HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 Planning Board Oct-Dec FINAL APPROVED NOVEMBER 2, 1999 AS PRINTED Draft to Clerk 102699
Approved 110299
To Clerk 111299
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 p.m., City Council Chambers CI7Lr ',
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, October 5,1999
1. OPENING SESSION:
Chairman Nischan called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Ruge,
Smith. Seven members present, one vacant seat.
B. Excused Absences - None.
C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff
present; William C. Rieske, Principal Planner; James A. Ruff, Zoning
Administrator; Jim Sturdevant, Senior Planner.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was approved as printed.
3. COMMUNICATIONS - None.
4. HEARINGS
A. SLU-11-99, Vacant Land SE Cor. Shiawassee and Pere Marquette,
Residential Use in "H" Light Industrial District
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Howard Corbin for a Special
Land Use permit for residential development in the "H" Light Industrial
District on the property located at the southeast corner of East
Shiawassee Street and Pere Marquette Street, north of Clara's
Restaurant. Railroad tracks are just to the east. Commercial and
industrial businesses are located along the west side, facing North Larch
Street. The proposal is to construct a 16-unit two-story apartment
building, somewhat similar to a row of townhouses. Each would contain
two bedrooms. The property is approximately 1 Y4 acres, zoned "H" Light
Industrial. A principal residential use is allowed in the "H" Light Industrial
District with approval of a special land use permit and the criteria in the
Zoning Code for special land uses.
Mr. Ruge noted that the front and rear yard setbacks are not as large as
in residential situations. Mr. Ruff said that the "H" Light Industrial District
does not require setbacks when adjacent to other industrial or commercial
districts, nor does it require a setback from a railroad property. This
development would present more of a rowhouse appearance with less
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 PAGE 2
front yard, providing as much room as possible in the rear for circulation
and carport area, to help buffer the site and the residences from the
railroad. There is yard area both to the north and south.
Mr. Smith asked what kinds of tenants are anticipated for the
development, about potential development of the area to the south, and
about the assessor's question concerning the actual owner.
SKIP CORBIN, 2970 LAKE LANSING ROAD, ARCHITECT. We are
looking for business and professional people who work downtown, people
who want to locate downtown and don't want to commute. Probably not a
lot of young families—maybe a husband and wife sharing a unit. We are
waiting to see what the response is in terms of tenants. If we do get quite
a few children, we are planning a play area there. Right now, it would be
landscaped.
MIKE BONE, 2970 LAKE LANSING ROAD, OWNER/BUILDER. The
owner of record now is Brian Huggler. As we move forward on this
project, there would be three individuals owning it, myself, Brian Huggler
and Marlene Skeehan. I would be the general contractor and one of the
owners.
Mr. Nischan asked about rent ranges. Mr. Bone said they will be high-
end rentals, $800 to $950, for two-bedroom, two-bath units, each with its
own furnace, hot water heater, full-size washer and dryer, and security
intercoms at the four entrance doors. Upper units will have vaulted
ceilings in the living and dining rooms. Each individual tenant will pay
heat and electric bills. Each unit will control its own heat, electric, and
central air conditioning. We are going to try to make them a little more
upscale, with hardwood floors, and track lighting.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the
close of the public hearing for SLU-11-99, Vacant Land Southeast Corner
Shiawassee Street and Pere Marquette Drive, Residential Use in
"H" Light Industrial District and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, October 13, 1999, in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
B. Z-13-99, 304 and 306 East Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial
District to "G-1" Business District
Mr. Sturdevant presented the case, a request by Paul Emery to rezone
the property from "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District,
which does not require the owner to provide off-street parking. It would
bring the property into conformity with the code and allow the owner
unlimited ability to improve the property in terms of dollar value invested.
These are historic buildings; they are in the National Register District in
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 PAGE 3
Old Town. This area is in the Downtown Lansing Comprehensive Plan
area just adopted, and it is part of the Old Town District. This rezoning
would be consistent with the Master Plan. In addition, City Council has
just approved expansion of the parking lot at the Brenke Fish Ladder site
to more than double in size. This is on the adjacent block to the west.
That would allow the property owner to lease a certain number of spaces
for his residential tenants and also provide a parking base for portions of
the entire Old Town District.
Mr. Smith asked how does the owner currently accommodate parking, and
what are his current needs? Mr. Sturdevant said his current needs are
two spaces for each residential unit (two residential units, one in each
building). Applying the ratio for the use of the ground floor space, one
space for each 200 sq ft of office space, he would need approximately six
spaces for the ground floor. The second space is vacant at present. Mr.
Smith said conceivably the two spaces could require up 12 spaces, just
for office space, not including requirements for residents. For each
additional resident, it would be another two additional spaces.
PAUL EMERY, 304 EAST GRAND RIVER, OWNER. I live at 304 East
Grand River. I bought these buildings eight years ago, because I needed
a place to live and a place to have my office. I do computer consulting. I
live upstairs in one; the other side is rented to my tenant, an antique
dealer, in the first floor of the other place. My office is in the first floor of
the building that I live in. My tenant and I, we park in Tate's lot, which is
the Tate's Freeze, as shown on the map. Counting up spaces required to
abide by the code, it would be almost impossible for me to develop these
two places. I am willing to renovate the buildings, but I need to be sure
can rent them in a commercial situation. (Submitted a letter from George
A. Pavick, Owner, Pleats Interior Design, in support.)
AMY COLLETT, PROGRAM MANAGER FOR OLD TOWN/MAIN
STREET, ALSO REPRESENTING THE OLD TOWN COMMERCIAL
ASSOCIATION. Thank you for considering this rezoning. We are very
excited that this is coming before you, and we support the rezoning from
4-F-1" to "G-1", mostly because we think it will help improve the investment
in the area. It will offset the burden of parking for this particular business
in Old Town. Mr. Emery's tenant is Spider House Antiques, which is an
antique dealership. Because the new parking lot will be coming on line
soon, there will be ample parking available for both the residential and
business tenants.
Chairman Nischan read the letter from Pleats Interior Design, in support.
PETER O'MALLEY, 302 E. GRAND RIVER. I own the building next door
at 302 East Grand River; my son runs his business there. Most of the
construction is in front of our building. We were going to close down, we
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 PAGE 4
had no parking anyway. It is a retail business. Most of our customers
have used the meters on the street, which are all gone now. Most people
are only in the store for five or ten minutes at the most. We haven't had a
real problem until the sewer construction this year, so we have never
really worried about parking. Employees park on side streets or in the
fish ladder parking lot. I am in favor of the change to "G-1" for Paul. I am
concerned about other requests that are being held up. Parking has been
one of the main concerns in Old Town. I don't know if the Board has been
approached about rezoning the entire Old Town area to "G-1". If it is
going to be an individual basis, several of us have talked about putting in
similar requests for the future, and didn't know if that would be
appropriate.
Ms. Love said as a usual matter, mass rezonings are not usually done.
Rezonings are done on an individual basis, in particular, because of the
issue of parking in Old Town. Discussions of the Board would indicate
that they are concerned that we not do rezonings in a mass fashion
without making sure we have adequate parking in place. There is some
additional parking coming on line, the Race Street parking lot, which more
than doubles the size of that lot. As more parking becomes available, and
as more businesses move into that area, we may either go to "G-1" or an
overlay zone that would also deal with parking. Mr. Sturdevant has been
working on it, as has staff; it could become an amendment to the zoning
code. It could be applied in Old Town, to facilitate problems with parking
without people having to go through individual requests.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the
close of the public hearing and referral of Z-13-99, 304 and 306 East
Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District
to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. meeting on
Wednesday, October 13, 1999, in the Department Conference Room, 316
N. Capitol Avenue.
C. Amendments to the Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1288, Floodplain
Control.
Ms. Love presented the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code,
Chapter 1288, Floodplain Control. It recently came to our attention, under
Chapter 1288.02(p), that properties were allowed to be exempted if they
were on a National Register of Historic Places or on a state register of
historic sites. At the time this ordinance was enacted, in August of 1978,
we did not have a local historic district ordinance. That was not passed
until the mid-1980s. Consequently, there was no need for a reference to
a local historic district. Now we do have a local ordinance, and there is
still the National Register of Historic Places, but the state of Michigan has
recently come to believe that there is duplication of the work of either the
National Register or a local district, so they are opting out of creating any
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 PAGE 5
more state registers of historic sites. They are saying that if it is important
enough to that community, it can be under a local district. Our local
district has more safeguards for the preservation of the building.
Consequently, we have added six words which would indicate that the
exemption would apply not only to properties on the National Register of
Historic Places and the State Register of Historic Sites, but also to
properties within a local historic district. It would be helpful to the local
historic districts to have this.
Mr. Ruff said the definition of substantial improvement kicks in a
floodplain regulation. If the property is not being substantially improved,
or if it is exempted because it is in a state or national historic place,
certain allowances are made that a general structure developed in, say,
the '50s or '60s does not have. There is greater restriction on all other
structures than those in a historic district. With the state's reluctance to
add to their list, this was seen as a way to accommodate City of Lansing's
improvements to the historic district designations.
Mr. Ruge was troubled with the way this is drafted, which puts the
exemptions to the ordinances under the definitions. It would be better to
create a separate paragraph stating the exemptions. Ms. Love said we
could pass the suggestion on to the Attorney's office for their decision as
to whether or not they thought it would be a more appropriate way of
handling it. Mr. Ruff said the code as originally adopted complied with
federal regulations. We are also having it reviewed by the state and
federal representative for MDEQ and FEMA. They may have some
suggestions for cleaning up language. This was done a while back, and
there was nothing significant then. With this change, there maybe other
things.
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 4 p.m. on Wednesday, October 13, 1999, in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
D. Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Plan #2.
KARL DORSHIMER, EDC STAFF REPRESENTATIVE. Thank you for
this opportunity. You have received copies of the plan. The Urban
Development Committee had an opportunity to review the plan. This is an
ideal brownfield project at the old Motor Wheel plant site at 1600 N.
Larch. It is approximately 29 acres, probably the largest brownfield site in
the City with about 629,000 sq ft of building space. Demmer Properties
has purchased the site and is redeveloping it. Ultimately, when
completed, approximately 500 jobs are expected to be located in the
North Lansing area, with the huge economic impact of an approximately
$20 million annual payroll. This does not include the amount of
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 PAGE 6
investment going into the real estate. It is a big project. I am here to
answer questions, also John Dobrowolski from Demmer properties is
here.
Mr. Ruge asked about the estimated eligible cost total of $2,725,000 on
Draft P. 3. On P. 4 the estimated tax capture is the same number. How
are these numbers arrived at? Mr. Dorshimer said we know the estimated
costs, the eligible cost to be reimbursed with tax capture. By law, we can
capture no more than that; that is why the number is the same. In
Appendix A, there is a more detailed table of how the capture occurs over
an approximately 13-year period. Actual capture will vary, because we
don't know exactly what it is going to be. We estimate. These are
conservative estimates.
Mr. Smith said, on Draft P. 2, an estimated $1,400,000 eligible clean-up
activities would be reimbursed. On P. 3 is the chart showing estimated
eligible costs, $2,725,300. Mr. Dorshimer said the borrower is charged
interest on borrowed money; by law we can reimburse the interest paid by
the developer for the cost of the environmental clean-up.
Ms. Love said, for example, if a property is assessed at $100,000, taxes
are $1,000, but because it is a brownfield, its value is not as high as if it
were a greenfield located elsewhere. The tax capture is the difference
between the taxes paid now and the taxes paid after remediation and
redevelopment is complete, say $10,000. The tax capture is the
difference between the $1,000 already being paid and the $10,000 that
they will pay each year. What they are capturing is the $9,000. Instead
of that going into the general fund, over a 12-year period, we give them
back the money that they have invested in remediation of the site, plus
the interest to borrow that money. As a community, we don't have the
money to spend to clean up the site; instead we have a business that has
taken the opportunity to buy the site, clean it up, and pay the interest up
front. As a community, we are capturing the additional taxes that they will
pay and over time giving them back their original investment in site
remediation.
Mr. Ruge asked, after the 12-year period, the taxes will be increased over
what they are today? Mr. Dorshimer said the tax revenue will go to the
taxing jurisdictions as normal.
Mr. Miller asked if the groundwater contamination would be addressed.
Mr. Dorshimer deferred to Mr. Dobrowolski.
JOHN DOBROWALSKI, REPRESENTING DEMMER PROPERTIES,
L.L.C. SCS Consultants determined that the ground water contamination
was primarily the result of the Barrels Inc. Superfund site to the southwest
of the subject property. We are upstream of that problem. We are below
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 PAGE 7
the Delta site, another Superfund issue; however, testing has shown that
the groundwater contamination does not appear to be coming from or
through that site. The bulk of the remediation is going to be monitoring,
test wells, costs of evaluation, and capping to prevent leaching into the
groundwater. We were surprised because originally we heard that we
could be looking at $4 million or $5 million of remediation. It was guilt by
association, being located between two superfund sites. It was assumed
that the Motor Wheel site was also equally as contaminated. We have
found that not to be the case. It appears to be no more of an
environmental issue than most 60-, 70-, 80- or 90-year-old sites. Testing
does not indicate that there is a groundwater hazard in that area. After
monitoring, we may find that something may pop up. I want to assure the
Planning Board that this particular program is very effective at attracting a
developer to look at a site. Had this not been available, we probably
would not have looked.
Mr. Miller asked, have soil tests have indicated there is not significant soil
contamination? Mr. Dobrowalski said there is soil contamination;
however, it is not leaching into the groundwater. There are different ways
to remediate that—remove the soil or cap it. As time goes on, the soil
seems to be improving. Soil and water testing that was done each time
the property changed hands indicated an improvement. The site seems
to be remediating itself, to some degree. Mr. Dobrowalski said DEQ
seems to be heading toward ongoing monitoring of wells on the site, in
excess of ten wells onsite.
EUGENE BUCKLEY, 818 HAYFORD. I applauded the sale of the site,
and GM and others bringing jobs. Regarding the Brownfield cleanup, and
tax capture, anything that creative has to have something wrong with it. I
don't like this at all. If there is a brownfield, it is the responsibility of the
polluter to clean it up. First it was Motor Wheel, then Goodyear, then
Kelsey-Hayes, then Kelsey-something-else in Detroit. They had the
property for sale for $4 million; they sold it for $3 million. In the process
they were absolved of the responsibility of cleaning up the brownfield,
now estimated at $2.7 million. Looking at tax capture, the taxpayers are
going to pick up the cost of clean-up. Once cleaned up, the property
assumes enormous value. It is the responsibility of elected officials to
bring jobs to the community; however, should that be done with an
enormous transfer of funds to owners of industrial property? The state
refused to pay for clean-up. The entire cost of cleaning up the brownfield
is going to be borne by Lansing taxpayers. The industrial taxpayer should
be paying the entire cost. I looked into industrial taxes. Summer taxes on
the Motor Wheel property for 1999 were $60,000. They expect to capture
over $200,000 in additional taxes. Looking at tax breaks and deductions,
property taxes on the Motor Wheel have dropped by 1/3 in the last two
years. Last year, the summer taxes were $77,578. In fact, taxes have
been going down. Even the North Precinct property is only $12,000. At
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 PAGE 8
some point, the taxpayers have to get something for the value. We can't
support the whole thing. We are not getting that much. We will be hard
pressed to see the recovery of tax money with depreciation of assets. I
am opposed to this unless they want to borrow the money and pay it back.
To take it off the back of the taxpayers after incredible tax breaks on
these properties is a horrible injustice to the taxpayer.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the
close of the public hearing on LBRA Plan #2 and referral to the Urban
Development Committee, meeting during the recess tonight to discuss the
Plan in the Council Conference Room. Hopefully, we can take action
tonight.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
EUGENE BUCKLEY, 818 N. HAYFORD. I forgot to mention that, on those
property taxes which were so low, on average, in five out of the last ten years,
the owner was delinquent in paying the property taxes, and at one point was
behind $87,000. He can't get that behind anymore because his taxes aren't that
high anymore.
6. RECESS
The Urban Development Committee met in the Council Conference Room to
discuss LBRA Plan #2.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval - Minutes of September 21, 1999 - not available.
B. Committee Reports
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman.
Next meeting Wednesday, October 13, 1999 at 4 p.m. in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
2. Urban Development Committee - Ms. Keene, Vice Chair.
The Urban Development Committee met during the recess to
discuss the LBRA Plan #2. In Committee, it was moved, seconded
and carried unanimously, 3-0, to approve the LBRA Plan #2, with
the following findings.
Based on the review, testimony and evidence regarding the Plan,
the Committee found that the former Motor Wheel site has stood
dilapidated and vacant for more than three years; the plan will
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 PAGE 9
promote the remediation of environmental contamination on the
site; in addition to site remediation, the project includes the
rehabilitation of the plant and landscaping and other aesthetic
improvements which will reduce blight and benefit the adjacent
neighborhoods. Upon completion, the project will create and retain
over 500 high-skill jobs with the potential of generating $22 million
in annual payroll. The project will leverage approximately
$10,150,000 in site and plant improvements by Demmer
Properties, L.L.C, and $2,750,000 in leasehold improvements by
General Motors. The plan provides for the capture of property tax
revenues due to the private investment in the site and devotes
them to environmental remediation. The plan proceeds will help to
capitalize the brownfield remediation fund that will provide financial
incentives for the reuse of other brownfield sites within the City.
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and
the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve
LBRA Plan #2.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Frederick said he believed this is a good plan, to clean up a contaminated site with
very little involvement of the City. We don't have to incur costs for bonds, etc.; we will
get the property improved; get some eventual tax collection; jobs, and the site cleaned
up.
Mr. Goolsby said he had philosophical problems with abatements and TIFAs. This is
clearly the right way to go. We no longer have the ability to pursue the polluters. This
plan guarantees clean-up, and it has immediate economic benefits. Because of the
immediate creation of jobs, there is immediate financial benefit to the City. With the
$22 million payroll, if everybody paid .05 percent, that would result in $110,000 income
tax revenues to the City. This is the thing we need in our inner cities to prevent urban
sprawl. Otherwise, where are industrial concerns going to look? They will go to the
townships where they can build without worry of pollution. This has the advantage of at
least slowing down urban sprawl. "I am in favor of it."
Mr. Smith said he has been convinced that this is an appropriate and good thing for the
City. He also hopes that this is not an approval of pollution of sites and then denial of
responsibility. It should not be justification to encourage new owners and developers to
pollute sites with the idea that ultimately they can shirk responsibility.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 PAGE 10
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby . Aye
Keene. . . Aye Miller .Aye
Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . Aye
Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays; 0; unanimous, carried; LBRA Plan #2
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.
C. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Love asked, following committee assignments, that the Executive
Committee meet to work on improving the evaluation form that the Board
has used in previous years. If the Board felt that our Work Plan
Christmas Dinner last year was worthwhile, Ms. Love would be happy to
arrange that again.
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)
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 - Committee Assignments.
Chairman Nischan announced the Zoning and Ordinance Committee: Mr. Miller,
Mr. Frederick, Mr. Goolsby and Mr. Nischan; Urban Development Committee:
Mr. Ruge, Ms. Keene, and Mr. Smith.
Following committee elections, the Executive Committee needs start working on
the evaluation form.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 PAGE 11
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Chairman Nischan submitted a form to staff to keep the Board apprised of
progress of cases through the system. "I really want to know what happens
when stuff leaves here." He would like to have the form used as part of the
Planning Manager's report, starting with what we did tonight. Mr. Ruff has all the
information for rezonings and SLUs, and Bill tracks Act 285 Reviews.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Frederick asked if a meeting to set committee assignments would be
considered a meeting requiring public notice. The consensus was it would not.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Mr. Ruge asked about the sign code enforcement person. Ms. Love said the
selection will be made next week.
12. ADJOURNMENT was at 8:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
mn100599 A:\52
i// A,,
Y
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
f C H I G 316 N.CAPITOL AvENUE SurrE C-3•L NsING,MI 48933-1242• (517)483-4140•FAX:(517)483-6057
David C.Hollister,Mayor ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
TAX INCREMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY
September 8, 1999
Ms. Eleanor Love
Planning Manager
Dept. of Planning &Neighborhood Dev.
316 N. Capital Ave., Suite C-3
Lansing, MI 48933
Dear Ms. Love:
In accordance with the rules and procedures established by the Lansing City Council and the Lansing
Brownfield Redevelopment Authority(LBRA), I respectfully submit a copy of LBRA Plan#2 for
the Planning Board's consideration, approval and recommendation to the City Council.
Please keep me informed of the review process with advance notice of any public hearings or
meetings that I or another representative of the EDC may be required to attend. Thank-you.
Sincerely,
. �� �
Karl R. Dorshimer
Project Coordinator
® Please Recycle "Equal opportunity Employer"
Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority
Brownfield Plan #2
1999
h
Approved by the LBRA
September 1 , 1999
Demmer Properties L. L. C.
Former Motor Wheel Plant Site
Table of Contents
Paae
1. Motor Wheel Plant - Site History 1
2. The Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority 1
3. Motor Wheel Plant - Brownfield Project 2
4. Eligible Activities Planned for Reimbursement 3
5. Captured Taxable Value and Tax Increment Values 4
6. Method of Brownfield Financing 4
7. Amount of Note or Bonded Indebtedness Incurred 4
8. . Duration of Brownfield Plan 5
9. Estimated Impact on Taxing Jurisdictions 5
10. Legal Description of Site 5
11. Personal Property Capture 5
12. Displacement of Persons 5
13. Site Remediation Revolving Fund 5
List of Attachments
Attachment A - Detailed Schedule of Tax Capture & Cost Reimbursement
Attachment B - Property Descriptions
Attachment C - Eligible Activities Definitions and Reimbursement Procedures
Attachment D - Reimbursement Agreements
Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority DRAFT
August 27, 1999 Brownfield Plan #2 Page 1
I. Motor Wheel Plant - Site History
The site of the brownfield project is the former Motor Wheel manufacturing facility
located at 1600 North Larch St., on the north side of the City of Lansing. The site is
composed of approximately 29 acres containing multiple buildings totaling 629,017
square feet. The plant site has been used for more than eighty years to manufacture
wheel assemblies and wheels for both military and passenger vehicles. The original
owner of the property was Goodyear Tire & Rubber. Motor Wheel Corporation
purchased the site from Goodyear in 1987. In 1996 Hayes-Lemmerz International Inc.
acquired the property with a stock buyout of the Motor Wheel Corp. For the last three
years, this old and dilapidated facility has stood empty and become both an eyesore
and a possible health threat to surrounding property owners. The loss in jobs, incomes
and taxes to the citizens of Lansing from the abandonment of this site has contributed
directly to the economic deterioration of the North Lansing area.
2. The Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority
In August of 1997, the Lansing City Council established the Lansing Brownfield
Redevelopment Authority(LBRA) and designated the entire City as a brownfield zone.
The primary purpose of the LBRA is to encourage the redevelopment of contaminated
property within the brownfield zone by providing financial and tax incentives.
LBRA Brownfield Redevelopment Process
Brownfield $Environmental
Response
Developer an Brownfield; Investment Remdiated
or 2
Si Site te
Owner
3 $Development
$Environmental Investment
Response 5
Investment $Increased Property
Reimbursed Tax Revenue Captured Redevelo ed
LBRA 4 p
Step 1 Developer/Owner identifies site and begins dialogue with the LBRA.
Step 2 Environmental response activities remediate the Brownfield site.
Step 3 Additional development investment redevelops the site.
Step 4 The LBRA captures the increase in property tax revenues generated by the new development.
Step 5 The LBRA reimburses for eligible response activity costs.
Lansing[3rolr17/ielc(Rede velopnteill;l uihorirv, 316N. Copilot, Suite C-3, Lansing;1 J 48933 111 483-4140
Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority DRAFT
August 27, 1999 Brownfield Plan #2 Page 2
3. Motor Wheel Plant - Brownfield Project
The LBRA and the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) through the City of
Lansing's Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development have teamed up
with Demmer Properties L.L.C., and General Motors to redevelop the Motor Wheel
Plant site. Demmer Properties have purchased the property and plans to invest
approximately $10,150,000 to investigate and close the site environmentally and
renovate the buildings to support modern manufacturing operations. Demmer
Properties plans to lease all of the space. The Machine Tool Operation (MTO) of
General Motor's Powertrain Group will be the anchor tenant and lease 250,000 square
feet of the building. GM will invest approximately $2,750,000 in additional building
improvements and environmental related expenditures. It is expected that once fully
leased, the renovated complex will create and retain over 500 high-pay, skilled jobs
benefitting North Lansing Community and all of Lansing. The completed project site
has the potential to create an estimated $22,000,000 in annual payroll generating
additional secondary employment opportunities which will provide North Lansing and
the Old Town area with a large increase in commercial and retail spending.
The entire brownfield site has been assessed for contamination to determine what
appropriate response activities will be undertaken as directed by the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality. The end-result will be the transformation of-a
contaminated and unsightly old industrial property, into a: safe, modern and attractive
manufacturing facility. The Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority(LBRA)plans
to capture the increase in property taxes derived from the property's improvement and
use these funds to reimburse both Demmer Properties and General Motors for an
estimated $1,400,000 in eligible cleanup activities. The .LBRA may also assist
Demmer Properties to apply for a tax credit to be used to reduce their Michigan Single
Business Tax.Liability.
Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Awhorily, 316 iV Capitol, Suile C-3, Lansing A11148933 PH 483-4140
Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority DRAFT
August 27, 1999 Brownfield Plan#2 Page 3
4. Eligible Activities Planned for Reimbursement
The table below presents the estimated eligible costs to be reimbursed with tax
capture revenues.
Estimated Eligible Costs
Demmer Properties
RCRA Facility Investigation $115,000
Interim Measures/No Further Action Requested $203 500
Corrective Measures Study $57,000
Corrective Measures Implementation $124,500
Asbestos Survey and Removal $50,000
Lead Paint Removal $100,000
Interest on Financing Eligible Costs $226,578
Total Eligible Costs(Demmer Properties) $876,578
General Motors Corp.
