Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves 72‑unit multifamily project at 2286 Ball Ave NE
Summary
The commission approved a three‑building, 72‑unit multifamily development on a 4.7‑acre former school site at 2286 Ball Avenue NE, subject to tree‑canopy and construction‑hours conditions and required permitting and EGLE approvals.
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Grand Rapids City Planning Commission on July 10 approved a special land‑use and site plan review for a 72‑unit multifamily residential development at 2286 Ball Avenue NE, to be built on a 4.7‑acre site formerly occupied by a school building.
Staff told the commission the proposal calls for demolition of the existing 28,000‑square‑foot brick building and construction of three three‑story apartment buildings (three 24‑unit buildings), a surface parking lot with 97 spaces, and three garage structures providing 32 garage units. The development would yield a site density of about 13.5 dwelling units per acre; staff noted the zoning district’s typical allowance is approximately 17.4 units per acre.
The site contains steep slopes (defined as grades of 20 percent or greater) on its north and east edges and a portion of the southwest paved area that lies in the 100‑year FEMA floodplain. Staff said the proposed site layout is designed to avoid disturbance of those steep slopes and that the applicant is working with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) on required permitting for floodplain mitigation. The site plan shows buildings sited to protect natural features; staff said the applicant intends to preserve 40 percent tree canopy during construction and will submit a landscape plan at permitting to meet the 48 percent tree canopy requirement.
Transportation and traffic details: staff said a trip‑generation letter (not a full traffic study) was requested by the city because projected peak‑hour trips from 72 units typically fall below the threshold for a full traffic analysis. City transportation engineer John Bartlett noted there are no current plans for a mid‑block crossing at the site, though traffic‑calming pilot projects elsewhere could inform later work.
Neighbors raised concerns during public comment about stormwater, park drainage into Huff Park, and parking and traffic impacts during ball‑game events. A nearby resident, John Persack, asked the commission to weigh environmental stewardship when the site will share drainage with Huff Park’s protected wetland. Another speaker, Janet Bird, said neighborhood streets already feel congested during park events. The Creston Neighborhood Association submitted a letter of support and its executive director, Alex Karakiewicz, told the commission the developer had met repeatedly with the association and had committed to ongoing community engagement.
Applicant testimony (Wheeler Development Group) said the team has adjusted plans to keep building footprints out of steep slopes and to replace floodplain storage where required; the applicant said poor soils in parts of the site limit placement of buildings in some corners. The applicant also said the garage structures can provide opportunities for covered bicycle parking to meet the code‑required 46 bicycle spaces; staff and the applicant agreed bicycle parking and landscape details will be finalized with permitting.
The commission’s motion approved the special land use and site plan review, finding the development consistent with the master plan’s “compact neighborhood” future land use category and the MCN LDR (mid‑century neighborhood, low density residential) zone intent. Conditions recorded on the motion included meeting the 48 percent tree canopy requirement and limiting construction activity to 7 a.m.–7 p.m. The motion carried; the transcript does not show a numerical roll call tally.
Key technical and permitting notes on the record: EGLE permitting is required for floodplain impacts and will include mitigation; the city’s stormwater engineer has reviewed preliminary plans; bicycle parking counts and final grading/retaining details are to be resolved at permitting; and the applicant must coordinate detailed grading to address steep slopes and poor soils.

