Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Board 1999 July-Sept FINAL
APPROVED AS PRINTED AUGUST 3, 1999 Draft 072099 Approved 080399 To Clerk 080699 Minutes of the Regular Meeting I _ LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 P.M., City Council Chambers LL, :v Ci l`i CL` = ` Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Wednesday, July 7, 1999 1. OPENING SESSION: Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Ruge. Six members present; one vacant seat. B. Excused Absences - Mr. Smith on July 6, 1999 requested an excused absence. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, introduced staff present, Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Nischan arrived at this time. A. Letter dated July 7, 1999 addressed to Planning Office from David J. Anderson, Anderson, Stull & Associates representing Saga Communications Re: Z-10-99, 327 S. Walnut Street, "E-2" Local Shopping District to "G-1" Business District B. Telephone Call from Mrs. Holmes, property owner at 325 S. Walnut Street, concerned about Z-10-99, 327 S. Walnut Street, "E-2" Local Shopping District to "G-1" Business District. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-10-99, 327 S. Walnut Street, "E-2" Local Shopping District to "G-1" Business District B. SLU-5-99, 327 S. Walnut Street, Public Utility Facility Mr. Ruff presented the cases which will be handled together. The request is to rezone the property at the northeast corner of Walnut Street and West Kalamazoo from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "G-1" Business District, as well as for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the property as a public utility facility. The Board of Water and Light is the applicant. The property owner is Ingham County. The Board has an option to purchase the property from the county. At the present time, the property is a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 2 surface parking lot for the southern 88 ft; the northern 11 ft of the 99 ft x 165 property is a driveway easement for the property at 325 S. Walnut. No employees would be at the facility on a daily basis except to maintain it as necessary. The proposal is to build an unmanned chiller facility that would serve a chilled water district for air conditioning purposes. BWL maintains other districts for water, electricity, and steam. Mr. Ruge asked why the request was for "G-1" rather than another zoning. Mr. Ruff said primarily it was because of the property size and the height and size of the building. The building with its mechanical equipment and chiller towers fills the boundaries of the site, extending to the lot lines. The plan proposes enclosing the chiller towers. SUE McCORMICK, MARKETING MANAGER, BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT. I am the business manager for this development. We have been evaluating the downtown area and the design for providing this as an augmented utility service for about ten years. There is renewed interest because of several new buildings proposed for the downtown area and a renewed interest by the State of Michigan. We have a letter of intent from the state to negotiate with regard to the potential to pick up some of the state's chiller load in the downtown area and potentially to abandon the existing state chiller facility, located between the Civic Center and the State Library-Museum. We have renewed our study done in the early `90s. The two factors driving site selection are locations of customers, and location of the energy source. The source of energy to drive the chilllers in the facility is the steam system. Siting the facility is an economic decision because we need to be as close as possible to our source of high-pressure steam while at the same time minimizing the piping to serve the customers. (Provided scale drawings.) The chiller facility replaces equipment and maintenance requirements and provides a higher level of reliability than individual building owners can do on their own. We provide a central facility to eliminate the need for chillers in individual buildings and cooling towers atop individual buildings and to provide air conditioning more cheaply. What are we looking at? This is the second draft of an architectural rendering. Mr. Nelson is the engineering project manager; I am the business project manager for this development. We have worked with the same architect who worked on the Grady Porter Building, trying to be sensitive to the development in the area to maintain an architectural style that respects the style in the area, to maintain as low a profile as possible given site limitations. To the top of the screen wall that surrounds the cooling towers on the elevation is 48 ft. The Grady Porter building that is higher than the chiller building will have windows overlooking; the Capitol is higher, but we didn't want them looking at rooftop chiller equipment. We want to maintain compatibility with the neighbors. The elevations give an indication of the scale with other buildings. We repeated the vertical PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 3 columns, a characteristic of the Capitol Building. The Board wants to make this look as much as possible like a commercial facility in the area. We did receive a telephone call from Mr. David Anderson, the attorney representing the property owner at 325 S. Walnut, who was concerned about the easement there for their driveway access. The site plan and the footprint acknowledges that the easement is there and that we intend to honor the easement and that we will place no structures on it and maintain the access to it. We have prepared a letter to that effect. (Provided a copy of the letter.) I received a call today from staff. The State Bar Association called; they had questions regarding noise. We don't have technical information about the decibel level at street level. The overall design and the intent of the structure is basically a massive concrete structure that might deaden noise so that you have a natural control at street level. The cooling towers are the only equipment that is not completely enclosed. The opportunity for noise is the operation of the fans which is no different than on many buildings in the downtown area currently. The State of Michigan chiller facility has similar cooling towers at grade level. These will be 40 ft in the air with screening around them. They should present less noise than at the State's facility. Mr. Ruff said the State's chiller is 3,000 tons; this one will be 12,000 tons. Ms. McCormick said 12,000 installed tons with about 10,000 tons available to provide service. We are looking at 2,000 ton units with the ability to have the largest unit out of service. That is improved reliability over what individual buildings generally have in equipment sized for their peak load. Redundancy is very expensive for individual buildings, but if you pool your loads in one facility, you can provide higher levels of security and reliability for buildings served. Mr. Ruff asked amplification of noise that would be generated by fans. JAN NELSON, ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGER, BWL. Generally, noise would not be amplified by fans. All chillers would be running at one time only for 40 or 50 hours per year. Chillers would be inside the concrete part of the building and would not be likely to make noise. In the coolers, the fans go on and off. With larger fans running slower, noise would be considerably reduced. Mr. Frederick asked about condensation blowing out of the top of the cooling towers that could get on cars or pedestrians, and what produces the cloud. Mr. Nelson said during certain times of the year, you can see a cloud coming out of the top of the cooling tower, as you would see atop PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 4 any building in the downtown area. This would happen only over a period of a few hours. These towers are high enough and with the fans running, you are not likely to get condensation rolling over the side of the building and down to the sidewalk level. The cooling tower has water running through it. On some days, with a certain temperature and humidity, a cloud will form. The cooling tower by its nature results in evaporation. Depending on weather conditions, you can get condensation of that evaporation. Mr. Nischan asked about street-level hospitability, making the building pedestrian-scale and not quite as forbidding. The rendering makes the building look uninviting and unapproachable. Can something pedestrian- friendly be on the first floor? Do you have flexibility in your design to think about pedestrian features? It looks like an industrial building. Ms. McCormick said they would be amenable, as part of the special land use process and the site plan review process, to looking at doing something in the seven-foot strip inside the sidewalk--between the sidewalk and the building is a seven-foot strip. Mr. Nischan asked about an alternative approach. If people are not needed inside the building, is it possible to have architectural design features at the first floor and pedestrian levels that make it look more like a downtown building and less facility-like? We want to encourage foot traffic. Things like doorways, even if they are not doorways. Ms. McCormick said the architect looked at the Grady Porter Building and at the Lewis Cass Building; they would be happy to take suggestions for things that should be considered. Mr. Ruff said they were responding to the more monumental buildings in the area. Mr. Nischan said it is featureless on the first floor. Ms. McCormick said the approach of BWL, in the rework of other facilities, is to try to make them pedestrian- and public-friendly, to try to welcome the public onto the facilities where that is achievable. If there is an opportunity to do something in the seven-foot strip, we will certainly do that. Mr. Frederick said it might be a place people would avoid if moisture comes down on them. Mr. Ruge would like to see simulated doors and windows so it looks more friendly. This is going to be a busy corner. Mr. Ruff said the public space could be designed in such a way as to complement pedestrians as well as the building and environment. Ms. Keene was concerned about the loading dock on the front of the building. If it can be located elsewhere, can it be screened? Ms. McCormick said there are limitations, namely the driveway easement. It is not a sharable driveway. We considered putting the dock on the rear of the building, but access would not be possible. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 5 DENNIS MELLOTT, SAGA COMMUNICATIONS, 325 S. WALNUT. We have a state-wide radio network that supplies news to stations throughout the State of Michigan. Tim Skubick is our chief correspondent. It is a news service, much like AP or UPI. I am concerned about noise. We have invested much money in sound-proof studio equipment, but it still has its limitations. Secondly, Walnut is one-way going north. When going to the Capitol, or to downtown, at the red light, what are you going to see. I am concerned about the height of the building. We have gone to much expense to rehabilitate the property and upgrade the equipment. The Governor came last week to use the new studio for a response to Washington. I am looking for consideration before things are finalized. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge declared the hearing closed for Z-10-99, 327 S. Walnut Street, "E-2" Local Shopping District to "G-1" Business District and SLU-5-99, 327 S. Walnut Street, Public Utility Facility and referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting on Wednesday, July 14, 1999 in the Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION Minutes for Approval: June 15, 1999. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve the minutes of June 15, 1999. Voice vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of June 15, 1999 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole - did not meet. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman. a. Z-7-99, 2726 N. Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts to "G-2" Wholesale District This is a request by Richard Lorencen, owner of Central Advertising, to rezone property located at 2726 N. Grand River Avenue from "A" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts to "G-2" Wholesale District. This request is for a long, narrow parcel that is basically landlocked and surrounded by a residential neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to expand the sign business and improve the property for additional parking, circulation and buffering. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 6 In Committee, it was recognized that it encroaches back into the residential area, but also there is very little other potential use for this property. It sits behind some fairly large and deep lots, and there is no other access to it. For the commercial development to be effectively using their space required rezoning issues to be addressed. The Committee recognized the residential neighborhood and the necessity for proper landscaping screening and buffering around the perimeter of the site. Considerable discussion took place in the Committee meeting with both staff and the applicant. Based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, the Committee recommended that the back 100 ft of the north 100 ft of the lot be rezoned from "A" Residential to "J" Parking and that the remainder of the site be rezoned to "G-2" Wholesale. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of Z-7-99, 2726 North Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts to "G-2" Wholesale District. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-7-99, 2726 North Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts to "G-2" Wholesale District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge asked about the buffer mentioned in the staff recommendation. Mr. Miller said the staff recommendation in the report rezoning a 20 ft area that is "A" Residential was not what the Committee recommended. In discussions with Mr. Ruff this evening, it was acknowledged that with the rezoning, site plan review is necessary, and adequate buffering can be required, particularly in the "J" Parking, up to a 20 ft buffer. It was emphasized that farther back on the lot, a larger buffer strip is necessary allowing some parking in that area, but making sure that there was not an intensive use in the back parking area by requiring that it be only for parking by requiring a good- sized buffer strip, particularly in the back section. It was recognized that as you go farther forward that there is less room to work with a depth, but perhaps fencing would be required. The recommendation in Committee was not what has been detailed here, not to recommend that any area be left as residential or leaving it to staff to design adequate buffering to ensure that the integrity of the neighborhood is maintained. Mr. Ruge asked about the "J" Parking section--is the "G-2" section also the same, that buffering is required? Mr. Miller said yes, buffering is required. Mr. Ruff said the problem with the site is with the width. It is only 100 ft wide. They are trying to alleviate the need for delivery trucks to back in from Grand River Avenue. They are PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 7 trying to move some of their parking farther back on the site so they can have proper circulation on the front of the site so trucks can pull in, turn around on-site, and go out frontwards. There are some space constraints there. Instead of trying to designate just one ring of an even distance around the property of buffering, there will probably be a combination of landscaping, fencing, and varying degrees and heights to fit the specific needs of the location north and south on the site. Mr. Ruge asked if any residents were present; Mr. Miller said one resident at the public hearing expressed concern. The applicant has met with her, and she seems comfortable with what has been proposed. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolslby. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Miller . Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; Z-7-99, 2726 North Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential and "G-2" Wholesale Districts to "G-2" Wholesale District was APPROVED. b. Z-8-99, 914-1008 W. Washtenaw, 909-1003 W. Washtenaw, 300-318 S. Butler, and 912-1010 W. Kalamazoo, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District The applicant, Charles Abraham, Seven Block Development LC, wishes to rezone property located at 914-1008 W. Washtenaw, 300-318 S. Butler, and 912-1010 W. Kalamazoo, from "C" Residential to "D-1 Professional Office District for the purpose of constructing a two-story Office/Commercial Center pursuant to the Seven Block Development Plan. This request incorporates Z-25-97, 300 Block of S. Butler, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office. The proposed rezoning, which would include office development use, is compatible with the surrounding area and is in compliance with the future plans of the area as outlined in the amended Seven Block Plan. There are no anticipated adverse impacts on vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic. There are no adverse impacts on environmental and/or public services. There should not be any adverse impacts on future patterns of developments as a result of the rezoning of this proposal. Staff recommends approval to rezone 914-1008 W. Washtenaw, 909-1003 W. Washtenaw, 300-318 S. Butler, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 8 and 912-1010 W. Kalamazoo from "C" Residential to "D-1 Professional Office District. The Committee found that the Citizens District Council amended the Seven Block Development Plan to allow for office and commercial use rather than the neighborhood commercial center as originally planned. It was noted in the staff report, and also discussed tonight that in the "D-1" Professional District this type of a planned neighborhood convenience retail center would be allowed under a special land use permit. If office development is taken in phases and there is future potential for more commercially oriented business for supporting neighborhood and other businesses that could be accommodated. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area, and is in compliance with future plans as indicated in the amended Seven Block Development Plan; there are no anticipated adverse impacts on vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and no impacts on the environment or on public services. There was discussion, and there has been concern in terms of some historic facilities. The staff has been working with the state and others trying to find an interest in some of the sites that have some historical significance, and will continue work to address those issues. It has also been noted that there are still technical issues that need to be resolved, and legally they will have to be addressed before they can move forward. In Committee, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to approve Z-8-99, 914-1008 W. Washtenaw, 909- 1003 W. Washtenaw, 300-318 S. Butler, and 912-1010 W. Kalamazoo, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-8-99, 914-1008 W. Washtenaw, 909-1003 W. Washtenaw, 300-318 S. Butler, and 912-1010 W. Kalamazoo, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge asked about the previous action on this item. Mr. Ruff said the case incorporates Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District, tabled by the Planning Board. Mr. Ruge had noise concerns, with the location of the dumpster on the site plan and with the location of the building PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 9 mechanicals--air conditioning fans, etc. They should be located as far as possible away from residential areas. Goolsby . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Miller . . . Ave Nischan. . • Ave Frederick . .Aye Ruqe . .Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Z-8-99, 914-1008 W. Washtenaw, 909-1003 W. Washtenaw, 300-318 S. Butler, and 912-1010 W. Kalamazoo, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District was APPROVED. C. Z-9-99, 303 W. Kalamazoo Street, "E-1" Apartment Shop, "E-2" Local Shopping, "G-1" Business and "J" Parking Districts to "G-1" Business and "J" Parking Districts. The applicant, Ingham County, is requesting rezoning of property located at 303 W. Kalamazoo from "E-1" Apartment Shop, "E-2" Local Shopping, "G-1" Business and "J" Parking Districts to "G-1" Business and "J" Parking Districts. The property is located in the proposed Capitol Historic District, an area characterized by a blend of government and business agencies. The proposed change is consistent with the River Island Plan Amendment 1986. The proposed development would require access to approximately 300 additional off-site parking spaces. The proposed development of a Board of Water and Light Chiller station would eliminate 44-48 parking spaces on the property directly north which are available currently to the Grady Porter Building. The site plan as proposed is not anticipated to adversely affect the environment or pedestrian/vehicular circulation significantly beyond current levels for downtown traffic. The scale of the proposed structure would not impact the surrounding properties. The proposed setback of the addition would be consistent with surrounding historic structures. Any potential construction of a parking ramp on the site should be reviewed for setback considerations relative to surrounding historic properties. This is a limited access building, a court system which will have one major entrance having metal detection because of increased interest in security in a court setting. Design characteristics are limited accordingly. The scale, architectural design and nature of the building materials appear to be compatible as an addition to the Grady Porter Building. Inclusion of windows in large exterior walls will create visual interest and pedestrian-friendly walkways. The City of Lansing has entered into an agreement with Ingham County to develop a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 10 consolidated courts building in the downtown. The South Capitol ramp has 705 spaces of which the Transportation Division has identified 300 spaces reserved for this proposed project. Parking pressures from potential new developments in the downtown threaten surrounding historic properties and residential structures if not addressed in site and development plans. In Committee, after consideration of evidence and testimony, a motion was made, seconded, and carried unanimously, 3-0, to recommend approval of Z-9-99, 303 W. Kalamazoo Street, "E-1" Apartment Shop, "E-2" Local Shopping, "G-1" Business and "J" Parking Districts to "G-1" Business and "J" Parking Districts. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-9-99, 303 W. Kalamazoo Street, "E-V Apartment Shop, "E-2" Local Shopping, "G-1" Business and "J" Parking Districts to "G-1" Business and "J" Parking Districts. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Nischan observed that numerous proposals appear to be coat-tailing on the Grady Porter Building. With all due respect, that is not a suitable reason to mimic the starkness and lack of pedestrian friendliness, especially in an area where we are trying to get more pedestrian circulation and use. It would be nicer if, instead of adhering to the lines of Art Moderne, we attended to needs of pedestrian circulating in and using the area. The building design, and features included on the first floor, have a huge impact on pedestrians. This is true also of the chiller tower. It is not a building for pedestrians, it is a building to drive by. The Downtown Lansing Comprehensive Plan emphasizes getting pedestrians involved with every building and encourages commercial and pedestrian access for every first floor of every building downtown. This is an architectural (and not a land use issue) that is going exactly counter to pedestrian use and access. Does it have any relationship to downtown Lansing? If it can't be made pedestrian-friendly, maybe it doesn't belong in downtown Lansing. The more we increase the non-vital-relationship buildings and allow them to occupy space, the more we devitalize downtown Lansing. Mr. Ruff said there will be other functions located in the building such as County Clerk facilities and records facilities. Mr. Goolsby said any city has certain buildings with functionality attached to them that aren't intended to have the public come in to the first floor. This is a vital building that brings people downtown; hopefully, there is enough offered downtown so that while they are there, people will go to downtown businesses. The building has a function; the function is met. The building does not have to be the attractive feature. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 11 Mr. Frederick said right now in Michigan, there is a trend to rehabilitate county court buildings; he has been in many of them. The Grady Porter Building is already there, and that's what it looks like. "To me, it is not an uninviting building." Similarities exist across the City in examples such as the fire station at Shiawassee and Grand. It is a consistent architectural style in the City. "I believe it is pedestrian-friendly inasmuch as it is a place where people go who have unfortunate things happen to them." Mr. Ruge said he agreed with both Mr. Nischan and Mr. Goolsby. He is an advocate of first-floor commercial. "I don't think this building is that type of a building." It is located away from the center of downtown, and it has security issues, but it should have a pedestrian plaza outside where people can go while they wait. It appears there is space between the buildings and on Kalamazoo for benches where people could gather. Keene. . . Ave Miller •Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay Frederick . Ave Goolsby . . Ave Ruge .Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 1; motion passed; however, approval of a rezoning requires a minimum of 6 Aye votes; therefore, Z-9-99, 303 W. Kalamazoo Street, "E-V Apartment Shop, "E-2" Local Shopping, "G-V Business and "J" Parking Districts to "G-V Business and "J" Parking Districts will be forwarded to the City Council with NO RECOMMENDATION. Next meeting Wednesday, July 14, 1999, at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Nischan, Chair. The Central Lansing Plan is finished except for the production work. Mr. Nischan acknowledged the fine work of UDC members. Next meeting Tuesday, July 27, 1999, at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 4. Executive Committee - Has not met. C. Report from the Planning Manager - None. D. Pending Items: Future action required. 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District(Tabled October 15, 1997) a. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to "G-V Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-V Business District(Tabled April 15, 1998) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 12 C. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1"Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1"Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) d. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-8-98,208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-19-98, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station#1, Market/Sale for Mid- Rise Residential with Building Preserved b. Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW(Tabled September 8, 1998) C. Final Draft- Proposed Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. d. Act-24-98, Everett Lane at Paris St.,Vacate ROW(Tabled February 16, 1999) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Ruge was not present at last meeting for the discussion of the Governor's Club. Mr. Ruff said the development encompasses about 1,400 acres, but there are exempt properties scattered throughout, where buildings such as residences already exist. We will be working with about 1,250 acres, 300 of which are in the Governor's Club proposal. They anticipate working on the golf course yet this year and having a model home by the end of the year. There are some Dept. of Environmental Quality issues with floodplain and wetlands that still have to be addressed. A plat potentially may be required, to be reviewed by the Planning Board, for development of residential structures. The bulk of the property in the 425 agreement is primarily "A" Residential. A small portion will be zoned "E-1" Apartment Shop, representing the Club House and possibly some hotel suites, and some recreational amenities, etc., as well as some condominiums, etc. That would be about 35 acres. Some of that 300 acres north of Bennett Road that is now in Meridian Township is zoned Research Office--about 65 acres. That will be rezoned residentially through the 425 agreement, and a smaller portion near the southeast corner would be the "E-1" Apartment Shop District. Zoning parameters have been set up in the 425 agreement between Lansing and Meridian Township, so we don't have to go through a rezoning. Mr. Goolsby said, as the representative of the developer, he would have to recuse himself at that time. The course will be developed by Davis Love III. There are wetlands issues with the property that may take some time, 90 to 120 days, for DEQ to deal with. They want to make it a facility recognized by the National Audubon Society, so not only are there the floodplain and wetlands issues, but also national guidelines for habitat from the Audubon Society. Mr. Goolsby said when Act 425 was passed it was contemplated as a mechanism which local units of government could use to further a common goal of development in an area, like a regional concept. What has happened is that instead of using it in a positive pro-active way, it has been used like a chess game. It has been used state-wide about 125 times. Mr. Ruff observed that it is used as a tool for a mediated settlement versus annexation. Mr. Ruff volunteered to try to arrange a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 13 tour of the Jackson National Life site and also show the Board the Governor's Club land. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Keene requested that BWL be asked to provide information on noise levels generated by the proposed chiller at rooftop levels for the next meeting. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9 p.m. Respectfully submit d, Eleanor K. L ecretary Planning Board mn070799 a:\50 APPROVED AUGUST 17, 1999 with one correction P. 14 Ln 5.94" Pos 2.71" Draft to Clerk 082399 Mr. M"'eFSMITH brought a reference to Reason Magazine . . . . Approved 081799 To Clerk 102699 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall " =7 124 West Michigan Avenue flo Tuesday, July 20, 1999 r-- 1. OPENING SESSION: -�a Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Keene, Miller, Ruge, Smith. Six members present; one vacant seat. B. Excused Absences - Mr. Nischan on July 20, 1999 requested an excused absence. On a motion by Mr. Frederick, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, Ayes: All; unanimous; carried; Mr. Nischan was granted an excused absence. C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, Andy Kilpatrick, Transportation and Parking Office; and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - A corrected agenda was approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 4. PRESENTATION A. Transportation Division: Phase I, Two-Way Street Conversion ANDY KILPATRICK, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING OFFICE. The Transportation and Parking Office was tasked with analyzing the streets in the downtown area that are currently one-way to determine the feasibility of two-way operation. Shiawassee, Ionia and Washtenaw will be considered first. Some advantages of one-way streets over two-way include greater carrying capacity, fewer conflicts in movements at intersections, higher speeds (could be positive or negative), and lower intersection delays. Disadvantages include decreased access to properties and longer trips because of going around the block to get to the destination, longer trip lengths for the same reason, and difficulties for infrequent or first-time visitors to an area. We gathered information about parking, lanes, intersections, locations of driveways, layouts of the three streets and then plotted the information on CAD and looked at what would happen upon conversion to two-way, trying to maintain as much parking as possible, and adding left-turn lanes where we thought that necessary. Generally, what happened was Shiawassee became one lane in each direction with a center turn lane. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 20, 1999 PAGE 2 Near the Washington pedestrian mall, the center turn lane becomes a pedestrian refuge island at the crosswalks. Both Ionia and Washtenaw are one lane each direction. Parking losses would occur. Metered parking would probably be reduced by one-third; unmetered parking farther to the west in general would not be changed; however, on Washtenaw at Washington Avenue, angled parking would increase available spaces by fifteen. We have met with LCC and CATA about their concerns, we have meetings scheduled with LFD and LPD. We have a public meeting scheduled for July 21, 1999. All affected properties received a mailed notification of the meeting--we sent out 800 or 900 flyers and are expecting a large turnout. A shift in traffic is expected to Shiawassee because the street crosses the river. We did analyses for Shiawassee- Grand and Shiawassee and Capitol. Volumes on Shiawassee should decrease after reopening of Ottawa. Delay does increase depending on the levels of service. For both of those intersections it goes from level B to level C; in a peak hour, level D is acceptable. Level E is capacity. Level A basically means no one is on the road. We feel comfortable with this two-way conversion because Lansing's peak hour is more a peak fifteen minutes. Over the peak hour, we do not feel this would be a significant degradation of level of service or an increase in delay from what people experience now for average stop delay--that increased by five to ten seconds. We must weigh the benefits of having increased access against the disadvantages of having possibly slightly longer delays. We have yet to look at accident records to see if there are identifiable patterns. Mr. Goolsby asked about a right turn at Martin Luther King Blvd. turning traffic into the neighborhood and about people exiting the state parking ramps who may turn onto neighborhood streets. He also questioned the rationale for changing directions. Making downtown more driver-friendly could be done through signage--downtown Lansing is poorly signed. Another statement declared there will be no impact on pedestrian safety. "I think there will be." Mr. Goolsby noted the loss of parking spaces. Three new buildings being built on Washtenaw will increase the number of people downtown. Speed on one-way streets is another concern. Mr. Smith asked about the meeting on July 21. Mr. Fitzpatrick said it is being held at 7 p.m. at the Black Child and Family Institute, corner of Butler and Genesee. Signage on downtown streets where the state has jurisdiction must be coordinated with MDOT. Speed limit signs could help somewhat; we do need more way finding signs downtown. Regarding loss of parking, some will be lost. We need to look at meter collections to determine utilization. Meters at some locations where parking will be lost are not utilized that much; at other locations they are well utilized. On- street parking is for short-term. Some buildings coming on-line will have APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY AUGUST 17, 1999. Draft to Clerk 092199 Approved 081799 To Clerk 102699 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall - 124 West Michigan Avenue =' Tuesday, August 3, 1999 `" s 1. OPENING SESSION: . Vice Chairman Goolsby called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Smith' Six members present; one vacant seat. B. Excused Absences - Ruge. On July 20, 1999, Mr. Ruge requested and was granted an excused absence. C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, Donna J. Wynant and Jim Sturdevant, Senior Planners; Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Mr. Ruff requested the addition of NCU-3-99, 5525 S. Pennsylvania, Class A and Substitution, which does not require a hearing and could be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting during the recess and acted upon tonight. The corrected agenda was approved as printed. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Memo dated July 31, 1999 from Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior Planner, to the Planning Board transmitting Consolidated Strategy and Plan Submission Schedule of Events FY2000-2005. B. Letter to The Department of Planning and Development Re: Z-11-99, 3700 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District, and SLU-6-99, 3700 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, Display Vehicles for Sale in "J" Parking District from Ms. Alberta Buysse, 3805 N. Grand River Avenue, in opposition. 5. HEARINGS A. PRD-1-99, Belle Chase Blvd., 150 Dwelling Units Donna J. Wynant presented the case, a request by SUH Michigan State LLC, Houston, Texas, for a Planned Residential Development. The vacant property is 13.5 acres in size, surrounded by multiple family residential development. South of the site is Delhi Township, zoned for commercial and office development. The request is under review because the "DM-1" District, a multiple family zoning district, allows up to 11 dwelling units per acre. This site is over six acres, with more than one building planned for the site. The proposal is for 150 garden-style PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 2 apartments in 12 three-story buildings with six townhouses for study- focused (student) housing, and also a community building. In the southwest corner of the site is a wetland area of about seven acres which will not be developed; it is proposed for a retention area. The Traffic Engineer sent a comment saying, with the entrance to the site from the west, Belle Chase, that probably a cut through the median may be required to allow for southbound traffic as well as an additional drive into the site. The Master Plan designates the area for development of multiple family up to 15-20 units per acre; this development proposes approximately nine dwelling units per acre. HAROLD F. HEADY, 6363 WOODWAY, HOUSTON, TEXAS, REPRESENTING THE DINERSTEIN COMPANIES, THE PARENT COMPANY FOR SUH, LLC HOUSING. We are a national multi-family building company; we own and manage properties. We build several different types of multi-family. We are here looking at developing student- focused housing. You have looked at our site plan. We build three-story garden-style apartments. This site lends itself to that. I have some renderings (provided copies) of the type of buildings that we will be doing here, 12-unit buildings, three-story, brick siding exterior, asphalt shingled. Given the location, our anticipated market is the students from the university. Through our market studies, we believe that there is still a need for more housing in the area. The site is unimproved for the most part. There is a wetlands in the corner. Utilities are available to the site. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral of PRD-1-99, Belle Chase Blvd., 150 Dwelling Units, to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, August 11, 1999, in the Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-11-99, 3700 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District C. SLU-6-99, 3700 & 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, Display Vehicles for Sale in "J" Parking District Chairman Goolsby said since the cases are related, they will be handled together. Mr. Sturdevant made the presentation. The Board recently recommended approval of Z-5-99, rezoning of the front 95 ft of adjacent property for Rush Equipment Sales and the Sport Shop at 3940 North Grand River from "A" Residential to "J" Parking District, and also approval of SLU-4-99, a special land use permit to allow the display and sales of heavy equipment in a portion of the property. Z-11-99 and SLU-6-99 resulted when, during those previous considerations, AIS Construction PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 3 Equipment learned that a portion of their business was zoned for single- family residential use. They were using it for display and sales of heavy equipment. The remainder of the property is zoned "H" Light Industrial which permits that activity. AIS applied for the change to "J" Parking and a Special Land Use permit to be consistent with their competitor next door, Rush Equipment. Because Rush was approved by the Planning Board and City Council, AIS believed they too would be treated similarly. The area to be rezoned is about 50 ft deep from Grand River Avenue for the first 300 ft; then it widens out to 95 ft deep. The applicant has provided a site plan of what they intend to do regarding landscaping and existing improvements. They have also provided photographs (distributed to Board) showing part of the area to be rezoned and part of the area currently in the "A" District but used for display of heavy equipment. They want to continue the current use. WILLIAM JOSEPH COSTELLO, 15159 DUXBURY LANE, LANSING, REPRESENTING AIS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (distributed a summary of his comments). The photos show a panoramic shot of the entire frontage of the site. We purchased 3600 N. Grand River in the mid-sixties zoned "G". In 1975 we purchased 3700 N. Grand River from Spartan Oil. At the time, there were two commercial buildings on it. To the left is the remains of the foundation of a building we tore down. The landscaping to the center of the photo fronts 3700 N. Grand River. We pride ourselves on the presentation we make of our equipment and our company and in the community. When we purchased 3950 in the eighties, that gave us access to the building with the tower. We did not know that the one part in the front was zoned "A". Much like Rush, we do ask the Board to consider rezoning to "J" Parking together with a special land use permit. We want to remove the foundation, install sidewalk, landscape the area, and install a sign to the far west of the site. The equipment is static; we don't start the equipment. We have an area in the rear, away from the residential area where we demonstrate the equipment. We want to continue to display equipment inside the fenced area to the north between the pine trees and the sidewalk. We won't display equipment between the fenced-in area and the sidewalk. It will be grass and the landscaping. TROY OTTMER, MANAGER, RUSH EQUIPMENT CENTER, 3940 % N. GRAND RIVER. We are here to offer our support and approval of AIS's proposal to rezone for "J" Parking and a Special Land Use permit. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral of Z-11-99, 3700 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential to "J" Parking District, and SLU-6-99, 3700 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, Display Vehicles for PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 4 Sale in "J" Parking District, to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, August 11, 1999, in the Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. Z-12-99, 1016 Shirley Street, "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District Donna J. Wynant presented the case, a request by Dan Brown, 5355 Ellas Court, to rezone property at 1016 Shirley Street off Pennsylvania Avenue. The property, 56.5 ft wide x 120 ft deep, is located behind the former Daily Heating and Air, which is now vacant and for sale. It fronts on Pennsylvania Avenue at Shirley Street. The applicant is requesting rezoning from "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District to allow for either parking associated with the commercial store front there on Pennsylvania, or to be used for warehouse storage. The case history is incorrect; there never was a house on the lot. This is a basic commercial block building on site. The area to the east is a single-family zoning district; also there is a house directly to the south. The strip along Pennsylvania is commercial, and there are some cases of "G-2" Wholesale zoning districts, but primarily it is a mix of commercial, office, and some auto-oriented types of businesses. Mr. Goolsby asked when Daily was there, did they use the building? Ms. Wynant did not know. DAN C. BROWN, 5355 ELLAS COURT, LANSING. (Circulated photos of property.) Regarding Daily Heating and Air utilizing the building they did, for a number of years, just as warehouse space. When they purchased the property, they did not purchase that particular piece; it is a separate lot. They were constructed at the same time. At one time, it was used as a warehouse by the Paramount Coffee Company. I use it for equipment storage. The reason I am asking for the rezoning is because I was approached by the realtor representing the owners of the now-defunct Daily Heating and Air building. They have tried numerous times to sell or lease the property on Pennsylvania with no success because of a lack of parking. I was approached about my adjacent property, to give them adjacent parking. Unbeknownst to me, the property turned out to be zoned "A" Residential. When I purchased the property, I was under the misinformation that it was commercial. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral of Z-12-99, 1016 Shirley Street, "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District, to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, August 11, 1999, in the Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 5 E. NCU-2-99, 819 North Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity, 4-Unit in "C" Residential District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Patricia Renner, representing the owner, her mother, Emmie Renner, for Class A status for this property at 819 North Walnut Street. It is presently zoned "C" Residential District and is a four-unit, each unit having one-bedroom. The property, approximately 5,700 sq ft in size, is surrounded by other residential properties of varying densities and types--single-family through multi- family. The zoning reflects that pattern, "C" Residential and "DM-3" in the vicinity. With the "C" zoning, the property is nonconforming and has been used that way for many years. The applicant is requesting the Class A to enable them to spend more than the 35 percent cap allowable for a Class B nonconformity. Their plan is to upgrade the entire property to a total of about $70,000. Some work has been done, and they are going through the Class A request to complete the job. We are holding this hearing tonight, and would like to have this referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for action tonight since they are trying to complete this task. It does not go to Council. This is in an area that has been recommended for its historical significance. In the report, staff has made some design recommendations for retaining and keeping the property in historical character with the area. PATRICIA RENNER, 1305 W. HILLSDALE, REPRESENTING MY MOTHER, THE OWNER OF 819 NORTH WALNUT STREET. We bought the property as a four-unit on March 3, 1999; it was appraised and used as a four-unit for many years. It has maintained a consistent occupancy rate. The renovation includes patching and painting, new carpeting, new floor tiles in kitchens and bathrooms, new bathroom fixtures and kitchen and bathroom cabinets. We will not be doing any exterior work at this time, except for minor landscaping. We will replace all appliances in all units, stoves, refrigerators, dishwashers, garbage disposals. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral of NCU-2-99, 819 North Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity, 4-Unit in "C" Residential District, to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting in recess this evening. F. LS-15-99, 6952 S. Washington, Lot Split Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Victor Taylor, 6952 S. Washington Avenue, for a lot split for his property. He has owned two pieces of property for a number of years, and he is seeking to move the line between them, in order to accommodate the existing development and to sell off the vacant lot for development of a single-family home. It is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 6 not an administrative lot split because of the width-to-depth ratio. They intend to make the lot that has the house and accessory structure 98 ft wide. The remaining lot would be 60 ft x 280 ft; both lots still would exceed the lot width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.5, so it requires a variance granted by City Council to comply with the subdivision control regulations. Large depth is indicative of the area, with varying lot widths. Most of these lots abut the golf course, Highland Hills, so there is no reason to believe that there will be additional development behind them. The potential would be to split off only about a 60 ft x 150 ft lot for development; instead, he wants to sell it all off straight back to the golf course and provide for additional value to the land. VICTOR TAYLOR, 6952 S. WASHINGTON. There is one house to the north of me, and 13 houses to the south. All 14 lots go back to the golf course. This would be the only parcel that would be cut to 125 ft, rather than going back 180 ft. I would like to sell the lot, but I can't sell it under the circumstances, the way it is today; I've got to have the full depth of the lot, rather than landlocking that part back there that nobody could use. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Goolsby announced the conclusion of the public hearing and referral of LS-15-99, 6952 S. Washington, Lot Split, to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting in recess this evening. 6. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) JOE URBAN, FROM COLLINS BLAHA SLACKIN, SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN REPRESENTING CAPITOL AREA ACADEMY AND LANSING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION. We wondered if the commission was going to address their application for substitution-nonconforming use. Chairman Goolsby said NCU-3-99, 5525 S. Pennsylvania, Class A and Substitution, would also be considered by the Zoning and Ordinance Committee during the recess. 7. RECESS - Zoning and Ordinance Committee to meet during the recess to consider action on NCU-2-99, 819 South Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity, 4-Unit in "C" Residential District, LS-15-99, 6925 S. Washington, Lot Split, and NCU-3-99, 5525 S. Pennsylvania, Class A and Substitution. The Board recessed at 7A9 and reconvened at 8:09 p.m. 8. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for July 7, 1999 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 7 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to approve the minutes of July 7, 1999 as presented. Voice vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of July 7, 1999 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zonina and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman. a. NCU-2-99, 819 North Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity, 4-Unit in "C" Residential District. The applicant requests a Class A nonconforming status for a structure at 819 N. Walnut Street in order to renovate the structure. Based upon Section 1294.04(d)(3) of the Zoning Code, the proposed renovation exceeds the 35 percent cap allowable in a Class B nonconformity. Therefore, this is a request for a Class A nonconformity status change. This is a four-unit dwelling and is nonconforming due to zoning. This is not a matter of rezoning. It is anticipated that the proposed renovation of the nonconforming four-unit dwelling will not generate smoke, odor, air pollution, water pollution, vibration, glare or additional noise more than the level associated with the uses permitted by right in the district. The applicant may apply for historic preservation funds for exterior rehabilitation of the structure. Applications are made through the Development Office of the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development. Structures determined to be historically significant by the State Historic Preservation Office are eligible for $6,000 in historic rehabilitation funds (for interior lots) through the Development Office. The Committee, after testimony and evidence, concurred in the staff report. In Committee, a motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously 3-0 to approve NCU-2-99, 819 North Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity, 4-Unit in "C" Residential District with conditions as follows: (1) The original building scale, pitch of the roof and front porch entry be retained; (2) The siding of the house be 4 in lap siding to match original; (3) The current front yard and side yard setbacks be retained; (4) The front facade design of the laundry room retain as much of the original garage appearance as possible; (5) The basic renovations be made within one year so that occupancy can be approved by the Building Safety/Code Compliance Office; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 8 (6) Four parking spaces be created in the rear of the lot off the alley on a hard-surfaced pad (concrete or asphalt) with at least three accessible, as required in Chapter 1284. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve NCU-2-99, 819 North Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity, 4-Unit in "C" Residential District with six conditions as above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . .Ave Miller. . . Ave Nischan. . Ave Smith . . Ave Goolsby. . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6, Nays: 0, unanimous; carried; NCU-2-9g, 819 North Walnut Street, Class A Nonconformity, 4-Unit in "C" Residential District with conditions as above was APPROVED. b. LS-15-99, 6952 S. Washington, Lot Split Mr. Taylor is requesting a lot split of 6,409 sq ft from Parcel B (3305-08-476-067) located south of 6952 S. Washington Avenue, which will reduce the size of the lot to approximately 60 ft x 280 ft (see LS-15-99 Proposal). This lot split will add 6,409 sq ft, approximately 22.5 ft of frontage, to Parcel A (3305-08-467-071) located at 6952 S. Washington Avenue, creating a lot that is approximately 98 ft x 287 ft in size. Currently, the pole barn straddles the property line (see photo 1). A fence south of 6952 S. Washington Avenue defines the location of the proposed lot line. This proposal will allow the applicant to retain the existing accessory structure within Parcel A and build a new house on Parcel B. The properties are located on South Washington Avenue, south of 1-96 and north of Willoughby Road. This lot split will adjust the dimensions of two adjacent parcels. Parcel A will be approximately 98 ft x 287 ft with a width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.9. Parcel B will be approximately 60 ft x 280 ft with a width-to-depth ratio of 1:4.7. Both parcels exceed the width-to-depth ratio of 1:2.5 in Section 1236.08(d). The physical character of this area along South Washington Avenue will not change as a result of this lot split. Approximately 90 percent of properties in this area have deep lots that exceed Lansing's width-to-depth ratio. The lot split will not impact vehicular and pedestrian circulation. No impact on future patterns of development is anticipated. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 9 The Committee, after considering testimony and evidence, concurred in the staff report. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of LS-15-99, 6952 S. Washington, Lot Split. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve LS-15-99, 6952 S. Washington, Lot Split. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Keene. . . Ave Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Nischan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby. . .Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; LS-15-99, 6952 S. Washington, Lot Split, was recommended for APPROVAL. C. NCU-3-99, 5525 S. Pennsylvania, Class A and Substitution This is the former Lansing Christian School which has moved its site. Capitol Area Academy has an interest in purchasing the property for K-6 and expect to carry forward through K-12, adding one grade per year. The existing zoning is "H" Light Industrial, and as such, elementary schools, junior high and high schools are not permitted uses. Since 1983, elementary and junior high schools are allowed with conditions in the "A" Residential District, while high schools, colleges, universities, trade and vocational schools are allowed with conditions in the multiple family and office districts. All educational facilities are allowed in the "G-1" District with conditions, and trade or vocational schools are allowed in the wholesale and industrial districts with conditions. Prior to 1983, public elementary and high schools were allowed in the "A" Residential District. There are options in terms of rezoning, but because there is not a zone particularly for the school, it makes sense basically to treat this as a nonconforming use and allow them to proceed with developing the school property. Parking is required and is discussed in the staff report, and requirements are met for this facility. It is a fairly large site, and in review of detailed plans, more parking could be developed. Given the zoning class, there should be no adverse impacts in terms of pollution or other issues. Staff recommended that the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 10 requested substitution and Class A nonconforming status be approved with the condition that parking be restriped to meet design requirements and the parking lot maintain conformity with the parking regulations of the Zoning Code. The Committee, based on testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of NCU-3-99, 5525 S. Pennsylvania, Class A and Substitution with the above two conditions. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve NCU-3-99, 5525 S. Pennsylvania, Class A and Substitution. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Miller. . . Ave Nischan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . . Ave Frederick . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby. . . Ave On a Roll Call Vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried, NCU-3-99, 5525 S. Pennsylvania, Class A and Substitution, with conditions as above was APPROVED. Next meeting Wednesday, August 11, 1999, at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Nischan, Chair. a. Transportation Division: Phase I, Two-Way Street Conversion This study came to the board with a request for an endorsement--it is not something we need to approve. Shane Silsby made a presentation to the Urban Development Committee. The Committee found that the proposed Two-Way Conversion Study is largely consistent with the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan which is being developed for the downtown area. It implements Phase 1, Proposed Circulation, in Section 4 of the Plan. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) with the addition of bicycle lanes or "Share the Road" signage to improve the circulation and safety of bicycle traffic. The Committee further recommended that subsequent vehicle circulation plans explicitly include specific bicycle circulation plans using bicycle lanes, designated bicycle routes with traffic calming PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 11 features, shared roadway enforcement, and other appropriate means to provide safe and efficient bicycle circulation and parking. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, that the Phase I, Two-Way Street Conversion, with the above inclusions be endorsed by Planning Board this evening. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Goolsby said he has made his comments and is going to vote no. He is still not convinced. On a Voice Vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 1, carried 5-1; the Phase I, Two-Way Street Conversion with the above inclusions was ENDORSED. b. MPA-1-98, Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. This is the long-awaited Plan in its significantly improved and clarified form. It is an easier document to read, a document which includes accommodations, responses and constructions that respond to comments in public meetings, to the extent that we could. Very significant changes were made as a result of public input. We went over every written piece of correspondence line by line, request by request, put it in, took it out, or modified it. Because there were hundreds, there is a list of the latest revisions in your report. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously, 4-0, to recommend approval of MPA-1-98, Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, with all the changes indicated in the report we have tonight, and that staff be authorized to complete copy editing and production of the final edition of the plan. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, that the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan be approved. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Miller asked if there were plans to provide the public with information concerning the changes made, or to advertise the fact we are proceeding with approval? Ms. Love said no notifications were mailed; however, she has mentioned it at several meetings. No formal announcement was made. That has never been done in the past. The Committee has met many times since March and never had one citizen attend a committee meeting. It is on the agenda for approval this evening; that is a posted agenda. We went through every public hearing comment. Mr. Goolsby said that since he has been on the Board, he has worked on several plans such as the Boys Training School site, Goals and Objectives for theTwentieth Century, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 12 Willow-Pine, Collins Road, and the Seven Block Development Plan. In the past, we didn't do anything other than post the item on the agenda after the public meeting, do our work, and then post it again on the Board's agenda. Mr. Goolsby was surprised that other citizen groups did not participate, because that was not the case in the other plans. "With the Boys Training School site, for example, we had people who attended every meeting that I can recall." Because of that participation, people were aware when we were going to vote on it, and they showed up at the final meeting. This is not an unusual procedure tonight. It is unusual, however, not to have had participation tonight. Mr. Nischan said participation occurred prior to the committee process. The second wave of participation followed the two hearings and follow-up meetings with individual groups. People who were specifically concerned submitted letters. Mr. Nischan said he could not say people were satisfied. For himself, he conceded points he previously refused to change. "I know other people did the same." "I can see how much it [the document] changed from the beginning all the way to the end." Mr. Smith said it would be a good idea to have a press release so that those interested will know it is available for examination. The Committee reviewed thoroughly and repeatedly, "with a very fine-tooth comb." Ms. Keene said the committee went through every single comment from the public hearing and actually discussed the merits of concerns and every single piece of writing that was submitted, discussed every point and either made changes or decided it was not what we wanted to do. "Every concern that came across, we've addressed." Mr. Miller said he did not doubt the untold countless hours dedicated to the Plan by the Committee. He has been out of town and has not had a chance to look at it. He has not read the new document, and it is different from how it started out. "I don't feel comfortable voting on this tonight." Mr. Goolsby said that Mr. Ruge, who cannot be here tonight, would like to participate in the vote. It is important to put on record what occurred in committee and that all comments were reviewed. "I want to commend you for the job. . . It is not an easy task." The Committee has done an outstanding job. Though he is not in 100 percent agreement, none of us would ever be. "I will be voting for this, even though there is the section in there on the two-way street conversion that is only a little part of this plan." Mr. Nischan said he would prefer to give people the time they need to read the Plan. If the Committee is willing, he would withdraw his motion. Ms. Love said passing the document requires six votes. She would prefer 7-0. Mr. Nischan asked if he could withdraw his motion. Mr. Goolsby said Mr. Nischan could make a motion for approval, second it, and then table it at the Planning Board to a time specific, August 17. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to table approval of the Downtown Lansing Comprehensive Plan to August 17, 1999. Chairman Goolsby noted this is a nondebatable motion. Voice Vote; Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried unanimously; MPA-1-98, Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan is TABLED TO AUGUST 17, 199 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 13 Mr. Smith asked, saying he intended to vote Aye, if he were unable to be here, could he indicate how he wanted to vote? Chairman Goolsby said to actually vote, you have to be here; however, it is appropriate to say if you had been here, you indicated you would have voted Aye. Mr. Frederick said he intends to be here at that time to vote Aye. It is obvious that a lot of work went into the final document. There are things he didn't think of, and some things he did want to see that got in there. He thanked the Committee for its work. Next meeting Tuesday, August 24, 1999, at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 4. Executive Committee - Has not met. C. Report from the Planning Manager Ms. Love reported that, unbeknownst to us, the City Council had already appointed two ex officio members to the Planning Board, Councilmembers Adado and Allen. There is a triangular piece of property, 20 ft x 20 ft x 28 ft, purchased in 1971 by the City of Lansing from State Highway Department as a deceleration lane for southbound movement from Main Street onto the 800 Block of Pine Street. You will remember that we vacated this. Now we are stuck with this small triangle that we can't vacate because what has been given to us, we can vacate, but what we buy, we have to sell. So we have to sell this small triangle to General Motors for $1. Instead of going through the whole process all over again, after checking with the City Attorney's office, they said that if the Planning Board intended for all of the right-of-way to be deeded to the property owner, even though this little piece happens to be out of the lot, that we could submit a resolution to City Council so stating. "I would like your concurrence in that this evening, so that I can pass this resolution on to City Council." Mr. Goolsby asked when did we act to vacate? Ms. Love said in April. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to pass the resolution stating that it was the intention of the Planning Board to vacate the entire parcel in Act-1-99, at the time of vacation. On a Voice Vote, there were Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; unanimous, carried, the resolution stating that it was the intention of the Planning Board to vacate the entire parcel in Act-1-99 at the time of vacation was APPROVED. D. Pending Items: Future action required. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 14 Mr. Ruff said regarding Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District, which was tabled at the Planning Board, it would be appropriate for the Board to accept the City's withdrawal of their application. This request was incorporated into Z-8-99, 914-1008 W. Washtenaw, 909-1003 W. Washtenaw, 300-318 S. Butler, and 912-1010 W. Kalamazoo, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to accept withdrawal of Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice Vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays; 0, unanimous; carried, withdrawal of Z-25-97, 300 Blk. S. Butler, W. Side, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District was APPROVED 1. Planning Board a. MPA-1-98 Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan (Tabled to August 17, 1999) 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to"G-2" Wholesale District(Tabled October 15, 1997) b. Z-1-98, 1223 N.Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District(Tabled April 15, 1998) d. Z-4-98,201 E. Grand River, "F-1"Commercial &"H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) f. Z-8-98,208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) 3. Urban Development Committee a. Act-19-98, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station#1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved b. Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW(Tabled September 8, 1998) C. Act-24-98, Everett Lane at Paris St.,Vacate ROW(Tabled February 16, 1999) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Nischan drew members' attention to Act-19-98, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved. Ms. Love said the Fire Department has enough issues with two new fire stations PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 PAGE 15 in the south end that they won't be getting to it any time soon. Mr. Nischan said he would appreciate it if they would withdraw the item from UDC Pending. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board mn080399 a:\51 �y .. _ .. -�, „ LS-15-99 Request for Lot Split at 6952 S. Washington Ave. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mr. Victor A. Taylor STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner REQUESTED ACTION: Lot Split - a variance from a design requirement of the Subdivision Regulation is requested. EXISTING LAND USE: Residential & Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Parcel "A" is -75' x 285' (21,375 sqft.) - rectangular Parcel "B" is -83' x 280' (23,240 sqft.) - rectangular SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S: Residential E: Residential W: Golf Course SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "A' Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION- Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990, designates the land use as residential 0-7 dwelling units per acre. SPECIFIC INFORMATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION Mr. Taylor, is requesting a lot split of 6,409 sqft. from parcel "B" ( 3305-08-476-067) located south of 6952 S. Washington Avenue, which will reduce the size of the lot to approximately 60' x 280' (see LS-15-99 Proposal). This lot split will add 6,409 sqft. (-22.5 of frontage) to parcel "A" (3305-08-467-071) located at 6952 S. Washington Avenue creating a lot that is approximately 98' x 287' in size. Currently, the pole barn straddles the property line (see photo 1). A fence south of 6952 S. Washington Page 1 LS-15-99 Request for Lot Split at 0972 J. VVd,111111JL oF Ave. Avenue define the location of the proposed lot line. This proposal will allow the applicant to retain the existing accessory structure within parcel "A" and build a new house on parcel "B". AGENCY RESPONSES ASSESSOR: If approved, please provide our office with a copy of the variance. Once approved we can proceed with this change on the tax rolls for the year 2000. PUBLIC SERVICE: No Comment ANALYSIS Section 1236.08(d) of Lansing's Subdivision Design Standards allows a maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5. The applicant is requesting a lot split that will create two lots that exceed the maximum width to depth ratio. Therefore, this is a variance request to exceed the 1 to 2.5 width to depth ratio. Location, Size, and Character Properties for this petition are located on S. Washington Avenue, south of Interstate 96 and north of Willoughby Road. This lot split will not change the number of parcels. Proposed parcel "A" is rectangular in shape and is approximately 27,645 sqft. (.63 acre). Proposed parcel "B" is also rectangular in shape and is approximately 16,770 sqft. (.38 acre). The proposed lot split will create lots that exceed Section 1236.08(d) of the Subdivision Design Standards that allows a maximum 1 to 2.5 width to depth ratio. The existing and proposed width to depth ratio are shown in Table 1. Table 1 -Width to Depth Ratio Existing Proposed Width Depth Ratio Width Depth Ratio Parcel "A" 75' 287' 1 to 3.8 98, 287' 1 to 2.9 Parcel "B" 83' 280' 1 to 3.4 60' 280' 1 to 4.7 Properties fronting along S. Washington Avenue along the western block face have an average width to depth ratio of 1 to 3.5. Currently, a single family house is on parcel "A". An accessory structure the property Page 2 LS-15-99 Request for Lot Split at 6952 S. Washington Ave. line between existing parcel "A" and "B". The proposed lot split will adjust the property line to include the accessory structure on parcel "A", which will bring the structure into conformance. A single family house will be built on Parcel "B" in the near future. This proposed lot split will not change the physical character of the neighborhood along S. Washington Avenue. Approximately 90% of property between Interstate 96 and Willoughby Road have deep lots that exceed Lansing's width to depth ratio (See LS-15-99 Area Parcel Map). Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation There is no anticipated impact to vehicular and pedestrian circulation from this lot split. Impact on Future Patterns of Development No impact on future patterns of development is anticipated. The majority of lots are already developed with single family houses. Summary Properties in this petition are located on S. Washington Avenue, south of Interstate 96 and north of Willoughby Road. This lot split will adjust the dimensions of two existing parcels. Parcel "A" will be approximately 98' x 287' with a width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.9. Parcel "B" will be approximately 60' x 280 with a width to depth ratio of 1 to 4.7. Both parcels exceed the width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 in Section 1236.08(d). The physical character of this area along S. Washington Avenue will not change as a result of this lot split. Approximately 90% of property in this area have deep lots that exceed Lansing's width to depth ratio. This lot split will not impact vehicular and pedestrian circulation. No impact on future patterns of development is anticipated. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this variance request to exceed the maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5. Respectfully Submitted, Sam Quon Senior Planner Page 3 LS-15-99 Request for Lot .Split at 6952 S. Washington Ave. vim\ 'ff A � A' .•L\, : ..�• \. ,��,�' .; � �• � K"Y.y ���.``4::.1�>av Zvi, .4 z�?��n :�,53 ;4,r, ,a»'�.�z2of"'"el�`.'`'.o::... ` ��:•,•`YC.:a.. 1+".\�� �, ,,,�. scud -... y v- ,•.:�N78?'4 y"'�i � +a� �.� `„\\,+Z +ri 1 14•S'� Yc Z •g+' �g. ���,c 2;�33�.z.�.a �.\•S`'' \�v�i �&"k Y.y��\� �£+��ae.... "��.� .'�: ,.i` ` 1. ., Photo 1 -This lot split will move the property line 22.5' to where the fence is located. Page 4 LS -15-99 PROPOSAL EXISTING r Parcel A(3305-08-467-071) 6952 S.Washington Avenue COM 782.2 FT W&503.9 FT N OF SE COR SEC 8, TH N 74.85 FT, E TO CL S WASHINGTON AVE, SW LY ALONG CL TO PT E OF BEG, TO BEG; SEC 8 T3N R2W Parcel B (3305-08-476-067) located south of 6952 S.Washington Avenue COM 782.2 FT E &421.4 FT N OF SE COR SEC 8, TH N 82.5 FT, ETOCLS WASHINGTON AVE, SW LY ALONG CL TO PT E OF BEG, TO BEG, SEC 8 T3N R2W C.2d. Lr 08 n • . w V Z V JY O 1 ._-- u •'' C/1 Existing PROPOSED Parcel A(3305-08-467-071) 6952 S.Washington Avenue COM 782.2 FT W&481.4 FT N OF SE COR SEC 8, TH N 97.35 FT, ETOCLS WASHINGTON RD, SW LY ALONG SAID CL TO PT E OF BEG, TO BEG; SEC 8 T3N R2W Parcel B (3305-08-476-067) located south of 6952 S.Washington Avenue COM 782.2 FT E&421.4 FT N OF SE COR SEC 8, TH N 60 FT, ETOCLS WASHINGTON AVE, SW LY ALONG CL TO PT E OF BEG, TO BEG, SEC 8 T3N R2W C.M _ _ L —C n 0 nu ti y o w w a _ A --► a , 4^ o � O u e — Proposed LS-15-99 Area Parcel Map r q'o'-'t 5 31 � ,�0 3 0° • 2 d c.cs' I _ YJ v.v• SB o ' r a 57 0 1 ^ — O 0 56 � h vrr.vv 0 55 0I` rn q4 Q w 54 -- Ycz.fc• N 1 05 53 0��6 -- vrr.ve• i q0 " 152 pu51 I 0^1 a 50 A It 49 -� 1 0�loa4 °B "I Z " • ae : poi p 47 _Q 1°1 I °S1 46 X, °a+ 0; - er.. 030 . fll 1 e e� Bre I •Y .t. ,I •te I .I e.e .IMITS f --W.— WIL�LOUGFiBY " RD IN CITY I L j LS- 15-99 NORTH 6952 S. Washington Ave . Vicinity Map $Axmfw OAKS MAV w 4 SitMaw MUDUOM LS- 15-99 NORTH 6952 S. Washington Ave. r Zoning 96 CD Q z � � 0 0 � A S. 'A Res. 'A " ea:f d d O U W L7 W W IA I/ R DONSO ■ WILLOUGHBY RD. NCU-2-99 Page 1 819 N. Walnut St., Lansing Class A Nonconformity GENERAL INFORMATION OWNERIAPPLICANT: Patricia Renner 1305 W. Hillsdale Lansing, MI 48915 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Representing Emmy Renner, owner REQUESTED ACTION: Nonconformity Class "B" status change to Class "A" EXISTING LAND USE: Four-Unit, Four Bedroom Residential EXISTING ZONING: "C" Residential District PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 49.5" X 115.5 = 5,717.25 sq. ft. (0.13 acres) SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Residential South: Residential East: Residential West: Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: North: "C" Residential South: "C" Residential East: "DM-3" and "C" Residential West: "DM-3" and "C" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan, Amendment 1986, designates this area for low to moderate density residential (0-14 dwelling units per acre) development. Specifically, the particular goal for Area I is to promote lower densities, equivalent to "C" or"DM-1" Residential and more home owner occupants. Walnut Street is a collector street which currently runs northbound one-way. SPECIFIC INFORMATION The applicant requests a Class "A" nonconforming status for a structure at 819 N. Walnut Street in order to renovate the structure. Based upon Section 1294.04(d)(3) of the Zoning Code, the proposed renovation exceeds the 35 percent cap allowable in a Class "B" nonconformity. This is a request; therefore, for a Class "A" nonconformity status change. This is a four-unit dwelling and is nonconforming due to a lack of lot area and parking. This is not a matter of rezoning. NCU-2-99 Page 2 819 N. Walnut St., Lansing Class A Nonconformity AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH: No response has been received at this time. Assessor's Office: The current City Assessor records show the fair market value of this property is $46,200 which if multiplied by 35% would show an allowable cap on improvements of$16,170. Our records also show a total square footage of the building is 2044 square feet for an average of 511 square feet per unit. Our records do not show ownership in the same name to any other parcel on this block. David Tijerina. (Note: Assessor's Office has based the allowable cap for improvements on the valuation of the property. In NCU cases the cap is based on the valuation of the structure only. In this case the valuation of the structure is $38, 458). Board of Water& Light: Electric: No conflict. Water: No objection to issuance of building permit. Owner or contractor to request revisions or additions to existing water service with Water Customer Projects. Rosemary Sullivan. Building Safety: The proposed renovation will trigger compliance with the part 4 Building Code rules which contain barrier free design requirements. The units must be adaptable ie. type B units and there must be an accessible route into the building. In like manner the new laundry room must be separated from the rest of the building by one hour fire resistive construction and shall be accessible to the handicapped. This project will require sealed architectural drawings. Contact the Plan Review Section of the Building Safety Office for additional information. Jack Nelson. City Attorney: No response has been received at this time. Consumers Power: No response has been received at this time. Development Office: Parking required for Class A. Emil Winnicker. Downtown Neigh. Assoc: No response has been received at this time. Fire Marshall: No response has been received at this time. Historic District Commission: No response has been received at this time. Historical Soc. Gr. Lansing: No response has been received at this time. Lansing Neigh. Council: No response has been received at this time. North Lansing Com. Assoc.: No response has been received at this time. NCU-2-99 Page 3 819 N. Walnut St., Lansing Class A Nonconformity Old Forest Neighbor. Assoc.: No response has been received at this time. Parks & Recreation: It does not impact park operation. Dick Schaefer. Police Department, No response has been received at this time. Cap. Rick Cook: Public Service: Public Service has no objections to the proposed NCU. Applicant should be required to ensure that all sources of storm water runoff/collection have been removed from the sanitary sewers as part of the building renovation. Daniel Danke. Transportation Dept.: No response has been received at this time. ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to renovate the interior and exterior of the structure. The applicant estimates the entire project cost to be $70,000. Renovation proposed includes: new kitchens, baths, windows, sky lights, roof and the conversion of the garage to a laundry room which will service all units. The proposed galvanized steel corrugated siding material is not consistent with Section 1240.03(50)(D)(1) of the Zoning Code which states that siding must be firmly attached to the exterior walls of the structure and be constructed of conventional materials such as wood, vinyl, aluminum or brick. Class"A" Nonconforming Status is requested to renovate the structure as a continuing four unit. The property is zoned "C" Residential with two dwelling units allowed. The property is nonconforming since it does not meet the use, as a two-family dwelling unit, or the lot dimensions of 11,200 square feet for the number of units (4). The property currently maintains a Group 3, Class "B" Nonconforming Status which restricts the cumulative and total restoration of the property to no more that 35% of the fair market value of the structure, based upon Section 1240.03(50)(D)(1) of the Zoning Code. The proposed renovation exceeds the 35% cap allowable in a Class "B" nonconformity; therefore a Class "A" nonconformity status change is requested. According to the City Assessor's Office, the house was built in 1895 and has an appraised value of$38,458. The applicant estimated initial renovation costs at $57,000 for the four unit structure. Based on the 35% allowable cap, the value of the work ($38,458 x 35%) could not exceed $13,456.80 leaving a balance of$43, 543.20 of the completion costs that will exceed the 35% limit under the Class B Non-conforming. The site is located on the west side of Walnut Street, in the middle of the block between Oakland and Saginaw Streets. Six parking spaces are required for a four unit structure with one bedroom/unit. The applicant has two accessible parking spaces in the driveway and a 16.5 ft. wide alley to access the additional four parking spaces parking in the rear yard. Section 1294.04(d) sets forth the criteria for evaluating Class A status proposals. These include: 1. Has direct access to a non-local street if the use is non-residential; 2. No more pollution generated then would be associated generally with uses in that NCU-2-99 Page 4 819 N. Walnut St., Lansing Class A Nonconformity zoning district; 3. Parking requirements are met. Direct Access to a Non-Residential Street This generally applies to uses that are more intense than is typically allowed in the zoning district, such as a retail store on a residentially zoned parcel. A four unit structure located on N. Walnut (considered a collector street) would have a minimal impact on traffic since most of the required parking would be accessed by the rear alley. Pollution Impacts Activities associated with the subject four family unit will not generate smoke, odor, air pollution, water pollution, vibration, glare or noise that is more than the level associated with the uses permitted by the right in a "C" Residential District. Parking Requirements Parking requirements according to Section 1284.13(a)(2)(B) for a four unit dwelling is one and one-half for each one bedroom dwelling unit. Two spaces are available currently on site and four spaces can be identified in the rear off the alley. A site plan has not been provided showing additional parking spaces. Other The area is a mix of dwelling unit densities with multi-family buildings all around the area. Continuation of this four-unit will not adversely affect the area. Impact on Historical Properties The property is located within the original plat of Lansing. The 1986 Reconnaissance Architectural Survey I and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) identified this area as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The property is situated in the potential North Lansing Residential Area Historic District. The building was built in 1895 and would be considered a contributing structure in the district. The proposed exterior renovation will change the "integrity" and historic character of the structure and its relationship to other structures on the face block. This late 19th century Queen Anne features a steeply pitched roof with cross-gables and front gable. The additional front overhanging gable dominates the front facade and contributes to the dimensionality of the wall plane. Another technique or embellishment developed to avoid flat wall planes is the incorporation of a front porch, in this case, a full porch with pediment at the entry. The historic character of this face block is defined by.- ► repeated steeply pitched roofs and building forms, ► alignment of front facades, ► similarity of building widths, ► entrances that open to the street ► entrances emphasized with covered porches and steps, and NCU-2-99 Page 5 819 N. Walnut St., Lansing Class A Nonconformity ► raised foundations ► compatible building materials The exterior changes proposed would raise and flatten the roof line and front facade. A small vestibule entry replaces the full porch with pediment entry. The galvanized, corrugated steel siding is inconsistent with the period style and character of the structures on the face block. The three-paneled sliding glass door on the attached garage is a very contemporary element inconsistent with the period of the house and neighborhood. Retaining a recessed area that defines the original garage relief/opening (perhaps with windows along the upper edge) and incorporating a single door entry (into one side of the former garage door) would be a sensitive adaptive use design of the garage. SUMMARY It is anticipated that the proposed renovation of the nonconforming four-unit dwelling will not generate smoke, odor, air pollution, water pollution, vibration, glare or additional noise more than the level associated with the uses permitted by right in the district. The applicant may apply for historic preservation funds for exterior rehabilitation of the structure. Applications are made through the Development Division of the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development. Structures, determined to be historically significant by the State Historic Preservation Office are eligible for$6,000 in historic rehabilitation funds (for interior lots) through the City's Development Office. RECOMMENDATION Pending public comment, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The original building scale, pitch of the roof and front porch entry are retained 2. The siding for the house be 4" lap siding to match original 3. The current front yard and side yard setbacks are retained 4. The front facade design of the laundry room retain as much of the original garage appearance as possible 5. The basic renovations be made within one year so that occupancy can be approved by the Building Safety/Code Compliance Office. 6. Four parking spaces shall be created in the rear of the lot off the alley on a hard surfaced pad(concrete or asphalt) with at least 3 accessible, as designed in Chapter 1284. NCU-2-99 , 819 N. WALNUT ST. NORTH Class A Nonconformity vi.tf- A(I. Nte a_l o`�1 ym ry o I 6 7 y Y�o�•\v..0. Q T em, u0 « Ridentia . a . f.t 49.5' " ccC11 Residential oz.s' 41.: 41.x ' v9.5' Y0' 7t.f' 4x� 4zt Y18 Oro v0s j1y 3xa 3f1, Joy OAKLAND AVE . ( West Bd . M-43 ) 16.5' Cb 325 2/ 313 309 Y/7 413 409 407 3 2 9 g25 ax•5_ 33' .:, 3'5' 31' S1' yo.5' /0.5' 4/.z5' '4 I V m N O I 0 �p1 J 001 31I Z lb 21 cC9_I� I Zoi � 90.75' ^' y o�� 12 J 2 Residential ►8 ► ° Co a \ `�( tlf•s 33' . 0" J 00 v J "DM-3" Residential Zr J'I ro Ct N OZ�u z 03� to(� G "DM-311 Residential �\ \„ a 12 16.1 10 I J a� ti /8 aN� 1 I . J CulL 48 V ` �, 49 "DM-11' Residential- (!• � 0 1 9 v 2>c 4 ro • s�.5' 33' \� ,1 D ��- ads �( k a g 5 �3\ q,on In 1 00 on 0 C D j \ •,u a � 0 v 0 7��G J O t° 41.z 40 y2.5' 49' Lf 9Z.S' 33• 49•S' 33, 4t.t5 7Y.x5' 32L 3Zo 3 31 2 3oG y24 y2o y14 417. 40(' h N MADISON ST. 00 427 qZ5421 4l9 415 Yll 3?9 3Z3 317 315 43' r' 121.' 41.z5' Vi•>s' �' vf.zs' 6Z.s' a�_1 "Cot Residential 1 Z/C-- " $` Z� 1 ' Zd v 1 ,y�\ ti I o M �� 2 ti �0` �U �h\1�. v r� C m 10 14�' I V ° " " Residential _ N 7 7 NCU-2-99 , 819 N. WALNUT ST. NORTH Class A Nonconformity 846.1 OAK LAND AVE 8464 B4E.B AV E 8477 ,850 33 29 29 25 23 Z8 29 3/ 35 34 3/ ❑ FL -i 8 S7 40849 3 8485 39 2933 847., PARK]NG 38 848.7 kl 37 35.858.7 24 X 338584 35 38 ED 35 WALL ❑ 30 33 20 I 29 8 32 32 35 30 37 33 MADISON - 853.7 ST 848- 39 38 30 �' 34 32 33 31, 30 3/ 32 36 I 851 856.7 8574 35 I 37 43 N 857.7 WALL 37 ql 28 36 I ]o 36 34 35 34 q 860 35 X 8 6.9 � 36 852.3 26 WALLS, 36 SAGI N AW »f r� .y TT � df i,�;; ? r[t u y3? " f �.j.. ;,ti>_.mar. .ter..: f r•s.S.e-,+}-.' q n c r t r✓ Cy ty ''�/ i _ �sTj f t ;� .. P: 2, xx t 3 � .., w�.'��7�"T �• t r S }.+.�. >yw +G Y.� a�+'+-�` HF:��r�tU j*.f,,�'��,`.%- r � ":t��;. •_.:+- =.kC%% ri�i•::4� ``d:•t:•;:?�.�rv'A.Y.•i.:r }.�u�t�'�:�,{��'S�Y.y-af�J4i..�. 1{g 3 "'w -3�f {Y' t Y�,r✓e r y3•♦:.J•'` l �. 4.,y y��1-i s1 Wr{ F., �.•t)a i.aAp r.a r `} �<'wZ�., 9"[:: . Tr'.' ..�Y._' '"�:+yr:...1+•n�:;j..t:,...af.:`tr LCt'.,.'i'^7.<•`.''F'•�. ' � C tis+'. S • _. : 1r XNMTri�• p.t.) tr.,Vrf i k1 t '.3" f'v, r.is•.;:%,-<3�.=.� •• may`+--.hr,�'Sr•�b'• +'},_ • r . / Ara Yy, 6 t.:i�3.xJc'A�alr F rYr k_F>i •',y i i; ��. Ila 711 w° IEI`iI �i Hill, ■ ■ � j t f .. i • 7 7 NCU-2-99, 819 N. WALNUT ST. NORTH Class A Nonconformity{ c- — — - 3 . / I / frIT71 }Yp. IPoI �7 y ! I L a .I I I IIF ---------- _. . _ INS: y _ ----- - %ry ----------------------------- ------ -------------------------------------------------------------- _ 100, - Od Om 0.00s 3 ^00' 1 --- ----------------- --------------------------- ---- M 1 I � LTI 657 4 O ! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 00, Od Om 0.00s MORTGAGE REPORT For: Buyer: United Midwest Savings Bank Emmy Lou Renner 2111 University Park Dr. 819 N. Walnut St. Suite 500 Lansing, MI 48906 Okemos, MI 48864 Legal Description (as provided): The South 3 rods of the East 7 rods of Lot 3, Block 48, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, according to the recorded plat thereof, as recorded in Liber 2 of Plats, Page 36, Ingham County Records. ALLEY EDGE OF ASPHALT R3 RODS(49.5') GRAVEL LOT 3 _ CiA t?A C�� C�rJUNi2i�� TI) PJ001zq PAL N8 2_ q JuI>;S 2' STEPS Oo �� 12.5 co I l n N 9.5' .-. tn ,► - 20' �. 11.8' in LO A LOT SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR THE EXACT LOCATION OF CONCRETE, .. / ix / GRAVEL DRIVE, FENCE AND PROPERT f\ LINES. O m `n HOUSE 4 :( :(:: : 4' OVERHANG 11 22.6 i� co R148.5' TO STEPS OAKLAND AVE. R ODS(49.5') :;: 07 CURB N. IWALWIT ST. This report is intended solely for mortgage purposes and no property lines were monumented. No dimensions hereon are to be used to establish property lines or In the building of structures or fences. I hwrnhv er.r+ifv +ti..+ W� ���- .- �. �, ,,, r . � _, �; r � ' � � � I� i d -. 1F. j � i .. � :I APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY SEPTEMBER 21, 1999. Draft to Clerk 000099 Approved 090899 To Clerk 092999 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall -ta' `;idv C1 �LErr; 124 West Michigan Avenue Wednesday, September 8, 1999 1. OPENING SESSION: Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. - A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Ruge, Smith. Six members present; one excused absence, one vacant seat. B. Excused Absences - Goolsby. Mr. Goolsby requested an excused absence; on a motion by Mr. Nischan, seconded by Mr. Frederick, Mr. Goolsby was granted an excused absence. C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, introduced staff present, Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was approved. Mr. Ruff noted an additional communication from Karl Dorschhimer, Economic Development Corporation, Re: LBRA Plan #2. He also reminded members of Z-12-99 as a tabled item which could be removed from the table for action At Pending Items. A packet of information has been provided, as has a packet of referrals re: SLU- 10-99, on for public hearing tonight. For New Business, election of officers will be scheduled for. September 21, 1999. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. From Dr. Samuel 0. and Susan L. Mallory, petitioners - SLU-10-99. 4. HEARINGS - A. SLU-8-99, Vacant Land formerly known as 1400 W. Jolly Road, Residential Care Facility for 12 People. Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Strudwick AFC, Inc., for a Special Land Use permit to construct and operate a residential care facility for twelve persons on the vacant property formerly known as 1400 W. Jolly Road. The property, zoned "A" Residential District with a Community Unit Plan overlay, is approximately 3 acres in size, irregular in shape, with a drain running across it. It is surrounded by residentially used and zoned properties. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan designates the land for residential use, 0-7 units per acre. In 1973, the property was rezoned to Community Unit Plan. The proposed development then was for three 10-unit apartment buildings. In PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 2 1979, a Special Use Permit was requested to construct a three-story 200- bed home for the aged. City Council in 1980 approved this special land use for a maximum 120-bed facility, subject to conditions. Neither project was ever developed. The applicant has the option of developing the property in accordance with the "A" Residential District, or developing it as approved under the CUP which was approved in 1973. The applicant proposes to construct a 3,500+ sq ft adult care facility for up to 12 adults. The facility would provide care for persons 60 years of age or older, and/ or persons with mental illness who are 18 years of age or older. These individuals require supervision, but not continuous nursing care. This adult foster care facility is not a nursing home, a hospital, or a home of ex- convicts or a half-way house. Mr. Ruge commented on homes on Tressa Avenue and Briarfield backing up to the property and on the location of parking. JOHN STRUDWICK, 2709 ATTENBOROUGH CT., LANSING, REPRESENTING STRUDWICK ADULT FOSTER CARE INC. I have information packets with petitions signed by some neighbors. (Delivered petitions.) This is a three-acre parcel, currently zoned Community Unit Plan, for three 10-unit buildings. We wish to construct one 12-unit adult foster care facility. It would be an effective use of the property. It is not a matter of rezoning. We have met with neighbors and feel they would welcome a single-family adult foster care home as opposed to an apartment building. It will be one single-story structure. On September 4 and 5, 1999, we talked to neighbors most of whom were not opposed to our constructing a 12-unit adult foster care home; some signed our petition. Some neighbors were concerned that the facility would convert to half-way housing or housing for ex-convicts or that we would later add another building. We could not do so without City Council approval. Building height was another concern. Neighbors wanted privacy for their back yards. We are constructing a one-story building. Another neighbor did not want her property value to decline. Our building will be a 3,500+ sq ft building, fair market value of over $300,000. The structure will blend with in the neighborhood where most structures are wood frame and vinyl siding. We expressed a willingness to work with the neighbors regarding privacy fencing and landscaping. Most of the existing trees will remain. Our builder is here, Mr. Ray Scharpster, for questions. Mr. Ruge asked the number of employees at the facility at any one time. Mr. Strudwick said during peak hours, approximately two to three. State law requires only one person for from one to 12 residents; however, during peak hours, more than one person would be required. Mr. Ruge asked if residents have automobiles; Mr. Strudwick said typically, no. Mr. Ruge asked how many visitors would come at a time, and the size of the parking lot. Mr. Strudwick said it is unlikely there would be 12 at a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 3 time, one or two is more likely. Final details for parking have not yet been worked out yet, but maybe 10 or 12 spaces. JANE CLAYTOR, 4916 TRESSA DR. Tressa Drive is a dead end street off Jolly. My concern is parking, and numbers of visitors. If there is not enough parking, people will park on Tressa Drive. We already have a problem with an animal training place, and people park on our street. If this facility does not have enough parking, our street will become the parking lot. My other question concerns teen-age or mental health. We understood it was complete adult foster care; nothing was mentioned about teenage mental health facility or care. I would like an answer. How can they care for people with only one attendant. Mr. Ruff said it is for people over 18 years of age. They would be considered adults; this might include mentally retarded adults or elderly people. State law requires only one staff person for 12 people. RANDY LLOYD, 5023 TRESSA DR. This land is behind my house. How are they going to get back to the property, because there is a 100-ft easement on each side of the sewage that goes through. How will the driveway get up in there? I am also concerned about drainage, because we have had a problem with the property in the past. That brings up questions about the parking lot size. Also, we neighbors paid to have a new sewer system to improve area drainage. The land is low and gets water-logged. To build on it, they will have to bring in dirt and build the property up. That will cause water to run our way. I am concerned abut that and them coming and asking for a license to build, with a plan that is incomplete. It is hard for us to make valid points, and hard for you to make a decision based on incomplete information. If it is going to have ten residents, I would like to know it has ten parking spots. How much will be paved? Where will the driveway come in and how it is going to affect my property and the drainage on my property. Mr. Ruff said the run-off issue would be addressed during site plan review. The federal government requires the building to be classified as a single-family home; it would be reviewed as to bulk, area, parking lot, etc. The zoning ordinance has specific requirements for drainage. The drain plan must be approved by Public Service Department. A drain easement runs over the property, but as yet we lack information about it. We do not have a completed site plan, a big expense, especially when you don't yet own the property. DEAN BRODBERG, 1345 S. BRIARFIELD DR. Mr. Strudwick said he was willing to work with the neighborhood; the neighborhood would like to work with him. My concern is that we are being asked to consider the proposed structure and usage without seeing a site plan. When the site plan is developed, will we neighbors be allowed to review that? We PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 4 would like to comment on the location of the structure in relation to Jolly Road and to the lot lines. I understand that the licensing of the structure will be on the home. Part of our concern as neighbors is the intended usage. Our concerns are based on intended usage, and we want to see our trust respected. If we approve, and the City approves, several years from now, we would not like to see the intended use change. Will the property be fenced? A fence would protect the property as well as the residential area. Regarding the trees, neighbors would like to see the trees saved; the trees could be an effective buffer between the residence and neighborhood. Regarding the petition, none of the people signing it are here tonight; none of us here tonight have seen the petition before. Mr. Nischan said, given the concern about the site plan, could we let everybody know the steps this will go through before it gets to planning approval. Mr. Ruff reviewed the process. Mr. Miller said as Chair of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, we need more information on the site plan. "I would not support taking this up without a more detailed site plan review." RUBY STRUDWICK, 2709 ATTENBOROUGH CT., LANSING. We went around but only got to a small amount of neighbors. Some neighbors did not want to sign at that time. One neighbor said she was the spokesperson for that neighborhood. Others said they preferred to come to this meeting to learn about our plan. We talked to one neighbor who said she planted the trees in back. We would not take the trees down, and we would not build near the low spot in the back. The building site would be closer to Jolly Road. Parking could be around it. The area in the back would not be disturbed; it would be a buffer for the neighbors. If necessary, we would also construct a tall fence for privacy purposes. We want to make the neighbors happy. Our elderly people need to be protected, too. This property was approved for three apartment buildings; I could do this right now. The land is vacant. Our proposal would beautify the neighborhood. We are willing to work with the neighbors. Mr. Ruge asked about the other foster home owned by the Strudwicks; they have.been operating it for over two years, for elderly people. "We don't want any drug addicts." The home has 24-hour supervision. This is a home for the elderly. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the close of the public hearing and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 6.30 p.m., September 21, 1999 in the Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor of City Hall, Lansing. Mr. Ruff said the Planning Office would be happy to notify neighborhood contact people, such as tonight's speakers, to transmit information concerning the site plan. Phone our office. Sam Quon is the planner whose name was on your notice for this meeting, phone 483-4076. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 5 B. SLU-10-99, 231-237 S. Washington Square, Parking Lot in uG-1" Business District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Samuel and Susan Mallory for a Special Land Use permit for property located at 231-237 S. Washington Square. The applicant proposes to construct a 13-space surface parking lot on the property that currently contains a landscaped park area. The parking lot is proposed to be used to support the offices located at 107 E. Washtenaw Street. Parking facilities require a Special Land Use permit in the "G-1" Business District in accordance with Section 1270.04(f) and Chapter 1282 of the Zoning Code. The owner of the property is George Kafantaris, who also came to this Board and the City Council for approval of a Special Land Use Permit to create a parking lot. That request was recommended for approval by this Board. The applicant this evening wants to construct a parking lot in the "G-1" Business District for the property which at present is used as a park-like open space. No change in the zoning is proposed. You have before you a completed staff report in anticipation of action tonight. Both the new and the previous information is in your packet. The current request is for a 13-space parking lot that would have landscaping associated with it. It is smaller than, and has more landscaping than the previous request. It has improvements proposed to enhance its appearance so it will look more like the Washington Square Mall area. The staff report recommends approval with conditions. Mr. Ruge asked about the previous application by Mr. Kafantaris and why the City Council did not act on it. Mr. Ruff said the City Council has not acted upon it. This case has a different applicant and a slightly different proposal for number of spaces and design. It would not be inappropriate for this Board to make a recommendation on this request. The Council subcommittee was concerned with having a parking lot at a prime building location. The park-like area was developed with donations for that purpose as a temporary use. Mr. Kafantaris had not received any economic return on it. His proposal included leasing parking during the day and using it for his restaurant in the evening when Cooley Law School students take up parking and make it harder for his customers to park. The present applicant also owns an adjoining building. They want to use it to support their day-time business. LES LENSEMIER , 3125 SOVEREIGN DR., STE. D, representing the Mallorys as petitioners. The proposal is for 13 spaces. It is smaller than the previous proposal. The space has been used as open space, with a park-like atmosphere. As buyers, the Mallorys want to use it for their law and dental practices in the adjacent building on Washtenaw. As an evening use, it would be available for the Parthenon Restaurant if they PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 6 desire. We tried to maintain the space as much as possible so that it takes on the character of the Washington Square Mall. We would move the landscaping and place it around the perimeter on Washtenaw and Washington Mall to give it an urban character. There will be a new drive entrance. Mr. Smith quoted from the Mallorys' March 20, 1998 letter in opposition. "Why in 1998 was that the opinion, and what's changed today?" SUSAN MALLORY, 107 E. WASHTENAW, SENIOR PARTNER, MALLORY, CUNNINGHAM & LAPKA. We were advised approximately 18 months ago that Ellis Parking was going to establish a parking lot right next door that would destroy the character. At that time, we had parking across the street for my son's patients and for our clients. Many of my son's patients have to park close; my clients and staff like to park close. We lost that. Foster Swift decided they could no longer share on a pay- for-spot ratio. We were the only people who wrote an objection to the for- rent City lot off the street. It was not going to preserve any of the character of the park that many of us, my son, myself, and my former partner, had actually kicked money in for, so that we could have the Parthenon Park. In this particular application, (a) we need it; and (b) we have a proposal that keeps most of the park-like atmosphere. The whole park is not going to be used as a parking lot; it is for proprietary use during the daytime to take care of the patients and clients who previously were across the street. That is our change of heart. We want to keep it so that from the street it looks like it is still Parthenon Park. Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the close of the public hearing. The applicant has requested that we act on SLU-10-99 this evening. Referral was to the Committee of the Whole for action later this evening. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Mr. Ruff noted the presence of Mr. Brown, petitioner for Z-12-99, 1016 Shirley Street, "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District. He was away when the case was before the Board. We conferred by phone upon his return. At that time, he did not have an objection to the Committee's recommendation. "I want to make sure that if you have any further comment about Z-12-99, this would be the time to make it. The recommendation was for the west 42 ft to be "J" Parking which would allow enough space for a two-way drive aisle and one-sided parking. The remaining 14 ft was recommended by remain "A" Residential for the buffering. The case is pending under Planning Board. 6. RECESS - The Chair declared a short recess and reconvened the session at 8:22 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 7 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval - None. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman. Next meeting Tuesday, September 21, 1999 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor, City Hall. 2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Nischan, Chair. a. Act-12-99, Factory Street, Groesbeck Drain This is an application from the Ingham County Drain Commission requesting that the City grant an easement for construction of a storm water drain from the current right-of- way on Factory Street west to the Grand River. The drain had already been built by the time we received the request. In summary, in consideration by the Committee, the proposed easement is 40 ft wide x 264 ft long. Title for the portion of the easement that crosses Race Street needs to be addressed per the Assessor's Office recommendation. After consideration of the location, character and extent of the drain, and based on testimony and evidence presented to the Committee, the Committee found that the proposed easement has no significant impact on its surroundings, and it does not interfere with the use of the site for park purposes. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of Act-12-99, Factory Street, Groesbeck Drain, with the condition that an easement or license instrument be included which can be terminated at will by the City, per the City Attorney's recommendation. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to approve Act-12-99, Factory Street, Groesbeck Drain, with the condition that an easement or license instrument be included which can be terminated at will by the City, per the City Attorney's recommendation. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene . .Aye Miller. . . Aye Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . .Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 8 On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; unanimous, carried, Act-12-99, Factory Street, Groesbeck Drain was APPROVED. Mr. Nischan said the Board also reported out Act-13-99, 815 East St. Joseph Street, Private Fence in Right-of-way. It was not listed on tonight's agenda. Mr. Ruff said it was the instruction of Ms. Love to pull the item and refer it back to Committee for further study. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to return Act-13-99, 815 East St. Joseph Street, Private Fence in Right-of-way to Committee for reconsideration of additional information from staff. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act-13-99, 815 East St. Joseph Street, Private Fence in Right-of-way was RETURNED TO COMMITTEE. Discussion ensued concerning the date of the next meeting. Mr. Ruff said action on the Brownfields item was needed as soon as possible, at the next meeting. Normally, the item would be reviewed by the Urban Development Committee. Mr. Nischan said Mr. Miller, who has done much work in this area, would be welcome to be at the meeting and/or to comment beforehand. The Committee would appreciate his expertise. Mr. Miller agreed to read the document and phone Mr. Nischan if he has concerns; however, he will be away. Next meeting Tuesday, September 28, 1999, at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Executive Committee - Has not met. 4. Committee of the Whole Chairman Ruge appointed Mr. Nischan temporary Vice Chairman, in the absence of Mr. Goolsby. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to resolve to the Committee of the Whole. Carried; unanimous. The Committee of the Whole then took up the following matter. (a) SLU-10-99, 231-237 S. Washington Square, Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District The report was presented previously. Mr. Ruff said a Special Land Use has nine criteria for evaluation of the proposal. Evaluation of both present and previous proposals have been done. Staff recommends that the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 9 Special Land Use be approved to allow the development of the surface parking lot with the following conditions: (1) That the site plan be reviewed administratively by all necessary agencies through the Site Plan Review process, (2) That the perimeter be landscaped as shown on the plan with plantings, benches and lighting to emphasize a park-like fringe around the parking lot, and is in keeping with the architectural character of the area. (3) That approval of the SLU-10-99 is based upon the improvements being made. The site plan presented appears to be contingent on a proposal that the Principal Shopping District (Downtown Business Association) participate in the funding and maintenance of the landscape buffers represented in the site plan presented by Fitzgerald, Henne & Associates, Inc., dated July 10, 1999. This is not a land use issue, but rather a funding issue. (4) That materials, street furniture, lighting and plantings be compatible with the architectural significance and character of the commercial area. (5) That a park-like setting be a dominant focus of the landscape design plan. (6) That the plantings in the right-of-way along Washtenaw Street be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. Ms. Keene questioned the intent of Item No. 3. By consensus, the item was amended to read: That approval of SLU-10-99 is based upon the improvements being made and maintained as presented in the site plan prepared by Fitzgerald, Henne & Associates, dated July 10, 1999. (3) That approval of SLU-10-99 is based upon the improvements being made. The site plan prese appears to be contingent an a proposal that Association) participate On the funding-and maintenance of the landscape buffefs represented and maintained as presented in the site plan prepared by Fitzgerald, Henne & Associates, Inc., dated July 10, 1999. Mr. Ruge said he is not comfortable approving a surface parking lot on South Washington Avenue, an area we are trying to revitalize; however, as an interim use it is acceptable. Mr. Frederick expressed his appreciation for the park. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 10 Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve SLU-10-99, 231-237 S. Washington Square, Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District with the six conditions as stated in the report, Condition #3 being reworded as above. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nay: 1; carried; motion passed for recommendation to the Planning Board for approval of SLU-10-99, 231-237 S. Washington Square, Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District with six conditions. There being no further business, Chairman Nischan adjourned the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, that the Committee of the Whole arise; voice vote; Ayes: 6; unanimous; carried. (4) Committee of the Whole, Mr. Nischan, Chairman. Mr. Nischan presented the report of the Committee of the Whole. The Committee reported with a favorable recommendation SLU-10-99, 231-237 S. Washington Square, Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District with six conditions with rewording of No. 3. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve SLU-10-99, 231-237 S. Washington Square, Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District with six conditions. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Chairman Ruge asked Mr. Smith about his no vote in COW. Mr. Smith said the applicant strongly stated their opposition to the first petition. "I was not persuaded." There are higher uses for the land than a parking lot. Mr. Ruge said their reasoning amounted to "Now we need it; then we didn't." Keene. . . Ave Miller . .Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . Nay Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . .Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays; 1; carried, SLU-10-99, 231-237 S. Washington Square, Parking Lot in "GA" Business District was APPROVED. C. Report from the Planning Manager Mr. Ruff reported that on Thursday, September 9, 1999, he, along with Board of Water and Light representatives and City Council members, is going to view chiller facilities in Chicago. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 11 D. Pending Items: Future action required. 1. Planninq Board Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to remove Z- 12-99, 1016 Shirley Street, "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District from the Planning Board Pending Items; Voice Vote; Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried. (a ) Z-12-99, 1016 Shirley Street, "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Dan Brown to rezone property at 1016 Shirley Street from "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District. It is a warehouse building that is behind the former Daily Heating and Air Conditioning building on Pennsylvania Avenue. The adjoining property is for sale and there is a potential buyer for the Daily Heating Company property. They want to raze the building and make improvements for parking. The Committee reviewed the application together with potential design implications and recommended denial of the request to "G-2" Wholesale District and instead, to ensure it only be used for parking for support of the adjacent building, or continuing the use of this building in a nonconforming status, not wanting to grant it if conforming zoning for motor vehicle repair, for example, in the building. Instead the Committee recommended rezoning the part of the property to "J" Parking and the remainder to "A" Residential. The proposal is for the west 42 ft to be zoned "J" Parking, and the remainder, 14.11 ft, to be left in the "A" Residential District, which would serve as a buffer. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to deny as requested Z-12-99, 1016 Shirley Street, "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District and approve the alternative, as approved by the applicant. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Frederick said in Committee, he was in favor of denying this since he felt the neighborhood status was precarious enough without any pressure from commercial development. The line of commercial along Pennsylvania was creeping in; however, he was convinced by this proposal tonight, with the buffer on the east edge of the property, that this would be the best protection for the neighborhood. He will vote in support. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 12 Mr. Ruge said the property to the east is protected by the 14 ft buffer. What about the property to the south? Mr. Ruff said they would work on a development plan for the property to the south, which includes two parcels. The first one directly abutting this is vacant. The next one has a house on it. The improvement there would be incorporating that area in the landscape development plan. Prior to demolition and improvement as a parking lot, the landscape development plan would be required; however, it is not yet available. There is a requirement for buffering between "J" Parking and "A" Residential. Mr. Miller said there is no real chance of residential moving into this site. It is a nonconforming use. "If we did not provide this, it would just continue to run downhill, and that would deteriorate the neighborhood." This approach provides some buffering. Miller. . . Aye Nischan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith. Aye Frederick .Aye Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . .Aye On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; unanimous; carried, Z-12-99, 1016 Shirley Street, "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District was denied as requested and the recommendation for rezoning the west 42 ft to "J" Parking and the remainder to "A" Residential, with the concurrence of the applicant, was APPROVED. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997) b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998) C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District (Tabled April 15, 1998) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial &"H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) 3. Urban Development Committee a. Act-19-98, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station#1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved b. Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW (Tabled September 8, 1998) C. Act-24-98, Everett Lane at Paris St., Vacate ROW (Tabled February 16, 1999) Mr. Nischan requested that staff be instructed to have Act-19-98 removed from UDC Pending Items. 8. NEW BUSINESS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 13 Patrick Patterson, Safety Administrator in the Personnel Services Dept., wants to conduct an Ethics Training session for the Planning Board, on September 21, 1999. Mr. Miller will be away that evening. Mr. Miller requested an excused absence for the meeting of September 21, 1999. On a motion by Mr. Nischan, seconded by Mr. Frederick, Mr. Miller was granted an excused absence. Chairman Ruge said we will review the Brownfields proposal so we can act on it on Sept. 21. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairman Ruge asked about sign code enforcement. Mr. Ruff said interviews have taken place for a sign code enforcement person and hiring is in process. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9.16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board =090899 AA51 SLU-10-99 231-237 S. Washin On Square, Lansing Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District, NE Corner of S. Washington Sq. &Washtenaw GENERAL INFORMATION OWNERIAPPLICANT: Samuel and Susan Mallory (Applicant) 2806 E. Westchester Lansing, MI 48911 George Kafantaris (Owner) 227 S. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 STATUS OF APPLICANT: Applicant in Buy-Sell Agreement REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use permit for property at 231-237 S. Washington Square to construct a parking lot in a "G-1" Business District EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant land (privately owned, used as "park like" open space) EXISTING ZONING: "G-1" Business District PROPOSED ZONING: No change in zoning PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 66' x 85' = 5,610 sq. ft. Rectangle (.13 acres) SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Commercial South: Commercial East: Commercial and Office West: Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING: North: "G-1" Business District South: "G-1" Business District East: "G-1" Business District West: "G-1" Business District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The River Island Area Comprehensive Plan, Amendment 1986, designates this area for Central Business District, and the draft Lansing Downtown Plan, 1999, designates this area for Commerce Center development. The property is located at the NE corner of Washington Square and Washtenaw Street. Washtenaw currently runs one way westbound, but is proposed as a two-way street in the draft Downtown Plan. SLU-10-99 Page 2 231-237 S.Washington Square, Lansing Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District, NE Corner of S.Washington Sq. &Washtenaw SPECIFIC INFORMATION The applicant requests a Special Land Use permit for a property at 231-237 S. Washington Square to construct a parking lot in a "G-1" Business District. This is not a matter of rezoning. AGENCY RESPONSES: Ameritech: No response received Assessor: A parking lot at this location would not be the highest and best use of this property. Building Safety: No objection. BWL: Electric: No objections to turning the vacant lot into a parking lot. Water: No objections to issuance of building permit. NO conflict with service parking area. NOTE: BWL may have idle water service lines in area. Terry Robison 371-6494 Street Lighting: Parking lot no major conflicts with street lighting. Existing facilities are located on S. Washington and Washtenaw St. Facilities could be in conflict or have to be replaced because of the drive opening for the parking lot. Roger Adsit 371-6085, Cellular 242-5175 City Attorney: No response received Community Policing: No response received Consumers Energy: No response received Development Office: it is interesting that the applicant was formerly opposed to the proposal for the development of the site (as a surface parking lot) in SLU-2-98. The City's policy is not to support gaps in the Washington Mall (ie. Cooley Law School). Emil Winnicker. Downtown Neigh.Assoc.: No response received Economic Development Corp.: Fire Marshall: No response received Historic District Commission: No response received Historical Society: No response received Lansing Neighbor.Council: No response received Media One: No response received Parks and Recreation: No response received Principal Shopping District: No response received Public Service: The Public Service Department has no objection to the proposed SLU. The Public Service Department reserves the right to provide engineering comments as part of the site plan review. Transportation Engineer: My only change regarding this matter is the elimination of my comment about the Washington Mall landscaping (in SLU-2-98). It is acceptable now. All other comments from 1998 remain the same and on point to this issue and proposed development. David Berridge, Transportation Engineer. SLU-10-99 Page 3 231-237 S.Washington Square, Lansing Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District, NE Corner of S. Washington Sq. &Washtenaw ANALYSIS Case History The owner, George E. Kafantaris, applied for a Special Land Use (SLU-2-98) for the purpose of constructing a parking lot at 231-237 S. Washington Square. The Resolution for SLU-2-98 was pulled from the City Council agenda at the request of Council member Adado by the Committee on Development and Planning. The firm of MALLORY, CUNNINGHAM & LAPKA, P.C. occupies the building at 107 East Washtenaw, bordering the subject property. A letter from Thomas Lapka, representing the adjacent property owner was addressed to the City Council on March 20, 1998 opposing the conversion of the "park area" ("Subject Property") into a surface parking lot. Historical Significance The downtown S. Washington Square area retains much of its historic architectural character despite alterations and infill construction. Several downtown buildings are listed in the National Register of Historic Places including the 1937-38 J. W. Knapp Co. Building (Art Moderne style), the Strand (Michigan) Theater and Arcade, and nearby Masonic Temple (on S. Capitol Avenue). Numerous other commercial buildings are eligible. In 1998, Henry & Henry, Architectural and Preservation Consultants, completed an architectural survey of the area. They identified the following properties in the 200-300 blocks of S. Washington Square as eligible for the National Register: 206, 210, 220-2, 221-3, 227, 234, 301, 303 (additional properties south include 323-5, 327, 333 and 337). See map designations. One of the oldest structures is the Italianate style storefront containing the Parthenon Restaurant which dates from the late 1860s-early 1870s period, located immediately north of the subject property. Two buildings north of the Parthenon retain their 1880s Richardsonian Romanesque architectural elements. Robert Christensen, National Register Coordinator for the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), also noted that "Downtown's two finest examples of Commercial Brick mode, however, are the three-storefront building housing Capitol Furs and the Whitney- Daniels Building. . . . The Whitney-Daniels is probably the quintessential Commercial Brick building". The buildings in this block are representative of two- and three-story commercial buildings of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The subject property lies within a potential national and/or local historic district as identified in a 1980 National Registration nomination by Robert Christensen, and in subsequent Lansing Architectural surveys of 1986 and 1998. Compatible infill construction would be the ultimate goals for this site. Evaluation Section 1282.03(0(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are as follows. 1. Compatibility with Use on Adjacent Properties Parking is necessary to the businesses in the downtown district. The applicant would use SLU-10-99 Page 4 231-237 S.Washington Square, Lansing Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District, NE Corner of S.Washington Sq. &Washtenaw the parking to support the offices in the adjacent building at 107 E. Washtenaw. The application did not contain a declaration for the lot's after office hours use. Therefore, the parking use of the property is accessory to the business use. The size of the lot is minimal, providing 13 spaces as shown. The proposed landscaping indicated in the site plan would improve the appearance of the lot. The benches and diverse landscape materials proposed would enhance the appearance of a surface parking lot. SLU-2-98 recommended for following additional improvements for the site. ► Place bench and planter combinations on each side of the pedestrian walkway designed into the west edge. ► Install a low masonry wall 2.5' to 3' tall along the west line (and possibly the south line) compatible with the historic character of the site. The plan notes that the applicant is proposing that the landscaping and furnishings are to be provided by the Downtown Business Association we presume to be the Principal Shopping District (P.S.D.). The plantings in the right-of-way along Washtenaw Street must be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. 2. Change in the Essential Character of the Area This development is small and if properly improved will not change the essential business character of the area. The design of the lot includes concrete pavers for the driveway areas which helps it fit in with the more historic street materials of Washington Square and the Michigan Avenue approach to the Capitol. 3. Interference with General Enjoyment of Adjacent Properties Due to the small size of the lot and the accessory nature of the use, it should not interfere with the enjoyment of adjacent properties. 4. Improvement to Property and Surrounding Area If improved properly with appropriate landscaping, this lot should not permanently impact the property or the surrounding area. The lot's improvements will not prevent the property from being built upon (as infill development) at some time in the future. 5. Environmental Impacts The use of the property will not create any significant impact upon the environment that is not typical to the downtown business district. The landscaping of the lot will help in the visual appearance of the property. 6. Impact on Utilities No adverse impact anticipated. SLU-10-99 Page 5 231-237 S.Washington Square, Lansing Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District, NE Corner of S. Washington Sq. &Washtenaw 7. Impact on Public Services The Transportation Director has stated (in the SLU-2-98 report) that the proposed curb cut will result in the removal of up to four on-street metered spaces which will adversely affect revenues to the parking system. Obviously, it would be better if this property had access to an existing alley, but it doesn't. The curb cut location along Washtenaw is better than along Washington Square, in that existing landscaping is not removed, and the driveway is located farther from the intersection of the two streets. 8. Compliance with the Master Plan The parking lot use of the property with this small number of spaces is accessory to the business use of adjacent properties. Therefore it is not in conflict with the Central Business District designation in the Master Plan (River Island Amendment Plan). 9. Compliance with Zoning District Regulations The design of the parking lot appears to conform with the requirements of parking lot design in Chapter 1284 of the Zoning Code. Otherwise, the Zoning Code requires the Special Land Use permit for the use itself. To confirm compliance with all design regulations, the site plan is required to be reviewed by all necessary agencies through the administrative site plan review process. SUMMARY ► The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the surrounding property. ► The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties provided adequate landscape, screening and buffering is in place. ► The proposed special land use will not be hazardous to adjacent properties. ► The proposed special land use will not place any demands on public services and facilities in excess of current capacities. ► The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent of the zoning code and objectives of the current comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Special Land Use be approved to allow the development of the surface parking lot with the following conditions: 1. That the site plan be reviewed administratively by all necessary agencies through the Site Plan Review process. 2. That the perimeter be landscaped as shown on the plan (with plantings, benches and lighting) to emphasize a "park like" fringe around the parking lot and is in keeping with the SLU-10-99 Page 6 231-237 S.Washington Square, Lansing Parking Lot in "G-1" Business District, NE Corner of S. Washington Sq. &Washtenaw architectural character of the area. 3. That approval of the SLU-10-99 is based upon the improvements being made. The site plan presented appears to be contingent on a proposal that the Principal Shopping District (Downtown Business Association) participates in the funding and maintenance of the landscape buffers represented in the site plan prepared by Fitzgerald, Henne & Associates, Inc., dated July 10, 1999. This is not a land use issue but a funding issue. 4. That materials, street furniture, lighting and plantings be compatible with the architectural significance and character of the commercial area. 5. That a "park like" setting be a dominant focus of the landscape design plan. 6. That the plantings in the right-of-way along Washtenaw Street be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. SLU-10-99(Reference to SLU-2-99) Report By:Susan Cantlon,Senior Preservation Planner and Jim Ruff,Zoning Administrator L L J SLU-10-99 . 231-237 S Washington Square, Lansing NORTH 7 s iAo �• �-flu l07-o1-II Il Ilf I1 �tt-ItS "' E. ALLEGAN 17.1 119 II° II:-14 51 1 j0' of 13 /35, � — — �r oo, t°' zoo, ti 15 ri:rTr— ho a IJ� „'i• 1"'. war 4�' 2 J r• n. 17 \5 s h \ I'V N STATE \\ ° "G1" Business District e:? 19 ,3\ ► , �. \ N 44G111 Business District N zI !0� _ , n 4 W z 115 22 • K a \ i�°' O 4 K Q �. . �r 2 6` t `J V, _ h (n h� ` ti I 26 676,Z T r`° h— — — lw• rcf•i Subject property E . W A S H T E N A W I t l ► l ty•�o J 12 n. 010 m 61G1" Business District h 0IM II 11G1" Business District h ,oti� 2 h Iu5' A 00 A . }; 00 C8 10 3 a K aw Denotes: Structures eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places ! _ �. _!. ii � - 4. REVISED REPORT, September 2, 1999 ACT-12-99 Groesbeck Park Drain from Factory Street west to the Grand River Request for easement from Ingham County Drain Commission GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ingham County Drain Commission 707 Buhl Street Mason, MI 48854 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting the City grant an easement for construction of a storm water drain from the current right-of-way of Factory Street westward to the Grand River (see Figure 1, Area Map) EXISTING LAND USE: Public Parking Lot for the Brenke Fish Ladder LOCATION: From the current right-of-way of Factory Street westward to the Grand River, approximately 240 feet south of the center line of E. Grand River Avenue EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial District PROPERTY SIZE: 40 feet wide by approximately 264 feet in length SURROUNDING LAND N: Public Parking Lot for the Brenke Fish Ladder USE: S: Public Parking Lot for the Brenke Fish Ladder E: Factory Street W: Burchard Park east and the Grand River SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial District S: "H" Light Industrial District E: "H" Light Industrial District W: n/a MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the surrounding properties for recreational and commerciall uses. AGENCY RESPONSES ASSESSOR: Because of the questionable accuracy of this old plat, and the extremely vague language in the documentation regarding the location of "Race Street" (i.e. "20 feet off the East of Lots 2, 3, 4, etc...), I would advise getting a Q.C.D. REVISED REPORT, September 2, 1999 ACT-12-99 Groesbeck Park Drain from Factory Street west to the Grand River Page 2 Request for easement from Ingham County Drain Commission from all of the "owners" of parcels within that old platted area. That is, let's get a Quit Claim for the surveyed description from all owners bounded by: Grand River Avenue on the north, Factory Street on the East, and Water Street on the South. It is most likely that all of these owners may posses and interest in Race Street, whether they front on it or not. CITY ATTORNEY: This can be permitted under the appropriate instrument as long as the use of the property does not interfere with the use of the site for park purposes. The City should grant a license or easement that can be terminated at will if a future need arises. BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT: No response received. CONSUMERS ENERGY: No response received. DEVELOPMENT: Check with city attorney to see if [public referendum] will apply. INGHAM CO. DRAIN COMMISSION: The sewer has been constructed. MI DEQ: No response received. MI DNR: No response received. PARKS AND RECREATION: The City Forester has no problems with this request. Currently, the Parks Office is reviewing the design of the canoe landing platform & storm outlet area. The site will need to be restored to original condition - parking lot, river trail, trees, turf, etc. Easement width can be reduced to twenty feet. Law department will need to draft an easement agreement with the County. PUBLIC SERVICES: The Public Service Department has no problem with the proposed easement. REVISED REPORT, September 2, 1999 ACT-12-99 Groesbeck Park Drain from Factory Street west to the Grand River Page 3 Request for easement from Ingham County Drain Commission TRANSPORTATION: No comments or requirements. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL The applicant has filed this request for review under ACT-285 for and easement in order to construct a storm sewer pipe. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The tax assessor's office advises that because of the questionable accuracy of old city records for the plat that describes Race Street, that the City may not hold clear title to the section of the proposed easement that crosses Race Street. Their advice is to get owners of adjacent properties to sign off on the easement. The Lansing Park Board approved a resolution of no objection to the proposed storm sewer easement at their meeting of January 20, 1999. DESCRIPTION of SITE The subject property is part of the city owned parking lot at the Brenke Fish Ladder and a portion of East Burchard Park (see Figure 1, Area Map). There are currently several public construction projects in progress in the vicinity: the north-east sewer interceptor, which is part of the City's combined sewer overflow elimination project; reconstruction of the buildings at 1131-33 Race Street; and possible expansion of the Brenke Fish Ladder parking lot. As of the writing of this report, it is staff's understanding that the sewer has already been constructed, but the easement has not been finalized. Review under Act 285 requires an assessment of the location, character, and extent of the property and its use. Location The applicant has provided a legal description for the proposed easement (see Figure 2, Site Plan). Essentially, the easement is proposed to begin near the south end of Factory Street and run westward to Race Street, then bend slightly south to the Grand River. Character The proposed easement would be across what is currently a public parking lot and a small portion of a public park, including the River Trail. There are no significant buildings or other structures. The River Trail, at the point the proposed easement crosses, is simply an asphalt foot path. REVISED REPORT, September 2, 1999 ACT-12-99 Groesbeck Park Drain from Factory Street west to the Grand River Page 4 Request for easement from Ingham County Drain Commission Extent The proposed easement is forty feet wide by approximately 264 feet in length. The only purpose requested is for the storm sewer pipe and maintenance. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting the City grant an easement for construction of a storm water drain from the current right-of-way of Factory Street westward to the Grand River. The proposed easement is forty feet wide by approximately 264 feet in length. The title for the portion of the easement that crosses Race Street needs to be addressed per the Assessor's Office recommendations. The sewer has already been constructed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the easement with the recommendations of the Assessor's Office to clear title to the portion that crosses Race Street. Respectfully Submitted, Jim Sturdevant, AICP Senior Planner "v"Iv"z2 L ACT-12-99 Groesbeck Park Drain from Factory Street west to the Grand River Request for easement from Ingham County Drain Commission (j GRAND RIVER AVENUE(79.86'WIDE) -—- -— - - - —- � � I BLCbCK 112 qF THE C?RIOIN�L pLj T, I I I 0IYY PF LANSI�GI I I j I w • l----------------------; 1" - 100' RACE ST. (20'WIDE) ! ' O LOT 3 '•` LOT 1 L JUL 0 61999 -�LpS 20' EAST 40' 240 FT SOUTH OF THE ° 154' I CENTERLINE OF GRAND RIVER N 1�� AVE.AND 28 FT. WEST OF THE \ ,�-------------� CENTERLINE OF FACTORY ST. P.O.B. LOT 5 \ 270 FT. SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE 240 FT SOUTH OF THE OF GRAND RIVER AVENUE AND �, \ CENTERLINE OF GRAND RIVER 283 FT. WEST OF THE CENTERLINE AVE.AND 182 FT. WEST OF THE OF FACTORY STREET G`ENTEFtL1N�OF FACTORY ST. EASTERLY BANKXLOT 6OF THE GRAND RIVER '� EASEMENT DESCRIPTION AN EASEMENT OVER PART OF LOTS 1,4,AND 5 OF JAMES SI_YMOURS SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 12 OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT, CITY OF LANSING,AS RECORDED IN LIBER 9 OF DEEDS, PAGE 5, INGHAM COUNTY RECORDS, IN PART OF SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 2 WEST, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN, FOR STORM WATER DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE,40 FEET WIDE LYING 20 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF A CENTERLINE MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING ON THE EASTERLY BANK OF THE GRAND RIVER AT A POINT 270 FEET SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF GRAND RIVER AVENUE AND 283 FEET WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF FACTORY STREET;THENCE NORTH 72° EAST 110 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT WHICH LIES 240 FEET SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF GRAND RIVER AVENUE AND 182 FEET WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF FACTORY STREET;THENCE EAST 154 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FACTORY STREET WHICH LIES 240 FEET SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF GRAND RIVER AVENUE AND 28 FEET WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF FACTORY STREET,THE SIDELINES OF SAID 40 FOOT EASEMENT TO BE EXTENDED OR SHORTENED TO BEGIN ON THE EASTERLY BANK OF THE GRAND RIVER,TO MEET AT ANGLE POINTS, AND TO TERMINATE AT SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FACTORY STREET. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF RACE STREET. FITZGERALD HENNE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1151-yvre 2 NORTH ACTT-1 2-99 Groesbeck Park Drain from Factory Street west to the Grand River Request for easement from Ingham County Drain Commission N CONSTRUCT CONC. HEADWALL IN ACCORDANCE LLJ WITH PLAN DETAILS. LLJ Iy f I N Ip I ' Q m i ^Q -� 8 401 / 24- S o co LLJ ,z 36* ICDC ST i - 6"IC ^ 6' 409 °°I f�- .sy N L ry s� Ln NYS \ ---24- w EAST MAPLE STREET APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY SEPTEMBER 21, 1999. Draft to Clerk 092199 Approved 092199 To Clerk 092999 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD `-` +` 114 7 p.m., City Council Chambers �Ltfii Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, August 17, 1999 1. OPENING SESSION: Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Miller, Nischan, Smith, Ruge. Six members present; one excused absence, one vacant seat. B. Excused Absences - Keene. Ms. Keene requested an excused absence; on a motion by Mr. Goolsby, seconded by Mr. Frederick, Ms. Keene was granted an excused absence. C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator; and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter dated July 28, 1999, to Dept. of Planning and Neighborhood Development from Christopher B. Brown, DTN Management Co. RE: Public Hearing, PRD-1-99. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) GERRY VANDE VUSSE, 3600 N. GRAND RIVER AVENUE, REPRESENTING AIS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, here to make a request regarding Z-11-99 and SLU-5-99. (Read letter; also provided copy.) "We have reviewed the committee's recommendations and we ask that you consider the following change. We request that you allow us to move the existing fence 20 ft to the north. This would maintain the 50 ft setback your staff wishes to keep in this area. We will landscape the area in front of the fence to give a buffer zone. "Our long term plan is a new building in this area; granting this request would help keep our expenses to a minimum for alterations, which are going to be temporary. Draft to Clerk 092199 Approved 0 99 To Clerk 0 99 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Tuesday, August 17, 1999 1. OPENING SESSION: Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Miller, Nischan, Smith, Ruge. Six members present; one excused absence, one vacant seat. B. Excused Absences - Keene. Ms. Keene requested an excused absence; on a motion by Mr. Goolsby, seconded by Mr. Frederick, Ms. Keene was granted an excused absence. C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present, William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator; and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was approved as presented. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter dated July 28, 1999, to Dept. of Planning and Neighborhood Development from Christopher B. Brown, DTN Management Co. RE: Public Hearing, PRD-1-99. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) GERRY VANDE VUSSE, 3600 N. GRAND RIVER AVENUE, REPRESENTING AIS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, here to make a request regarding Z-11-99 and SLU-5-99. (Read letter; also provided copy.) "We have reviewed the committee's recommendations and we ask that you consider the following change. We request that you allow us to move the existing fence 20 ft to the north. This would maintain the 50 ft setback your staff wishes to keep in this area. We will landscape the area in front of the fence to give a buffer zone. "Our long term plan is a new building in this area; granting this request would help keep our expenses to a minimum for alterations, which are going to be temporary. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 2 "Also keep in mind that as you continue up Grand River Avenue, the Burger King at the Airport entrance definitely does not conform to your plan for this area. In light of this, we do not think our request is unreasonable. "Thank you for your consideration." 7. RECESS - None. 8. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval, July 20, 1999, and August 3, 1999. July 20, 1999. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to approve the minutes of July 20, 1999. Mr. Smith noted a correction on P. 14, Mr. MillerSMITH brought a reference to Reason Magazine . . . . With that correction, on a Voice vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of July 20, 1999, as corrected, were August 3, 1999. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve the minutes of August 3, 1999 as presented. Voice vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of August 3, 1999 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman. a. PRD-1-99, Belle Chase Blvd., 150 Dwelling Units This is a request to develop 150 garden style apartments. The applicant proposes to build 12 three-story buildings and 6 townhouses, providing study-focused housing. A community building is also proposed. This request to develop 150 garden style apartments is in compliance with the density allowed in the "DM-1" Residential Zoning District and with the Southeast Master Plan that identifies this area for residential development at 15-20 units per acre. The plan has some questionable features contained within it that still require resolution which can occur through the site plan review process. These primary concerns include the location of recreational facilities, front yard parking, points of access and wetlands protection. Staff recommends conditional approval based on the following: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 3 1. Consideration should be given to one or two additional driveways on Beaujardin to reduce the circulation paths through the development. 2. The driveway on Belle Chase would require an opening in the median to be accessible for both northbound and southbound traffic. 3. Additional landscaping be added throughout the development. The Committee found, based on testimony and evidence, that the development density is compatible with the surrounding area as well as the zoning of the property, and it conforms with the Southeast Area Master Plan. Further, the Committee was concerned about the traffic pressures around the development and whether or not additional traffic control would be necessary at Belle Chase and Jolly. In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously, 3-0, to approve PRD-1-99, Belle Chase Blvd., 150 Dwelling Units with conditions: 1. Consideration should be given to one or two additional driveways on Beaujardin to reduce the circulation paths through the development. 2. The driveway on Belle Chase would require an opening in landscaping be added throughout the median to be accessible for both northbound and southbound traffic (a cost to the developer). 3. Additional landscaping be added throughout the development. 4. Appropriate public service and emergency access circulation be provided on site. 5. Grease and oil traps be provided to control pollution from storm water run off from the parking lots before running into the wetlands which are on the property. 6. The development adhere to requirements of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality standards for on-site regulated wetlands. 7. The development incorporate adequate open space for recreational facilities. 8. The development shall comply with all agency requirements during plan review. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, based on testimony, evidence and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve PRD-1-99, Belle Chase Blvd., 150 Dwelling Units. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 4 PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Frederick said that in Committee an additional condition was added as follows. 9. Appropriate vegetation be planted in the wetlands area to dispose of pollution runoff from the parking lots. As a friendly amendment, the condition was acceptable to both Mr. Miller and Mr. Frederick. Mr. Ruge was concerned that a student slum is going to be built here, and that open - space for recreation is inadequate. Mr. Ruff said, regarding average square footage, the Type D units are 1,042 sq ft; Type B units are 1,279 sq ft, and the Townhouse units are 1,328 sq ft. The plan shows a few opportunities for recreation, the clubhouse and pool associated with it; volleyball court, and basketball court. We discussed this in committee. The applicant was hopeful that they would be able to include additional recreational facilities in the open space on the southwest corner of the site; however, they were limited at this time until they get the DEQ permits as permitted activities. There are other issues, such as front yard parking, that will require site plan changes that will help them get more space around recreational facilities as well as move parking out of the front yard areas. They have an excess of spaces above and beyond the number of required parking spaces for the number of bedrooms per unit. Code requirements call for one parking space for each car associated with the functional family. The parking along Jolly is of primary concern for front yard parking. Mr. Miller said that some uplands areas in the designated wetlands in the southwest corner might provide some space for the volleyball court or other recreational possibilities. Mr. Frederick said in Committee that was the purpose for condition #7, . that in evaluating the site plan, the development incorporate adequate open space for recreational facilities. Frederick . . Aye Goolsby_ . • Ave Miller. Aye Nischan Ave Smith Ave Ruge •Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; PRD-1-99, Belle Chase Blvd., 150 Dwelling Units with nine conditions as above was APPROVED. b. Z-11-99, 3700 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "J" Parking District C. SLU-6-99, 3700 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, Display Vehicles for Sale in "J" Parking District Z-11-98 is a request by AIS Construction Equipment Corp. to rezone a portion of the properties located at 3700 and 3950 North Grand River Avenue, from "A" Residential to "J" Parking District. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 5 The applicant proposes to display construction equipment and heavy'vehicles for sale and/or lease, which is permitted in the "J" Parking District with a Special Land Use permit (see SLU-6-99). SLU-6-99 is a request by AIS Construction Equipment Corp. for a Special Land Use permit for property located at 3700 and 3950 North Grand River Avenue. The applicant proposes to display construction equipment and heavy vehicles for sale and/or lease. The subject property is presently pending rezoning from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District (see Z-11-99). This special land use may be permitted in the "J" Parking District if approved by the City Council. SLU-6-99 is not a matter of rezoning, but is related to Z-11-99. This request is for a rezoning from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District and a Special Land Use permit for display and sales of heavy equipment in the "J" Parking District. the subject property is presently zoned "A" Residential. The important issue in this case is the impact on urban design, established building setbacks, and buffering of existing residential properties south of North Grand River Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the proposed zone change. Staff also recommends approval of the proposed special land use with the following conditions. 1. On the portion of the site at 3950 and the western 50 ft of 3700 N. Grand River Avenue, a minimum of 50 ft should be maintained for buffering of the opposite residential neighborhood and to maintain the avenue character of this portion of N. Grand River Avenue. This will also allow the site to blend in better with the adjacent site at 3940 N. Grand River Avenue. 2. The existing landscaping on the eastern portion of 3700 N. Grand River Avenue should be maintained and used as a blue print for the design of the site at 3950 and the western 50 ft of 3700 N. Grand River Avenue. 3. Even though it is zoned "G-2" Wholesale District, the property at 3600 N. Grand River Avenue should be maintained in its current condition for display and sales of equipment for the requested SLU to remain in effect. 4. Plans detailing site lighting should be required for approval as part of the site plan necessary to approve any changes to the display and sales area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 6 The Committee, based on testimony and evidence, concurred with the staff report except Condition 3 of the Special Land Use recommendation. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously, 3-0, to approve Z-11-99, 3700 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "J" Parking District. Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-11-99, 3700 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "J" Parking District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Frederick confirmed that the letter received tonight from Mr. Vande Vusse . concerned SLU-6-99. Goolsby . Aye Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge Ave On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Z-11-99, 3700 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, "A" Residential and "F" Commercial Districts to "J" Parking District was APPROVED. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously, 3- 0, to approve SLU-6-99, 370.0 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, Display Vehicles for Sale in "J" Parking District with three conditions as follows: 1. On the portion of the site at 3950 and the western 50 ft of 3700 N. Grand River Avenue, a minimum of 50 ft should be maintained for buffering of the opposite residential neighborhood and to maintain the avenue character of this portion of N. Grand River Avenue. This will also allow the site to blend in better with the adjacent site at 3940 N. Grand River Avenue. 2. The existing landscaping on the eastern portion of 3700 N. Grand River Avenue should be maintained and used as a blue print for the design of the site at 3950 and the western 50 ft of 3700 N. Grand River Avenue. 