Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 Planning Board minutesRegular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall January 8, 1985 Emly Horne convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. with seven members present: Barnhart, Horne, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wieland, Wright and welcomed Dr. Remick back from his long illness. Excused: Langworthy The Chairman continued; the Lansing Planning Board welcomes you to our meeting this evening. We thank you for your interest and concern about the matters being discussed here this evening. The Planning Board was created under Act 285 of the State of Michigan. It consists of eight citizens who serve this community without pay. We are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by Council. We make recommendations to the Lansing City Council on all land use in the City of Lansing. We also prepare and define projects for the City of Lansing. Staff present: Fountain, Coscarelli. Councilperson Benavides is present. The meeting consists of two sections; first the public hearings, then the business session. Procedure will be, staff will make a presentation, followed by comments from the petitioner and then from the public. Our meetings are taped so when you come forward would you please state your name and address. Please limit your comments to five minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Presented by Vern Fountain Z-32-84, 2726 North Grand River Avenue F and J to G-2 J.R. CHOCOLA, petitioner, did not wish to make any comments. RUTHIE MORRIS, 2815 Hollywood Street. I am remodeling an old home that I also reside in and my back yard meets this address. My objection is there has been for four or five months an old car leaning on the fence in my back yard. I have talked to people to remove it. I am concerned because I have an invest- ment and my neighbors are pleased because I have greatly improved this devas- tated old home. If this is going to be an auto body repair shop and this one car is an indication, when it is not even zoned for that, I am concerned about what it could be in the future. Mr. Barnhart questioned, as a condition can there be screening to the residents? Mr. Fountain responded, screening and buffering of plant materials or fencing would definitely be part of an approval. I think we will have to discuss at committee level the ultimate use of the property behind this zoning line. There is a strip of "J" Parking from this quonset but clear back to the north. As far as the automobile goes, I will turn that over to a Zoning Officer to cite Planning Board Minutes January 8, 1985 Page 2 the vehicle or property owner and hopefully have it removed in a short time. Mrs. Wieland asked if there would be an overlap of service with the repair service station on the corner. Mr. Fountain answered; I think that service station deals primarily with general tune up of autos. Mr. Chocola proposes body repair. Mr. Barnhart asked if there are requirements for noise and air pollution; such as paint fumes. Mr. Fountain stated; the Building and Fire Departments require buildings be .vented to meet minimum standards. Along with that, storage has to be contained within the building in a "G-2" District. They could possibly hear noise if the doors are left open. BETH DE LOOF, 2826 Cynwood. I don't want this rezoned because an auto body shop will not improve the neighborhood at all, which now has some things that are not very nice. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-33-84, 5124 South.Pennsylvania Avenue A to F LE014ARD JAY, petitioner, office at 4211 Okemos Road and live at 1937 Navahoe Trail. I bought this property about three years ago and wish to have it conform to existing businesses on the street; Pennsylvania is a business street. The property now has an auto stereo business. By having it commercial I would eliminate problems in case of fire or if I make additions to the property. I would like it to conform to the Master Plan and Zoning Map of the City. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes: Mr. Barnhart moved for approval of the December 18, 1934 minutes with the two corrections of excused absences; Mr. Wright supported, APPROVED Committee Reports: Zoning and Ordinance Committee will meet on Wednesday, January 16, 1985 at 7 a.m, in the Planning Division Conference Room. Urban Development Committee will alter its regular meeting date to meet at 7 p.m. on January 22 in the Council Conference Room. Planning Board Minutes January 8, 1985 Page 3 New Business: Dr. Remick thanked the Board for their concern, calls, cards and patience through his illness and reports the doctor feels that he may not need surgery as long as his present condition remains. Adjournment: Mr. Wright moved to adjourn, Mr. Barnhart seconded and the Board APPROVED. The regular January 8, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submi d, 4, - am s N. Foulds, Secretary Lan ing Planning Board WC Lrr.tijtd CIT" T 'ERIC Regular Meeting 20 'w' 4oa85 Lansing Planning Boardr { —, 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers -----_., Tenth Floor, City Hall January 22, 1985 Emly Horne convened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. with six members present: Barnhart, Horne, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wright Excused: Langworthy, Wieland Staff in attendance: Foulds, Acheson, Deason, Coscarelli The agenda stands as printed. Public Hearinq: Green Oaks Boundaries BRUCE DEASON presented a map of the area and explained; tonight's public hearing is specifically for the Green Oaks Target Area, required by federal law, to give the public input into setting boundaries. Those will become the boundaries for the Green Oaks Target Area. Following this public hearing, the Planning Board will vote and forward that recommendation to the Mayor, who will forward his recommendation to the City Council for final approval. Lansing proposes getting Community Development Block Grant funds in the area. LANCE CLARK, 219 South Eighth Street. These boundaries seem the most natural; they are major arteries and the boundaries used so far as our neighborhood watch area. HERB STUR DEVANT, 326 South Hosmer, Industrial Pattern of Lansing. Why are the boundaries being changed? Mr. Deason stated; it's not a change as far as the City's formalized process. This is a recent development of us working in the Green Oaks neighborhood. Their next meeting is tomorrow night at the Clark home. REFERRED TO URBA14 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes: :y Mr. Nelson moved for approval of the January 8, 1985 minutes with the correction of separating erson Council Benavide ' P s name from staff names. Mr. Barnhart second the motion; APPROVED Planning Board Minutes January 22, 1985 Page 3 Z-33-84, 5124 South Pennsylvania Avenue A to F The Committee recommends that the property located at 5124 South Pennsylvania Avenue be rezoned from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District to bring it into conformance with its commercial use, which is located within a strip commercial development along South Pennsylvania Avenue. This recommendation is subject to the applicant submitting a site plan specifying ingress and egress of the site for approval by the Transportation Engineer. So moved by Mr. Wright, supported by Dr. Remick; APPROVED 2000 Block of East Michigan Avenue Parkin BILL ACHESON stated a letter had been received by merchants with businesses located in the 2000 block supportive of this change in the parking lot and was signed by seven persons. Some years back the south side of Michigan Avenue behind the businesses was studied for parking area. This block has 30 metered spaces. One of the two houses is presently for sale, the other is a rental containing no tenants. These need to be acquired for our proposal to clean the entire area up. Mr. Foulds added; the City expanded the public parking lot behind the busi- nesses on the south side of the street. Soon after, additional monies were allotted from CDBG funds for additional parking lot improvements on the north side of Michigan Avenue. Your action tonight, since this is a Community . Development Block Grant activity, would make a recommendation to Council saying the Planning Board believes this activity should be in the Block Grant program. Second you would be recommending to Council that they initiate the petition to rezone the property from residential to parking. We would like Eastside Neighborhood Organization input before City Council makes a final decision. Jerry Lawler was asked to speak and stated; there is money available for the project but we have a big problem with noise and motorcycle gangs at the Green Door and customers who park in private driveways. I believe as long as the funds are on hold, you should either go ahead with the project or end it and put the money somewhere else. Mr. Wright moved that the proposed amendment be reconfirmed by the Board and the City proceed toward implementation with the initiation of a petition to rezone all appropriate properties from "B" Residential to "J" Parking District. Dr. Remick seconded the motion; APPROVED The next Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 13 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. c Planning Board Minutes January 22, 1985 Page 2 Committee Reports: t Zoning and Ordinance Committee• Floyd Wright We did receive an update at Committee meeting January 16 on Z-29-84 and SLU-32-84, the Paulson Street mining proposal, which continues to be studied by staff, SLU-33-84, Sparrow Hospital Parking This is a request by F. Boiten Plasman, on behalf of the Edward W. Sparrow Hospital for approval of the continued use of the existing parking lot north of the Eastern High School complex and east of Pennsylvania Avenue. The parking lot as presently established is inactive and, if utilized --could provide off street parking for approximately 189 cars. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommends approval subject to a complete implementation plan being submitted by February 19, 1985 to the Planning Division, and all requirements, including those previously given by the Lansing City Council, being complied with. The Committee further recommends that if said implementation plan is not received by the Planning Division and Planning Board within the allotted time frame, the Board will recommend denial and request compliance with the City Council directives of October 27, 1980. Mr. Wright so moved and Dr. Remick supported; APPROVED by a 5 yeas, 0 nays, 1 abstention vote. Z-32-84, 2726 North Grand River Avenue F and J to G-2 The Committee recommends that the frontage of property located at 2726 North Grand River Avenue be rezoned from "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to "G-2" Wholesale District to allow the building to be used for auto body repair and reconditioning, subject to landscaping, screening and buffering being applied to the site as required. Further, it be recommended to City Council that the balance of the property north of the existing building, which is not part of this rezoning request, be rezoned from "J" Parking to "A" Residential District, which will create a legal, nonconforming building on the land. Mr. Wright so moved and Dr. Remick seconded; APPROVED Planning Board Minutes January 22, 1985 CPage 4 Mr. Nelson reported the Urban Development Committee is scheduled to meet on Wednesday, February 13, 1985 at 7;30 p.m. in the Division Conference Room. Report from Planning Director: 1) The new MBI facility is currently under way at MSU. This Board acted on the rezoning of the property on Collins Road in 1984 from "A" to "D-1" Profes- sional Office District to accommodate MBI, which was instrumental in securing that facility for this region. They are contemplating submitting site plans to us within the next two months for ground breaking to begin early summer of 1985. In addition MSU is working with several development firms with the thought of expanding on Collins Road to hopefully make a research park devel- oped for research firms to locate. It is exciting, but creates problems for Planners. First we are obligated to continue working with the neighborhood group to inform them of continued development along Collins Road and it is a commitment of Board and Council to set up a joint liaison committee with MSU, and the cities of Lansing and East Lansing to begin to study impacts of development in that area; i.e., traffic. We will have to adjust our work program because it is a major land use change and we have to be sure (1) all infrastructure requirements are there, (2) the community has as much information as possible for reasonable input, and (3) to come up with the best possible product. Public Service is putting together specifications for extending sewer lines from Forest Road to allow the entire area to be developed. We had, luckily, bond funds remaining from past storm sewer work in that area, so it is a minimal outlay from the City. 2) The Chamber of Commerce is putting together a proposal to General Motors to offer site(s) in the Lansing region for their Saturn project. Detroit has offered several parcels, one of 300 acres on a major railroad line and appro- priately zoned. Mr. Barnhart added that Illinois has made a bid also. 3) The Historic District Ordinance was certified by the Department of the Interior. This Ordinance can be used to provide tax credits to property owners who do rehabilitation work in approved historic districts. T)e Commission will be working with neighborhood groups and property owners to explain the purpose of the Ordinance and attempt to establish districts. Once the district request is filed, the Planning Board has opportunity to respond on those requests. 4) Lastly, I have two documents sponsored by our professional association; one, the Planners Guide which talks about general areas planning commis- sioners are exposed to and is a good layman's text. The other is a "Zoning Board Manual" for communities who have zoning boards that that is all they do; you are a multi -jurisdictional board. . -- - - ti.: .;���+a�s b.�ih�"....pi. �:, �}-�'a":;,,,n�. .:yr�,yr=W`•`:`'�X:. �-�'�L.'���.��.�'.�,:.l�c, �>^�;;:r' r<Y.� Planning Board Minutes January 22, 1985 Page 5 Communications: A letter was received from Alfreda Schmidt by the Board stating, "Just a note to express my sincere appreciation to you and the members of the Planning Board for the excellent work you have done over the past year. I am impressed with your dedication and the volume of work you are confronted with; particu- larly when I consider your level of compensation. I look forward to working closely with you in the next year, particularly in relation to the widening of Cedar Street. Thank you for your Board Evaluation document, which I reviewed carefully. Keep up the good work." Board Member Comments: 1) Mrs. Horne clarified that Alice Wieland has been confined to home after a fall on the ice which injured her hip; no broken bones but has to walk with a cane and a lady is staying with her. 2) The Chairman Council and Mayor position. I want our work. Adjournment: also requested that Mr. Foulds thanking them for their rapid them to know we appreciate it forward a letter to the City response in filling the Board so that we could proceed with Mr. Nelson moved to adjourn, Mr. Mitchner seconded and the Board APPROVED. The regular January 22, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Q JamerN oulds,Director anlanning Division WC CRegular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall February 5, 1985 Merle Barnhart, Vice Chairman, convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. with six members present: Barnhart, Langworthy, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wright Excused: Wieland, Horne Staff: Foulds, Winnicker, Cosca•relli The agenda stands as printed. Public Hearings: Staff presentations made by Vern Fountain and Sandra Hearns. Z-1-85, 1000 Block of East Main Street C-2 to D-1 RALPH OPPER, petitioner. A development plan for professiona'i office use was submitted, with on site parking. Mr. Winnicker added there will be some changes in the access. CBEN BALDUS, 1101 Climax. I have several concerns; (1) about Main Street traffic. There are a number of small children in the area. (2) The status of the alley between Main and Climax, there must be protection for children and we wish to have no egress onto that alley. (3) What properties do the developers own? This neighborhood is on the rebound from a recessive state. We are concerned about the impact of commercial development and the possibility of setting a precedent. (4) The property be attractively landscaped, not just a blacktop lot. (5) If this commercial development is not successful, what protection exists so the property will not be rezoned to less attractive categories. We would appreciate further details of the proposal so our investment as taxpayers will be protected. Thank you for your time. GEOFFREY CRAM DALL, 1105 Climax. My concerns are; (1) we would like to know this property will not become enjoined with a commercial use. We request a written statement to insure that no offers have been made from adjoining properties and no plans beyond this application. (2) We would like to encourage architectural design of the structure, done properly it can be positive to the neighborhood. (3) Should approval be granted we ask that if the property has a default, it'revert back to the "C" district. Mr. Foulds stated, traffic in the area has always been a concern. The developers have agreed to Main Street being the primary access. Also, if the zoning is approved and adopted by City Council, the district is in place; no reverter clause can be placed on it. "D-1" does not permit retail operations and landscaping would be part of the approval. We have asked the petitioner to submit a revised plan for the subcommittee meeting, which is February 13. Mr. Crandall added, we would like to work informally with the developer prior to that. Mr. Foulds said that is encouraged. Planning Board Minutes February 5, 1985 CPage 2 FRED LAMB, 3233 South Washington Avenue, owner of 1036 and 1100 East Main Street. This is a narrow alley and won't carry much traffic. If traffic can be restric- ted from the property itself, it would be advantageous. My major concern is traffic problems that will be created by this. PETER MUNIZ, 1008 Climax. I am concerned about the traffic pattern that it might create. Vehicles are parked every day up and down the alley and our street. How many parking spaces are planned? The response was 18 to 22. Mr. Muniz added; we want access on Main Street. Is the property to the east State property? Mr. Lamb responded that is City property, which reverted back after highway construction. DIXIE PEMBERTON, 924 Dakin. Main Street has a curve and a one way direction. It is similar to a service road by the ramp and there is high speed traffic and a lot of truck traffic. Also, it is spot zoning; there is residential and the Master Plan designates low density residential for the area. If they proposed one thing, under "D-1" can they change after approval? Mr. Foulds answered, if "D-1" were approved, it could be used for all uses within that district. Once the building permits are issued, they have to be developed in accord with Cthat Plan. Ms. Pemberton submitted a letter from the Potter Park Neighborhood Association stating in part "to allow spot zoning is not in accord with the Master Plan and may have a negative impact on the area. We recommend it not be granted, but be tabled until review, partly by the Eastside Transportation Study Committee." A letter was also received from Duane Beach, 1002 Morgan.... believe a potential parking problem may arise. The neighborhood has requested limited parking on Climax. People from the Total gas station use Climax Street when the East Main lot is inaccessible. Calls were received from; JOSEPH SMITH, 1121 East Main, in favor of small office. AR14OLD MILLER, 1207 East Main, no opposition. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-2-85, Sunset Avenue A, H and F to I RAY SEVERY, Public Service Department., presented a sketch and gave explanation of the proposed development. GARY IGNAT, Controller, Lansing Dairy Association, 2224 West Willow. We have no problems with the Treatment Plant but wonder how close it will be to our property. Is the office going to remain? Mr. Severy stated, I expect so, rturuary u, IJOD CPage 3 Public Service will have no need for it after this expansion. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Business Session: Minutes -- Dr. Remick moved for approval of the January 22, 1985 minutes as printed and Mr. Nelson supported; APPROVED The next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting will be held Wednesday, February 13 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Mr. Nelson reported Urban Development Committee is scheduled to meet on February 13 at 7:30 p.m. in the Division Conference Room. Report from Planning Director: 1) Staff requests that the Board designate March 19 meeting to hold one public hearing on the proposed alignment of Lake Lansing Road extension. APPROVED C 2) A Library/State Museum complex conceptual plan was submitted for a four story building estimated at $45 million. Staff is studying the proposal. Dr. Remick suggested there be islands in the parking area and a foot bridge over the street. Board Member Comments: 1) Mr. Langworthy thanked Mr. Wright for chairing committee meeting in his absence; likewise Mr. Wright thanked members of Urban Development Committee for their assistance to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. 2) Mr. Mitchner reported he will be on jury duty next week and unable to attend Committee meeting. 3) Mr..Nelson requests an excused absence March 5. Mr. Mitchner so moved and Mr. Langworthy seconded; APPROVED Adjournment was at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 'ising N. FouldsDirector Planning Division WC Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall February 19, 1985 CITY CLENK AWE 6 � �.� Pill085 Mrs. Horne convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. with eight members present: Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wieland, Wright Staff in attendance: Foulds, Fountain, Coscarelli, Hearns The agenda was approved with two additions; Glenn Island Environmental Assessment was added as item B under public hearings, and Sparrow Hospital presentation under Audience comments. Public Hearings: Z-3-85, 406 East Holmes Road A to F GEORGE KRAUSE, Attorney, on behalf of the petitioner, North Point Plaza, submitted a site plan and explained; North Point plans to make this an asset of which the community can be proud. The present plan is the school building will be converted to about 14,000 square feet of office space. The gymnasium will be kept for community meetings. Extensive remodeling is planned. There will be parking around the old school for 164 cars. We also plan a retail building of approximately 3,000 square feet that may be offices on the corner. With proper setbacks there will not be any danger and the view will be excellent. Around that building we plan parking for 33 cars. Incidentally, all of the structures built, we will make every effort to obtain the same type of brick color, etc. used in construction of the school. To the north and west we plan to park 213 cars. The retail calls for 246 parking spaces and the office and meeting area, 164. We plan a retail building to the northwest. We are not trying to attract large merchants, we hope to retain a community atmosphere; gift shops, children's apparel, dress shops, etc. Some area people have expressed interest in moving to this location. We fully intend to provide proper buffers, we want an attractive area. We will screen the west boundary, abutting the residential back yards. We will not have neon lights, night clubs or X rated movies; this will be a neighbor- hood facility. Dr. Remick stated; I hope you are aware of the widening of Cedar Street and the Department of Transportation will want a strip off the east side. Also the sewer system will be going in on the east side of the property. Mr. Krause said he is aware of those facts. A phone message was received from ALEX AND LINDA BOLLINGER, 3535 Bergman, opposing the rezoning due to potential negative impact on property values. Planning Board Minutes February 19, 1985 Page 2 ROBERT CONRAD, 3530 Bergman. I am against it. The two curb cuts off Cedar Street are already a death trap with four lanes; you cannot make a left turn on Holmes and the school had the same problem. Also there is inadequate drainage on Bergman. With this blacktopped it will be worse. LYNN MANN, 3427 Bergman Drive. There is an alleyway behind where the fence is. We are opposed to having a service drive there between Holmes and Mason. I agree with Mr. Conrad on the sewage, when it rains our back yard is full of water all the time. ANDREA VASQUEZ, 405 East Rouse. Will this change our property taxes and what will it do to property value? Mr. Foulds responded; assessment practices in Lansing look at your property individually until the overall neighborhood value increases. It is hard to say what impact this project would have. In the short run, probably none at all; in the long run, if values generally increase in the neighborhood in which you live, there may be some overall increase in property assessment. JERRY VAN KIRK, 3431 Bergman. I concur with my neighbors' previous comments and am concerned about the water problem and traffic this is going to create. This is a residential area. Mr. Foulds questioned; if the drainage problem is resolved and if we can come up with an acceptable circulation plan for the site; assuming South Cedar Street will be improved, would the general land use proposed, which is commer- cial, be acceptable to the neighbors? Lynn Mann: I think you had better look into the drainage because when it rains our sump pumps are going continuously; so you'll have to go deep. FABIA14 ARCHAMBEAU, 3405 Bergman. The traffic is backed up all the way past Bergman heading east, sometimes from 3:30 to 5 p.m. Another problem is the commercial shopping center, are they planning a fast food? Mr. Krause said it is not intended. Mr. Archambeau continued; from spring to winter I am out every day picking up trash from the fast food businesses north of Holmes Road; picking up papers, boxes, etc. I sure wouldn't want more in there. I agree on the water, every time we have a storm the Public Works Department comes and parks just west of the school building and pump all night and probably the next day and it is noisy. If those problems were cleared up, it would be all right. KAY MANN, 3427 Bergman. I have nothing against the offices, but when it comes to the retail stores, I am opposed. The service drive in back I am against because it is like an alley with junk, rats, dump and delivery trucks going in and out or maybe burglers going through there at night. Planning Board Minutes February 19, 1985 Page 3 DOUG PRICE, 311 East Rouse. I have no problem with the old school building as office space. I do have reservations about the proposed shopping area. I have lived here most of my life and residents are used to the quiet. My family owns businesses in this immediate area. This retail development may have a negative impact on businesses that have been in the area a long time -- eliminating one to encourage another would not be progressive. COUNCILPERSON ALFREDA SCHMIDT. I am interested in the comments. I would like to explain some forward planning, particularly on the draining situation. This area is marked for our second phase of major sewer improvements, which everyone has started to pay for through sewer rates. You presently have a 24 inch sanitary sewer and a 116 by 180 inch storm drain at the west end of this property. That 24 inch sanitary sewer is to be abandoned and a new 24 inch constructed on the east side adjacent to Cedar Street along the south property line, under the contract being let under Michigan Public system. `There have been serious drainage problems in that area far too long. On the widening of Cedar; my last information is definitely six lanes wide. Initially it was drawn with ten feet lanes; that was not acceptable to federal standards, all lanes have to be eleven feet wide. The widening will all come off of the east side, from Jolly to Mt. Hope. The School District absolutely intends to sell the building. I would be more than happy to visit with any neighbors who have questions or comments. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Glenn Island Environmental Assessment SANDRA HEARNS, Development Division, presented a drawing and reported; it has been endorsed by the Citizen District Council and the neighborhood. It will consist of a boat tie up, picnic table and crushed limestone padding. The area is located southwest of the Board of Water and Light Eckert power station. It is also in the flood plain, therefore, we have to follow Environmental Protection Agency and Housing and Urban Development guidelines. It is not a major development, the boat tie up will accommodate three canoes or small motor boats at the edge of the bank and the picnic table will be concrete so it will not be able to be removed easily. We don't want development that will over- whelm the island. There is a heavy abundance of poison ivy on the island, which will have to be posted. Also no littering will be posted. We have been told canoeists and boaters are not litterers, so we should have no problem there! Mr. Barnhart questioned if there would be trash containers. The response; no because during flood times they could be removed. Mr. Langworthy asked about sanitary facilities. Ms. Hearns said, no port -a - johns; it will simply provide a little secluded spot for a picnic. ,r Planning Board Minutes February 19, 1985 Page 4 PRISCILLA HOLMES, 220 Reo Avenue, representing CDC members. We endorse the position to proceed with Glenn Island. REFERRED TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Comments from the Audience: F. BOITEN PLASMAN, representing Sparrow Hospital (case SLU-33-84), submitted an implementation plan for Sparrow's proposed parking. The important part is from J.B. McGinn, our Director of Security on proposed procedure. We propose to reassign approximately 150 employees to that area, which will give us a little more room in the winter to move snow and at other times of the year to reassign other employees on a temporary basis as we conduct the educational sessions scheduled. We intend to purchase two vans to accommodate twelve "passengers each and shuttle from the parking area to the Hospital and back. The area would be patrolled by our security force for vehicle safety. Mr. Langworthy asked if this had been discussed with the neighborhood people. Mr. Plasman stated, you are the first to see this; our employees do not know either. Dr. Remick asked if the pedestrian right-of-way would be utilized. Answer, yes. Dr. Remick asked what the vehicle movement would be from the lot. Mr. Plasman said; there are three routes we will investigate with the Lansing School Board. We would avoid the school bus loading area. Mr. Barnhart suggested,I understand that Oldsmobile has several cases of busing people from off site lots, they could give you the value of their experience. You might give preferential parking to those who car pool, if that fits your situation. A short recess was taken by the Board. BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes: Dr. Remick moved approval of the February 5,1985 minutes as printed, and Mr. Langworthy seconded; APPROVED Committee Reports: Planning Board Minutes February 19, 1985 Page 5 Zoning and Ordinance Committee: Mr. Langworthy Z-1-85, 1000 block of East Main Street C-2 to D-1 will remain in Committee for a traffic study. Z-2-85, Sunset Avenue A, H and F to I The Committee recommends the request initiated by the Lansing City Council on behalf of the City of Lansing Public Service Department to rezone property on the west side of Sunset Avenue from "A" Residential, "H" Light Industrial and "F" Commercial Districts to "I" Heavy Industrial District be approved. The Committee did consider the points made at the public hearing dealing with abutting property lines. The Committee found that the proposed change is in conformance with the Master Plan, which recommends industrial land use in this area. It was further found that the majority of the property along Sunset Avenue adjacent to this site is zoned and developed in an industrial nature. Mr. Langworthy moved for approval and Dr. Remick supported; APPROVED The next Committee meeting will be Wednesday, March 13 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Urban Development Committee: Mr. Nelson Green Oaks Boundaries The Committee recommends the Planning Board approve the boundaries for the Green Oaks Neighborhood as identified and supported by the Green Oaks Neigh- borhood Citizen Committee, and Mr. Nelson so moved; Mr. Barnhart supported. APPROVED Glenn Island Public Improvements The project to upgrade and improve Glenn Island is viewed as a positive improve- ment to the environment and there are no impacts expected to adversely affect the environment. Therefore, the Committee unanimously recommends the Board approve the project and forward the environmental assessment to the Mayor and City Council for concurrence. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mr. Barnhart seconded; APPROVED The next Committee meeting is scheduled for March 13 at 7:30 p.m. in the Division Conference Room. Planning Board Minutes February 19, 1985 Page 6 Report from Planninq Director 1) Division Budget 1985-86 Each year the Board is requested by the Mayor's office to review the budget of the Department and Division. I present it to you this evening for comments, specifically on the Work Program items contained in the budget statement. In addition, general financial information to indicate we can support those Work Program activities. I would like to go over this with you in detail and take action formally at the March 5 meeting. Dr. Remick moved the Director forward a letter to the Mayor and Council stating the Board received the Planning Division Budget for consideration, will review the document and take formal action on March 5; Mr. Langworthy supported, APPROVED 2) We have a referral from the School District to do an Act 285 review on reuse of four schools scheduled for closing. They are Genesee, Oak Park, Holmes Street and High Street schools. Staff feels the neighborhoods should be afforded comment on the range of reuses for these buildings, not whether they should be closed. We wish to schedule two hearings; one March 5 and one April 2 to consider two schools each time. We do a select neighborhood mailing to receive comments. Our 285 review process is a requirement under State law that any sale, disposition, reuse or construction of any public building/ property has to have a review by the local planning commission. You are not required to have a public hearing. Dr. Remick suggested, let's go to the neighborhood groups at their meeting levels. The objections are traffic, sewers, etc. rather than the use of the building. Mr. Barnhart agreed and added; if we do establish a reusage for the buildings and define a certain type of activity, how can we control someone coming in with a different request. Mr. Foulds reported; the School District is asking for policy direction for appropriate uses. If not met, they will probably not be acceptable for rezoning. Mr. Nelson suggested that in a group setting, there is a possibility that a few may have a different opinion, but not express it. Dr. Remick further offered; the School District will have meetings about where the schools' area will be reassigned; possibly this is a place to be heard. Mr. Foulds said; I will pursue that as the first option; then neighborhood meetings. Communications: Mrs. Horne reported receiving a letter from the Eastside Transportation Study Advisory Committee regarding 1000 East Main (Z-1-35) requesting denial. I will foward this to the Committee for use in its deliberations. Planning Board Minutes February 19, 1985 Page 7 Board Member Comments: 1) Mrs. Wieland thanked the Board for their indulgence during her illness. 2) Mrs. Horne thanked Mr. Barnhart for taking over in her absence. 