Baseline Environmental Analysis $40,000
Due Care Plan Development $20,000
Due Care Plan Implementation $690,000
rotal.Eligible Costs(GM) $760,000
Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority
LBRA Plan Preparation Costs $15,000
LBRA Legal Fees (for the life of Plan) $25,000
LBRA Plan Implementation Costs (life of Plan) $43,242
LBRA Site Remediation Revolving Fund $1,015,480
Total Eligible Costs(LBRA) $1,098,722
TOTAL ESTIMATED ELIGIBLE COSTS $2,725,300
Lancing Brownfield l?ecleilelopnient.1 uthority, 316 ff Capitol, Suite C-3, Lancing;111 48933 l'(I 483-4140
Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority DRAFT
August 27, 1999 Brownfield Plan #2 Page 4
5. Captured Taxable Value and Tax Increment Values
The table below presents, for each year, the estimated tax values and tax revenues
captured by the Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority. These estimates
are based upon information provided by Demmer Properties and General Motors.
Actual tax capture will depend upon market value (SEV) increases resulting from
investments made to improve the site, and the tax value of personal property
located within the project boundaries. (see Attachment A)
Estimated Tax Capture
Year Taxable Value Tax Revenue
Captured Captured
1999 $0 $0
2000 $4,766,905 $156,518
2001 $6,720,354 $220,659
2002 $6,705,245 $220,163
2003 $6,692,000 $219,728
2004 $6,680,658 $219,355
2005 $6,671,255 $219,047
2006 $6,772,177 $222,360
2007 $6,875,117 $225,740
2008 $6,980,115 $229,188
2009 $7,087,214 $232,704
2010 $5,571,276 $182,930
2011 $5,682,702 $186,586
2012 $5,796,356 $190,320
TOTALS $2,725,300
6. Method of Brownfield Plan Financing
The development and implementation of the brownfield plan will be financed with
tax capture.
7. Amount of Note or Bonded Indebtedness Incurred
Zero
Lansing 13roi+•nfielcl Redei,elopnzent Authority, 316 N. Capitol, Suite C-3, Lancing;1 f/48933 PH 483-4140
Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority DRAFT
August 27, 1999 Brownfield Plan #2 Page 5
8. Duration of Brownfield Plan
The plan will be in effect until five years after the all eligible costs are
reimbursed and the Site Remediation Revolving Fund is capitalized (currently
estimated to occur in the year 2010).
9. Estimated Impact on Taxing Jurisdictions
The following table presents each local taxing jurisdiction's portion of the
incentive package and site remediation fund. Capture amounts are given in
both yearly averages and for the total nine year life of the plan.
Source of Tax Capture
Jurisdiction Average Yearly Total Capture Over
Capture 13 Year Period
City of Lansing $95,132 $1,236,720
County of Ingham $48,579 $631,524
Ingham Intermediate Sch. Dist. $30,824 $400,714
Lansing Community College $18,742 $243,651
Capital Area Trans. Authority $8,798 $114,368
Capital Area District Library $6,380 $82,935
Capital Area Airport Authority $1,184 $15,388
ToTALs $209,638 $2,725,300
10. Legal Description of Site
(see Attachment B)
11. Personal Property Capture
Personal property values will be included in the plan's tax capture.
12. Displacement of Persons
There are no residents residing upon the.brownfield site.
13. . Site Remediation Revolving Fund
The LBRA Site Remediation Revolving Fund will be used by the Lansing
Brownfield Redevelopment Authority to finance eligible activities on future
eligible brownfield project properties within the City of Lansing.
Lansing 8roirnfield Redet�elopmerri,-i uthority, 316 N. Capitol, Suite C-3, Lancing AH 48933 P11483-4140
MUM- .ienX H
Draft 08/27/99
Detailed Schedule of Tax Capture&Cost Reimbursement
Estimated Eligible Investment Unit Millage Total Ave/Yr.
Eligible Cleanup Costs Demmer(1999) $650,000 Lansing 0.0149000 $1,236,720 $95,132
Eligible Cleanup Costs GM(1999) $500,000 LCC 0.0029355 $243,651 $18,742
Eligible Cleanup Costs GM(2000) $250,000 IISD 0.0048278 $400,714 $30,824
Total Eligible Cleanup Costs $1,400,000 Ingham Co. 0.0076086 $631,524 $48,579
Investment In Real Estate Demmer(1 Airport Auth. 0.0001854 $15,388 $1,184999) $4,500,000 CATA 0.0013779 $114,368 $8,798
Investment In Real Estate Demmer(2000) $5,000,000 CADL 0.0013779 114$82,368 $8,798
Investment In Real Estate GM(1999) $2,000,000 380
Total Mils 0.0328344 $2,725,300 $209,638
Total Invesment In Real Estate $11,500,000
Investment In Pers. Prop. Demmer(1999) $0
Investment In Pers. Prop.GM(1999) $10,834,525
Total Invesment In Pers.Prop $10,834,525
Interest Rate 8.25%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Capture Total Capture Total Total Capture Total
Total Total Obligated to Cumulative Obligated To Cumulative Cumulative Obligated To Cumulative Capture Total
Real Prop. Per.Prop. Estimated Cumulative Interest Interest Activities Activities Incentives Activities Activities Obligated to Cumulative
Year Capture .Capture Capture Capture Demmer Demmer Demmer Demmer Demmer GM GM LBRA LBRA
1999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2000 $85,369 $71,149 $156,518 $156,518 $5$,625 $53,625 $27.476 $27,476 $81,101 $67,592 $67,592 $7,826 $7,826
2001 $153,067 $67,592 $220,659 $377,177 $51,358 $104,983 $94,056 $121,532 $226,515 $64,212 $131,804 $11,033 $18,859
2002 $156,129 $64,034 $220,163 $597,340 $43,599 . $148,582 $104,724 $226,255 $374,837 $60,832 $192,636 $11,008 $29,867
2003 $159,251 $60,477. $219,728 $817,068 '$34,959 $183,541 $116,330 $342,585 $526,126 $57,453 $250,089 $10,986 $40,853
2004 $162,436 $56,919 $219,355 $1,036,423 $25,362 $208,903. $128,953 $471,537 $680,440 $54073 $304162 $10,968 $51,821
2005 $165,685 $53,362 $219,047 $1,255,470 $14,723 $223,626 $142,677 $614,215 $837,841 $50,694 $354,856 $10,952 $62,773
2006 $168,999 $53,362 $222,360 $1,477,830 $2,952 . $226,578 $35,785 $650,000 $876,578 $174,442 $529,298 $9,181 $71,955
2007 $172.379 $53,362 $225,740 $1,703,571 $214,453 $743,751 $11,287 $83,242
2008 $175,826 $53,362 $229,188 $1,932,758 $6,249 $750,000 $222,939 $306,180
2009 $179,343 $53,362 $232,704 $2,165,463 $232,704 $538,885
2010 $182,930 $182,930 $2,348,392 $182,930 $721,814
2011 $186,588 $186,588 $2,534,980 $186.588 $908,402
2012 $190,320 $190,320 $2,725,300
$190,320 $1,098,722
NOTES:
1.Assumes 2%yearly increase in Real SEV, local capture millage rate 32.8344 mils
2. Personal property assumed an average of 10 years old and depreciated with Average-Lived Multipliers
3. 5%of capture used for LBRA costs, 100%of capture used to capitalize revolving fund for last 5 years
4. Initial SEV real property capture is assumed to be 40%of investment
Attachment B
Property Descriptions
EXHIBIT A
Parcel 1: All of Blocks 8 and 9 of Handy-Home Addition to the City of
Lansin gg In ham County, Michiggan, as recorded in Liber 2 of Plats on page
19, and-tha part of vacated Drury Lane lying East of the East line of the
New York Central Railroad (old M.C.R.R. ) and West of the West line of Case
Street, and all of vacated Handy Street from the West line of vacated Case
Street, West to the East line of NYC RR rigght of way (Conrail ) , all in
Section 10, T4N, R2W, City of Lansing, .Inghiam County, Michigan.
Parcel 2: All that land lyingg South of the South line of McKinley Street,
East of the East line of LarcFi Street. Northeasterlyy of the Easterly line of
the C & 0 Railroad (old P.M.R.R.' ) and Westerly of the Westerly line of the
New York Central Railroad (old M.C.R.R. ) ; said parcel containing all of Lots
1, 2. 13. 14 and Lots 8, 9 and 12 excepts North 44 feet thereof. Block 1 in
Lyman Addition to the City of Lansing, Ingham County Michigan, as recorded
in Liber 4 of Plats on page 29, and vacated Ferris Street and the East 49.5
feet of vacated Hall Street lying South of McKinley Street, also being in
said Lyman Addition: Lots 1 through 7. Block 44 of Ballards Addition to the
City of Lansin Ingham Count as recorded in Liber 1 of Plats on age 5;
vacated East S&eet lying South of the South line of McKinley Street-
vacated North Street from the East line of Larch Street to the Westerly line
of New York Central Railroad; all of Lot 1 and parts of Lots 2 through 7 ,
Block 1, Original Plat of the City of Lansing: and all of Block 5 of Cases
Addition to the City of Lansing, as recorded in Liber 42 of Deeds on page
222, Inggham County Records : Parcel No. 2 being located in Sections 9 and 10,
T4N, R2W.
Parcel 3: Lots 27 through 34, inclusive, of Assessor's Plat No. 6 in the
.Cityy of Lansing, Ingham Count Michigan, as 'recorded in Liber 10 of Plats
on Pa e 12; vacated Fremont Street lying South of said Lots 27 through 34-
all ofi Block 2 of Lyman Addition as recorded in Liber 4 of Plats on page 29;
vacated Lyman Street: Lots 5, 6 17, 18, the North 112 of Lots 4 and 16 and
the North 110 feet of Lots 7, lb and 11, all in Block 1 of :Lyman Addition as
recorded in Liber 4 of Plats on pa e 29; and that part of vacated Hall
Street lyingg East of a line 50 fee East of the centerline of Larch Street
(the East 40.75 feet of vacated Hall Street) and that part of vacated N.
East Street commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 85. Dr. L. Anna
Ballard's Subdivision of Lot A, Ballard' s Addition, thence West 66 feet to
the West line of platted N. East Street, thence South along said West line
511.5 feet to the North line of .vacated McKinle Street, Rence East 66 feet
to the Southwest corner of Lot 73, Dr. L. Anna allard's Subdivision of Lot
A. Ballard's Addition, thence North 511.5 feet to the point of beginning,
the above parcel being all in Sections 9 and 10, T4N., R2W, City ofi Lansing
Ingham County, Michigan. EXCEPT that part of vacated Hall Street described
as: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 26, of Assessor's Plat No. 6,
on the Northeast quarter (NE 1/4) of Northeast quarter (NE 1/4) of Northeast
quarter (NE 1/4) , Section 9, Town 4 North, Rangge 2 West, City of Lansin
Ingham County, Michigan as recorded in Liber l0 of Plats, Page 12, IngLm
County Records: thence youth 15 degrees 03' 02" West, 120.0 feet: thence
Northeasterly along the arc of a 1 degree 31' 12" curve to the right, 116.35
feet (long chord- North 04 degrees 34' 26 " East, 116.35 .feet) to a point on
the extended South line of said Lot .26; thence South 89 degrees 44 33
East, 21.95 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT that part conveyed
intinuation - Blank
rm 2446
in the deed recorded in Liber 2158. Pa gge 667. In ham County Records ,
described as Lots 27 through 34, and tRat part o Hall Street lyinq West of
Lot 27 and East of Highway U.S. 127 , Assessors Plat No. 6, Cit of Lansing,
Ingham County. Michigan, accordin to the recorded plat thereofy as recorded
in Liber 10 of Plats . Page 12 of the In ham County Records , also the North
65 feet of Lyman Addition to the City o Lansin Ingham County. Michi an
lying East of Highway U.S. 127. and West of Eas Street, according to Re
recorded plat thereof, as recorded in Liber 4 of Plats , Page 29, of the
Ingham County Records.
Parcel 4: Lots 18. 19, 20. 21 and 22 of Block No, 4, Plat of Handy Home
Addition to the City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan.
Parcel 5: A portion of Lot 15. Block 4, Hand Home Addition. City of
Lansingg, Michigan.. described as beginning at he Northwest corner of Lot 16,
Block 4 Handy Home Addition, thence North 68 feet to the Northwest corner of
Lot 15, Block 4, Handy Home Addition, thence East 25 feet, thence South 4
feet, thence East 41 feet, thence South 64 feet, thence West 66 feet to the
point of beginnin also Lots 16. 17, 23, 24, 25 26 27 and 28. Block 4:
Lots 17, 18 19. h. 21 , 22. 23, 24, 25. 26 and �7, $lock 5: also a portion
of vacated brury Lane described as beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot
17 , Block 5, Handy Home Addition , Cit of Lansing, Michigan, thence North 50
feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 2 , Block 4. Handy Home Addition, thence
East 132 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 28, Block 4, thence South 50
feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 17, Block 5. thence West 132 feet to the
point of beginning, City of Lansing, Ingham County. Michigan: also Lot 23
Replat of Block 3. Ballard' s Addition, City of Lansing: also the vacated $
foot all West and adjacent and North and adjacent to Lot 23, Replat of
Block 3. Ballard' s Addition, City of Lansing,. In ham County Michigan: also
the roppert described in the instrument. recorde in Liber 14l4, Page 557,
Ingham Coun y Records as a parcel of land 50 feet in width, parallel with
an a adjacent to the East rigght-of-way line of the New York Central Railroad,
across the entire of Lots 24 and 25, except the North 40 feet thereof;
Replat of Block 3 Ballard' s Addition, City of Lansin In ham County
Michigan (commonly known as portion of vacated Case tree ) : also that
pportion of vacated Case Street described in the instrument recorded in Liber
1414 Page 557, Ingham County Records , beginning on a line. 132' feet North of
the kuNeast corner of Lot T. Block 7. Handyy Home Addition, thence North to
the New York Central Railroad right-of-way, thence Northerly along said
right-of-way to the' Southwest corner of Lot 24, Replat of Block 3. Ballard's
Addition , Cityof Lansing, Ingham Count Michigan, thence East to a point
due North of he East line of the Case treet right-of-wayy, thence South to
a point due East of the point of,beginning, thence West 66 feet to the point
of beginning.
Parcel 6: Lot nine 2) of Block seven (7) of Handy Home Addition to the City
of Lansing, Ingham ounty. Michigan.
Parcel 7: Lot seven (7) and a strip of land off the West side of Lot eight
(8) wide enough to make said Lot seven (7) , 60 feet wide on the South end of
said lots , all on Block seven (7) , Plat of Handy Home Addition to the City
of Lansing. Ingham County, Michigan.
Continuation - Blank
Form 2446
Parcel 8: The East 35 feet of Lot 8. Block No. 7 of Handy Home Addition to
the City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan.
Parcel 9: The West 33 feet of Lot No. 10. Block No. 7, Plat of Handy Home
Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan.
Parcel 10: The North thirty-seven (37) feet of Lot No. twelve (12) of Block
No. Seven (7) of Handy Home Addition, according to the recorded plat
thereof.
Parcel 11: The North 33 112 feet of the South 63 feet of Lot 12, Block 7.
Plat of Hand Home- Addition to City of Lansing, according-. to the recorded
plat thereofy
Parcel 12: Part of Lots 10 and 11, Block 7, Plat of- Handy Home Addition,
City of Lansing. described as: Commencinq at the North-east corner of Lot
11. Block 7, thence West 77 feet, thence South 33 1/3 feet, thence East 77
feet, thence North 33 1/3 feet to the point of beginning, according to the
recorded plat thereof.
Parcel 13: Commencing 33 1/3 feet South of the Northeast corner of Lot No.
11, Handy Home Addition to the City of Lansin according to the recorded
plat thereof thence West 77 feet, thence Soufi 33 1/3 feet thence East 77
feet to the fast line of Lot 11, thence North on said East line of Lot 11.
33 1/3 feet to the place of beginning, City of Lansing, Ingham County,
Michigan.
Parcel 14: Beginning on the Northeast corner of Lot 6. Block 4 Ballard's
Addition, thence Northeasterly to the Southeast right of way line of vacated
Appleton Street; thence West to the East right of way line of North" Larch
St. , thence South 66 feet, thence East to the point of be inning, also that
portion of Hall Street crossing the West end of McKinley treet, City of
Lansing. Ingham County, Michigan.
Parcel 15: That part of lot 35 also the North 4. 25 feet of Lot 34 lying
East of the East right of way line of Highway U.S. 27, being in Neller' s
Subdivision No. 1 . City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michi an, according to
the. recorded plat thereof, as recorded in. Liber b ofPla s. Page 8, .In9ham
County Records.
Parcel 16: Lots 28 and 29, also Lot 27, except commencing at the Southwest
corner of Lot 27, running thence-North along the West line of Lot 27 a
distance of 85 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 27, thence East along the
North line of said Lot 27, a distance of 16.91 feet:- thence Southwesterly to
point of beginning, Neller's Subdivision No. 1. according to the recorded
plat thereof, as recorded in Liber 6 of Plats , Page 8, Ingham County
Records.
Parcel 17: Lot 1 except that part which lies Westerly of a line 82 feet
Easterly of measured at right angles and parallel to the surveyed line of.
Highway U.S. 27 (or being Westerly ofIthe line 60 feet Easterly of, measured
at rigght angles , and parallel to the construction centerline of Highway U.S.
27) Block 2. Original Plata City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan,
ntinuation - Blank
m 2446
I
according to the recorded plat thereof, as recorded in Liber 2 of Plats.
Page 36. Ingham County Records .
Parcel 18: The property is described as commencin at the Northeast corner
of Lot 1 of Dr. e. Anna Ballard' s Subdivision, Northeasterly alon West line
of Penn Central R.R. right of way 449.86 feet (beingthe Northeas corner of
Lot 4 of the proposed Allen Subdivision) West to the Southeast corner of
Lot 1 of Spencer s Subdivision. South 12b feet West 116 feet to the East
line of East Street, South along East line of fast Street 275 feet .to the
North line of David Street now known as Lake Lansing Road. East 115 feet,
South to Northeast corner of Lot 93 of Dr. L. Anna Ballard' s Subdivision,
South to Southeast corner of Lot 85 of said Subdivision, West to the
Southwest corner of said Lot 5, West across East Street to Southeast corner
8
of Lot 32 Assessor' s Plat No. 6. North along East Street to Northeast corner
of Lot 34 of said Assessor' s Plat No. 6, West to Northwest corner of Lot 27
of said Assessor' s Plat No. 6, South to Northwest corner of Lot 14 Block 1
Lyman' s Addition. West 66 feet. South along Larch Street to C & 0 U. right
of way. Southeasterly along said railroad right of way to the intersection
of Penn Central and C & 0 R.R. , East to Southeast corner of Lot 12. Block 7,
Handy Home Addition, North along Case Street to most Northerly point of Lot
14. Block 9, of said Handy Home Addition West to Southeast corner of Lot 7,
Block 5. Case Addition, Northeasterly along West line of Penn Central R.R.
right of way to point of be inning, bein part of Northwest 1/4 of Section
10 and Northeast 1/4 of Sec ion 9, Town North, Range 2 West. City of
Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. EXCEPT that portion conveyed in the deed
recorded in Liber 1631 Page 68, Inggham Count Records, described as that
part of the SW 1/4 of Section 3, T4N,. .R2W, Ci�y of Lansing. Ingham Countyy
Michigan: described as: Commencing at the SW corner of Section 3, T4N, Rk .
thence South 89 degrees 42' 48" East 33.00 feet along the South line of
Section 3- thence North 00 degrees 06' 12" East, 85.58 feet; thence North 00
degrees 06' 12" East, 138.42 feet along the East line of North East Street
to the point of beginning of the following described parcel : thence
continuing North 00 degrees 00' 12" East, 51.00 feet alongg the East line of
North East Street- thence South 89 degrees 34' 08'" East . 116.45 feet; thence
South 00 degrees k' 04" West. 6. 00 feet; thence South 87 degrees 19 16
East, 38. 75 feet: thence South 05 deggrees 23' 39" West, 52.48 feet; thence
North 86 degrees 12' 54" West, 150.50 feet to the point of be inning; ALSO
EXCEPT that portion conveyed in the deed recorded in Liber 15 3, Page 840
Ingham County Records, described as: That part of the SW 1/4 of Section ,
T4N, R2W, City of Lansing. Ingham County. Michigan, described as: Commencing
at the SW corner of Section 3, T4N, R2W; thence South 89 degrees 42' 48" East
33.00 feet alongthe South line of said Section 3; thence North 00 degrees
00' 12" East, 85.58 feet to the point of begginning of the following
described parcel : thence North 00 de rees 00' 12" East, 138.42 feet along
the East line of North East Street; hence South 86 degrees 12' 54" East,
150.50 feet- thence North 05 de rees 23' 39'" East, 52..48 feet- thence North
87 agrees 19' 16" West, 38.75 Yeet; thence North 00 degrees k' 04" East,
126. 00 feet to the SE corner of Lot 1 of Spencer' s Subdivision, as recorded
in Liber 8 of Plats on Sage 30 of the In?ham County Records; thence South 89
degrees 45' 05"' East 632.38 feet along he South line of said Spencer' s
Subdivision; thence youth 00 degrees lA' 55"' West, 7.50 feet: thence South
89 degrees. 45' 05"" East , 191.55 feet to the Westerly right of way Line of
Conrail Railroad: thence South 19 degrees 47' 45" West, 338. 16 feet along
Continuation - Blank
Form 2446
said ri ht of way line to a point 69.0 feet. North of and perpendicular to
the South line of Section 3, T4N, R2W• thence North 89 degrees 42' 48" West,
802.00 feet parallel with said South line of Section 3: thence North 56
degrees 09' 45" West, 30.00 feet to the point of beginning• ALSO EXCEPT that
portion conveyed in the deed recorded in Liber 1601. Page 1112. Ingham
County Records, described as: Lots 1 through 84. inclusive, of Dr. L. Anna
Ballard's Subdivision in the City of Lansing, Ingham County. Michi an, as
recorded in Liber 6 of Plats on Pan 7 and vacated Streets hereinafter
named: Fremont Street, Ellenwood S reet and Appleton Street all in Section
10 T4N, R2W, City,of Lansing except that part of Lot No. 1 of Dr. L. Anna
Ballard s Subdivision of Lot A of Ballard's Addition to the City of Lansing
being in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, T4N. R2W, In ham Coun Michigan,
commencingg, at the Northeast corner of said Lot No. 1, hence Nor h 89
degrees 49 15 West alonq the North line of said Lot No. 1: said lot line
being parallel to and 33 fleet Southerly of and measured at right -angles to
the North line of Section 10. a distance of 12.5 feet to the place of
beginning for this description: thence continuing North 89 degrees 49' 15"
West along the North line of Lot No. 1 a distance of 69. 12 feet to the
Northwest corner of said Lot No. 1: thence South alongg the West line of Lot
No. 1 a distance of 80.0 feet to a point: thence Sout�i 89 degrees 49' 15"
East 17.50 feet to a point- thence North 37 degrees 15' 45" East 45.0 feet
to a point: thence North 28 degrees 58' 10" East 50.32 feet to the place of
beginning; ALSO EXCEPT that portion conveyed in the deed recorded in Liber
2158, Page 667, Inggham County Records , described as Lots 27 through 34, and
that part of Hall. Street lyin West of Lot 27 and East of Highway U.S. 127 ,
Assessors Plat No. 6.. City o Lansing, Ingham Countyy Michi an, according
to the recorded plat thereof as recorded in Liber H of Pla s. Page 12. of
the In ham County Records: Also the North 65 feet of Lyman Addyition to the
City of Lansing, Ingham County. Michigan, lyingdEast
lat the way U.S.as r127. d
and West of East Street, according P
in Liber 4 of Plats, Page 29 of the Ingham County Records; AND EXCEPT that
portion conveyed in the deed recorded in Liber 2178, Page 353, Ingham County .
Records described as being in Handy Home Addition to the City of Lansing,
Ingham County, Michigan and described as Parcel G: That part of Lots 10 and
11 of Block / described as begginning at a point 66 2/3 feet South of the
Northeast corner of said Lot No. 11, thence South 33 1/3 feet, thence West. 77
feet. thence North 33 1/3 feet. thence East 77 feet to beginning and Parcel
H: The South 29 1/2 feet of Lot No. 12, Block 7. ALSO EXCEPT that part of
the New York Central Railroad right of way lying within the above parcel 18.
continuation
=orm 2446
Attachment C
Eligible Activities Definitions and Reimbursement Procedures
DRAFT
LANSING BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES DEFINITIONS AND GUIDANCE
AND
REIMBURSEMENT PROCEDURES
MAY 28, 1999
ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES-DETERMINATION
The Lansing Brownfield Redevelopment Authority ("LBRA'� will be governed in its
determinations as to whether activities are eligible for reimbursement or financing under the
Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act, 1996 PA 381, ("the Act"),by the definitions both set
forth and those incorporated into the Act and by relevant rules promulgated as part of the
Michigan Administrative Code governing "eligible activities"referenced in tlne Act. The LBRA
may also consider guidance and memoranda issued by the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality ("1vIDEQ"), as they may relate to "eligible activities" and supporting
documentation.provided by applicants for LBRA funds.
DEFINITIONS
Eligible Activities.
"Eligible Activities ate defined in the Act as one or more of the following:
(i) Baseline environmental assessment activities,
(ii) Due care activities,
(iii) Additional response activities.
Baseline Environmental Assessment Activities
"Baseline environmental assessment activities" are defined in the Act as those "response
activities" identified as part of a "brownfield plan" that are necessary to complete a "baseline
environmental assessment" as defined in Section 20101 of Part 201 of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451 ("NREPA"), for an"eligible property."
"Baseline environmental assessment (`TEA") is defined in Section 20101(1)(d) as an
evaluation of environmental conditions which exist at a facility at the time of purchase,
occupancy, or foreclosure that reasonably defines the existing conditions and
circumstance at the facility so that, in the event of a subsequent release, there is a means
ofdistinguishuig the new release from existing contamination.
Due Care Activities
"Due care activities" are defined in the Act as those "response activities" identified as part of a
"brownfield plan" that are necessary to allow the owner or operator of an "eligible property" in
the plan to comply with the requirements of Section 20107a of Part 201 of NREPA.