3. Plans detailing site lighting should be required for approval as part of the site plan necessary to approve any changes to the display and sales area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 7 Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve SLU-6-99, 3700 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, Display Vehicles for Sale in "J" Parking District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Frederick asked how Mr. Vande Vusse's letter affects the motion, if at all. Mr. Ruff said primarily it affects condition #2. The design would not be exactly the same as what they have now on the eastern portion of the site in front of 3600 and 3700 N. Grand River Avenue. Right now they display a limited number of large equipment pieces in front of a pine buffer and berm. The proposal given to us tonight would relocate the fence and the equipment display area, which is smaller equipment, back 20 ft farther than it is now, and it would be landscaped in front of the equipment display area. There are two different things being done here. Mr. Vande Vusse discussed this with Mr. Sturdevant today. This appears to be a reasonable accommodation since they are not displaying equipment in front of the landscape for the main portion that needs to be relandscaped. We would agree with the changes requested by the applicant. This was not discussed at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting, because the applicant was not present. The original proposal was to landscape in front of the existing fence; now they want to move the fence and landscaping back another 20 ft to provide a greater buffer. Currently, the fence is 30 ft from the right-of-way. There is not sidewalk in front of this location. Previously, there had been sidewalk and parking in front of the building. The fence line is behind the parking, behind the front edge of the previous building. Condition #1 which has the 50 ft setback would not change. If they move the fence 20 ft back, it will then be 50 ft back from the right-of-way. They would not be able to put any vehicles or display items in there. Again, this is small equipment. They intend to put a sign out here, but not the small equipment. Mr. Miller said this eliminates Item 2 in the conditions; the friendly amendment was acceptable to both Mr. Miller and Mr. Goolsby. Miller. . . Ave Nischan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ave Smith. . . Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Goolsby . .Aye Ruge . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; SLU-6-99, 3700 and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue, Display Vehicles for Sale in "J" Parking District with two conditions as above was APPROVED. 4. Z-12-99, 1016 Shirley Street, "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District. This is a request to rezone property at 1016 Shirley from "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale. The applicant proposes to use the subject property for additional parking for any prospective adjacent building or for continued warehouse use. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 8 The applicant has indicated that the subject property at 1016 Shirley Street would be added to the 5341 S. Pennsylvania property for additional parking spaces (if the building were removed) or could be used for storage for any future business at that location. Staff was concerned, as was the Committee, that this would be an encroachment into a residential area and would further erode the residential zoning pattern established for this block. Staff recommends that the request to rezone 1016 Shirley Street be denied. The Committee found, based on testimony and evidence, that the neighborhood is small and could easily be adversely affected by development allowed in the "G-2" Wholesale District. Further, the structure could continue to be used as a nonconformity even in the "J" District as a storage building in conformance with the nonconformities chapter of the Zoning Code. Yet, conversely, the Committee did not expect that if the storage building were removed that someone would build a home on the property with a commercial building less than a foot from the property line. Therefore, the Committee recommended an alternative zoning that would limit the commercial uses of the property, provide a transitional zone between the commercial property and the neighborhood, and ensure that a reasonable landscape buffer would be provided if the property were further developed. The property is 56+ ft wide, and it takes 42 ft of width to develop a two- way drive aisle and one 90-degree parking bay. The remaining 14 ft could be left in the "A" District and be used for a landscape buffer. In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to deny Z-12-99, 1016 Shirley Street, "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District as requested and recommended that the west 42 ft be rezoned to "J" Parking, and that the remaining easternmost 14.11 ft remain "A" Residential District to ensure adequate buffering to the residential properties. It was further noted that neither the applicant nor his representative could attend the meeting, but that in previous conversation, if the "G-2" District was recommended for denial, he would appreciate it being held at the Planning Board until their September 8, 1999, meeting so that the applicant could respond to the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee agreed and noted that the report will be given at the August 17, 1998, meeting of the Planning Board and then recommended for tabling until the first September meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 9 Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to table Z-12-99, 1016 Shirley Street, "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District to September 8, 1999. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried, unanimous, Z-12-99, 1016 Shirley Street, "A" Residential to "G-2" Wholesale District was TABLED. Next meeting Wednesday, September 15, 1999, at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Nischan, Chair. a. MPA-1-98, Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to take from the table the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan for consideration and action by the Planning Board. On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. Discussion ensued, and final amendments concerning substantive issues were made chapter by chapter as follows. Mr. Miller thanked the committee for allowing him the time to review the document. Mr. Nischan suggested making all changes tonight and voting on final acceptance. Ms. Love said Mr. Rieske has prepared a memo with some suggested alternative wording on some of the paragraphs. Mr. Miller said a plan is not an opportunity to redesign things, but rather to look for opportunities to integrate the concepts of open living community, improved pedestrian environment and better traffic flow into future redesigns. A plan should not be a redesign. Some things get into design consideration when they really are implementation. After discussion, the following amendment were agreed upon. Amendment 1. Page ii, Paragraph 2, first sentence - Revise to say "The Plan provides an opportunity to redesign its streets, sidewalks, and open spsee ESTABLISH LANSING AS a more livable community, with an improved pedestrian environment and A better traffic flow." Mr. Goolsby said he too had serious reservations about traffic concerns in the Plan. Ms. Love said, along with the regional maps, more detailed maps may be added in the front to provide more information about the geography of the area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 10 Section 2 is the existing situation. It sets the stage. Mr. Goolsby said in 2-5, "However, the mall does not receive the kind of use necessary to continue its viability." This is a bald statement with no support. Mr. Smith said discussion did take place in steering committee meetings regarding this point, although it did not cite any specific data. That is the basis for the statement. Mr. Goolsby said no study has been done to provide back-up support. Ms. Love said if there is no empirical data, this is not the appropriate place for this statement. Mr. Frederick said the statement appears to be justification to do away with the mall. "I would not want to see that happen." Mr. Goolsby pointed out examples of mall activities such as the Friday noon concerts, the Gus Macker Tournament, craft festivals, etc. Amendment 2. Page 2-5, second paragraph, sentence beginning "However, the mall . . . ." Remove. Mr. Goolsby said we also need to talk about the next sentence. "Design improvements should be considered which improve circulation, and create a destination for the area." The intent here was to take out the mall, but these are office buildings. "I don't see them changing." The mall being there or not being there would not affect that. "It's not because I oppose opening up the mall." Ms. Love said you do want to create a destination for the area. Mr. Goolsby said the word "circulation" makes him think the intent is to open up the mall—"circulation" means pedestrian. Both of these sentences are in the wrong place. They are recommendations. "Design improvements should be considered which improve circulation, and create a destination for the area." Remove. Page 2-6, under "Capitol Complex." Mr. Goolsby asked about the last sentence. It is rhetorical. Mr. Frederick said it does have some relevance. Down the line, it does give the Board of Zoning Appeals justification to influence development. Having it there is valuable. Amendment 3. Mr. Goolsby said on 2-7, The Lansing Community College. The statement "However, as the campus was developed, a barrier was constructed along Washington Avenue between Saginaw and Shiawassee Streets which discourages the students from integrating into the downtown setting. This goes back to the Mall. "I don't believe a barrier was constructed to keep students from integrating into the downtown area. That was never the intent." Ms. Love suggested "However, as the campus was developed, a barrier was constructed at Saginaw Street which discourages north-south movement." Mr. Smith said students cross Saginaw PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 11 mid-block, barrier or no. If students are going to cross there, let's open it up visually and deal with it. Ms. Love said it should be in the recommendations. Mr. Frederick said, in the following sentence, "Improved connections are needed between the primary district and downtown." The sentence could be changed to "Improved connections are needed with downtown and NorthTown in both directions." Ms. Love suggested "between Old Town and the Commerce Center." Mr. Goolsby said change the language on 2.7 to state that "As the campus was developed, a barrier was constructed at Saginaw which discourages north-south movement. Improved connections are needed between Old Town and the Commerce Center." Mr. Frederick said services outside campus boundaries which appeal to students should be marketed, not to the students that are outside the campus boundaries. This is grammar. Mr. Rieske said the words "Commerce Center" are not introduced until Chapter 4. Leave it "downtown." Mr. Goolsby said 3 is market analysis, and is already obsolete. Amendment 4. Mr. Nischan said in Mr. Rieske's memo, Page 4-1, revise first paragraph to say that the detailed discussions of the 14 districts, the Washington Avenue Corridor, and the Riverfront are located in Section V. Ms. Love said we just made additional clarifying language of the first paragraph at the top of page 4 to indicate how this section and section 5 would be structured. Amendment 5. Then on 4.2, we also added in two sections, being the Riverfront and Washington Corridor, which are not geographic sections unto themselves (Mr. Rieske's memo). They are identifiable features in the area, so we have added those to the list of 14 geographic sections, so that people will be able to find them (map). Mr. Goolsby had a question in 4.5. How are we going to get parking behind the street level storefronts? Is this anticipating new construction? It's not going to work everywhere. How are we going to do "above?" Above the store? Above the building? Mr. Nischan said the concept is have it anywhere except in front of the store. Not on the street. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 12 Amendment 6. Page 4-7. Mr. Rieske's memo. Under "Future Land Use Map," the last sentence should read, "The following is a description of the land use categories found on the Future Land Use Map LOCATED ON PAGE 4-1 V' Page 4-7. Mr. Rieske's memo. Amendment 7. Mr. Rieske's memo. Future Land Use Map. Look at the colored copy in your plan. Ms. Love reviewed the changes. Sam is working on the final map. Mr. Smith observed that reliance on color on the maps is problematic because about 25 percent of the population has some degree of colorblindness. The aging process also lessens ability to discern small gradations in color. Mr. Smith suggested not including so much area on a single map, but rather enlarge the section, and then use pattern, rather than color. A few of the changes are the following. Ms. Love said we are still struggling with color. She suggested making all government offices gold; this will remove them from community facilities. Park lands will be discriminated from buildings. It won't be community facilities. There will be five more Ps, the South Capitol Parking Ramp; the South Grand Parking Ramp; the North Grand Parking Ramp; the North Capitol Parking Ramp, and the Ellis Parking Ramp at the southwest corner of Capitol and Allegan. Mr. Rieske's memo. Page 4-12. Under "Alternatives Considered," the last sentence should read "The Steering Committee's Final Land Use Concept is enclosed as Appendix#1 of the Plan." Under 4-15, Vehicular Traffic, Mr. Goolsby said his objections are known concerning two-way traffic; however, he stated them tonight to be on record. Ms. Love said, other than the three streets that are presently being converted, the remainder (north-south) streets will be the subject of a very extensive study. Mr. Nischan said circulation will also include pedestrian and bicycle and other nonmotorized circulation in addition to automobile circulation. Mr. Miller said his opinion of the two-way street conversion is that it will impede traffic, but he will be interested in looking at results from traffic engineers in terms of impacts on traffic, structures and facilities. Amendment 8. Mr. Goolsby mentioned 4-19. Ms. Love suggested an under-the-roadway improvement before we list the individual ones. "Several types of changes in the roadway are suggested to calm vehicular traffic and to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation. These suggestions, pending more specific study and economic feasibility, would include . . . ." This is part of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 13 same study. We were talking about these improvements in the pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation as well. Mr. Goolsby said he had a problem with about four things that should not be initiated by the Planning Board, but rather by the traffic engineers. Based on this language change, he would forego four concerns he had. Ms. Love said, under Roadway Improvements on 4-19, the first paragraph would be changed. Mr. Goolsby said the other things were only suggestions, as long as we are not suggesting that they are not what we are going to do. 4-20. Mr. Goolsby said, about changing Grand Avenue to two-way, buses will have improved access. Mr. Rieske will check with Mark Fedorowicz. 4-21. Mr. Rieske's memo, Page 1. Mr. Nischan cited three related issues concerning Washington Avenue: (1) circulation of people, vehicles and bicycles; (2) linkage and the attempt to connect Old Town from a circulation, not land use, viewpoint with Capitol Hill Station and 1-496, and (3) the visual design consideration of opening the mall and removing visual and psychological barriers. Mr. Goolsby said if Grand Avenue is made a two-way street and there is linkage to Old Town, his concern is opening up the LCC campus. He would not recommend that unless LCC trustees want that. If it is opened up and there is traffic, a trolley or other motor vehicles, if there is a small move, it is only the first of many. A new trend on campuses is to limit access for many reasons--to prevent traffic congestion, and to promote student safety. Mr. Goolsby is very concerned about opening up Washington through the LCC campus. Mr. Frederick asked if it is possible for the trolley to run between North Town and downtown without having to go through the campus. Mr. Ruge said there used to be a direct connection from Old Town through Washington to River Point Neighborhood. We have talked about designing the trolley route so there are large areas where students can congregate. It doesn't have to be a straight link; it can be curved. Mr. Miller said this was the first point at which he could not vote for the plan. In terms of connectivity, it is desirable to have linkages to Old Town. The berm is an extreme barrier. The central part is the heart and soul of the campus; there is nothing else except buildings and the mall area. If you brought full vehicular traffic through there, you would tear the heart out of it and it would impede movement and be detrimental to the campus. "I would be open to a study to look to open up that north end to encourage pedestrian traffic, to make it seem not like a barrier." The campus is a huge amenity to our community. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 14 Mr. Smith said it is important to consider the psychological impact, the truncating effect. Students do flow in to the campus from the north end. Often they park north of Saginaw. It's important that we look at the safety issues there. Historically, Washington was a spine, it did connect Old Town. We have an allegiance to L.C.C., but we also have an allegiance to the people in Old Town. Are they separate, or are they connected? We need to state that in ways that are apparent visually. Now, it's isolated. We have to balance safety issues with L.C.C., and we would disturb the status quo to some extent, but we have to consider the larger city and Old Town in its connection to the rest of the city. Mr. Goolsby said even if we want to open it up, it may not happen. L.C.C. has much autonomy under the Community College Act. First, we would have to determine if a trolley would work between these two points. "I am not convinced that it would." Tourists might use it. Many times, the trolley provided for state employees is empty in the mornings and evenings. It is important to establish that a trolley would be used by the residents. Mr. Smith said the trolley could be considered as one issue, and opening the campus as another issue. The north end needs to be opened. Ms. Love said, regarding the trolley issue in Mr. Rieske's memo, it does not address all the issues. Changing Paragraph 2, under linkage, the study to open Washington Avenue, you could say to pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit traffic. The next paragraph is where things get more twined than they should be. It talks about the physical barrier and then leaps into transit. If we are trying to pull these apart and walk through step-by-step, the first thing to say may be that there should be a connection, and Washington Avenue has always been that connection, and currently there has been a physical barrier at the north end of the campus. Opening it to some type of circulation has both a physical and psychologically positive impact on including L.C.C. as a part of the whole area, and not mention transit service through the campus. Members agreed in general. It may encourage students to explore Central Lansing. It may encourage people to utilize Old Town and to use the facilities of L.C.C., coming from both directions, the south as well as the north. Mr. Goolsby said he did not know how many students go downtown every day, but there are many office workers from downtown who go to L.C.C. every day and use their facilities. Ms. Love said the trolley would enable people to make it there faster. Mr. Goolsby said this statement implies students do not go downtown to shop. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 15 We have never conducted a study to determine how students do use the downtown. Ms. Love said studies done by downtown merchants looking at zip codes to establish a database for downtown indicate that the highest numbers are office workers. ". . . I think L.C.C. will back this up- L.C.C. students come, have a class, and then they leave. Because they are parked close, they don't have any interactions with the downtown area." At the same time that they park close, they also complain about the price of the parking. The thought was that we could provide off-site locations that would be inexpensive to park at, and they could take the free shuttle if they parked by the Capitol Hill Station down south. This would relieve pressure on parking at the north end, provide inexpensive parking, and give them interface as they move through downtown. Mr. Goolsby said he thinks a large percentage of L.C.C. students do attend classes, they have jobs, and then they leave. It's the nature of their life style. They park close because they need to leave quickly. He is not sure encouraging them to park down by Capitol Hill Station is going to work, because they need to leave right after class. We need input from L.C.C. to understand the student body. Mr. Nischan said to get something to eat at places other than Gibson's, it is easier for students to get in the car and go out. The culture that has been developed is come in, go to class, and get out. Mr. Frederick said he was thinking of the trolley in terms of downtown residents living on Washington Avenue second floors and connecting Capitol Hill Station to Old Town, and further to the Airport. Give people a way to live downtown and provide transportation to get places—to the transportation center, airport—make it easy for them to get around. Now, it's not easy. Mr. Nischan said, providing background about the trolley, that L.C.C. was almost an afterthought. It was there because the campus was right in the middle. The first thought was for circulation of downtown workers and potential downtown residents. Nothing will work without circulation. The trolley is free to the riders. It also circulates people east-west, from the Capitol to the Entertainment area and to the commercial-dining area. Within that whole scheme, L.C.C. was a minor population. Mr. Frederick said the trolley did not need to go through the L.C.C. campus to accomplish the goal of circulation. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 16 Ms. Love suggested adopting the first paragraph as Amendment #9 on Mr. Rieske's summary to substitute for paragraph 2, and that Paragraph 3, as Mr. Nischan said, the students are an element, but not the only element, nor are they even the primary element of the need for the trolley. It has many other implications for the tourist trade and for the resident trade. If we leave the paragraph in, I recommend that it would say "Currently, the Lansing Community College has a physical barrier at the north end of campus, and that opening that north end of campus would establish a psychological and physical connection between Old Town and downtown." Then eliminate the rest of that paragraph, because we talk again about options later in the list of studies that we've got about where that trolley should go. Then-we don't have to put it in this paragraph. would change that to "Establish the fact that we feel there should be a connection." Then, the next paragraph, I think there is nothing in there that says it should go through the middle of campus, that whole next paragraph. It simply says that we need to have improved public transit; it should be available at no cost to riders; it should provide transportation on a regular route, it doesn't say where. It could be changed. We may have to take off. It sounds like we are putting it through the middle of campus. Mr. Goolsby said "Provide access to all activity centers." Because if you pick it up on Grand, if that goes two-way, or up Capitol Avenue, it could serve L.C.C. Mr. Ruge said that could be needed, because it is not just special events through campus, but perhaps on the mall, if a car show was going on. It does not apply just to L.C.C. You could close the mall. Mr. Smith said in the section on the rubber-tired trolley, if you take the subhead for rubber-tired trolley and make it the same size as for Washington Avenue as Linkage and East-West Linkage, you are saying a rubber-tired trolley system and making it something of an independent consideration. Change the sentence to read a rubber-tired trolley system is recommended for improving the connection between Old Town and Central Downtown and River Point, so that the message is clear that we are not insisting that the rubber-tired trolley go through L.C.C., but we are saying the rubber-tired trolley is a very important system for transit and connection between Old Town and downtown. Ms. Love said we can leave it exactly the way it is, basically, separate but co-equal with Washington Avenue as Linkage, and East-West Linkage. Ms. Love said #9 is the one from the memo that deals with the second paragraph. Then we have changed the third paragraph; it became #10. No. 11 was the rubber-tired trolley that we made a separate recommendation. Mr. Goolsby said you could actually add that change to the third paragraph as a second paragraph, and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 17 make it #9, part of#9, since it is all on the same section. Ms. Love said that makes the rubber-tired trolley #10. Twenty-two, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 is the existing parking; 29 and 30 are not numbered right. We should be up to 4-29 for Community Design Recommendations. 4-30, 4-31. 4-32. Mr. Goolsby said, regarding 4-31 under historic buildings, I don't know if we are talking only about those buildings that have been identified as historic, or if this is a back-door way of getting a historic district. The last paragraph talking about building facades should respect the historic character of the buildings. I don't know that we can necessarily impose that unless we adopt some ordinance change." Ms. Love said that is considered later on. There is Design Guidelines. All of these in that paragraph say "should," not "must." Mr. Goolsby said these should be noted, for example, "See proposed ordinance amendment." Ms. Love said the ordinance has not as yet been amended, it is only a suggested implementation strategy. It does not relate just to historic buildings, because historic buildings have their own ordinance, Section 1220. It talks about parking, aesthetics, materials, and landscaping, the four major elements of the design criteria. Regarding 4-31, Mr. Goolsby said regarding signs and building facades in the Commerce Center and Old Town Districts should be restored to the original historic character. We may not like them. The building facade makes sense, but the signs—are we talking about outdoor signs? Ms. Love said maybe we should say within the limits of existing sign codes. Mr. Ruge said the goal was to get some uniformity among signs. Mr. Goolsby said there was no uniformity in the old days. Mr. Ruge said we don't want what they had in the old days, because it was a hodgepodge. Mr. Smith said another aspect to be considered is type faces appropriate to the time. Ms. Love said we may want to mention possible design guidelines. Then we would get into type faces. "Restore to its original character" is not a good descriptor, rather, say developing some uniformity and maybe going with canvas awnings with the name along the front of the awning, or with barber poles, or with Morgan Jewelers' big clock. Mr. Smith said "using historically appropriate letter forms and typography, or type faces." Mr. Ruge said do we want to say historically appropriate, or that it fits some thematic agenda. "I don't know that we need 'historically appropriate."' Mr. Frederick said the signs should reflect historical character. Ms. Love said instead of"restored", "reflect" is a much better word. Mr. Rieske said it says that a couple of sentences above. Maybe this last sentence could be dropped. The paragraph would then say "Store fronts should be artfully arranged to advertise merchandise without the use of signs." That would be the end of the paragraph. Mr. Smith said "letter forms and type PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 18 faces" because those signs were lettered by hand. They were not done off a machine. Part of the problem with keeping historic character to the type is that you have to be sensitive to the methods available. Ms. Love suggested in the second sentence "Sign materials, letter forms and type face should complement the architecture of the building, especially in areas with historic architecture." Then you could finish the next sentence, and the next sentence. "Window signs should be eliminated. . . in and out should be encouraged. . . . without use of signs." I would leave it right there. We know we have to do it within the limits of the sign code. If no one objects, we can drop the last sentence. Number 4- 32 became Amendment 11. Nothing else on that page. Amendment 9. As above. Amendment 10. As above. Amendment 11. As above. Page 4-33. No changes. Amendment 12. Page 4-34. Page 2 of Mr. Rieske's memo, middle of page 2. 4-37 should be 4.35. "Amend the Zoning Ordinance," "Zoning Regulation Amendments," "Rezoning," are all things that are covered in the implementation strategies. These are things we would do using the zoning code itself as a tool to implement the plan, not an end in itself. Consequently, we would recommend as a staff to remove those three sections because they are covered in Section 6. Mr. Rieske said we should move "Enhance the Housing Rehabilitation Strategy." If it is not in Section 6, it should be. Amendment 13. Redevelopment Opportunities. Suggested changes on Page 4-36 and are covered as the next two elements on Mr. Rieske's memo, Page 2. Mr. Miller said these were areas he was concerned about, 4-36, Riverfront City Parking Lot Site, and P. 4-36, South Grand Parking Structure. We need to encourage alternate ways for people to get downtown, but we need to provide parking. Both of these sites are ideal sites. You would need to provide parking for the facilities there, but also alternatives for the parking that would be removed. This has to be identified. We can't take away two key parking areas downtown without considering replacing them somehow. This says the structures built there should provide parking for themselves, but in addition to that, we need to replace the parking on the structure sites. A bigger concern, in terms of a philosophy: state employees, as long as the state keeps building down here, even if parking is not provided, they will find a way to get to work. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 19 Regarding businesses, it's an expectation that most businesses want to park within a reasonable distance of their building, and have most of their employees also park nearby. It doesn't mean we can't work away from that, in terms of rapid transit, bus, shuttle, but in relation to these facilities, I would suggest we need to be able to identify alternatives if we are going to take that parking away. They are potentially very nice development spots. Mr. Rieske said, under the Riverfront City Parking Lot Site, he tried to build in Mr. Miller's concern about the future parking demands. Ms. Love suggested omitting ITS, to read IN THE COURSE OF : DEVELOPMENT. ANY FUTURE . . . . Mr. Ruge suggested deleting everything after DEMANDS. Agreed. Amendment 14. Ms. Love said we can't say IN THE SHORT TERM. Take out the sentence IN THE SHORT TERM, THIS SITE WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC PARKING. Leave in LONG TERM. Amendment 15. Old Town, Page 3. Move truck routes to Larch Street and to other thoroughfares that now we can get trucks to destinations without going down Grand River through the middle of Old Town. Make it: Move off Business Route 96. It is not cut- through so much as it is to reorient the route. Lansing Community College. Mr. Goolsby said on Page 1, third from last sentence should come out. Both sentences should come out. They are dealt with in the previous discussion. Ms. Love said this is Amendment 16. Amendment 17. Commerce Center. If we said there was Old Town, Washington Square and the Entertainment District, those things would be separated at the River. The Committee chose to give it one name, eliminate retail and entertainment and just say, this is the Commerce Center of the whole City. Mr. Goolsby said on Page 5 of the Commerce Center, under Washington Square, there is a statement about special events being held in this area, but often they do not provide spill-over patronage to nearby retail usage. Mr. Goolsby's problem with this is Kositcheks is nearby, but there are other nearby businesses. Maybe they are not buying suits, but they may be going to Dimitri's for a hot dog. Take that sentence out. The next paragraph should come out because it relates back to the study. Mr. Smith said the end sentence should be reworded so it is positive, such as, special events should be encouraged because they provide spill-over patronage to nearby retail businesses. Mr. Frederick said Kositcheks should not argue that people at downtown events doesn't do them any good. He attended a noontime event and later bought a Kositchek's suit. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 20 Mr. Rieske said the paragraph following, that says "this section of Washington should be. . . . That was the Ken Stockwell amendment. Amendment 17 is Page 5 of Commerce Center, to take the last sentence of the first paragraph and the second paragraph out, under "Washington Square" part. We have agreed to language to study taking out the mall. Mr. Rieske said we are also removing transit also from the mall south of Shiawassee, by removing that paragraph. Mr. Nischan mentioned the use of the word transit, on 4-21, which is a planner's term, "which to me means everything from 16- wheelers to narrow jet airplanes, coal-fired trains, buses, CATA dieses buses, automobiles, cable cars. If it means trolley, can we just say trolley instead of transit?" Trolley is there, trolley is gone. We are taking out the special events in the next paragraph. That is all of Amendment 17. Amendment 18. Park Place. This is a difficult place to deal with because Park Place is in an unusual situation, sandwiched between lots of major physical barriers. Government. Fill in the number: It is approximately 15,000 people, if you include all the state legislators and their staffs. Under Cherry Hill. Leave first sentence in, under circulation. Washington Corridor, Page 3 of the unnumbered pages. Page 2 is Land Use and Urban Design. Page 3 has circulation. Last paragraph is talking about the Mall being opened through the first full paragraph on the next page. All that is going to be determined by the study as to whether it happens. Ms. Love said "We are going to eliminate the last paragraph on 3, and the first whole paragraph on 4. What about Michigan Avenue, the Trolley system." At the bottom of P. 2, "in addition to vehicular circulation, which makes the entire corridor accessible and easy to transverse." Amendment 18 is to take out the bottom of 3, and all of 4 except parking. Then we have to mention the corridor study. Mr. Frederick asked do you want to change man-made in the fourth paragraph? Washington Corridor will have a map. Amendment 19. We will talk about the Downtown overall circulation study, the street study. We won't automatically recommend pedestrian bridges. It also follows under wayfinding studies. It won't be a specific recommendation. Until you do a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 21 study, it doesn't do any good to recommend a specific location and structure. Mr. Miller said it was important to recognize here that the river is a great asset; it is also a flood plain. In terms of design, it should be recognized. There are floodplain hazards as well as benefits for design and construction. This is the end of Section 5. Mr. Goolsby said under circulation, 5-25 and 5-53 are things we already took care of. Six is a new section, drafted August 17. Ms. Love said regarding #1, Mr. Frederick pointed out in the second paragraph meet the test of " . . . "can the THIS really be done." Next one: McKenna. I don't know that we have a single agency that we have identified for doing general recommendations. The PSD is not comfortable with doing this. The Planning Board would not be trusting someone else with zoning. It would make sense to say agency or agencies outside of the etc. etc. etc. Responsibilities could be identified among themselves. Ms. Love said on Page 6-2, one of the most important sentences is the one concerning an interactive feedback and assessment system will be developed. The sentence is not administrative, but it is really important. Amendment 20. On P. 6-4, Last paragraph in the section, Other public/public partnership efforts. The sentence Making the campus more accessible--this sentence should come out. You might want to refer to the study at this point. Mr. Nischan said we need to stress the public/public connection. Mr. Goolsby agreed. Mr. Nischan said take out all instances of transit and make it trolley. Ms. Love said take word transit and say trolley. Put in THIS WILL MAKE nearby commercial and service establishments more accessible to LCC students and faculty and could decrease the demand for parking. Code Enforcement Cornerstone Project. It does not go under Cornerstone. There needs to be another heading, at the bottom of the page, before that last paragraph, put the label before that last paragraph. Supporting Projects? Then go through the list, top of 6-5. No. 1 is not a project. Ms. Love recommended striking out No. 1 and starting the list with PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 22 No. 2, resource inventory, floodplain, soil type, condition, etc. We will need to have these analyzed. They will be useful in establishing future patterns of development. The rest of the list will continue. No. 6 is now No. 5. Scofield, in new No. 5 is Scofield, no "h". Ms. Love said Amendment 21 is all of Section 6. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, to adopt the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan with the 21 amendments as discussed. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Goolsby said "I am gong to vote for the plan. I agree with the concept; I agree with the trolley, even though I have reservations about traffic patterns. Overall, it is.an excellent plan." Mr. Miller said he was awed by the efforts of the Urban Development Committee. He acknowledged the many hours the Committee spent. Mr. Ruge commented that what we did tonight made the Plan stronger. Frederick . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby . Ave Miller. . . Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . .Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; unanimous, carried, the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan was APPROVED. Ms. Love will have copies bound, for the Ingham County Clerk, the City Council, and four for the local libraries. For the Planning Board, the document will be three-whole punched and put in notebooks. It will be a more accessible document. It will also go out on the Internet. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby to officially commend the staff, Bill Rieske as staff support, Laura Peters for formatting the document, and Sam Quon for production of all the maps. On a voice vote, there were Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; motion carried unanimously. Next meeting Tuesday, September 20, 1999, at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 4. Executive Committee - Has not met. ne i i PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 PAGE 23 C. Report from the Planning Manager- None. D. Pending Items: Future action required. 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997) b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998) C. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District (Tabled April 15, 1998) d. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F"Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) f. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-19-98, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station#1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved b. Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW(Tabled September 8, 1998) C. Act-24-98, Everett Lane at Paris St., Vacate ROW(Tabled February 16, 1999) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - Mr. Nischan said the Urban Development Committee is the best committee he has ever had; "I am thankful to work with folks of the caliber of yourselves." 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board =081799 aA51 �� - �t - -�1�. P. f +�•' � i _ • �. .. _._ y. PRD-1-99 Belle Chase Blvd., 150 Dwelling Units GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: SUH Michigan State LLC 6363 Woodway, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77057 STATUS OF APPLICANT: option to buy REQUESTED ACTION: Planned Residential Development EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "DM-1" Residential PROPOSED ZONING: no change in zoning PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 1,213' (along Jolly Rd.) X 489.75' (594,06 sq. ft. or 13.6 acres); rectangular SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Multi-Family Residential S: Commercial E: Multi-Family Residential W: Multi-Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: Community Unit Plan (C.U.P.) S: (out of City) E: "DM-1" Residential W: Community Unit Plan (C.U.P.) MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Southeast Area Plan designates properties in this area for multi-family residential development CASE HISTORY: Subject site was rezoned from Community Unit Plan (C.U.P.) to the "DM-1" Residential District in 1981 (CC # 1981). The development of apartments on this property had been started in the past, but not continued. The old foundations will be removed. Page 2 PRD-1-99 SPECIFIC INFORMATION Developer's Proposal: This is a request to develop 150 garden style apartments. The applicant proposes to build twelve three story buildings and 6 townhouses providing study focused housing. A community building is also proposed. AGENCY RESPONSES Ameritech: (No response received.) Assessor: Even though this property belongs to a church, it is not exempt because it is not being used for church purposes. Therefore that is why there is a property tax assessment on it. Bd. of Water & Light: Electric: No objections to planned residential development. Contact Persons: Bob Strobel 371-6082 Water: No objection to issuance of building permit. Water Customer Projects must see site utilities plan with flow requirements to confirm service availability. Owner or developer to contact City Fire Marshall for private fire hydrant requirements. Contact Person: Terry Robison 371-6494 Bldg. Safety: We request that the developer contact the Building Safety Office pertaining to procedural requirements concerning the City's site plan review, and building permit issuance policies and procedures. Consumers Energy: (No response received.) City Attorney: (No response received.) Development: No comment. Fire Marshal: (No response received.) Lansing Neigh. Council: (No response received.) Page 3 PRD-1-99 Media One: (No response received.) Parks & Rec: (No response received.) Police Dept: (No response received.) Public Service Dept.: The Public Service Department has no objection to the proposed PRD at this time. The Public Service Department reserves the right to provide additional comments as part of the site plan review process. Traffic Engineer: The Transportation and Parking Office has reviewed the subject request and has the following comments. 1. The proposed plan will generate 900-1000 trips per day based on trip generation estimates. It appears that the project will be served by only two driveways, one on Beaujardin and one on Belle Chase. 2. Consideration should be given to one or two additional driveways on Beaujardin to reduce the circulation paths through the development. 3. The driveway on Belle Chase would require an opening in the median to be accessible for both northbound and southbound traffic. 4. The Transportation and Parking Office reserves the opportunity to comment further during the site plan review process on any parking lot development. 5. It appears that this request can be approved with the proper planning, design considerations and conditions. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Delhi Township: Proposed land use on Delhi's side of Jolly Road is Office/Commercial. Zoning is C-2 General Business. Currently developing office buildings on the site. Page 4 PRD-1-99 ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding development which includes multi-family residential to the north, west and east and office/commercial development to the south in Delhi Township. The 150 units on 13.6 acres is 11.02 units per acre, which is consistent with the surrounding area. COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN The Southeast Area Plan designates properties in this area for multi-family residential development up to 15-20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development is incompliance with this designation since the density proposed is 11.02 units per acre. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The Traffic Engineer has indicated that the proposed plan will generate around 900- 1000 trips per day based on trip generation estimates. One or two additional driveways onto Beaujardin, however, would help to reduce the circulation paths through the development. Also, the driveway on Belle Chase would require an opening in the median to be accessible for both northbound and southbound traffic. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The southwest corner of the property is identified as a wetland area and will serve as a detention area. The site plan shows trees along the perimeter of the property with a few trees internal to the development. A community building located at the entry from Belle Chase Blvd. will add to the amenities and attactiveness of this proposed development. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT This 13.6 acre parcel of land is one of the few remaining vacant parcels in the southeast area of Lansing. It will not negatively impact any patterns of development in this general area. SUMMARY This request to develop 150 garden style apartments is in compliance with the density allowed in the "DM-1" Residential Zoning District and with the Southeast Master Plan that identifies this area for residential development at 15-20 units per acre. Page 5 PRD-1-99 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends conditional approval based on the following: 1. Consideration should be given to one or two additional driveways on Beaujardin to reduce the circulation paths through the development. 2. The driveway on Belle Chase would require an opening in the median to be accessible for both northbound and southbound traffic. 3. Additional landscaping be added throughout the development. I r�� Y Rl6 � M(LLIRD � NDY. R Y a 1 {• �,- IYE .� L RKl4RD J.."METRDWPAJF K "L' •{ •. I I VARY K Li �'El A y _EL A'AY rm- g ROSEDALERDFAIM `J.. Y ALYIA K _ D IY M. TAFFORD AVE El d AV0SON y WAS ` L� O ~ CdKSON Sf._ COLI Syf000 CHERRY 01 _STABLER._Ofi rNmCTpoGARDEATA AVE a JOL YCEDAA ,� A D JlCURRY}(�,y BARRENOR a ` d30 a ^.4 A to Li� CEDAR-► � 'IR` ^ g '� EI ; 1••L-1 WT k R E EL fM mAYE t i TERTRO =O �JOM/A JT BATrENJL CT LI g i LOUp a s n G.S W Fl D _ o N RAY D4P! FIELD C m TE m LS ��YE IY J• i g ,.B � ERiJ ~ L y } lMn+ OROIARD iT C '• y ' -. Di y0y. m >.� RA'NWOpp ST Y)' HIIIGER ]INR dS AY AY nS W of F DEORGIA R I ! DIE Y r�6 $ A N 1F jj� 333Q L.A YER[AXT[E $ -1 ALMfA a YEN N!E YAN A D Sj WAY F ELLAS � T IVNA yQQy7� ST AVE ' $� R uYDRE OR P �E TRANTERST^ ,3 gyVnc+S NID E VE BEEaFE LSS f 1 A NAA NG = GG O g YA ACCOHOOM� DRY �.�_/y 4 RNER WAY d=O31NV� ;'• ) ' A ydd3�3 CHER CT y .�.�A'�`�'.!�•9�Ore n SEX L Fi DH 1A JET pR —ALIT ZRENR OYD lT $ a. AYE A Creek l� lHPPC 2 n ~ AURELILLS RD _ g A(MELILIS •?�...f „1�-r' (� to KA re �� m 1 Y .•^-F `T (D T s a �a ` - (� ;, cECKoar € Yr;• j f r N BE g yN� N x N CLLLNAN r y2 pp .I tr ''t .lye...S•..'f-.�...,I . AVROPA p� tltltl g $ Y.MErpR .t1''t•: �r.ffpfs 'Ali \ J OR t�2 R !TONE(ECHOR -• .�,r:ir'�;�'�.C.j.. ., t;,,�`�r' '"cto CD 'r7 W UVERNAY WMIEOAK OR $ AW BELLE NASlE E N Cw rRUYAN 5}t $ mqY 9'Y tla3 d g� � RED OAKOR �..0 KEIMDR W F+RE TREE RD � 2 Y LH � �. OR M HOAX_r 2 R $ NNE TREE RD K hJ DOD ki N IVr_... ,—_— AR- El.RIDGE ^ Cy IFALL(/,rh '� ' C CE UN Jr. DEL I RN. " BEY tv 1 I WALE Iq BEEIr RIDGE RD IYYW'000 COIL RD., ur OR DIAL •AA SHADOW (D DAADVATE Af A \jV/l� 51 NUIR�YN ' WAY WA 71 EGE AD 1 ���lll C I o � N FARY roJgCKSON f•rpF- m - BEAUEONT RD [ £P ' •�C. ! ,. vj' . .ir:a,i ':� .::.;e.La e �.. 'i✓.'•.•,'„•_ v+. :,! r - .!'��,1Y.• + j f di ..� " •t '� rh "T •!• pl' K` �+F7 � l t , 9 V aS�.l ij'.r:.�• y •^` •.l. , �. i+ S,'�•� '• I i v �t' �j •'Y.� '�'-- T ,'�i'<+ v �' 'S\.��1•�r`*�r� *�• •y �.i.. •�t��j�,. +Qp}a I'}�:"f t � �. -r ♦ +, "�.•.' i+� 1, ••ir,R . :t * t "1 ..s %♦ r�r fiti21`\ b �4 ;' ' ' ' r T �� ',••' '♦ r � ! +! � '. ? t t-• `_ ri+ti a; RriR� , `I f r� . •4 K �y. . �}-. -y �:YY•'iw 7ri s� r•vl+t. t /+T'tit� • .�•' '• � r' •~ '�, 1 . t. \ .",1' S , f.14k n;y''`T i�.;. .� 1y�.'' v �= 1 ,� rr=r Iry �l��✓�� -t..� :i'':•.: " • '. .r :r:..•, - ; is .. ":. • '�//I' S� a.r :rd '��j f • � 1 v / :a•- ♦ `� '�'YT yslA�r�ayC}.'� i4e•'♦ ".°lii�,s.1� r• �;u ra�:s7L� '' ��`l d t. t , iYvA17•tt+�'.rjt+�;,���Q����,•.''_#5.�t.�' •�I��•':E?'`^•s•-�1 �•�r•!.'�4,�•��'���.�{r� „�4•' ��y,.K,� ! .J��, ;An '?.a1tVldtia:?r;_• y r3 _s ►�. 9.'itvat '�e �I 1•' .i: i ��.%.•! Pu. `'' ~: r r.'� '• +/: 3 + ''r::%-4 ✓ '=r,•L�r-�. y..l._.,,' •, • t✓:♦ 1'1+ .� [sT' !!'M' �� .'L • ! T '- CpAWA " .• +, �. ', ilk +� �i ) .t 1 '• ' r `�• � � r' + •.,;•F ! ,:��'t T�T �•. r Y ;a Cy v1. t�s.s�`,.! t j �i�r 1 .• t i I Y. as•..• w 4 'M .�l,yyN .,a!K-•A:•�y v i �'`` � r . 1 r� "•t .. ! �Yr, Vr .. ` r'i�`.q,= '= .!l `�" ! •�Yr.� .' i fir: _,�.. `�i�'�w ��r .tVjji°':r 4•,, ; Y: . + .� - ,ti • r'r- 'i�1 'Y � t`�♦ 4.'2�- - tis �r '/ .. r .t1 ��.�.+� � 5.5,' '�� S ` . 14 lei LF 5 ♦ T M �.i < I s ti 'E •.. 7 . r+ k T ` �y.,y ����• •.may i.. y'.�,v _ .�- , ; 9�. •Z ,'�, ez.:M�kt. .,t ; a I is ' `r I ry $++t �l,i.t + •♦. ?y Tl:�t [ •I ` • -/ . , R r I t rt� ak,.Y ,52, :V i; ':• y j r/�:♦ ''.. � �`� .v1'i.t n 'Js, �.ti�1f! s�,,r� • 4`Zr�y K."�mv�trTA`e i:�� �$-y,. b' ) 1 - ■a �a•r''f•tn � t T'T: !1`"�3}� "\ •. I t '+� Y ..i lSyr-�f'.•� �c ..r,. "6`• : r 'p� sQ \r l 7. i° ! •rt 1 �j � .� � 1•.� R Y G 'yii�.g�u.+��� • s y��g,,?� v,�(�`r. E{ >L t. �• i a u •9� I 1 .r: !: r��jli;,'`} F! ij� } Y ) +e+y1317G y 1+ V'� P;t;aF !.n1�� yl C�c=a+�✓ 4i3'{�+yt,' �'ti: k.e ':t: •�..t � '� .. \` 1 �.�, �'�►t a¢1R". )•�:;' � ♦fr •�a ff. 4W 4• � I � •\ .T~• ® !1 l ; 3�`�� ��� °• �Lf'�y G�,� �' �✓'sue .._,d'f• � J LAPA✓:: '�: "`G v+.,rjy.n�i.�..,, ^ �M�•�^ I in,`.a`}�c�a� n1 /� Jt, 1,•.E L r.,y�;y`'gfr� • I.�i �•...+�....,:Y 1. ' .• _L:�..—�_ v� - r• '�ir.�r.:-.`F.s-.'wi�. 4" �.+:�::ulCrs#..SA..L �' 1 `=' _._mv_ ...., '••.�v..r•..;;.-*..v�r,:. "•n•fi_r�._.�`- ::HAS'_z,'�,,,oa,p,,.�,,•,•�_ '�'i:N..:.� ow _ _ .0•NL.t3r.. t :f:�i�.i:.i� '.•..l��.a7...i•:.e_.:....",r..� •:& .•,� y .l5:� i'`�1 -M�r -'s.. f' gyp' wY'< "Ri..:•'S;Y" 4 .• y,... aV r:•r'� .+r• , '• y�' '':ryi•j f�r itE�)n ,�,»+: y�.` y R • 'h r .ri "�._. •r< f��i ;•.,, ,;+v.'a ,�ar• .., � t. � r.f':T4 •''y'�C� �4•> :t ,f,/ '�. !✓ f!! Y,•�'N'y e'! '.`!'s' ) •'Ytr�a �':Isy ,�.'a !! f� 'Y,�::. K< �• `•yarl"I�,L. '`#T.i � r'ty�V .. y'�'-� } r \ .1 �• ,.�;,A.�-�f'1,�� ��1 ����� d ,1 ° rr tv. ,t):•. �. r ..,I.f)•�7�•'�{� ` r .4 ! �F y��' ..�✓� � A 4f ���r Nix :.: � . Y ••! 4, i•�- 4.1..�.,ir �r r•° ': 'J�'r•1 ,'� Jjl a� may• yr- a , • v I tii .gin � t � y�'ak +��.' t'r, ',' .•7 •• +�, 7.\..•! ;.�. :.� t. ray( l--,,a '�;l.; ✓ PRD-1-99 NORTH Belle Chase Blvd. 150 garden style units r rRAppFR 3 I •t TAAPPE XCOVEO Z 'I '^•� II 0 'yam L L T 5 4 6 a ,... T COVE NO.z O01 LOT 4 i BEAUJAROIN NO I i LOT 2 �• �'` 5' �- ,,• wa ESM'T � BEAUJARDIN DR SEAUJARDIN .3 BEAUJAROIN NO 5 LOT 5 G m G;U�7 : o 001 ,,+ � M �,. LLJ o°off w W W J N J W LAN _�—CRY LIMITS _ E _ — JOLLY PRD-1-99 NORTH Belle Chase Blvd. (between Jolly & Beaujardin) SITE PLAN ar- ------ --------- ------ - - ----- --------- ----- --- ----------------------- ------ - - p PD 0*0 I a•• r � � oo• o00 ooa two s � m •oo 000 ' o00 00o Q m o00 00o m @ t aL . . —_ - 11 >�w tl ys "` EI BUILDING LEGEND BUILDING SETBACK LEGEND twart rc a vae>r ,,s„wa3 m e® o00 00o PROPERTY DESCRIPTION " rMe twat ttwwawa •Oo O°° AS PROVIDED BY WENT wt i R�1 enrol WO MO p•p ••• • • • • • • 11.3.Yl+iw w M t•.GI/�M WYw b,L•t�Gxa,Ob t..r.tl MI++OtMbt wwn tww[ •taw ntvatn aa�a wt%�.ri.�i x i�t�n.� µt uy w.~�w���r�.t w�.�..i M�.t.ei+�}�+� ZONIN orr uwai e v iam rw Mw+ __ .a•rw w w.�t/t.t stow a Lltyl��r twwtl N++O...yt td+r-�w.r x.r [nNwR ♦Mt IYY.>71 l�O!IU'ifmuw Oar II.L t r.r.n IwiOm HLb Irl w M L.t M.!Y4 G�ti Mr(mot IL300 t.l w M a.w M M tl.r}i� toll 1 twl 11.1t�L00 M1A w M 4.l w1 M MrJei�01w Y W MK•f L.rl.'w Ma t:rw-(mot 111aWL •a•l twa r t Mt w Yr[wl ti M W iMt->u.Y•wr LOV4T-N'11.MSI tt.l w W fwl M .1 LIt-b Y F C rwr M{r•w b,Ltnyl.if�aw.lY-IT-OI'�tii]31 MA w M WM M � trllR •r I.O�aO MA1'UC ®. is-ter •f�A-b v tlr Mt•f M�n1�L �wtM�w 4l r�..1 M(fl Ymaaw OLIIt M RAt m w[M r�tafa MC ADC 11L a -w~tM Ilt EIW,Je U\T9 133\a.0\099133d 0 06/0/99 wl�� Vi 71 's'fC o� =6 s "��i - � ��2 � iy � 'I �.,�•�`�'- - itG _ �. .C , f = ._ � F7����_`-''j. .r.i•�'; > - ,c 1���i�"�!!IFill' r s� �J�C `.`V �iJ���-:.\ .�,.•-v�� �.�cAo214'�[�,:.� .,�' s _ �',°,�fti !. 'sy v.. -"_ a. �J'�.1.-+'+�•��'�-.'•=---r��i_ram�►�-���'�r Ir�li�Y����® ��� '^'����``�. �'_' ��.. -e_n... DOFF . � � � e.oy ceau.e Pii mng • :n[e��or Desgn 6363 Wbo&--S..e 500 Hous[o�.Teas 77057 ARCHITECTS I - a �IIUIIIII 111 11 ��i'• 7111111 111111 - — pumiiiiUMI _ E�` r =■Gi■r{ L! ;, ;� muw 11 nlnl� . '�■!■!7r E�:�a nmiim mm�n _: a Mal H .. � ,�,Immu�i{{j{{u{i`� _■.■■■: _�;`�!�muuuriumimj __- 11 1` - e [1 L[._� � f��� l i .E�ifs fl: _' •,'./"pp•►►� OFF Architecture Planning Interior Design ARCHITECTS r ---7 W-05:— 1 . --. �'_. - {�•..-. �i�h- --_ SQL j olc �i�.Illllllllllrillllllllll+�i•.tllll_illlliilllllillill� r � ':I �t � '•�. • � �® =� �..�L / s.� ; ��� //lam s 1�� -.� r.,1 y;1 I:•r`. 1� _ � a ... 11.aiu ■ - i ��I1111 111131i1.I11I 111:1 mil lllllllllilllllll MII■j _ - w =u . , 1. `w ".rF'�.:2a - .� L+.-'tea.-wir�.r�11.. �.�► — t i''"•Ir� �����i�,� - '��_s =_-... HOFF • Architecture Planning Interior Design ARCHITECTS - z= ME M� r .. a S K s? ti - - -- AMMON --'■►• PIS !71 p t'1{ t!JI E<J! IGVol oni loll 11 iiL �i�l� � rri ■fr � � _r�l Fal -., t_NMI ra kid[ int IF to ► ...., A�?�1. — = ■:�•: :II Fall �f%I�.p :I ill = �" ■91 I= A "•��-•=,....-:vn �'� _'�'�� -�" =� `�0i'T,�� ��' F'"i°��1�-Y�' . .r ; -w�� -� si�i •����• -.�--.�, •r��_L:%n A¢nattmre . :ny Inter,or Ces,g, 6363 Vlood,,TJ S;.E$00 Houston.Texas 77057 ARCHITECTS ti� F = _ .' r. h.. z S .. �_ _ � � .� 1� '�, _ .rn ' _ � a ' ' . qq � r4� � �• 'fir �l. j-. �Z _ � -�- h' _-� '- '' ` u. - 4�. i rT _ ,'� xa �.. ., '� _ � �� _ t h ,fi _ �, - ... 1� � � - :L� ' Ali • ' �'' �b L <� �� - � F _�, 4 .� .. ' :.�� - i 'a S- Z-11-99 and SLU-6-99 Rezoning from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District and Vehicle Sales and Display in the "J" Parking District 3700 & 3950 N. Grand River Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT/OWNER: A.I.S. Construction Equipment Company 3600, 3700 & 3950 N. Grand River Avenue Lansing, MI 48906 SUBJECT PROPERTY: The south-west fifty feet of 3700 N. Grand River Avenue & the south-west ninety-five feet of 3950 N. Grand River Avenue EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential District (and part "F" Commercial District), and Pending "J" Parking District REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District and a Special Land Use Permit for display and sales of heavy equipment in the "J" Parking District EXISTING LAND USE: Parking lot, display of heavy equipment for sale PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: While the properties involved are several acres, the actual part requested for rezoning and the SLU is approximately 475 feet of frontage on N. Grand River Avenue and varies from 50 to 95 feet in depth (approximately 30,000 square feet total area) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial/Industrial S: Residential E: Commercial/Industrial W: Commercial/Industrial SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial District S: "A" Residential District E: "G-2" Wholesale District W: "H" Light Industrial District, "J" Parking District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates the area north of N. Grand River Avenue for industrial and warehouse development. The Environment section of the plan calls for warehouse and light industry that is well maintained, well landscaped, maintains a buffer back Z-11-99 Rezoning from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District SLU-6-99 and Vehicle Sales and Display in the "J" Parking District page 2 3700 & 3950 N. Grand River Avenue from N. Grand River Avenue, and serves as a model for industrial development throughout the City. N. Grand River Avenue is classified as a principle arterial street CASE HISTORY: This request was the result of staff's investigations into a similar request for rezoning recently completed for adjacent property at 3940 N. Grand River Avenue, which originally requested rezoning the front 95 feet of that property from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District (see rezoning case Z-5-99). In preparing for that case, the planning staff determined that the adjacent properties at 3700 & 3950 N. Grand River Avenue were using a portion of their property which was zoned "A" Residential District for sales and display of heavy equipment. Thus, this rezoning request is a result of the planning staff informing the current applicant that a portion of their business was operating on improperly zoned property. Case History/Zoning Pattern adjacent N. Grand River Avenue The subject property, and all adjacent properties on the north side of N. Grand River Avenue, were previously zoned "A" Residential District. In 1961, the portion of the property 95 feet north of N. Grand River Avenue was left in the "A" Residential District , the next 55 feet to the north was rezoned "J" Parking District, and the remainder of the property to the north was rezoned "H" Light Industrial District, thus maintaining a 95 foot wide buffer along the north side of N. Grand River Avenue. About 100 square feet of the property at 3950 N. Grand River Avenue was rezoned to "F" in 1972 in order to permit a ground pole sign. The property at 3700 N. Grand River Avenue was rezoned, in 1972, to "H" Light Industrial District to within 50 feet of N. Grand River Avenue. Property to the west (4000 N. Grand River Avenue) was rezoned, to a depth of 150 feet in 1988, "D-1" Professional Office District. In addition to the "D-1" Professional Office District having more restrictive land use requirements than an industrial or commercial district, it also has a minimum 20 foot front yard setback for both structures and off- street parking. The important issue in this case is the impact on "urban design", established building setbacks, and buffering of existing residential properties south of N. Grand River Avenue. Z-11-99 Rezoning from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District SLU-6-99 and Vehicle Sales and Display in the "J" Parking District page 3 3700 & 3950 N. Grand River Avenue Description of Site The A.I.S. property consists of three adjacent sites: 3600 N. Grand River Avenue, 3700 N. Grand River Avenue, and 3950 N. Grand River Avenue. The property at 3600 is zoned "G-2" Wholesale District; 3700 N. Grand River Avenue is zoned "A" Residential District to a depth of 50 feet north of the Grand River Avenue right-of-way line, and the balance is "H" Light Industrial District; and the property at 3950 N. Grand River Avenue is a combination of"A" Residential District to a depth of 95 feet north of the Grand River Avenue right-of-way line, "J" Parking District to a depth of 150 feet north of the Grand River Avenue right-of-way line, and the balance is "H" Light Industrial District (See Figure 1, Area Zoning Map and Figure 2, Existing Zoning). The use of the A.I.S. property consists primarily of sales and rental of contractor's heavy equipment, which includes display of product facing N. Grand River Avenue (see Figure 3, Existing Site Plan). The property at 3950 N. Grand River Avenue contains a fenced parking lot which is used for open storage. A significant portion of this storage lot is within the "A" Residential District portion of the property, as the fence approximately twenty feet from the front property line, and the current zoning boundary is 95 feet from the front property line. The applicant has submitted a preliminary site landscaping plan (see Figure 4, Applicant's Proposed Site Plan) for the area in front of the sales lot at 3950 N. Grand River Avenue. This plan shows additional landscaping is proposed for the area in front of the existing fence. The applicant has not proposed any other significant changes to the current site plan. RE-ZONING ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates this area for industrial and warehouse development. The residential neighborhood south of N. Grand River Avenue is designated for residential development at 0-7 units per acre. The current master plan presents evidence that a "buffer" adjacent to the north side of N. Grand River Avenue should be maintained, either to preserve somewhat of a boulevard/avenue character along N. Grand River Avenue and/or to protect the established residential neighborhoods south of N. Grand River Avenue. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Surrounding land use is a mixture of commercial and industrial with residential to the south across N. Grand River Avenue. Staff believes that rezoning of this property all the way to the N. Grand River Avenue right-of-way will disrupt an established pattern of a buffer with large setbacks along the north side of the avenue. In addition, the requested zoning of "F" Commercial District would permit other uses, such as a used Z-11-99 Rezoning from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District SLU-6-99 and Vehicle Sales and Display in the "J" Parking District page 4 3700 & 3950 N. Grand River Avenue automobile sales lot with bright security lights and loudspeakers, that could seriously impact the residential district south of N. Grand River Avenue. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The proposed development would not change sufficiently to have a major impact on traffic on N. Grand River Avenue. Development of interior circulation patterns and curb cut locations are subject to the City's site plan review process before construction on any new buildings could begin. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The important issue in this case is the impact on "urban design". This rezoning should follow the precedent set with rezoning and the design of 3940 N. Grand River Avenue. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT This proposal, as noted above, should follow the precedent for rezoning the adjacent property. ANALYSIS for SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT (SLU) Special Land Use Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a Special Land Use permit request. The criteria and evaluation are summarized as follows. 1. The proposed special land use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner harmonious with the character of adjacent property and the surrounding use. The applicant's plan indicates the only significant change proposed is addition of some landscaping in front of the existing fenced area at 3950 N. Grand River Avenue. The adjacent property at 3940 N. Grand River Avenue, which was recently rezoned and approved for sales and display of heavy equipment, maintains a setback of 60 feet for the display area. This is a significant difference in design and appearance. 2. The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the surrounding property. This proposal presents an opportunity to reduce the impact of the current development of the parking/display lot at 3950 N. Grand River Avenue. The site plan currently proposed by the applicant does little to improve the design and appearance of the lot. Z-11-99 Rezoning from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District SLU-6-99 and Vehicle Sales and Display in the "J" Parking District age 5 3700 & 3950 N. Grand River Avenue 3. The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent property. Surrounding land use is a mixture of commercial and industrial uses with residential to the south across N. Grand River Avenue. The proposed SLU may permit accessory uses, such as bright security lights and loudspeakers, that could seriously impact the residential district south of N. Grand River Avenue. Any loudspeakers or security lights must be directed away from the nearby residential properties. 4. The proposed special land use represents an improvement to the use or character of the subject property and the surrounding area in general, and will be in keeping with the natural environment of the lot. The proposal presents an opportunity to improve a portion of the site, however, staff believes the applicant's current plan does not present this opportunity. 5. The proposed special land use will not be hazardous to adjacent properties or involve uses, activities, materials or equipment which are detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons or property through the excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, odor, fumes or glare. Staff believes any of the above impacts are unlikely to be caused by the proposed Special Land Use, however, care should be exercised during the site plan review process to insure exterior lighting is sensitive to the character of the N. Grand River Avenue corridor. 6. The proposed special land use is adequately served by essential public services and facilities and it is demonstrated that the person responsible for the proposed special land use is able to continually provide adequately for the services and facilities deemed essential to the special land use under consideration. The site is served by all necessary public services, and the proposed SLU will not cause any additional burdens on them. 7. The proposed special land use will not place demands on public services and facilities in excess of current capacity. The site is served by all necessary public services, and the proposed SLU will not cause any additional burdens on them. 8. The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning code and the objectives of the current comprehensive plan. The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designates this area for industrial and warehouse development. The residential neighborhood south of N. Grand River Avenue is designated for residential development at 0-7 units per acre. The current master plan presents evidence that a "buffer" adjacent to the north side of Z-11-99 Rezoning from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District SLU-6-99 and Vehicle Sales and Display in the "J" Parking District page 6 3700 & 3950 N Grand River Avenue N. Grand River Avenue should be maintained, either to preserve somewhat of a boulevard/avenue character along N. Grand River Avenue and/or to protect the established residential neighborhoods south of N. Grand River Avenue. 9. The proposed special land use meets the dimensional requirements of the district in which the property is located. If, within a lot, there exists land which is zoned J Parking District, the required yard dimensions for the "J" Parking District shall be the same as the required yard dimensions for the lot of which the "J" Parking District is a part. Since the balance of the subject property is zoned "H" Light Industrial District, its yard dimensions apply. However, there are no setback requirements for a surface parking lot. SUMMARY This request is for a rezoning from "A" Residential District to "J" Parking District and a Special Land Use Permit for display and sales of heavy equipment in the "J" Parking District. The subject property is presently zoned "A" Residential. The important issue in this case is the impact on "urban design", established building setbacks, and buffering of existing residential properties south of N. Grand River Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed zone change. Staff also recommends approval of the proposed SLU with the following conditions: 1. On the portion of the site at 3950 and the western 50 feet of 3700 N. Grand River Avenue, a minimum of 50 feet should be maintained for buffering of the opposite residential neighborhood and to maintain the "avenue" character of this portion of N. Grand River Avenue. This will also allow the site blend in better with the adjacent site at 3940 N. Grand River Avenue. 2. The existing landscaping on the eastern portion of 3700 N. Grand River Avenue should be maintained, and used as a blueprint for the design of the site at 3950 and the western 50 feet of 3700 N. Grand River Avenue. 3. Even though it is zoned "G-2" Wholesale District, the property at 3600 N. Grand River Avenue should be maintained in its current condition for display and sales of equipment for the requested SLU to remain in effect. 4. Plans detailing site lighting be required for approval as part of the Site Plan necessary to approve the any changes to the display and sales area. Respectfully Submitted, Jim Sturdevant, AICP Senior Planner SLU-6-99.FE.wpd 420. - All Ll f ..6 I........... .. .... ---------- gob 4tps 4*02 Cal c' -;Iry 0 ... ....... .17 adi fan _"q-IV 05A!; 1 O O T X1Sr"/• Zo.+��.uL� ? b 145.48' n s 6 �r � � n •� ^ -0 2 / o M gas' a x- f / b -ZpC.C. V � ID D "2 96 O• '�d., C�. u" c,v, �u �. � cc- Jos. - � Cf• Ind CIO N /r' 21 20 tog18 23 1 7 V C4 \ 0 O r! 3 3' o e n s X 71-1tp gL4R' b N c .r i 2 V n h 2 n ti 0 M Ab �arK��q •IqQa V V V d,5(u y LLJ o" rr Q fie- J8 • i, �� ��. 22 os ,4'` ��► �l, ,� 00 21 001 3 20 .. 38 /9/ 19 18 1 / o i3 2 Ql1 I f ,S. 2 10 U r � evz -�.fl'.'• `-fi .s�r.r..a�r�. r � �[�.� .t+ '' '��!•:.r L. lf�•.a�/. '�: J•--"-- "` ilk 1. Awl i�s.//eJ7T�i E? }D .f. _ �j�,l ]�f I✓L�i-a i�fF./.� �ii'c-�,GC/.4•C_ � vs L[D iA/(r P.S. " ;.S�SipcwatK A n !lL eX/Sfly F _dl.r .. i l n eNa. .. <s7^16 �. � APPROVED NOVEMBER 2, 1999 AS PRINTED Draft to Clerk 100699 Approved 110299 To Clerk 111299 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7 p.m., City Council Chambers ' Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue s i Tuesday, September 21, 1999 � cr•t 1. OPENING SESSION: Chairman Ruge called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Keene, Nischan, Ruge, Smith. Six members present; one excused absence, one vacant seat. B. Excused Absences - Miller. On August 17, 1999, Mr. Miller requested and was granted an excused absence. C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff present; William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator; Jim Sturdevant, Senior Planner; and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Mr. Frederick requested the addition to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee Report of b. Z-3-98, 1131 and 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District. Mr. Nischan requested deletion from the Urban Development Committee Report of a. LBRA#2, which was tabled, and c. Act-13-99, 815 East St. Joseph Street, Private Fence in Right-of-way, which also was tabled and will not be before the Board tonight. The agenda was approved with those modifications. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter dated September 16, 1999, from Leanne Stites, Executive Director, Principal Shopping District, to Jim Sturdevant regarding Act-16-99, 1100 Blk. Race and Factory Sts., Donation of Property to City for Parking Lot, Expansion at Brenke Fish Ladder, in support. 4. PRESENTATIONS A. Patrick Patterson, Ethics Ordinance. Mr. Patterson, Safety Administrator for the City of Lansing, conducted a training session concerning the City's new Ethics Ordinance. He answered questions and distributed copies of the Ethics Ordinance adopted March 11, 1997. The Chairman thanked Mr. Patterson, on behalf of the Board. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 PAGE 2 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) RANDY A. LLOYD, 5023 TRESSA. The property in question for SLU-8-99 sits at the back of my property. I spoke at the meeting on September 8, 1999, concerning a buffer between the structure and our backyard. I was concerned about having parking in that area, only about 15-20 ft from our backyard. We are also worried about drainage, and about the cement slab viewed from our backyard. Previously, I was assured that parking was not going in that area so that we would have a buffer between our property and the development. We are asking Mr. Strudwick to move the parking lot to the back of the property so that it would be buffered by the existing trees. We would like to address that issue with the builder. SHARON YERIAN, 1321 S. BRIARFIELD DRIVE, representing Briarfield Drive residents. We had a meeting Sunday with the Strudwicks and their builder. We thought we had everything resolved until tonight. The Strudwicks furnished this map; as the map is right now, Briarfield Drive people are in agreement. The people on Tressa who want the parking behind the facility—I am opposed to it. I have a swimming pool in my backyard; I have had it for 20 years. I live in my backyard in the summer months, so I have a personal concern. Mr. and Mrs. Strudwick will leave some of the trees and also erect a fence so I can have some privacy with the pool. VERN NORRIS, 5015 TRESSA DRIVE. My property backs up to this project. We have no problem with the project. I do concur with Mr. Lloyd. No one on Tressa Drive knew anything about the meeting. If there could be additional distance between our backyards as there is to the people on Briarfield, or some compromise reached there, it would be excellent for all parties. JANE CLAYTOR, 4916 TRESSA. My property does not back up to that project. I live on the opposite side of the street. I have just done some calculations and drew up the plan that is the same scale as the parking lot. If you move that to the back of the project, the lady from Briarfield will lose maybe ten feet, she will still have plenty of privacy. There will be a compromise between both sides of the street, both Briarfield and Tressa Drive. Some of the trees would not have to come down, and it would be a major buffer there. It's just the fact that somehow we do have to make a compromise. She still has room. I respect her privacy and I understand the purpose that she is stating. The people on Tressa Drive only have 20 feet to the parking lot, where they will have almost 160 feet. According to your scale, even with a fence that is 100 feet from their property line, somehow, to me, it doesn't look fair. If we could work out a compromise, she, and also the people on Tressa Drive, would still have plenty of room. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 PAGE 3 A. Minutes for Approval -August 17, 1999 and September 8, 1999. August 17, 1999. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, for approval. On a Voice Vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of August 17, 1999 were APPROVED. September 8, 1999. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, for approval. On a Voice Vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; carried; unanimous; the minutes of September 8, 1999 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Frederick, Chairman. a. SLU-8-99, Vacant Land formerly known as 1400 W. Jolly Road, Residential Care Facility for 12 People. The applicant, Strudwick Adult Foster Care, Inc., is requesting a Special Land Use permit to construct an adult care facility for seniors and for adults who are mentally ill, developmentally disabled, or physically disabled. The current zoning is "A" Residential with a "CUP" Community Unit Plan overlay. Surrounding land use and zoning is residential. In 1973, the property was rezoned from "A" One Family Residence District to "CUP" Community Unit Plan. The proposed development at the time was for three 10-unit apartment buildings. In 1979, a Special Use Permit (SLU-12-79) was petitioned to construct a three-story 200-bed home for the aged. City Council in 1980 approved SUP-12-79 by ordinance to permit a 120-bed senior facility subject to certain conditions (see SUP-12-79). Neither of the projects was developed. The applicant has the option of either developing this property in accordance with the "A" Residential Zoning District, or develop it as approved under the CUP (see Attorney's letter dated July 29, 1996). The applicant proposes to construct a 3,560 sq ft adult care facility for up to 12 adults. This adult foster care facility will provide care for persons 60 years old or older, and/or persons with mental illness or who are developmentally disabled or physically disabled who are 18 years old or older. These individuals will require twenty-four-hour supervision, but not continuous nursing care. This adult foster care facility is not a nursing home, a hospital, or a home for ex-convicts or a halfway house. The staff report considered requirements of the Zoning Code that states that a residential care facility which PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 PAGE 4 provides care for more than six people may be permitted if the facility provides a minimum lot area of not less than 1,000 sq ft per resident, and twenty-four-hour supervision is maintained. The report also evaluated nine criteria in used to evaluate a request for a Special Land Use permit. The report showed that the site provides sufficient space for the proposed use, and meets the requirements set forth in Section 1282.02(f)(1-9). The density of the property is consistent with the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan, 1990, and the special land use request can meet the criteria for special land uses as outlined in Chapter 1282 with seven conditions in the staff report designed to mitigate any impacts on adjacent residential uses as described in the staff report. One additional condition was added: 8. That the development comply with all City, state and federal permitting requirements. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve SLU-8-99, Vacant Land formerly known as 1400 W. Jolly Road, Residential Care Facility for 12 People, with seven conditions in the report and one additional condition: 8. That the development comply with all City, state and federal permitting requirements, as above. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Goolsby said that the location of the parking lot is a siting condition, part of the site plan review, that is done administratively. Mr. Ruff should take a look at this as it goes through the system. As an administrative function, it is not something this Board does. "I am glad to see there is not opposition to this project on the basis of who is going to be housed here. . . . I commend the neighbors on that." The lady is right who said that with some redesign, it is a win-win situation for everybody. "I suggest Mr. Ruff look at that. . . . " Mr. Smith said, looking at the map, there appears to be space east of the building. Has that been looked at for parking? Mr. Ruff appreciated the comments, noting that several solutions are possible. It can be done appropriately without adversely impacting the neighbors or the parking code. Ms. Love said the lot is not square, and the house does not have to sit square on the lot. "You might create a more interesting impact overall by turning the orientation of the building somewhat, and moving the parking away from either one of the two neighboring streets." Mr. Smith said if the building is rotated so that the front parallels the diagonal of the drain, you have ample room for parking in the front. The back of the building would not go as far back as otherwise. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 PAGE 5 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby. . Ave Keene. . . Aye Nischan . .Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried, SLU-8-99, Vacant Land formerly known as 1400 W. Jolly Road, Residential Care Facility for 12 People with eight conditions as above was APPROVED. b. Z-3-98, 1131 and 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District. This is a request by Harry Hepler to rezone property at 1131 and 1133 Race Street from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District. On April 7, 1998, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this request; at that time the applicant spoke in favor of the request, and Mr. Randy Rifkin of Friedland Industries at 405 East Maple Street expressed concern about the proposed zoning change. On April 15, 1998, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee reviewed the staff report which recommended that the request be tabled, pending completion of amendments to the Master Plan and a more detailed parking study for the area. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee tabled the request. At the meeting this evening, the item was removed from the table and addressed, for the following reasons. In March, 1999, the Planning staff completed a detailed parking study of the area that includes the subject property. On August 17, 1999, the Planning Board adopted the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, which is an amendment to the Master Plan for the area that includes the subject property. At the City Council meeting of September 20, 1999, a resolution was adopted to expand the City's existing parking lot at the Brenke Fish Ladder, using Community Block Grant funds. We have a copy of that resolution. The Urban Development Committee, at their meeting this evening, considered Act-16-99. They will address in their report that item which is an offer to donate a parcel of property at the 1100 Block of Race and Factory Streets necessary to complete the proposed expansion of the Brenke Fish Ladder parking lot. That plan is attached. The planning staff has been waiting for completion of the parking study, the master plan amendments, and the parking lot plan before recommending approval of the requested zone change. For this particular property, the requested rezoning is now appropriate because of the anticipated expansion of the Brenke Fish Ladder parking lot from its current 57 spaces to 138 parking spaces. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 PAGE 6 In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to approve Z-3-98, 1131 and 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve Z-3-98, 1131 and 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Mr. Ruge was uncomfortable with the proposal because regarding height and area limitations for "G-1" Business District, there would be no height limitations on structures. "I don't think that is really appropriate for this area, where the buildings are a maximum of three stories tall. "While it is not very likely that he is going to put up a twenty- or thirty- story building, by changing this to "G-1", it is possible. The more of these "G-1"s that we allow, the bigger the piece of property that someone could accumulate to put up a large building with no minimum yard dimensions and no height limitations." Mr. Goolsby said this may be an area where we could incorporate the zoning overlay we have talked about to prevent this "G-1" District from being unlimited. Ms. Love said Mr. Hepler's property at present is "H" Light Industrial which allows him to go to 120 ft, or 10 to 12 stories. You are not trading a lot by reducing the types of uses permitted if it was an industrial property, and is closer in line with the types of uses which have been identified in the new master plan for that particular area. We are working on drafting ordinance changes for areas like this where there are an abundance of buildings that we would prefer to keep as buildings and not as parking lots and where we are encouraging people to build out to the property lines. Design guidelines, which is something that North Lansing has already been working on, address height by suggesting that buildings would have to maintain the character of the surrounding area. In this case, a twenty-story building would not be in character with the area. We are looking at an overlay zone that, while it recognizes that each individual property may not have to, on its own, provide all of the parking that might otherwise be required by code, there is some obligation to assist in the financial elements—maybe a payment in lieu of parking. A number of communities use this. The overlay zone is a concept new to this community, and it could take us a while to acclimate people to the concept. "I would hate to hold all zonings depending upon that." We could keep it in mind, because it is not only this one. There are two or three others that have already occurred in the area, and others are in line. When we introduce the ordinance, they would geographically be covered, regardless of whether they are in an "F" or a "G-1" District. It may be that it is a geographic district as opposed to just a particular zoning district. It may be all properties that geographically are within a particular zone, regardless of whether they are in an "F", "F-1", "G", "G-2" or "H", which is what all the ones in that general vicinity are. "I don't know yet, until we have the ordinance worked out." It would be similar to a historic district; it does not change the use. Basically, the parking is different. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 PAGE 7 Mr. Ruge asked about the design guidelines. "It is my understanding that the design guidelines for Old Town are voluntary." Ms. Love said at this point yes. Goolsby Aye Keene Ave Nischan. .Aye Smith. Ave Frederick Aye Ruge .Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; unanimous, carried, Z-3-98, 1131 and 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District was APPROVED. Next meeting Tuesday, October 13, 1999 at 4 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Nischan, Chair. a. Act-16-99, 1100 Blk. Race and Factory Sts., Donation of Property to City for Parking Lot, Expansion at Brenke Fish Ladder This is a request to approve acceptance by the City of a donated piece of land between Race and Factory Streets which the City can use to expand the parking lot by the Fish Ladder and right behind the Z-3-98 property. After considering the impacts, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the City's acceptance. Mr. Nischan made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to recommend approval of Act-16-99, 1100 Blk. Race and Factory Sts., Donation of Property to City for Parking Lot, Expansion at Brenke Fish Ladder. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows. Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith . Ave Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby . Aye Keene. . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays; 0; unanimous, carried, Act-16-99, 1100 Blk. Race and Factory Sts., Donation of Property to City for Parking Lot, Expansion at Brenke Fish Ladder was APPROVED. Next meeting Tuesday, October 26, 1999, at 4 p.m., Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 3. Executive Committee - Has not met. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 PAGE 8 C. Report from Planning Manager Ms. Love said, in attempting to finish things before the end of the year, our agendas may become quite full. City Council will meet for the last time on December 13, 1999. Backing up from that date, activities start becoming compressed around the end of October. Both of our meetings in October will be quite full. Z-14-99, 204 East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District will have a hearing for October 19, 1999. If the neighborhood does not object, and if you have no objections, the applicant that evening is going to ask you to take public comment, have a recess, and then take action that same night. Another item on October 5, 1999, will be a public hearing on the Lansing Brownfields Redevelopment Authority Plan #2, which is the Motor Wheel site. You have copies. Your recommendation to the City Council for final action will be required. There are several ordinance amendments to change Section 1288 so that the language is consistent in a variety of sections. Section 1288, the floodplain changes, states that any building or structure on the National Register of Historic Places or on the State Register of Historic Sites would be exempt from floodproofing. We want to add another phrase that says "federal, state, or local historic districts," because the state is no longer interested in doing historic districts. They don't have the staff, so they are letting them go national or local. Whatever the local district says, the state will adopt. We did not have local historic districts at the time the ordinance was adopted. The local districts are more restrictive, actually, in what can be done with the building than either the state or federal registers. So we would like to add that element. You will be receiving a recommendation for a local district for the Rykus Building, 1000 Block of S. Washington, which has a time deadline. They would like to get it through the process by the end of the year so that it doesn't go through another winter unoccupied. There is a floodplain issue. The Executive Committee needs to begin meeting again to discuss the process and the product for the Master Plan. Also, the budget is coming up. Ms. Love wants help in designing a more effective evaluation form than has been used in previous years, and doing it earlier, so the information could also be used in the budget process. Interviews are underway for the sign inspector position D. Pending items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-19-97, N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh &Aurelius, "F" Commercial to "G-2" Wholesale District (Tabled October 15, 1997) b. Z-1-98, 1223 N. Turner St., "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998) C. Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River, "F-1" Commercial & "H" Light Industrial Districts to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) d. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District (Tabled June 10, 1998) e. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 PAGE 9 3. Urban Development Committee a. Act-19-98, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved b. Act-21-98, Ingham Regional Medical Center, Replacement Sign in S. Pennsylvania ROW (Tabled September 8, 1998) C. Act-24-98, Everett Lane at Paris St., Vacate ROW (Tabled February 16, 1999) 8. NEW BUSINESS - Election of Officers Ms. Love, who assumed the Chairmanship, called the meeting to order and took nominations for Planning Board Chairman. Mr. Ruge nominated Mr. Nischan. Nominations were closed; Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to elect Mr. Nischan Chairman by acclamation, unanimous; carried, Mr. Nischan was elected Chairman. Mr. Nischan assumed the chairmanship. Mr. Goolsby nominated Mr. Frederick for Vice Chairman; Mr. Ruge nominated Ms. Keene for Vice Chairman. Nominations were closed. Ms. Keene was elected Vice Chairman. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairman Nischan said if members wish to change committee assignments, notify him before the next meeting. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Nischan asked that items be removed from Urban Development Committee Pending. Regarding Act-24-99, Ms. Love said Bill's Heavy Duty Wrecker Service on Hodge Street is moving to another location with industrial zoning. Discussion is underway with EDC regarding clean-up of the neighborhood. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor K. Love, Secretary Planning Board mn092199 AA52 SLU-8-99 1400 W. Jolly Road Page 1 Residential Care Facility for 12 People GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Strudwick AFC, Inc. STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to purchase property REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use (SLU) to construct an adult care facility for 12 people. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential with a "CUP" Community Unit Plan overlay. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 17 and the north 180 feet of lots 18 and 19 of Supervisor's Plat No. 4 of Lansing Township. . Located on part of the SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 32 T4N R2W. City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: —2.99 Acres - lot is irregular in shape SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential S: Residential E: Residential W: Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential S: "A" Residential E: "A" Residential W: "A" Residential MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990, designates the land use as residential 0-7 units/acre. Background: In 1973, the property was rezoned from "A" One Family Residence District to "CUP" Community Unit Plan (see Z-32-72). The proposed development at the time was for three 10 unit apartment buildings. In 1979, a Special Use Permit (SLU-12-79) was petitioned to construct a three-story 200 bed home for the aged. City Council in 1980 approved SUP-12-79 by ordinance to permit a 120-bed senior facility SLU-8-99 1400 W. Jolly Road Page 2 Residential Care Facility for 12 People subject to certain conditions (see SUP-12-79). Both projects were never developed. The applicant has the option of either developing this property in accordance with the "A" Residential Zoning District, or develop it as approved under the CUP (see Attorney's Letter dated.July 29,1996). SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,560 sqft. adult care facility for up to 12 adults (see Plans). This adult foster care facility will provide care for persons 60 years old or older, and/or persons with mental illness who are 18 years old or older. These individuals will require supervision, but not continuous nursing care. This adult foster care facility is not a nursing home, a hospital, or a home of ex-convicts or a halfway house (see Letter dated August 31, 1999). AGENCY RESPONSES, Ameritech: No Response Received Assessor:. Is the portion of this parcel that lies within the Gilkey Drain considered by the Planning and Building Departments to be unbuildable? If so, could the owner count the entire parcel area to determine the maximum building area? Board of Water and Light: Electrical: No Objections Water: No Objections Building Safety: This facility will need to comply with barrier free design requirements and the State Construction Code. A building permit Will be required. City Attorney: No Response Received Code Compliance: As it stands right now, it is almost impossible to deal with this in the courts. The neighborhood has 2-4 bedroom houses or duplexes. Is this for the developmentally disabled or elderly? SLU-8-99 1400 W. Jolly Road Page 3 Residential Care Facility for 12 People Will there be a need for around the clock care? How many staff will be on site during the day and night? What state government entity will oversee the facility? Does this company own any other houses within the City of Lansing or nearby? If so, what is the condition of those houses? Jolly Road is a main street and is a good location for building. Consumers Energy: No Response Received Development Office: No Comment. Fire Marshal: No Objections Ingham County Drain Commissioner: No Objections' Lansing Neighborhood Council: No neighborhood organization in this area. Media One: No Response Received Lansing Police Dept.: This would be a good use for this vacant property. Only concern that I would have is that Jolly Road and MLK are. busy intersections and it might be a concern if the residents of this facility walked away from this facility and/or not supervised properly. Public Services: No objection on the proposed SLU. Public Service reserves the right to provide engineering comments as part of the site plan review. Please note: the Gilkey Drain passes through the southeast corner of the property. No building or other structure will be permitted within the 100 foot wide drain easement. Transportation: The Transportation and Parking Office reserves the opportunity to review and comment on the site development plan during the building permit application process. SLU-8-99 1400 W. Jolly Road Page 4 Residential Care Facility for 12 People ANALYSIS Section 1248.04(f) of the Zoning Code states that a residential care facility which provides care for more than six persons may be permitted in an "A" Residential District if it meets all the following conditions: ■ The residential care facility provides a minimum lot area of not less than 1,000 square feet per resident. ■ Twenty-four hour supervision is maintained by a sponsoring agency. Section 1282.03(f)(1-9) sets forth the criteria which must be used to evaluate a request for a Special Land Use Permit. The criteria and evaluation are as follows: 1. Is the proposed special land use designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner harmonious with the character of adjacent property and the surrounding area? This facility will be compatible with surrounding residential uses. The area surrounding the subject site is a low density neighborhood and commercial uses are located to the east along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The proposed 3,560 square foot 12 unit adult care facility is one-story in height and-will be built on a three acre lot that has a substantial amount of trees. Access to the facility will.be from Jolly Road. The facility will be located on the west side of the property because of an existing drain easement that is located on the eastern portion of the property. The applicant will b.e.required to incorporate the existing trees into the site design to maintain the existing character of the property and minimize .any impact to.surrounding residents. 2. Will the proposed special land use change the essential character of the surrounding area? The 3,560 square foot residential care facility is larger in scale than surrounding houses, but it is also on a three acre lot. The adult care facility will cover 2.7% of the lot area, which is substantially less than the percentage of lot coverage on adjacent properties. Trees surrounding the site should be retained to keep the woodsy character that currently exists. Therefore, this proposed adult care facility will not change the essential character of the surrounding low density neighborhood. SLU-8-99 1400 W. Jolly Road Page 5 Residential Care Facility for 12 People 3. Will the proposed special land use interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent property? No significant impact is anticipated from this project. The large lot provides ample room to locate the facility as to not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent properties. Existing trees on the property also provide. a natural buffer between the adult care facility and neighboring properties. Views from adjacent properties will not significantly change. Any traffic generated by.this site will use Jolly Road, which is a minor arterial. 4. Will the proposed special land use represents an improvement to the use or character of property under consideration and the surrounding area in general, and will the use be in keeping with the natural environment of the lot? There have been proposals for developing this property from apartments to a 120 bed senior facility. The current proposed development represents an improvement to the property. This development will.resolve any questions regarding the future use of this property. The natural state of the property can be integrated in the overall design of the property. 5. Will the proposed special land use be hazardous to adjacent property, or involve uses, activities, materials or equipment which are detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons or property through the excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, odor, fumes or glare? The proposed adult care facility does not represent a hazards to adjacent properties. There will be twenty-four hour supervision of the residents at this facility. Off-street parking will also be provided in accordance with Lansing's Zoning Code as to not impact circulation on local streets in surrounding neighborhoods. This project will not produce excessive traffic, noise, smoke, odor, fumes or glare. 6. Will the proposed special land use .be adequately served by essential public facilities and services, or is it- demonstrated that the person responsible for the proposed special land use is able to continually provide adequately for the services and facilities deemed essential to the special land use under consideration? The scope of this proposal will not impact essential services and utilities. SLU-8-99 1400 W. Jolly Road Page 6 Residential Care Facility for 12 People 7. Will the proposed special land use place demand on public services and facilities in excess of current capacity? No, the proposed SLU will not place an increase demand on public services. 8. Is the proposed special land use consistent with the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code and the objectives of any currently adopted Comprehensive Plan? The property is zoned "A" Residential with a Community Unit Plan overlay. Residential care facilities are permitted in the "A" Residential District with a Special Land Use permit. Section 1248.04(f) of the Zoning Code states that a residential care facility which provides care for more than six persons may be permitted in an "A" Residential District if it meets all the following conditions: • The residential care facility provides a minimum lot area of not less than 1,000 square feet per resident. • Twenty-four hour supervision is maintained by a sponsoring agency. A minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet is required for a residential care facility with 12 residents. There is approximately 130,000 square feet of lot area on this property. A person will be on-site twenty-four hours a day supervising the residents. Mr. Strudwick's proposal meets both criteria for a residential care facility. The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990, identifies this property as low density residential (0-7 units/acre)..The proposed adult care facility is for one dwelling unit with 12 bedrooms. A density of .33 dwelling units per acre, but probably better reflects the equivalent density impact for traffic at 2-3 dwelling units (.67 to 1 du/acre). Therefore, the density is consistent with the Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990. 9. Will the proposed special. land use meet the dimensional requirements of the district in which the property is located? Yes, the proposed project is on a 3 acre lot. This is enough area to accommodate the proposed development of a 3,560 square foot 12-unit adult care facility. A site plan drawn to scale and meeting the dimensional requirements in the "A" Residential District will be Required for site plan review. SLU-8-99 1400 W. Jolly Road Page 7 Residential Care Facility for 12 People . SUMMARY The special land use permit is requested to construct a new 3,560 square feet 12 unit adult care facility at 1400 West Jolly Road. The site provides enough space for the proposed use. This proposal meets the requirements set forth in Section 1248.04(f) of the Zoning Code. Density on the property is consistent with the Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990. The special land use request can meet the criteria for special land uses as outlined in Chapter 1282 with conditions designed to mitigate any impacts on adjacent residential uses described below. RECOMMENDATION Generally, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The design of the site shall incorporate the existing trees around the perimeter of the property as part of its design. 2. The applicant shall provide landscaping, screening, and buffering to minimize impact on adjacent residential properties. 3. The building shall meet all setback requirements pursuant to Chapter 1248 "A" Residential District of the Zoning Code. 4. The project shall meet all off-street parking requirements pursuant to Chapter 1284 of the Zoning Code. 5. The lighting used to illuminate any off street parking shall be confined within and directed onto the parking area only. 6. All drainage patterns between this property and adjacent properties shall not be altered to adversely impact adjoining properties. .7. The use of the building and property is for an adult care facility for persons 60 years or older and/or persons with mental illness who are 18 years old or older. This facility shall not be used as a nursing home, a hospital, or a home of ex- convicts or a halfway house. A maximum of 12 residents will be permitted. The building shall not exceed one-story in height. Any changes in clientele, maximum number of residents, or height of the building will result in revoking this Special Land Use permit. Additionally, this office would like to review a preliminary site plan, scaled to 1"=40', prior to passing this recommendation to the Planning Board for action. The plan should also be distributed to interested neighbors who appeared at the public hearing for comment prior to action. Respectfully Submitted, Sam Quon Senior Planner TO Planning neoa rtn-ient The following action was taken by the City Council at a meeting held on T-1— 0 is � - �� FINAL REZONING #1649 By Councilman Ferguson— Whereis, by petition duly filed on the 22nd day of May, 1972, this council wus Petitioned to change the following described property from "A" One Family Residence District to"Community Unit Plan" District all as set forth in the Zoning Code of this city,and Whereas, due notice as required by law bas been given for a public hearing on said Petition, and Whereas, at such hearing held on the 28th day of August, 1972. all parties inter- ested therein were heard and given due consideration, and Whereas, the property involved is de- scribed as: Z-32-72—(1400 Block of West Jolly), more particularly described as: Lot 17 and the north 180 ft. of Lots 18 and 19 Surveyors Plat No. 4, City' of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan:and Whereas this Council was petitioned to - rezone the above described property from A-1 family residential district to Commu- nity Unit Plan district; and Whereas pursuant to Act 207; P.A. 1921, the Planning Board advised City Council to deny the request; and Whereas the Planning Committer of the - City Council to whom was_referred the report of the Planning Board and does not concur therewith and recommends approval ` of the request based on the following con- . ditions: 1. That the development be served with underground utilities; 2. Install fire hydrants and alarm boxes where indicated by the Fire Department; 3. The entire site is to be graded so that '� 1 all surface water will drain to the storm sewer; 4. That a landscape, screening and fenc- R E C E I V E D ing plan be submitted for approval of the Planning Board prior to the issuance Of occupancy permits; J U L 11 1973 R Iv^1 5. That all other criteria specified by the reporting agencies be met. Z0NI�'C : HANGI-S PLANNING DEPT.' Therefore be it resolved that the Gouuiil of the City of Lansing ordains that the pe- Ree.'by Planning tition to rezone the above described prop- erty be granted subject to the conditions as -�Ent. in Jourrta' stated above. , r Adopted by the following vule:. (O;4 N0.) - r Yens: Councilmen Anns, Bolen, I ergu.con, I`'•'1)''.J Cunther', May, Mourn-G. 1 I `j Nays: Councilmen Menke, ht,k;,ncr-2. Building ., Js... (D ATE) 8) Planning Ahats_ r__1 j City Clark (DATE) Q Planning Vv'ail Map?_ L�_/ j (DATE) i k t 177 with COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ;g MARCII 17,17. 1990 By COUNCILMAN WORTHINGTON—. the within Resolved by the City Council of the City ish ordmaketsafe;the soidfbuilding ficers to demol- hat the cost gp days from the date of this of Lansing: lien against twenty, ( ) reported resolution; SUP-12-79 And Be It Further Resolved, that, ahwith 1400 Block of West Jo11Y Road a,the same + Home for the Aged the owner fail substantially 3301-32- the Hearing the Director of ed that the or otherwise make sate, with arty appear the Department of Building Safety and with ,!meat record proval of a Special Use Pfo itth caged on velopment is hereby directed to PTA Whereas, Glen Ballans has requested RP - the of a home tdocCOet demolition of said building; Property located in the 1400 Block of West are�Day We And Be It Further Resolved.that the cost Jolly Road. and of the the real property and shall be rePoited to Whereas, after ma the of such demobiton shall be a lien ,gains r who shall assess the same the his reque Board held a Ling li notice the City Assessor lie hearing on this request at their meeting shall add the _ u on which the build- of December 4, 1979, and at their meeting it the City of against the property p of December 18, 1979, recommended to City be collected in ing is presently located; jai Use i rovided that the e site as in the And Be It Further Resolved, modiified, to limit develoPm factftyhalong 4i. owner in whose name the property record to approximately a 100 bed upon the last local tax assessment record with other conditions that would; .e: shall be notified of the amount of such 1) Limit the height of the building to cost by first cases mall at the address sho the wn two stories. i, Belen, Blair, on the records- Upon hisdaysuafter re to mailing and ne, Worthington same within thirty (30) screening by the City Assessor of the notice of the 2) geyuire landscaping, amount thereof, the Assessor shall add the buffering. Lansing and the same shall the next tax roobetcolle fed he City o° 3) Placement of the building so as not to the by law,eforather in all collectionpof taxes inithe ects as crowd adjacent property lines. City of Lansing. 4) A redesign of the delivery service BAY area; and r Adopted by the following vote: e City Unanimously 6) to they parking aresfined P' eand the estrian [dewalk ounell of th along Jolly Read; and Direetand°Dever ;By COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY— Whereas, the City Council held a Public ISafety located, PROPERTIES AND fiearing on this ProPoatlwtiich GMQ i�was he build�enggally de, of February 18, 1980,the venue, di do. Resolved by the City Council of the City referred back i the Physical Development park ",of Lansing: Committee of City Council; and eo • S b), n i n un loa Whereas,the City of Lansing is developarea; Whereas, the Physical Development m- a defined inHO�iisinf 1ne ideas to improve the Moore's Park area; mittee, at their meeting of February 22. Uniform and ., reviewed this request MrBallansjunction allow the 8 p Whereas,the City Council desires that the with, and as held by why the developtheir odi discussion recommended citizen input with.the Proposal by inistration have access to n 24�in� mat all long-range Plana: and following refer the mater back to the lets unanimously to or dangerous Whereaa,such organizations as the Cith riding demolish tral Neighborhood Organiza iMichignn pert wt hin thefnextutworweeksw tje re- n• District Council No. 4, view and report would be based on the re- i`' feel Headers Association, and others have wised p pfticsrswfleed teased interest in Participating daring roposal by Mr. Ballans to develop a order 120 bed facility; and gs and Moores Park process; and have Whereas, the Council of the CitY1980 e- rate Now Therefore, Be It Resolved the Lan- sine at their meeting on March 3, `e�od asnd the 8 nit City Council hereby creates a Park, con- the Planning ng Committee for Moore Park, ferred the matter back to id of 12 members, to advise the Coun- Department; and ul•� 4Wd Administration; and the Planning Department re- Council arevd►ew It Further Resolved this committee Whereas, 0 1980, to tl g Of it composed a representatives from viewed the revised site Plan and recom- C the$earl°wTi and notified in ztiu aria and other interested organizations; menSomded the modifi Plan cations; and subject to sussOn wh o said ise •IL Finally Resolved the City Council Whereas, the Physical Development C°Tn- gutailed or mittee of City Council reviewed the report ll rely on the advice of the SCNO and Tn the Planning Department and did concur No.4 for the specific composition and Be It Resolved, 1D of the Committee, such groups therewith: non, unicnte their recommendations to. City of Caring cil by April 3, with. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the of the Ilea by the following vote: Council I the City of Lansing ordains that ilition oT makinga special Use Permit be approved under subt- ualy. Section 36-42 of the Zoning i .then eoIDpu r directed 178 COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS MARCH 17, 1980 CH j ect to the following conditions: Family Residential District was a) The Ring Road on the north portion of back to the Committee on Physical Develop Z-60- the property be deleted. ment for further consideration. b) The road connecting the two parking Carried. lots be deleted and a sidewalk be estab- lished connecting the west parking area 'Jlh to the main entrance. da The ritm c) Landscape, screening and buffering By COUNCILMAN WORTHINGTON— ur of being provided as specified in the Land- Whereas, by petition duly filed o Avtnua the not seape, Screening and Buffering Ordi- 27th day of December, 1979, this n the nance. was petitioned to change the follow.to uncil °r scribed property from "A" One g de. Ilne Adopted by the following vote: Residence District to m Two Family t! Unanimously. Bence District all as a& forth the the 7�on_ lo'�►V ing Code of this city, and Whereas, due notice as required by law of na ZONINGS has been given for a public hearing on said it 000 ffi Petition, and -&noe By COUNCILMAN WORTHINGTON Whereas, at such hearing held on the 8rd Whereas, by petition duly filed on the day of March, 1980, all parties interested of beYl 7th day of January, 198o, this council was therein were heard and given due considers- c �' petitioned to change the following described tion, and ! A property from a "CUP" Community Unit Wh �'root 8" w"A.Whereas, the low" a Plan District to "DM-1" Multiple Dwelling scribed as: property involved is de- Lis District all as set forth in the 'Zoning Code sc of this city, and Z-61-79 — 2610 Reo Road, 3901.31- -' Wherer Whereas, due notice as required by law 428-132. anent has been City Coui given for a public hearing on said More particularly described as:petition, and Whereas, The east 107 feet of Lot 6g, E '`mittee of at such hearing co held on the Farms, being a part of the SE �4 of �.� Ph 3rd day of March, 198o, all patties inter- Section 31. T4N, R2W, City of Lan- �rltht ested therein were heard and given due con- sing, Ingham County, Michigan, h sideration, and from "A-1" Family Residential District to Y�upilt}1tl Whereas, the property involved is de- "C-2" Family Residential District. scribed as: rty Z-1- _ Whereas, pursuant to Act 207,P.A. 1921. et and Bel Chase Boulevard. 3301 NE Corner Of E. '35466- City Councoad as il tohappro ening the Board adnd «J�� 001. request; and 'Adopts More Whereas, the Physical Development Com- +` Unanlc Particularly described as: mittee of City Council reviewed the reportOf the Lot 5 Beaujardin No. 3, a subdivision therewith fanning Hoard and did concur t on the SE 1/4 of Section 35. T4N, R2W, "001n City of Lansing,Ingham County, Mich- Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the igan, Council of the City of Lansing ordains that aiWhen' the request to rezone the above described rd day from "CUP"Community Unit Plan District to"DM-1"Multiple Family Residential Dis- Property from Family Residential si ata trict. C Dis- trict be approved. i Whereas, pursuant to Act 207, P.A. 1921,. Adopted by the following vote: I as atnended, the Planning Board advised City Council to approve the request; and Unanimously. ' bean Whereas, the Physical Development Com-, n' fi the tte opCitn Council addcou By COUNCILMAN WORTHINGTON— dal I therewith; Whereas, b I Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the 27th day of Decemtber, 1979,(this council n Council of the City of Lansing ordains that was Petitioned to change the following de- the requests to rezone the above described scribed Property from "A" One Family Res- v property from "OUP" Community Unit idence District to "H"Light Industrial and , Plan District to "DM-1" Multiple Family "J" Parking Districts all as set forth in Residential be approved, the Zoning Code of this city, and , I Adopted by the following vote: Whereas, due notice as required by law Unanimously. has been given for a public hearing on said Oomt Petition, and 00 f Whereas, at such hearing held on the 3rdj By COUNCILMAN WORTHINGTON— day of March, 1980, all parties interested therein were heard and given due considera- That rezoning of property at Z-7-79 — tion, andrM' 3100 block of West Miller Rd. from "A" Whereas, the One Family Residential District to"C" Two scribed as: property involved. is.de- Iln JJGlJCU LILLUILL V1 "iCLW _ 9 MEMORANDUM �rCH1GP p: ELEANOR LOVE, Planning Manager ROM: JOHN M. ROBERTS tiorAssistant City Attorney ATE: July 29, 1996 E: A Method To Resolve Requests To Vary The Construction Of Structures Or Undeveloped Projects In "CUP" Districts BACKGROUND: This matter has come up in the context of a request by Patti Holland to construct an addition to the apartment-style building at Simken by adding exterior stairwells to the existing structure. The CUP ordinance provision was in effect at the time the apartment structure was built in 1962. The administrative procedure followed for this development was typical. The developer submitted a plan which was ultimately reviewed and approved by the Planning Board and City Council. Any modification to the plan was handled by a resubmission of the proposed alteration to the Planning Board and Council as in the original procedure. The final result of such a CUP project was the passage of a resolution which amended the zoning district map to show the area as a CUP district. In.approximately 1983, the CUP ordinance provision was repealed. Upon.research, it was determined that the CUP ordinance provided that the CUP project could vary the requirements for setback and/or height in the district in which the CUP would be located. Despite the aforementioned ordinance, the procedure treated the CUP as a separate zoning district, when, according to the provisions of the ordinance, the CUP was really an overlay to the existing zoning district. Notwithstanding the administrative procedure a followed, the CUP was similar in this respect to the current PRD which takes its place. ANALYSIS AND PROCEDURE: If the CUP ordinance was still in existence, the method of amendment would be in the manner aforestated by submission of any change to the Planning Board and then Council for approval. Because the CUP is repealed, there is no method to request a variance to a "CUP District": there are no ordinance requirements in effect to be varied except for the CUP project approved. However, because the CUP was actually an overlay, the standards to be applied are those of the original district. In our example, the original district is "A" residential and, therefore, as long as the proposed structural modification is consistent with the requirements of that district, the construction may be accomplished without a variance. If the proposed change, however, would conflict with the "A" residential set-back and/or height requirement, it could not be made without the BZA first granting a variance. The standards for set-back and height are those of the "A" district but the CUP project should be considered in the variance evaluation by the BZA. An alternative to the aforesaid mentioned variance procedure would be for the property to be rezoned (especially if the rezoning to the new district would permit the proposed construction modifications as a matter of right). If the property had been approved as a CUP but no development had taken place, the developer has the option of either (1) developing the property in the manner approved under the CUP, or (2) having the property rezoned in a manner which permits the proposed project that is a change from the original CUP. JMR/sp cc: Jim Ruff c:\wp\data\opinion\CU P/sp - 2 - STRUDWICK ADULT FOSTER CARE INC . 