Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose proposed ADU at 645 Kellogg, cite parking, safety and address-change concerns
Summary
Residents of Fitch Place and surrounding streets urged the commission to block a developer’s plan to add an accessory dwelling unit behind 645 Kellogg (proposed new address 58 Fitch Place), saying the narrow cul‑de‑sac, lack of sidewalks, a nearby hydrant and snow‑plowing create safety and access problems.
Residents from Fitch Place and neighboring streets told the Grand Rapids City Commission they oppose a developer’s proposal to add an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) behind 645 Kellogg with a proposed new address on Fitch Place.
Stafford Smith, who lives at 56 Fitch Place SE, said the cul‑de‑sac is too narrow for additional traffic and that both the fire marshal and police expressed concern about using Fitch Place for emergency access. "There's also a fire hydrant in there...they didn't think it was a good idea to add the address on the Fitch Place side," Smith said, adding that snow pushed into the cul‑de‑sac would make access more difficult.
Neighbor Greg Shotwell questioned why the developer would request a new address (58 Fitch Place) if not to create an independent unit for sale. "As I understand ADUs, you can put a dwelling on that parcel, but you cannot cut the parcel up and sell the dwelling separate. Then why does he need 58 Fitch Place unless his intention is to sell?" Shotwell asked.
Sheila Solomon Chotwell described being surprised by machinery and concrete work that neighbors discovered without prior consultation and said the fence at the property had been erected by long‑time residents for safety reasons. "None of us were consulted...we saw machinery on the other side of the fence, cement being poured, and we were at the fence looking through saying, 'What are you doing?'" she said, noting that many neighbors are senior citizens and that additional housing there would exacerbate parking stress.
Commissioners acknowledged receipt of the comments and referenced ongoing conversations with planning staff; several commissioners invited further neighborhood engagement and follow‑up by the planning department. No formal vote on the ADU application was recorded during this meeting; residents were encouraged to continue working with planning staff and their commission representative.
(Topic in transcript: multiple public comments opposing an ADU and proposed new address that would use a narrow Fitch Place cul‑de‑sac for access.)