Section 20107a of Part 201 of NREPA provides in relevant part as follows:
(1) A person who owns or operates property that he or she has knowledge is a
facility shall so all of the following with respect to hazardous substances at
the facility:
(a) Undertake measures as are necessary to prevent exacerbation of the
existing contamination.
(b) Exercise due care by undertaking response activity necessary to mitigate
unacceptable exposure to hazardous substances, mitigate fire and
explosion hazards due to hazardous substances, and allow for the intended
use of the facility in a manner that protects the Public health and safety.
(c) Take reasonable precautions against the reasonably foreseeable acts or
omissions of a third party and the consequences that foreseeably could
result form those acts or omissions.
(3) Compliance with this section does not satisfy a person's obligation to
perform response activities as otherwise required under this Part.
Additional Response Activities
"Additional response activities" are defined in the Act as those "response activities" as part of a
"brownfield plan"that are in addition to"baseline environmental assessment activities"and"due
care activities"for an "eligible property."
"Response activities" are defined in the Act by reference to the definition in Section 20101 of
Part 201 of NREPA.
"Response Activity is defined in Section 20101 of Part 201 of NREPA as "evaluation",
`'interim 'res onse activity", " "
P y , "remedial action", or the taking of other actions
necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare, or the environment or the
natural resources. Response activity also includes health assessments or health effect
studies carried out under the supervision, or with the approval of, the department of
public health and en6rcement actions related to any response activity.
"Evaluation is defined. in Section 20101 of Part 201 of NREPA as those activities
including, but not limited to, investigation, studies, sampling,-analysis, development of
feasibility studies, and administrative efforts that are needed to determine the nature,
extent, and impact of a release or threat of release and necessary response activities,
"Interim response activity" is defined in Part 201 of NREPA as the cleanup or removal of
a released hazardous substance or the taking of other actions,prior to the implementation
of a remedial action, as may be necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate injury to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or the environment. Interim response activity also
includes, but is not limited to, measures to limit access, replacement of water supplies,
and temporary relocation of people as determined to be necessary by MDEQ. In
addition, interim response activity means the taking of other actions as may be necessary
to prevent, minimize, or mitigate a threatened release.
"Remedial action" is defined in Section 20101 of Part 201 of NREPA to include, but is
not limited to; cleanup, removal, containment,.isolation, destruction, or treatment of a
hazardous substance released or threatened to be released into the environment,
monitoring, maintenance, or the taking of other actions that may be necessary to prevent,
minimize,or mitigate injury to the public health, safety,or welfare,or to the environment
Brownfield Plan and Eligible Property
"Brownfield plan"is defined in the Act as a plan that meets the requirements of Section 13 of the
Act and is adopted under Section 14 of the Act.
"Eligible Property" is defined in the Act as that term is defined in Section 20101 of part 201 of
NREPA and adjacent or contiguous parcels if the development of the adjacent and contiguous
parcels is estimated to increase the captured taxable value of the facility for which "eligible
activities" are proposed under a "brownfield plan." Eligible property includes, to the extent
included in the"brownficld plan,"personal property located on the facility.
ADMINTSTRA.TCVE RULES
Baseline Environmental Assessment Rules .
Baseline Environmental Assessment Rules have been promulgated as Rule 901 through Rule 919
of the Michigan Administrative Code R299.5901 to R299.5919 effective March 11, 1999.
MDEQ has also published guidance on BEAs entitled"Instructions for Preparing and Disclosing
Baseline Environmental Assessments and Section 7a Compliance Analyses To The Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality and for Requesting Optional Determinations" effective ..
date March 11, 1999 ("Instructions"). The LBRA may take into consideration whether an
applicant's proposed activities fall withir activities reasonably contemplated by the Act, Rules
and Instructions, as they may he amended, and other guidance as may be issued. from time to
time by the MDEQ.
The BFA Rules and Instructions reflect that in addition to collecting data to distinguish existing
contamination from a new release, numerous forms, affidavits, notices, stipulations and
administrative review may be part of the`SEA activities".
The data required to distinguish existing contamination from a new release may be through one
or more of the following: environmental data that characterizes conditions at the property,
engineering controls, isolation zones or stipulated conditions. Such activities as the collection,
development, review and presentation of this data may be considered to be `BEA activities."
Fees required to be paid to the State of Michigan pursuant to the BEA Rules may be considered
as eligible activities.
Negotiations with the MDEQ regarding the adequacy of the BEA, notices, determinations and
related documentation may be considered `BEA activities".
Preparation of various forms contemplated by the BEA Rules and Instructions including, but not
limited to, the BEA form, Section 7a Compliance Analysis form, Notice Regarding Discarded or
Abandoned Containers form, Disclosure of a BEA forth, Affidavit in Support of a Disclosure
Relying on Isolation Zones, Engineering Controls or Other Similar Features for a BEA, Petition
fbr a BEA Determination, Affidavit in Support of a Petition for a BEA Determination, Affidavit
of Environmental Professional in Support of a Petition for a BEA Assessment Determination,
Affidavit of Environmental Professional in Support of a Petition for a Determination of
Compliance with Section 20107a, form to Cure Deficiencies in a BEA Assessment, Affidavit.in
support of Information to Cure Deficiencies in a. BEA, Submittal of Post-BEA Information,
.Affidavit in support .of Submittal of Post-BEA Information, may be considered `BEA
activities."
Construction of isolation zones and engineering controls relied on for the BEA may be
considered `BEA activities."
Due Care Rules
Due Care Rules have been promulgated as Rule 1001 through Rule 1021 of the Michigan
Administrative Code R299.51001 to R299.51021 effective March.11, 1999. MDEQ has also .
published Instructions for the Notice Regarding Discarded or Abandoned Containers required by
the Due Care Rules.
The LBRA may take into consideration whether an applicant's proposed activities fall within
activities reasonably contemplated by the Due Care Rules and Instructions, as they may be
amcnded, and other guidance as may be issued form time to time by the MDEQ.
The Due Care Rules require certain owners to take "response activity"and to provide"notice
with respect to contamination that he or she has knowledge is emanating from. or has emanated
from, and extends to or beyond, the boundary. of the property that he or she owns or operates.
These Due Care Rules. apply, to, among other things, certain discarded or abandoned containers
and released or threaten releases of hazardous substances. The Due Care Rules require that
documentation he maintained regarding, among other things, an evaluation of exposure
pathways, the concentration of hazardous substances to which a person may be exposed, a
description of response actions taken or to be taken, and records documenting response actions
taken. Activities undertaken to fulfill these "response activities," notice and documentation
requirements may be considered"due care activities".
The Due Care Rules impose detailed obligations upon certain owners to prevent exacerbation of
existing contamination particularly with respect to certain aboveground and belowgiouud
containers including notice obligations and response activities. Activities undertaken to fulfill
these"response activities"and notice obligations may be considered"due care activities."
The Due Care Rules also require activities to mitigate unacceptable exposures including
exposure evaluations, response activities and notice to potentially affected persons such as
workers,utility workers,easement holders and owners of mineral rights, among others. The Due
Care Rules require mitigation of fire and explosion hazards and certain notices with respect to
such hazards. In addition the Rules require notice of contamination migrating beyond
boundaries of the owned property. Such mitigation, evaluation and notice activities may be
considered "due care activities."
Response Activity Rules
In addition to the BEA Rules and Due Care Rules which discuss certain Response Activities,
Rules adopted under Part 201 of NREPA may provide guidance for"response activities."
MDEQ has issued draft.rules for Part 201.. Administrative rules adopted under Act 307
(predecessor to Part 201) entitled Administrative Rules-Environmental Contamination Response
Activity are also available as guidance on "response activities." The draft 201 Rules and the Act
307 Rules are available on the MDEQ internet site as follows:
lit ://www.deg.state.mi.us/erd/files.litml.
REIMBURSEMENT PROCEDURES -- COSTS TO BE REIMBURSED WITH TAX
INCREMENT REVENUES
Brownfield Plan Contract
Upon approval of a Brownfield Plan for eligible property or the inclusion of additional parcels of
eligible property in a Brownfield Plan where the owner/operator proposes to seek reimbursement
of costs for eligible activities at eligible property, the LBRA may require the owner/operator to
enter into a contract with the LBRA specifying the rights and obligations of'the parties, terns
and conditions and schedules governing the capture of the taxes; requests for reimbursement,
required documentation, determination of eligible activities, reimbursement process and dispute
resolution.
Documentation of Eligible Costs
Parties seeking reimbursement of costs of eligible activities attributable to eligible property
should submit to the LBRA requests for reimbursement on a monthly basis. These requests
should include the following:
1. Reference to the Approved Brownfield Plan and parcel.
2_ The total amount of the current monthly reimbursement request.
3. The total amount of the reimbursement requests sought to date pursuant to the
Approved Brownfield Plan.
4. Identification of each eligible activity as a line item, the associated costs, with copies
of detailed invoices for the eligible activities and proof of payment. (Parties seeking
reimbursement should request detailed billings from contractors splitting out fees and
costs of eligible activities from other services.)
6. Other information and documentation that may assist the LBMRA in determining
whether the costs arc for eligible activities attributable to an eligible property and that
the costs are reasonable. This documentation may include evidence of a competitive
bidding process and!or evidence that the costs are for eligible activities.
6. Certification by an authorized representative of the party seeking reimbursement that
a) he or she has reviewed the request for reimbursement, b) the costs are for eligible
activities attributable to eligible property, c) the request is for costs incurred and paid
and d) he!she is authorized to seek reimbursement and to make the certification on
behalf of the party seeking reimbursement.
The LBRA will make the final determination of eligibility for all requests for reimbursement.
Reimbursements will take place as tax capture allows. Reimbursement payment is expected to
occur biannually: in early spring and late summer of each year. No payments will be made if
property taxes on any of the eligible properties are delinquent.
The LBRA will make every effort to follow the reimbursement schedules as specified in LBRA
Brownfield Plans. For a specific Brownfield Plan, the LBRA will not reimburse prior to-or iu
.excess of the amount of taxes captured from the eligible property. Shortfalls in capture will
result in proportionate reductions in allocations made for eligible activity reimbursements.
LBRA administrative and legal costs for establishment and administration of the Brownfield
Plan governing the eligible property take priority for reimbursement over all other eligible costs.
The LBRA reserves the right to deny or make partial reimbursement of requests for
reimbursement, which it 'deems not in accordance with the Brownfield Plan, the Act and
procedures, established by LBRA for reimbursement.
DETROIT 34391-1 446282
Attachment D
Reimbursement Agreements
(Currently under legal review)
APPROVED AS PRINTED NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Draft to Clerk 110199
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
Tuesday, October 19, 1999 -<
1. OPENING SESSION: = ;;
Chairman Nischan called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Keene, Miller, Nischan, Ruge, Smith. Five members
present, one request for excused absence; one absent; one vacant seat.
B. Excused Absences - Mr. Goolsby phoned a request for an excused
absence; granted.
C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff
present; James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator; William C. Rieske,
Principal Planner, and Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was reordered. Under 3.
Communications, A. Presentation.- Draft Housing Market Study, receipt of the
study will be acknowledged, and the presentation moved to follow HEARINGS 4.
A & B. The next Urban Development Committee meeting date is October 26, not
November 23, 1999. With those revisions, the agenda was approved.
3. COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Nischan acknowledged receipt of the Draft Housing Market Study,
with presentation following hearings.
A. Letter dated October 18, 1999 to Lansing Planning Board from Rose and
Toby Leifker, 1028 Britten Avenue Re- Act-17-99, 1000 Blk. Britten and
Braman, Close Alley to Through Traffic, in opposition.
B. Letter dated October 8, 1999 to Planning Office from Frances and Janice
Nagele, 1006 Britten Avenue, Re- Act-17-99, in support.
C. Memorandum from Grant M. Hilts, 1016 Britten Avenue, Re: Act-17-99, in
opposition.
D. Phone Call on October 14, 1999 from Salome Williams, 1020 Britten
Avenue, Re: Act-17-99, in opposition.
E. Phone Call on October 7, 1999 from Charles Snell, 1024 Britten Avenue
Re: Act-17-99, in opposition.
F. Letter submitted at meeting from Salome Williams, 1020 Britten Avenue,
Re- Act-17-99, in opposition.
4. HEARINGS
A. Act-17-99, 1000 Blk. Britten and Braman, Close Alley to Through Traffic.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 2
Mr. Rieske presented the case, a request by Mr. Gene Guile, a property
owner whose house is located at the corner of Britten and Fletcher, to
close the alley running between Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and Fletcher
Street. Britten and Braman Streets go directly off Martin Luther King Jr.
Blvd. south of Moores River Drive. The alley is located right across from
a break in the traffic pattern in Martin Luther King. If you use that alley,
you can cross Martin Luther King to go southbound, or you can turn right
to go northbound. If you use either Britten or Braman, you have to go
around to some other beak in the median of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
This alley gets more traffic than most alleys in the neighborhood. The
petitioner's request is to close the alley to through traffic. It is not a
request for vacating the alley. Traffic going into the alley would have to
exit at one end or the other, but not go all the way through the alley. The
alley provides access to the properties and is a necessity because of the
lack of driveways. Many garages face the alley.
Mr. Nischan asked how closing would be done. Depending on who needs
access and from where, it could take place in the middle or towards either
end. Right now, the consideration is closing it or keeping it open.
Mr. Ruge asked if the petitioner solicited neighbors' opinions. Mr. Rieske
said communications may have been in response to a public hearing
notice mailed to occupants/owners within 300 feet.
Ms. Keene asked how many people along the alley would be affected if
the alley is closed, and do they have a way to park other than the alley.
Mr. Rieske did not have an actual count. There are no driveways along
Britten and Braman. The alley is necessary to provide access to
properties. The question is location of ingress and egress if the alley is
closed.
Mr. Nischan asked, if the alley is closed, would the City plow snow? Mr.
Rieske said that would be a problem for maneuvering large maintenance
vehicles such as plows. The alley is not wide enough for a turn around.
GENE GUILE, 1000 BRITTEN AVENUE, LANSING. I have lived there for
ten years, and over that time, I have discussed problems such as drug
traffic with the neighbors. We had a meeting at Moores Park with several
councilmembers. The landlord of the house at 1027 Braman was
contacted. The trafficking did stop. Recently the problem has recurred,
causing a lot of traffic in the area. The property has a new landlord. My
fence has been busted more than once by drivers coming in there too
fast. They hit my fence and go on. We have had bedding thrown in the
alley. I have cleaned up a lot of beer bottles. Traffic seems to come from
the east, from Moores Park, using the alley as a through street to go out
through Martin Luther King and cross it. I am on the receiving end of the
alley. There is an access where they can come north and turn and make
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 3
a U-turn directly across from the end of the alley. Some of my other
neighbors have talked to me about their lights being busted on the back
of their garages, etc. It was my intent to bring this before the Planning
Board and see if something could be done. I did not talk to all of my
neighbors, only to those who indicated they had a problem with this alley.
I would like to see if they could put in collapsible or removable bollards so
the alley can be plowed. They maintain the alley each year. Three
houses have driveways, one on Britten and two on Braman that empty
onto the street. I would say there are 15 houses directly affected by the
alley. Most people depend on the alley for access to their garages. I
didn't want to have the property owners go through the problem of
dividing up the property and not having access to their garages. I thought
it would be a simple matter of submitting it to the Planning Board to look
at it and give us their advice. I appreciate your interest in this; thank you.
Ms. Keene asked how wide is the alley—wide enough for two lanes of
traffic? Mr. Guile said probably 14 ft wide, single-lane only.
FRANCIS NAGELE, 1006 BRITTEN AVENUE. I support the closing of
the alley to through traffic. I sent you a letter detailing reasons. About
snow plowing of the alley, we have lived there for 20 years. To my
recollection, it has been plowed once. Regarding traffic through the alley
and south on Martin Luther King, it sure does. South of the river, going
across, it only goes across at our alley and at Barnes, Mt. Hope, Holmes,
Cavanaugh and Mary, and Jolly. Other than that it does not go across,
only our alley. You can see why our alley gets so much traffic through it.
Our garage is right next door to a fence of our neighbor's on the east
side. Backing out of the alley with the fast traffic there, it's a wonder our
car hasn't been damaged many times. We put up mirrors; they last a
couple weeks, and somebody knocks them down.
JULIE AND PETE MARTENS, 1013 BRAMAN STREET. Initially we
were surprised to hear about this, because we didn't know the reason
why. We have noticed cars speeding through the alley, but we have
many reasons why we would like to keep the alley the way it is. It is a
huge convenience for us to come to and leave our garage. We pull into
Braman Street, turn the corner, and go down the alley to our garage. In
the morning we leave and go onto MLK. If this is shut down, it is going to
stop that convenience. We are concerned about snow plowing. It is very
hard to get out if that alley isn't plowed. If there is an emergency, it would
be convenient in case of a fire for a truck to come down the alley instead
of going to the front. You can access both houses, one on Braman and
one on Britten. If one end of the alley is closed and emergency vehicles
need to get in, they would not be able to leave. We have suggestions.
Since speeding is a problem, we suggest a speed limit sign or a Children
at Play sign that used to be there, or a No Through Traffic sign, or speed
bumps. Closing of one end of the alley would be an inconvenience to us
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 4
and our access to our garage. We are one of the homes on Braman that
has a driveway, but we can't access our garage from it; it ends. The only
way we can access our garage is through the alley. I am sure many
people bought in this neighborhood just for that specific reason, and not
having to put their car in front of the house. It's one of the nice things you
don't see anymore in newer neighborhoods.
CHARLES SNELL, 1024 BRITTEN AVENUE. I have had no problems
getting in and out; I bought the house 43 years ago from a Judge Coash.
He built the subdivision and put the alley there for a use. I don't like the
idea of having to go around; I wouldn't even be able to get into my alley.
Mr. Nischan asked if the closing would be at both ends of the alley, or at
one end only? Which end? Mr. Rieske said the application did not
specify. We have been looking at options.
KARL SCHNEIDERMAN, 1021 BRAMAN STREET. I have no driveway.
Access to my garage is from the alley only. I live in the middle of the
block, closer to Martin Luther King. The drug house on the end of the
street is on the opposite end of the alley from Mr. Guile. I sit on my deck
in the backyard or on my veranda, and I see 99 percent of the traffic to
that house coming directly off of Martin Luther King. There is none of it
that moves up and down the alley. When I invested in this neighborhood,
the alley, yard and neighborhood really charmed me. The alley was a big
feature of the house. It provides me access to the entire east city of the
city, and to the entire west side. As far as property damage to Mr. Guile's
fence, there is a turn-around for the boulevard on MLK right across the
end of the street at Braman. We get a lot of through traffic on Braman
into the neighborhood. If somebody ran up onto my front lawn and
smashed up my wall or my front yard, should I petition the City to close
Braman to through traffic? It's not going to happen. This is a public
alleyway; it has been that way since the neighborhood was built, and I
think it should remain that way.
TOBY LEIFKER, 1028 BRITTEN. My main concern is safety. I live on
the corner of MLK and Britten. I do not have a driveway. I rarely pull
directly off MLK onto that alley, because the traffic behind me is going
way too fast. Often I go up one or two streets to turn and go way around
and come back through the east side because of safety.
JEFF SNELL, 4042 HEATHGATE. I lived at my father's house at 1024
Britten Avenue for 35 years. I haven't lived there for about five years. My
parents bought that house because of the easy access to Logan Street.
One of the main selling points of the house was living two houses from a
main trunk line, Logan, one of the first streets to get plowed. It was a
safety factor. As far as the house kitty-corner from my father's house,
new people live there now. I know there was drug activity there, but if
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 5
there is, fifteen or twenty people should not be inconvenienced by it by
changing the alley. I think the police should deal with the drug houses.
My father has lived there for 50 years; he is in his mid-seventies. You
would probably close the end closest to Logan, which would mean that he
and the elderly lady next door who is also in her seventies, instead of
getting right out on Logan, would have to go all the way through the alley
through deep snow, to Fletcher and around either Britten or Braman to
get to Logan. That would be a lot of inconvenience and hardship.
JANICE NAGELE, 1006 BRITTEN. What is the speed limit in the alley?
It is not posted. Ms. Love guessed at 10 mph; typically alleys would not
be posted. They are not considered a throughway. City streets that are
not posted are 25 mph as a regular street. Considering the width of the
alley, the closeness of the garages backing out into the alley and the tight
site distances, 10 mph would seem to be the maximum safe speed limit.
Ms. Nagele said it is not a street, but when you see people shooting
through there who do not live on Braman or Britten, it ticks you off. I hope
the people who wrote letters in opposition live on Britten or Braman and
not on some of the other streets farther away. If you can't do anything
permanent, maybe you can post a sign to close the alley to through traffic.
They would not pay attention to other signs unless a policeman was there
to ticket as they went through. Maybe the police could monitor the alley
for a week or a month to see how many people go through there and don't
reside there. Ora traffic counter to determine traffic loads. Or having
gates on either end of the alley, with a gate card to gain access.
JULIE MARTENS, 1013 BRAMAN STREET. (Submitted letter from
Salome Williams.) I think she sent a letter, but she gave me this in case
the Planning Board did not receive it. She lives at 1020 Britten Street.
She would be severely inconvenienced by the closing of the alley.
Mr. Rieske said that all the letters received have been from people with
addresses in the 1000 Block of Britten or Braman Streets.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the
close of the public hearing for Act-17-99, 1000 Blk. Britten and Braman,
Close Alley to Through Traffic, and referral to the Urban Development
Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26, 1999, in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
B. Z-14-99, 204 East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional
Office District
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by John Lenhard, owner, to rezone
the property from "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District.
The property was most recently used as an adult foster care facility for ten
persons; that is why it was rezoned to the "C" District. The property
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 6
contains approximately 14,200 sq ft. There is residential development to
both north and south, office and school to the east, and commercial to the
west. Zoning reflects this pattern. In 1987, the property was rezoned
from residential to the "D-1" Professional Office District to allow for office
use. Subsequent to that, in 1990, the property was rezoned to a
residential district to allow for the residential care facility. There is
renewed interest in the property, and the owner is requesting rezoning
back to the Professional Office District. The property is located on Mt.
Hope Avenue at Teel Avenue, near Walter French Academy.
JOHN LENHARD, 122 WHITE HILLS DR., EAST LANSING. I own the
property. It has been in the family since 1957. We now have an
opportunity to have new owners. It is the only property not zoned
professional office, business or industrial on the south side of Mt. Hope in
a six-tenths of a mile stretch. The future property owners would have a
vested interest in the property. The neighborhood is in strong support.
understand that you can make a recommendation. There is urgency. The
building is vacant at present, and winter is coming. If you can expedite
the process by making a recommendation tonight, I would appreciate it,
as would the neighbors and the new property owners.
Mr. Ruge asked Mr. Ruff if he has received agency referrals. Mr. Ruff
said a lot of referrals were not sent because there were two cases for this
address in the last ten years. No changes are proposed for the property.
Improvements were made with the first change to Office. We have the
previous referrals. We did refer it to the neighborhood for their input.
MR. LENHARD. The use as an adult foster care facility compelled much
more stringent requirements for fire safety, etc. than required for Office.
The Family Independence Agency frequently visited the property. The
property is in compliance far in excess of requirements.
LINDA WILLIAMS, 1917 TEEL AVENUE, directly adjacent to 204 East
Mt. Hope. I have lived next door for 27 years, and I have been Area
Coordinator for Neighborhood Watch in this neighborhood for 20 years.
We have an excellent neighborhood. Along with the neighborhood, I am
in full support of this application. I have circulated a petition to the
neighbors, all of whom have signed it. "We the undersigned are
neighbors of the property for rezoning at 204 East Mt. Hope. Our
signatures below indicate that we are in full support of the request for
rezoning this property from residential to a professional office application.
We are asking for and will appreciate your expediting this matter in the
interests of gaining occupancy for this property to alleviate its now-vacant
status, which is not conducive to the integrity of this excellent
neighborhood." The building is empty, ready for someone new; we have
someone ready to move in. You are the only ones who can make this
happen more quickly. (Submitted petition.)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 7
Chairman Nischan said expediting this has been mentioned twice in two
speakers, a 100 percent rate. To expedite this tonight, we would need to
have six board members; however, we have only five members present.
There may be another option, available from Mason's Manual of
Parliamentary Procedure.
ATTORNEY KATHLEEN M. GAYDOS, 4601 WEST SAGINAW, speaking
on behalf of myself and my law partner, Melissa Leckie. Our interest is
future ownership of 204 E. Mt. Hope. There are many reasons why this
should be rezoned to Office. Most important is the fact that we have the
neighborhood support. We have spoken with Linda Williams, Jack
Nelson and Henry Hernandez. When Jack and Henry inspected the
building, they were amazed. They said this is over-compliance. They
had never seen a building with over-compliance. Parking is adequate,
with one parking space for each 200 sq ft of floor space.
Regarding expediting Z-14-99, Ms. Love, to be responsive to the wishes
of the applicant, explained that state law requires six affirmative votes for
approval of a rezoning. Since only five members are present, the Board
could resolve to the Committee of the Whole and take action as a
Committee of the Whole, assuming an affirmative vote of 5-0. You could
then forward the case to City Council without making a favorable
recommendation. This is a mechanism to move it forward without waiting.
We would give the Council the vote total so they would have an indication
of a positive recommendation without actually saying that. The staff is in
favor; we have heard nothing but positive testimony.
Chairman Nischan said we would deal with it in the Committee of the
Whole; COW would present it to the Board; the Board would vote 5-0,
and request that it be forwarded with a vote tally without a
recommendation.
Mr. Smith asked, assuming all votes are affirmative, would the Council
have an indication of the reason we did it this way. Ms. Love said the
reasons are good and valid. The letter would say that the Planning
Board, absent two members and with one seat vacant, is doing its best
with available resources. Mr. Rieske noted that minutes would be
attached. Chairman Nischan observed that the Council reads the minutes
assiduously anyway.
Mr. Ruff summarized. Expediting would be stated as part of the findings,
the vote would be given, and the statement would be made that the case
is being moved to the next level because there is no need to hold it at the
Planning Board. Also, the petitioner requests expediting, and the Board
does not object. That would be followed by observing that because there
were not six favorable votes, it is without an official recommendation, but
this is what the Board did, and why.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 8
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the
close of the public hearing and referral of Z-14-99, 204 East Mt. Hope
Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District to the
Committee of the Whole for consideration during the Business Session.