3) Dr. Remick requests and excused absence from the March 19 meeting. It was so moved by Mr. Barnhart, seconded by Mr. Langworthy; APPROVED 4) Mr. Barnhat requests an excused absence from the meeting of March 19. Dr. Remick moved for approval and Mr. Langworthy supported; APPROVED Adjournment: Mr. Nelson moved to adjourn, Mrs. Wieland seconded and the Board APPROVED. The regular February 19, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, aures N. F ulds, Director La ng Planning Division WC C Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall March 5, 1985 The Chairman, Emly Horne, convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. with seven Board members present: Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Mitchner, Remick, Wieland, Wright Excused: Nelson Staff: Foulds, Fountain, Rajendra, Coscarelli and David Berridge, Transportation Engineer, Public Service Department Agenda: Added to Zoning and Ordinance Committee, SLU-1-85 for consideration. Public Hearings: Z-4-85, 902, 908, 910, 914 East Oakland Avenue C-2 to G-2 C Slides of the area were shown and explanation of the request given by Vern Fountain. RANDALL MILLER, 840 East Oakland Avenue, Secretary and General Manager of the Corporation, representing Paul Miller, the petitioner. The sole purpose of the land and building is to expand 840 Oakland with an annex, approximately 30 feet by 50 feet on the east side of the building facing Pennsylvania for an extension of our office facilities. The other land is proposed for future expansion as the company needs. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the little strip on the east end will be isolated. Mr. Miller responded; we do not own 912, but all areas around it. Communications were received from: NORMA KARKAU, 829 May Street --not opposed. JAMES K. BUDD, 818 East Oakland --in favor, property has been upgraded by the Florist Exchange. CLARA WORDELL, 835 May Street --not opposed. KEVIN L. KARKAU, Mom lives at 829. Vehemently opposed. The City is already well served with the warehouse and further devel- opment will destroy the ancient beauty of the land, as well as interfere with the ecosystem. MR/MRS CLARENCE CLARK, 912 East Oakland owners. Opposed to anything but residential (they reside at 1236 East Hazel Street). REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes March 5, 1985 C Page 2 Z-5-85, 112 Hazel Street and 1018 South Grand Avenue DM to J Mr. Fountain presented this case, which is proposed to be used in conjunction with 1033 South Washington Avenue, the office building on the immediate north- east corner of Washington and Elm. MATT MISSADE, representing Octagon Financial. I don't have additional comments, but am willing to answer any questions. Dr. Remick asked, do you intend to enclose the lot with a fence or restrict parking? Mr. Missade answered, it depends on what the area residents feel is best; we have no definite plans. Communications were received from: MRS. FARMER, 123 East Elm; owner of 119, 123, 125 and 129 East Elm and 1008 South Grand --delighted, 100% in favor. ARVELLA AND RICHARD ABBOTT, 1011 South Grand Avenue --we will agree to the change provided there is no entrance or exit from Grand Avenue and frontage on Grand is landscaped and fenced on three sides; east, north and south. Second, the street is too narrow for that much traffic, and Cthe old approach from the street to the sidewalk should be removed. JACK DOWN, 2510 Haslett Road, East Lansing --no problem but it is at this Point the residential area commences and I do not think it should change. LISA AND DA14IEL STARIN, 1006 South Grand Avenue --we agree provided there will be no entrance or exit .to Grand Avenue; this block is too narrow a street. NORMAN OTT, 2920 South Washington Avenue --no objection as long as there is no entry or exit onto Grand. DAVID SHARPE, 615 West Ionia, employed by Edward G. Hacker Company, Management Agents for the office building at 1033 South Washington Avenue. These two lots have been owned for many years by the previous owner of 1033 South Washington and used informally for parking. In order to insure the office building at 1033 has parking, the lot in back will only accommodate 33 cars. We are now in agreement with General Motors to lease the entire building at 1033. They will employ exceeding 80 people --new jobs, not transfers. It was at their request that we ask Octagon to see if they could be zoned properly to "J" so they could be graded and improved according to City ordinances. In response to questions from Board members, Mr. Sharpe added; the existing and proposed "lots are connected, there could be traffic flow from 1033 into the other two. Each of the lots is 66 feet by 165 feet, a little over 10,000 square feet and would accommodate 37 or 38 cars, depending on the handicapped spaces required. So we would have parking for over 100 cars for the 1033 building, which is a 21,000 square foot building. We need four to five per 1,000. Manning Board Minutes March 5, 1985 ! Page 3 We will provide screening/buffering. I have not determined whether GM will lease the lot across for overflow parking, presently they are. Oldsmobile likes to secure their parking lots, I would say there would be an eight foot fence. ROBERT ROGERS, 1012 South Grand owner. My lot will end up with parking lot on two sides. The neighborhood is residential, I don't think it will ever be commercial. Consequently, I approve with reservations; it is going into a residential neighborhood and my lot could well become a drainage problem. I assume these things are taken into consideration. Secondly, I strongly support the local neighborhood feelings that there be no exit or entrance onto South Grand and certainly a visual screening to the residential. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Act -1-85, North Grand Ramp Expansion Presented by Kunwar Rajendra. This is a proposal from the Transportation Division of the Public Service Department to conduct a 285 review on extending C the North Grand Parking Ramp across Grand Avenue to where the Board of Water and Light property is. The purpose is to add approximately 600 parking spaces in four levels of parking ramp. Dr. Remick asked, can something be done to the Ionia Street traffic flow, it is difficult to get onto the street. Mr. Rajendra responsed; entrance/exit would be to Ottawa from the ramp extension and you would be able to go from this entrance to the old ramp to the new extension. You cannot get to Ionia from the extension, but would be coming out on Grand Avenue. It is proposed to have a. reversible lane; one in and one out, but for peak hours both lanes would be for exiting. DAVID BERRIDGE, Transportation Engineer for Lansing and essentially the petitioner. In response to Board concerns expressed; the capacity will remain the same on Grand Avenue and traffic flow will not be adversely impacted. Secondly, we propose to place columns to support the structure in the existing street right-of-way in the sidewalks. We will adhere to the ten foot minimum policy. The third issue, creation of excess street right-of-way based on the proposed design. The east 9.25 feet of existing Grand Avenue right-of-way will be for a ground level storage building and dedication of the remaining clear space to the Board of Water and Light on grade parking, with no additional benefit to the general public other than to increase sidewalk width. Fourth, expansion of the garage onto the Board of Water and Light property. The Board is actually a City agency and property is titled in the City's name, although under exclusive control and use of the Board of Water and Light and their rights, rules and regulations. We are working closely with them on all necessary agreements and easements to use the 37z feet. They will have essentially the same operation as today, although some things have to be relocated and rebuilt. ��- � - w . � ..S .. � �....._�.-._ ..- a r. �♦ ..._ _.. ... ., � r.+..�.t�e.. ...�.. rM .!s .. s, n. w�-'�.�+Ar. ti.���.n^t� ...+ Planning Board Minutes March 5, 1985 Page 4 he We feel there are adequate gaps in the traffic for this to flowfio�tnorthboundet. One major advantage the new structure will have is the ability ue d of and eastbound traffic to exit on the east side ofurrladnesvenWe anticipate the west side, which requires them to weave across o turn people wiwhere Avenll learn new travel patterns and thosethat theyewill haveaneasy rt will exit from the east side oWeS�aod north, go west on Shiawassee or north on to make; those who want to go structure. I don't believe this rovidegarage oi ll ha a major impaVe Grand, will exit the existing ct on reducing the level of service we currently p Street. mp dumps onto Capitol Avenue and i Dr. Remi ck reported, the Ngothtoa90Ionitol a, up Grand and around. Is there a way you're going east, you've g I re of dumping both parking ramps onto Grand? Mr. Be' tegalthopghdwe�will we abe evaluating the impacts. The analysis to report in the future, which mblemsght aforvShiawasseepStreet. lems for s. preparedthe answer, ye Ionia Street, but I think would cause pro ht angles to Grand; Remick questioned if exiting will be at rig parking lot Mr. Mitchner added, also traffic coming out of the United Way east or going up to Saginaw or Oakland usually causes a traffic jam at thening Same time you have cars lined into the LCC parking Baking now as a general partner of the Samuel D. Ingham David Sharpe. Sp laud the City's effort to start the Building at 116 West Ottawa, I want to app expansion of the ramp. Every time we want to encourage whoehaPeomade an exp the only way is evict existing peop expand the downtown Lansing, commitment to downtown. We think it is to overdue that the city North Grand Ramp and I hope it REFERRED TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes --Dr. Remick moved for approval of the February 19, APP supported; 1985 minutes and Mr. Barnhart supe Committee Reports: Zoning and Ordinance Committee: Mr. Langworthy SLU-1-85, 1500 East Cavanau h Road --Flood Plain property royal of a Special Land Use permit for the prop 24 x 24 ) to house The Committee recommends app property is zoned at 1500 East Cavanaugh Road for construction of a facility. Thegprop an office and a 60 feet by 40 feet storage osed activity. The Committee Heavy Industrial District, which allows the prop Planning Board Minutes March 5, 1985 Page 5 c recommends granting this permit provided the proposed building and activities on the property are within all Federal, State of Michigan and City of Lansing requirements. 0 Mr. Langworthy so moved and Mr. Wright seconded; APPROVED The next Committee meeting will be Wednesday, March 13 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Urban Development Committee Mrs. Wieland reported the next meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 13, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Planning Conference Room. Executive Committee: Mrs. Horne reported the Committee, along with all other Board members, have had opportunity to review and make comments on the proposed Division Budget for 1985-1986 fiscal year. Dr. Remick moved that the Board approve the Work Program Budget for next year and Mr. Langworthy supported; APPROVED Report from Planning Director: 1) March 19 we have a public hearing on the proposed Industrial Access Road, to connect Lake Lansing Road to North US 27. Based on the comments received to date, there is a lot of interest in the proposed alignment. There are of course associated questions regarding the tabled special land use and zoning request for MSV Associates. 2)_ We have been working on a shopping center proposal for South Cedar Street, just north of Edgewood Boulevard. That is excess right-of-way property left for a ramp when the interchange was going to be built at that location. We have almost a duplicate shopping center proposal for that in terms of square footage at Holmes Road. They are both tough issues because of location, traffic and sewer issues, etc. It was pointed out that the Holmes Street proposal needed input from the Public Service Department, and the Board concurred that it would be nearly impossible to reach a decision without that information. Communications: The Industrial Access Road, February 1985 Environmental Assessment was submitted to the Board members. Planning Board Minutes March 5, 1985 CPage 6 Board Member Comments: Dr. Remick stated those Board members involved with the LEAN program's open houses; namely Merle and Emly, are to be commended on their dedication of time and self. Mr. Barnhart pointed out that commendation should be given to Jim Spackman for his total commitment to the project, including attendance at all meetings and open houses and communications with those involved. Mr. Wright questioned; the Council discussed height requirements during their consideration of the Glasgow pole barn and I wonder if there is a height limitation. Mr. Fountain answered; 35 feet cannot be exceeded and an accessory structure is the same as a primary building. Mr. Foulds added that there are two dimensional requirements, accessory buildings cannot exceed more than 1,000 square feet on the lot and a maximum lot coverage percentage is to be followed. Dr. Remick stated to the best of his knowledge he would be in attendance at the March 19 meeting. C Adjournment: Mr. Langworthy moved to adjourn, Mr. Barnhart seconded and the Board APPROVED. The regular March 5, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at - 8:45 p.m. spectfully submitte Jame N. Foulds, Director L ing Planning Division WC Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall March 19, 1985 The Chairman, Emly Horne, convened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. with seven members present: Horne, Langworthy, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wieland, Wright Excused: Barnhart Staff: Foulds, Fountain, Rajendra, Coscarelli Also in attendance; Councilmember Tony Benavides, David Berridge, City Transportation Engineer, Howard McCaffery, Public Service Director and Laurie Barbiary, Court Reporter Agenda: Delete case P-11-77 from the Zoning and Ordinance Committee Public Hearing: Industrial Access Road --Lake Lansinq Road Extension Jim Foulds, Planning Division Director prefaced this public hearing. As part of the 1984-1985 City Council policy on capital improvements a route alignment study was requested for the east/west connector between Lake Lansing Road and US 27. There are three major objectives of the study and construction of the road: (1) provide an alternate access to Friedland Iron and Metal Company, currently on Harris Street, (2) provide access to land to the north, south and east of the proposed alignment and for potential -future economic development, and (3) provide adequate capacities for safe, efficient and fast movement of east/west traffic between US 27 and the eastern part of the region. As a result an environmental assessment was prepared for the project. Kunwar Rajendra, Project Coordinator, will make a presentation on the environmental assessment. Kunwar Rajendra. This public hearing is held to present alternatives and justification for proposing the industrial access road in the north part of Lansing. Slides of the area were shown and explained by Mr. Rajendra. The City of Lansing retained a consultant to conduct a traffic analysis. Snell Environmental Company representative, David Starr, is present. As a result of that analysis we found developments are taking place in the east part of the region; i.e., Meijer store, Health Central facility and several others. All the potential land developments are adding traffic on Lake Lansing Road. We estimate traffic is going to be at least 2z times what we have today over the next twenty to twenty-five years. Existing traffic on Lake Lansing Road is 12,200 cars a day. Additional projected volume is 19,000. By 2004 total traffic on Lake Lansing Road is estimated to be 31,000. Planning Board Minutes March 19, 1985 Page 2 The alternatives considered: 1. No Action Alternate --leave Lake Lansing Road as it is. 2. Low Capital Alternate --Paulson Street access and Howe Avenue alternate 3. Howe Avenue extended east to connect with Lake Lansing Road; of course we will provide access to Friedland. The problem is it has to cross the area of Environmental Protection Agency superfund list for clean up and we have been advised not to traverse that area. 4. Paulson Street extension alternate --which stays away from the mining area and extends Paulson to Lake Lansing Road and provides access to Friedland. 5. Modification of the Howe Avenue alternate --instead of going straight, this will swing up to the north and connect to Paulson Street and then come down because there are nine residential properties along Paulson, but not along Howe, which has businesses. Building this road is proposed in two phases; first, to simply provide access to Friedland Iron and Metal Company. Phase one would remain two lane. Eventually when the road is built in phase two, it is proposed to have a four lane road with curb and gutter. Estimated costs: Alternate A, Paulson Street only, or subalternate B, which is Howe Avenue and then Paulson --approximately $1 million. Howe Avenue would be about $90,000 less for both phases. Phase one, providing access to Friedland Al— with two lane only --$100,000. No funding options have been identified, nor commitments made. We will try to identify funding with federal aid urban systems, economic development or other possibilities. At this point funds are appropriated only for phase one. Mr. Rajendra then read federally regulated relocation benefits. Communications received by the office: LUCILLE WHITNEY, 901 Bates. I oppose the route to connect Paulson Street to Friedland's. It would put truck traffic from one residential street to another. Other factorsare dust, noise, safety, debris and vibration. I am for the industrial access road connecting with Howe Avenue. DENNIS THOMAS, President of Superior Sheet Metal Works, Incorporated, 801 East Howe Avenue. I would be willing to sell my property at 801. After checking with other tenants, they are all willing to sell. It would be much easier for the City since there are only three properties involved on this street, as opposed to eight or ten on Paulson. WILMA AMY, 830 Harris Street. I am in favor of removing truck traffic from Harris Street. MARTHA ALLEN, 735 East Paulson. I am against an industrial road between US '27 and Lake Lansing Road. The street would be too close, too noisy and dangerous even to back out of the driveway. I am 70 and it's hard to make changes like this when you are older. Planning Board Minutes March 19, 1985 Page 3 LYNNE MARTINEZ, Ingham County Commissioner, 20th District. I appreciate, as do the area residents, proposal to remove Friedland truck traffic from Harris Street, which is highly residential. I have received communications from residents expressing opposition to the proposed Paulson Street routing; this would only transfer truck traffic from one residential street to another. I support their position that the route should follow Howe Avenue near US 27. I would support Paulson Street route only on the condition that all residents near US 27 have an opportunity to sell and relocate. Secondly, I support the position of the Ingham County Department of Environmental Health. Proposed phase two will construct the roadway through an area of serious environmental concern, part of which is on the State of Michigan and federal lists for remedial action. Other areas are currently being tested and monitored by Motor Wheel and the City of Lansing. Any development of a roadway through this area is sure to result in immediate requests for development of warehousing and industry. Such development should be postponed until testing is complete and any necessary remedial actions are finished. In summary, I request any development of the north Lansing industrial access road be slowly and carefully planned and executed. ROBERT D. PACIFIC, Field Superintendent, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Based on our review the project will not have significant adverse impacts on the fish and wildlife resources. We do not object to implementation as proposed. JOSEPH BRAHLER, Attorney representing Gier Park Neighborhood. Mr. Whitney has asked me to speak on his behalf and the neighborhood. Also Larry Bass and Tony Woodman from Friedland Iron and Metal Company have asked me to speak on their behalf. Friedland and the neighborhood have been involved in litigation for two years. Part of that litigation involved truck access down Harris Street. It is a pleasure to appear tonight as a unified front; which is in favor of your proposal to connect to Howe Avenue. To go through Paulson would be to repeat the same problems we now are confronted with on Harris Street; Paulson is largely a residential neighborhood and under your proposal there would still be residences involved with traffic coming through there. Since phase one is primarily concerned with access for Friedland to alleviate problems for Harris Street neighbors and Friedland, we think it significant that neighborhood and company are united in the attitude that the appropriate step would be to go through Howe Avenue. It would be significantly cheaper for the City to construct on Howe and we strongly urge you to take that route and proceed posthaste. Several interested neighbors indicated Mr. Brahler had represented them, they are; JAY WHITNEY, LUCILLE WHITNEY, BOB ABBOTT and IRENE GIBBONS. L ti Planning Board Minutes March 19, 1985 Page 4 KENN TEMPLE, 2922 North East Street. I have no problem with the access on Howe Avenue. I understand if phase one goes through, being on an industrial access road will make my business function better. Provided I can continue to practice in the area, I have no problem with that. If they buy all nine houses on Paulson Street, it will cease to function as a residential street. That should be considered; that would change the whole character and structure of the neighborhood. Joe Brahler. A suggestion has been raised to me, if you do take the Howe Avenue alternative, and we strongly urge that you do, in the interest of safety, a traffic light be contemplated on 27, probably either alternative will bring an influx of traffic. ELEANOR EBRIGHT, 933 East Paulson. We don't want to move and we have enough traffic with Granger. I understood they were supposed to use Wood Road, but they never do. I am definitely opposed to the Paulson Street extension. L.E. KLEIN, 816 East Howe Avenue. I own a motorcycle dealership that has been there for 14 years. I am not opposed to the Howe Avenue alternative either, but not keen on moving. The Howe Avenue alternate could be used to affect only my land and not my building; I could accommodate myself in the same place. The other views I have on this subject have been expressed by Dr. Temple and I agree that a traffic light will probably have to go in. BILL ALLEN, representing his Mother at 735 East Paulson. I am opposed to the Paulson Street access and would favor Howe Avenue access. Thank you. DICK GARMYN, my business is on Paulson fronting Hunt Street. I want to maintain my business there. I prefer it go to Howe, but if it must go to Paulson, I request I continue to have access into Paulson. Eventually this will be five lane with heavy truck traffic and I am concerned about access for my business. It would have less impact on me if it were on Howe Avenue, and a few of the neighbors too. There are no sanitary sewers to serve the businesses. My father installed a private sanitary sewer line for three or four businesses not served by City sanitary sewer, yet sewer rates are collected on a private line --which is fine, the people are using it. Before any major road work is done, please make sure you have adequate sewers. The intersection of Paulson/US 27 is a constant flooding problem. It was a state trunkline, I think it's a business route trunkline now, which continues to flood. Every time there is even a tenth of an.inch of rain, that intersec- tion has at least a foot of water over the curb and I can envision one accident after another with people trying to avoid splashing on their automobiles. Planning Board Minutes March 19, 1985 Page 5 ROBERT HOLBERG, 805 Harris Street. What would the right-of-way access be? Mr. Foulds stated, 100 feet. Mr. Wright asked what time frame can we expect for phase two? Paulson and Howe would remain unimproved during phase one and no changes would be made at the west end until phase two. So we are talking about using them in their present state for a considerable length of time. Mr. Foulds responded, the schedule for phase two depends on three things; (1) traffic volumes on Lake Lansing Road, (2) availability of funds and (3) potential for development of land between Lake Lansing Road and US 27. So there is really no timetable. Kenn Temple. I agree with Mr. Wright's concern, I am interested in seeing phase one, but we may be just buying one without a hope of getting phase two and I may end up with a ruptured roadway next to my office and a lot of truck traffic and vibration. I have a lot of concern for the people on Harris Street, but I don't want to buy their problems and have no long term solution. Dick Garmyn, Burger King is planning a building addition. It has an enormous amount of traffic and when you put this road through, it will increase because of visibility. Have you considered the possibility of having to take part of their addition? Why spend money if they are going to lose parking? I don't like to see money wasted. When you put the road through the Motor Wheel property we thought it was solved. This gentleman explained it was dumping a four lane into a two lane residential area and then fans out to a three lane for Motor Wheel. You must have spent a million dollars on that. You made a new railroad crossing and acquired property from a business. Also you spent a quarter of a million to install a 48 inch storm sewer up Chilson, with the anticipation of this going down Chilson. I understand people with back yards to Chilson don't want this big road. I under- stand the traffic load so heavy you have to change plans. You are spending all this money and I wonder are you taking time now to assess this five lane road? I understand it is urgent the people get relief from Friedland, but are you really going to take time to analyze everything. Thank you. Mr. Foulds reported; the City has taken time studying the alternative alignments. The neighborhood is concerned the City has not moved faster in solving this problem. The reason for this hearing and working with property owners and other governmental units is to make sure we don't make major mistakes. We have made the Burger King design people aware of the alignment alternatives and encouraged them to go ahead with their new building construction, consid- ering when they came in for final site plan approval, we may have more informa- tion on the future alignment. BRAD VAN DEVENTER, representing MSV Associates and also the option holder of the Francis property, Mr. Jerry Francis. I report the property owners in question with access to Friedland are represented. Thank you. REFERRED TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes March 19, 1985 Page 6 Comments from the Audience: WILLIAM BRANDT, 1006 Morgan Street, regarding Z-1-85, representing the Climax/ Morgan neighborhood. We thank the subcommittee for listening to us regarding the traffic problem and for considering letters submitted to you and the petition signed by 45 neighborhood residents opposing this rezoning request. We feel the subcommittee made a fair decision recommending denial and urge the Board to support that decision to the City Council, denial from "C" to "D-1" Professional Office District. RICK KIBBEY, 303 South.Shepard, on behalf of the Eastside Neighborhood Organi- zation regarding SLU-33-84. There are still unresolved issues which include; (a) how the temporary extension of the special land use ties into Sparrow's long range parking plan, (b) procedure to verify lot utilization, (c) surfacing of the lot, (d) criteria used to determine the adequacy of screening and buffering, (e) ingress and egress of the lot and (f) restoration of the property at the end of the special land use permit. We appreciate the time and effort to resolve this difficult issue. However, we believe it would be better to resolve some unresolved issues so it won't be a three year delay, it will only be a two week delay. A phone communication was received from JANICE GRAEBNER, 1112 Climax, opposed to the rezoning of Z-1-85. A brief recess was taken by the Board. BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes: Dr. Remick moved for the approval of the March 5, 1985 minutes as printed and Mr. Langworthy supported; APPROVED Committee Reports: Zoning and Ordinance Committee: Mr. Langworthy Z-4-85, 902, 908, 910 East Oakland Avenue C-2 to G-2 The Committee recommends approval of the request to rezone properties at 902, 908 and 910 East Oakland Avenue from "C" Residential District to "G-2" Whole- sale District. This is not as the petition was filed. The Committee recommends the Board exclude the easternmost two parcels (912 and 914 East Oakland) included inadvertently in the petition by the applicant. The Committee recommends the Board grant a Class "A" nonconforming status to the Lansing Florist Exchange building. Mr. Langworthy so moved, Mr. Wright seconded; APPROVED C Planning Board Minutes March 19, 1985 Page 7 Z-5-85, 112 Hazel Street/1018 South Grand Avenue DM -4 to J The Committee recommends that the properties located at 112 Hazel Street and 1018 South Grand Avenue be rezoned from "DM -4" Residential District to "J" Parking District to allow construction of a parking lot to be utilized by the occupants of the office building at 1033 South Washington Avenue. The Committee recommends that four conditions be adhered to as stated in the Committee report. So moved by Mr. Langworthy and seconded by Dr. Remick; APPROVED SLU-33-84, Sparrow Hospital Parking TABLED until the April 2 meeting of the Board Z-1-85, 1000 block of East Main Street C to D-1 The Committee recommends that the request to rezone property in the 1000 block of East Main Street (_south side) from "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District be denied. The Committee members felt the change would adversely impact adjacent residences with additional traffic and activity on the residential streets. Mr. Langworthy so moved and Dr. Remick supported; DENIED The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Wednesday, April 10, 1985 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Urban Development Committee: Mr. Nelson Act -1-85, North Grand Ramp Expansion The Committee recommends approval of the proposed extension with due considera- tion to pedestrian safety on North Grand Avenue and compatibility in architec- ture of the new garage and steam power plant building in the final design. Also the agency responses be reviewed by the Public Service Department before design and construction, especially the comments on utilities from Board of Water and Light, Consumers Power Company, Fire Department and Fire Marshal. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mrs. Wieland seconded; APPROVED The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 10, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Planning Conference Room. N - Planning Board Minutes March 19, 1985 Page 8 Report from Planning Director: 1) I appreciated the consolidated remarks from the Harris Street neighborhood. 2) Regarding SLU-33-84, I am willing to meet with the neighbors and Sparrow administration and will do my best to set up a meeting. 3) Our public hearings for the April 2 meeting total twelve at this point. I ask your opinion on presentation form. I wonder what you think of the overhead projector and aerial photos taking the place of the slides. The consensus was a combination was preferred. Adjournment: Mr. Langworthy moved to adjourn, Mrs. Wieland seconded and the Board APPROVED. The regular March 19, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 9:30 p.m. WC Respectfully submitted, "/ 14-- a es 7NFoulds, Director nsinlanning Division CRegular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall April 2, 1985 R CL�PiK ni 7 2 j}>ri t� Mrs. Horne convened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. with eight members present: Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wieland, Wright Staff: Foulds, Fountain, Love, Coscarelli. Councilmember Tony Benavides is present also. The agenda stands as printed. Public Hearings: Cases were described by Vern Fountain, who also presented slides of the areas involved. Z-6-85, 401 Lincoln and 402 Rockford Road A to J The petitioner made no comments. No one else wished to speak. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-7-85, Northwest corner Edgewood Boulevard and Cedar Street DM -1 to F JEFFREY WEDEL, on behalf of Latterman and Associates law firm, who represent the petitioner, Fox and Associates, Incorporated, 215 South Washington, Suite 210. We have an opportunity to correct what could potentially be a rather strange item of zoning in Lansing. There is a danger in the way the property has been zoned, due to the split, of landlocking property which is currently zoned residential if the commercial property is utilized. The petition for rezoning would in essence move the border line.-between-the---- commercial ine._betweenthe____commercial district and DM -1 district back further. We have community interest in terms of apartment ownersip as well as potential development of these properties, separate entities, but essentially the same investors. Based on this mutual interest the multiple residential will be more protected. Our clients propose landscaping, berms, fencing to buffer the apartment complex from the proposed commercial use. The clients have been accepted as buyers by the State of Michigan for the subject property and are awaiting a land contract from the State. My clients plan to start immediately preparing the site plan and are in the process of accumulating tenants and other items to make the proposal operational. They have done a market feasi- bility study for the area. They have two major tenants ready to move into the facility on their investigation they feel it is definitely feasible to place the facility in this location. Thank you very much. Communications were received from: CHRIS HADDAD, 6041 South Cedar Street, Dawn Donut Shop, who is in favor. STORY, INCORPORATED, Douglas Milbury, 401 S. Washington, with no objection. Planning Board Minutes April 2, 1985 Page 2 MITCH SKORY, 1906 East Miller Road. The two drives; the one by Tony's Party Store on the corner, how close are the two entrances going to be? Mr. Fountain answered, this access is directly south and abuts the party store, probably 50 to 60 feet from his access. Access comes down Cedar south of the ramp. The third access would be off of Edgewood. The consensus of the Traffic Engineer and Highway Department is there is an access point there, it should be ingress only. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-8-85/LS-3-85, 709 South Pennsylvania Avenue/1008 Heald Place_ C to F CLARE SIMONS, 709 South Pennsylvania Avenue. Directly to the south is a tri- angle created when the highway was put in, zoned commercial. Lot #5 is now owned by Board of Water and Light with a pumping station on it. The other lot which is residential tapers off into the triangle and does not present a desirable residential use. I would like to have the two petitions considered separately, but at the same time. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-9-85/SLU-2-85, Aurelius/Cavanaugh Road Intersection J/H to I Mr. Wright asked if filling is part of the developer's agreement. Mr. Fountain said, it is an obligation, yes. The Ordinance indicates if you propose an operation of mining, you have to first show intent and a reclamation plan. CHRIS BERGSTROM, law firm of Farhat Story Panek Tyler & Kraus, in behalf of the petitioner, Eastlund Concrete Company. Representatives of Parker Memorial are present and wish to address you later. The property in -question is owned by the church. My client, Eastlund Concrete, proposes to enter into a five year lease with a possible five year option to renew. We would complete mining and excavation already in existence. At the conclusion of operation we would fill the pit with clean fill and construct recreational fields that would be directed by the church. The eastern portion has been leveled and converted into recreational area and the church is satisfied. Mr. Eastlund and his company have been mining this area since 1982. It is our contention that we have a nonconforming use, but as a result of discussion with staff we submitted the rezoning and special land use petitions. The pit will be adequately guarded. The pictures reflected recent rain, it is usually a dry pit. The agreement we would enter into with the church would obligate my client to maintain the pit in a safe condition and we would fence it if in fact there was standing water on a regular bases. Mr. Langworthy asked if the petitioner had received a letter from the Forest View Citizens' Association. Mr. Bergstom said, no, he is just returning from Planning Board Minutes April 2, 1985 Page 3 Florida, I received it yesterday. Mr. Langworthy continued; perhaps we could have rationalization between your client and the neighborhood because what they say is contrary to what good practice would be and also contrary to what you are saying. Mr. Bergstrom added; the two pits mentioned are Solomons' and were mined and developed prior to enactment of certain laws regarding reclamation. It is our intent to file a Reclamantion Plan and fill the pit. Not only do we have to do that under the Ordinance, but the lease will contractually commit us. The church has been satisfied with our efforts so far. Mr. Barnhart questioned his opinion of leasing property from a tax exempt status property. Mr. Bergstrom responded; I recall there is a provision which commits someone to paying taxes in the event they lease public property, that might apply. I am not a tax expert. ROY EMERY, 2022 Cavanaugh Road. My concerns would be mostly access to that property and where gravel is being hauled out. Some of my concerns have been alleviated tonight. It is an existing mining operation, will it be accelerated? Aurelius/Cavanaugh is a very congested corner and this could add to it. Mr. Bergstrom said, we have ingress and egress from both roads and we are going to make every effort to cooperate with the neighbors. I believe an ingress/ egress is established on Aurelius. The use will not be a consistent and heavy use, it will be periodic as the need arises. REVEREND STEVE GREEN, Associate Pastor at Parker Memorial Baptist Church, in charge of buildings and development. In the agreement with Mr. Eastlund there will be no money exchanged. Maybe in the future it might develop into some funds for the church, but basically just a swap of labor for their use of the gravel and sand. TOM WHITE, representing Jehovah's Witnesses, owners of 1700 Cavanaugh Road, 3700 Blue River Drive, Lansing. It concerns us being on a periodic basis, that means there is no completion date and we are planning construction of a religious building on Cavanaugh. This site, having egress on Cavanaugh would present quite a traffic problem; two churches and hauling with no date of completion. Section 38-37A of the City Code is very broad on type of fill, so we basically have a gentlemens' agreement as to the type of fill. Destructable materials could be put in as long as they are sanitary and we object to that because I heard someone refer to the Solomon brothers, who have filled much of the Cavanaugh area with destructable materials or materials that come from destruction. The area is becoming unusable for future use. With the Fiser brothers proposal in the Jolly Road area, the City is making the whole area a gravel pit that would no longer be suitable for either religious facility. Planning Board Minutes April 2, 1985 Page 4 TERRY BERRY, 4025 Chicory Lane, Deacon at Parker Memorial Baptist Church. The property in question in back of the church has been partly developed. We have planted grass and there will be a ball field. A small pit has been in existence for at least the five years I have been with the church. For the people of Forest View that have questions on creating gravel pits --we are going to fill a pit that already exists. RON HELZERMAN, corner of Irene and Aurelius. I am in favor of this action. I have lived in this area for four years and the road has been improved, which we appreciate, and even since improvement the trucks going in and out periodi- cally have not obstructed traffic or caused problems. This pit will eventually be filled and the area leveled. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-10-85, 117 North Fairview Avenue/116 North Clemens B to J ALAN JANSEN, 115 North Clemens, immediately west of the proposed parking lot. I am not convinced of the need for the parking lot. I have lived there nearly five years and can look down the parking lot most any time of the day and it is not full. I wonder where the need is. Mr. Foulds explained, several years ago the City, working with some East Michigan Avenue business people, identified parking which services the commer- cial uses as a primary problem. As a result funds were budgeted through the CD Block Grant program to expand parking on the south and north sides of the 2000 block of Michigan Avenue. Subsequently, the parking lot on the south side was expanded and is in operation. Funds for expanding the parking1 of to the north remained in the budget. The question arose, should the City go forward with this project or drop it and reprogram those funds. Another meeting was held with the business people on the north side and it was still the feeling that during peak hours of operation, additional parking was needed. Based on that, the City agreed to initiate a rezoning petition to find out what the feeling of the neighborhood residents are on expanding that parking lot. Mr. Jansen continued; the neighborhood as a whole has experienced considerable problem with the Green Door. People yell, squeal tires and throw fire crackers. Also Clemens is a main street with a fair amount of congestion. Also I am facing the possibility of a party store to the south of me where currently there is a vacant, damaged house. If a parking lot goes in west of me, I am concerned this increases the probability of more people in the area. I do not want to underestimate the amount of noise in the area. The other major concern is with property value. I have commercial property to the west and south and if the parking lot goes in, commercial to the east, which makes my house a peninsula in a commercial zone. Would any of you want to buy a house in a commercial zone? Property value is directly linked to willingness to live in an area, not an assessor's estimate. Planning Board Minutes April 2, 1985 Page 5 If I stay, the situation may become totally intolerable. If I don't stay, why would people want to rent it? Third, could I sell it for a sufficient amount for down payment somewhere else? If this has to go in, I suggest you buffer both ends of the parking lot as much as possible as well as the back and that the entrance/exit be on both ends. Now it's one-way and all the traffic and noise pours out right in front of my house. I represent the couple immediately north of me, an older couple, not in good health that are very disturbed about the parking lot and party store and I think the two are linked. The combination of the Green Door, the party store and the gas station, all of which are late night businesses and cause a certain amount of noise and commotion far into the night, combined with an adequate parking lot to attract even more people, it will lead to an intolerable situa- tion for the neighborhood. Lastly, if worse comes to worst and all of this goes in, I would like to propose you buy my house and make the whole thing into a parking lot so I can get out of there. DAVID GLASSNER, 1910 Jerome Street. I am not concerned the parking lot is going to directly affect me, but I am concerned that I don't see a need for a parking lot there. The parking lot is never full; the only business that stands to gain from putting a parking lot in there, maybe on Friday and Saturday nights, is the Green Door Lounge drawing their rowdy crowd. They say they will eliminate parking on the streets; the fact is that almost all of the businesses on the north side of Michigan Avenue don't have rear entrances so it still is going to be shorter to park on the street and walk in than it is to park in back and walk all the way around. It won't solve that problem. The gentleman's concern about 109 North Clemens, the house damaged by the gas station explosion, is a community danger because it is not boarded up and is a more pressing problem than taking out perfectly good residential uses to turn them into parking lots. I don't think buying more parking is a good way to spend money. TIMOTHY MC COOL, 129 North Clemens. Most of the businesses are only open during the day and the parking lot is virtually empty. I know this is repeti- tious; the Green Door has always been a problem, I have filed police reports before. There is a lot of activity when the bar closes and this is going to be conducive to late night activity over there. We are awakened many nights. During the day when businesses are open, there is no one to be found. The noise is unbearable and I had a hit and run on my car earlier. C Planning Board Minutes April 2, 1985 Page 6 DAVID MURRAY, co-owner of the Green Door Lounge. I and my partner are rela- tively new to the city. The reputation of the Lounge in years past is some- thing we have addressed and think we have made progress. I represent ten business owners that are in favor of expanding the parking lot. There are many times when the parking lot is full. A good example of what can be done is on the south side of the street. They had the same problems before they expanded their parking lot. Not only did they alleviate the parking problem, but they improved the backs of the buildings. I hope this would be done on the north side of Michigan Avenue also. I can't speak for the other business owners, but we intend going along with that. I think others would do the same. A buffer between the residential and parking lot could be accomplished, similar to the lot on the south side and it would afford residents a better area than they're looking at right now. The two houses in question; one was being rented and one was empty, and are unsightly. If they were taken out, the area would be improved. The owners are willing to sell and have their houses razed. Thank you. Mr. Wright asked if his business has a rear entrance. Mr. Murray answered, yes, there are probably nine rear entrances of the ten businesses there, who all use the parking lot and rear entrances. At our last meeting shop owners across the street were interested in this also. They have a tremendous amount of parking but are limited also. When their lot is full and the street fills, parking behind our businesses fills up. So it will hlep the business community on both sides of the street. BRIGID KING, 115 North Clemens. Those two houses are not in bad condition; one was painted within the last year and home owners in the area have tried to improve their properties. The one I live in has new siding, solar water heating and a new enclosed front porch. I don't think houses in that area -are unsightly. Also the noise inside the Green Door can be heard more than 100 feet outside. Last month I almost called the police because people were outside screaming. Raupp Campfitters, Eddie's Restaurant, Castellani's Market do not have rear entrances. I would like to add that if you clean up that parking lot and move the utility pole back, get some items out that are not part of the buildings --move those Granger service containers back, you can add a few more spaces into the lot instead of tearing down these buildings that are still sound construction and good looking buildings. Green Door is not a quiet business and if you add more parking, you will increase the problem. TOM DONALDSON, 126 Horton Street. Before I lived in the 200 block of Fairview so I am familiar with the area. It isn't a good idea to expand this lot. The demand just isn't there as everybody said. So on the plus side we could clean up the lot --that would be nice and help out some bar overflow. On the negative side we destroy two nice houses and take those off the tax rolls, we're decreasing our tax base besides dumping a lot of money into this parking lot, which most of us agree we don't need. Planning Board Minutes April 2, 1985 Page 7 Whether the money comes from the federal government, city or state, it is all out of our pockets, why spend it? It is encroachment on the neighborhood too. It is a good neighborhood, making a comeback and we're moving the commercial area into the neighborhood. It will keep going further. People are investing in their homes and this is the wrong time for this. There aren't many rear entrances to these buildings and the lot on the south side is rarely full. As far as concerned merchants, only one showed up so I can't believe they are all that concerned. But if they are, why not just clean up the existing lot. It looks trashy and is dangerous for the kids. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-11-85, 1201 West Jolly Road A to F MITCH SKORY, 1906 East Miller Road, petitioner. We have the whole corner and there is a notch out of it zoned residential. We purchased the building and would like to make it commercial to square it off. Everything except to the west is already commercial. West is a large, vacant piece of land which eventually probably will become commercial of some sort --stores or shopping right on Jolly Road. Parking; we've got between the corner, we own the two parcels to the east and south and it's all blacktopped. We have sufficient parking. A communication was received from Mr. and Mrs. Jack Niklas, 1225 West Jolly Road with no objection. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-12-85, 1218 North Washington Avenue C to J Mr. Wright asked if this will be hard surfaced? Mr. Fountain responded, yes and also screening and buffering will be required. Mr. Wright asked if there could be an agreement to share parking lots. WAYNE FOSTER, co-owner of the house immediately south of 1218 North Washington and co-owner of Estes Furniture. We have for years shared parking with the North Presbyterian Church and presently borrow eight to ten spaces for employee parking and have a good relationship with them. We have needed parking for a number of years and now we are planning to expand. I would like to reserve further comment until the owner to the north has expressed his concerns. BERNARD TUBANDT, 1222 North Washington Avenue, submitted a letter from property owners across the street (on file) concerned with this parking lot being created like the one across from it with no curbs, no catch basin, no fence, no berms or shrubs. Planning Board Minutes April 2, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Tubandt. If this is a parking lot, regarding drainage, I understand they have to put in a catch basin and blacktop to keep water from coming off because that's a higher lot than mine. My house is within a few feet of the 1218 property line with a porch on the south side of the house. My concern is that there be no entrance or ex.it from Washington Avenue to this new parking lot. I suggest the green be continued all the way through, then put a sound barrier parallel with the street south of my house to shield it from the street. Parking lots on both sides that are blacktopped would be a detriment to the area. A lot of properties have been fixed up and I question what it will do to my property value. Mr. Foster. We are sensitive to the neighborhood. We have agreed tQ the six foot decorative fence and a 15 foot barrier will be erected. We would like to make the present exit/entrance an entrance only and have an exit someplace else and at least 50 feet from the four foot driveway. There will be no lights shining in houses. DIEDRA GIBSON, 110 West Willow. I prefer to keep the entire neighborhood residential with businesses only on Grand River. I have observed the parking lot and have not seen it full. The yellow house in question has lots of money and time into it; stained glass window and insulated, it would be a shame to have it torn down it is typical of old homes in the north end. We also have put time and money in our house and the neighborhood has been rejuvenated and is mostly owner occupied. The white house was just sided and would be next to the parking lot. I am concerned about the devaluation of property. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE SLU-4-85, 1434 East Jollv Road GEORGE GRABOWSKI, 1434 East Jolly Road, petitioner. My brother and I have farmed there all our lives. The buildings proposed would be of great help to us and everything would be up front for the people at the farm market. I have a special request, we would like this to be taken up as soon as possible. We are in need of these houses by May 10. We are expanding our greenhouse busi- ness and would like to tear down some less efficient pole frames. Our contrac- tors would like to start about April 15 to get done in time. These greenhouses are made of galvanized steel and covered with two layers of plastic. They will be modern with gas heat, large fans --one in each end of the building to keep air circulating. They are advertised as the strongest greenhouses made and designed for the snow belt. They will be 29 by 144 feet each; two joined together. A communication was received from Mr. and Mrs. Rodocker, 1116 Barr Avenue, with no objection as long as the greenhouses are close to Jolly and away from houses. Planning Board Minutes April 2, 1985 Page 9 CAROL JONES, 5349 Ellis Court. My back yard abuts the farming area. I am for anything that would encourage them to stay in the neighborhood, I enjoy the view. Thank you very much. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes: Mr. Barnhart moved for approval of the March 19, 1985 minutes as printed and Dr. Remick supported; APPROVED Committee Reports: Zoning and Ordinance Committee: Mr. Langworthy SLU-33-84, Sparrow Hospital Parkin Taken from the table on approval of a motion by Remick, second by Langworthy. The Committee recommends approval of a special land use permit for Sparrow Hospital for the purpose of allowing the continuation of a parking lot on property commonly known as the Boys' Training School, located north and adjacent to the Eastern/Pattengill school complex. This recommendation is subject to the following ten conditions: 1) That a parking management plan be approved and submitted to the City by Sparrow Hospital's Board of Directors which clearly indicates the timetable for implementation of the shuttle service referred to in the Sparrow Hospi- tal communication of February 19, 1985, a commitment of the total number of employees to be served by this shuttle service and an identification of the hours of operation of the service. 2) That Sparrow Hospital shall utilize the lot for off street parking with a minimal range of utilization of at least 110 to 125 cars parked in the lot on an average daily basis. 3) At the end of a six month trial period, utilization rates of the parking lot shall be submitted to and verified by the Department of Planning and Muni- cipal Development. If parking utilization is at or above the 110 to 125 average cars per day range, then use of the parking lot will continue on the basis of six month reviews of the minimum utilization rates. Planning Board Minutes April 2, 1985 Page 10 If utilization rates fall below the minimum requirement, the Special Land Use authorization will automatically revert to the Planning Board for reconsideration. The reconsideration will take the form of revocation of the permit, or modification of the parking management plan to increase utilization of the lot. 4) If the Special Land Use Permit is revoked, Sparrow Hospital shall return the land to its original condition within three (3) months. 5) Ingress and egress to the parking lot shall be limited to the existing access drive to the south of the site. 6) A gravel surface shall be used and maintained in a dust free manner, and the City Engineer will review the lot periodically for soil erosion. 7) Landscaping, screening and buffering shall be installed in accord with a plan approved by the Planning Division. This Plan shall address the concerns of, (a) preservation of existing trees, (b) appropriate fencing and lighting and substantial buffer from existing residential areas and a pedestrian walkway from Orchard Street through the Eastern High School complex. i 8) The temporary use of off street parking shall be for a period of two years following the date of approval by the Lansing City Council. 9) The State of Michigan shall be notified of this action. 10) The lot will be maintained properly, including grass trimming, trash pick up, etc. and shall be monitored by the appropriate agencies. In addition, the Planning Division will provide the Eastside Neighborhood Organization with adequate contacts concerning maintenance responsibilities. . Mr. Langworthy so moved and Mr. Wright seconded. Mr. Nelson will abstain from voting and discussion. APPROVED The Chairman allowed the Eastside Neighborhood Organization President a comment. RICK KIBBEY. Thank you for this opportunity to thank the Planning Board, particularly the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, Planning staff and the folks at Sparrow Hospital for cooperating on this issue. In the brief delay we were able to work out not only the short term questions, but begin to work on a long- term solution. The time was well spent and I appreciate your cooperation. We are pleased to be able to support the motion this evening. Planning Board Minutes April 2, 1985 Page 11 SLU-4-85, 1434 East Jolly Road The Committee recommends approval of the special land use permit request to construct two 29 by 144 feet greenhouses at 1434 East Jolly Road subject to the installation of improved parking adequate for the existing commercial use as defined by the parking requirements of the Zoning Code. Dr. Remick so moved and Mr. Langworthy supported; APPROVED The next Committee meeting will be held Wednesday, April 10, 1985 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Urban Development Committee: Mr. Nelson reported the next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 10 at 7:30 in the Planning Division Conference Room. Report from Planning Director: Mr. Foulds 1) On the Sparrow Hospital issue, I feel we have a firm working relationship between Sparrow and the ENO in terms of recognizing that Sparrow does have parking deficiencies and we have to meet those. We will continue dialogue until we identify potential areas where those problems can be solved. The two week delay was worthwhile because perhaps there was not a firm dialogue before. 2) What is your feeling on the presentation method for the public hearings? The consensus was members enjoyed the overheads added to the presentation but that a control arrangement for the lights somewhere in the Chamber should be requested. Motion was made by Remick and seconded by Langworthy that staff generate a joint memorandum from this Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals to the City Council to be signed by all Board members. APPROVED 3) The Solomon Gravel Pits were mentioned earlier. Those particular borrow pits have been a problem for the neighborhood residents because of utilization of them over the years. We have had a court order which requires Otto Solomon to reclaim and restore them.. Mr. Solomon is at this point offering both of those pits, east and west sides of Aurelius north of Cavanaugh, to the City to be used as park land. I am skeptical that there will be a public use for them. We will have an Act 285 review on them shortly, but future reuse is questionable. We don't want to have an extraction operation without a reclamation plan in the future. 4) The pre -application to the State Historic Preservation Officer has been approved and we now have to submit a final application for Lansing. That parti- cular grant application was sponsored by the Historic District Commission based on requirements we have to perform for the Block Grant Program in terms of identifying historic resources in the community prior to demolishing them. We Planning Board Minutes April 2, 1985 Page 12 can only afford to do this with a grant through the state. We will hire part time people to physically survey certain older portions of the community to identify parcel by parcel where historic resources are and document them for public record. New Business: The Cherry Hill Master Plan was submitted and referred to the Urban Development Committee. Mr. Nelson expressed concern with Council bypassing the Board and having no 285 review before they resolved to give away a portion of the entrance to Hunter Park. The actual deed conferring the land to the City indicated a portion of .land 66 feet wide between two houses was part of the parcel donated to the City with a restriction that those two properties were to have access running from Holmes Street into the Park, which at that time became the entrance to the Park. It was considered to be a street and those two houses faced their garages to this area. The Board requests clarification as to whether an Act 285 Review Z- is necessary on easements. Adjournment: Mr. Mitchner moved to adjourn, Mr. Langworthy seconded and the Board approved. The regular April 2, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted,/! s N. Foulds, Director nsing Planning Division WC C LANSIkG CITY tLEAK Regular Meeting MAY 27 Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers w { -----�--- -- Tenth Floor, City Hall April 16, 1985 Emly Horne, Chairman, convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. with eight members present: Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wieland, Wright. Staff: Foulds, Love, Coscarelli, Rajendra Agenda: Delete April 2, 1985 minutes from Business Session. Public Hearing: Cherry Hill Plan Presentation ELEANOR LOVE, Senior Planner, presented background information on this Plan for the Board and audience. The boundaries are Kalamazoo Street on the north, the Grand River on the east, I-496 on the south and Washington Avenue on the west. The Cherry Hill area Committee's objective was to develop a plan which outlined specific actions and recommendations for future physical development in the Cherry Hill area. Members of the Committee who were present stood and were recognized. GREG WADE, Chairman, Cherry Hill Citizens' Committee. Cherry Hill has always played a prominent role in the City of Lansing. As the home of the first Oldsmobile factory, two governors have lived in our neighborhood and we see no reason why Cherry Hill cannot be restored to some of its former luster. One of our proposals is to create a historic district, we also have a capital outlay proposal. We would like to be sure that attention is paid to our priority list. (The future land use pattern was presented and a map with proposed zonings.) We thank Eleanor and look forward to working with anybody who is interested. JEANNE BLAIR, Co-chairman. Home owners and residents have been active and interested in their neighborhood. Some of our needs defined are; (a) code enforcement is not done, (b) absentee landlords are one of our biggest problems, (c) River Street Park should. have more facilities for children, benches, picnic tables, replacement of trees damaged by the storm. Davenport College uses it a lot. REFERRED TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes April 16, 1985 Page 2 Comments from the Audience: WALTER WHITNEY, 901 Bates. I would like to thank you for listening to our pleas on the industrial access road. We hope to get a favorable recommendation from the Board. We do appreciate the time and effort put forth. Mrs. Horne thanked Mr. Whitney and the neighborhood for their time and effort on this project. BUSINESS SESSION: Committee Reports: Zoning and Ordinance Committee: Mr. Langworthy NCU-2-85, 1217 North Loqan Street/1101 West Willow The Committee recommends granting Class "A" Nonconforming status to the proper- ties at 1101 West Willow and 1217 North Logan Street to expand the existing business and parking subject to the five conditions stated in their report. The Committee found the proposal with those five stipulations is in substantial conformance with Section 36-9.3(4)(a)(b)(c), and public health, safety and welfare will be enhanced if this project is completed. Mr. Langworthy moved for approval and Mr. Wright supported, APPROVED Z-6-85, 401 Lincoln Avenue and 402 Rockford Road A to J The Committee recommends that properties located at 401 Lincoln Avenue and 402 Rockford Road be rezoned from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District to allow the continued use of the property for off street parking to serve the commercial businesses located on Cedar Street between Lincoln Avenue and Rockford Road. The Committee recommends approval be subject to five conditions: 1) That a site plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division, Traffic Engineer and Public Service Department prior to completion of development of this site. Said site plan shall show a minimum of a 20 foot setback from both Lincoln and Rockford which shall be maintained in lawn and landscaping. 2) The necessary landscape screening and buffering adjacent to existing residential development. 3) Ingress/egress of the site to be approved by the Transportation Engineer. 4) A drainage plan, subject to approval by the Public Service Department (City Engineer). 5) Lighting of the parking area shall be so directed on the parking area so as not to affect the adjacent residential development. Mr. Langworthy so moved and Dr. Remick seconded,' APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 16, 1985 Page 3 Z-7-85, Northwest corner Edgewood/South Cedar DM -1 to F The Committee recommends approval of the petition to rezone property at the northwest corner of Edgewood Boulevard and South Cedar Street (west side of the 6200 block), commonly identified as excess highway right-of-way initially intended for the completion of the Cedar Street/I-96 interchange, from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District subject to the three conditions of their April 10, 1985 report. Mr.. Langworthy moved for approval and Mr. Wright seconded; APPROVED Z-8-85, 709 South Pennsylvania Avenue C to F The Committee recommends that the property located just east of 1008 Heald Place be rezoned from "C" Residential District to "F" Commercial District to allow the petitioner to join the vacant property with the commercial property directly west to provide for a more usable commercial property. The change would allow development comp.atible with surrounding land uses. Mr. Langworthy so moved and Dr. Remick supported; APPROVED LS -3-85, East of 1008 Heald Place The Committee recommends the request for a lot split for the property located at 1008 Heald Place and 709 South Pennsylvania Avenue be approved for the purpose of splitting off the east 79 feet from the west 79 feet°to allow the applicants to sell the east 79 feet and the structure theron for professional office use. This recommendation is based on two conditions: 1) The breezeway connecting the structure on the east 79 feet with the structure on the west 79 feet be removed physically separating the structures. 2) Site plans be submitted to the Planning Division and Transportation Engineer for approval. Mr. Langworthy moved for approval, Mr. Mitchner seconded; Z-9-85, Southwest of Aurelius/Cavanaugh Intersection %.— SLU-2-85, Cavanaugh/Aurelius Intersection APPROVED J and H to I TABLED TABLED Planning Board Minutes April 16, 1985 Page 4 Z-10-85, 117 Fairview/116 Clemens B to J The Committee recommends rezoning properties at 117 North Fairview Avenue and 116 North Clemens from "B" Residential District to "J" Parking District to allow expansion of City Parking Lot #8, located north of the businesses in the 2000 block of Michigan Avenue (north side) to add approximately 20 spaces. Approval is subject to the seven conditions stipulated in the April 10, 1985 Zoning Committee Report. Mr. Langworthy moved to approve and Mr. Wright seconded; APPROVED Z-11-85, 1201 West Jolly Road A to F The Committee recommends approval of the petition to rezone property at 1201 West Jolly Road from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District subject to three conditions stated in their report. The zoning district as proposed will not extend any further west than the commercial zoning district to the south. Moved by Mr. Langworthy, supported by Dr. Remick; APPROVED Z-12-85, 1218 North Washinqton Avenue C to J The Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommends that property located at 1218 North Washington Avenue be rezoned from "C" Residential District to "J" Parking District to allow for expansion of parking to serve the Estes Furniture Company located on North Grand River Avenue, subject to the four stipulations of their report. Mr. Langworthy so moved and Mr. Barnhart seconded; APPROVED Z-3-85, 406 East Holmes Road A to F The Committee recommends that the property located at 406 East Holmes Road, more commonly known as Everett Elementary School, be rezoned from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District to be developed for office and commercial activities subject to four conditions, as stated in their April 10 report. Mr. Langworthy moved approval and Mr. Mitchner supported; by a 7 yeas, 1 nays vote, APPROVED The next meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be held on '� Wednesday, May 15, 1985 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. c Planning Board Minutes April 16, 1985 Page 5 Urban Development Committee: Mr. Nelson Cherry Hill Master Plan The Committee has discussed this Plan and are open to comments from Board members. You will notice three suggested changes staff recommends. We would appreciate your comments. Industrial Access Road The Committee recommends construction of Phase one of a new industrial access road from US 27 east along sub -alternate B, Howe Avenue to Paulson Street, as identified in the environmental assessment for the proposed project, and that the Mayor and Council proceed immediately to acquire necessary property and initiate construction for phase one of this project. It is further recommended that the road be paved for all of phase one to control dust and that all efforts be made to keep the road clean of debris. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mr. Barnhart supported; APPROVED Act -35-84, High Street School The Committee recommends that each of the following range of reuse options be considered for the site; (A) community facility, (B) utility, and (3) office, and Mr. Nelson so moved; Mrs. Wieland seconded, APPROVED Act -36-84, Holmes Street School Reuse The Urban Development Committee recommends the site is appropriate for use as a community service facility, private educational facility or single family residential development. Commercial, office, industrial and multiple residen- tial uses should not be allowed. Moved by Mr. Nelson and supported by Mrs. Wieland, by a 7 yeas, 1 nays vote; APPROVED Act -37-84, Oak Park School Reuse The Committee recommends Oak Park School be used for community facilities, converted multi -family residential or professional office use due to the limitations and restrictions of the site. Also these uses would be most appropriate with respect to maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Nelson moved for approval and Mr. Barnhart seconded; APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 16, 1985 Page 6 The next Urban Development Committee meeting is scheduled for May 15, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Report from Planning Director: Mr. Foulds 1) I would like to thank the Board and both Committees for your diligence in getting through your long agendas the last two meetings, staff appreciates it. 2) The Planning and Municipal Development Department had their budget hearing today with Committee of the Whole going over our budget and work program with a wide range of discussions on marketing Diamond Reo and other issues. There are no major problems with our work program for next year, just more of it. Mr,. Barnhart questioned, regarding the Diamond Reo site, there was a request by Popoff meat company, Abbey heating/cooling, a bar and most of the businesses in that block facing the property on the other side of the street. They are all undergoing growing pains, need new facilities, would like to stay in that area and all indicated interest in that property. I would hope those folks would not be overlooked and given special recognition for a change of place. Mr. Foulds responded, the focus will be to find large users of land, but if that is not successful, I'm sure they will open it up to smaller establishments. We still have to remove that non -relocation clause with EDA. The City hopes to end up with some kind of industrial, commerical, warehousing park there. 