not be built.
Several residents told commissioners they oppose the scale and density in the current concept. Judith Baxter told the commission the phased schedule reviewed by the Planning Commission could allow construction to span as much as 12 years and said, "this development could last for 12 years, which would turn Gaslight into a construction zone for 12 years." Multiple speakers asked the commission to reduce the number of units, increase green space, and require clearer commitments from the developer.
Commissioner comments and staff responses focused on three practical points: (1) phasing and when a parking structure would be required, (2) ensuring the social hub and a north–south pedestrian connection are completed even if later phases are not built, and (3) adding more flexible but enforceable language on facade articulation to avoid monolithic walls on buildings over three stories.
Pat Lennon, attorney for the applicant, said the applicant would accept a condition that the social hub be built within 12 months after completion of the second of Buildings C or D and indicated willingness to work with staff on precise wording. Lennon told the commission, "the applicant is prepared to accept that as a condition." Commissioners instructed staff and the applicant to draft proposed language so the social hub and the north–south pedestrian path are concretely required either when the later buildings are completed or if the PUD lapses.
The City Commission also directed staff to fold Planning Commission recommendations into the resolution that will accompany the ordinance at second reading. Those items include clarifying the timing and triggers for the parking structure, adding facade articulation requirements for taller facades, and refining public-access language for civic event space.
Next steps: the ordinance amendment was introduced as a first reading. Staff will return with proposed resolution language and a draft PUD agreement that specifies timing, triggers and maintenance responsibilities before a final vote.
Votes and formal actions from the meeting appear in the articles’ structured actions entries.