JOHN LENHARD. Regarding the timetable and getting passage, we would be
running up a deadline of December 13, 1999, for Council to act. Otherwise we
would be well into February 2000. The Chairman said we will act on it tonight.
6. PRESENTATION: DRAFT HOUSING MARKET STUDY (Abbreviated)
Ms. Love introduced George Erickcek, Senior Regional Analyst, Upjohn Institute,
Western Michigan University; and Nick Evers, Principal Planner, Gove
Associates. They have put together the City of Lansing's Housing Market
Analysis. It is very comprehensive.
NICK EVERS discussed the purpose of the analysis, the projects generated, the
major findings and recommendations. The goal of the City of Lansing is to
become the residence of choice for its current and future citizens. The Gove
Associates presented the data, projections and information, followed by
research-based policy recommendations.
GEORGE ERICKCEK presented forecasts and scenarios (attached).
This was a really interesting project. Lansing is to be congratulated, "because
you are on the cutting edge. We have never received a request for proposal to
do things like this in the past." The situation where people leave the city is not
unique. If we can get more cities to think like that, ultimately maybe we will find
the solution to what's going to happen countrywide.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
DOROTHY JONES, 426 W. BARNES. I am very impressed. I am thrilled with
the Housing Market recommendations. One point that hit home with me is that
we have more than our share of subsidized housing. When projects like Silver
Stone come before you, I hope you will support the motion that they are not
appropriate for Lansing. We also need to do public relations with real estate
people. When we moved to Lansing 36 years ago, we were told we didn't really
want to move into the city. They've been saying it all this time. When our
daughter was looking for a house, she was told it was suitable as a rental, not as
a residence. About schools, the perception is that Lansing schools are inferior.
That is not true. Lansing schools have more to offer than many surrounding
districts because we have a large enough population to be able to offer, for
example, a photography program for high school students. More foreign
languages are offered. Teachers are as good as elsewhere. If MEAP scores
are lower it is because we also have a higher percentage of low income families.
That goes along with not have reading material in school. We make it too easy
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 9
for people to get home quick. No more Martin Luther Kings with dual lanes, no
more one-way streets. Make it easy for people to stay in town. We need to help
code compliance officers find a way to cooperate with people who are trying to
buy and upgrade homes in this city. I hear about young people who can't
proceed with renovations as fast as they would like. They feel they are being
harassed rather than helped to become home owners. We need to pressure
absentee landlords who allow properties to deteriorate, such as across from
Eastern High School. If there is ever a steering committee for a City-wide
Master Plan, I would like to be on it.
JENNIFER GRAD, 201 LATHROP STREET. I have similar appreciation for the
findings of the study and the work that went into it. I was excited and heartened
by many of the findings and suggestions for directions for growth. I want to
speak from three different perspectives, first as Chair of the Historic District
Commission. It was invigorating to hear the word "history" as many times as I
did. I was thrilled at the mention of historic tax credits, both the concept in
general for income tax and also the existence of the state 25 percent tax credit.
To claim the additional 5 percent (from 20 percent), you have to have a local
district. I would encourage you to look at the development of local districts in
appropriate places so people can take advantage of the tax credits so we can
capitalize on some of that unique urbanism. I was also intrigued at the concept
of preserving residential historic structures in the perimeter of the CBD. I am
going to assume that preserving historic structures within the CBD is not
precluded, though not necessarily for residential use. Part of the sense of
excitement comes from a variety of buildings with a variety of architecture and
periods. Although I did not hear "adaptive reuse", I heard a lot of"convert".
There are many viable structures in downtown Lansing. If we could retain their
physical characteristics, we would have an invigorated downtown with an
interesting and exciting urban landscape.
Switching gears, as a thirty-something with a two-year-old looking at school, and
a husband looking at expanding our house, and being a strong booster for
Lansing and wanting to stay here, can we expand our house? Will the current
zoning and building codes allow us to do so? It has to be done in a historically
sensitive fashion. We are concerned about issues of buildable lot. Can we
move a garage to make space for an addition without having to meet setbacks?
This department is responsible for the systems that allow changes to occur in
Lansing. It is not just a matter of retaining 1,000 people.to live here, it is coming
up with mechanisms in the building code and zoning regulations that allow those
changes to take place. It's not an accident that our housing stock has stayed
how and where it is. It was useful when it was developed; it needs to grow with
current needs. The systems in place now were useful during the periods they
served. It may mean looking at some strategies and approaches to achieve
some of the goals you are suggesting. If we keep in place the systems that have
perpetuated the structures and qualities of the structures that are there now, we
can look forward to more of what we have, and not necessarily some of the
growth and change suggested.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 10
Finally, our building department is integral to both the safety and security of the
residential communities, and by working in combination with police and
neighborhood organizations, we have the potential of creating strong
neighborhoods, but it is that collaborative effort, looking at it from multiple
perspectives, from the crime and safety perspective, from the building safety
perspective, from the historical integrity of the neighborhood perspective, and
from the harassing of landlords who don't want to maintain their property
perspective. These perspectives don't always coincide. It is that arm of
government that is critical to so many of these functions, and providing people
with adequate support, resources, and systems that enable them to do a difficult
and demanding job is critical.
PAUL EMERY, 304 EAST GRAND RIVER. I am here because I have an item
coming up later. If you have questions for me, I can respond to them. I am one
of those people that if I get my zoning, I will do this loft in a historic near-
downtown place.
6. RECESS - The Chairman declared a five-minute recess.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval - Minutes of September 21, 1999 - Approval
postponed to next meeting.
B. Committee Reports
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman.
a. SLU-11-99, Vacant Land Southeast Cor. Shiawassee Street
and Pere Marquette Drive, Residential Use in "H" Light
Industrial District
The applicant is proposing to construct a 8,100 sq ft, 16-
unit, 2-bedroom per unit, 2-story apartment building on 1.27
acres of vacant property at the southeast corner of
Shiawassee Street and Pere Marquette Drive. Each
apartment unit will have its own furnace, hot water heater,
full-size washer and dryer, hardwood floors, track lighting
and security intercoms at the four entrance doors. The
upper units will have vaulted ceilings in the living and dining
rooms. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial District
which allows residential development with a Special Land
Use permit.
The proposed special land use is harmonious with the
character of adjacent property and surrounding land uses.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 11
The proposed residential development will not have a
negative impact on adjacent properties.
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 although the
railroad use could adversely affect the residential use of the
property.
The proposed special land use should not place any
excessive demands on public services and facilities.
The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent
of the Zoning Code and Central Lansing Comprehensive
Master Plan.
Based on the analysis of the special land use permit, all
nine criteria are met.
Staff recommends approval of the Special Land Use to
construct an 16-unit, 2-story apartment building at the
southeast corner of Shiawassee and Pere Marquette.
Mr. Goolsby noted that MediaOne commented about the
cost of relocating their lines, saying that it should be the
responsibility of the developer. The cable company is not a
utility and cannot necessarily assign the cost of relocating
their lines to the developer if the development required their
relocation. Staff believed that this was a standard comment
and not that the development would interfere with an
existing line. Mr. Miller asked if any environmental audits
had been done on the property. Mr. Bone said that a
Phase I audit had been done and the site was clean. Mr.
Corbin asked the Committee and staff if the carports were
required to have a ten-foot setback from the east property
line. The staff explained that because of the zoning of the
property and the adjacent land use, no setback was
required. This would allow the developer to add to the yard
space between the building and the driveway.
The Committee, based on testimony and evidence,
concurred with the staff report.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded, and approved (4-0)
to recommend approval of SLU-11-99, Vacant Land
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 12
Southeast Cor. Shiawassee Street and Pere Marquette
Drive, Residential Use in "H" Light Industrial District
Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and
the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to
recommend approval of SLU-11-99, Vacant Land Southeast Cor. Shiawassee Street
and Pere Marquette Drive, Residential Use in "H" Light Industrial District.
PLANNING BOARD ACTON on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Ruge commented about locating an upscale apartment building near railroad
tracks. Did the developer indicate why he selected this piece of property? Ms. Love
said one of the applicants owns the property already. They believe that even though
there is a railroad track, people will locate there. "I lived in Chicago a half a block from
the ELEVATED. A lot of people do. The EL goes by more times a day than the Norfolk
and Southern Railroad." Also, the buildings would be placed as far as possible to the
west. The westernmost railroad track has been removed. Carports would be located
along the tracks to further buffer houses from the tracks. Being close to Clara's, Blue
Coyote, baseball stadium, and work would be attractive to certain groups. They have
done market research and feel this is appropriate.
Keene. . . Aye Miller. . .Aye
Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . .Aye
Nischan . . Aye
On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0, unanimous; carried; SLU-11-99,
Vacant Land Southeast Cor. Shiawassee Street and Pere Marquette Drive, Residential
Use in "H" Light Industrial District was APPROVED.
b. Z-13-99, 304 and 306 East Grand River Avenue, "F-1"
Commercial District to "G-1" Business District.
This request is to rezone the existing buildings to "G-1"
Business District. The subject property is located on the
south side of East Grand River Avenue. Adjacent buildings
at 302 and 308 frame the applicant's two buildings. The lot
area for each building is 22 ft by 100 ft. All of these
buildings are built adjacent to the front property line, and
there is no alley access at the rear of the structures. The
buildings have two floors and contain roughly 1,200 sq ft of
floor area each.
The applicant, who lives on-site, is requesting rezoning of
the commercial buildings from "F-1" Commercial District to
"G-1" Business District in order to provide flexibility in
meeting requirements for off-street parking. If granted, the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 13
rezoning would permit rehabilitation of the building without
the provision of any additional off-street parking.
The proposed zoning and land use are 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.
Staff recommends approval.
The Committee discussed the value of permitting the
piecemeal rezoning of properties and the possible loss of
incentive for an overlay zone. Discussion also ensued
regarding the overlay zone. Mr. Emery is supportive of an
overlay zone, but he is planning to invest $40,000-50,000 in
the rehabilitation of the buildings this fall and wants a secure
investment since the zone is not going to be completed in
the near future. The Committee also suggested that for the
next meeting they meet in North Lansing/Old Town for a tour
to get a feel for the relationships of the properties. The
tabled cases were discussed, and the Committee will take
up at least Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River at the next meeting.
The Committee, based on testimony and evidence,
concurred with the staff report.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried
unanimously 4-0 to recommend approval of Z-13-99, 304
and 306 East Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to
"G-1" Business District.
Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith, based on testimony, evidence and
the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve
Z-13-99, 304 and 306 East Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1"
Business District.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Ruge said he disagreed with the staff summary "The proposed zoning and land use
are 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." This
proposed zoning allows a high-rise eighty-story building, which is not consistent with
the historic nature of Old Town or with current or proposed use. He is not going to vote
against this. But we need to develop a different or overlay district for places like Old
Town that have parking problems.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 14
Keene. . Aye Miller. . .Aye
Smith . Ave Ruge . .Aye
Nischan . AYe
On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0, unanimous; carried; motion passed
for approval of Z-13-99, 304 and 306 East Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial
District to "G-1" Business District; however, approval of a rezoning requires a minimum
of six affirmative votes. The case will be referred to the City Council with
NO RECOMMENDATION.
Next meeting Wednesday, November 3, 1999, at 4 p.m. in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. The next
meeting may be held in Old Town, so the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee agenda will be sent to all members. Mr. Emery
volunteered the Old Town/Main Street office. The Committee
wished to consider Z-8-98, 208 East Grand River Avenue, "F-1"
Commercial to "G-1" Business District, and also look at the parking
lot and locations of other pending cases.
2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Vice Chair.
Next meeting is Tuesday, October 26, 1999 at 4 p.m., Department
Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
3. Executive Committee - Has not met.
Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to resolve to the Committee of the
Whole; unanimous; carried. Ms. Keene assumed the Chair. Z-14-99 was taken up.
C. Committee of the Whole
1. Z-14-99, 204 East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District
Mr. Ruff reviewed the case this evening; the applicant offered
testimony; and public comment was received. Mr. Ruge asked how
much parking would be required on this piece of property. When
this was converted the last time, parking was adequate. Code
requirements have not changed.
Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve Z-14-99, 204 East Mt.
Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE action on the motion was as follows.
Miller. . . . Smith .Aye
Ruge. Aye Nischan Ave
Keene. qye
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 15
On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Z-14-99, 204
East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District was
recommended to be APPROVED.
That concluded the report; the Committee of the Whole arose. The Planning Board
reconvened.
2. Committee of the Whole Report - Ms. Keene, Chair.
The Committee of the Whole met to consider Z-14-99, 204 East Mt.
Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District .
The Committee, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report,
found that this is a reasonable zoning change, given the history of
the property, trends in land use, size of the structure and lot. The
proposed rezoning will not increase the amount of vehicular traffic
to this particular site. Traffic generated by this site is not
anticipated to impact the residential neighborhood to the south or
north. No impact on the environment is anticipated as a result of
this rezoning and no impact on future development patterns is
anticipated because this area is already developed.
The Committee voted unanimously 5-0 to approve Z-14-99, 204
East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office
District.
Ms. Keene 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
Z-14-99, 204 East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office
District.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . Aye Ruge . Aye
Keene. . . Aye Miller ..Aye
Nischan . Aye
On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; motion passed
for approval of Z-14-99, 204 East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District; however, approval of a rezoning requires a minimum of six
Aye votes. The case will be forwarded to the City Council with
NO RECOMMENDATION.
C. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Love turned the report over to Mr. Ruff. Mr. Ruff presented to the
Chairman his report on progress of 1999 cases, a spreadsheet in
database format so as to be compatible with our GIS system. The parcel
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 16
numbers are given together with a street summary for mapping purposes.
Mr. Ruff said the multiple entries for Z-8-99 resulting from the numerous
permanent parcel numbers will help provide a tracking history for each
property until the property is under one parcel number. We want to work
with this system so we can set it up to map it. Then we can work
backward as well as forward to create a case history for properties and
expand things like conditions and other elements that are part of a
proposal. Some things may come about with different techniques v. the
database such as attaching image files, etc. so we don't have to retype a
resolution. We could just attach certain files.
Chairman Nischan expressed his thanks, saying it is helpful to see what
has or has not been acted upon.
Mr. Ruff also reported that the City Council, when it approved the Board
of Water and Light chiller facility and the special land use, revised the
Planning Board's recommendation to appoint a design review committee.
Mr. Ruff has been appointed to it. We had our first meeting late last
week." To create a design, the Committee looked at existing BWL
facilities and took some architectural features from a small electrical
substation on Forbes Street . Mr. Ruff distributed the schematic. The
next meeting will consider details, materials and even coloration to
improve the design. We discussed incorporating the entire streetscape
area so that it will be pleasing to pedestrians. Since it is not abutting
other buildings, all four facades will have similar treatments.
Mr. Ruge asked if the building will have windows. Mr. Ruff said they
discussed windows. To eliminate window cleaning inside and out, the
suggestion was made to use polished stone shaped to look like windows.
Resuming, Ms. Love said she would like to have a luncheon meeting with
the Executive Committee sometime next week. We must revise the
evaluation form.
Mr. Rieske asked about the Planning Board's action on the Housing
Market Study. Ms. Love said it does not require action. Gove Associates
will be presenting the study to the City Council Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Ruff said we talked about incorporating the document or
recommendations from it into the City's City-Wide Master Plan. You
could take elements of it and apply it to the Master Plan, similar to ground
water. Ms. Love suggested a general letter of support. Certain things
pertaining to a Master Plan are city-wide; housing is one, and
groundwater is another, as is a transportation arterial system. We will be
looking at a body of information and recommendations that are city-wide
for the Master Plan, then formulating specific recommendations and
applying them in smaller geographic areas. "At this point, I am not sure
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 17
we have the total context within which to approve or utilize this document,
but I think a general expression of support would not be inappropriate."
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene for a general letter of support for the
Housing Market Study for the City of Lansing.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Nischan said it is important to reinforce with the City our support for research-based
decision making, and he would particularly like it to be noted that this is one of the
really important aspects of the study.
Ms. Keene commented that the presentation was well done, and Gove Associates did
an excellent job. The Board has not as yet had an opportunity to read the entire report;
however, based on the presentation, she can support a general vote of approval.
On a Voice vote, Ayes: All; Nays: None; unanimous 5-0; carried, the writing of a
general letter of support to be drafted by our secretary to support the Housing Market
Study for the City of Lansing was APPROVED.
D. Pending items: Future action required
1. Zoninq 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)
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)
Chairman Nischan noted that it should be determined whether or not there is still
interest in Act-19-98 and Act-24-98, or if they can be removed from Pending
Items. Ms. Love said the Decentralization Committee has been working on
Act-24-98, as has a newly formed neighborhood organization, the O.N.O.
Neighborhood. They have been talking with the petitioner. Most neighbors do
not want the street closed. Bill's Heavy Duty Wrecker is moving to a South
Cedar Address. We think that problems experienced here associated with that
business will cease when Bill's moves.
8. NEW BUSINESS - None.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 18
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - Chairman Nischan announced the
membership of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee as composed of
Mr. Frederick, Mr. Goolsby, Mr. Nischan, and Mr. Miller, Chairman; Urban
Development Mr. Ruge, Ms. Keene, and Mr. Smith, Chairman.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
E. Mr. Smith reported that on October 13, 1999, he attended Arts and
Culture in Michigan Communities - Connecting, Collaborating and
Creating, held at the Lansing Center, the fifth annual meeting of the
Michigan Council for the Arts. Thematically, it centered around how we
can get communities, businesses and governments to cooperate and
support the arts. Mr. Smith tried to attend sessions that were pertinent to
how to get communities involved. One comment made by both the
Lieutenant Governor and an official of the Michigan Council for the Arts
was that the State of Michigan spends more money in support of the arts
than any other state in the United States, including New York. Another
noteworthy point made by the Mayor of Hamtramck was that artists owe it
to themselves as well as the public to be involved in the political structure.
He is a graduate of Cranbrook Academy who operates a gallery in
Hamtramck and is now the mayor. Mr. Smith circulated a tabloid
newspaper addressing urban design. To heighten their understanding
and appreciation for their city, various articles aimed to alert citizens
about how visual character contributes both to the community's growth
and to the residents' feelings about their city. The tabloid shows
graphically why and how some changes would be beneficial. That might
be a way of selling some ideas to the public that we would want to
consider here. They did have the cooperation of their local newspaper.
The speaker who gave the introduction to the conference, an Odawa
Indian now living in Harbor Springs, did a good presentation on the
importance of collaboration and community support of the arts and what
that can mean. He served many years on the Zoning Board of Traverse
City. Arts folks are beginning to infiltrate—look out!
Ms. Keene, who had to leave, asked to be excused at this point.
Mr. Ruge reported on a newspaper article concerning a program of East
Lansing's to reward good landlords. Lansing should also do this.
Mr. Ruge, while walking this morning in the Eastfield Neighborhood, was
struck by the need for design guidelines there, because of the lack of
unity of design elements. There was aluminum siding, vinyl siding,
clapboard siding, wrought iron railings, 2x4 railings, etc. If we are going
to enhance the historic nature, we have to have a more unified feel, a
common theme. "I wanted to put in my pitch for these design standards."
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 19
Mr. Ruge asked about SLU-8-99, Vacant Land formerly known as 1400
W. Jolly Road, Residential Care Facility for 12 People, and about the sign
code enforcement person. Mr. Ruff said as of yet there have been no
further refinements of the plan. Ms. Love said the job has been offered to
a candidate, but a response has not as yet been received.
Mr. Nischan said in Eastfield, the BTS property redevelopment is going
on. As part of that, the need for support that is easily accessible to
people trying to upgrade their property was emphasized. Dave Muylle,
one of the premier restoration people of Lansing lives in Eastfield. His
restorations are authentic. Homeowners could benefit by knowing who to
turn to in doing historically appropriate renovations. Ms. Love said the
Planning Office has a preservation planner, Susan Cantlon, for questions
about specific houses and what is appropriate.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9.58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
mn101999 AA52
SLU-11-99
Southeast Corner of Shiawassee and Pere Marquette
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Howard Corbin
2970 Lake Lansing Road
East Lansing, MI 48823
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Represents owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Special Land Use
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial
PROPOSED ZONING: Same
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 129' x 451' = 55,459 ft2
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Vacant lot/structure
S: Clara's Restaurant
E: Railroad tracks
W: Parking lot/Commercial businesses
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: °H" Light Industrial
S: "H" Light Industrial
E. "H" Light 1ndustrial
W: "H" Light Industrial
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The NorthEast Area Comprehensive Plan
designates this area for industrial/warehouse
use. The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan
recommends the future land use of this area for
the Entertainment District. The plan further
states that the Entertainment District contributes
to 24 hour activity in Central Lansing; supportive
mixed density residential adjacent would not only
provide activity beyond transitional business
hours, but would bolster the supporting market
for retail and entertainment in downtown and
would increase the perception of security.
SLU-11-99, Vacant land SE corner of Shiawassee/Pere Marquette, Page 2.
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 16-unit 2-
story apartment building at the southeast corner of Shiawassee Street and Pere
Marquette Drive which contains 1.27 acres of vacant property. The property is
zoned "H" Light Industrial District which allows residential development with a
Special Land Use permit.
AGENCY RESPONSES
Assessors: Assessors records show name of owner as Brian T.
Huggler, not Mike Bone. Please provide documentation
so that we can make this change. The drawing
presented does not show the bottom 180 feet of this
property. Is there a different use planned for that of this
property?
BWL: See attached.
Building Safety: No objection. The project is subject'to the city's site and
plan review process. Additional information may be
obtained by contacting the Building Safety Office.
City Attorney: No response received yet.
Code Compliance: No response received yet.
Consumers Energy: No response received yet.
Development: No comment.
Media One: Media One requests that any relocation of our facilities
due to this development be paid for by the developer.
Eastside Neighborhood
Organization: No response received yet.
Fire Marshal: No objections.
Forestry: No comment.
Parks & Rec.: Add trees to area next to Pere Marquette ROW
SLU-11-99, Vacant land SE corner of Shiawassee/Pere Marquette, Page 3.
Police Dept: No response received yet.
Public Service: 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 process.
Trans. Engr.: No response received yet.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing to construct a 8,100+ square ft., 16-unit, 2 -
bedroom/unit, 2-story apartment building on a 1.27 acres of vacant property at the
southeast corner of Shiawassee Street and Pere Marquette Drive. Each apartment
unit will have its own furnace, hot water heater, full-size washers and dryer,
hardwood floors, track lighting and security intercoms at the four entrance doors.
The upper units will have vaulted ceilings in the living and dining rooms. The
property is zoned "H" Light Industrial District which allows residential development
with a Special Land Use permit.
ANALYSIS
Evaluation
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 as follows.
1. COMPATIBILITY WITH USE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES
The adjacent properties consist primarily of commercial businesses to the south
and west, there is a vacant lot with an abandoned structure to the north and the
railroad tracks are located east of the proposed site. According to Section
1274.04(g) of the Zoning Code, a residential use which meets the lot area and
parking requirements of the"DM-4" Residential District may be permitted in the"H"
Light Industrial District with a Special Land Use permit. According to the Central
Lansing Comprehensive Plan, the vitality of a downtown rests in on the round-the-
clock presence of downtown residents. In Lansing, the combined amenities of the
riverfront and proximity to downtown's retail, cultural and employment offerings
create exciting opportunities for future residential development as the existing
stable neighborhoods.The proposed residential development would bring a change
to the area, yet still compatible with adjacent properties.
SLU-11-99, Vacant land SE corner of Shiawassee/Pere Marquette, Page 4.
2. CHANGE IN THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA
Since the area contains a "mix" of land uses in the larger area, the construction of
an apartment building should not adversely impact the essential character of the
area. In fact, the proposed 16 unit, two-bedroom, two story.apartment building will
bring a viable use to this vacant industrial site. The general area southwest of this
site which includes restaurants and other commercial development along.Michigan
Avenue has been an enhancement to the area. The proposed apartment complex
could result in change to the area that could bring positive results.
3. INTERFERENCE WITH GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF ADJACENT
PROPERTIES
The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan encourages residential development in
the downtown area and the construction of the apartment building is compatible
with that plan. There are no significant negative impacts on adjacent properties
anticipated.
4. IMPROVEMENT TO PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
The site of the proposed apartment building will not have an adverse impact on the
surrounding area in general and would be a positive improvement to the vacant
area. The construction of this apartment building requires a site plan review
process. Through the administrative site plan review process, the construction of
this building would be required to comply with the building and zoning codes as well
as other city department requirements.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The railroad tracks which are located to the west of the proposed site is a potential
noise factor which will have some impact on the residential development. However,
based on the site plan provided, parking is proposed along the west portion of the
property with car ports which would serve as a buffer.
6. IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES
The City.of Lansing Public.Service Department has indicated that they have no
objections to the proposed Special Land Use request but reserves the right to
provide engineering comments as part of the site plan review process.
SLU-11-99, Vacant land SE corner of Shiawassee/Pere Marquette, Page 5.
7. IMPACT ON UTILITIES
Same as above. Also, Media One has indicated that any relocation cost of their
facilities due to this development would be the responsibility of the developer.
8. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN
The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan is an amendment to the River Island and
NorthEast Comprehensive Plan and encourages residential development in the
downtown Lansing area. The Northeast Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for industrial/warehouse use. The plan supports the evaluation of abandoned
industrial sites to determine their appropriateness for reuse as industrial sites or for
some other use.
9. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
The property is zoned"H" Light Industrial District. Section 1274.04(g) of the Zoning
Code permits, with a Special Land Use permit, a residential use which meets the
lot area and parking requirements of the "DM-4" Residential District.
The lot area requirements in the "DM-4" Residential District are as follows:
(a) For each efficiency dwelling unit there shall be 500 square feet of lot
area.
(b) For each one-bedroom dwelling unit there shall be 700 square feet of
lot area.
(c) For each two-bedroom dwelling unit there shall be 950 square feet of
lot area.