3) At your next meeting I will bring recommendations of the Mayor's Housing Code Enforcement Task Force, which Mr. Tubbs chaired. You received survey forms and copies of that report. I would like to explain some results of that effort, which I think will result in much better code enforcement for the city. We will transfer two Zoning Officers of the Planning staff into a new code compliance team that will be called "Code Compliance Officers" -and will be combined with the Housing Inspectors in the Building Division. We will hire a new supervisor for that team of eight people. They will each be given a target area of the City and be responsible for housing, zoning, multiple dwelling inspections and other environmental concerns and if there is a neighborhood issue, you will know who to call. We hope to implement that in the next thirty days. Dr. Remick asked, will code enforce- ment area maps be available? Mr. Foulds answered, yes, Mr. Fountain will create those areas, relatively balanced in number of housing units, multiple units, total population and correspond with census tracts and blocks to compare information. We will have reference maps. 4) I will take your decisions on the school recommendations and communicate them, as your board secretary, to the School Board directly so they can begin marketing the properties. A 285 decision is basically your review and your decision, then I will transmit that to the Mayor and Council. i Planning Board Minutes April 16, 1985 Page 7 Communications: Three communications were received regarding Z-10-85, proposed parking lot expansion. LINDA HORNE, First of America Branch Manager. No objections to this proposal. The bank's lot is often used for public parking both during and after hours, which is often a result of inadequate parking facilities on the north side of Michigan Avenue. AREA MERCHANTS; request to expand public parking in the 2000 block of East Michigan Avenue, signed by David Murray, Green Door Lounge; Bill Castellani, Castellani's Market; Bill Leech repair service; David McCool, Raupp Campfit- ters; Eddie's Restaurant; Discount One Hour Signs and Pauline Lee of Wolfmoon Food Co-op. EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION voted to explore solutions to the parking problems other than those requiring demolition of housing. Concerns are with; protecting the residential character of the area, traffic congestion at the Michigan/Clemens intersection, conversion of an existing residence to a party store and continuing stability of businesses in the 2000 block. The site should be buffered on the north, east and west sides and those abutting neighbors allowed to review site plans and select appropriate buffering materials. Also there should be no further parking expansion toward Jerome Street and that parking spaces in Lot #8 should not be computed as parking requirements for the proposed party store or Mooney property adjacent to 109 North Clemens. Board Member Comments: Regarding the Mayor's dinner for the LEAN volunteers, it was requested that Board members be seated together, and that smoking/non-smoking areas be provided. Mr. Langworthy expressed the opinion that the City should have a charge, and possibly a minimum fee for providing copies to the public. Adjournment: Mr. Mitchner moved to adjourn, Mr. Langworthy seconded and the Board APPROVED. The regular April 16, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 8:45 p.m. WC Respectfully submitted, es N. Foulds, Director Lansin-g Planning Division C Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall May 7, 1985 Chairman, Emly Horne, convened the meeting promptly at 7:30 p.m. with eight members present: Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wieland, Wright Staff: Foulds, Fountain, Acheson, Coscarelli Agenda approved as printed. Public Hearing: Presentation was made by Vern Fountain, with slides shown for clarification. LS -6-85, 4200 block of South Aurelius Road Mrs. Horne asked if they will be able to save those trees. Mr. Fountain C answered; they intend to. We can't require it, but would certainly encourage preservation of the vegetation. DON FRANSISCO, 2010 East Cavanaugh Road, petitioner. The lots are 100 feet deep from Cavanaugh, but we are landlocked. We don't plan to-do anything with it. Mrs. Emery lives there and owns that house and would like to acquire that piece. I have had people stop by on the large lot as buyers. The corner lot 2000 Cavanaugh, is 100 by 90, so I don't see a problem in splitting this lot. Mr. Langworthy reported, I think our recommendation will have to stipulate you are ten feet short, from a practical standpoint, from meeting regulations that tell where the house can be and what its square feet can be, which does put limitations on the purchaser. Mr. Fransisco responded; if anyone wanted to build, they would have to get a permit from you. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE There were no further comments from the audience. No recess was taken. Business Session: Approval of Minutes: Mr. Langworthy moved and Mr. Barnhart supported, approval of the minutes of `- April 2, 1985; APPROVED Dr. Remick moved approval of the April 16, 1985 minutes and Mr. Barnhart seconded; APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 7, 1985 Page 2 Committee Reports: Zoning and Ordinance Committee: Mr. Langworthy LS -6-85, 4200 block South Aurelius Road The Committee recommends approval of a lot split in the 4200 block of Aurelius Road which would enlarge the rear yards of 2010 and 2020 East Cavanaugh Road by 48 and 52 feet respectively, while creating a new buildable lot of 100 by 90 feet with frontage on Aurelius Road. The Committee further recommends that a notation of building limitation be made on the deed for the 100 by 90 lot because of minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Langworthy moved approval and Mr. Mitchner seconded; APPROVED NCU-4-85, 1701 South Logan Street The Committee recommends approval of the substitution of this fast food take- out business for the ice cream/video operation, subject to four conditions: C1) Maintenance of the existing fence with slats in good repair. 2) Striping of the paved parking lot. 3) Close curb cut on Logan Street closest to Barnes Avenue. 4) No installation of picnic tables on the premises. Moved by Mr. Langworthy and supported by Mr. Wright; APPROVED NCU-6-85, 124-126 South Eighth Street The Committee recommends that Class "A" designation be granted with reduced parking for the property at 124-126 South Eighth Street, provided; 1 1) The petitioner furnish documentation of reduced parking needs. 2) Provision of green area and landscaping be accomplished with the area that would have otherwise been used for parking. 3) The restoration of this structure be done to be compatible with the historic nature of the neighborhood. 4) Use of the property be restricted to two 2 bedroom units. Motion by Mr. Langworthy, second by Dr. Remick; Dr. Remick noted the communication from Green Oaks. APPROVED C C C Planning Board Minutes May 7, 1985 Page 3 NCU-7-85, 130 South Eighth Street The Committee recommends that Class "A" status be approved for the property at 130 South Eighth Street subject to three conditions: 1) Not more than four dwelling units be allowed in the structure as proposed at an intensity not to exceed that exhibited by three 2 bedroom units and, one 1 bedroom unit. 2) That off street parking be fully improved as required by the Zoning Code. 3) If the applicant can provide the necessary documentation that a lesser number of parking spaces than required by Code will meet the needs, the Planning Division staff will review his proposal with the thought of providing additional open space on the site as opposed to hard surfaced parking. Mr. Langworthy so moved and Mr. Wright supported; APPROVED The next Committee meeting will be held Wednesday, May 15 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Urban Development Committee: Mr. Nelson reported that the Committee is scheduled to meet Wednesday, May 15, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Report from Planning Director: Mr. Foulds 1) Paulson mining area and Industrial Access Road. Public Properties Committee Of City Council acted to approve your recommended route alignment for the Indus- trial Access Road connecting US 27 and Lake Lansing Road. In addition they recommended that the Public Service Department begin to develop specifications for implementation of phase one of that roadway this year. The compounding factor is'an item currently in Committee, the Paulson Street gravel extraction Proposal by MSU Associates (Z-29-84 and SLU-32-84), who have an option on the property over which the proposed phase one roadway must extend. While that does not present a major legal problem for the City if we move into eminent domain, it would take longer to do. Snell Environmental did soil borings on the city owned Paulson site and is currently analyzing those for the existence of toxic materials; they were given a May 20 deadline. are no toxic materials as a result of their tests, staff would consideIf there r recom- mending expansion of the gravel operation. If there are toxic materials and we get supporting positions from the Public Health Department and Department of Natural Resources that such an expansion would not be in the public interest, we probably will not support that mining operation. Dr. Remick asked if there would be a light at the Howe Avenue intersection. Mr. Foulds answered, not in phase one. For phase two Michigan Department of Transportation makes that final decision. Planning Board Minutes May 7, 1985 Page 4 2) Holmes Street School Building. I received inquiries whether the Planning Division would support a community theater operation in that building. The Okemos Barn Theater is being razed, so the Community Circle Players are looking for another building. I explained we would not be in a position to support commercial or professional office uses, but would like to see that type of use, that could be combined with day care centers or other public offices,in the building. They are interested primarily in the auditorium. The consensus of the Board is it would be a good use, providing they have enough parking. The Board requests an opinion from the Potter Park Neighborhood Association. 3) City Council Economic Development Committee is considering a revision of their policies under which they give tax abatements for commercial properties. We suggest that minimum threshold requirements be established for property owners who wish to take advantage of tax abatement. The policies are too general and vague now and Council wants clear guidelines for awarding abate- ments in the future. 4) The City has contracted with Snell Environmental Group to develop a series of specifications for improving the aesthetic quality of the approach from Grand Avenue to the west side of Capitol Avenue. They are looking at putting some brick work on Michigan Avenue to improve the appearance and soften the feel, street trees, improving the pedestrian area, and generally making it easier for tourists and pedestrians to traverse from the capitol complex down Michigan Avenue into the downtown area in a more pleasing atmosphere. It is very positive for the downtown area. 5) One of the sessions at the professional planning conference I attended dealt with "high tech" development as it impacted zoning ordinances. A problem of communities, that we had with MBI, is trying to fit these uses into a zoning ordinance which across the country are set up for very traditional uses. There is not a niche for research organizations, uses which may result in the produc- tion of a product which we would normally relegate to the industrial district, whether in the form of an organism, manufactured unit --as a microchip or compu- ter program, specialized tools or robotics. I submit the solution is not in industrial district zoning, but in some other mechanism such as special land use. Mr. Langworthy volunteered, this has been faced by many other communities, so it is not a new problem. We don't have to start from scratch to solve it. Mr. Foulds responded; we have to start from scratch in that we have an existing ordinance. I would like to fit it in in as reasonable a manner as possible. Other communities have a research park district. We are getting inquiries for individual parcels in the city, some of the elementary schools. I think the answer for us is a special land use provision in our ordinance, as opposed to the research park concept. Planning Board Minutes May 7, 1985 Page 5 6) Mr. Langworthy asked the status of the Washington Avenue opening; Mr. Foulds answered, the Mayor directed the Transportation Engineer to come up with alter- native ways that the 200 and 300 blocks of South Washington Avenue could be opened. I understand Council adopted a policy to open it and now wants to know alternatives and what it will cost. We have not been directed to do anything. We will, when we see the proposals, give our opinion on those designs and bring to Mayor and Council attention that grant funds were spent to construct those improvements. Communications: 1) Letter from Mary Clark as Chairperson of the Green Oaks Target Area Organization stating approval of Class "A" nonconforming status for the properties located at 124-126 South Eighth Street (NCU-6-85). 2) Letter from Mayor McKane regarding improvement of the Shiawassee Street Bridge. Concurrence came from Board members. Mr. Wright added; there are events taking place on both sides of the river and there are only two ways to cross; Shiawassee Street Bridge and the railroad trestle. That concrete stair- way was dilapidated and safety dictated it be closed and last year it was demolished completely. I hope they consider, in improvement of the bridge, reconstruction of that stairway. Mr. Acheson stated; the Waterfront Development Board is really interested in the bridge also, and in retaining its architecture, not modernizing it. Traffic and Public Service have been sympathetic to those aims. Mr. Foulds reported, replacement of that bridge is a project in your Six Year Capital Improvement Program. The Chairman directed staff to write a letter to the Mayor endorsing the improvement of the bridge, retention of the stairway and its architecture to enhance activities in the area; further the Board has previously endorsed this project in the Six Year CIP. Board Member Comments: The Chairman stated the volunteer dinner was enjoyed very much. Dr. Remick requested an excused absence from the May 21 meeting. Mr. Barnhart so moved and Mr. Wright supported, APPROVED Adjournment: The regular meeting of the Lansing Planning Board for May 7, 1985 adjourned at 8:40 p.m. R ectfully submitted, W�4k J me N. Foulds, Director WC in9 Planning Division C C Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall May 21, 1985 The meeting was convened at 7:35 p.m. with Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Mitchner; Excused: Dr. Remick Staff in attendance: Spackman, Coscarelli, The agenda was approved as printed. Public Hearing: Z-13-85, 116 West Kilborn C to D-1 seven members present: Nelson, Wieland, Wright Fountain Vern Fountain presented slides and explanation for the Board and audience. In response to the question he stated, multiple familyis permitted in the a "D-1" District. So if it was zoned "D-1" they could still use it as residence. The petitioner spoke. RICHARD COOK, 13600 Lowell Road, DeWitt. The present planned use is Multi- family dwelling and the existing building was used by the original ownera multi use, but never registered as a three family, but the facilities existed as well as adequate parking. xir as a BERNIE BRAUN, 816 Prospect, representing Charles Wilcox, 115 East Kilborn. support the change. I MAXINE ADDINGTON, Executive Secretary of the Michigan State Podiatry on the corner of Kilborn and Washington. My concern is, will there be parking because now the tenants are Association, problems. Mr. Fountain explained, there �are 1minimum our oParkint and caqSrequirements that Will have to be met; land is available for it. gfull that improved and meet minimum requirements of the Codeat will have to be fully BOB BURRITA, 124 West Kilborn. My concern is with parking too. My house is used as a residence and if it were converted to office, would there be traffic coming in and out? Mr. Barnhart asked if there is sufficient for multiple use, too much Mr. Fountain answered, there are two driveways into the property and it could meet the minimum number of re stated there are five covered spaces. Mr. Fountain added, there are two garages required spaces, Mr. Cook in back of the property; one is three,stall and the other, two stall. g 9es Mr. Nelson asked if we have heard from the Downtown Neighborhood Ass Mr. Fountain reported, not as yet. ociation. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes May 21, 1985 CPage 2 Comments from the audience: CHUCK BRAND, 2146 North Ionia Road, Vermontville. I own 719-721 West Saginaw (case NCU-8-85). The property has been used commercially since 1928 not, to my knowledge, for two family usage. I don't know why it is zoned two family. It has been taxed as a commercial property for the 17 years I have owned it and the use has been that. We are asking to be able to continue conforming to the nonconforming use that we have been; a barber shop, which is one-half of it at present. Mr. Fountain said, we would like an appointment schedule to judge how that will affect the parking. Mr. Brand stated, we are able to park 12 to 14 cars back there and there is room for snow in the winter. I couldn't use the property as a residence, it is not set up that way, so as far as I'm concerned the zoning is incorrect. Business Session: Approval of Minutes: CMr. Barnhart moved for approval of the May 7, 1985 minutes as printed and Mrs. Wieland supported; APPROVED Committee Reports:' ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: Mr. Langworthy NCU-3-85, 2309/2319 South Cedar Street The Committee recommends that Class "A" status be approved for the property located at 2309 and 2319 South Cedar Street, with the condition that at the time expansion occurs landscaping, screening and buffering shall be improved around the parking lot area in accord with the Zoning Code. Mr. Langworthy so moved and Mr. Wright seconded; APPROVED NCU-5-85, 1701 South Washington Avenue The Committee recommends approval of Class "A" status for property located at 1701 South Washington Avenue, with the understanding that the structure will remain a single family dwelling. The proposed change is in keeping with the general intent of the Code since the structure is located in a block that is developed primarily with residential dwellings consisting of mixed one, two and three family uses. Motion for approval by Mr. Langworthy was seconded by Mr. Mitchner APPROVED C c Planning Board Minutes May 21, 1985 Page 3 NCU-8-85, 719-721 West Saginaw Street The Committee recommends that this status be approved subject to the applicant submitting satisfactory information that the off street parking area at the rear of the lot would be adequate for a business in conjunction with the bicycle co-op. "Adequate for his business" means that it would not cause parking problems in the surrounding neighborhood. Moved by Mr. Langworthy and supported by Mr. Mitchner; APPROVED NCU-9-85, 5303 South Logan Street The Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommends this substitution be approved and Mr. Langworthy so moved; Mr. Wright seconded. Mr. Wright pointed out that there had been a petition signed by the neighbors submitted indicating support for the request. APPROVED The next committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 12 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: Mr. Nelson Cherry Hill Master Plan The Committee recommends that the Board approve the Cherry Hill Master Plan as an official plan with three changes; (1) the zoning of the 400 block of South Washington Avenue remain "G" Business District, (2) the western half of the south side of the 300 block of East Hillsdale Street be designated for lower density residential development, specifically, "DM -2" District, and (3) the northern block face of the 300 block of East Lenawee be rezoned from "G" Business to "DM -1" Residential District. The Committee felt it necessary to present a different position on these three items. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mrs. Wieland seconded; APPROVED Act -19-84, Elm Street east of Beech Street The Committee recommends the jurisdiction of the portion of Elm Street east of Beech Street be transferred to the Parks Department and Mr. Nelson so moved; Mrs. Wieland supported, APPROVED C Planning Board Minutes May 21, 1985 Page 4 Act -4-85, Block III The Committee recommends the City property described as; part of Lot 4, west 10 feet of east 32 feet of south 26.13 feet, except south 7 feet, Block III, Original Plat, be transferred to the Board of Water and Light; and further, that the south seven feet be sold to Liebermanns of 113 South Washington Avenue at an established appraised value. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mrs. Wieland supperted APPROVED Act -7-85, Rose Court The Urban Development Committee recommends that the proposal to vacate the small portion of street on Rose Court be approved. This action is to correct an encroachment into the right-of-way which resulted from a surveyinq error. The Committee believes vacating this strip will have no impact on area circu- lation, access or utility service. Moved by Mr. Nelson and seconded by Mrs. Wieland; APPROVED Act -10-85, Cowles Street The Committee recommends the City vacate the portion of Cowles Street as described in their report and further that the City Attorney be directed to take this vacation to Circuit Court for clearance and have the vacation order properly recorded with Ingham County. So moved by Mr. Nelson, supported by Mrs. Wieland; Act -12-85, River Street APPROVED The Committee recommends the jurisdiction for the River Street parcel, more particularly described in the May 21 staff report, be transferred to the Parks Department. Mr. Nelson moved to approve, Mrs. Wieland -seconded; The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for June 12, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Division Conference Room. NO report from the Planning Director No further business took place. APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 21, 1985 CPage 5 Adjournment Mr. Barnhart moved, Mr. Langworthy supported and the Board APPROVED. The regular May 21, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 8:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �a James N. Foul ds, Director Lansing Planning Division M C Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall June 4, 1985 Chairman Horne convened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. seven Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Nelson, Remick,with Wieland, Wrightrs present: Excused: Mitchner Staff. Foulds, Fountain, Coscarelli and Councilperson Benavides Agenda: Case NCU-11-85 added to Zoning Committee Report APPROVED Public Hearinqs• Presentations were made by Vern Fountain; with slides andr g aphics. Z-14-85, 2213, 2223 West Jolly Road A to C ROY MARKEY, petitioner, had no further comments. Mr. Wright asked if the hole recently dug on the lot close to Midwood wa C a new home. Mr. Markey responded, we will move the white house into I a in the process of selling the other. it. s for m Mrs. Horne asked if there was a site plan for development. Mr. Markey an not really; just a matter of dividing it into duplex size lots; 60 to 70 feet footage, we will sell to builders by 125 feet. We won't know the square fuers et sell to investors. who Mr. Wright asked if they would be facing Pleasant Grove Road. The res from ag Markey; yeS, Midwood, Jolly and Pleasant Grove because there is response s ROBERT STANAWAY, 2301 West Jolly Road. I mother currently lives there and asked me to represent her. The property grew up at the first house west, my originally three lots, I don't know when it was moved to two lots. M co is breaking this into six where four homes should be; counting duplexes was now talking twelve homes. That is too crowded for that area. It hast' concern now al for man We are Y Years. Once this is done, what will come in? been resi- dential there be a buffer between us and them? Is he going to put a fence i He has come in and raised the ground level approximately twelve inches which is now water shedding onto my mother'sn down. The house on the west is used for storage and lnot ot ohabitable. f trees were taken g is storing appliances. We don't like the property elevated above ourshe larger happens to our property values. We are against this completely. °r what Planning Board Minutes June 4, 1985 Page 2 NANCY KELLY, 2313 Midwood. I have two concerns; first, at the Jolly and Pleasant Grove intersection we have a lot of accidents and a lot is due to visibility. Jolly is narrow and there is not a separate left turn lane and especially with the Waterbed shop so close to the corner, it's hard for traffic to see around so there is one or two accidents a week there. If the pro ert was too close to Jolly, it would add to the visibility problem. p y The other is Sunday mornings. People park all the way up to Midwood and on Pleasant Grove almost to Jolly and south beyond the church even thou h it i no parking. That causes congestion problems also. 9 s REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-15-85, 1321 West Holmes Road A to F Mr. Wright questioned if the plan went to the east to take in that house. M Fountain answered, yes, both houses will be removed to develop the property. Mr. DAVE PATTERSON p y' CI spent most of mytlifenen,south Lans24 mnghaedvnowR�ua- Up until two years Avenue. I know south Lansing a business on Southlando, development and expansion ofgLoganeSquare,thand atltheeit otherslandehasith the to be developed. This site lends itself well to commercial use. Wehproposetial some commercial use. Oxford Community, who owns Somerset, have no opposition to the plan; Mr. Corr who runs Frandor and Mr. Dykstra the same. The proposed plan includes a restaurant to the far the big building close to Oxford would be the �lesseraof thettraffic.to oaurthen intent is to develop with maximum screening and using lighting that be offensive. at would not DAVE GRENFELL, Stephens-Kyes and Associates of East Lansing, representin Patterson. We tried to take high intensity, high traffic uses and groupt where they will be nested into the Dykstra setting. The setbacks would p Mr. a front yard of 20 feet; the large building has a setback of 86 feet hem rear yard would be 25 feet and we have a 20 foot landscape buffer and � allow roadway approximately 43 feet to the building.Tfoot he the building and the access drive is on a 100 feet wade pie 0 foot property. That's allowing any buffer present to the residential to the west. We would piece of property. like to berm in the rear, shield and landscape Somerset as much as we can. don't have clients at this point. I tried to plan the highest intensity useWe on the property. We would like to set up a traffic pattern such that we can maintain two curb cuts and have the rest of the traffic flow onto the property itself. p p Mr. Barnhart asked how many stores could be accommodated. Mr. Grenfell said that depends on the square footage required. We have now a 4,000 square foot restaurant, which is pretty large. In the proposed 13,000 plus square feet in the large area and a1600ssquuaregfoottbank e have at the Planning Board Minutes June 4, 1985 Page 3 end. Depending on the store, they could come in for as little as 2,000 square feet or one big one could pick up the whole thing. Mr. Patterson added; this piece was before the Board in 1979 and denied; also in 1983 to extend the Dykstra operation. We are clearly offering something better to the neighborhood. Mr. Barnhart stated, it would be nice to take a drive to the west and connect to`the housing complex access drive because of the light there. The response; we would like to do that, but that is Oxford's option. PEYTON SUITS, Oxford Management, managing agent for Somerset Apartments. We have no objection to Mr. Patterson's current plan. We understand we cannot keep that land vacant forever and he has taken great pains to make sure that our residents are taken care of as far as screening and traffic flow. This is the kind of thing we would like to have there if anything at all. Our main concern is the safety of our residents. The suggestion of putting a driveway onto ours we had not considered before. My immediate reaction is, the reason we petitioned for that light was for people with wheelchairs to get C across Holmes Road. If you put a busy driveway there, they will have the same problem again. The berming is effective from our side only, as long as there is nothing built up on the other side. The elevation of thero ert considerably higher than ours, so screening would haveotoare be morelng thanbout justlthe berm we have now; or they could level it off to bring it down. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE SLU-7-85, 3308 Malone Mr. Wright asked if there would be structural changes required. Mr. Fountain reported, we did inspections but not all of those reports are back. Hopefully, they will be before your Committee meeting. PEGGY PICKOTT and THOMAS, petitioner. We have had state and city Fire Marshal inspections. Most changes would be internal; fire walls, closing a stairwell, fire door and fire escape which would be on the back side of the house, they have different rules. Thomas Pickott reported, we have had no neighborhood complaints since we have had the six people. We have three people leave every day and the rest remain in the house. Ms. Pickott said this will require one more full time person and there is enough parking. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes June 4, 1985 Page 4 Business Session: Approval of Minutes Mr. Barnhart moved for approval of the May 21, 1985 minutes and Dr. Remick seconded. It was pointed out that the excused absence of Dr. Remick had been eliminated from the report. With that correction, the minutes were APPROVED Committee Reports: ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: Mr. Langworthy NCU-11-85, 207 West Madison/727 North Capitol Avenue The Committee recommends approval of the application of nonconforming use sub- stitution at 207 Madison to locate a sit down/takeout restaurant in a 40'x 14' area formerly used as the Energy Store, based on the understanding that there will be no expansion of the use or alteration of the exterior of the building. In addition it is assumed that there will be little or no change in intensity of use by the Sensuous Bean. The following conditions should be attached to C an approval: 1) The off street and on street parking of the new use will be evaluated at the end of twelve months to determine if any remedial action is necessary. 2) If remedial action is necessary, two alternatives are foreseen; a) additional parking could be secured on a separate lot, b) intensity of the business might be reduced; i.e., eliminate the sit down portion of the restaurant. Mr. Langworthy so moved; Dr. Remick supported, APPROVED The next meeting of the Committee will be Wednesday, June 12 at 7 a.m. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: Mr. Nelson reported that Wednesday, June 12 at 7:30 p.m. is the next scheduled meeting, in the Planning Division Conference Room. Report from Plannin Director. Mr. Foulds 1) Staff is working on two plan amendments; Green Oaks on the east side, and River Island. Two staff people have worked diligently with committees to come UP with a proposal that will work. Planning Board Minutes June 4, 1985 Page 5 2) State Museum Library and Archives. I had opportunity to attend a meeting of the design people who have been contracted by the State; Kessler Architects out of Detroit and Johnson -Johnson -Roy of Ann Arbor. The conceptual plan was reviewed. They would like to de-emphasize Washtenaw as a through street, retaining it as a public street but using it as an approach to the library facility. The elevation is contemporary with more architectural character than a lot of buildings today. They are going to the Joint Capital Outlays Committee in June. They have design funds but need final legislative approval on con- struction funds. I understand they want it complete for the State's 150th anniversary (1987). 3) Edgewood Boulevard. The cooperatives approached the major developer with a compromise; that being acceptance of C proposal, which had been rejected by everybody. They are taking it to the Grand Rapids judge to see if it would be an acceptable alignment and to remove the injunction on the project. The judge agreed that if the City, developer and cooperative would accept Alternate C, he would move to remove the injunction --an unofficial position. We are drafting a position for the Mayor's review based on these events; he will make a recommendation to Council. Alternate C costs more and perhaps is not as safe. C 4) Mr. Nelson asked the status of the hotel and arena. Mr. Foulds reported, I am not directly involved in the hotel portion of the project. HUD is reviewing all documents of private developers and making decision on the UDAG grant if all documentation is there.' 5) Dr. Remick: What is happening at the Michigan National Ramp? The answer, it was purchased by the Ellis Parking Company of Grand Rapids, same folks who own the ramp on the west side of Capitol Avenue. They will raze it, then use it as surface parking until they put a package together either to sell it or put another ramp in. New Business: Consensus of the Board was reached to cancel the regularly scheduled meeting for July 2, 1985, with elections being held at the June 18 meeting. Moved by Dr. Remick and supported by Mr. Langworthy; APPROVED Decision was reached that the annual Board dinner will be held August 30. Mr. Langworthy moved the absence of Mr. Mitchner be excused and Dr. Remick seconded, APPROVED c C' Planning Board Minutes June 4, 1985 Page 6 Adjournment: All business being concluded, Mrs. Wieland moved to adjourn, Mr. Barnhart seconded and the Board APPROVED. The regular June 4, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 9:10 p.m. WC pectfully submitt d, s N. Foulds, irector sing Planning Division C LANSING CITY CLERK Regular Meeting An 7 O,- j' SSS Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall DY June 18, 1985 Mrs. Horne convened the meeting at 7:30 with eight members present: Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wieland, Wright Staff: Fountain, Love, Acheson, Coscarelli and Councilperson Benavides Agenda: The possibility of actions taken on public hearing items is held open for the Committeesin view of the July 2 meeting. cancellation. Public Hearings: Background information and graphics were presented by Bill Acheson and Eleanor Love. Ordinance Amendment, Section 36A, Zoning Appeals Board This request by City Council is to amend Section 36-12 of the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 36A of the Code of Ordinances in an effort to bring Chapter 36A into compliance with the provisions of the Lansing City Charter. No comments were made by the audience or Board. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-16-85, 2726 North Grand River Avenue J to A DEAN COUPLES, 2806 South Cynwood. Are they going to tear down the existing warehouse behind it? Mr. Acheson reported; I have not heard that said, they may use it to park until they abandon it. If they quit using it for more than 365 consecutive days, they would be unable to use it. Mr. Couples asked if they will sell off the parcel? Mr. Acheson said, not that we know of; that would be a private matter. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-17-85, 620 Lesher Place and SLU-12-85, Lesher Place Mr. Langworthy questioned if there would be enough parking. Mr. Acheson stated, parking has not been addressed yet. We are not sure how much of the building they will use. The building was found in the school building study to be adequate for office use. TED ERVIN, Vice President, Neogen Corporation, submitted a letter and gave background information on t'ie Neogen Corporation. Our proposed use of the Oak Park facility falls under "D-1" Professional Office District, one of the options Planning Board Minutes June 18, 1985 CPage 2 supported by the Division in its 285 review. We also asked for the special land use permit based on the research and development category; admissable within the "D-1" framework. We will carry out professional office functions and low intensity research, development and assembly activities in the facility. We will landscape it to improve the neighborhood. Our operations will not be noisy, will not pollute the air or water, involve no retailing from the site and will have little traffic. At current and projected levels, there will be adequate parking areas. We are able to offer some internships in biotechnology to high school students in Lansing so the facility will assist education. Mr. Mitchner asked what would be the content of a typical agricultural testing kit. Mr. Ervin responded; the one currently first in line is for monochromal toxins in corn, soybeans, rice and other foods. If you've ever seen an ear corn with a black kernel, that's a microtoxin. The big wholesalers and granaries go through very laborious tests for these toxins. By the time the tests are, completed, usually at great expense, the grain has gone into the food supply and into the food chain. They've had real problems with these, some of them are carcinogens. We have worked at MSU to develop a monochromal kit, which will define these in the field. They will be "farmer friendly" and at about 10% of C the cost. So we will be making a real contribution keeping carcinogens out of the food supply. Mrs. Horne asked if this was a production line. Mr. Ervin said no; modest manual assembly, they could not be put in a production line. RICK KIBBEY, Eastside Neighborhood Organization. We are pleased to see this sort of development in Lansing and the possible reuse of the school. We have not taken a position, but do have a number of questions. We question basically not whether this is good development, but whether it is the right site for it. We are much less concerned about the research and office uses than about light assembly. What in the future might also be assembled there? What are permis- sable uses under this zoning? Would it be possible to have a review procedure for additional uses that would involve assembly operations that would involve introduction of chemical toxins to that site? Mr. Fountain answered; we are considering the zoning to be "D-1" office, which allows a variety of office type uses; then the special land use requested in conjunction with it ties it down to their specific request. If there is a change proposed in the future for that property that doesn't directly fall in the "D-1" category, but in the special use category, it would have to go through another hearing. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes June 18, 1985 CPage 3 SLU-8-85, 900 Holten There are three other facilities in the area which is why this should be reviewed by area residents. STUART DUNNINGS, representing the petitioner, Geraldine Laws. I feel this is a proper request and would only bring an increase of two individuals. There will be no more than three people housed in this facility. The essential character of the surrounding area would not be changed. There is a need for adult foster care in this City. They will be mobile people. She plans to vacate in the near future, and will have someone come in to live full time to care for the two individuals. Messages were received from: JOHN MURRAY, 824 Holten. JULIA LAMP, 818 Holten SNOW RENE' DUNCAN, 921 Holten; objects. WILLIAM BLAKE, 810 Holten; totally opposed. House too small, parking could be a problem. CLILY CHRISTIAN, 906 Holten. I have a single family have enough foster facilities in our area. Parking wouldtbenalproblem tand We since she plans to leave the area, we don't know what will happen or what kind of people will be taking care of it. The fence is partly on my property so it is not totally fenced in. JULIA LAMP, 818 Holten. Totally opposed; parking is a problem and I wonder who will be there when the lady leaves. It must be just a business venture. Some of us have lived there a great many years and would like it to remain single family. JOHN MURRAY, 824 Holten. Totally opposed; it is a residential area and should stay that way. The facility will bring additional traffic and parking. On the east side of the street, parking is not allowed and it is two hour on the west side. There are facilities at St.Lawrence and there is no need for this. JAMES JEFFERSON, 911 Holten,strongly opposed. GREG RICE, Department of Social Services. I was invited by your staff to attend the meeting to answer'li.censing questions. Mr. Langworthy asked if there is criteria for size. Mr. Rice said; bedroom number and bathrooms for residents. This would fall under "small group" which does not specify any square footage requirements. Mr. Mitchner asked if the residents would have automobiles. Mr. Rice said probably not. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes June 18, 1985 Page 4 SLU-11-85, 3600 block of West Jolly Road (south side REVEREND DAVID MAXWELL, Pastor of the Alleva Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We are flexible in making this church suitable for the land. That is a tenta- tive site plan, we wanted to demonstrate church size. We do want it inside the City limits of Lansing. Lansing is indeed a city that reflects community spirit and warmth that we feel is vital and conducive to the church atmosphere that we desire to be in. There has been an exodus of churches in America to outlying areas. One prime factor is the lack of acreage to accommodate the expansiveness of the modern day multi -dimensional and multi-purpose facility that churches get into. Our goal is not only to build a church facility, but if the need arises to allow the church to expand numerically which is why the City introduced the Code to two acres. We are presently renting space in a church. Our research committee has worked diligently the past two years to find a site that meets that criteria and that fits our financial capacity. There is a premium of land that we can afford and meet the criteria. Our members will emanate from the south side of Lansing. Churches are a vital part of the community. CDELORES SPAGNUOLO, 3621 West Jolly Road. I have no objection to a church on the site; I would love it if they would put a residence with the church. Children and adults do go through here to get to the stores and bar. My concerns are sunlight and water runoff. As the plan now stands, the church would be ten feet from my property line; my house is approximately 25 feet from this line, which means I would look out into a wall. I hope they considered noises. Ten feet is not nearly enough room to grade the ground to run off the water that the building and parking will create. Most of this land is on the same level as mine; some higher and some lower. Now runoff water from sprinq thaws I can handle, but when they build, they will have to raise, and paving will make more runoff. I hope it will be taken care of adequately, possibly with drains. Also I have a large garden and fruit trees along that side of the lot in the back half and the way it is now, it would cut off sun from my garden and trees. In their landscaping, could they keep most of the large trees? I request screening be put up and the water looked into. Thank you. ROY MARKEY, 1325 East Jolly Road. My company owns property to the south of this site, which fronts on Waverly Road and is zoned multiple. What we heard tonight, as well as our past association with the Pastor, we have absolutely no problem with what they are proposing and believe in their sincerity of working with neighbors on problems; real or potential. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes June 18, 1985 Page 5 P-1-85, Robins Meadow --Tentative Preliminary Plat ROY C. MARKEY, 1325 East Jolly Road, petitioner. The lots shown as 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on Ruth Street are actually replats. They are now at the same length as platted a few years ago Mr. Wright asked, do you own the lots that front on Hoyt adjacent to Lot 4? The answer; no. Mr. Markey continued; there are three 100 foot lots and we propose to put in five 60 foot lots. We're just platting as a convenience. Mr. Langworthy asked is this your only option? Mr. Markey reported, we could get the same thing by lot split and wouldn't have to see the Board. Mr. Wright questioned the size of the lots on Ruth and Hoyt adjacent to Lot 4. Mr. Markey answered; 100 feet in width and depth. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Comments from the Audience: ROY C. MARKEY regarding Z-14-85, which was tabled at the June 12 Committee Cmeeting. Staff wanted a development plan and site plan, which we got to them on Friday which probably is not sufficient time for normal research. With their not being a first meeting in July I would like to request my rezoning matter be acted on tonight. Thank you. DAVE PATTERSON, 3624 Tecumseh River Road, regarding Z-15-85. I did submit a site plan which was favorably accepted at the Committee meeting and I am willing to answer any further questions. A brief recess was taken by the Board. BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes: Mr. Barnhart moved approval of the June 4, 1985 minutes as printed and Mr. Nelson supported; APPROVED Committee Reports: Zoning and Ordinance Committee: Mr. Langworthy Z-13-85, 116 West Kilborn C to D-1 The Committee recommends that the request to rezone property at 116 West Kilborn from "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District be approved. The Committee found that the proposed change is in accord with the River Island Planning Board Minutes June 18, 1985 Page 6 Master Plan and the site is of adequate size to allow residential development or the conversion for office use in the future. Mr. Langworthy so moved and Mr. Wright seconded; APPROVED Z-14-85, 2213, 2223 West Jolly Road A to C The Zoning and Ordinance Committee considered the request to rezone property at 2213 and 2223 West Jolly Road (southwest corner of Jolly and Pleasant Grove Roads) from "A" Residential to "C" Residential District for the purpose of developing the property with duplex dwellings. Mr. Langworthy moved to take this item from the Committee's table for Board discussion and Dr. Remick supported. The Board approved. Those speaking in favor of the request felt that the proposed change would allow reasonable development of the property and are satisfied that the number of units proposed is within the density range recommended by the Southwest Area Master Plan. Those speaking in opposition to the change felt that the increased intensity of land use would adversely impact the adjacent single family homes and that they did not endorse development with vehicular access C onto Pleasant Grove Road. Mr. Langworthy moved for approval and Dr. Remick seconded; with a 5 yeas, 3 nays vote, this item will be forwarded to the Mayor and City Council with NO RECOMMENDATION. Z-15-85, 1321 West Holmes Road A to F The Committee recommends the request to rezone property located at 1321 West Holmes Road from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District for the purpose of allowing the development of a shopping center be approved. This recommendation is subject to two conditions: 1) That the final site plan be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Engineer for the purpose of determining the ingress and egress of the site. 2) That a landscape, screening and buffering plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the development of this site. Mr. Langworthy so moved; Dr. Remick seconded APPROVED by a vote of 6 yeas, 2 nays. Planning Board Minutes June 18, 1985 Page 7 Z-9-85, 1902 East Cavanaugh Road J and H to I (SLU-2-85) The Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommends that the request to rezone property to the rear of 1902 East Cavanaugh Road from "J" Parking and "H" Light Industrial Districts to "I" Heavy Industrial District be denied as filed. The Board further recommended that the east 500 feet be zoned "A" Residential District and the balance of the property be zoned "I" Heavy Industrial District. This recommended change of zoning will facilitate the extraction of sand and gravel on approximately the west one-third of the subject property and place the balance of the land to the east in a zoning classification consistent with its Present residential/recreational use. Mr. Langworthy so moved and Mr. Wright seconded; APPROVED as modified. SLU-2-85, Southwest of the Aurelius/Cavanaugh Intersection (Z-9-85) The Committee recommends approval of a Special Land Use request for property located to the rear of 1902 East Cavanaugh Road to allow the extraction of sand Cand gravel from approximately the west 384 feet of the subject property, subject to several conditions; as follows. 1) That the request to rezone the property be denied as filed and that the west 384 feet of the property be rezoned to "I" Heavy Industrial District and the balance of the property, being the east 500.4 feet, be rezoned to "A" Residential District. 2) That the depth of the extraction be limited to not more than twenty (20) feet below the existing established ground level. 3) That the existing haul road be utilized as ingress and egress of the pit and if any change is anticipated to the haul road in terms of location, that the change be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. 4) That the haul road shall be treated for dust. 5) That the operation of an extraction activity shall not result in overhanging earth material which creates a situation which endangers the public health, safety and general welfare. 6) That standing water pools greater than two (2) feet in depth shall be made safe and secure so as not to endanger the public health, safety and general welfare. 7) That an applicant seeking a special land use for a borrow pit shall submit a performance Bond to the City Treasurer in an amount which guarantees rehabi- litation of the borrow pit consistent with the plan described in subdivision(6)(j). 8) That rehabilitation shall be done concurrently with the extraction whenever Possible. Planning Board Minutes June 18, 1985 Page 8 9) That fill material shall consist of inert material and be of a type that shall not in any way contaminate the ground water and soils. 10) That the Special Land Use be authorized specifically to the Eastlund Concrete Company and be held in their control. Abandonment by Eastlund Company shall cause the Special Land Use to be cancelled. 11) Any subcontractor utilizing the pit shall be under the direct control of the Eastlund Concrete Company. 12) If there is a problem with trespassing which includes uncontrolled dumping or misuse of recreational vehicles, then owner and/or lessee shall take the necessary steps to eliminate the problem. . 13) Extraction shall not exceed a ten (10) year period and the Planning Division shall have the right to review the Special Land Use at the end of a five year period. This review shall consist of performance as it relates to the conditions as outlined in this report and will allow the City the right to its continuation or revocation. A letter was received from the Forest View Citizen Association indicating they would support the proposed change in accord with the specific scaled down C development plan as filed by the petitioner in a letter dated April 17, 1985 subject to conditions; all of which are included in this recommendation. Mr. Langworthy so moved and Dr. Remick supported; APPROVED SLU-7-85, 3308 Maloney --Adult Foster Care The Committee recommends that a Special Land Use permit for an adult foster care facility for 3308 Maloney be granted. This would be issued in the name of Peggy Pickott. The property had been previously approved and licensed by the State of Michigan for a maximum of six residents. This permit would allow occupancy by a maximum of nine residents. Moved by Mr. Langworthy, supported by Mr. Mitchner; APPROVED NCU-10-85, 138 South Francis The Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommends that Class "A" status be approved for this property. The property in question.maintained a Class "B" status and has been used continually as a two family residence for several years. The recommendation of approval is subject to three conditions: 1) That driveway and parking improvements be completed which satisfy the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code. 2) That the property be maintained in a reasonable manner; i.e., improved Planning Board Minutes June 18, 1985 Page 9 landscaping and lawn care. 3) That a site plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division identifying the minimum parking requirements. The Committee believes this will have a positive impact on the residential neighborhood providing all the conditions are met. Mr. Langworthy moved for approval and Dr. Remick seconded; APPROVED P-6-83, The Manhattan Subdivision --Final Plat The Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommends that the final plat of The Manhattan be approved. This subdivision plat consists of six lots having access to Provincial House Drive and a new street to be constructed, to be known as Greenwich, running east of Aurelius Road. The property will be developed with 28 condominium units in seven fourplex structures. The recommendation for approval is subject to five conditions: 1) A Deed, Abstract of Title, accompanied by an attorney's opinion as to the C marketability of the land, or a Certificate of Title Insurance be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the filing of the plat and affixing of the Municipal Seal. 2) Final security be posted in the amount specified by the Public Service Department and Department of Parks and Recreation. 3) Final clearance be given by the Public Service Department. 4) All conditions of the preliminary plat approval be followed. 5) A statement be provided in the Proprietor's Certificate which prohibits vehicular ingress and egress to Lots 1, 4 and 6 from Aurelius Road. Mr. Langworthy so moved and Mr. Wright supported; APPROVED Z-16-85, 2726 North Grand River Avenue J to A The Committee recommends that the north portion of the property located at 2726 North Grand River Avenue be rezoned from "J" Parking to "A" Residential District to place the property in a district more in keeping with the single family resi- dential development located on either side of the parcel. Moved by Mr. Langworthy; supported by Mr. Wright, APPROVED The next Committee meeting will be held Wednesday, July 10 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Planning Board Minutes June 18, 1985 Page 10 Urban Development Committee: Mr. Nelson Eastside Transportation Study The Committee recommends that the Eastside Transportation Study Report be adopted as to the findings and recommendations prepared by the Eastside Transportation Study Committee. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mr. Barnhart supported; APPROVED Act -3-85, Shiawassee Street The Committee recommends that the offer by Estes Furniture Company to sell property to the City not be accepted. No City agency was interested in acquiring the warehouse property located at 728 East Shiawassee Street. The site has only marginal utility for use in any municipal function due to the obsolescence of the site and building. Mr. Nelson moved to reject the offer and Mrs. Wieland seconded; DENIED Act -6-85, Weigman Drain, Lancen Village The Urban Development Committee recommends approval of a partial vacation of the Weigman Drain easement to include the north 25 feet of the north 50 feet of the Weigman Drain easement within Lancen Village South #4 Plat. Vacation of this portion of the Drain will not adversely impact the maintenance of the drain. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mr. Barnhart seconded; APPROVED Act -13-85, Fenton Street, Vacate Right-of-way The Committee recommends that a portion of Fenton Street located east of Lowcroft be vacated subject to reservation of easement rights to the Board of Water and Light. The vacated street will become the private property of the two adjacent property owners. Mr. Nelson moved for approval and Mrs. Wieland supported; APPROVED Act -17-85, 1000 Filley Street The Committee recommends that the Board approve the City of Lansing deeding the west 100 feet of the property commonly known as 1000 Filley Street to the Board of Water and Light. The Board of Water and Light currently uses this parcel Planning Board Minutes June 18, 1985 CPage 11 for a water well, which they plan to continue. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mr. Barnhart supported; APPROVED Act -2-85, 1001 Fairway Lane The Committee recommends the request to vacate a 17 feet by 102.78 feet portion of the right-of-way of Clippert Street north of Grand River Avenue be denied. The Public Service Department has sewer lines located in the right-of-way section and the Transportation Engineer asked for retention of continuous right-of-way along Clippert Street north of Grand River Avenue. Mr. Nelson moved for denial and Mrs. Wieland seconded; DENIED The next meeting of the Urban Development Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, July 10, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Planning Conference Room. CNew Business: Edgewood Boulevard --Mr. Rajendra reported that the City Council approved alignment Alternate C for Edgewood Boulevard, which is going along the existing right-of-way. It is not the alternate City Council previously approved. Election of Officers --The gavel was turned over to Mr. Fountain to preside over the elections. Nominations were opened and Mrs. Horne nominated Jim Nelson to serve as Chairman; Mrs. Wieland seconded. Dr. Remick nominated Merle -Barnhart; supported by Mr. Langworthy. Dr. Remick and Mr. Wright moved and supported nominations be closed; approved. Paper ballots were counted, indicating Merle Barnhart will serve as Chairman from July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986. Nominations were opened for the office of Vice Chairman. Mr. Wright nominated Emly Horne; Mrs. Wieland supported. Mr. Langworthy nominated Dr. Remick, and Mr. Barnhart seconded. The first paper ballot tie vote was repeated. Emly Horne will serve as the Board's Vice Chairman for the next fiscal year. Communications: A letter was received from the Forest View Citizen Association regarding their opinion of cases Z-9-85 and SLU-2*85 on East Cavanaugh Road. Planning Board Minutes June 18, 1985 Page 12 Board Member Comments: Mrs. Horne thanked the Board for all of their support and wished the new Chairman the best. Mr. Barnhart requested an excused absence from the July 16, 1985 meeting. Dr. Remick moved for approal and Mr. Langworthy seconded; APPROVED Adjournment: Mr. Wright moved to adjourn, Mr. Barnhart seconded and the Board APPROVED. The regular June 18, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respecful submitted, J mes Foulds, c r Lansing Planning Division � WC c CRegular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall July 16, 1985 The meeting was convened by Emly Horne, Vice Chairman of the Board, who welcomed the audience and explained; the Planning Board was created under Public Act 285 of the State of Michigan. It consists of eight citizens of the community who serve without pay. We are appointed by the Mayor and approved by City Council. We make recommendations to the Council on all matters regarding land use in the City of Lansing. We also define and prepare project priorities for the City. Five members are present: Horne, Langworthy, Nelson, Remick and Wright. Dr. Remick moved approval of the absence of Mr. Mitchner and Mrs. Wieland and Mr. Langworthy supported; APPROVED Excused: Barnhart, Wieland, Mitchner Staff: Foulds, Fountain, Spackman, Love, Coscarelli Agenda: Delete item (c) from Urban Development Committee, Parcel C, Delhi Township APPROVED c PUBLIC HEARINGS: Procedure; staff will make a presentation followed by the petitioner and audience reactions. These cases were presented, with graphics, by Vern Fountain and Eleanor Love. Z-18-85, 3121 South Cedar Street J to F DENVER HARLESS, 3109 South Cedar Street, petitioner, Mr. Fountain has explained everything, unless someone has questions. A letter was received from TERRY TORKKO, 3122 Ellen Avenue, stating in part; I oppose the rezoning of property at 3121 South Cedar Street. The current used car lot has been operating approximately one month. In addition to the noise factor, the number of used cars on the lot are very unsightly and it appears a larger lot is needed. A security vapor light shines directly into the windows of my home. I request this light be redirected. I request that a proper privacy fence be erected which provides year around privacy from Jon's Country Burger and the property at 3121 South Cedar. GARY HEUER, 105 Garden Street. The property has not really changed except the cars there. I would be in favor if for no other reason than it cuts down the in and out traffic on Cedar Street. The drive-in restaurant has a constant flow of traffic. The fencing on the back has been there for years and is to retain trash from the drive-in blowing onto other properties. Mr. Harless has done a good job of keeping his property clean. I am very much in favor of the change. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes July 16, 1985 CPage 2 Z-19-85. 6070-6200 South Loqan Street A to E-2 DON HARTWICK, with Rother and Hartwick Architects, representing Mr. Dionise. He has been a local businessman and would move his market in this area with space left for retail or light office. We feel the site is conducive to a neighborhood district with regard to convenience store and shopping. Although it is zoned residential, it is surrounded on three sides by streets and a busy intersection at Logan and Miller, which is not conducive to residential. We have worked with the Planning Division on screening and buffering from the single family areas across the street and with Public Service on site circula- tion and access. If you have any further questions, we'd be happy to answer. MARIO DIONISE, petitioner, 6166 McCue Road. We have been there for 23 years and some neighbors are concerned about our move and I don't think there is anything to be concerned about. We will move only 300 or 400 feet. We have close to 60 parking spaces, which seems to be enough. We wanted to leave land for screening/buffering. In a small store like ours there are 10 to 15 cars at the most at the busiest ime; 50 to 60 for the whole site. C MRS. DESPOTOVIC, 6030 Piper. Our house will be facing the rear of the store, we are very close, and I am concerned about the parking, lighting and noise that we get already off of Logan plus the QD across the street. I hope he would put up a fence, a high wooden fence. It will take away our back yard privacy if he does not put up a big fence. We are going to get the lights in our family room so I hope the lights shine on Logan and not in our yard. JOSEPH JOLLY, 6052 Pheasant. I feel the same way.about a fence. We have people coming from the QD now and dropping bottles, cans, etc., usually small children. DON PHILLIPS, 2024 West Miller Road and 2131 Newark owner. I am fearful of the transition from residential to commercial and erosion ofthe residential district. We need more time to consider this, I would be opposed to an immediate approval. Calls were received from: -WILLIAM RANES, 2117 Newark and REYNALDO RENDON, 2118 Newark, with no objection generally; no "x" rated businesses or large bars which generate noise and traffic. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes July 16, 1985 Page 3 Z-20-85, 1626-28 South Cedar Street C to F LEE HAGAR, 1837 Beal, employee of Gary Potter at Dicker and Deal. We had a problem in the past with both the operation of Dicker and Deal and the opera- tion at 1630 South Cedar, Music Manor, concerning parking. We are rectifying the problem by demolishing a couple of existing properties that we currently own; a garage behind 1630 South Cedar and at 512 Isbell to provide on site parking at the Dicker and Deal location. We intend to use the property at 1628 as expansion of our retail operation, but use 1626 as a storage facility; thereby creating some buffer to the resi- dential to the north of us. It wouldn't be constant traffic in and out of the building at 1626, the major use would be at,1628 to expand Music Manor. GARY HEUER, 105 Garden Street, representing the South Central Neighborhood Organization. We have a problem with the zoning and complaints from area neighbors. A Dicker and Deal truck went across a lady's yard because hers is the first driveway off of Cedar, so they could unload. If that's the way the neighbors are treated, we are very much opposed. We are opposed to its being used for warehousing; the buildings look like absentee landlords. CCalls were received from: MARY ROOSE, 1624 S. Cedar Street, opposes zoning to "F" Commercial, property already used by Dicker and Deal and causes problems; (1) trespass on her property, C2) party at all hours,(3) store junk cars on the property, and (4) repair motorcycles on the property. Does not feel D&D will be a responsible neighbor. JUDY RICCHY, 1622 S. Cedar, opposes (1) one way alley and traffic often goes wrong way now, and (2) garage at 1628 used for motorcycle repair already. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE P-2-85, Lawrence Subdivision --Tentative Preliminary Plat Mr. Wright asked what Lot 11 would be used for. Mr. Fountain reported, just left as a lot where frontage could be developed and remainder stay in Markey ownership and subsequently subdivided along with this property. Dr. Remick asked if the lots are plotted at minimum size. Mr. Fountain said, a littler larger; widths averaging 70 feet, with a depth of 100 feet. ROY C. MARKEY, petitioner, 1325 East Jolly Road. Lot 11 will be a storage lot rather than dividing it into the frontage lots and have them much deeper than ordinarily. Planning Board Minutes July 16, 1985 Page 4 LARRY PITTMAN, 4800 Tressa Drive. This proposal runs directly behind Tressa. There is an eight foot difference in property. In spring and fall everybody gets flooded. They are going to build this up behind and push more water onto us. I am opposed and I know a lot of people will be. Also it will be low income housing and will take the value of our homes down. In fall and spring we have a lot of stagnant water and mosquitoes. The City does not plow or grade; it would be nice if they kept the street up for us. CLUSTER SMITH, 4814 Tressa Drive. We are having trouble with the Jolly Road sewer system backing up into our basements. We have a petition to get our drain hooked into another to the north side of Tressa to give us temporary relief from the flooding. This used to be a swamp, the previous owner brought in concrete and there is so much junk in there I would be surprised if that could pass a perc test. JIM DUTCH, 5007 Christiansen Road. I agree regarding the water. I too have concerns regarding upgrading the land with fill and pushing the water further into my yard and my neighbors'. Freezing in the winter causes damage to our foundations. CJANE CLAYTOR, 4916 Tressa Drive. We are afraid of what will happen if anything goes in behind. The land is two to eight feet and I don't know why that has been allowed to continue. Roy Markey. In the plat I am proposing the closest to the back of a lot on Tressa Drive is something in the area of 500 feet. Furthermore, as a require- ment of any new subdivision plat, we must install.storm drains in our street and furnish a soil erosion and water plan that clearly shows that the water from our land will drain to the new street we build and we have to file a bond to cover that, which is checked every time a building permit is issued. The Building Division has the builder sign an agreement saying the water will stay on the lot and/or drain to the new street. My subdivision does not really affect the people on Tressa Drive at all. I can see concern with future development, but I do not own that land. I have no desire to buy the land left between me and them, it is owned by one indivi- dual and I don't know what he is going to do with it. But their problem is not my problem and I am not going to compound their problem in any way. Thank you. Mrs. Horne added that the response from the Health Department stated; municipal sewer and water to be provided, plan acceptable as submitted. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes July 16, 1985 Page 5 SLU-14-85, 5725 Orchard Court MIKE STURLEY, Community Mental Health Board, also present is Jim Barclay who handles neighborhood canvassing and supervised last night's community meeting. We sent notice of our interest in several properties to Planning staff and contacted the Police Department to assess crime rates. The people we care for are somewhat more dependent than the normal person and we need to be concerned about their welfare. We also contacted the ward Councilmember. We contacted 272 different homes to leave literature. I believe the materials we provided adequately describe the program. CHARLES POPE, 5723 Richwood, representing the Richwood Village Apartments. We are very familiar with these people. They have been around and are absolutely no problem. We would like this to go through. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Comments from the Audience: ROY MARKEY, regarding P-1-85. I would like to allow the Planning Division and City Council an additional 30 days on my plat proposal from what is legally established in the Subdivision Ordinance. RICK KIBBEY, regarding Lesher Place, SLU-12-85 (Z-17-85). We have been told traffic would be less than 150 cars a day, one United Parcel truck per day and there was no mention of semi trucks so we assume there will be none. We were told the chemicals involved in the solvents would.be nothing more than what would be involved in the chemistry lab at Eastern and nothing in terms of biological agents. Those will be done outside, presumably at Michigan State. We were also told this would not be manufacturing, but primarily research and office facility with some minor assembly. We are still a little concerned about this development, but the special land use permit provides review if the intensity increases. As we currently under- stand the proposal, we have no objection. BEN AMBER, 948 Westlawn and property owner at 3120-3208 Holiday Drive. This project (Act -21-85, right-of-way use) seeks to increase our parking from 24 to 52 spaces, as indicated in the plan submitted by ourselves and our engineers, Stephens-Kyes. This project of 24 all two bedroom apartments draws mostly two cars per dwelling unit. This project is undergoing extensive renovation and we will experience intense economic hardship if we are unable to offer at least one parking space for each of the 48 bedrooms versus the current 24 spaces. Mr. Amber presented a plan and area snapshots. Our proposal is to add spaces in front of these two buildings and behind the east building. We propose not to disrupt the beautiful tree line, but come in Planning Board Minutes July 16, 1985 Page 6 six to eight feet from the curb, which is in the right-of-way and engineer sewers, drains and storms to the highest standards. We intend to leave a grass row. We feel we should have 48 spaces; 49 because one is taken by the dumpster. Our engineer estimated up to $30,000 to build a retaining wall. It is difficult because of the work involved. We have approached surrounding property owners to rent parking space from them and they've all declined. This proposal has been approved by traffic and engineering. We do not have enough parking and our residents are declining due to the parking shortage. Our intention is to attract a professional profile, increase the value of the property and ultimately this would mean higher rents, higher values. A ten minute recess was taken by the Board. BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes: Mr. Langworthy moved for approval of the June 18, 1985 minutes as printed and Dr. Remick supported; APPROVED Committee Reports: ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: The Committee's new Chairman, Floyd Wright, gave the report to the Board. Ordinance Amendment --Board of Zoning Appeals The Committee recommends that the proposed amendment by revising Section 36-12.2 of the Zoning Ordinance be approved. Without this appeal process in the Code of Ordinances cases resolving practical difficulties and hardships related to driveways cannot be considered. Mr. Wright moved for approval and Mr. Langworthy seconded; APPROVED Z-17-85, 620 Lesher Place DM -3 to D-1 The Committee recommends that the request to rezone property at 620 Lesher Place from "DM -3" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District be approved. To further control the operation the Committee will recommend approval of a Special Land Use which contains the conditions and requirements for the Neogen Corporation to operate from this site. The Board members wish to have this recommendation forwarded to the Mayor and City Council along with the special land use to allow continuation of the time frame of this project. Planning Board Minutes July 16, 1985 Page 7 SLU-12-85, 620 Lesher Place The Committee recommends approval of the request for a Special Land Use permit for property located at 620 Lesher Place for the purpose of establishing corporate offices for the Neogen Corporation and coordinate research and pre- pare materials for agricultural testing kits. This recommendation is subject to five requirements: 1) The approval is for establishment of Neogen corporate offices and the preparation of testing kits for agricultural purposes. 