Grand plan may soon get green light

Grand Haven City Council will be asking for the public’s input on developers’ plans for the second phase of the Grand Landing project on Monday night.
Alex Doty
Mar 22, 2014

“It’s a public hearing on the proposed ordinance change,” City Manager Pat McGinnis said.

The developer, Red Star Shores LLC, is asking the city to amend its planned development ordinance for the north-end property in order to permit them to move forward with their proposed project.

“It’s a planned development,” McGinnis explained. “If it is approved, they can build what is on those plans.”

The entire project is broken up into several phases — meaning even if City Council gave final approval, developers wouldn’t immediately pop up everything they have on the drawing board.

“The project continues to be an incremental approach,” McGinnis said. “We don’t expect them to break ground on all the final elements all at once.”
According to the draft ordinance, the revision would allow a mixed-use development that includes both residential and commercial elements. These elements would include a mix of the following:

• A hotel and restaurants/retail on the site’s east end.
• Ten 12-unit and two 24-unit apartment buildings.
• Unifying elements to complement the existing development.
• A walkway near the river's edge.

The plan differs from what the site’s original developer proposed back in the mid-2000s. That plan called for more townhomes and condos, retail, and a hotel/conference center.

To read more of this story, see Saturday’s print or e-edition of the Grand Haven Tribune.

Comments

ghresident

Nothing like making the entrance into Grand Haven even worse, no more Tourist town USA, It'll be apartment town USA, might as well forget about redoing Washington St. from Beacon to 7th. Who will care now?

The City is ruining this town, yet their to stupid to see the real picture, not surprising.

Beach Gal

You got it.

Say no to new taxes

Gee let me guess, the apartments will be built first. If that is allowed to happen you'll never see the rest of that development built. Renters aren't stakeholders in a community, their only committment is a short term lease. You better believe this plan differs from what was originally proposed, where's the convention center? This plan is a classic "bait and switch" proposal, please don't fall for it!

ghresident

There should be a like button! Agreed!

ShiningLight

What a bigoted comment about renters. I love GH but choose to rent and not buy. I spend my money downtown, I participate in community events. You come across as though renters are second class citizens in this town. I feel as though I am a stake holder here just as much as you do.

ghresident

ShiningLight, This isn't about renters, its about rental units at the entrance into Grand Haven.

Since you think my comment was bigoted, here's one for you. You can move your butt out of Grand haven with a 30 day notice and never look back. And NO your not a stake holder like us Taxpayers.

Move along TROLL.

ShiningLight

Your reply proves my point! Grand Haven is only for people that look like you and posses material things equal to you. Paying a property tax doesn't elevate your citizenship in this town state or country.

ghresident

Being a renter doesn't elevate your citizenship in this town state or country either. This proves my point your just another renter who more than likely CANT own a home, let alone take care of all the aspects of being a homeowner/taxpayer.

So in all reality your opinion doesn't count now does it?

Say no to new taxes

Renters only committment is till the end of their lease, while home and condo owners make a 20 or 30 year committment with a mortgage. Their are plenty of apartments already in GH, there is no need to cram another 168 units onto that property just so the developer can squeeze every buck out of that development. A convention center would provide much needed jobs, apartments won't do that.

Beach Gal

True.

ghresident

Anyone notice their on like the third realtor for the existing condo's now? What's up with that?

Oh wait, no sales.......lol

Back to the Wall

The only thing the city administration want to do here is generate the maximum amount of tax revenue. Grand Landing has been a money pit for 20 years, and it has gotten to be a political albatross.,
To put it more clearly, the only thing the city's administration cares about is tax revenue, and apartments are an easy way to maximize assessed value. Simple choice, but not in line with the public's goals.

Here's a newsworthy question... What did the comprehensive plan say about this parcel before it went PUD?
Was the original Art Miller P.U.D. approved as congruent with the goals of the comprehensive plan?
Does this P.U.D. amendment keep in the stated goals?