(d) For each three-bedroom dwelling unit, or any dwelling with more than
three bedrooms, there shall be 1,400 square feet of lot area.
According to Section 1284.13(a)(2)(A) of the Zoning Code, the residential parking
requirement for this site is thirty-two parking spaces. The applicant has provided
thirty-two parking spaces, of which, two are barrier-free.
SUMMARY
The proposed special land use is harmonious with-the character of adjacent
property and surrounding land uses. The proposed residential development will
not have a negative impact on adjacent properties.
The proposed special land use will not change the essential character of the
surrounding property.
SLU-11-99, Vacant land SE corner of Shiawassee/Pere Marquette, Page 6.
The proposed special land use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of
adjacent properties although the railroad use could adversely affect the residential
use of the property.
The proposed special land use should not place any excessive demands on public
services and facilities.
The proposed special land use is consistent with the intent of the zoning code and
Comprehensive Master Plan.
Based on the analysis of the special land use permit, all nine criteria are met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Special Land Use to construct an 16 unit, 2-story
apartment building at the southeast corner of Shiawassee and Pere Marquette.
I I I v I �� Gc _ —
Ln I I V p
r �' r o O ��
I 0.
w
I
3/7 31s
LARC R ST _
-2co 7/0 ?"/ .7za_z z 300 3 ro
i
'- S.t:tf YI.S' Y9.f' S3.S' GG.If� S7- %G• y8./, 75.15
Cp
0
I m c
w N o c� I
Cl)
L T� O� �3
(11 0 3f.2G' YS.ip• C CD
i 9Lc' /�o• — — —
3o9./s m
_ m
_ V R O v
90
0 e
zoo - m
Go• Go' 9�' 9Bc• - - 5'c'r S7ifi .U9V�C .S"cL9�:
m
0237 :` 90/
b MARQUETTE i5 1: 1AA 7T� DRIVE D
N �
isi C
392.G/ I /80• � � 8s. 3 '�'� rn
m
N� gz,s,
2 �V . EAST VA C.P T. YJ 199
P77�a'
DN RAIL 15- 151-011 R. R. C'or_ ca, O 15-151-001 oOl-�I _ O��
774./B' .Su rV e
DC) O D
SLU-11-99, SE CORNER OF SHIAWASSEE AND PERE MARQUETTE
NORTH
i =ut,ruu,tftLtl.lLllJtfur.IllnitllLlrl�Ii,,,i1,iIttullrtllttt11111.11rltttllrinlultll�lllllJtiu.i.11.t't.11.lttlu.IlllJll)tlllllt 1
f+- IIII1111°;I42.xz. iI II: If.l;tlJ i:l lrllll:lll l,ll illlll 1111111 ti I I I i ll,
_- 1=J(IgT 2.R. 1!ilt liut,rini r,l,rli
Ll
I ' �
I -_- _ -- - - -- -
I g
J �1 000
AW-Q 7-r-P- 5r.
Z-13-99
"F-1" Commercial District to "G-1 " Business District
304-6 E. Grand River Avenue
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT/OWNER: Paul Emery
.304 E. Grand River Avenue
Lansing, MI 48906
EXISTING ZONING: "F-1" Commercial District
REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone from "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1"
Business District.
EXISTING LAND USE: Commercial store front and office on ground floor and
residential on second floor
PROPOSED LAND USE: No change proposed
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 44 feet by 100 feet (4,400 square feet, 0.10 acre)
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial/residential: The 300 Block of E.
Grand River Ave.
S: Industrial (O'leary paint and Friedland Metal)
E: Commercial
W: Commercial
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F-1" Commercial District
S: "H" Light Industrial
E: "F-1 Commercial District
W: "F-1" Commercial District
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, Future
Land Use Map, designates this area for commercial
development as part of the "Old Town District".
APPLICANT'S 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 currently lives and works in the building.
Background Information
Over the past several years, 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
Z-13-99 "F-1 " Commercial District to "G-1 " Business District
page 2 304-6 E. Grand River Avenue
requirements that are more appropriate for a suburban commercial environment. The
"G-1" Business District zoning does not require a property owner to provide off-street
parking. Many structures in the vicinity have already been rezoned to "G-1" Business
District (see Figure 1, Area Map).
There are five similar rezoning applications that have recently been heard by the
Planning Board for properties in North Lansing/Old Town:
Z-1-98, 1223 Turner Street;
• Z-3-98, 1131-33 Race Street;
• Z-4-98, 201 E. Grand River Avenue;
• Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River Avenue;
•. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue.
All of these cases were tabled by the Planning Board's Zoning and Ordinance
Committee pending completion of amendments to the master plan and/or a detailed
parking study for the area.
More recently, 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. And, 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.
Subsequent to the recent developments cited above, the Planning Board, at their
meeting of September 21 , 1999, recommended approval of Z-3-98, 1131-33 Race
Street.
Description of Site
The subject property is located on the south side of E. Grand River Avenue. Adjacent
buildings at 302 and 308 frame the applicant's two buildings. The lot area for each
building is 22 feet wide by 100 feet deep. All of these buildings are built adjacent to the
front property line, and there is no alley access at the rear of the structures. The
buildings have two floors and contain roughly 1,200 square feet of floor area each.
The four buildings located adjacent to each other in this block are identified in the
publication Memorandum "76, Historic Lansing, which identifies buildings that were
nominated for, and placed on, the National Register of Historic Places. The
Memorandum identifies these buildings as follows:
Preuss-Reutter Block, 302-4-8 E. Grand River Avenue
Three out of the four brick commercial buildings in this grouping date from
the building boom experienced in 1923-24 along East Grand River. These
buildings rebuilt by the Preuss and Reutter families are relatively severe in
Z-13-99 "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District
page 3 304-6 E. Grand River Avenue
contrast to the much earlier building at 304 East Grand River with its ornate
Italianate window cornice moldings dating from just after the Civil War. These
window cornices still reflect strong shadows and patterns so popular with
nineteenth century architects and builders.
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 by the City
through expansion of the nearby parking lot at the Brenke Fish Ladder from 50 spaces
to approximately 130 spaces.
Alternatives
The Zoning Code provides three possible alternatives for "parking impaired" properties:
1. a variance from the total number of spaces required (§1284.13);
1. a variance for joint use of parking spaces when peak hours of businesses do not
overlap (§1284.05);
1. Rezone the property to "G-1" 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 buildings were mixed.
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.
A fourth alternative, an overlay district modifying the zoning requirements, including off-
street parking requirements, for the North Lansing/Old Town commercial district, is
currently being drafted by the Planning Department. This alternative is still in the
working stages and may require significant time to refine and implement.
ANALYSIS
COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE
A comparison of the permitted uses between the "F-1" Commercial District and the "G-1"
Business District indicates that, with a few exceptions, they permit similar uses. Uses
Z-13-99 "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District
page 4 304-6 E. Grand River Avenue
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. The most
significant difference is there are no off-street parking requirements or building setback
or height requirements in the "G-1" Business District.
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 nearby parking lot, with either its current size of 50 spaces or the
proposed expansion to over 130 spaces. In either case, the subject buildings are not
large enough to create significant parking demand by themselves, however, they will
certainly contribute to the demand created by other buildings in the vicinity.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The subject buildings are not in the flood plain, and their restoration and re-use will
create no additional environmental impact.
IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT
As with most of the historic buildings in North Lansing/Old Town, the preservation of
each one is key to preservation of the other National Register buildings in the district.
SUMMARY
The applicants are requesting rezoning of a commercial building from "F-1" Commercial
District to "G-1" Business District in order to provide flexibility in meeting requirements
for off-street parking. If granted, the rezoning would permit rehabilitation of the building
without any additional off=street parking.
The proposed zoning and land use are 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.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Sturdevant, AICP
Senior Planner
October 11, 1999
Z-13-99.FE.wpd
'z2
rya a
7 -17 319 327 329
D RI `UU VEN U E
302 �0 306 3o 314
' i i a22
� U e
_ U
U�
NO
r r---------------- U
i 0 2 M Ln
fa
MAP 61 BLOCK 404
❑LDT❑WN
LANSING, MICHIGAN
FLE NAW Fmr�c
OLDTOVN2.DVG 1
ga/��/N9�jlVL�/D!i/S
BBB
eea e �
e ee
� o
o a
gog 3oCv 3o y 30 2
308, 306, -5041 302 E. G2ANp RIVER AVENUE
Z-14-99
204 E. Mt. Hope Ave.
Rezone from "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Mr. John Lenhard
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Requesting to rezone property from "C" Residential to
"D-1" Professional Office
EXISTING LAND USE: Single family residence formerly used as an adult
foster care for ten persons.
EXISTING ZONING: "C" Residential
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: Approximately 142' x 100' = 14,200 sqft. and
rectangular shape
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, except the north 10 feet and the south 2 feet,
Assessor's Plat No. 46, City of Lansing, Ingham
County, Michigan
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential
S: Residential
E: Office and School
W: Commercial
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "C" Residential
S: "B" Residential
E: "D-1" Professional Office
W: "F" Commercial
MASTER PLAN
DESIGNATION: Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan 1990,
designates the land use as 15-20 residential dwelling
units per acre.
CASE HISTORY: In 1987, the property was rezoned from "B" & "C"
Residential to "D-1" Professional Office (Z-20-87) to .
allow office use. In 1990, the property was rezoned
from "D-1" Professional Office to "C" Residential (Z-
Page 1
Z-14-99
204 E. Mt. Hope Ave.
Rezone from "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office
There is no anticipated impact on pedestrian circulation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
No impact on the environment is anticipated as a result of this rezoning. .
IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT
No impact on future development patterns is anticipated because this area is already
developed.
SUMMARY
"C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office would.be
Rezoning the property from
is reasonale
consistent with uses along the southof Mt. Hope Avenue.
the history of this property, trends in landd use, size of the structurelsand size ofbhegot n
The proposed rezoning will not increase the amount of vehicular traffic to this particular
site. Traffic generated by this site is not anticipated to impact the residential
neighborhood to the south or north.
No impact on the environment is anticipated as a result of this rezoning.
No impact on future development patterns is anticipated because this area is already
developed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this request to rezone the property from "C" Residential
to "D-1" Professional Office.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sam Quon
Senior Planner
Page 3
i
1
- I 0� 13 1?
I
,,F
IL
L - -
ram. �g) ht-1oIC� GE"r5C 5rl LL `
to
r�K It�'�F��oR7 Rc—La-ft-tF.1�,�'i o �.-._--• - • -�I _�
• � PIiL�. h���
Z-14-99
NORTH 204 E. Mt. Hope Ave.
Vicinity Map
W
m
Li W
> > ❑ Ell :1 IS
¢
AVE, ❑ ¢
q
FIE I- E EE NORM
Dw
¢ ;07 w .
a w ¢
O
MT
U . H❑PE VE, �
L❑RENCE ST
QIVIOLET ,
w I W❑❑DR❑W ST
C�C�2 ><
w z
0
�T ST.
RILEY
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 5
there is, fifteen or twenty people should not be inconvenienced by it by
changing the alley. I think the police should deal with the drug houses.
My father has lived there for 50 years; he is in his mid-seventies. You
would probably close the end closest to Logan, which would mean that he
and the elderly lady next door who is also in her seventies, instead of
getting right out on Logan, would have to go all the way through the alley
through deep snow, to Fletcher and around either Britten or Braman to
get to Logan. That would be a lot of inconvenience and hardship.
JANICE NAGELE, 1006 BRITTEN. What is the speed limit in the alley?
It is not posted. Ms. Love guessed at 10 mph; typically alleys would not
be posted. They are not considered a throughway. City streets that are
not posted are 25 mph as a regular street. Considering the width of the
alley, the closeness of the garages backing out into the alley and the tight
site distances, 10 mph would seem to be the maximum safe speed limit.
Ms. Nagele said it is not a street, but when you see people shooting
through there who do not live on Braman or Britten, it ticks you off. I hope
the people who wrote letters in opposition live on Britten or Braman and
not on some of the other streets farther away. If you can't do anything
permanent, maybe you can post a sign to close the alley to through traffic.
They would not pay attention to other signs unless a policeman was there
'to ticket as they went through. Maybe the police could monitor the alley
for a week or a month to see how many people go through there and don't
reside there. Or a traffic counter to determine traffic loads. Or having
gates on either end of the alley, with a gate card to gain access.
JULIE MARTENS, 1013. BRAMAN STREET. (Submitted letter from
Salome Williams.) I think she sent a letter, but she gave me this in case
the Planning Board did not receive it. She lives at.1020 Britten Street.
She would be severely inconvenienced by the closing of the alley.
Mr. Rieske said that all the letters received have been from people with
addresses in the 1000 Block of Britten or Braman Streets.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the
close of the public hearing for Act-17-99, 1000 Blk. Britten and Braman,
Close Alley to Through Traffic, and referral to the Urban Development
Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26, 1999, in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
B. Z-14-99, 204.East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1".Professional
Office District
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by John Lenhard, owner, to rezone
the property from "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District.
The property was most recently used as an adult foster care facility for ten
persons; that is why it was rezoned to the "C" District. The property
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 6
contains approximately 14,200 sq ft. There is residential development to
both north and south, office and school to the west, and commercial to the
west. Zoning reflects this pattern. In 1987, the property was rezoned
from residential to the "D-1" Professional Office District to allow for office
use. Subsequent to that, in 1990, the property was rezoned to a
residential district to allow for the residential care facility. There is
renewed interest in the property, and the owner is requesting rezoning
back to the Professional Office District. The property is located on Mt.
Hope Avenue at Teel Avenue, near Walter French Academy.
JOHN LENHARD, 122 WHITE HILLS DR., EAST LANSING. I own the
property. It has been in the family since 1957. We now have an
opportunity to have new owners. It is the only property not zoned
professional office, business or industrial on the south side of Mt. Hope
for six-tenths of a mile. The future property owners would have a vested
interest in the property. The neighborhood is in strong support. I
understand that you can make a recommendation. There is urgency. The
building is vacant at present, and winter is coming. If you can expedite
the process by making a recommendation tonight, I would appreciate it,
as would the neighbors and the new property owners.
Mr. Ruge asked Mr. Ruff if he has received agency referrals. Mr. Ruff
said a lot of referrals were not sent because there were two cases for this
address in the last ten years.. No changes are proposed for the property.
Improvements were made with the first change to Office. We have the
previous referrals. We did refer it to the neighborhood for their input.
MR. LENHARD. The use as an adult foster care facility compelled much
more stringent requirements for fire safety, etc. than required for Office.
The Family Independence Agency frequently visited the property. The
property is in compliance far in.excess of requirements.
LINDA WILLIAMS, 1917 TEEL AVENUE, directly adjacent to 204 East
Mt. Hope. I have lived next door for 27 years, and I have been Area
Coordinator for Neighborhood Watch in this neighborhood for 20 years.
We have an excellent neighborhood. Along with the neighborhood, I am
in full support of this application. I have circulated a petition to the
neighbors, all of whom have signed it. "We the undersigned are
neighbors of the property for rezoning at 204 East Mt. Hope. Our
signatures below indicate that we are in full support of the request for
rezoning this property from residential to a professional office application.
We are.asking for and will appreciate your expediting this matter in the
interests of gaining occupancy for this property to alleviate its now-vacant
status, which is not conducive to the integrity of this excellent
neighborhood." The building is empty, ready for someone new; we have
someone ready to move in. You are the only ones who can make this
happen more quickly. (Submitted petition.)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 7
Chairman Nischan said expediting this has been mentioned twice in two
speakers, a 100 percent rate. To expedite this tonight, we would need to
have six board members; however, we have only five members present.
There may be another option, available from Mason's Manual of
Parliamentary Procedure.
ATTORNEY KATHLEEN M. GAYDOS, 4601 WEST SAGINAW, speaking
on behalf of myself and my law partner, Melissa Leckie. Our interest is
future ownership of 204 E. Mt. Hope. There are many reasons why this
should be rezoned to Office. Most important is the fact that we have the
neighborhood support. We have spoken with Linda Williams, Jack
Nelson and Henry Hernandez. When Jack and Henry inspected the
building, they were amazed. They said this is over-compliance. They
had never seen a building with over-compliance. Parking is adequate,
with one parking space for each 200 sq ft of floor space.
Regarding expediting Z-14-99, Ms. Love, to be responsive to the wishes
of the applicant, explained that state law requires six affirmative votes for
approval of a rezoning. Since only five members are present, the Board
could resolve to the Committee of the Whole and take action as a
Committee of the Whole, assuming an affirmative vote of 5-0. You could
then forward the case to City Council without making a favorable
recommendation. . This is a mechanism to move it forward without waiting.
We would give the Council the vote total so they would have an indication
of a positive recommendation without actually saying that. The staff is in
favor; we have heard nothing but positive testimony.
Chairman Nischan said we would deal with it in the Committee of the
Whole; COW would present it to the Board; the Board would vote 5-0,
and request that it be forwarded with a vote tally without a
recommendation.
Mr. Smith asked, assuming all votes are affirmative, would the Council
have an indication of the reason we did it this way. Ms. Love said the
reasons are good and valid. The letter would say that the Planning
Board, absent two members and with one seat vacant, is doing its best
with available resources. Mr. Rieske noted that minutes would be
attached. Chairman Nischan observed that the Council reads the minutes
assiduously anyway.
Mr. Ruff summarized. Expediting would be stated as part of the findings,
the vote would be given, and the statement would be made that the case
is being moved it to the next level because there is no need to hold it at
the Planning Board. Also, the petitioner requests expediting, and the
Board does not object. That would be followed by observing that because
there were not six favorable votes, it is without an official
recommendation, but this is what the Board did, and why.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 8
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the
close of the public hearing and referral of Z-14-99, 204 East Mt. Hope
Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District to the
Committee of the Whole for consideration during the Business Session.
JOHN LENHARD. Regarding the timetable and getting passage, we would be
running up a deadline of December 13, 1999, for Council to act. Otherwise we
would be well into February 2000. The Chairman said we will act on it tonight.
6. PRESENTATION: DRAFT HOUSING MARKET STUDY
Ms. Love introduced George Erickcek, Senior Regional Analyst, Upjohn Institute,
Western Michigan University; and Nick Evers, Principal Planner, Gove
Associates. They have put together the City of Lansing's Housing Market
Analysis. It is very comprehensive.
NICK EVERS discussed the purpose of the analysis, the projects generated, the
major findings and recommendations. The goal of the City of Lansing is to
become the residence of choice for its current and future citizens. The Gove
Associates presented the data, projections and information, followed by
research-based policy recommendations.
GEORGE ERICKCEK presented forecasts and scenarios.
This was a really interesting project. Lansing is to be congratulated, "because
you are on the cutting edge. We have never received a request for proposal to
do things like this in the past." The situation where people leave the city is not
unique. If we can get more cities to think like that, ultimately maybe we will find
.the solution to what's going to happen countrywide.
6. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (6 minutes each)
DOROTHY JONES, 426 W. BARNES. I am very impressed. I am thrilled with
the Housing Market recommendations. One point that hit home with me is that
we have more than our share of subsidized housing. When projects like Silver
Stone come before you, I hope you will support the motion that they are not
appropriate for Lansing. We also need to do public relations with real estate
people. When we moved to Lansing 36 years ago, we were told we didn't really
want to move into the city. They've been saying it all this time. When our
daughter was looking for a house, she was told it was suitable as a rental, not as
a residence. About schools, the perception is that Lansing.schools are inferior.
That is not true. Lansing schools have more to offer than many surrounding
districts because we have a large enough population to be able to offer, for
example, a photography program for high school students. More languages.
Teachers are as good as elsewhere. If MEAP scores are lower it is because we .
also have a higher percentage of low income families. That goes along with not
have reading material in school. We make it too easy for people to get home
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 14
Smith . . . Aye Ruge . .Ave
Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0, unanimous, carried; motion passed
for approval of Z-13-99, 304 and 306 East Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial
District to "G-1" Business District; however, approval of a rezoning requires a minimum
of six affirmative votes. The case will be referred to the City Council with
NO RECOMMENDATION.
Next meeting Wednesday, November 3, 1999, at 4 p.m. in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue. The next
meeting may be held in Old Town, so the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee agenda will be sent to all members. Mr. Emery
volunteered the Old Town/Main Street office. The Committee
wished to consider Z-8-98, 208 East Grand River Avenue, "F-1"
Commercial to "G-1" Business District, and also look at the parking
lot and locations of other pending cases.
2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Vice Chair.
Next meeting is Tuesday, October 26, 1999 at 4 p.m., Department
Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
3. Executive Committee - Has not met.
Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to resolve to the Committee of the
Whole; unanimous; carried. Ms. Keene assumed the Chair. Z-14-99 was taken up.
C. Committee of the Whole
1. Z-14-99, 204 East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District
Mr. Ruff reviewed the case this evening; the applicant offered
testimony; and public comment was received. Mr. Ruge asked how
much parking would be required on this piece of property. When
this was converted the last time, parking was adequate. Code
requirements have not changed.
Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nischan, to approve Z-14-99, 204 East Mt.
Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE action on the motion was as follows.
Miller. . . . . . Aye Smith . •Ave
Ruge. . . Ave Nischan . . Ave
Keene. . . Ave
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1999 PAGE 15
On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Z-14-99, 204
East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District was
recommended to be APPROVED.
That concluded the report; the Committee of the Whole arose. The Planning Board
reconvened.
2. Committee of the Whole Report - Ms. Keene, Chair.
The Committee of the Whole met to consider Z-14-99, 204 East Mt.
Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District .
The Committee, based on testimony, evidence, and the staff report,
found that this is a reasonable zoning change, given the history of
the property, trends in land use, size of the structure and lot. The
proposed rezoning will not increase the amount of vehicular traffic
to this particular site. Traffic generated by this site is not
anticipated to impact the residential neighborhood to the south or
north. No impact on the environment is anticipated as a result of
this rezoning and no impact on future development patterns is
anticipated because this area is already developed.
The Committee voted unanimously 5-0 to approve Z-14-99, 204
East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office
District.
Ms. Keene 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
Z-14-99, 204 East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office
District.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . Ave
Keene. . . Aye Miller .Ave
Nischan Ave
On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; motion passed
for approval of Z-14-99, 204 East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential to "D-1"
Professional Office District; however, approval of a rezoning requires a minimum of six
Aye votes. The case will be forwarded to the City Council with
NO RECOMMENDATION.
C. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Love turned the report over to Mr. Ruff. Mr. Ruff presented to the
Chairman his report on progress of 1999 cases, a spreadsheet in
database format so as to be compatible with our GIS system. The parcel
LANSING HOUSING MARKET STUDY
SUMMARY
Findings
• Existing trends show a modest decline in City's population over next 15 years
• Employment will increase
• Over 90% of inventoried houses are in good or fair condition(over 24,000 parcels surveyed)
• Lansing contains more than its fair share of subsidized housing
• The City's housing units generally contain fewer bedrooms than housing in surrounding
communities
• In 1990, rental housing made up 45% of the City's housing stock(in 1999, 62% of rentals are
multiple family)
• Total "build out" (according to existing zoning) would result in a 50% to 100% increase in
housing units and population
• About half of surveyed households under the age of 40 intend to live outside the City in five
years.
• Home size and age being equal, neighborhood location can impact the selling price of a home in
the City by as much as 50%
Forecasts and Scenarios
• Status Quo Forecast:
• continuation of households moving from the City while childeren are pre-school age
• population will continue to age, increasing demand for retirement communities
• Alternative Scenario:
Key target group is young families who may be in market for a larger house
Goals:
• construct 10 new condos per year
• convert usable buildings into five lofts per year
• rehabilitatelpreserve five large historic houses per year
• retain 1,000 families per year that may otherwise move to suburban locations
• construct 92 new single family homes per year
Short Term
b'ective: Persuade residents to turn first home into "next" residence by remodeling or
expanding
trat 'e :
- continue to support neighborhood action plans
- support and enhance capability of neighborhood organizations
- create City income tax credit for home improvements
b'ectiv : Make another house in Lansing the clear choice for the next home
Strate 'e
- create an individual housing purchase savings account program
- explore additional ways for the City and school district to work together
- set up college scholarship program .
- establish separate building code enforcement policy for historic homes
- ease transfer of dwelling units between generations
- promote company sponsored home ownership programs
- establish development impact review
b'ective: Promote, expand and improve Lansing's "Urbanism"
Strategies:
- develop the CBD as an"urban residential environment"
- Save existing historic housing around the CBD for residential use
b'ective Make home ownership a reality for low-to-moderate income households
trate 'es:
- continue to support homeowner programs
continue to financially support rehab loans and other programs for low-moderate
income homeowners
- coordinate the City's efforts of policing with its building code enforcement
- continue to allow for home-based business opportunities
Long Term Strategies
promote the enactment of a statewide property tax abatement program to reduce or
eliminate property taxes assessed on the value of additions/modifications to eligible
owner-occupied structures
- convert abandoned.commercial structures and vacant upper floors of commercial
buildings to loft apartments
ensure that Lansing Public Schools retain a quality reputation
promote upscale planned unit development
- strive toward consolidating tax foreclosed properties into viable parcels of 20+ acres
that can be redeveloped into premium residential developments
partner with the Lansing Area Transit Authority to design transit village redevelop-
ment areas
- never miss the opportunity to promote Lansing as a residence of choice
Go he Auodates/Upjohn/nstitute
City of Lansing
Housing Market Analysis
Gove Associates
and the
W.E.Upjohn Institute
October 13, 1999
AGENDA
.(Purpose of the Report
.(Products Generated
✓Major Findings
✓Recommendations
Purpose of the Report
It is the City of Lansing's goal to become
the residence of choice for its current and
future citizens.
✓To accomplish this,it is our mission to:
i Provide the City with data,projections and
information.
->Provide research-based policy
recommendations for the City.
Products Generated
✓On-site inventory of single-family homes
and duplexes in selected neighborhoods
in the city.A total of 24,20.3 Houses ivere
surveyed.
—Each residential property was examined on a 39
item check list.
—An easy-to-update computer data base was
created.
✓Household survey of City residents.
✓Forecast of City population and
employment.
On-site Housing Inventory
✓'The physical conditions of 91.5 percent of
the inventoried houses.were found to be
in"Good"or "Fair"condition.