2) The pedestrian skywalk shall remain accessible for citizens desiring to use Oak Park. 3) Any parking areas used which abut residentially used properties be landscaped and screened. 4) That the parking areas be hard surfaced to meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code unless a waiver to maintain gravel surface is approved. 5) Approval for the Special Land Use is applicant specific and site specific. C The Committee is satisfied that no outside storage will take place and the entire operation will be landscaped, screened and buffered from the adjacent residential development. Mr. Wright so moved and Mr. Langworthy supported; APPROVED SLU-8-85, 900 Holten The Committee recommends that the request for approval of a special land use to operate a foster care home on the property located at 900 Holten be denied. The Committee's concerns are; (1) further concentration in this area, and (2) the applicant would own but not operate the facility. Mr. Wright moved for denial and Dr. Remick supported; DENIED SLU-11-85, 3600 West Jolly Road The Committee recommends approval of a special land use to allow the development of a church on property in the 3600 block of West Jolly Road (south side) subject to three conditions: 1) Appropriate approvals and permits are obtained from the Public Service Department. 2) A landscape screening and buffering plan is submitted and approved by the Lansing Planning Division. Planning Board Minutes July 16, 1985 Page 8 3) A final site plan is submitted and approved which increases the distance to the west side line, makes the drive entrance perpendicular to the street and indicates parking and building footprint. Mr. Wright so moved and Mr. Langworthy seconded; APPROVED NCU-12-85, 901-903 Pierce Road The Committee recommends Class "A" status be approved for the property at 901 and 903 Pierce Road to permit the expansion of a second floor for two bedrooms and bath for each unit. Mr. Wright moved for approval and Dr. Remick supported; APPROVED CP-1-85, Robins Meadow Tentative Preliminary Plat TABLED P-4-79, Trapper's Cove Final Plat The Committee recommends the final plat of Trapper's Cove #3 Subdivision be approved subject to the three conditions stated in the July 10, 1985 staff report. This is the third phase of the original Trapper's Cove Subdivision which is zoned to allow for development of multi -family housing, primarily large apartments consisting of three story buildings with the required off street parking and open space on site. So moved by Mr. Wright; seconded by Dr. Remick, APPROVED The next meeting of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be held on Wednesday, August 14, 1985 at 7 a.m, in the Planning Conference Room. Planning Board Minutes July 16, 1985 CPage 9 URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: Jim Nelson will serve as this Committee's Chairman for another year. Act -5-84, Vacate Right-of-way Between Porter and May Streets The Committee recommends the City dispose of these parcels and suggest City Council empower the Property Management Division to proceed with the vacation and sale of the properties as appropriate. It is also recommended that all parties with an interest in the parcels be informed by the Property Management Division that action to vacate will take place. So moved by Mr. Nelson, seconded by Mr. Langworthy; APPROVED Act -39-84, Harton Street Reopening The Committee recommends that the November 7, 1983 resolution to close and potentially vacate portions of Harton Street, subject to conditions, be rescinded and, further recommend that Harton Street be reopened along its C entire length. The Committee found that the conditions of the original reso- lution have not been fulfilled and that residents around Harton Street have submitted a petition to reopen the street. Mr. Nelson moved for approval of this action, Dr. Remick seconded; APPROVED Act -19-85, Alley Designations The Committee recommends that three street sections be redesignated from streets to alleys, these are: Edgewood Court from Daleford Street to Englewood Court Englewood Court from Chicago Street to Wisconsin Street Summerville Avenue from Oakland Avenue to Englewood Court This action will allow the City to utilize General Fund money to resurface the street sections with asphalt, which would eliminate problems related to potholes, dust and snow plowing. Mr. Nelson moved for approval and Mr. Wright supported; APPROVED Act -21-85, 3208 Holiday Drive Right-of-way Use HELD IN COMMITTEE The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, August 14, 1985 in the Planning Division Conference Room -at -7:30 p.m.- Planning Board Minutes July 16, 1985 Page 10 Report from Planning Director: 1) The Mayor's office requested a review of the proposed opening of the 100, 200 and 300 blocks of the South Washington Mall. Staff is currently working with the Transportation Division on coming up with background information and we will forward that to the Urban Development Committee for preliminary dis- cussion at the August meeting. The Downtown Traffic Circulation Study (received by you this evening) was prepared by the Transportation Division of the Public Service Department and recommended opening the 200 and 300 blocks. The Traffic Board has recommended opening the 100, 200 and 300 blocks. We will take that information with additional research of our own and determine what impact that might have on the downtown area. 2) The Mayor has directed Transportation and Planning to recommend whether some or all of the one way pair systems should be revised, which has a direct bearing on the opening of the 1, 2 and 300 blocks. We have a deadline for tentative recommendation for mid-September. Our present review of the River Island Master Plan fits into that overall transportation element. We will spend a lot of staff time in the next several months looking at the circulation in and around the Central Business District. 3) Staff will be spending extensive amounts of time on the proposed sale of the Civic Center and Washington Square Annex building. The City has received an offer to purchase both of those facilities. Given the level of hotel and convention center, the City is now -in a position to make a decision whether we will retain the Civic Center and for what uses; or sell for private devel- opment. We hope to have that by the end of September. It impacts a lot of users of the Civic Center; the Annex is full of City staff people basically. 4) A presentation will be made tomorrow at the Center for the Arts concerning proposed use for the Diamond Reo site. It is an attempt to explain a series of uses proposed by a local developer for that site, which involves a co -gener- ation facility (conversion of solid waste to energy or various forms of energy) utilized for several functions on the site. It is a unique use; the question is, is the use appropriate for the site. There will be many organizations and political arenas represented. It is basically to provide information to the community on the proposal. New Business: Mrs. Horne reported that Dr. Remick and Mr. Langworthy have been reappointed to the Board to 1989. Communication: Downtown Traffic Circulation Study submitted to the Board. c C c Planning Board Minutes July 16, 1985 Page 11 Board Member Comments: Mr. Langworthy stated; last night a part of Council proceedings had to do with Planning Division not effectively promoting and merchandising the community. Mr. Foulds said; I believe you are referring to the resolution proposed by various staff people including Planning and Municipal Development Department, Lansing Economic Development Corporation, Ingham County EDC and staff people and some other township EDCs, etcetera. The purpose is to set up a mechanism whereby regional staff people work together and have funding to develop materials to refer potential developers within the region to an appropriate site. If we determine Lansing doesn't have a site for a user, we could refer a busi- ness person to perhaps Delhi Township to keep resources in the region. Our role in marketing the City is basically to handle City owned properties and promote those for development, such as Diamond Reo and urban renewal parcels. We work in concert with the Economic Development Corporation in packaging tax abatement for new and existing businesses in the City as well as reviewing EDC bonding requests of the City. So this effort was a simple request on the part of staff people to set some money aside to help us coordinate economic development within the region. Adjournment: Mr. Nelson moved to adjourn, Mr. Langworthy seconded and the Board APPROVED. The regular July 16, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 10 P.M. WC Respectfully submitted, ame 7N; oulds , Director .a inanning Division 1 J _ 1 ) Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board'', 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers August 6, 1985 Merle Barnhart, Chairman, convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. with seven members present: Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Nelson, Remick, Wieland, Wright Excused: Mitchner Staff: Fountain, Coscarelli and Councilmember Benavides The agenda was approved as printed. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Vern Fountain presented information and graphics on these two cases. Z-21-85, 5300-5316 South Pennsylvania Avenue A to F CHRIS BARYAMES, petitioner, 1731 Nottingham Road. My wife and I purchased this property from Mr. Benjamin, who has had it since 1951. There are eight apartments, four in each building. There are 3 two bedroom apartments and 5 one bedroom apartments. As you see in the sketch I've submitted, my idea is to renovate these apartments to clean up the area and put in commercial establishments. I would like to revamp these apartments into possibly )real estate office, loan company or maybe a lawyer's office. It would be J'arge enough for a dry cleaning store. The plan shows the south buil d'ng and the area between the two buildings. I would probably, instead f having four on each side, put them together then have one in the middi . Mr. Barnhart stated, the Master Plan recommends professional office use; would it be possible to build what you want in that district? Mr. Baryames said; I prefer "F" Commercial to give me more flexibility. There is "F" Commercial on the north and "G-2" to the south, so I am not asking for anything new to the area. Communications were received from: ARLENE AND DORMAN TRAN, 819 Sims Court --concerned about a tavern or other type of noisy place in there. TOM JAKEWAY, 5321 Glenwood, DUANE CHADWELL, 5315 Glenwood, and ED HOLLAND, 5305 Glenwood, have no objections; the rezoning will improve the property. However, they are concerned about privacy should you put up a taller building. They request landscaping; especially the west property line, prefer large, deciduous trees. Mr. Baryames said; you can put a restriction against a tavern as far as I'm concerned and you will require landscaping of me. Mr. Fountain pointed out that possibly an "E-2" District would be acceptable and in accord with the Master Plan. Planning Board Minutes August 6, 1985 Page 2 LS -13-85, 1510 Glenrose MIKE ROBISON, petitioner and owner. There is only one on the block that would be larger than this and if somebody built a new home on the lot, it would be as good or better than what is there now; some are 700 square feet on a slab, nobody builds that anymore. It would help the neighborhood. I intend to keep the house to rent and sell the back lot. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes: Dr. Remick moved approval of the July 16, 1985 minutes as printed and Mr. Nelson seconded; APPROVED Committee Reports: ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: Floyd Wright P-1-85, Robins Meadow --Tentative Preliminary Plat TABLED for study of lot configurations and ingress and egress being prohibited in the Flood Plain by the DNR. The Committee will meet Wednesday, August 14, 1985 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: Mr. Nelson reported that the next meeting will be on Wednesday, August 14, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Division Conference Room. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE did not meet. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: 1) Mr. Barnhart asked for information on the July 17 meeting the Mayor had asked the Board to attend. Mr. Nelson reported it was about cogeneration, incinerating waste into smoke and raising vegetables with it. The promoter wants the City to take the Diamond Reo site off the market for six months while he finalizes his plans. Councilmember Benavides added; it has not come up at Council, but two communications were received from the Board of Water and Light from David Nussdorfer and Joseph Pandy with their opinions on the proposal. Because of the federal grant saying it has to be manufacturing, we are limited to what we can allow in thara Planning Board Minutes August 6, 1985 Page 3 2) The Chairman questioned; has a developer tried to place a large plastics factory in the City? Mr. Fountain responded; yes, he is looking seriously around Lansing. The criteria is; a site size of about five acres, with rail and freeway access. He needs at least a Light Industrial zoning. New Business: Mr. Langworthy moved approval of the absence of Mr. Mitchner and Mrs. Wieland supported; APPROVED Board Member Comments: Emly Horne reported; I read in Fortune magazine about profits in trash and I would like to submit a copy of that article for your information. Adjournment: The regular August 6, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respec ully submi , Vernon C. Fountain, Zoning Administrator for James N. Foulds Planning Division Director WC Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall August 20, 1985 The meeting was convened by Merle Barnhart, Chairman, with eight members present: Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Nelson, Remick, Wieland, Wright Staff in Attendance: Foulds, Fountain, Acheson, Coscarelli Agenda: Add case Z-23-85 to Zoning Committee APPROVED Public Hearinqs: Presented by Vern Fountain P-3-85, Midwood Meadow --Tentative Preliminary Plat Mr. Langvlorthy asked if there was a response from the Public Service Department. Mr. Wright read from that report; suggest this project not be permitted until improvements are made to sewers in Jolly, present sewers do not have adequate capacity. Dr. Remick asked how close this is to the Wexford School site. Mr. Fountain answered, it backs up to it on the east Wexford line. The petitioner, Roy Markey, is present but has no comments on his proposal. DAVE NEWMAN, 5520 Wise Road. My questions are (1) how are city water and sewers going to be run in; will it require digging across property lines? (2) Can Wexford handle the new students? Mr. Foulds responded that utility service; water and telephone would come down the public road, which would access the property and not across anyone else's. We have to resolve the inadequate sewer service prior to development. Dr. Remick added that there are as many as five rooms available in Wexford. Mr. Newman asked if duplexes can be built there? We would rather have only single family units. Mr. Foulds assured him single family is all that is permitted at this time. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes August 20, 1985 Page 2 Z-22-85, 1610 East Cavanaugh Road A to DM -4 Mr. Fountain reported that a development plan had not been submitted at this point. Mr. Wright reported that the Public Service Department response says this area is nearly 100% within the flood plain or floodway and there is no gravity sanitary sewer outlet for this site. CHRIS BERGSTROM, petitioner, on behalf of the owner, Otto Solomon. I would like to clarify that the 285 review is not for the purpose of sale to the City, it is to donate the property to Lansing. I have had opportunity to go there and found activity always; during the summer people fish and there are whole families, in the winter there are cross country skiers. The purpose of filing the petition is to stimulate interest in the property to see if it could be developed in a fashion that would benefit the public and, of course, Mr. Solomon. The property has not been mined for a period of time. It is 80 acres in the middle of the City that we feel would benefit the City or some other party. We've requested high intensity zoning for construction of apartments, but we also have an interest in donating the property. GREG SAVOY, 1800 East Holmes Road, adjacent to the property. I don't understand if the property is being donated, why we need a commitment to high intensity zoning in this area. This is one of the more beautiful areas in the City limits. People use it for recreational purposes. I had hoped one day it would be developed, however, I don't think that high density apartments would help my property value and I think it has more potential as a park, or the pit could be made a safer swimming hole. It is not safe for people unfamiliar with it. CHARLES BUNN, 3518 Ruth Street. We thought this was zoning for apartments. This is the first I've heard of Solomon making the City an offer, which Ray Sablain made years ago. I certainly hope the City and Planning Board give that prior consideration. Thank you. JOHN BOWLES, 1804 East Irvington Avenue. Does high density include low cost housing; if so, we have enough now. Mr. Foulds responded that at this point it is not a. specific income group or housing, but just establishing a zone that would allow housing to be developed to a certain density. Calls were received from: ADA OWENS, 1719 Rex, oppose opening Rex beca�_�se there is a foster care for young adults and one has been hit already. JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, owners in part of the 1700 block of East Cavanaugh --not opposed. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes August 20, 1985 Page 3 Z-23-85, 426 East Northrup E-1 to E-2 JIM SABLE, petitioner, from Action Auto, 4273 Corunna Road, Flint. Our business is primarily auto parts, gasoline combination. We would like to add service to our business. We have nine stores in the Lansing area and employ 106 people. This one will employ about 23 people and be a tribute to the neighborhood. We're only a little off being the proper zoning. We are trying, without being pushy, to expedite this. We would like to build vet this year. We need approximately 60,000 square feet of property, which is almost two acres. Transportation seems to concur it's a good use. Communications were received from: FRED SMITH, 406 East Northrup, in favor. WILLIAM BAILEY, 326 East Northrup, no objection. THOMAS NEWLAND, 5525 South Cedar Street, in favor of proposed rezoning as outlined. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Comments from the Audience: ROY MARKEY, 1325 East Jolly Road, Roary Corporation, regarding Z-14-85, 2213-2223 West Jolly Road. The configuration of the lots now is there is one big lot on Jolly Road that goes through to Midwood, and one narrow lot in the middle that goes all the way through, then a corner lot that goes around and faces Pleasant Grove Road. This was up for action at Council level and I requested it not be acted on. I am going to request the Physical Development Committee look favorably on zoning the Jolly Road frontage and at the same time ask them not to rezone Midwood or Pleasant Grove. The Southwest Master Plan clearly supports duplexes along Jolly. If you think this makes any sense, could you let the Planning staff and Council know. I am just asking for the front 130 feet on two lots and 125 feet on this one. Mr. Foulds stated; staff never had a problem with rezoning the Jolly Road frontage. If the Board wishes to make a statement to Council, we will do so. We will certainly be concerned about turning movements on Jolly and Pleasant Grove and will work with the Transportation Engineer to be sure the curb cuts are in the right places. I make this statement assuming the area residents would support it. I agree with Mr. Markey that most concerns were from Midwood residents. Mr. Wright asked what was planned for the narrow lot between the two larger ones. Mr. Markey answered; the City will not allow a duplex, so it would have to pick up some area off the lot to the west. It is presently 115 feet wide and the building sets far to the west side lot line. A brief recess was taken by the Board. Planning Board Minutes August 20, 1985 Page 4 BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes: Dr. Remick moved for approval of the August 6, 1985 minutes as printed and Mr. Mitchner seconded; APPROVED Committee Reports: Zoning and Ordinance Committee: Mr. Wright P-1-85, Robins Meadow --Tentative Preliminary Plat Mr. Wright moved to take this item from the table and Ur. Remick seconded; APPROVED The Committee recommends that the request for tentative preliminary plat approval be denied, based upon a recommendation from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Planning staff. The staff has reviewed this request and found the configuration of the lots out of conformance with the Subdivision Regulations. Staff is willing to work with Mr. Markey to promote residential development in keeping with the intent of the "DM -1" District and flood plain regulations are met. Mr. Wright so moved and Mrs. Horne supported; DENIED P-2-85, Lawrence Subdivision --Tentative Preliminary Plat The Committee recommends that the tentative preliminary plat for Lawrence Subdivision be denied, based on unresolved drainage and sewer problems in the area. Mr. Wright moved for denial and Mr. Langworthy seconded; DENIED Z-18-85, 3121 South Cedar Street "J" to "F" The Committee recommends that the request to rezone property located at 3121 South Cedar Street from "J" Parking District to "F" Commercial District be approved. The Committee believes that any problems with flood lights and noise generated by the sound system can be controlled. It should be noted that landscaping and fencing will be required along the east property line as a condition established by Ordinance. Mr. Wright moved for approval and Mr. Mitchner supported; APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 20, 1985 Page 5 Z-19-85, 6070-6200 South Logan Street "A" to "E-2" The Committee recommended that the request to rezone property at 6070-6200 South Logan Street from "A" Residential to "E-2" Local Shopping District be approved subject to a site plan with appropriate access, adequate landscaping, screening and buffering and a fence along the west property line be provided and approved. Mr. Wright moved for approval and Mr. Langworthy supported; APPROVED Z-20-85, 1626-28 South Cedar Street "C" to "F" The Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommends approval of the rezoning of property at 1626 and 1628 South Cedar Street from "C" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. The removal of the building at 512 Isbell and the improvement of the parking area east of the Dicker and Deal store will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for the expansion of the Music Manor store. In addition a site plan showing required parking areas, building placement and screening and buffering must be approved by the Planning Division staff and the Transportation Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Music Manor. Mr. Wright so moved and Dr. Remick seconded; APPROVED Z-21-85, 5300-5316 South Pennsylvania Avenue "A" to "F" The Committee recommends that the request to rezone property at 5300-5316 South Pennsylvania Avenue from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District be approved. The applicant proposes to remodel the existing structures and convert them into office and light commercial uses. Trees should be placed ,+ the rear of the property for screening and privacy to adjoining home owners. Mr. Wright so moved and Mr. Langworthy seconded; APPROVED SLU-14-85, 5725 Orchard Court The Committee recommends approval of a Special Land Use Permit for property at 5725 Orchard Court for the purpose of establishing a foster care facility for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled adults. The property is appropriately zoned for this type of use. Approval is subject to all conditions set forth in the inspection reports by the Fire Marshal, Building Safety Division and Planning Division. Mr. Wright moved for approval and Mr. Langworthy supported; APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 20, 1985 Page 6 LS -13-85, 1510 Glenrose Avenue The Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommends approval of the request to split property at 1510 Glenrose Avenue into two separate lots so the newly created lot may be sold for single family home construction. The split will create lot sizes typical of the area. Mr. Wright so moved and Mr. Mitchner seconded; APPROVED NCU-13-85, 1038 East Oakland Avenue The Committee recommends approval of a substitution of a nonconforming use to allow for a sales office and showroom at 1038 East Oakland Avenue. At the end of one year staff will review the use of the property to determine if the intensity of that use had increased to a point exceeding that which is acceptable. Mr. Wright so moved and Mr. Mitchner supported; APPROVED Z-23-85, 426 East Northrup Street "E-1" to "E-2" The Committee recommends that the property located at the southwest corner of South Cedar Street and Northrup Street be rezoned from "E-1" Apartment Shop District to "E-2" Local Shopping District for construction of a motor vehicle service station in conjunction with an auto parts and gasoline sales store. Approval is subject to a site plan being submitted to and approved by the Planning Division, which shall meet all requirements of Section 36-14.1 of the Zoning Code and shall also be subject to review and approval by the other public agencies to provide necessary public services and have jurisdiction over development of this property. Mr. Wright moved for approval and Dr. Remick supported; APPROVED Z-14-85, 2213-2223 West Jolly Road "A-1" to "C-2" Consensus of the Committee was for approval if the land was suitably divided; it would be desirable for the corner lot to have land from the larger lot, also that Mr. Stanaway be notified of this discussion and asked for his concurrence. Mr. Wright moved for acceptance and Mr. Langworthy seconded; APPROVED The next Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 18 at 7 a.m. in the Division Conference Room. Planning Board Minutes August 20, 1985 Page 7 Urban Development Committee: Mr. Nelson Act -38-84, Genesee School Reuse The Committee considered alternatives for reuse for the school facility and the recommendation of the River Island Master Plan. The Committee's recommendation is for retention of the school building as an educational facility such as private, nursing or community services, secondly as residential property. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mrs. Wieland supported; APPROVED Act -9-85, Parcel C, Delhi Township --in City ownership The Committee recommends that a portion of Parcel C be leased by the City to Mr. DeAngelo for the purpose of erecting a communications tower. The amount of land to be leased would be approximately three acres located in the northwest corner of Parcel C. This recommendation is under three conditions: 1) Mr. DeAngelo obtain an access easement from Michigan State University directly from Pine Tree Road to the leased parcel. 2) Mr. DeAngelo obtain F.C.C. clearances for the construction of such a tower and a copy be furnished to the Planning Division of the City. 3) That the amount of negotiated payment for this lease be earmarked in the Parks Department budget for park improvements and development. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mrs. Horne seconded; APPROVED Act -21-85, Holiday Drive Right-of-way Use Mr. Amber indicated he would withdraw his request to utilize public right-of-way, which would negate further action by the Board since development would be entirely on private property. The Committee, pending receipt of this communication, recommends that the request be denied as filed in that possible adverse affects of allowing use of the public right-of-way, as well as front yard areas for parking at this location would outweigh positive affects that added parking may have on the neighborhood. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mrs. Horne supported; DENIED Planning Board Minutes August 20, 1985 Page 8 South Washington Mall Opening The Committee recommends that the 200 and 300 blocks of the South Washington Mall not be opened for vehicular traffic until the following seven conditions are fulfilled: 1) An acceptable and effective solution for parking delivery vehicles be implemented to avoid safety problems and hardships to businesses. 2) An alternative to the proposed installation of approximately 100 parking meters into the Mall landscape should be explored to maintain the pleasant environment that currently exists. 3) That an effective design for the Mall opening that is compatible with the proposed "Approach to the Capitol" project on Michigan Avenue be prepared so that the two projects will directly complement one another. 4) Determine whether the cost of opening the Mall will be paid for by the City General Fund, Parking Authority funds or a special assessment district_ Further,clarify from the federal government if any payback is required from the City as part of the construction for the 100, 200 and 300 blocks of South Washington Mall. 5) That a procedure be developed to ensure that customers and visitors instead of employees will directly benefit from the proposed metered parking. 6) That special procedures be undertaken to ensure that pedestrian safety is a high priority since conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles will be drastically increased with the opening of the Mall. 7) The opening of the Mall to allow either one-way or two-way traffic be delayed or considered an interim measure until; a) the impacts of the one-way street study currently in progress are analyzed, and b) the Master Plan for downtown is revised and new development goals established. The Committee's next meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 18, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Report from Planning Director: Mr. Foulds The Michigan Society of Planning Officials will be held at Sugar Loaf October 3, 4 and 5 this fall. So let the Division know if you are interested in attending. The Board Chairman reminded the members that the September meeting dates will be the second and and fourth Tuesdays, and the Committee meetings, the third Wednesday. Planning Boared Minutes August 20, 1985 Page 9 Adjournment: There being no further business to consider, the regular August 20, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 10:23 p.m. ectfully submitted, ame N. F lds, D4ire-ctor La ing Planning Division WC Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall September 10, 1985 Merle Barnhart, Chairman, convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. with seven members present: Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Mitchner, Nelson, Wieland, Wright Mr. Langworthy moved approval of the absence of Dr. Remick; Mrs. Horne seconded, APPROVED Staff: Foulds, Fountain, Spackman, Stonehouse The agenda was approved as printed. Public Hearinqs: Vern Fountain presented slides and information on the first two public hearing items. NCU-14-85, 1317 Ballard Street --Nonconforming Church Expansion REVEREND GRAVES, petitioner for Mt. Zion Baptist Church. We will put an addition to the south, with parking to the north; also recreational facilities. We hope to improve the property for the area and the recreational area will be an asset to the community. The Church has been there since 1962. Mr. Langworthy asked if this layout will accommodate adequate parking spaces. Mr. Fountain responded; yes, based on the seating capacity of the Church with the addition. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-24-85, 2420 North Grand River Avenue A to G-2 JOHN LYNCH, President, Commercial Insulation Company, Incorporated. What we're dealing with is a parallelogram and the existing drive comes in at the same angle as the lot line, which we'd straighten out then cut in front of the house, come around behind and put in a storage building directly behind that building. There is adequate space for a 40 foot by 100 foot building. We would like to use the side of the building as screening because the "H" area right behind our lot is the storage auto salvage. We would like our building there with no openings on the side facing Lot A. Planning Board Minutes September 10, 1985 Page 2 Another reason for straightening the drive is there is a magnificent oak tree in front we would like to save. We don't want to take out any more trees than we have to. Right behind the house is the least amount of trees. If we get to the point where we need another building, the ideal place would be directly across the lot along the lot line next to the vacant area. We would save a lot of trees. The original building was built in 1924. Our plans are to rejuvenate that. The back of the building is newer and we would just renew that. We're going to cap the basement floor which has been flooding for some time. The sewer is rotted out and is running into the crawl space in back. The building will be 24 feet tall, two floors. I think we would have block on the first level and steel the rest of the way up. We would paint the block the same color as the top. All of our parking will be screened from the road. Mr. Langworthy asked if there would be customers calling. Mr. Lynch said no, I believe we need five spaces and we have more than that. We do industrial pipe covering; storing a lot of bulk, not weight. Mr. Foulds asked; what would be your reaction to accessing the property from the service drive that runs parallel with the public street? Mr. Lynch answered; I'm sure it can be worked out. The reasons for setting it up this way, (1) it's the natural flow and (2) I didn't want to take any more trees than absolutely necessary. Mr. Foulds stated, your sketch also shows the footprint of another building. Mr. Lynch explained; if we go with future plans, there may be a second building --it's vacant now. VIRGINIA GARLAND, 2432 North Grand River Avenue. I want to find out if there will be a fence on the line because the lot runs funny, otherwise people assume that stretch on the sidewalk belongs to the other house and access my driveway. Mr. Fountain reported there is a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance wherever a non-residential use abuts a residential use. So there will be buffering; materials or fence or a combination of both. We'll consider existing vegetation and supplement that. DAVID SHADE, I live across the street and own 2405 North Grand River Avenue. I am against the rezoning. There are plenty of office and commercial spaces available, they would not have to go into a residential area. If you allow that, it will hurt home owners. The North Grand River area owners are trying to come back. I feel the City has a responsibility to Lansing residents to not affect neighborhoods in negative ways. Until recently the City has ignored calls about earth moving --they call landscaping. I did not get a letter, nor did the people behind me. Yet they went 1500 to 2,000 feet past Logan and notified the commercial areas. This is biased toward commercial. I restate, I am not for it. This is an area of residential and should be left that way. Planning Board Minutes September 10, 1985 Page 3 I would like to know how much and what materials would be stored in the sheds. If paint or certain types of materials are stored in large quantity, or on a critical material list, they might want to contact Bob Ceru at the Ingham County Health Department, he would be interested if they are storing large amounts of materials there. Thank you for your time. VIRGINIA FUND, 2341 North Grand River Avenue, across the street. Would this be required a certain setback from the highway? It takes away the appearance of a commercial institution with grass and trees between the highway and property. Also, I am concerned about big trucks going in and out hauling materials. I am concerned about the value of our property. If they had a certain setback that would always remain that way, but if it's random for maybe three years and then sold to a 7-11 store, then I would be upset about it. If there are control guidelines, I would feel more content about it. Thank you. Mr. Foulds explained, different districts have different setbacks. What exists is unusual, buffers were created by placing the frontage in a residential district assuming it would never be developed. We have a specific dimension requirement in the Ordinance and we would want to involve the neighbors in that. Mr. Lynch added; all we store in paints is what comes back from the job --the excess, not large quantities. We usually get a semi load of insulation every two to three months; visqueen we get in the summer once a month probably. We might go for a month and get two trucks, then we might go three months with one truck. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Community Development Block Grant Needs --Capital Improvements Program Presented by Jim Foulds. This public hearing is intended to receive citizen input on the Community Development Block Grant and Capital Improvement Program Needs for future years. This hearing is also an opportunity for the citizens to express preferences for utilizing the CDBG funds of approximately $1,462,000 for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1986 and ending June 30, 1987. This represents a 15% reduction from last year's funding. Also input is requested concerning housing needs in the community that may assist in the development of the Three Year Housing Assistance Plan for the City of Lansing. HOWARD JONES, 426 West Barnes Avenue. CDC #4 has been funded for the last six years with more than $2 million of federal monies to bring about neighborhood improvement. I hope you have had a chance to get into our neighborhood. Since our last Plan amendment we have been able to affect a change across Planning Board Minutes September 10, 1985 Page 4 Washington Avenue to the east. We have acquired some twelve structures and all but four have been demolished and the people relocated. We are in the process of relocating families in three other dwellings and the City has condemned one building we wanted removed; an old warehouse. So our program is proceeding. We have also had, since our program started, approximately 65 people take advantage of the rehab aspects of this program. We currently have had three more new people enter the program and we feel we are trying to bring about a real change in this neighborhood. We ask you to let us bring to fruition a complete revitalization of an area that if the City had not gotten involved in with federal money, frankly would have been a complete disaster area in five to ten years. But this money has brought it back and we now have people wanting to buy homes in there. We feel $500,000 is necessary to acquire the additional ten to twelve houses. We feel approximately $40,000 per structure would be needed. Once that's done, you would need to clear the land and probably the City would be interested in retaining it as a possible commercial or industrial site because it would abut the parking lot that is on the south side of Baker Street. This could then be joined to make a more attractive site for a commercial or industrial user. We want to also do some buffering and landscaping to separate Garden and Martin and East Barnes from what could become a new industrial area. Thank you very kindly. GLADYS GILSON, 223 West Barnes. I also am CDC 4 and Neighborhood Watch. I am more interested in the police action of the City than construction. Neller Court is not something that should happen to any city. We have made great progress and do have more to go to make it really effective. Thank you. WAYNE FOSTER, local businessman and incoming President of the Boys' and Girls' Club of Lansing. I represent the Board of Directors and bring thanks for this opportunity to bring some of our needs to this Board in what we think is an excellent use of grant money. TOM FINLEY, Executive Director, 1235 Center Street. Boys' and Girls' Club of Lansing serves youth between the ages of 7 and 17. Most kids we serve have a very negative self concept; they have not been successful in school or home situations. We try to attract the kids into the facility through recreational, educational and physical education type programs, then work on a one-to-one basis to develop a strong self concept so they can achieve Planning Board Minutes September 10, 1985 Page 5 successes in their adult lives. Mr. and its program. In 1984 we served We are very strong in our need. Finley showed a video tape of the Club 2,190 children; 900 is the active membership. CHARLES COOKE. One of the things I would like to share with you is a picture of our existing Boys' and Girls' Club facility. We had quite a downpour yesterday and had a puddle in the middle of our gym area. We have spent quite a bit of money trying to patch up the building we are in. Our problem is simple; we have kids that get some food when they go to school. During the summer the kids come to our place and for many it is the only meal. We cannot serve food, per se, other than bringing it in because we don't have appropriate kitchen facilities. If we had the capability of serving a meal, according to Boys' Club of America, our membership would probably double or triple. We are experiencing overcrowding in our facility. What we need is a new building or one we can modify to our use. Staff has found 14 possible locations. If you were to come and ask one of the kids "what does this Club mean to you"? Most would probably tell you it's their whole life. The Mayor issued a Community Use Study Report, dated January 1985, which said we need more of the Boys' and Girls' Club in this community, not less of it. The estimated cost of the new facility to meet the needs of Lansing children is between $1.5 and possibly $2 million. Under specified objectives we benefit low and moderate income families. The placement of a new facility could aid in the prevention and elimination of slums and blight. The activities of the Boys' and Girls' Club are designed to meet Community Development needs, having a particular urgency. Without Lansing's help in this project, we believe it will be difficult to provide an adequate facility to serve Lansing's children. We need your participation in this most worthwhile project. Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. TOM FINLEY. I would like to amend this for consideration under both categories; Community Development Block Grant and Capital Improvement Programs. REFERRED TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE A brief recess was taken by the Board. BUSINESS SESSION: The minutes of August 20, 1985 were approved. Committee Reports: Planning Board Minutes September 10, 1985 Page 6 ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: Mr. Wright reported that the next meeting will be held Wednesday, September 18, 1985 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: Act -24-85, Pennsylvania Court Presented by Jim Spackman. The request is generated primarily to have the City participate in the repaving of Pennsylvania Court. The service drive could still operate with the minimum number of access points. We are recommending that, with the exception of the southern portion right where the access comes in, this be dedicated for street purposes. According to the property owners the vacation order was never recorded. It was platted in this way so when it was vacated there was no exchange of any money. To have it dedicated would be a matter of property owners informing the City they would formally dedicate that for public right-of-way. They are willing to return it. The cost share would be in the paving. Mr. Nelson moved to accept the formerly vacated portion of Pennsylvania Court to benefit traffic circulation and further that the Public Service Department and Property Management negotiate a technique to maintain and improve the portion of Pennsylvania Court in terms of repaving and snow removal. Therefore, I recommend that Pennsylvania Court become a public right-of-way. Finally, due to the close of the paving season, it is recommended that the City enter into contract this season for repaving upon dedicating the right-of-way of Pennsylvania Court. Mrs. Horne supported the motion and a roll call vote was taken. By a 5 yeas, 2 nays vote this matter was APPROVED The next Committee meeting will be Wednesday, September 18, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Washington Square Annex. Report from Planning Director Act -15-85, Civic Center/Washington Square Annex You have before you recommendation for the Washington Square Annex that, at least for the time being, the City retain the Annex and not sell to the private sector, and for phase one of the Civic Center Disposition Study is that the City pursue several options for potential reuse on the Civic Center in the future that is contingent upon the convention/exhibition facility opening in the spring of 1987, as is scheduled at the present time. Planning Board Minutes September 10, 1985 Page 7 Our recommendations for the Civic Center facility; pursuit of investigations for programmatic and financial feasibility of a criminal justice facility within the Civic Center Complex itself, to include Ingham County Circuit Court and its supportive offices, District Court and its supportive offices and Police operations. Phase two will be done in conjunction with a consultant to make a final determination if the Civic Center can be converted for that use and what the cost would be. Secondly, the City initiate discussions with the State for either sale, lease or lease purchase for development as state offices or some combination of state services and state offices. They had programmatic statements done for conversion of the Civic Center to State Museum and Library Archives facility approximately two years ago. Thirdly, staff felt the facility had potential for office and commercial development and sale to the private sector, however, it would directly compete with objectives we have established for the downtown area. The 43,000 square feet of space currently in the Washington Square Annex must be replaced before we sell the building. To rent in the downtown area would cost between $37,000 to $82,000 a year based on a range of square footage costs. While it still is the long range objective to market that facility and get us out of the building, it is not in the City's best interest right now. You conducted a 285 review on the Annex a year and a half ago and came to the same conclusion at that time. Motion was made by Langworthy and seconded by Horne for acceptance of the staff report; APPROVED Board Member Comments: Mr. Langworthy requests excused absences from the September 24 and October 8 meetings. Mr. Wright moved for approval and Mrs. Horne supported; APPROVED Mrs. Horne requests an excused absence from the September 24 meeting. Mr. Nelson moved to approve the request and Mrs. Wieland supported; APPROVED Adjournment There being no further business to conduct, the regular September 10, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J me N. Foulds, Director L sing Planning Division WC Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall September 24, 1985 The Chairman, Merle Barnhart, convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. with five members present; Emly Horne arrived at 8:30 p.m. Barnhart, Horne, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wright Excused: Langworthy, Wieland Staff: Foulds, Spackman, Stonehouse; Coscarelli The -agenda was approved as printed. Public Hearinqs: Grantee Performance Report Jim Foulds, Planning Division Director, explained this is the 1985 public hearing on the Grantee Performance Report for the Community Development Block Grant Program for the City of Lansing and the Jobs Bill Program for the City of Lansing. These reports detail the activities under these federal programs during the period beginning July 1, 1984 and ending June 30, 1985. There were no comments from the audience. Act -28-85, Stanley -Street --Use of public right-of-way Presented by Jim Spackman. The request is to provide parking to remove trucks from the two-way flow of traffic on Stanley Street. Dr. Remick said, the Transportation Engineer talked about a buffer lane; I am not certain all trucks want to enter in sequence to be unloaded. It wouldn't help. MICHAEL A. SIMON, Material Management Planner for Lansing Car Ass-embly, the body plant. With this proposal we are trying to alleviate the problem in main truck receiving on the north side of the plant, especially early in the week there is a higher volume of trucks unloaded. They don't arrive on any particular schedule, so they wait for dock space. We lost our queuing area to the union because of -lack of parking space and are trying to get that back in the south parking lot on Michigan Avenue. There is roughly 27 feet between the curb adjacent to Stanley Street and the curb that encompasses our parking lot. We -are trying to get rid of a safety hazard on the'streets. When I contacted City Council, there hadn't been many complaints. We want the neighborhood reaction. It has not been engineered or costed -out yet, it's. just a proposal at this point.This doesn't honestly affect air or noise pollution, it only gets the trucks off of Stanley Street. Planning Board Minutes September 24, 1985 Page 2 If we made another lane, we would bring some type of barrier, that would involve the shrubbery and fence, out to the edge of Stanley to block off truck traffic and our parking lot. INEZ PEARSON, 1926 North Genesee Drive. We have a nice plan here, but the trucks are not supposed to come through residential streets. They do and they mash lawns and tear curbs apart. There's a school on the corner of Verlinden and Genesee loading children often. The trucks come through and it has become just a Fisher Body entrance. I have a picture (submitted for file) of my curb that has been mashed by trucks and have complained to.my Councilmember. Can Stanley be one-way in going south and going out east on Osborn? That would take them out of the residential area. Mr. Simon responded, Osborn is the only specified truck route. JAMES LOGAN, 2.001 Drexel. My wife and I are both opposed to this proposal. Not just the trucks, but because we have noticed an infringement on our privacy. Since Fisher Body has taken on a new corporate title they have changed the flow of truck unloading. The biggest nuisance is while diesel trucks are parked the fumes are noxious. This is unwarranted infringement on :the neighborhood. Barriers won't take care of that. I would like to propose to GM that if they are going to need this area for queuing in, why don't they build a parking ramp to move their traffic further over,. restructure the existing parking lot and stay on that side of the fence and don't worry about that twelve feet. JUDITH ROBLE, 2009 Drexel. I also agree with Mr. Logan, the noise pollution is terrible. I registered a complaint one evening when a truck idled from 9:15 to 1 a.m. If this 12 feet is.going into the parking lot at Fisher Body, will people park on our street also, because we have had that problem. Mr. Barnhart asked if there are plans to relocate that receiving area? Mr. Simon answered., not right now, mainly because we cannot enter the plant from Verlinden and we've got one other truck receiving area on Michigan Avenue by the railroad tracks on the southwest side of the plant. Neither, is a good area to do that. Mr. Nelson asked, could they just drop the trailer, to be picked up when you are ready?- Mr. Simon responded; the guys we call "wait fors" own them and don't like to do that with their personal property. We might queue the trucks somewhere else and call them in by remote control. It was asked if it was possible to use Rosemary? Mr. Simon said we.can't - get across the tracks, we have looked at that. Planning Board Minutes September 24, 1985 Page 3 SAM NEALY, 215 Spencer. We had the same problem in our area, I work at Plant 3. We did get the police to come by and it did work. A communication was received from BETTY EARL, 2005 Drexel-, who objects to the trucks standing, but would like them off the streets. The exhaust fumes and noise are unbearable. Could the standing area be put inside the parking lot behind the hedge to help alleviate some of the noise. REFERRED TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Act -31-85, Verlinden Street --Public ROW Use Presented by Spackman DAN M. MC CLAIN, Member Plant Engineering staff, BOC Lansing, Car Assembly. Body Plant. The main idea of this request is to improve the appearance of the front of the plant by removing the dirt patch caused by pedestrian traffic unloading from vehicles, city buses and crossing the street at that area. Also to make it safer. The Engineering Department is looking at that. In winter water collects from snow melt then refreezes, causing a slippery condition. The. slope is .such that the sidewalk is higher than the curb by several inches. There is a fall for the water, so that could be eliminated. We intend to put grates around the trees to.protect them and eliminate an open patch of concrete. We intend to purchase some new park benches for across the front. MAX GROVE, 1805 West Shiawassee Street. What the pictures don't show is let out time and payday when you can't even get down the streets for the cars.. I am 100% in favor of this project done in a tasteful manner. We want to cooperate. When police come out, the cars drive around the block, the police leave and the cars comeback. I pick up broken whiskey and beer bottles out of my yard. The engineering consultants bring in their bus and run it all night long in front of my house and several buses come in from.St. Johns. This is a city street. It takes 45 minutes to an hour and 45 -minutes for the police. This has been going.on for 20 years. Fisher has done everything but the air pollution. We called, a man came out with his little air bag and that's the last we ever heard of --never an air quality report. The parking is lax on the part of the city. The city needs to enforce the laws we have. ..Mr. McClain reported; not related with this assignment or the other one presented, I have been working on a layout for our north parking lot, which should increase parking spaces near 280. With construction going on at the back of the plant we were going to lose some just by repainting the lines and using angle parking. Mr. Barnhart added; plant protection and traffic control could do more if they applied themselves.. REFERRED TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes September 24, 1985 :T Page 4 Business Session: Approval of Minutes Dr. Remick moved for approval as printed of the September 10, 1985 minutes and Mr. Mitchner seconded; APPROVED Committee Reports ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: Floyd Wright, Chairman NCU-14-85, 1317 Ballard Street The Committee recommends that Class "A" status be approved for expansion .of the existing church facility with off street parking and recreational space. The proposed change is in keeping with the land use development plan for this area and will be in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr- Wright so moved and Dr. Remick supported; APPROVED NCU-15=85, 208 East Mit. Hope Avenue The Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommends that Class "A" Nonconforming status be approved, for the property located at 208 East Mt. Hope Avenue to allow developing a 22 car garage at the rear of the property. The garage is to be used for automobile parking and storage of equipment in conjunction with the residential property. The proposed change will encourage the continuation of residential use at this location, which is in keeping with development plans for_this area. Mr. Wright moved for approval and Mr. Mitchner supported; APPROVED NCU-16-85, 214 Ferguson The Committee recommends that Class "A" status be approved for the property at 214 Ferguson, which will reduce the intensity.of land use and encourage upgrading of the property.to make it more of an asset to the community. Mr.. Wright so moved and Dr...Remick seconded; APPROVED Z-22-85; 1600 Block of East -Cavanaugh Road A to DM -4. HELD IN COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes September 24, 1985 Page 5 Z-24-85, 2420 North Grand River Avenue A to G-2 The Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommends that the request by Commercial Insulation Company, Incorporated to rezone property at 2420 North Grand River Avenue from "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District be denied as filed; and that approximately the south 110 feet be rezoned from "A" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District and the balance of the property be rezoned to "G-2" Wholesale District. The Committee also recommends that truck access to the site be limited to the Grand River access street which was designed to serve the more intense non-residential development in this vicinity. Mr. Wright so moved and Mrs. Horne supported; APPROVED P-3-85, Midwood Meadows --Tentative Preliminary Plat The Committee recommends tentative preliminary plat approval of Midwood . Meadows, which will consist of approximately 5.2 acres to be developed with twenty-two (22) lots and is located south of Jolly Road and west of Wise Road, subject to the ten (10) conditions stated in their September 18, 1985 Committee Report. Mr. Wright moved for approval and Dr. Remick supported; APPROVED The next Committee meeting will be held Wednesday, October 16, 1985 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room.` URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: Jim Nelson, Chairman Act -22-85, 1621 Martin Street --Offer to Cit The Committee recommends that the City -not accept the offer to purchase property located at 1621 Martin. -Street as it would be contrary to the NDA #4 Development Plan for the expanded area; and further that funds in the NDA #4 account for acquisition be used for owner occupied dwellings in Neller Court. Mr. Nelson so moved, Mrs. Horne seconded; DENIED Act -23=85, Aurelius Road --Solomon Pits HELD IN COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes September 24, 1985 Page 6 Act -25-85, Pere Marquette The Urban Development Committee recommends that Pere Marquette Drive be considered for purchase and that a new public street be constructed between Michigan Avenue and Shiawassee Street within the right-of-way of Pere Marquette Drive. Public development will provide a relief valve for traffic generated by the exhibition center and other new development and open the land in this vicinity for new development. Mr. Nelson moved for approval and Mrs. Horne supported;. APPROVED Act -26-85, Vacate Beechfield Cul-de-sac The Committee recommends the request to vacate the cul-de-sac at the southern. end of Beechfield Drive be turned down and that the cul-de-sac continue to function as it was intended. The cul-de-sac facilitates maintenance of the street and snow removal, as well as service to traffic requiring to conveniently turn around to proceed back to the north. Public funds have been used to construct the cul-de-sac, the paving and curb and gutter, and should not be removed through vacation order. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mrs.. Horne seconded; DENIED The next meeting of the Committee will be Wednesday., October 16, 1985 at 7:30 p.m..in the Division Conference Room. Report from Planning Director: I have the opportunity to attend a downtown redevelopment conference in Baltimore. There will. be planning and redevelopment off icialsfrom across the country. -We will see techniques for making waterfront developments happen New Business: Mr. Mitchner moved for cancellation of the October 8, 1985 meeting and Mrs. Horne supported; APPROVED Communications: A petition was submitted supporting Act -28-85, Pere Marquette Drive by nine area businesses. Planning Board Minutes September 24, 1985 Page 7 Board Member Comments: Mr. Wright moved to excuse the absence of Alice Wieland for illness and Mrs. Horne supported; APPROVED The Chairman commented that he was sorry not to have had discussion from the public on the Grantee Performance Report as it is a tremendously detailed report by staff. Special thanks were given to Emly Horne for attending after her earlier meeting this evening. Also commendation was stated for the leadership of the Boys' and Girls' Club and their proposal presentation. It was noted that the first meeting in November is scheduled the same night as general elections. -The Board's preference is to change that meeting to be available tofollow the elections. Adjournment: Mr. Wright moved to adjourn, Mrs. Horne seconded and the Board APPROVED. The regular September 2.4, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 9 p.m. Cdansing erely, lam s N. Foulds, Director Planning Division WC Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall October 22, 1985 The Chairman, Mr. Barnhart, convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. with eight members present: Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wieland, Wright Staff in Attendance: Foulds, Fountain, Spackman, Rajendra The Agenda was approved as printed. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Presentations were made by Vern Fountain. Z-25-85, 4945 and 5005 Eastlawn A to F JOHN MULLER, Great Lakes Car Wash Systems in Grand Rapids, representing the petitioners. The slides were a nice presentation and you have our site plan. I would like to add two things; that Eastlawn will dead-end so there will be no ingress or egress to the residential street. The entrance will be off of Jolly Road. Secondly, we are going to build a six bay, coin operated car wash with a retail store separated from that with various tenants. The car wash will not service trucks at all, it's an eleven foot entrance. We have another like this under construction on South Waverly in Lansing Township. This is our first venture into the Lansing market. STEPHEN SCHULTZ, President of Forest View Citizen' Association. We really have no objection, although we do have concerns. There are several mature pine trees. Our biggest concern is adequate buffering, enough screening so residential uses to the north, west and further east, are not adversely impacted. The only other concern we have is the tendency to large mercury vapor lamps. If the developer is prepared to address those two concerns, we see no reason why it is not compatible with the use next door, and have no objection. LINDA VANCOUVER. I wonder about the increase in traffic with two more facilities and only two lanes; it can hardly handle what traffic is there now. MR. MULLER reported; there will be landscaping in front and back, we don't intend to blacktop the whole area. Those specific pine trees, perpendicular Planning Board Minutes October 22, 1985 Page 2 to Jolly Road, are where the buildings will be placed. Lighting will be directional; in each bay and parking lot light in the front. None shining away from the property. A coin operated car wash will generate less traffic than a drive-in bank. My studies show the car wash in Grand Rapids has about 120 cars a day; a drive-in bank or gas station, 300-400; hardwares about 200-250. So we are at the low end of traffic generation. Incidentally, our peak periods of business are Friday evenings, Saturday mornings and Sundays. We are going to build a pleasing facility. In Grand Rapids we had controversy building between a church and two medical buildings. The church was concerned about noise. I have letters since saying there is no problem. We do not generate more noise than ambient traffic. We had an acoustical engineer from Grand Rapids do an intensive noise study and we've done in depth studies of the traffic and lighting in the area. Mr. Fountain added that the Transportation Engineer felt that it would not generate much more than neighborhood traffic. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-26-85, 2801 North Grand River Avenue D-1 to E-1 DIANE BENNETT, 2801 North Grand River Avenue, with my Mother, Betty. When we bought the property in April, there were two apartments and office space in the front, which we plan to convert to shop. My mother is living in the upstairs apartment and I am living downstairs now. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Comments from the Audience: STEPHEN SCHULTZ, FUCA President, regarding Z-22-85. Our Executive Committee met and we have delivered our views to the Planning Division in a letter. I would like to emphasize a couple of points. We have dealt with Mr. Solomon and the existence of these pits for quite some time. They have been a problem with regard to trespassers, dirt bikes, nuisance involved, garbage dumped, etc. So our interest in this matter is continual. First; rezoning is inconsistent with surrounding land uses; it's all single family, with the exception of townhouses that the Lansing Housing Commission operates, and some duplexes. Secondly, the traffic and burden on the surrounding land uses. Cavanaugh may be able to handle 8,000 to 10,000 cars per day, but it cannot be denied that is a far greater burden on the surrounding neighborhood than single family residential would be. In addi- tion, we're dealing with a more intrusive use in terms of noise and lights. Planning Board Minutes October 22, 1985 Page 3 Third, we're concerned with the fact that these pits have existed out there for a number of years without the slightest effort at reclaiming them. Now we find the owner offering it to the City to make it profitable for him. That seems to be the wrong reason to rezone property. We would prefer that this rezoning request be denied. We would have no objection if he made an attempt to begin reclamation proceedings before the rezoning. Thank you for allowing me to speak. JIM FOULDS. Staff looked at this request merely as a land use request. After looking at topography, impact on the flood plain and floodway, impact of the proposed "DM -4" density level, traffic levels, zoning placement, staff felt from a land use standpoint the land could support multiple housing development at a much lower density than the "DM -4" request. That is not to say the property does not have major development constraints. CHRIS BERGSTROM, representing the petitioner. The property owner has been a bit more responsible than Mr. Schultz would lead you to believe. During the time I worked in the City Attorney's office, we worked with the owner and Police Department to prevent trespassing and there were efforts to clean up refuse and barricades have been erected. I would ask you not to make constraints with respect to the grade because we don't know what the City has as a desired use and if it is graded to a 4 and 1 or 5 and 1 slope, it may be inconsistent with the proposed use. We urge you to not only support the rezoning, but the recommendation that the property be accepted by the City of Lansing. Thank you. BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes: It was moved by Dr. Remick to approve the minutes of September 24, 1985 as printed; seconded by Mrs. Wieland, APPROVED ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: Mr. Wright Z-22-85, 1600 East Cavanaugh Road A to DM -4 The Committee recommends that the request to rezone property in the 1600 block of East Cavanaugh Road from "A" Residential to "DM -4" Residential District be denied; but recommend that the property be rezoned to "DM -2" Residential District, subject to the six recommendations stated in the staff report. So moved by Mr. Wright and supported by Dr. Remick, APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 22, 1985 Page 4 SLU-18-85, Southwest Corner of Pennsylvania and Hazel This is Board of Water and Light property extending from Hazel Street south to the railroad tracks and the river. The proposal is to build a dike along the river. Staff has received responses from both the Department of Natural Resources and City Engineer, which are incomplete as to how this proposed dike would impact the 100 year flood plain of the Red Cedar River. Mr. Wright reported this item will be HELD IN COMMITTEE. Z-25-85, 4945 and 5005 Eastlawn A to F The Committee recommends approval of the rezoning of 4945 and 5005 Eastlawn from "A" Residential to "F" Commercial District to erect a six stall, coin operated car wash and separate commercial building on the property, with access to Jolly Road. Mr. Wright moved for approval subject to the three conditions stated in the staff report. Support was given by Mr. Langworthy, APPROVED Z-26-85, 2801 North Grand River Avenue D-1 to E-1 The Committee recommends that the property located at 2801 North Grand River Avenue be rezoned from "D-1" Professional Office District to "E-1" Apartment Shop District to allow the operation of a gift store. Mr. Wright moved for approval and Mr. Langworthy seconded; APPROVED Amendment to Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 37, Section 37-24 Mr. Foulds reported, what we have proposed is for divisions less than the minimum lot size required, 60 by 100 or 70 by 100, standards be applied by the Board in making the recommendation of whether that lot split should be approved. All of these would go to Council for final approval based on five criteria. Under the minimum standards required, the Board would hold a public hearing and make the decision at the Board level. Motion to approve by Mr.. Wright, supported by Mr. Langworthy; APPROVED The next meeting of the Committee will be held Wednesday, November 13, 1985 at 7 a.m. Planning Board Minutes October 22, 1985 Page 5 URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: Mr. Nelson Act -23-85, Aurelius Road --Solomon Pits The Committee recommends that the inquiry to donate both the Sablin and Solomon Pits to the City of Lansing be responded to in the following manner: I. The property containing the Sablin Pits be accepted as a donation from the owner and be placed under the auspices of the Parks and Recreation Department. This would be conditional to the fulfillment of the present owner's court ordered responsibility to properly grade and seed the property; and 2. The property which contains the Solomon Pits be donated to Michigan State University with the stipulation that if in the future M.S.U. desires to dispose of the property, it revert to the City of Lansing. This would be conditional to the owner's responsbility to properly grade and seed the property.. The Department of Parks and Recreation would then seek funds to maintain and secure the property and future funds, depending on development plans, through the Capital Improvements Program or other sources. Mr. Nelson so moved and Mrs. Horne seconded; APPROVED by a 7 yeas, 1 nays vote. Act -29-85, Alpha Street --Use of Public ROW The Committee recommends that Lansing General Hospital be permitted to lease a portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to 2912 Alpha Street. Maintenance and snow removal are to be the responsibility of Lansing General and no interruption to traffic flow on Alpha Street is to be generated as a result of using the leased portion of the right-of-way. Mr. Nelson moved for approval and Mrs. Horne supported; APPROVED Act -31-85, Verlinden Street The Committee recommends approval of the request from B.O.C., G.M. to -use public right-of-way on Verlinden Street.between the sidewalk and curb for a distance of 43 feet south and 88 feet north of .the major pedestrian employee Planning Board Minutes October 22, 1985 Page 6 entrance to the B.O.C. Plant. To improve pedestrian access, reduce mainten- ance in this area and retain green space, an alternate paving/planting scheme should be forwarded to the Mayor. The Committee further recommends that B.O.C. accept responsibility for snow removal and maintenance. The street is to remain open to traffic and not be impeded by snow removal from the pedestrian areas. Mr. Nelson moved for approval, Mrs. Wieland seconded; APPROVED Act -32-85, Washtenaw Street Vacation The Committee recommends the proposed modifications to the State Library, Museum and Archives building be approved subject to two conditions: 1. Washtenaw Street right-of-way between Sycamore and Butler be vacated by the City, retaining all necessary easements; and 2. Washtenaw Street be converted to two-way traffic between Pine and Logan Streets. Housing Assistance Plan This Plan sets up housing stock conditions in Lansing, and part two is rental subsidy needs of lower income households. The last table is a three year goals list in gross terms, owner/renter, targets for rehab and recon- struction. This document is a federal requirement for any community to receive Block Grant funds. Unless an elderly goal is set, it is difficult for us to get funds from HUD. Mr. Nelson moved for adoption and Mrs. Horne supported; APPROVED The next meeting will be held November 13 at 7:30 p.m. Report From Planning Director: 1) Early in 1985 (April 16) the Board recommended to Council, and they adopted, a proposed alignment for the Industrial Access Road in north Lansing, that was a Howe Avenue alignment that connected North East Street, or US 27, via Howe through private property and connected to Lake Lansing Road in Lansing Township. Also the Board had a rezoning petition by M.S.V. Planning Board Minutes October 22, 1985 Page 7 Associates who presently have an existing SUP to conduct a gravel mining operation at this location, which they access from Lake Lansing Road. Their proposal last year (SLU-32-84) was to expand that operation. It currently is held in Zoning and Ordinance Committee pending a resolution of the roadway alignment issue for Howe Avenue. The City of Lansing has conducted studies within the Paulson Park area dealing with ground water contamination. Those studies indicated the presence of metallic compounds, industrial wastes that may have been dumped there which were showing substantial levels of contamination, at least at the well sites tested by our consultant. Our concern was with the construction of the Industrial Access Road and the Howe Avenue approved alignment, if that construction would in any way release contamination further south into this property or to the BWL well site. Staff's recommendation to the Mayor after the results of the first tests was to hold any further construction of the roadway until the City could do additional testing on the Paulson property to determine the extent of contami- nation on that site. That left us with a neighborhood problem, the Friedland operation. Our staff and the City Engineer have met with neighborhood residents bringing suit against Friedland. MSV and Associates, the property owner and DNR, BWL and Public Health met to see if there was relief for the neighborhood. We have reached agreement with all parties involved that there could be a temporary access road at Howe Avenue; a gravel road constructed by the City on an easement paid for by the City to the current property owner. We will begin that within the next two weeks, thereby getting neighborhood traffic out of the area and pulling it to the non-residential Howe Avenue. The property owner has agreed to the lease with the condition that the MSV proposal be dealt with by the City. Staff has taken the position of recommending approval of the expansion of the gravel mining operation to a point basically up to where the permanent roadway would come in to proceed no further west to bring it directly behind the residential area to the south. The residents along Bates Street and all those involved in the suit have supported that position. It's basically half a loaf for everybody because we are trying to get access across property we don't own, to buy time for further research in the area and also, find out if this is a buildable alignment. The Mayor is going to recommend to Council that they endorse conducting the next level of testing here and he will inform the Council that the temporary access road will be constructed this fall. That leaves on the table for the Board the rezoning issue (Z-29-84). Staff has taken a position that we will support that only if the results of the tests from the Paulson property show that the expansion of the gravel mining operation will not lead to the contaminants in the Paulson property Planning Board Minutes October 22, 1985 Page 8 migrating south, since we don't know the specific location of those contami- nants at this point. Mr. Barnhart asked, how do you feel about that becoming a permanent route? Mr. Foulds answered, it might offer better developmental possibilities for this area. If the permanent alignment is never built, it is probably the best location. When the results of the tests are in and we, the DNR, Public Health and BWL feel that we can support construction on this alignment or another alignment in a reasonable fashion without environmental problems, we will come to you with a recommendation to act on this SLU and rezoning. 