3726 DELTA RIVER DR. LANSING, MI 48906 517/323-8918 September 16, 1999 TO: CITY OF LANSING PLANNING DIVISION ATTENTION: Sam Quon RE: SLU-8-99 Please find enclosed 2 copies of the preliminary site plan for 1400 w. Jolly Rd. Lansing, MI for your review. REMOVAL OF TREES As indicated on the preliminary site plan there are some trees that sit inside the proposed site and immediately in back that must be removed in order to accommodate the structure. Other healthy mature trees that sit away from the structure will remain. However, some will need to be trimmed up to enhance the appearance of the site. LANDSCAPING The only surface area that will be disturbed will be the area where the building will sit, therefore the majority of the property will maintain its existing contour. However, the property will be cleared off [i.e. , removal of brush, weeds, etc. ] to provide yard area. Respectfully Submitted, r r ,Zohn Strudwick, Jr. , Director LLI N w LL 462,00' 338.60' 61.70' 61.70' fy- - o 0 0 LL- J o Q 160.91' o 0LLI REMOVE TREES Z_ \V Z 0 0 o FAr- 61.70" 61.70' P OPOSED 12 40' L RKING 64.00' O ,\ PROPOSED v BUILDING ��- 76.00' d �AL �y- - o v LP `�cn9rr�h � yl 95.7 0' vT Z<m ec ZUA W 338.60' �ZQ e'X Or JOLLY ROAD STRUDWICK ADULT FOSTER CARE INC . 3726 Delta River Dr. Lansing, Michigan 48906 August 31, 1999 TO: CITY OF LANSING PLANNING DIVISION PROPOSAL RE: SLU-8-99, 1400 W. Jolly Rd. , permission to build a 12 unit structure to house 12 unrelated residents in an Adult Foster Care Home. This 3 acres parcel which is located at 1400 W. Jolly Rd. Lansing, Michigan, has a current zoning of Community Unit Plan 3 buildings, 10 units each. Our proposal seeks permission to construct one 12 unit Adult Foster Care Facility on this 3 acre parcel instead of three 10 .. unit buildings. We feel that allowing one 12 unit adult foster- care facility to be built on this parcel instead of three 10 unit building, will constitute a less intense use, namely, the parcel will house only 12 residents rather than 30 families. There will be 24 hour supervision. Our residents doesn't own vehicles, therefore, requiring less parking spaces and reduced vehicle traffic. ADULT FOSTER CARE FACILITY' DEFINED MCL 400. 703 Definitions;A. , defines what an adult foster care facility is. An adult is a person 18 years and older. A home must be licensed. Section 3(4) defines an "Adult foster care facility" as a governmental or nongovernmental establishment that provides foster care to adults (18 years of age or older) . Adult foster care facility includes facilities and foster care family homes for adults who are aged (60 years of age or older) , mentally ill, developmentally disabled, or physically handicapped who require supervision on an ongoing basis but who do not require continuous nursing care. An "Adult. foster care facility" does not include any of the following: a). .A nursing home licensed under article 17 of the public health code. b) A hospital licensed under article 17 of the public health code. c) Nor does it include a home for ex-con's or a half-way house. OUR PLANS FOR THE JOLLY RD. PARCEL Currently, Strudwick Adult Foster Care Inc. " operate a licensed adult foster care facility at 3726 Delta River Dr. in Lansing, Michigan. we are licensed to provide foster care for the aged (i.e.., persons over 60 years of age) and persons 18 or over who are mentally ill. It is our intentions to house the aged and mentally ill adults in the Jolly Road facility. However, the State of Michigan will only license the "Home", therefore the building must be constructed prior to obtaining a license. Thus, if this Special Land .Use is granted, then the home can be constructed according to the State's requirement and once all the Staters requirements has been meet they will issue the facility a license. Respectfully Submitted, ohn Strudwick, Director Lm SLU- 8-99 NORTH 1400 W. Jolly Rd. Vicinity Map REO RD. Y uj J 3 VINCENT CT. DOR CIRCLER x rn AVE. C� m op \� a RIARFIELD OR. L-7zS t J K �n S. BRIARFIELD BEL x o JOLLY RD. JOLLY RD. m Q' AVE.P 2V m v f MADWELLLFERLEY ST. MOFFR z 0 G z SLU- 8-99 NORTH 1400 W. Jolly Rd. Zoning m a W--'�BRIARFIELD DR. J I 11 R w 0 o I 11 S. BRIARFIELD � BEL 'A Reg. Q � w Q ftk JOLLY RD. /arl-a ji i 'A " Res. elf Lli < moo. � m o m u CITY of LANSING INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION September 21, 1999 TO: Zoning and Ordinance o ittee Lans'n Planning Board FROM: Jim Sturdevant, AICP' - Senior Planner RE: Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 ace Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District On April 7, 1998, the Lansing Planning Board held a public hearing on the request of Harry Hepler for a zoning map amendment, from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District, for property located at 1131 & 11 33.Race Street. At that public hearing, the applicant spoke in favor of the request, and Mr. Randy Rifkin of Friedland Industries (405 E. Maple Street) expressed concerns about the proposed rezoning. Minutes from the April 7, 1998 public hearing are attached. On April 15, 1998, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee of the Lansing Planning Board reviewed the staff report (attached) which recommended the request be tabled pending completion of amendments to the master plan and/or a detailed parking study for the area. The Zoning and Ordinance Committee tabled the request (see minutes, attached). Subsequently.... ► In March of 1999, the planning staff completed a detailed parking study of the area that includes the subject property (copies of this document have previously been provided to the Planning Board). ► On August 17, 1999, the Lansing Planning Board adopted the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, which is an amendment to the master plan for the area that includes the subject property. ► At their meeting of September 20, 1999, the Lansing City Council adopted a resolution to expand the City's existing parking lot at the Brenke Fish Ladder using Community Development Block Grant funds (see copy of resolution, attached). ► The Urban Development Committee of the Lansing Planning Board, at their meeting this evening (September 21, 1999) will consider ACT-16-99, an offer to donate a parcel of property in the 1100 Block Race and Factory Streets necessary to complete the proposed expansion of the Brenke Fish Ladder parking lot (see plan, attached). September 21, 1999 Memorandum to Zoning and Ordinance Committee Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, page 2 "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District Completion of the parking study, the master plan amendments, and the parking lot plan are what the planning staff has been waiting for before recommending approval of the requested zone change. For this particular property, the requested rezoning is now appropriate because of the anticipated expansion of the Brenke Fish Ladder parking lot from its current 57 spaces to 138 parking spaces. Given the above, staff now recommends approval of Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District. PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 19 own entry so that you don't walk down any common halls. As can be evidenced by the rendering, it is intentionally designed to blend in with the architecture of single family homes. I don't feel it looks any less desirable or less attended to than the average home already in the neighborhood. This is not a congested project. It is more green space appearing than a single family project would be. By putting eight units in one building, and by orienting them the way we have with the drive on the inside we have accomplished a real green space around these townhomes. There is a separation between these living units and the homes that are on Catalpa and the surrounding area. Jason Aldrich, 3126 Nonette. My home is the fourth house on Nonette, backing right up to the New Faith Gardens proposed site. My house would be approximately 15-20 yards from the development. I have dogs and small children that would have to contend with whatever goes on in the complex. I'm very much opposed to it, I don't see how the green space is going to make that much difference. It's the same situation as Canterbury Commons, where the crime rate is high. I don't want it in my backyard. In fact, I asked the realtor when I bought my house if anything was planned for this area. The realtor told me no, but if anything goes up, I better sell quick because my property value will plummet. Seeing no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing is now closed. PRD-2-98 Will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Commitee, They will be meeting on April 15, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave. V. RECESS. Mr. Frederick requested a 10 minutes recess. The session resumed at 9..20 P.M. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District. Jim Sturdevant presented the case. You have before you a preliminary staff report with an area map, and a plot plan of the property in question. The property is located on Race Street near the Brenke Fish Ladder and Buchard Park. Its located behind the buildings that front on the 200 block of E. Grand River Ave. These buildings are old mills and industrial buildings that are some of the oldest buildings still standing in the City of Lansing today. The condition of the buildings is somewhat deteriorated but hopefully we can remedy that. The buildings sit between Race Street and the Grand River. Race Street.used to be part of the old mill race where the buildings got their waterpower. The current zoning is "H".Light Industrial. Surrounding zoning.is "H" Light Industrial, "F" Commercial, or "G-V Business. As you can see from the area map, I have the site identified, other properties in the vicinity that have in the last two or three years been rezoned to "G-V Business are shaded. Part of the Ferguson project on Turner Street is also pending in front of the Board for a similar rezoning application. PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 20 This property sits directly across from the City owned Brenke Fish Ladder parking lot. The applicant also owns property adjacent to this parking lot that is undeveloped at this time, though it is not a part of this zoning request. The purpose of the applicant requesting the "G-1" Business zoning is to remove the zoning code's requirements for off street parking. In the past this Board has supported that type of zoning change for properties that are being built on from property line to property line and are adjacent to E. Grand River Ave. In this case, its 100' off of Grand River Ave, but is basically building from property line to property line. Harry Hepler, applicant. We hope to rebuild on this property. This zoning has a lot to do with whether or not we would rebuild a certain square footage of the building.' Some of you have seen this building, its about 100 yards north of the hydrafall and the controlled DNR dam with the fish ladder. For the past ten years the building has been detiorating rapidly. We are now removing all of the south wall. We are taking down 3/4 of the west wall and hope to reconstruct it back to its original condition, with its odd shape windows that this industry put in. They are not the norm so when you look at the building you can imagine what used to be there in 1836. It is the oldest industrial site in Lansing that was on the Raceway. It is on.the National Historic Registry and we are governed by-those rules because we are applying for a 20% tax credit. The reason that I'm here is that its a speculative purchase. I love the location based on its view of the river. The rumor is that I will put a restaurant there, but I have no plans to build a restaurant. I'm strictly a developer that is interested in saving the building. The building is 15,000 sq.ft. in all, on this floor plan some areas have one, two, or three levels. I do have some plans that we turned into the National Historic Registry so that we could start tearing down walls that have decayed and can't be saved. I can show those to you if you'd like to see them. This building presents a large challenge because it would be the highest amount of money I've ever paid for a building to be renovated. I'm concemed, first, with what I paid for it; secondly, that we have adequate parking for the facility at 15,000 sq.ft. If I'm off on these figures, I apologize. For an office structure, for every 200 sq.ft., one parking spot is required. For retail space, which is a possibility as far as art galleries or such, one space is required for every 150 feet. The site has great potential but it does not have enough parking. The lot.on Factory St. that we are not asking for rezoning of, divides the city parking of about 55 spots and the city owned lot that used to be an adult entertainment facitily. We are actually in between them. There are discussions to merge all three of these sites and create general parking for the Old Town area. Being as that may, if we don't give up that land, it would only provide about 36 parking spots, its not adequate parking for the structure, therefore, "G- 1" is our answer to that, and that's why I'm here. If we don't go "G-1" it is questionable what we would be able to rebuild. PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS, APRIL 7, 1998 PAGE 21 Mr. Ruge asks if the bricks will be salvaged as the walls are torn down. Mr. Hepler answers yes, but the current ratio is about 50%, the bricks are so deteriorated. Randy Rifkin, 405 E. Maple, Friedland Ind. I'm not actually opposed to the Old Town development. As a matter of fact we welcome it. We have about seven acres and the office building is on Maple and Center and we occupy both sides of Maple Street and both sides of Center Street. Our business is a high traffic business with heavy duty equipment. Recently the city vacated Maple Street between Center Street and the railroad tracks. My concern is that if parking is not required, what might happen and what seems reasonable to happen, is that there will be foot traffic in the neighborhood, and foot traffic around Friedland during the day. There would probably be people needing parking spaces. I see this potentially interfering with my business operations and conceivably creating a safety and welfare problem for the pedestrians and patrons of whatever the establishment turns out to be. Our business is very noisy. There is a lot of dust created. This is an industrial area. I'm afraid that there may be a problem down the road for Mr. Hepler as well as for myself. If the structure turns out to be some kind of a retail establishment where peace and quiet is preferred, we may be at odds at some future point. My business has been there since 1886. The neighborhood actually grew up around it. Again, I am interested in Old Town being successful and that development continues. My concern is the welfare and safety of the people as well as continuing my business operations uninterrupted. The building on Race Street is separated by Friedland by the parking lot. After that, the first segment of my business is the bailing operation, where there are end loaders, cranes, and lift trucks using the street all the time. These are my concerns, I want to avoid any future conflicts before they occur. Mr. Hepler then responded to Mr. Rifkin's concerns. about .street parking versus a parking lot, but he did not step up to the podium, and was not heard by the recording device. Mr. Rifkin then responded to Mr. Hepler, but he also did not step to the podium. At that point, Mr. Ruge announced that this is not the place for a debate. Mr. Ruge states that everyone realizes there is a parking problem down there, and the City will work hard on trying to resolve it. The Public Hearing is now closed. Z-3-98 will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Commitee. They will be meeting on April 15, 1998 at.4.00 p.m. in the Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Ave. ZONING & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT APRIL 15, 1998 PAGE 3 3. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District This request is•to rezone the existing building "G-1" Business District. The applicant's intent is apparently to remove the Zoning Code's burden of off street parking regulations. The applicant is currently undertaking some rehabilitation work on the buildings in order to halt a serious deterioration problem. The applicant has revealed no specific plan for future use of the buildings. Summary The applicants are requesting rezoning of a commercial building from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District in order to provide flexibility in meeting requirements for off-street parking. If granted, the rezoning would permit occupancy of the entire building without any additional off-street parking. The proposed zoning and land use are generally consistent with recent trends in redevelopment of the North Lansing/Old Town area, and will be in keeping with the historic nature of the neighborhood. If fully developed by restaurant or entertainment facility, the subject building may create more parking demand than there is supply in the immediate vicinity. It is this last concern that has recently prompted the Planning Board to table the previous rezoning request for 1227 Turner Street (case No. Z-1-98) pending completion of a parking study and/or current Master Plan amendments for the North Lansing/0Id Town area. Committee Finding and Action: The Committee concurred with the staff report and found that it would be inappropriate to make a recommendation regarding this rezoning without the plan for information. Motion:- It was moved by Mr. Greiner and seconded by Mr. Miller to table Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District until the amendment and parking plans are completed. Motion carried unanimously, 3-0. Z-3-98 "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District 1133-31 Race Street GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT/OWNER: Harry Hepler 113 Pere Marquette Lansing, MI 48823 EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1 ' Business District. EXISTING LAND USE: Property contains former mill buildings located adjacent to the Grand River and the old mill race south of E. Grand River Ave. PROPOSED LAND USE: Undetermined. PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: The property is roughly trapezoidal shaped: approximately 11,600 square feet. SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial/residential: The 200 Block of E. Grand River Ave. S: Burchard Park E Vacant. Public parking facility W. Grand River SURROUNDING ZONING: N. "G-1" Business District & "H" Light Industrial S: "H" Light Industrial E: "H" Light Industrial W: "H" Light Industrial west of Grand River MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, designate this area for a combination of commercial development and Parks/opens space use. Staff anticipates no significant change for this property will be recommended by the current master plan update in progress. CASE HISTORY: The site consists of three separate, but abutting structures. Recent uses include a wood working business and warehouse space. The buildings were placed on the National Register of Historic Places Z-3-98 "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District page 2 Old Mills, 1133-31 Race Street following the recommendations of Memorandum 76, Historic North Lansing. The property is located within the 100 year flood plain. APPLICANTS PROPOSAL: This request is to rezone the existing building "G-1" Business District. The applicant's intent is apparently to remove the Zoning Code's burden of off street parking regulations. The applicant is currently undertaking some rehabilitation work on the buildings in order to halt a serious deterioration problem. The applicant has revealed no specific plan for future use of the buildings. AGENCY RESPONSES: AMERITECH TELEPHONE: No response received. ASSESSOR: No comments. BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT: The Electric Customer Projects and Marketing Department does not have a conflict with this request. BUILDING SAFETY: This project is subject to the City's Site Plan and Building Plan Review process. Please apprise the applicant of the necessity fro cons[ruction documents sealed by a Architect licensed in the State of Michigan. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION GROUP: No response received. CODE COMPLIANCE: No response received. CONSUMERS ENERGY: No response received. DEVELOPMENT: Development in Old Town will rely largely on additional parking being added in the future. While G-1 zoning permits development, business will not be successful until parking is available. The developer has vacant parking available for parking. I recommend the site be required as a parking area to accommodate the proposed development. In this case, G-1 _ zoning may not be necessary. Z-3-98 "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District page 3 Old Mills, 1133-31 Race Street ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/TIFA: 1. We support Mr. Hepler's project and have no objections to his rezoning request. 2. We request that you keep the EDC informed regarding the status of the rezoning request. FIRE MARSHALL: No remarks at this time. MEDIA ONE: No response received. MI DEQ: No objection if existing footprint of buildings is not expanded. MI DEPT. NATURAL RESOURCES: No response received. PARKS AND RECREATION: No response received. PUBLIC SERVICES : Public Service Department has no objections. PRINCIPAL SHOPPING DISTRICT: No response received. TRANSPORTATION: No response received. Background Information Recently, entrepreneurs have purchased many older buildings in the "Old Town" commercial district because of their historic character and charm. The majority of these historic structures are situated on small lots which are frequently the size of the actual building, with no physical space for off street parking. The current commercial and industrial zoning hinders redevelopment by imposing parking requirements that are more appropriate for a suburban commercial environment. The "G-1" Business District zoning does not require a property owner provide off-street parking. Many structures in the vicinity have already been rezoned to "G-1" Business District (see Figure 1, Area Map). Z-3-98 "H" Light Industrial District to "G-V Business District page 4 Old Mills, 1133-31 Race Street Description of Site The subject property is bounded by Race Street on the east, the Grand River on the west, a ten foot wide platted alley separates the subject properties from the 200 Block of E. Grand River Ave. to the north, and to the south is East Burchard Park and the Brenke fish ladder. The property sits at an elevation approximately six and one half (61/2) feet below the elevation of the 100 year flood (826.5 feet above sea level). The buildings have one or two floors and contain roughly 15,000 square feet of floor area. Parking The G-1 Zoning District does not require on site parking. When the City approves the "G-1." zoning designation for a.property, it is obligating its-self to provide public parking to meet the demands generated by the businesses located there (as in the Central. Business District). Additional off-street public parking is currently planned, but has not been approved, through expansion of the nearby parking lot at the Brenke Fish Ladder from 50 spaces to approximately 130 spaces. Actual parking requirements are variable, depending on the actual use of the building. If the building is actually used for all "general office" uses, approximately 75 off-street parking spaces would be required. Use of the site for retail would require approximately 100 parking spaces. Use of the site for a restaurant could require 125 or more parking spaces. Alternatives The Zoning Code provides three possible alternatives for "parking impaired" properties: I. a variance from the total number of spaces required (§1284.13) 2. a variance for joint use of parking spaces when peak hours of businesses do not overlap (§1284.05); 3. Rezone the property to "G-V Business District. Any of these three alternatives will work, however, there are some advantages and disadvantages to each. A variance from the total number of spaces would be for a definite number of spaces that is pre-defined by the developer and approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. This alternative.would work only,if the mix of uses and tenants.in the building did. not change.over.time to.require additional parking spaces beyond the number that were granted a variance. The second alternative, for joint use of spaces when the peak hours of the businesses do not overlap, would work if use of the building were mixed. Z-3-98 "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District page 5 Old Mills, 1133-31 Race Street The third alternative ("G-1" Zoning) relieve the statutory burden on the developer of providing any off-street parking. The developer would still need to provide parking as an incentive for leasing the building. Overall, the third alternative provides the greatest amount of flexibility for the developer and the City. Parking Study The planning staff has recently completed a draft parking study for the 100 through 500 blocks of E. Grand River Avenue. This study is presently under review of the Transportation Division and Parking System. Hopefully, this study.will identify parking demand and the available and potential parking facilities. ANALYSIS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Rezoning the subject property will constitute a "down-zoning" which actually reduces the number and type of land uses which would be permitted on the subject property. The uses permitted in the "G-1" zone are generally office, retail, and residential uses, all of which would be compatible with the surrounding commercial/residential district, and would be more compatible than the current zoning with the adjacent public park facilities. In addition, the preservation of these historically significant structures can only enhance the historic image of the North Lansing/Old Town commercial district. IMPACT ON VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC The location of parking required to service the building will impact vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns. It seems logical to assume that most parking for this property will occur in the City's adjacent parking lot, with either its current size of 55 spaces or the proposed expansion to 130 spaces. In either case. the subject buildings have the potential to create sufficient parking.demand to fill up the adjacent parking area by its self, without considering the demand created by other land use in the vicinity. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT While the buildings are in the flood plain, their restoration and re.-use will create no additional environmental impact. Because these buildings are on the National Register of Historic Places, they are exempt from state.and local flood plain management regulations. IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT This development has the potential to impact future patterns of development in two ways: either by becoming a potential "anchor" establishment along the River Trail, and _ Z-3-98 "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District page 6 Old Mills, 1133-31 Race Street therefore attracting other redevelopment activity; or by creating more parking demand than there is supply in the immediate vicinity. SUMMARY The applicants are requesting rezoning of a commercial building from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District in order to provide flexibility'in meeting requirements for off-street parking. If granted, the rezoning would permit occupancy of the entire building without any additional off-street parking. The proposed zoning and land use are generally consistent with recent trends in redevelopment of the North Lansing/Old Town area, and will be in keeping with the historic nature of the neighborhood. If fully developed by restaurant or entertainment facility, the subject building may create more parking demand than there is supply in the immediate vicinity. It is this last concern that has recently prompted the Planning Board to table the previous rezoning request for 1227 Turner Street (case No. Z-1-98) pending completion of a parking study and/or current Master Plan amendments for the North Lansing/Old Town area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends this request be tabled until completion of the current master plan amendments and/or parking study for the area. Respectfully Submitted. Jim Sturdevant, AICP Senior Planner November 6, 1997 Z-3-98.FE NORTH Z-3-98rPQ Aap 1131-1133 Race Street �r T-N C r\ •i I I' ' 0 I 1 I' I ♦ •� `�II� IF f \ I Y _ \ •� NORM snurr M, war 10 • I - .w GRANS _ \�*� I �—- . I I—•_ 1 I ,© I I,rl- - - I Igee 5ho�,r� ILIll 1,� I ' I• • ` r• /�J f�/��a J p� .11 �\ I — 57M2T �-• I / '—�-I �I A - - -� — L1961?IY STREET r 1� © I I, 1" I- I Y Ir � ' / • s I ' \\1 f_ �—'•r � —YI O��Y�� � � / � I i � I 1 I I � / 1 I L` I I I .� I.•I - 11-1--� I - r T �� I �------ I - Il - I L= I I i fe I •"J r I l• 4 �— y r I .I e I e r Y I 00 W11 L4W -1771aT I I Y �e_l I L I LL-- VA 10 f I - 1 � I I L • - - I I I LY S - ', - NORTH Z-3-98 1131-1133 Race Street v� L Q� i- Grand River Ave, F— Co W m m N ry a DDTInA a� fir w fo 0 g Mapl St, o 03/ NORTH Z-3-98 1131-1133 Race Street By j; omsr�l:ot_i.om 'Rob. 'Im.s ro'n.ce Harry Hepler 060 W. 5'Qgirgpw 11;33 Race St. Lansing, MI 48917 Lansing, MI 48917 SOU THWEST.:CORNER OF GRAND FINER 'YVE. AND''RACE'ST. MI(EST;.LLNE OF JAMES Se-YMOU-WS SUBDIVISION C - EXCEPTION NORTHEAST CORNER CURB OF LOT 3 �RICK..WVAt. _:: :. lr : :.:. :.....:... . AS. GC EO .. G�UPI 11.5' EASEMENT FOR_,,-- . 00 INGRESS W EGRESS -! LIBER 1179 PAGE M N ` PARCEL 1 BUILDING Ln a o� / R421� 00 o ` N � 11.67' EASEMENT FOR DRIVEWAY PURPOSES LIBER 501 PAGE 621WOO -� WALK WAY 0) ' PARCEL 3 Lp �y BUILDING PARCEL 2 BUILDING .�L /l Q EDGE OF OO WATER 1 = 2 0' 5tl G1�-lyy� 1b;2J LHNbINU 1 1 IT I.LtKK 11.)l fJf (0600 r,d1/e2 y i n-7C. BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RESOLVED BY THE LANSING CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, it is the Intent of the City to promote economic development and job creation where possible through investment of public funds for construction of supportive public facilities, and WHEREAS, it is also a prime objective of the City's Community Development Block Grant Program to promote economic development in income eligible areas, and to create job opportunities to benefit low and moderate income individuals and families, and WHEREAS, business owners and residents in the Old Town Commercial District and nearby community have indicated in writing that additional parking is critical to further development in the area and recommend that: 1. The City should expand the existing parking lot located in the Old Town Commercial District south of Grand River Avenue between Race and Factory Streets. 2. The parking lot should have no meters. 3. The lot should include both short term turnover and long term permit parking. 4_ Turnover parking should be free to customers and visitors. 5. Parking in the lot should be available for park and recreational use. 6. Dates be set aside to reserve the lot for festivals and special events, and WHEREAS, the Administration concurs with these recommendations, and further recommends that the existing parking lot be expanded and managed to meet these objectives, that the City proceed to acquire or control the land necessary to expand the lot, and that Community Development Block Grant Funds be utilized as the primary source of funding to construct the facility, Approved for Placement Op4hp City Council Agenda: 4�-- WW6� :J mes D. Smie k—a- City Attomey Page 1 of 2 JGf—Ll1-1777 1U•GJ l-ru`IJ 11YU t 1 1 1 L.LLI\f' --- I I I vim-- ( .,JL/b� NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Lansing City Council authorize, subject to all Charter requirements, the acquisition of property through purchase, donation, lease, license or easement to expand the existing parking lot located south of Grand River Avenue between Factory and Race Streets in the Old Town Commercial District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Community Development Block Grant Funds be utilized as the primary source of funding to construct the facility. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an initial management and operation plan for the parking facility be Implemented once the lot is constructed to include the following- 1) Provide free parking with a two (2) hour time limit in the lot from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm available to all and enforced accordingly. 2) Sell a fixed number of monthly parking permits on a first come first served basis to accommodate employee and resident parking, with the cost of the monthly permits established at the prevailing rate for outlying parking lots. 3) Lease parking spaces for use after 5:00 pm at the prevailing rate for evening parking in outlying parking lots. 4) Recover the required annual maintenance and operational cost for the lot through a special assessment charged to businesses benefitted by the parking facility. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Mayor, on behalf of the City, is hereby authorized to sign and execute all necessary documents to effectuate the construction and management of the parking lot, subject to prior approval as to form by the City Attorney. Approved for Placement O e City Council Agenda: i qq Q. es D. Smierike City Attomey Page 2of2 TOTAL P.02 � i � � _ ' a. .rt. I� � .. — �� _ i — . � . � �� �� t ..f � - i � L ' . �1 .r .� Act-16-99 1100 Block Race and Factory Streets Acquisition of property for parking lot expansion GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Lansing, Development Office, Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development 316 N. Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48906 LOCATION: 1100 Block Race and Factory Streets (see Figure 1, Area Map) EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial District REQUESTED ACTION: The City is considering an offer to donate property to the City for expansion of the existing City owned parking lot at the Brenke Fish Ladder/E. Burchard Park EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: approximately 174 feet by 60 feet (10,455 square feet) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial and vacant commercial property S: Public park E: Factory Street W: Race Street, vacant industrial/commercial buildings SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F-1" Commercial District S: "H" Light Industrial District E: "H" Light Industrial District W: "H" Light Industrial District MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, (1999) designates the vicinity of the subject site for commercial/mixed use and parking. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The City is considering the acceptance of property for use as an addition to an existing parking lot (see Figure 1, Area Map). The Development Office has developed a plan to grade the lot and install improvements such as storm drainage and pavement Act-16-99 1100 Block Race and Factory Streets pie 2 Acquisition of property for parking lot expansion in order to incorporate the property into the adjacent parking lot. AGENCY REFERRALS: ASSESSOR: If this is sold before 12-31-99 it can be taken off the year 2000 tax roll. Will the 10 foot alley on the northern edge of this property remain an alley or could we combine the alley with the new tax description. ATTORNEY: No response yet received. BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT: No response yet received. BUILDING SAFETY: No objection. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION GROUP: No response yet received. CONSUMERS ENERGY: No response yet received. DEVELOPMENT: The property is required to enable the City to construct and expand a public parking lot. The donation also constitutes part of a required match for a DNR grant connected with river front development. EDC/TIFA: No response yet received. MI DEQ: No response yet received. MI DNR: ...Parks and Recreation Division would support this additional land, as your plans call for additional parking at the city fish ladder on the Grand River.... will provide additional comments by the 21 st....In this case, I do not believe we have any input or issues.... PARKS AND RECREATION: Additional parking is needed to service the downtown shops and offices. This would complement what is already there. The Forestry Manager has no comment on ACT- 16-99. Act-16-99 1100 Block Race and Factory Streets page 3 Acquisition of property for parking lot expansion LANSING POLICE DEPT.: No response yet received. PUBLIC SERVICES : No response yet received. PSD: No response yet received. TRANSPORTATION: The Transportation and Parking Office supports the acquisition for construction of a parking lot. Review under Act 285 requires an assessment of the location, character, and extent of the property and its use. Location The subject property is located between Race and Factory Streets, approximately 100 feet south of E. Grand River Avenue. It is north of and adjacent to the existing city owned parking lot at the Brenke Fish Ladder. To the north of the subject property is a ten foot wide city owned alley. North of the alley are five vacant lots and the building located at 226 E. Grand River Avenue. West of the subject property, across Race Street, are three buildings at 1131 , 11311/2, and 1133 Race Street that are presently undergoing extensive reconstruction. East of the property is Factory Street and the Conrail siding that serves the Friedland Industries site.. The adjacent portion of Factory Street is used both for metered parking and access to the Brenke Fish Ladder parking lot. Character The character of the area is essentially an undeveloped dirt lot. It is relatively level, but is three to four feet lower in elevation than the adjacent parking lot to the south. Extent The extent of proposed property acquisition is fee simple ownership for the entire parcel. The Development Office has developed a plan to grade the lot and install improvements such as storm drainage and pavement in order to incorporate the property into the adjacent parking lot. SUMMARY The City is considering an offer to donate property to the City for expansion of the existing City owned parking lot at the Brenke Fish Ladder/E. Burchard Park. The subject property is located between Race and Factory Streets, approximately 100 feet south of E. Grand River Avenue. The character of the area is essentially an undeveloped dirt lot. Act-16-99 1100 Block Race and Factory Streets page 4 Acquisition of property for parking lot expansion RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends acceptance of the donation of property. Respectfully Submitted, Jim Sturdevant, AICP Senior Planner ACT-16-99.FE.wpd NORTH ACT-16-99 1100 Block Race and Factory Streets rr , o pa f Ap� 201 303-5 307-9 �'` AD 31 GRAND RIVER AVENUE 2 0 0—2 2p�206 20a 216 226 co l � o CITY PARKING �-n LOT p21 j 130' El �OZ 0p1 �, � - _ " ' ., - _ A �• ,.- -� -� .- . . � �� _ �' • ; k� �;. _ Y. � - �. - - � r' . ,. _ T�,� R -� _ _ . 11 i.