✓A positive correlation was found between
the condition of a housing unit and it
being owner occupied.
✓Critical conditions were primarily
concentrated in the central and
northeastern areas of the City.
Areas of Housing Concerns
Ai
Household Survey of City Residents
56.7 percent of surveyed residents expect
to be living in the city during the next 5
years.
More than half of the residents surveyed
want to buy a home,but only 47.6
percent of those are looking or will look
in the City.
Household Survey of City Residents
Higher income residents looking to buy a
home are more likely to look outside the
city.
"Bigger is better"for most individuals as
they think about their ideal home.
Forecast of City Population:
A modest decline
I30000
�:5000 —
120000
100000
1"5 2000 2005 2010 2015
Forecast of City Employment:
Upward trend
125000
I20000 -
113000
110000
f03000
IOOOOO I .
M6 2000 20M 2010 2015
Desired Housing Characteristics
(percent wanting these attributes)
blore closets
Larger garage• I I
a I
Largo house '
Add.Bub.1 I I
Larger Yards
Slagle Floor{ I
More Bad-
0 10 20 30 40 30 60
Desired Housing Characteristics:
Percent Positive
Affordabity Ff
Acteis to work I_
I i
Amu to Shop
a I
Resale vdue
Md.Appear
0 10 10 70 JO 50 60 70 80
I0 Top 27%of income 0 Bottom 63%of income
Desired housing characteristics
Percent Positive
Security
i
Traffic Safety
Arch Char.
Prop lax rates
K-12 Schools
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Top 37%of income■Bottom 63%of income
It is clear that if the City does not
generate `pall"factors that
attract individuals into the city or
alleviate `posh"factors that send
individuals elsewhere; its more
affluent residents may move out of
the city.
Percent of Residents Surveyed
Expecting to Live in Lansing During the
Next 5 Years.
60+yn
a0-59 yrs
30-39 yrs
I
Under 29yra.
I I
0 t0 20 30 40 s0 60 70 80
Major Findings
Positive
✓The economy is stable,especially with
GM choosing Lansing for its Cadillac
assembly plant.
✓City's population increased in the 1990s,
countering state and national trends.
✓City's housing stock is of good value and
good reppir.
Major Findings
Positive
✓A city address provides easy access to
work and shopping opportunities.
✓Loft housing potential exists.
✓Active city housing policies coupled with
a cooperative and energetic non-profit
sector provides tools for enhancing the
quality of the city's housing stock.
Major Findings
Positive
✓Historic neighborhoods provide the
potential for active preservation .
programs.
✓Crime is not perceived as a deterrent to
living in the city.
Major Findings
Negative
✓Slow-growing economy compared to
similar metropolitan areas.
✓Existing housing stock that is comprised
of many small,single-family houses.
✓Negative neighborhoods' impact on sale's
values.
✓Strong draw of surrounding communities
to"move up and out of"Lansing.
t
Major Findings
Negative
✓City burdened by more than its"fair
share"of public-assisted housing.
✓Poorly perceived public school district.
✓Inability to build on the City's urban
"uniqueness."
Alternative Scenario:
✓Retain young families.
✓Convert existing structures to
residential lofts and condominiums.
✓Preserve historical neighborhoods.
✓Ease transfer of dwelling units between
generations.
,(Assist households who are
economically-disadvantaged.
✓Construct upper-scale housing.
An Alternative Future:
Pushing Beyond the Market
✓Construct 10 new condominium units per
. year to 2015.
✓Convert space in the downtown,Old
Town,and other central city commercial
areas into 5 residential lofts.
✓Rehab 5 large historical houses per year.
✓Retain 1,000 families per year.
✓Construct 92'new,owner-occupied homes
per year.
The Net Population Differential of
the
Alternative Growth Scenario
100"
0
2WO Zoos 2010 2015 .
Short-term Strategies
The challenge facing the City is to beconte
a residence of choice and not jttst a
residence of necessity.
Keeping the Starter Home Family
•To persuade residents to turn their first
home into their "next"residence by
remodeling or putting on an addition.
AND/OR
• Make another house in Lansing the clear
choice for the next home.
To persuade residents to turn their first home into
their"next"residence by remodeling or putting
on an addition
✓Continue to support neighborhood action
plans that enhance the quality of life of
neighborhoods.
✓Support and enhance the capability of the
City's neighborhood organizations.
✓Create a City income tax credit for home
improvement expenditures.
Make Another House in Lansing the Clear Choice
for the Next Home
Create an Individual Housing Purchasing
Savings Account program.
V Build on the Success of CLASS and explore
avenues for the city and the school to make
further gains.
Set up and highly promote a residential-
based college scholarship program.
Make Another House in Lansing the Clear Choice
for the Next Home
Encourage the rehabilitation of the City's
older historical homes by establishing a
separate building code enforcement policy
for these houses.
Encourage and promote company sponsored
home ownership programs.
Make Another House in Lansing the Clear Choice
for the Next Home
Ease the transfer of dwelling units between
generations.
✓Increase availability of attractive senior
housing.
4 Establish a mechanism for an objective
evaluation of the impacts of new residential
development.
Attract and Keep the Professional
"Camper"
•To promote,expand and improve
Lansing's "Urbanismn."
To Promote,Expand and Improve Lansing's
"Urbanism."
Develop the CBD as an"urban residential
environment."
Save existing historical housing around the
CBD for residential use.
Encourage mixed land uses in the
downtown area.
Helping the Salt of the Earth
•Making home ownership a reality for
low-to-moderate income households
Making Home Ownersliip a Reality for Low-to-
moderate Income Households
✓Increase the support of home ownership
programs.
.,'Continue to financially support
rehabilitation loans.
✓Coordinate the City's building code
enforcement with its efforts of policing
within the community.
Continue to allow for home-based
businesses.
Long Term Strategies:
Changing the Face of Lansing
Changing the Face of Lansing:
✓Support the enactment of a statewide
property tax abatement program that would
reduce or eliminate property tax assessed on
the value of additions and/or modifications. .
✓Convert abandoned commercial and
warehouse structures and vacant upper
stories of existing commercial
establishments to loft apartments.
Changing the Face of Lansing:
Work with the Lansing Public Schools to
enhance the education environment for the
city's children.
Promote the development of upscale
planned unit developments.
v Strive toward consolidating tax foreclosed
properties into economically viable units
Changing the Face of Lansing:
./Develop a"transit village."
Adapt to new technologies in residential
development(e.g.energy efficient,
ecologically-sound new materials and new
designs to accommodate today's new life
styles).
City of Lansing
Housing Market Analysis
Gove Associates
and the
W.E.Upjohn Institute
October 13, 1999
Areas of Housing Concerns
LEGEND
FiGFMAYS
UPJOI IN
INSTITUTE
t
1
SECTION 111 I-ansinQ Musing Market
MAP III-11A-HOME VALUE COMPARISON: MEDIAN LANSING HOME
Median Lansing Home: 1,010 Square Feet,53 years old.
Selling Price in Neighborhood#44(Yellow on Map)_$92,561
t o
1 k
• 2 Ss
I
66
34
29
44
$92,561' 3
4
6
7. $
61, 91
63,37
6 69
562,
576,91
a.a n.ro,n rocd.ass,s;as
City of lanstnq HouslnR Market Study 111_51
APPROVED NOVEMBER 16, 1999 with one correction P. 21 Ln 9.34" Pos .938"as follows: Draft to Clerk 111299
Mr. Mw"eFSMITH made a motion . . . to recommend approval of Act-20-99 . . . Approved 111699
To Clerk 112499
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD r-
7 p.m., City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, November 2, 1999 =
1. OPENING SESSION:
Chairman Nischan called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Miller, Nischan, Ruge, Smith. Six
members present, one absent; one vacant seat.
B. Excused Absences - Ms. Keene, whose job requires her to work this
evening, requested an excused absence; motion by Mr. Ruge, second by
Mr. Goolsby; granted.
C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager, introduced staff
present; Jim Sturdevant and Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planners; James
A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator; and Louise H. Christian, Recording
Secretary.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was approved as presented. Chairman
Nischan noted that, because of the presentation of election results, the Planning
Board will have to vacate Chambers and move to the Conference Room at about
8:15 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter dated October 26, 1999 from Amy Salisbury, Program Officer,
LISC, addressed to Doris Witherspoon Re: LISC - Funding Proposal, FY
2000-2001 CDBG Program.
B. Letter dated October 19, 1999, addressed to the Planning Board from
Linda Williams Re: Z-14-99, 204 East Mt. Hope Avenue, "C" Residential
to "D-1" Professional Office District, expressing thanks.
4. HEARINGS
A. Community Development Resources and CIP Needs Hearing
Chairman Nischan said this is the time for a public hearing which will
provide an opportunity for citizens to express preferences for the use of
federal funds to address housing and priority non-housing community
development needs in the City in preparation of the City's Consolidated
Strategy and Plan for FY 2000-2001. The City expects to receive funding
through the Community Development Block Grant Home and Emergency
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 2
Shelter Grant programs during the next fiscal year commencing on July 1,
2000, and ending on June 30, 2001.
It is also appropriate at this time for citizens to comment on their needs
and priorities in regard to projects that should be funded under the City's
Capital Improvements Program for fiscal years 2000 to 2005.
Any person in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board on
these matters should come to the microphone, state your name and
address, and provide us your comments. Written proposals and requests
will also be accepted for consideration. It is required that all verbal
proposals made at this time also be submitted in writing to the Planning
Department prior to November 12, 1999.
JENNIFER GRAD, 201 LATHROP STREET, REPRESENTING HABITAT
FOR HUMANITY OF LANSING AND HISTORIC DISTRICT
COMMISSION. Two years ago was the first time, to my knowledge, that
we received any substantial funding from CDBG. Periodically, we had
received weatherization funds, but the last two years, we have actually
received funding for new construction. We were able to match that
funding last year dollar for dollar, and as a result leveraged that money in
totality. This year, we have actually been able to match it two dollars for
dollar. So it has been a very important source of seed funding for us.
Just in case you don't know, Habitat for Humanity works with families that
are not bankable and not mortgageable, and we help them work in
partnership with us to build houses in neighborhoods in Lansing that we
have targeted as neighborhoods that are in distress. We either buy and
rehabilitate existing housing stock, or we take vacant lots and we do infill
with new construction. I would also like to mention that from the Historic
District Commission perspective, we have benefitted from CDBG funding
as a way of augmenting some of the historic repairs that are taking place
on housing throughout the City, not necessarily limited to those houses
within historic districts, but houses that have historic value, and it helps
the homeowner make repairs in a way that becomes affordable to them.
So I would like to thank you for your past support in both of these areas,
and urge you to continue that.
REYNARD BLAKE JR. , EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE LANSING
COMMUNITY MICRO ENTERPRISE FUND, 520 W. IONIA, LANSING.
Dr. John Perkins, founder of the Christian Community Development
Association, points out in his book, Beyond Charity, The Call to Christian
Community Development, that in terms of addressing poverty, it is much
easier to build a new prison or to enact a new welfare law to give
someone a handout rather than it is to develop the person. So far, we
have settled for the impersonal and bureaucratic, but as we are seeing
now, in the long run, these band-aids will be much more expensive than
we ever imagined. I believe there has never been any serious thought
given to a comprehensive community development plan that enables
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 3
people to own their own neighborhood. The economic development that
flows from ownership would reward individual initiative, causing people to
look inward instead of to institutions out there to solve the problem. The
Lansing Community Micro Enterprise Fund can be viewed as part of a
process that helps people, as Dr. Perkins describes, to own their own
neighborhood via micro enterprise assistance and our loan fund program.
Its mission is to help people start or expand small businesses in
distressed communities by providing business training, small loans,
network opportunities, and mentoring. A micro enterprise is a small
business employing one to five people, including the owner. The overall
goal is that its customers will become capable in participating in the
economic mainstream, thus contributing to a better, stronger Lansing.
The micro enterprise fund provides additional opportunities for those left
behind in our booming economies to become more self-sufficient, via
business development and job creation. It provides low-income
individuals with the business training, capital, technical assistance and
networking they need to turn their business concepts into reality. The
micro enterprise fund is the only micro enterprise program of Lansing. It
offers low-income entrepreneurs access to services that they have
historically found difficult to access. It is an important part of the
spectrum of development activities needed in the City of Lansing, creating
self-employment options for low-income people. Many of the participants
are moving from public assistance, unemployment, or a state of working
poverty to a new status, namely, economic, independent, tax-paying
citizens. They are building assets, creating a place for themselves in the
economic system, and contributing to the health and vitality of Lansing.
Therefore, the creation of very small business is only one goal of the
Micro Enterprise Fund. It is equally important that the Micro Enterprise
Fund increase incomes, raise self esteem, stabilize families and
neighborhoods, develop skills, create role models, and spark community
renewal. The Micro Enterprise Fund is more than a job creation or a
business development program. It works with people who lack access to
established financial institutions and capital sources. Furthermore, the
Micro Enterprise Fund expands the knowledge base of its trainees, in
terms of helping them understand how to stretch their dollars wisely, how
to become more responsible with their personal credit, and provide them
with insights on how to repair negative personal credit ratings. In doing
so, it grows human capital, inspires prudent economic activity, and builds
a more inclusive community and economy. The market niche for the
Micro Enterprise Fund is defined in its bylaws as the low income and
other socially- or economically-disadvantaged persons in the City of
Lansing. With respect to credit needs, the Micro Enterprise Fund targets
those needing less than $10,000 as start-up capital. Most commercial
lenders in the area do not currently fill this niche, especially if the
entrepreneur has a history of low income or credit problems. The Micro
Enterprise Fund is intended to assist those who are not able to obtain
credit offered through other financial institutions. Due diligence is
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 4
exercised in making the loan process. Loans of $500 up to $10,000 are
available to those individuals who have completed an acceptable
business plan and meet the following requirements: That the borrower
meets 46 percent debt-to-income ratio based on projected income and
debt; any court judgments and government obligations such as taxes,
fees, and fines are paid, or a plan is in place to do so; and the borrower is
low- to moderate-income by virtue of their income or vocation. Since it
began operations in January, 1997, 160 people have completed training.
They reported the creation of 42 new businesses, the expansion of 29
businesses, and the creation of 27 part-time jobs and 23 full-time jobs.
One hundred and sixteen, or about 60 percent of the trainees were
women, and 131, or nearly 70 percent, were from minority populations.
Eighty percent have low- to moderate-income status or remaining
customers live or work in low-income areas. Eleven loans have been
made. The average size of each loan is roughly $5,800. The business
types include landscaping, snow removal, motivational speaking, janitorial
services, literary magazine publishing, gift baskets and balloons, exterior
and deck cleaning, and a nanny placement agency. The Micro Enterprise
Fund would sincerely appreciate continued CDBG funds to further its
mission. It will enable us to continue our various activities and provide an
impetus for other agencies and organizations to support us and invest in
us. Thank you very much for your time; I would be happy to answer
questions.
AMY SALISBURY, PROGRAM OFFICER WITH THE LOCAL
INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION, 530 W. IONIA. I want to begin
by thanking the City for its past support, which has led to much of the
progress that we have obtained in our inner city neighborhoods in
Lansing. Let me give you a little background on LISC. We are a national
nonprofit; we are based out of New York City; we are located in about 43
different metropolitan areas across the country. Our mission is to support
community development corporations in revitalizing neighborhoods. We
do that by providing loans and grants, technical assistance, program
development, and training, to their staff and board of directors. We have
had a local office in Lansing since 1989. In addition to the unique role we
play in the community, we also are able to leverage funds from outside
the community to bring to Lansing. Our national organization matches all
of our fund-raising dollar for dollar. In short, LISC brings resources from
outside the City to our community. In our previous fund-raising campaign,
we leveraged enough funds to contribute $1.4 million to community
development corporation projects in Lansing. We would not be able to do
that without having a presence in Lansing, and we cannot afford to have a
presence in Lansing without the support of the City to help fund my
position to work here. During the last few years, we have seen a big
increase in the community development and neighborhood revitalization
in Lansing. We have seen in the past year the kick-off of a new program,
the Lansing Home Ownership Program, or sometimes referred to as
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 5
LHOP program. This is a unique program which allows a home buyer to
purchase and rehab a home within the City of Lansing, getting assistance
through a nonprofit organization. We have also seen an increase in the
numbers of employers who are providing employer-assisted down-
payment assistance to their employees who are purchasing homes within
the City of Lansing, mostly within CDBG-designated neighborhoods.
LISC also provides loans to those families who want to do some minor
rehab to their homes. This increase in effort has led to an increase in
results. More families own their own homes. Neighborhoods are
stabilizing, and more neighbors own their own businesses. We have
heard from Reynard previously. In 1999, we are anticipating completion
of over 75 housing units in City neighborhoods. This is an incredible
increase over the past few years, and we are very proud of that. This
could not be accomplished without the CDBG program. They provide the
necessary gap financing to make it possible for this rehabilitation and
construction of affordable quality housing. Without the CDBG program,
affordable housing rehabilitation would be drastically impaired, maybe
even stalled to some point. Quality houses bring quality neighborhoods
which makes a quality city. As a part of the national organization, I have
seen the effects that other cities' CDBG programs have had. They do not
compare to Lansing's. I am always very proud to boast that the Lansing
CDBG program is pro-active and successful and is definitely the
backbone to community development here in Lansing. Thanks for your
time, and thanks for your past support. Please continue to support us.
Are there any questions?
JOHN CHRISTIAN, 135 N. FOSTER, LANSING, REPRESENTING
URBAN OPTIONS, A PRIVATE NONPROFIT ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DEMONSTRATION HOUSE IN EAST LANSING,
MICHIGAN. I am speaking in behalf of the Energy Fitness Program, the
CDBG-funded program that has been provided in the City for the last ten
years. Since 1988, we have served over 3,000 households. In the
Lansing area, in Ingham County, we spend approximately half a billion
dollars on energy, and with current technologies, we have the potential to
reduce that by $200 million annually. The Energy Fitness Program
addresses the types of changes, the efficient lighting, heating, insulation
and appliances that would help us achieve that kind of savings within the
county, and I know this program is only within the City, but a good
percentage of the County lives within the City. Any moneys that we can
help save with a program like this stays locally. This program addresses
the low- to moderate-income households, the ones that really need the
help the most. Every dollar we can save for a fixed-income senior is a
real dollar they can use for food or someplace else so desperately
needed. A state study indicated that the average savings by our program,
that is water, energy and sewage, is approximately $100 a household.
Our clients definitely appreciate the City's support that we have had in the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 6
past with this program, and we at Urban Options also do, and we hope to
have this type of support in the future. Thank you.
BEVERLY WIENER, 311 S. JENISON, DIRECTOR OF HAVEN HOUSE,
A SHELTER FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES. As many of you know, we are
located in East Lansing, but we serve mostly Lansing residents, and most
of our families move back into Lansing, so we are very heavily involved
with the Lansing community. We serve about 125 families a year, and
they can be a single mother and a child, or a single father and a child, or
a two-parent family. About 85 percent of our families are single moms
with kids, and obviously, they are among the low-income families. We
also have a transitional housing program. This is a program where we
provide services in the home for people who have moved out of the
shelter to help people address some of the underlying causes that may
have made them homeless, making sure they can keep a job, making sure
they pay their rent on time, manage their money well, handle their kids'
school problems—all the things that will make them become more stable
and self-sufficient. Our ultimate goal for many of our families is to
become home owners here in the City of Lansing. Some of them have a
ways to go, and some of them are fairly close to that. We are seeing in
the Lansing area an increase in the number of homeless, and we are
monitoring this very carefully to see whether this is just a seasonal
problem, or if we will see this more and more. We are sure that a major
reason for this is the cost of rent. The cost of rent is going up higher than
the ability of people to afford those rents. So we have a real shortage
right now of affordable housing for a lot of our families. We have been
receiving some funds from the City, and we thank you, through the
General Fund, and also some ESG funds, and I know that it has helped
us a lot, and it has helped many of the other homeless programs. So I
just urge you to remember our homeless population, and hopefully,
eventually, we won't have this program, but unfortunately, it still exists
here in the Lansing community as well as other parts of the country.
Thank you very much. If there are any questions, I would be glad to
answer them; otherwise, I will sign my name and address here.
DONALD C. LEAF, 831 SYCAMORE STREET, LOAVES AND FISHES
MINISTRIES, which is a shelter for men, women and children, right over
here on Oakland Avenue and Sycamore Street. I am here tonight to
address the problem of homelessness in this community. We have in the
past year appreciated your support in making either City funds, or ESG
funds particularly, available to us and helping us to meet those everyday
costs that you have when you open the door to somebody that is
homeless. Unfortunately, many of those funds are diminishing at a time
when our costs continue to go up. If you are like me, when I go home and
pay my electrical bill, or my gas bill, or my telephone bill, they keep going
up year after year after year, but the funding in this particular area has not
kept pace with the increasing costs at all; in fact, it has gone the other
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 7
way. So, many of the sheltering programs in town are trying to find other
resources in order to provide services to those people that are homeless.
If I was to leave you with one message tonight, it would be the message
that we are not winning the war or the battle. Sunday we will begin
Homeless Awareness Week in the state of Michigan. Next Monday, we
will be here in front of the City Council to talk to them again about
awareness, about the problems that we have with the homeless
population here in our community. We met yesterday at the American
Red Cross, and we were looking at the problem that Beverly had hinted
at. We estimated that somewhere between 30 and 50 beds we are short
each evening. In Lansing, when you don't have room in shelters any
longer, the band-aid approach that we use in the homeless area is,
through the American Red Cross, to put people into motels. The hope is
that they are only in there for a very short period, and that they can come
back into the shelters and be part of the public sheltering system.
Unfortunately, there are so many people right now that we are not able to
accommodate the need. It is estimated that we are anywhere between 30
and 50 beds short each evening. In meeting with the American Red
Cross and in doing projections for this coming year, the Year 2000, it
appears that we could be approaching a real crisis in Lansing in that we
will no longer have moneys available to hotel people on a short period of
time. And therefore, the only option that may be available is the streets,
the doorways or the parks. I want you to be aware of this because we
don't always bring this kind of information out. We are doing the best to
work in Lansing as a continuum of care. That means all of us working
together to try to find the best solution, to try to move people from
homelessness into more permanent housing, but we are losing this battle
here in the Lansing area. The statistics will show you that for the people
who go into hotels at night, six out of ten are children. That means our
children are being raised in hotels or environments that are not stable and
not permanent. That means that this is the next generation that is going
to only know this type of living style and just continue this kind of problem
for our community. As decision-makers, you have a change to impact and
influence other people in the City Council, in the Administration; you have
an opportunity possibly to direct new moneys toward homelessness, the
homeless problem here in the Lansing area. I certainly would urge you to
do so. We certainly could provide you with more statistics than you ever
want to look at, more reasons why there is homelessness. We could give
you pages of reasons of why this problem is increasing in the community,
but I think most of you are pretty well aware of what is happening in our
community and our society that is causing these problems to exist. Thank
you for your attention and I urge you to continue to support programs that
direct money and resources towards the homeless population of our
community. Thank you very much.
ALMUS THORP, 423 N. SYCAMORE STREET, GREATER LANSING
HOUSING COALITION. For the last five years, I have been Executive
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 8
Director of the GLHC, which is one of six community development
corporation nonprofits that are doing affordable housing in the City of
Lansing. I would like to give you a visual, and you are going to have to
use your imagination. How many of you have recently walked around or
driven around the Seven Block Area? Hands? Some of you spend a lot
of time there, don't you, Doris? That's an area of the City that is in the
process of being transformed. Visualize the corner of Butler and
Kalamazoo. On the northwest is the Westside Deli. Across the street
from that, south, on the southwest corner, is a beautiful rehabilitated
house done by Ferris Development. A few yards south of that, across
from Capitol Commons, on South Butler, is a nasty yellow and green
house that has recently had all the trees cut down and, God willing, we
are going to let the bids on that, and pretty soon that's going to be
rehabilitated just like the gray house that is just to the south of that, which
is the north bookend for the two new construction in-fills. And then the
house that is not everybody's favorite color, on the corner of Lenawee
and South Butler. Then you go around the corner, going toward Martin
Luther King, west, and that's Lenawee, and there are a number of
boarded-up houses there, and empty lots, and that's going to be turned
into a cul-de-sac. And two houses at the end on the north are going to be
moved; one house has already been rehabed. Several are boarded up.
They are going to be rehabed, and there is empty space provided by tear-
downs where in-fill new construction is going to be planted, again by
Ferris Development. If you backtrack and go down farther, towards St.
Joe, in the 500 Block, there is one rehab that is being done right now by
Ferris, one rehab that we did, a new construction that we did, and if you
go all the way to the 600 Block, right down by the print shop, you find
another construction. Change the whole face on the eastern side of the
Seven Block Area. And in large measure, it is because of the kind of
collaboration and money that we get from the City. My message is that
organizations like mine, and the five other nonprofits that are trying to
provide affordable housing in this town, and having a measure of
success, couldn't possibly do what we do. We are, to an alarming extent,
dependent upon the staff and the money that comes from the City of
Lansing, and it is a superb use of the public dollar. Thank you very much.
SUSAN CANCRO, DIRECTOR, ADVENT HOUSE MINISTRIES, 515 S.