2) Mr. Langworthy asked the status of the 100 block. Mr. Foulds said, the hotel and exhibition center, I understand, are both on schedule. I could have the architects speak to you on that if you like. The Board agreed they would like that presentation. Board Member Comments: Dr. Remick reported that his visit to Sugar Loaf was interesting in several ways. We are fortunate as a Board to have the support staff we do. When I listened to others, I think our staff does a fantastic job in acquiring background information. There were places that don't allow the Board to make their own decisions with the information given. Of interest to the Board of Zoning Appeals, discussions were held on satellite conditions. They were talking about dealing with the microcomputer because there will be a lot of operations within. homes and we should look at it now. I brought back a book on the history of the Michigan Society of Planning Officials. I do have a number of reports I will send on to the Planning Division Library. Mr. Fountain added, there were some changes suggested in the nonconforming use section that we might be able to look at, with the thought of improving ours further. Also, the changes of some ordinances beside nonconforming uses. Adjournment was at 9:40 p.m. 2ectfully suubbmitte , J mes N. Foulds, Director L ng Planning Division WC Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall Wednesday, November 6, 1985 Merle Barnhart, Chairman, convened the meeting promptly at 7:30 p.m. with six members present; Mr. Mitchner arrived at 8:30 p.m. Barnhart, Langworthy, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wieland, Wright Excused Absence: Emly Horne (moved by Langworthy, seconded by Remick) APPROVED Staff in Attendance: Foulds, Fountain, Winnicker, Coscarelli, Bauer and Councilmember Alfreda Schmidt, 2nd Ward PUBLIC HEARINGS: Z-27-85, 508, 512 and 516 Ash Street; 525 East Oakland and 920, 928 North Cedar Street H to C Emil Winnicker explained the petition is an effort to bring the block into conformance with the current Master Plan and be more consistent with the present use. MAX HOFFMAN, 1111 Michigan, Avenue, East Lansing, representing Bill and Janet Stajos, who indicate opposition to the petition. Mr. Stajos upgraded his property and improved the appearance of the area. The lots on Oakland are vacant. The earlier Master Plan called for the whole Cedar/Larch Corridor to be light industrial. That made sense, there are two major traffic thorough- fares,.railroad access and an area that would some day become light industrial. In the 1984.revised Master Plan that same Corridor is designated residential. The intent is to protect and preserve the option for the people in that block as a community to be allowed on resale to take advantage of possible commercial development. If you don't, you will not find people to buy those vacant lots and build a home to raise their children on Oakland and the state will not grant a curb cut to the street. That block is an excellent buffer, with good commercial possibililty to protect the residential areas to the north. That is consistent with your -Master Plan to protect the housing stock in that area, and at the same time protect and preserve the value. If you deny this request, you protect the homes in that area, protect Mr. Stajos and his commercial investment and you allow the option for these people to enhance the value of their homes on resale either as private residences or possible commercial development. The Chairman reported a communication was received from MRS. MARY ENGUARDIO, 1019 North Larch Street in support of the Ash Street rezoning. Planning Board Minutes November 6, 1985 Page 2 ARTHUR J. CLYNE, Attorneys At Law, representing the property owners, who advise us they protest the proposed rezoning. "The diminution in value which we will suffer as a result of the proposed change is disproportionate to the benefit the City may derive and will deprive clients of their property rights without due process of the law." JAMES AND LUCY BRUDON, 508 Ash. We are the only family on that block not retired. We don't plan to live there the rest of our lives. We bought the property with the intent that we could resell it as commercial, light industrial we bought it in. We are opposed to having it changed to residential now. It seems if the majority of property owners want it to stay the way it is, it should be that way. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-28-85, 6841 South Cedar Street F and J to F The remainder of the cases were presented by Vern Fountain. ROBERT WICKER, petitioner, 2388 North College Road, Holt. I am the previous owner of Holt Auto Sales, which I sold two years ago. I specialize in Corvettes and late model vehicles, no junk. Along with that will be a limousine service. The Battery Exchange will do all of my work, none at this site. We should not require screening. Mr. Fountain added that the Ordinance requires screening of commercial property when it abuts a less intense use. The use across the street is not strictly residential, it's sort of mixed residential the fact that it's used as temporary living quarters. We will have to take a hard look at it. JOHN FULLER, Vice President and General Manager of Long's, at 6910 South Cedar Street. Our company certainly encourages commercial development and we like to be good neighbors. We are aware that "F" Commercial allows the use proposed, however, if approval is grunted, we hope it would prohibit storage and inoperable vehicles on site and that appropriate screening would be required to assure the view of the site would be as positive as possible. We have no objection. ALFREDA SCHMIDT, 2nd Ward Councilmember. I would like to impress the quality of the Clarion, the expensive, elaborate facility being built across from this proposed business-. It would be unfortunate if we encouraged businessesto establish that were less than appealing to a business center such as the Clarion Hotel. They seem to share a curb cut with the gas station. If they request another, it would create a traffic hazard. This is a busy intersection at the hotel. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Planning Board Minutes November o, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Fountain reported the license issued for that property prohibits any type of storage of inoperative vehicles. It only allows the sale of new and used cars. The curb cut comes in on the north side of the property, adjacent to the service station. It's a common curb cut in a sense, but is a cut to the driveway that comes out of his property specifically. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Z-29-85, Vacant land west of 5522 South Cedar Street A to F LE ROY HENRY, owner of Burger King Restaurant and its property. Our petition is for the purpose of increasing employee parking mostly. We had 60 to 70 when we opened and recently improved the drive-through facility and did extensive landscaping, which wiped out the majority of parking in the center. We still have ample parking, just not as sufficient as we would like. We intend to remodel that store in the near future. We would blacktop the lot back to the fence then leave the area we are attempting to purchase and rezone as a grassed area so we can park employee cars on it, but it will not be blacktopped. (Mr. Henry submitted a landscape plan and photos showing the land and landscaping on the existing lot.) REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE NCU-17-85, 119 East Oakland BARBARA MERRIOTT, 324 West Oakland. I purchased this home with the idea that it was already residential. The house is originally a Sears -Roebuck house ordered out of a catalog. It is of historical value, one of the first homes built in Lansing. Once restored it will be absolutely beautiful. I plan to have the porch taken off and rebuilt as original with the spindles. The only bad thing is the neighborhood surrounding this home is a little run down. In the future I hope I can buy those four houses along the river and restore them too. It would be a shame to tear it down. (Ms. Merriott submitted pictures of a house she had previously restored.) A communication was received from LESLIE LAMAR, 1713 Peggy Place, who owns three rental units, wants the area kept residential and is in favor of improving the property. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Planning Board Minutes November 6, 1985 Page 4 LS -25-85, 4609 Devonshire DUANE HELLUM, 4609 Devonshire. I am not going to build until I sell the hous` we now live in. The new house will be our home. Staff told me if we approved it, there may still be deed or subdivision restrictions that would not allow me to build. The lot restrictions from Ingham County are that it must be 5,000 square feet. I checked with Public Service on sewers. They said it would cost more than the lot is. worth because they would have to bring sewer all the way down from Cavanaugh. The City Assessor said the land alone is assessed at $6,500. If my lot is split, they said roughly $5,000 each lot, but it would not affect any other property. Mr. Foulds added, the reason it's before the Board is not size, but because of its land use orientation. ROBERT PETERSON, 4601 Devonshire, submitted a section of the ordinance. I am opposed to this. The immediate result would be to devalue properties. This would not be an isolated request. There are 19 houses that could be developed from 4319 to 4807 Devonshire. This action could create a whole new subdivision. Houses facing industrial properties such as Capital City Oil, Waterbed, CATA bus, Steve's Produce and Bell Telephone Company Mould be less desirable and less compatible with other homes in the area. Mr. Hellum owns a lot which was made oversized for a very good reason; it was to separate and isolate the industrial from the residential area. This would be opposite the intent of the Zoning Code. We ask that you reject this proposal. JOEL LUTES, 4626 Devonshire. This neighborhood is close to schools and ideal for raising a family. The neighbors have taken pride in their neighborhood and the area has appreciated in value. I am opposed to this request for splitting a lot that will allow a house to face Tranter, it will depreciate surrounding properties. Several neighbors are opposed but do not want to speak in the event of creating bad feelings. I am strongly opposed and urge his request be denied. JIM HEYDEN, 4901 Devonshire. I would like to have you consider the initial reason for the large lots and low intensity, and what impact this would have on our nice neighborhood. IRMA SCAVARDA, 4609 Devonshire, deed holder of the property. I received the building permit for a garage fifteen years ago. I was told then that we could not build the garage back further because that was a double lot and would not be allowed to be split if the garage was back further. Mr. Barnhart noted a communication had been received that she is in favor of the lot split. Also BEULAH MADDEN, 4701 Devonshire, is opposed. Planning Board Minutes November 6, 1985 Page 5 DON CRANE, 4615 Devonshire. I regret being here because Mr. Hellum has been a congenial neighbor. I hope you have it in your power to stop this or we should all divide our property now and sell it. DOROTHY HAGEN, 4615 Devonshire. A home facing those commercial uses would be detrimental to the neighbors and the community. We have a fine residential neighborhood. ALFREDA SCHMIDT, Councilmember, 2nd Ward. I would like to ask you to submit your request for urgency in dealing with lot splitting. I am opposed to the Board approving this request. Council previously had set some zoning stipulations in that area to protect it from the industry on the other side of Tranter. If we allow buildings to expose an exit to that industry, we would have a different quality of homes; smaller homes, of rental quality, which would change the whole residential environment. Please bring to the attention of Public Properties and Safety and Physical Development that you want us to look at the Lot Split Policy. Thank you for your attention. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes Dr. Remick moved for approval of the October 22, 1985 minutes and Mr. Langworthy seconded. Mr. Nelson noted Act -31 recommendation should be changed to further reflect the landscaping plan submitted and the snow removal provision charged to B.O.C. APPROVED Committee Reports: Mr. Wright reported that the ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE will hold its next meeting on Wednesday, November 13 at 7 a.m. in the Division Conference Room. Mr. Nelson stated URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE is scheduled to meet that same day at 7:30 p.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Planning Board Minutes November 6, 1985 Page 6 Report From Planning Director: lj At your last meeting the Board asked the progress of the Exhibition/Convention facility and we have requested Jon Bauer, Project Planner from the Development Division to give you an update. JON BAUER The area between Cedar Street and the City Market has changed; it has been upgraded and the first bid package is underway. Christman is the concrete contractor working on footings and foundations for main buildings. The earth work contractor is also local, Barnhart, who is grading and trying to get the northeast parking lot finished to get our permit parkers back. We will have about another 140 spaces for parking opened up. We have four bid packages on the project. The first has been let and is under construction. The second just opened the latter part of October and that is the remainder of the foundation and the structural steel package. We won't see any steel until next May. Third is almost a million dollars. So far we are about $300,000 under budget, but we have one more bid package for the remainder of the building. We are looking at an early '87 completion. The hotel is moving right along and we are trying to get our building completed about the same time. In response to questions Mr. Bauer explained; the pedway goes over the garage on the north side of Ottawa Street to link our facility at this northwest corner across the river and cross the north part of Wentworth Park, Grand Avenue and into the hotel, then across into the main parking garage. I don't know .the completion date on the parking garage. The pedway will come in on the second floor of the hotel, third floor of the ramp. Jim Foulds added, the City was awarded matching grants from the State of Michigan on critical bridge funds. The Michigan Avenue railroad bridge will be replaced to provide vehicular and pedestrian access under Michigan Avenue through the parking lot and south of Michigan Avenue to the museums. We are presently working with the new bridge location, it will be to the east. We are leaving the existing pedway and connecting to it for a boardwalk. The Michigan equity package has included redoing the railing on the Michigan Avenue bridge to improve the view to the river. The other thing proposed is a lighted, floating fountain in the middle, south of the pedway., north. of the bridge which hopefully is going to be used to accent the river, plus the power plant. The other part of the critical bridge funding is the Shiawassee Street Bridge. That is for rehabilitation in addition to the three construction projects going on down there. Thank you Jon. Planning Board Minutes November 6, 1985 Page 7 2) We are heading into budget time again. If you have any particular comments on our Work Program, past year or activities you would like to see the staff involved in, please let me !:now. I will bring the draft to you for comments prior to submitting it to the Mayor. New Business: The Green Oaks Plan was submitted to Board members for information. A public hearing will be held at the November 19 meeting. Communications: A copy of the Community Development Block Grant Grantee Performance Report was submitted to the Chairman for the Board's perusal. Board Member Comments: Dr. Remick stated; over the years of reading development plans, it comes to mind that we help areas, but do they really help themselves? True committees wort; on this, but staff spends a lot of time on it too. With federal money sparse, perhaps the City could assess a small portion of taxes against an area to help it improve; small loans maybe. Mr. Foulds clarified; true, federal involvement has dwindl.ed and will continue to and we have to look at other funding sources for revitalization of neighborhoods. There are not a lot. The City can get land use policies in order, densities, make sure zonings are appropriate, and approach public investment through Capital Improvement priorities. Under a current tax law in Michigan you cannot spend tax dollars for rehabili- tation activities. We could and should sell a bond package specifically for housing rehab activities, revolving fund loans so the basic amount of the bond can be repaid to interested owners in the area. We have been working with the Attorney's office to see what we can do legally to sell bonds in Michigan. Adjournment: Mr. Mitchner moved to The regular November at 9:40 p.m. Wr. adjourn, Mrs. Wieland supported and the Board APPROVED. 6, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned spectfully Zubmitted, a s N. Fou ds, Director Lansing Planning Division Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall December 3, 1985 The Chairman, Merle Barnhart, convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. with eight members present: Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Mitchner, Nelson, Remick, Wieland, Wright Staff in Attendance: Foulds, Acheson, Coscarelli Agenda: Item NCU-17-85 deleted from Zoning Committee.. APPROVED PUBLIC HEARING: Presented by Bill Acheson SLU-19-85, 3000 Block of East Jolly Road The petitioner had no comments but is available for any questions. A letter was received from SHRIKUMAR AND MAYURIKA PODDAR, 2601 Cochise Lane, Okemos, welcoming the church to the area. REFERRED TO ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Comments From the Audience: OSKAR HORNBACH, Attorney, representing Barbara Merriott in case NCU-17-85, 119 East Oakland. What requested information was not provided for you, from whom? Mr. Foulds answered; staff was requested to obtain an estimated cost of rehabilitation of the structure to bring it up to minimum city code standards. We will endeavor to have that available for Wednesday's committee meeting. Mr. Hornbach continued; the property is zoned professional office and the request is for a building permit to use this property as a duplex. The property is a legal, nonconforming use and the proposed use will lower the intensity of that use. The property is intended to be used by my client as her residence, her daughter will live there also. She has expended approxi- mately $5,000 in renovation. She intends to make this a desirable location. She is quite professional at this and does a good job (photographs were shown of a previously renovated house). COLONEL RICHARD LILLY. In the mid 70's i acquired three pieces of property on Grand Court and several on Kilborn. My intent was to buy the entire strip on Oakland from the river to Washington and all along the river from Oakland to Grand River. My plan was an office/apartment complex. The Free Methodist Church owned the opposite side of Grand Court with the exception of 119 East Planning Board Minutes December 3, 1985 Page 2 Oakland. I had several people interested in leasing office space. The difficulty was the parcel owned by the Church. They are required to maintain off street parking, so they wished to retain the property. I saw a lot of potential there; a beautiful spot in the city and perhaps one of the most neglected, but I lost interest because I could not gain control of all the property. My daughter, whom I had given the three pieces, did not wish to be a landlord. I planned to sell, but June 6 there was a fire. The insurance company asked for two repair estimates --they were $20,000 and $22,500. That would only restore it's "original appearance." It was up to Code; wiring, etc. My insurance was $20,000 and I had no desire to put additional money into it. The only alternative was to raze'the structure. Then Barbara Merriott offered to buy the house to restore. For the good of the City it would be better to have that house there, fully restored with an owner occupant than in any other means. It had an attorney's office in there --it will not work as office space, it has poor ingress and egress. It was a duplex for the last three years with no parking problems, even though it's a small lot. The church shares the driveway. The loss of a structure of that nature in that area would be a serious mistake. BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes: Mr. Mitchner moved to accept the minutes of November 19, 1985; support was given by Mr. Nelson.- Mr. Barnhart noted a name correction under the first public hearing item. APPROVED Committee Reports: Mr. Wright reported that the ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE will meet next Wednesday morning, December 11 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Mr. Nelson reported -that the URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE will have its next meeting Wednesday, December 11 at 7:30 p.m., that's in the evening, in the Planning'Division Conference Room. Planning Board Minutes December 3, 1985 Page 3 Report From Planning Director: Jim Foulds 1) You may have noticed the newspaper article on the River Island Master Plan Amendment. The committee of about 20 persons that has been working on this for twelve months has just about finalized its work and we will schedule a public hearing some time in January. They have put in a lot of work on tough issues --which areas were going to remain residential and which would move into the office category and vice versa. Hopefully, we will be able to provide a framework on which the Board can base future decisions for that area. We still have a lot of questions remaining in that area, including a pending law suit. It was a pretty comprehensive article. Mr. Barnhart asked could we reward, by certificates possibly, citizens who worked on this? Also Green Oaks and Cherry -Hill. I would like to do that before the year ends if possible. Mr.- Foulds answered, that would certainly be appropriate and we would be happy to do that for you. He continued; this will take several committee sessions to understand what kinds of policies we are trying to achieve. This Plan probably deals with the area that surrounds the Central Business District more than the CBD itself. 2) We are currently in the process of putting our Work Program together for next year. If you have specific projects you would like to see expanded or looked into, let me know to be sure it is in our proposal before we send it to the Mayor's office. 3) An apology on the East Oakland issue; the message wasn't clear to staff when we needed that information, but I will make sure you have it Wednesday. It is important to note that the Board is being asked to make a decision whether this property should be granted Class "A" nonconforming status. Decision would be based on parking, proposed use in the area and intensity of the use proposed. The rehabilitation value only comes into play if it exceeds a certain percentage of fair market value of the property. Mr. Wright asked if there is a time limit for the intended rehabilitation. Mr. Foulds responded; if a building permit is not applied for, it is up to the City to push the owner to make the property safe or demolish it. There is a 180 day building permit time limit for validity. New Business: The proposed meeting dates for 1985 were accepted by Board members in a motion by Dr. Remick, which was supported by Mr. Mitchner. Planning Board Minutes December 3, 1985 Page 4 Board Member Comments: Mr. Barnhart noted that it looks like the hotel. is progressing satisfactorily. Mr. Foulds stated, yes, everything is on progress. We hope the interest rate holds for another six months. Mr. Wright asked when Grand Avenue will be reopened, I believe it gets narrower every day. Mr. Foulds answered, I believe September of next year. And, yes, with the snow it will be even more narrow. We are currently working with the Department of Transportation and CATA to find a temporary staging area for the buses to alleviate that problem. Adjournment: Mr. Mitchner moved, Mr. Nelson seconded and the Board APPROVED. The regular December 3, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 8:30 p.m. soectfully submitted, am N. Foulds, Director L sing Planning Division WC Regular Meeting Lansing Planning Board 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, City Hall December 17, 1985 The Planning Board Chairman, Merle Barnhart, convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. with seven members present: Barnhart, Horne, Langworthy, Mitchner, Nelson, Wieland, Wright Excused: Remick Staff: Foulds, Fountain The agenda stands as printed. There are no scheduled public hearings this evening. Comments from the Audience: JIM DRAGISIC, 216 South Charles, regarding case NCU-17-85. I would like to distribute informational packets and pictures of the property at 119 East Oakland. A report from the Fire Department stated there were two 3 inch hoses and two 11-2 inch hoses that poured water on that building for a total of 180 minutes; three full hours, and yet they say there is only $750 worth of damage. I find that hard to go along with, I had a kitchen fire six weeks ago and it was $5,000. There is also a letter from HUD stating in part that property, that area continued future marketability as one family homes is so limited that the high risk associated with a long term mortgage is one that we should not have assumed. Your Master Plan calls for "D-1" Professional buildings. The previous owner admitted he didn't take care of the property, that hew as trying to secure a parcel in order to develop it and that it had been used by an attorney for a period, which as professional use would have eliminated the nonconforming use. That property is about to come to fruition for development. People have ex- pressed interest in developing that property. Why would we grant a noncon- formity in the middle of that and put whoever lives there through having to deal with professional usage all the way around and the additional expense of renovation. Two weeks ago that property was not secured. As you can see from the pictures, doors and windows are not secured, there's a cantilevered porch which is not supported in any way, no foundation under the porch, there's extensive work to be done on this house --it's not cosmetic. It seems totally inconsistent to me that a nonconformity would be granted on this piece of property at this time. Planning Board Minutes December 17, 1985 Page 2 Incidentally, we have no interest in buying this property. It is not our intent to have it torn down and buy a vacant lot. Our intent is to develop that area as the Master Plan calls for. Thank you. OSKAR HORNBACH, Attorney, representing Ms. Merriott, owner of 119 East Oakland Avenue, my office is at 222 West Genesee Street. I ask you to consider the reasoning behind the strenuous objections by Mr. Dragisic. Contrary to what he told you, he has approached my client to purchase that property. At the Zoning -Committee it was stated that he would not object to a professional use, yet in a letter to the City of Lansing, dated December 3, a suggestion is made that the building be demolished. The pictures submitted clearly show they were taken inside the house. To obtain these pictures somebody would have to be engaged in an illegal trespass. The HUD letter does not suggest the mort- gage is not granted because it ought to be something else besides single family and the property is secured today and has been for some time. I ask you to go along with staff and committee's recommendation to grant this request. Thank you. LARRY BAAS, 216 South Charles, Universal Builders, partner with Mr. Dragisic. We are not, nor ever have been interested in that property. The first time we appeared at a meeting here a letter was submitted from a Mrs. Lamar, which should not have been as she does not own any property in that area. We pur- chased all her property over a year ago. The property is not secured, it is simple to take pictures from the outside through the window. BUSINESS SESSION: Approval of Minutes: Mr. Langworthy moved for approval of the December 3, 1985 minutes, and Mrs. Wieland supported; APPROVED Committee Reports: ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: Reported by Mr. Wright. Z-30-85, 405 East Holmes Road DM -3 to F The Committee recommends that the request to have property located at 405 East Holmes Road rezoned from "DM -3" Multiple Residential to "F" Commercial Dis- trict be denied as filed; but that the property be rezoned instead to "E-2" Local Shopping District. Planning Board Minutes December 17, 1985 Page 3 The Committee believes uses permitted in the "E-2" Shopping District are more compatible with the residential neighborhood to the west and allow the owner to make better use of the property. The Committee feels that the "E-2" Dis- trict will serve as an effective transition zone between the low intense resi- dential uses along Holmes Road and the more intense commercial activity along South Cedar Street. Mr. Wright so moved and Mr. Langworthy seconded; DENIED AS FILED but to an "E-2" Local Shopping District; APPROVED SLU-19-85, 3000 block of East Jolly Road The Committee recommends approval of the request to construct a church with seating for 2,000 people in the 3000 block of East Jolly Road, subject to two conditions: 1) That a site plan be submitted to and approved by the City of Lansing which shows the approved ingress and egress of the site, parking details, building placement and landscape screening and buffering. 2) Certification that the utility requirements can be met including, but not limited to, on site storm sewer, sanitary sewer, telephone, electrical, water and gas. Mr. Wright so moved and Mr. Langworthy supported; Mrs. Wieland asked if an outreach center is the same as a church. Pastor McGill answered, yes, we are a church recognized by state and federal govern- ment; this is our trade name. We are non -denominational. APPROVED NCU-17-85, 119 East Oakland The Zoning and Ordinance Committee recommendsthat the property located at 119 East Oakland Avenue be granted Class "A" Nonconforming status for the purpose of allowing restoration of the existing structure into a two unit dwelling. Mr. Wright so moved and Mr. Langworthy seconded; APPROVED with one abstention. The next meeting of the Committee will be January 15, 1986 at 7 a.m. in the Planning Division Conference Room. Planning Board Minutes December 17, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Nelson reported that the URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE will meet next on January 15, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Planning Division. Holiday and New Year wishes were exchanged. A Happy Birthday for December 25 was extended to Charles Mitchner. A special thank you was expressed to Don Hanna for the Christmas Cards he created. Adjournment: The regular December 17, 1985 meeting of the Lansing Planning Board adjourned at 8:15 p.m. C?nsinq ctfully s bmi/tted, N. Fo lds, Director Planning Division WC