These are the debateable issues, these are the ordinances McGinnis refers to above. Convince the appointed and elected officials that this amendment is outside of the intent of the ordinance, and you have a chance.

If they keep you talking about what restaurants you like and traffic geometry, you've lost before you've begun.

ghresident

Ten 12-unit and two 24-unit apartment buildings. 168 total units X 2 cars per unit. 336 cars aprox, plus the other buildings. What's going to happen to the mess of traffic at Jackson and 31 that we have now?

Yep time to widen 31 from Washington to Jackson for no reason.

We need more restaurants? Drive less than 10 minutes North, theres plenty there.

angelshorty18

Youre right, this is probably their way of getting to widen the highway, they already want to! The whole idea is ridiculous

angelshorty18

Just another waste of money! How many of those condos are sitting empty? More than likely they apartments are going to be ridiculously high priced & those will sit empty too! People aren't moving here, they are leaving due to no jobs & not being able to afford what is here. This town has turned into a huge eyesore

Real estate maven

No doubt the apartments are all we will ever see built. Get sophisticated luck they do in many other parts of the country. Limit the number of rental units permitted until the other more desirable elements of the project actually come to pass. Set up a simple formula that ties square footage of apartments allowed to square footage of OCCUPIED retail/commercial developed. Assures balance and some semblance of compliance to the comp plan. The city made a mistake ever getting involved with this white elephant. Don't make a second mistake by letting it get built out in an ill conceived fashion just to get "something" built on it.

Boycotter

Make them low income apartments with a DHS & WIC office built into them, theres all those apts in Ferrysburg, Woodland estates and Swiss village, apts behind Meijers, Despelder st apts, 49 north apts off Lakeshore dr along with several big old houses turn into apt bldgs.

hk1977

The apartments can't be first...the first new development was Biggby which seems to have brought some new traffic over there.

happycamper

I would like to say, someone said a remark about renters, we all need a decent place to live, weather its buy, rent or lease, we still pay property taxes and get credit for it on our yearly income tax, so we are property tax payers, just choose or not to buy long term, i see apartments along US31 going to Muskegon on the right side and i thought, who would want to live right on a busy highway, noise 24 a day

ghresident

Renters do not pay property taxes, the landords do......Again I did not say anything about renters or rental propertys. This is about having "rental units" behind Grand Landing, the entrance to Grand Haven the City wants to destroy for more tax base.......

Back to the Wall

Using your logic, it can be argued that landlords have a greater stake in the community than do residents.

Owner-occupied units are taxed at half the rate of income properties.
Rental units create a very handsome tax base.

This concludes today's lesson on economics and taxation.

ghresident

Actually the tax base is on the amount of space the landord has vs the tenant, its not always 50-50. Depending on the unit it can be 75-25.

Say you have a 4 unit non owner occupied, the tax base is still off the SEV. Not because its a rental property.

Back to the Wall

We're on the same page. Sorry I doubted your accounting aptitude.

Regardless, if you don't want this thing fired down our throat, go to the meeting and argue the relevant facts, that is the zoning and how these apartments don't meet the intent of the original planned unit development.

It's not too late.

beachguy

Garbage in, garbage out. This entire development is a train wreck.

ghresident

.

Say no to new taxes

I think most residents would rather see Weavers Junk Yard back on that spot then 168 apartments.

justpondering

Rather see a casino than a junk yard or apartments.

Zegota

If we already have a difficult traffic flow on 31, and empty spaces, why in the world would anyone do a plan that impact the area in a negative way. The end of the story, are the local taxpayers that would probably end up bailing out the plan once again, or property taxes being increased for reasons of safety, and public utilities. It really seems that today, the American taxpayers are being taxed to death, no matter what happens, in the end, it is the good old taxpayers who pay for the false visions of a few. Enough already, while we still have a chance?

Interestedreader

Sure hope all those have opinions show up at the various meetings and voice their comments.

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.