VERLINDEN. Advent House is at 743 North Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
We are right here in Lansing. I just wanted to say tonight, in reflection, I
guess, of what my peers are saying, that we have a good network of
services here in Lansing, an incredible network. The money that has
come to Advent House that was ESG, or connected with this funding here,
had to do with rehabing the three houses we use as shelter homes. That
rehab was helped by the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition, which is
represented by Almus Thorp. We were assisted with advice from LISC,
Amy Salisbury. We have worked together in our provision of shelter and
services with Loaves and Fishes and Haven House and Volunteers of
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 9
America, who will speak shortly. I can tell you that if you look out at this—I
don't know if you can see it from your perspective—it is like a very fine web
of service, a net, that catches people, so we don't have an evident
homelessness on the streets of Lansing. At any given time in Lansing,
the estimate is that we have between 800 and 1,000 people who are
homeless. Of those 800, 150 of them are in the shelters. Another 150
are probably wandering around on the street, but not so many that they
are evident. The remainder are staying with friends and relatives. And by
this management, we don't see these people, but they are there, and
many of them now, with those being left out of the system of welfare or
assistance, they are not being counted, so we don't have a sense of the
issue. But that problem, that battle, that Don was talking about, although
it is still waging, and we certainly have a fight ahead of us, is not an
impossible battle to wage. We have the ability to bring solutions to
people, and one of the things we are doing at Advent House (this can all
sound very negative) is we are using HUD money that was given to us
through the City to institute a program called Good Work. That program
is providing employment training to chronically homeless adults. A lot of
the single adults that you don't count, that the government doesn't count,
that we don't see because they are not working, they have never worked,
so they are not on any rolls. They are not getting assistance, because
they don't have kids attached to them. They may have children
somewhere, but they are not with them. So they become invisible, but
they are part of the fabric of our community, and we are working with
those folks. We are just starting this program, and in fact, right now, we
are starting the program in cooperation with Volunteers of America in their
day shelter during the week. We have the only weekend day shelter in
Lansing. We are seeing an average of 105 to 110 people a weekend
day. And they are not all homeless. Some are low-income folks who
need help with food and just a place to be, but they come and they don't
do violence to one another or to the shelter, they come and they try to
make their lives better in that time. And that's what this is all about. So
we are working with VOA and the other organizations to do that,
particularly in the Good Work program. We are utilizing the day shelter
environment, and I bring that up because the funding that we have for that
service from the state level has been discontinued, and it was because it
was initiated, I guess, in Lansing only. We didn't know this, to keep
people from being in public places too much when they could be in some
place more constructive. It was nice to have that provision, but that
provision is no longer available, and we have to find other funding. Now
my hope is that we will find that on the state level, but the City has been
part of supporting those shelters, and would like to see them continue,
and they are working with us really closely, so part of the support that you
give us is that kind of networking that helps us solve those kinds of very
big problems for small organizations like ours. I just want you to know
that so much is happening, and it's happening because of the support that
has come from you, and you have that power to make sure that the
support is there. Those dollars aren't everything, but every one of your
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 10
dollars means a lifetime of improvement and possible future for the
people that we see. I encourage you to realize the blessing of what you
do for us, and to the best of your ability, continue to provide that. I know
that there are other issues and other choices you have to make, but
remember that this is important, and if there is any way that we can help
you to find other resources also, because I think we need to work
together, we are here. We meet every month, the Homeless Resolution
Network, and we discuss what is going on, and we talk about strategies,
and we try to be fair, and we do work together. So we want to bring that
camaraderie here, and it's there because of you. We bring together our
intentions, but you help us with your support, and you are doing
something very, very good. I just want you to know, and thank you very
much for all your assistance. Thank you.
JAMES GORMAN, JR., DIRECTOR, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, 415
N LARCH. Volunteers of America operates the largest homeless shelter
in Greater Lansing, and it's up there in the top five in the state. We
provide overnight sleeping quarters to 75 individuals and families a night.
We also provide 300 meals a day in our soup kitchen, and we operate a
day shelter to provide program activities to work on the issues behind
homelessness. Obviously, the homeless have personal problems, and
this is one of the causes of homelessness. There are other causes as
you know. CDBG funds are essential for what we do at VOA, and, as you
have heard my colleagues, other shelters that are operating in the City. It
is hard to emphasize that, but certainly the City has an asset in the
shelter that VOA runs and they wanted for the consumers of that shelter
to be safe and sanitary, and this is what the CDBG funds do. I can't
stress how much funding like that also allows a group like VOA to
leverage other funds. For instance, we were lucky enough, or blessed
enough, to recently be awarded a grant from the Veterans Administration
to serve homeless veterans, and that will be a program that will be long-
term, and is about seeking far-reaching solutions to the problems of
homeless vets which are very complex, and that will also bring into this
community $500,000. The folks like the VA, they know their stuff, and
they want to see that we are supported, before they invest those kind of
dollars in our program. And to be sure to show that the City of Lansing
and the ESG funds and the CDBG funds, that just demonstrates some
long-term confidence in what we do at VOA, and what the continuum of
care is doing. It's a pretty good buck, I think, that the shelters offer the
City. For instance, our beds are $10 a day, and I think that the other
shelters are about as inexpensive. You can buy an alcohol rehab bed in
this town for $70 a day. If you need psychiatric services at St. Lawrence,
or Sparrow, as it wants to be called now, that takes $700 a day. And
believe me, in our shelters, we see people who have been in alcohol
rehab and people who have been in those psychiatric beds, and yet the
City and the state buys bed service at $10 a day at VOA. That is just so
prominent, I think, of how something that maybe seems small, because
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 11
there is quite a few agencies that partake of CDBG funds. I understand
that, but you know at $10 a day, any kind of dollars that we bring in are
important. As it is, VOA has to go to the community, and for every dollar
that we get in support from the state or the City, we have to ask our
supporters in our fund-raising for two more dollars, because that is really
what it takes to operate the kind of shelter that we want to be and provide
the kind of programs that are needed to eliminate this problem. The
gentleman spoke of priorities, that if we got a chance, we could pitch
some priorities. I would say that there are two priorities that we as a
group, and myself, in my position, perceive, and that is certainly, we do
not have enough bed space for homeless families at any given time at the
VOA shelter, we have six kids who are living in the shelter. That is
deplorable. No matter how much we try to provide a good space, a safe
space, and a giving space, that is just deplorable, that six kids a night
have to stay in shelter. And I should add that any given time in our
shelter, 20 percent of the folks who stay in the shelter are homeless
veterans. That is another deplorable fact. I would just ask this group to
think about, and think with us, of how we can problem-solve and move to
a solution for homeless families, and offer them something more than a
band-aid short-term emergency service that the shelters can only provide.
And certainly, I hope you heard Susan say that the day shelters are
menaced with a funding cut. We have been told that we have one year to
replenish our funding, and it's cut out from under us. It's not going to be
replaced. This is unfortunate, and this will make even more difficult our
job or mission to go behind the presentation of homelessness and go
behind just offering people three hots and a cot, and try to deal with the
underlying causes. This is what we do in our day shelters with social
workers and case workers and medical people, and through our referral
network that we have all worked very hard to collaborate with each other.
If the day shelter is taken from us, both VOA and Advent House, it will be
difficult to find a setting, a context to work out these problems, to problem-
solve with the clients for what we need to do, inasmuch as employment
services are concerned, medical services are concerned, and referral to
alcohol and drug treatment, which is essential. Our statistics show that
about 70 percent of folks who come to the shelter are diagnosed alcohol-
dependent. So they need referrals to treatment, and if we don't have a
place and a time and staff to persuade them or work with them, to take a
referral to alcohol and drug treatment, we are not going to resolve this
problem. I know I am going on a little bit; I am known to do that. Thank
you very much; thank you for your past support of CDBG, and I know you
will continue that. I appreciate it.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the
close of the public hearing for the Community Development Resources
and CIP Needs. Ms. Witherspoon said comments are considered and
summarized. At the next public hearing in January, a similar process is
followed, and at that time comments are referred to the Urban
Development Committee.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 12
B. SLU-12-99, 3220 South Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Church in "F" District
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Dr. Frederick Hogan, a tenant
of the property at Logan Square Shopping Center, 3222 S. Martin Luther
King, Jr. Blvd. The property, zoned "F" Commercial, contains 29 acres of
land. It is in a commercial- and industrially-zoned area, although to the
west are residences. The proposal is to incorporate a church, the Growth
and Change Christian Community Church, into a tenant space in the
Logan Square Shopping Center. No expansion to the shopping center is
proposed. The space is approximately 11,000 sq ft, with a maximum
occupancy planned of 450 persons. They have supplied architectural
drawings to the Building Safety Office for a permit. A church is allowed in
the "F" Commercial District if it receives a Special Land Use permit by the
City Council.
FREDERICK A. HOGAN, 2500 CHATHAM, PASTOR OF GROWTH AND
CHANGE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY CHURCH. We are located now at
5135 South Pennsylvania. That is my medical office, and we are in the
lower level of that, and want to move our church to the Logan Square
Center. I believe that the area that this church will be located in is a good
area to impact upon with a church, a young church, a vibrant church that
will be out in the community and trying to help young people find their
way, rather have them singing than just hanging around in the community,
and would like to have a church in that area. If there are any questions, I
would be more than happy to answer them.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the
close of the public hearing for SLU-12-99, 3220 S. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Blvd., Church in "F" Commercial District, and referral to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee, meeting at 6.45 p.m. on November 16, 1999, prior
to the Planning Board meeting that evening.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None.
6. RECESS - The Chairman declared a five-minute recess. The chambers will be
used for reporting election returns, so the Board will reconvene for the balance
of the meeting in the City Council Conference Room.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval -
Minutes for Approval: September 21, 1999 (previously provided); October
5, 1999; and October 19, 1999.
September 21, 1999
On a motion by Mr. Goolsby, seconded by Mr. Miller, the minutes of
September 21, 1999 were approved as printed. On a Voice vote, Ayes: 6;
Nays: 0; the minutes of September 21, 1999 were APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 13
October 5, 1999
On a motion by Mr. Goolsby, seconded by Mr. Frederick, the minutes of
October 5, 1999 were approved as printed. On a Voice vote, Ayes: 6;
Nays: 0; the minutes of October 5, 1999 were APPROVED.
October 19, 1999
On a motion by Mr. Ruge, seconded by Mr. Miller, the minutes of October
19, 1999 were approved as printed. On a Voice vote, Ayes: 6; Nays: Q
the minutes of October 19, 1999 were APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman.
Next meeting Wednesday, November 10, 1999, at 4 p.m. in the
Creole Gallery, 1218 Turner. The Committee will go on a tour and
view some parking issues in Old Town. The Committee will meet
to take up SLU-12-99, 3220 S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.,
Church in "F" Commercial District, at 6:45 p.m. before the meeting
on November 16, 1999.
2. Urban Development Committee - October 26, 1999, Mr. Smith,
Chair.
a. Act-16-98, Oakland to Saginaw Connector in Conjunction
with Prudden Wheel Project
This is a three-phase project to provide access to the North
Precinct and proposed 150-unit condominium project at 740
May Street, and for the proposed Sheridan Lofts
condominiums.
Phase I connected May and Saginaw Streets, and was
funded in part with the State of Michigan's Transportation
Economic Development Fund. Phase II is a 437-foot
extension of Prudden Street, to connect May Street with
Oakland Avenue. Phase III will reconnect May Street.
The land for the roadway is available to the City at nominal
cost. The proposed infrastructure improvements are critical
to the success of the redevelopment projects.
Staff recommends approval of Phase II for the completion of
the Prudden Street connection between Saginaw Street and
Oakland Avenue.
The Committee reviewed the location, character and extent
of the Act-16-98 proposal pursuant to Act 285 of 1931, as
amended, and found that the proposed Prudden Street
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 14
extension is necessary to provide access to the North
Precinct from the north, and that the land for the roadway is
available at a nominal cost.
In Committee, it was moved and seconded and carried
unanimously 3-0, to recommend approval of Act-16-98,
Oakland to Saginaw Connector in Conjunction with Prudden
Wheel Project.
Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and
the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve
Act-16-98, Oakland to Saginaw Connector in Conjunction with Prudden Wheel Project.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Frederick asked about neighbors and their concerns about traffic in the
neighborhood resulting from this development. Ms. Love explained that right now in
the neighborhood there is more traffic from people trying to reach the North Precinct.
Approval of this extension of Prudden Street will have a positive impact on May Street
residents.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby .Ave
Miller. . . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Smith Aye Nischan Ave
On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act-16-98,
Oakland to Saginaw Connector in Conjunction with Prudden Wheel Project, was
APPROVED.
b. Act-14-99, 100 Blk. West Elm Street, Sale of Property
TABLED.
C. Act-15-99, 703 East Shiawassee Street, Purchase of
Property for Parks Dept. Oak Park Field Office
The subject property is located on the north side of
Shiawassee Street, south of the undeveloped East Genesee
Street Right-of-way, between the Oak Park Field Office to
the east and the railroad ROW on the west. It is vacant
land, unmaintained and overgrown with vegetation,
rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 333.96 ft by
96.6 ft (32,260 sq ft, 0.74 acre).
The Department of Parks and Recreation wants to acquire
the property for an expansion of the Oak Park Field Office.
A total of $128,883 for site acquisition was included in the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 15
Parks Department FY 2000 Capital Improvements Budget,
which was recommended by the Park Board.
The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan designates the
vicinity of the subject site as a transition between industrial
uses, low density residential, and parks/open space uses. It
is zoned "H" Light Industrial, which permits many different
land uses, including off-street parking facilities. However,
a structure which is used by a governmental entity also
requires a Special Land Use permit in the "H" Light
Industrial District. If the Parks Department's plans include
additional structures on the site, a special land use may be
necessary.
There is possible environmental contamination on this site,
and the City was involved in a law suit over this issue.
The Oak Park Neighborhood Association expressed
concern that there would be an increase in local truck traffic,
and requested that Parks Department vehicles use
Shiawassee Street instead of East Genesee Street and
Dorrance Place. The North-East Area Comprehensive Plan
classifies Shiawassee Street as a collector street between
Larch and Pennsylvania.
Staff recommends approval of the request to acquire the
property pending resolution of any environmental
contamination issues with the property and provided that the
City obtain an acceptable environmental assessment and
good and marketable title to the property.
The Committee reviewed the location, character and extent
of the Act-15-99 proposal pursuant to Act 285 of 1931, as
amended, and found that:
1. The subject property is vacant and well-located for
the expansion of the Oak Park Field Office;
2. The subject property may have unresolved
environmental contamination problems; and
3. City vehicles should use Shiawassee Street for
access to the Oak Park Field Office, because it is
designed to accommodate through traffic.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried
unanimously 3-0, to recommend approval of Act-15-99, the
acquisition of the property west of and abutting the Oak Park
Field Office (PPN 3301-15-103-013), with three conditions.
A change to Condition 3 needs to be noted.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 16
1. That resolution of any environmental contamination
issues with the property, as indicated by an
acceptable environmental assessment;
2. That the City receive good and marketable title to the
property; and
3. That access to the site be pfovided alang
Shiawassee r not East Genesee Street-.
No access to Genesee Street.
Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and
the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve
Act-15-99, 703 East Shiawassee Street, Purchase of Property for Parks Dept. Oak Park
Field Office.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Ruge, remarking about Condition 3, said Parks Dept. vehicles driving through the
neighborhood to access Parks property on Genesee Street caused a problem in the
Oak Park Neighborhood, If Parks has two accesses on Shiawassee Street, they could
close their Genesee Street access.
Mr. Dorland, Deputy Director, Parks and Recreation Dept., said currently employee
parking access is located north of Genesee Street. Parks may not be able to acquire a
second access on Shiawassee adjacent to the railroad tracks. The current landowner
wants to retain about a dozen parking spaces on the north side of Shiawassee Street for
his buildings located on the south side of Shiawassee Street. Regarding site
contamination, contaminants are known and have been sent for evaluation. Ms. Love
said depending upon the contaminants, paving may be the preferred containment
method; however, the question in a purchase would be liability relative to the City being
indemnified over previous site pollution. She suggested rewording Condition 1 to
resolve the issue of dealing with site contamination and also a clause relating to
indemnification of the City by the existing owner prior to the City's purchase. Mr. Ruge
suggested resolving the circulation problem before a vote. The property is narrow, only
able to accommodate four or five parking spaces. Ms. Love said the issue is not so
much with cars as with parking larger vehicles and turning radii. Removal of access
from Genesee Street could be accomplished by purchasing this land for on-site turning-
around. The Transportation Engineer could suggest optimum layout. The liability issue
with the contamination is the big concern. Mr. Dorland said Parks would have access to
Genesee Street from the property they own at present, however, Ms. Love said the
ultimate goal is for Parks not to have access to Genesee Street. Mr. Miller said the City
should have a Baseline Environmental Evaluation done to define on-site contaminants.
If Parks has potential for similar contaminants, liability could not be clearly divided, and
the City potentially could become liable for all of the contamination, including wells.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to re-refer Act-15-99, 703 East
Shiawassee Street, Purchase of Property for Parks Dept. Oak Park Field Office to the
Urban Development Committee.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 17
On a Voice Vote, Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; unanimous, carried; Act-15-99, 703 East
Shiawassee Street, Purchase of Property for Parks Dept. Oak Park Field Office, was
RE-REFERRED TO THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.
d. Act-17-99, 1000 Blk. Britten and Braman, Close Alley to
Through Traffic
At its October 19, 1999 meeting, the Planning Board held a
public hearing on Act-17-99, at which four people spoke in
favor, and six spoke against the proposal.
The subject alley runs east and west between Martin Luther
King Jr. Blvd. and Fletcher Street. It provides access to the
garages of most properties within the block. Many properties
have no other driveway.
The alley lines up with a break in the median on Martin
Luther King Jr. Blvd., which in turn lines up with Alsdorf
Street west of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Thus, vehicles
have access to both north- and south-bound Martin Luther
King Jr. Blvd. As a result, it has more through traffic.
The alley is 14 ft wide, too narrow for two-way traffic, and two
narrow to accommodate turning movements of heavy
equipment and service vehicles. Closure of the alley would
create a dead-end alley with no way out for these vehicles.
Access is needed by the Forestry Division and the
Department of Public Service.
Staff recommends denial of Act-17-99, a request to close the
alley between the 1000 block of Britten and Braman, and
suggests that mitigating measures (e.g., signs such as No
Thru Traffic or One-Way to discourage traffic, speed bumps
to slow traffic down) be explored.
The Committee reviewed the location, character and extent
of the Act-17-99 proposal pursuant to Act 285 of 1931, as
amended, and found that:
1. The subject alley provides access to the garages of
many properties in the block;
2. Few properties in the 1000 block of Britten and
Braman have driveway access; and
3. Closure of the alley would impede necessary access
by service vehicles.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried
unanimously 3-0 to recommend denial of Act-17-99, the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 18
closure of the east-west alley in the 1000 block of Britten;
and to recommend further that the City explore other
measures, including but not limited to: No Through Traffic
signs, speed limit signs, speed bumps, and traffic diverters at
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. (e.g. right turn in, right turn out),
be explored and implemented, after first seeking input from
the owners and occupants of affected properties.
Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and
the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to
recommend denial of Act-17-99, 1000 Blk. Britten and Braman, Close Alley to Through
Traffic and to recommend alternatives.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Ruge said traffic calming measures could be instituted, especially preventing traffic
from crossing Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and turning south. Ms. Love said the
Transportation Office would be asked for help in designing mitigating measures. Then a
meeting with neighbors would be arranged to discuss the suggested measures.
Miller. . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave
Smith. Aye Frederick Aye
Goolsby .Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act-17-99, 1000
Blk. Britten and Braman, Close Alley to Through Traffic was DENIED
and alternatives were recommended to be developed in conjunction with the
Transportation Engineer.
e. Act-18-99, Southwest Cor. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. At
Main, Sale of Residual Street Right-of-Way
The City of Lansing Assessor's Office requests that the City
divest itself of two strips of land which are no longer needed
as an alley or as Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. right-of-way.
These parcels are 7 ft and 10 ft wide, situated on the east
and west sides of a larger property located on the southwest
corner of northbound Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and Main
Street. This larger property contains a vacant cement block
structure, with a billboard facing south, and a parking lot with
access from both Main Street and northbound Martin Luther
King Jr. Blvd. There is no visible evidence of these parcels
on the site.
A deed is required to extinguish any reverter interest still
held by the City.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 19
Advanced Development and Realty, owner of the larger
parcel, will use the entire area of the parcel regardless of
title. However, Advanced said that if the deed is not
resolved, problems may develop in future during any
application for a building permit.
These parcels remain unassessed as long as they are owned
by a public agency. Ownership of the two strips effectively
adds 2,490 sq ft to the parcel.
Staff recommends approval of Act-18-99, Southwest Corner
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. at Main Street, Sale of Residual
Street Right-of-way, that the chain of title on these parcels be
closed, and that the City convey these parcels by quit claim
deed to Advanced Development and Realty Inc., which owns
the abutting property.
The Committee, reviewing the location, character and extent
of the proposal pursuant to Act 285 of 1931, as amended,
found no public purpose to City ownership these two parcels.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried
unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-18-99,
Southwest Corner Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. at Main Street,
Sale of Residual Street Right-of-way, and that the City
convey these parcels by quit claim deed to Advanced
Development and Realty Inc., 5923 Bradford, Lansing, MI
48917, which owns the abutting property.
Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and
the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve
Act-18-99, Southwest Corner Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. at Main Street, Sale of
Residual Street Right-of-way.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Miller. . . Aye Ruge . .Ave
Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Goolsby Aye Nischan . . Aye
On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; Act-18-99,
Southwest Corner Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. at Main Street, Sale of Residual street
Right-of-way was APPROVED.
f. Act-19-99, Northwest End of Valencia Blvd., Purchase for
Cul-de-sac
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 20
The subject parcel is located northwest of Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard at the end of Valencia Boulevard. Valencia is
a residential street that had no storm sewers or curb and
gutter. It has no outlet on the west side. The City
approached J & L Investments about acquiring the property
for a cul-de-sac, and it was offered for a nominal cost.
The parcel is triangular, approximately 8,000 sq ft in size.
Residential properties are located to the southeast.
Properties to the northeast and southwest are vacant.
Consumers Energy has a utility easement on the northwest
side of the property. Construction is currently taking place to
install sanitary sewer and storm drains along the existing
right-of-way.
The parent parcel has been split several times. The seller,
J&L Investments, has provided a warranty deed to the
subject property, which has not yet been accepted by the
City, along with a commitment for title insurance showing that
all encumbrances have been paid.
Staff recommends approving the request to purchase
property for $1 in order to construct a sewer line and cul-de-
sac at the northwest end of Valencia Boulevard, provided
that the City obtain a good and marketable title to the
property.
The Committee reviewed the location, character and extent
of the proposal pursuant to Act 285 of 1931, as amended,
and found that the property is necessary to the completion of
the cul-de-sac, and that its acquisition is reasonable and
would not impair the character of the neighborhood.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried
unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-19-99,
Northwest End of Valencia Blvd., Purchase for Cul-de-sac,
provided that the City obtain a good and marketable title to
the property.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and
the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve
Act-19-99, Northwest End of Valencia Blvd., Purchase for Cul-de-sac.
Ruge . .Aye Smith. . . Aye
Frederick Aye Goolsby Ave
Miller. . . Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 21
On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; Act-19-99, carried; unanimous;
Act-19-99, Northwest End of Valencia Blvd., Purchase for Cul-de-sac was APPROVED.
g. Act-20-99, Northeast Cor. Waverly and Tecumseh River
Roads, Vacation of 30-ft Drain Easement Across Lots 118,
119 and 120
The Emanuel and Mary Baillos Family Irrevocable Trust,
Donald P. Baillos, Trustee, requests that the City vacate a
30-foot-wide by approximately 425 ft-long drain easement
across lots 118, 119, and 120, Waverly Heights No. 6
Subdivision.
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of
Waverly Road and Tecumseh River Drive. There are four
contiguous residential lots that constitute approximately 2.5
acres at this corner. The subject drain easement begins at
the southwest corner of these parcels and extends in a
northeasterly direction, diagonally across three of the four
contiguous residential lots.
There is now one single-family residence on the property.
The site could be developed for three additional single-family
homes. Because of the high traffic/high noise on Waverly
Road, it would be most desirable to place any new residential
structure as far back on the lot as possible. The current
easement location prevents this.
Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation
request.
The Committee reviewed the location, character and extent
of the proposal pursuant to Act 285 of 1931, as amended,
and found that the utility easement that runs diagonally
across the subject property is surplus, and that vacating the
easement will remove an unnecessary impediment to
development.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried
unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of Act-20-99,
Northeast Cor. Waverly and Tecumseh River Roads,
Vacation of 30-ft Drain Easement Across Lots 118, 119 and
120.
Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, 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-20-99, Northeast Cor. Waverly and Tecumseh River
Roads, Vacation of 30-ft Drain Easement Across Lots 118, 119 and 120.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 22
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Nischan noted that the Ingham County Drain Commissioner did not provide a
response. Mr. Sturdevant said the Public Service Department commented that the
sewer has been built on the easement on the north side of the property, thus there no
longer is a need for this easement. They have provided copies of documents recorded
with Ingham County.
Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
Goolsby Aye Miller. . . Ave
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Nischan . . Aye
On a Roll call vote, there were Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous, Act-20-99,
Northeast Cor. Waverly and Tecumseh River Roads, Vacation of 30-ft Drain Easement
Across Lots 118, 119 and 120, was APPROVED.
Next meeting Tuesday, November 24, 1999, at 4 p.m., Department
Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
3. Executive Committee -
A. Proposed Amendment to the Rules of Administrative
Procedure
Chairman Nischan explained that this proposed amendments
addresses the problem of matters that come before the
Board and are not moved for one reason or another. We do
not have a way to remove them unless the petitioner
requests withdrawal. The procedure has been reviewed by
the City Attorney.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to adopt the proposal for
Subsection 4.1 C3 to the Planning Board Rules of Administrative Procedure.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
On a Voice vote, there were Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous, Proposed
Amendment Subsection 4.1 C3 to the Planning Board Rules of Administrative Procedure
was APPROVED.
C. Report from Planning Manager
Last Monday, the name of Jan Patrick was placed in nomination before the
Council. She lives on Syringa Drive. "I think she would be a good addition
to the Board." Mr. Goolsby's resignation is effective December 10, 1999.
We will also need a fourth ward nominee.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 23
We are in the midst of the budget process. The Executive Committee
decided on the date for the Board evaluation dinner of Wednesday,
December 8 at 5:30 p.m. in the Parthenon Restaurant. We would like to
follow a format similar to last year's, looking at priorities and projects.
More zoning code amendments will be coming. They will have a public
hearing on November 16, 1999.
Mr. Nischan, who is working on the Board Evaluation form and formatting a
five-point scale to avoid yes-no answers, will have a working draft of the
revision ready for the next for mailing. Members will need to look at the
draft and be prepared to suggest changes. The Goals and Objectives will
also be provided to members. The other thing we will look at is priorities.
At the meeting on November 16, copies of last year's priorities will be
distributed, and we will do a self-assessment of accomplishments.
The City has issued a Request for Proposals and Qualifications for the
Downtown Circulation Study to evaluate the two-way street system for all
of downtown. We hope to select a consultant for the circulation study in
early January and be done by July. A second RFPQ being prepared is a
request for a Central Business District parking study. At the moment, all
lots and ramps are at capacity. The City does not want to go into too much
debt, but the parking crunch needs to be alleviated. We need to have
supply and demand figures. Mr. Sturdevant will be working with the Traffic
Office. We hope to have this consultant selected by late January.
The City Council has not as yet acted on the special land use for the
parking lot on South Washington for the Mallorys. The City Attorney has
asked the Planning Office to develop a set of criteria for parking lots on
South Washington:
1. That there be no access to South Washington,
2. That percentage-wise it be heavily landscaped,
3. That it have appropriately decorative benches;
4. That there be a ratio of landscaping to cars (which we could utilize
as a ratio when we change the Landscape, Screening and Buffering
ordinance) to require more landscaping in any parking lot in the
future,
5. That this parking lot have no asphalt, only concrete or pavers, with
the parking spaces being concrete and the driveway being pavers,
so that it matches better with the brick street concept.
6. That there be no advertising signs allowed on the benches.
These criteria for parking lots on S. Washington would establish a much
higher threshold than a normal parking lot is required to have. Mr. Ruge
asked why the City Attorney didn't tell us that we might not be able to stop
other parking lots if we approve this one. "It might have influenced how we
dealt with this situation."
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE 24
B. 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)
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. Ruge asked about the sign code enforcement officer; Ms. Love said Scott
Sanford started yesterday. Mr. Goolsby said the two-way street conversion on
Ionia is November 11 through 13. Public Service put up signs on.utility poles.
Mr. Goolsby, along with Mr. Frederick and Mr. Miller, has been appointed to the
Alaiedon Township Citizens Advisory Committee. Mr. Goolsby announced his
resignation from the Planning Board, effective after the first meeting in
December. He has enjoyed his service; The chairman thanked Mr. Goolsby for
providing the Board institutional memory.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
12. ADJOURNMENT was at 9:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
mn101999 A:\52
Act-16-98, Phase 2
Prudden Street-May Street between Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: City of Lansing, Transportation Office
219 N. Grand Avenue
Lansing, MI 48906
LOCATION: Between E. Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue,
approximately 700 feet west of Pennsylvania Avenue
(see Figure 1, Location Map)
EXISTING ZONING: "C" Residential District, "G-1" Business District, "H"
Light Industrial District, & "I" Heavy Industrial District
REQUESTED ACTION: The City is investigating actions necessary for
construction of a new street connecting E. Saginaw
Street and Oakland Avenue to serve as access to the
Prudden Building and the North Police Precinct
location. Phase One, which has been completed
(and subsequently named Prudden Street) connects
Saginaw Street with May Street. Phase Two, which is
approximately 437 feet in length, will connect Phase
one with Oakland Avenue. Phase Three is planned
for some future date to reconnect May Street with its
self and the new Prudden Street.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant Industrial and parking.
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 1,543 lineal feet of right-of-way, 66 feet in width
(approximately 107,636 square feet, or 2.47 acres)
Phase 2 is approximately 437 feet in length.
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Industrial
S: Industrial
E: One and Two Family Residential
W: Industrial
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "I" Heavy Industrial District
S: "I" Heavy Industrial Districts
SE: "C" Residential District
W: "I" Heavy Industrial District & "H" Light
Industrial District
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future
Land Use Map, designates the vicinity of the subject
REVISED October 20,1999(2:27PM) DA.Slurdevant\ZoninpWCT16-98.FE.wpd
Act-16-98 Phase 2
page 2 Prudden Street-May Street between Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue
site as industrial/warehouse land use with residential
to the east toward Pennsylvania Avenue.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The City is proposing the construction of a new street
connecting E. Saginaw Street, May Street, and
Oakland Avenue, to serve as access to the Prudden
Building and the North Police Precinct (see Figure 1,
Location Map). The first action necessary is
determination of the properties that must be acquired
to build the roadway. Final determination will require
completion of engineered construction drawings.
CASE HISTORY: Recently, requests for Special Land Use permits
(SLU-2-97 & SLU-21-98) to develop residential
dwelling units at the former Prudden Wheel building
(725 E. Saginaw Street) and the former Lansing
Pattern Shop (700-08 E. Sheridan Street) were
approved by City Council. During review of these
SLU applications the necessity of constructing a new
access road between Saginaw and Oakland Avenues
was discussed. The developer of the Prudden
Building and Sheridan Lofts has indicated that the
property necessary for the new street construction will
be donated to the City for this purpose. A portion of
the Prudden Building project includes the North
Precinct, which is a use permitted in the "I" Heavy
Industrial District.
This street connection proposal was also discussed
during the ACT 285 Review to consolidate the
railroad crossings at May and Sheridan Streets (ACT-
13-97). The proposed street alignment is shown in
Figure 2, Master Plan for Prudden Building and
Sheridan Lofts.
On Tuesday, June 2, 1998, the Planning Board held a
public hearing on the actions necessary to acquire the
properties necessary to build the roadway. However,
because of the need to meet funding requirement
deadlines for right-of-way acquisition, City Council
waived the ACT 285 Review requirement for Phase
One of the new street construction. Subsequently,
Phase One on the street connection was completed.
The current review is for Phase Two.
REVISED October 20.1999(2:27PM) DASturdevanl\ZoninpWCTt6-98.FE.wpd
Act-16-98 Phase 2
page 3 Prudden Street-May Street between Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue
AGENCY REFERRALS:
AMERITECH TELEPHONE: No response received.
ASSESSOR: Assessor's office would like to know the time
table for the acquisition, splits, and assembly
of the parcels needing to be changed. Also, it
would be helpful to have a more detailed map
showing exactly which parcels are affected.
We have attached some maps from our office.
ATTORNEY: Electric Utility; The Electric Customer Projects
and Marketing Department has no conflicts
with this request. Water Utility; Water
Technical Support/Distribution - Existing water
location has been given to City Consultant.
BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT: No response received.
BUILDING SAFETY: No objection.
CATA: No response received.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION GROUP(S): No response received.
CODE COMPLIANCE: No response received.
CONRAIL: No response received.
CONSUMERS ENERGY: No response received.
DEVELOPMENT: 1) What is proposal for existing May St.,
Summit St., RIGHT-OF-WAY? Consider as
part of this review. 2) Acquisition of land for
realignment will acquire appraisals, survey, title
work and approval by City Council. 3) What is
source of funding for acquisition activities?
Construction? 4) Any businesses or residents
being displaced?
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/TIFA: The EDC fully supports the proposed
redevelopment of the Prudden Wheel site.
The City's assistance w/ infrastructure
improvements will be critical to the success of
this redevelopment.
REVISED October 20,1999(2:27PM) D:\Sturdevant\ZoninpWCT16-98.FE.wpd
Act-16-98 Phase 2
page 4 Prudden Street-May Street between Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue
FIRE MARSHALL: No response received.
LANSING NEIGHB'HOOD COUNCIL: No response received.
MEDIA ONE: No response received.
MI DEPT. TRANSPORTATION: No response received.
PARKS AND RECREATION: Has no impact on parks. Considerable
expense can be saved by keep May St. on
came corridor as it currently exists and using
Park Terr as connector street for May &
Saginaw. Proposed intersection - poor and
unsafe traffic circulation.
POLICE DEPT.: No response received.
PUBLIC SERVICES : The Engineering Division of the Public Service
Department has no objection to proceed with
the proposed review as required for the
referenced project.
TRANSPORTATION: Division is supportive of the project and
acquisition of the requisite right of way to
construct the street system to service this
redevelopment area. We have been active in
preliminary planning and securing the
transportation grant for this project.
TRI-COUNTY R.P.C.: No response received.
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 E. Saginaw Street and E. Oakland Street
between the east end of May Street (west of the railroad tracks) and Pennsylvania
Avenue. Saginaw and Oakland Avenues are both one-way streets that pass
underneath the railroad tracks, and are consequently "trenched" below grade with
vertical retaining walls on either side of the street. These retaining walls restrict access
possibilities to the adjacent properties. Access cannot occur until the grade of Saginaw
and Oakland Streets levels off to an elevation closer to that of the adjacent properties.
REVISED October 20,1999(2:27PM) D:�.Sturdevant\ZoninpWCT16.96.FE.wpd
Act-16-98 Phase 2
page 5 Prudden Street-May Street between Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue
Character
The character of the area is essentially industrial with an older neighborhood of single
family, duplex, and apartment buildings to the east nearer Pennsylvania Avenue (see
Figure 1, Location Map). The property required for the street does not contain any
structures that would require acquisition or relocation.
Extent
The extent of the property acquisition necessary is shown in Figure 3, Site Plan. This
plan is broken down into three phases: phase one is the portion of proposed right-of-
way from E. Saginaw Street to May Street; phase two is the portion from May Street
northward to E. Oakland Avenue; phase three is the portion of May Street from the
railroad tracks eastward to the proposed phases one and two. Once engineering
drawings are drafted, it may be necessary to obtain grading easements on three or four
adjacent properties. First, first section (phase one) has already been dedicated to the
City and the street built. The proposed rededication of a portion of May Street (phase
3) has not been completed.
SUMMARY
The City is investigating actions necessary for construction of a new street connecting
E. Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue to serve as access to the Prudden Building and
the North Police Precinct location. Phase One connects Saginaw Street with May
Street. Phase Two, which is approximately 437 feet in length, will connect Phase one
with Oakland Avenue. Phase Three is planned for some future date to reconnect May
Street with its self and the new Prudden Street.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Phase Two for completion of the Prudden Street
connection between E. Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Sturdevant, AICP
Senior Planner
February 17, 1998
ACT16-98.FE.wpd
REVISED October 20,1999(2:27PM) DA.Sturdevant\ZoninqWCT16-96.FE.wpd
OCR 60 H /7*P
NORTH
ProddrK
ACT-16-98 Street/May Street=Prudden Building Connector
v RUSSELL vpyZ %Ji WOODB Y
► WHY ST.
v REA ER �{,� t to
y W MC Km ST. Q
DWI F � Q
` Z NOR SZ
W. maRTH ST.
Q �
SEP NE BL CT Fs,'A
R o
IOAX
o � �
E oo y PEARL OR Y y
�FRI
3 O
Z ' y Z H ZE
VE E. URA R/V
SCALE
y v Z SONS 4.
0
t�
200 ATE PO E ST v
O �
500 cc AS Tt
O LAN AVE.
VE.
1000 ISHERIDA , 4M YZ
1500
� AIAN ESTE �� k � j i
z
2000
SCHOOLCRAF 7
E W� ORCHARD S
LANSING PARK L DEN Q
J COMMUNITYVE
Z
EE . O COLLEGE Q V £NESEE S .
0 � J
�` Q I I � 41 Q � �•
V I t SH/ SEE'Jt-TH
SL6-21-98 INCT-29-98
Master Plan for Prudden Building and Sheridan Lofts
OAKLAND
MENEM=
a
o Z
w
0
o
a
IIIIIHIIIIJ U111111111111iffif. c.
MAY ST
I rill,
z
0
0
a
SA4INAW
BUILDING LOCATIONS
NORTH
SITE PL*N
III
0' �� ►
■
LONow
WMA
Act-15-99
703 E. Shiawassee Street
Acquisition of property for expansion of Oak Park Field Office
Department of Parks and Recreation
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: City of Lansing, Department of Parks and Recreation
318 N. Capitol Avenue
Lansing, MI 48906
OWNER: Chasley Inc. c/o DTN Management
2502 Lake Lansing Road Suite C
Lansing, MI 48912
LOCATION: North side of Shiawassee Street between Larch
Street and Pennsylvania Ave. adjacent the railroad
crossing (see Figure 1, Area Map)
EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial District
REQUESTED ACTION: The Department of Parks and Recreation wants to
acquire property adjacent to their Oak Park field office
for expansion of department's facilities at this location
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant industrial property
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: approximately 333.96 feet by 96.6 feet (32,260
square feet, 0.74 acre)
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Oak Park
S: Industrial/warehouse
E: Railroad tracks
W: Department of Parks and Recreation, Oak
Park Field Office
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential District
S: "H" Light Industrial District
E: "A" Residential District
W: "H" Light Industrial District
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future
Land Use Map, designates the vicinity of the subject
site as a transition between industrial uses, low
density residential, and parks/open space uses
October 20,1999(1:39PM) D:1,SturdevanAZoninpWCT-15-99.FE.wpd
Act-15-99 703 E. Shiawassee Street
page 2 Acquisition of property for expansion of Oak Park Field Office
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The Department of Parks and Recreation is
considering the purchasing this property for use as an
addition to an existing field office facility. A total of
$128,883 for site acquisition was included in the
Parks Department FY 2000 Capitol Improvements
Budget which was recommended by the Parks Board.
AGENCY REFERRALS:
ASSESSOR: No comment
ATTORNEY: There is possible environmental contamination on this
site. In addition, the City was involved in a law suit
over this issue.
BOARD OF WATER & LIGHT: No response received
DEVELOPMENT: No comment
EDC/TIFA: No comment
FIRE MARSHALL: No objections
PARKS AND RECREATION: We support this acquisition. To approve the park's
field office additional land is necessary. The Parks
Board has approved this project for the Department's
FY2000 budget. City Forester; This is a great move
for the City and long overdue.
PUBLIC SERVICES : No response received
TRANSPORTATION: No response received
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 the Parks and Recreation Department's Oak
Park Field Office and the Norfolk-Southern railroad on the north side of E. Shiawassee
Street and south of the undeveloped right-of-way of E. Genesee Street.
October 20,1999(1:39PM) DA.Sturdevant\ZoningWCT-15-99.FE.wpd
Act-15-99 703 E. Shiawassee Street
page 3 Acquisition of property for expansion of Oak Park Field Office
Character
The character of the area is essentially a vacant lot that is unmaintained and overgrown
with vegetation. The Parks Department has not provided specific plans for how they
plan to develop the property, but it will likely be used for additional parking of
maintenance equipment for the department.
Extent
The extent of the property acquisition proposed is fee simple ownership. Acquisition of
this property will permit the Parks Department to also double the size Oak Park Field
Office.
ZONING ISSUES
The adjacent Parks Department's Field Office is zoned "A" Residential District, which
requires a Special Land Use Permit for "A structure which is used by a governmental
entity."
The "H" Light Industrial District permits many different land uses, including off-street
parking facilities. However, "A structure which is used by a governmental entity" also
requires a Special Land Use Permit in the "H" Light Industrial District. If the Parks
Department's plans include additional structures on the site, a SLU may be necessary.
SUMMARY
The subject property is located at 703 E. Shiawassee Street. The character of the area
is essentially a vacant lot. The may be an issue of environmental contamination on the
site.
The Parks Board did recommend acquisition in its FY 2000 Capitol Improvements
Program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the request to acquire the property pending resolution of
any environmental contamination issues with the property and provided that the City
obtain an acceptable environmental assessment and good and marketable title to the
property.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Sturdevant, AICP
Senior Planner
ACT-15-99.FE.wpd
October 20,1999(1:39PM) D:\Sturdevant\Zoning\ACT-15-99.FE.wpd
NORTH ACT-15-99
703 E. Shiawassee
I y
IN TENNIS
I
+ /� COURTS
QJ A R V
U` X x
< 850
Ld
Z I
848.2 z GENESSEE 844.6
z
/ j 30 LU 2/ 23
' U 2 26 2E
a
30 29
23 W A L
26
94/ 151.
Z
/2 26 i AL
25 25 0 FF-2,j 28 27 26
O 26
/O WAL
854.2
ALL
/3
29 26 2/ 20 2 27 U
42 /6 40
27
O
84/.O r
I
L 84
C13
X .2 WALL 3/
U 852.9 26 L
3 I 28 i5 2 j 854.2 26 r
Act-16-98, Phase 2
Prudden Street-May Street between Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: City of Lansing, Transportation Office
219 N. Grand Avenue
Lansing, MI 48906
LOCATION: Between E. Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue,
approximately 700 feet west of Pennsylvania Avenue
(see Figure 1, Location Map)
EXISTING ZONING: "C" Residential District, "G-1" Business District, "H"
Light Industrial District, & "I" Heavy Industrial District
REQUESTED ACTION: The City is investigating actions necessary for
construction of a new street connecting E. Saginaw
Street and Oakland Avenue to serve as access to the
Prudden Building and the North Police Precinct
location. Phase One, which has been completed
(and subsequently named Prudden Street) connects
Saginaw Street with May Street. Phase Two, which is
approximately 437 feet in length, will connect Phase
one with Oakland Avenue. Phase Three is planned
for some future date to reconnect May Street with its
self and the new Prudden Street.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant Industrial and parking.
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 1,543 lineal feet of right-of-way, 66 feet in width
(approximately 107,636 square feet, or 2.47 acres)
Phase 2 is approximately 437 feet in length.
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Industrial
S: Industrial
E: One and Two Family Residential
W: Industrial
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "I" Heavy Industrial District
S: "I" Heavy Industrial Districts
SE: "C" Residential District
W: "I" Heavy Industrial District & "H" Light
Industrial District
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future
Land Use Map, designates the vicinity of the subject
REVISED October 20,1999(2:27PM) DASturdevant\ZoningWCT16-98.FE.wpd
Act-16-98 Phase 2
page 2 Prudden Street-May Street between Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue
site as industrial/warehouse land use with residential
to the east toward Pennsylvania Avenue.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The City is proposing the construction of a new street
connecting E. Saginaw Street, May Street, and
Oakland Avenue, to serve as access to the Prudden
Building and the North Police Precinct (see Figure 1,
Location Map). The first action necessary is
determination of the properties that must be acquired
to build the roadway. Final determination will require
completion of engineered construction drawings.
CASE HISTORY: Recently, requests for Special Land Use permits
(SLU-2-97 & SLU-21-98) to develop residential
dwelling units at the former Prudden Wheel building
(725 E. Saginaw Street) and the former Lansing
Pattern Shop (700-08 E. Sheridan Street) were
approved by City Council. During review of these
SLU applications.the necessity of constructing a new
access road between Saginaw and Oakland Avenues
was discussed. The developer of the Prudden
Building and Sheridan Lofts has indicated that the
property necessary for the new street construction will
be donated to the City for this purpose. A portion of
the Prudden Building project includes the North
Precinct, which is a use permitted in the "I" Heavy
Industrial District.
This street connection proposal was also discussed
during the ACT 285 Review to consolidate the
railroad crossings at May and Sheridan Streets (ACT-
13-97). The proposed street alignment is shown in
Figure 2, Master Plan for Prudden Building and
Sheridan Lofts.
On Tuesday, June 2, 1998, the Planning Board held a
public hearing on the actions necessary to acquire the
properties necessary to build the roadway. However,
because of the need to meet funding requirement
deadlines for right-of-way acquisition, City Council
waived the ACT 285 Review requirement for Phase
One of the new street construction. Subsequently,
Phase One on the street connection was completed.
The current review is for Phase Two.
REVISED October 20,1999(2:27PM) DASturdevant\ZoninpWCT16-98.FE.wpd
Act-16-98 Phase 2
page 3 Prudden Street-May Street between Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue
AGENCY REFERRALS:
AMERITECH TELEPHONE: No response received.
ASSESSOR: Assessor's office would like to know the time
table for the acquisition, splits, and assembly
of the parcels needing to be changed. Also, it
would be helpful to have a more detailed map
showing exactly which parcels are affected.
We have attached some maps from our office.
ATTORNEY: Electric Utilitv; The Electric Customer Projects
and Marketing Department has no conflicts
with this request. Water Utilitv; Water
Technical Support/Distribution - Existing water
location has been given to City Consultant.
BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT: No response received.
BUILDING SAFETY: No objection.
CATA: No response received.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION GROUP(S): No response received.
CODE COMPLIANCE: No response received.
CONRAIL: No response received.
CONSUMERS ENERGY: No response received.
DEVELOPMENT: 1) What is proposal for existing May St.,
Summit St., RIGHT-OF-WAY? Consider as
part of this review. 2) Acquisition of land for
realignment will acquire appraisals, survey, title
work and approval by City Council. 3) What is
source of funding for acquisition activities?
Construction? 4) Any businesses or residents
being displaced?
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/TIFA: The EDC fully supports the proposed
redevelopment of the Prudden Wheel site.
The City's assistance w/ infrastructure
improvements will be critical to the success of
this redevelopment.
REVISED October 20,1999(2:27PM) DASturdevant2oning=T16-98.FE.wpd
Act-16-98 Phase 2
page 4 Prudden Street-May Street between Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue
FIRE MARSHALL: No response received.
LANSING NEIGHB'HOOD COUNCIL: No response received.
MEDIA ONE: No response received.
MI DEPT. TRANSPORTATION: No response received.
PARKS AND RECREATION: Has no impact on parks. Considerable
expense can be saved by keep May St. on
came corridor as it currently exists and using
Park Terr as connector street for May &
Saginaw. Proposed intersection - poor and
unsafe traffic circulation.
POLICE DEPT.: No response received.
PUBLIC SERVICES : The Engineering Division of the Public Service
Department has no objection to proceed with
the proposed review as required for the
referenced project.
TRANSPORTATION: Division is supportive of the project and
acquisition of the requisite right of way to
construct the street system to service this
redevelopment area. We have been active in
preliminary planning and securing the
transportation grant for this project.
TRI-COUNTY R.P.C.: No response received.
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 E. Saginaw Street and E. Oakland Street
between the east end of May Street (west of the railroad tracks) and Pennsylvania
Avenue. Saginaw and Oakland Avenues are both one-way streets that pass
underneath the railroad tracks, and are consequently "trenched" below grade with
vertical retaining walls on either side of the street. These retaining walls restrict access
possibilities to the adjacent properties. Access cannot occur until the grade of Saginaw
and Oakland Streets levels off to an elevation closer to that of the adjacent properties.
REVISED October 20,1999(2:27PM) D:4Sturdevanl\Zoninq\ACT16.98.FE.wpd
Act-16-98 Phase 2
page 5 Prudden Street-May Street between Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue
Character
The character of the area is essentially industrial with an older neighborhood of single
family, duplex, and apartment buildings to the east nearer Pennsylvania Avenue (see
Figure 1, Location Map). The property required for the street does not contain any
structures that would require acquisition or relocation.
Extent
The extent of the property acquisition necessary is shown in Figure 3, Site Plan. This
plan is broken down into three phases: phase one is the portion of proposed right-of-
way from E. Saginaw Street to May Street; phase two is the portion from May Street
northward to E. Oakland Avenue; phase three is the portion of May Street from the
railroad tracks eastward to the proposed phases one and two. Once engineering
drawings are drafted, it may be necessary to obtain grading easements on three or four
adjacent properties. First, first section (phase one) has already been dedicated to the
City and the street built. The proposed rededication of a portion of May Street (phase
3) has not been completed.
SUMMARY
The City is investigating actions necessary for construction of a new street connecting
E. Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue to serve as access to the Prudden Building and
the North Police Precinct location. Phase One connects Saginaw Street with May
Street. Phase Two, which is approximately 437 feet in length, will connect Phase one
with Oakland Avenue. Phase Three is planned for some future date to reconnect May
Street with its self and the new Prudden Street.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Phase Two for completion of the Prudden Street
connection between E. Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Sturdevant, AICP
Senior Planner
February 17, 1998
ACT16-98.FE.wpd
REVISED October 20,1999(2:27PM) DASturdevant\ZoninpWCT16.98.FE.wpd
NORTH
�r�ddra
ACT-16-98 �Street/May Street=Prudden Building Connector
IRUSSELL v�-S,L o WOODB Y
WHV7E ST.
v REA
y 4 W SIC.K/NL ST.
DIY/ ❑ Q
O
Z
W. RTH ST. , ~ NOR SZ
Q
SEP NE BLAC FsA
R
CT OAX
E ono h PEARL DR Y y
cFR/
sr- - 3 o ;
Q
VE E. RAN R/V
SCALE W
O E SONS 4
0 Z ATE t�
200 PO E ST v
to
500 AS 1 Zt
o�
OAKLAN AVE.
VE.
1000 SHER/DA 43
Z O AIO E MAY Z
E -
1500
ra: MAN4 TER+ �c j
1 b h
Z
2000
] SCHOOLCR E W 4 ORCHARD S
LANSING PARK L DEN Q
v COMMUNITY
WE . O COLLEGE Q V ENESEE S .
I
O � J
i SH/ W SEE'�1 T Z
. AiGf Q
SLU-21-98'&I CT-29-98
Master Plan for Prudden Building and Sheridan Lofts
:O:AKLAND
IIIIIIIII HIM !
a
o Z
w
0
o
a
i
I
MAY ST
T4
z
0
0
a
SAGINAW
BUILDING LOCATIONS
NORTH
SITE PL*N
1 �
JI
M.
"00-
IilLS �� •;
( III I % i
EMI r■m■ �■■r� :o,...
Act-15-99
703 E. Shiawassee Street
Acquisition of property for expansion of Oak Park Field Office
Department of Parks and Recreation
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: City of Lansing, Department of Parks and Recreation
318 N. Capitol Avenue
Lansing, MI 48906
OWNER: Chasley Inc. c/o DTN Management
2502 Lake Lansing Road Suite C
Lansing, MI 48912
LOCATION: North side of Shiawassee Street between Larch
Street and Pennsylvania Ave. adjacent the railroad
crossing (see Figure 1, Area Map)
EXISTING ZONING: "H" Light Industrial District
REQUESTED ACTION: The Department of Parks and Recreation wants to
acquire property adjacent to their Oak Park field office
for expansion of department's facilities at this location
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant industrial property
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: approximately 333.96 feet by 96.6 feet (32,260
square feet, 0.74 acre)
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Oak Park
S: Industrial/warehouse
E: Railroad tracks
W: Department of Parks and Recreation, Oak
Park Field Office
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential District
S: "H" Light Industrial District
E: "A" Residential District
W: "H" Light Industrial District
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future
Land Use Map, designates the vicinity of the subject
site as a transition between industrial uses, low
density residential, and parks/open space uses
October20,1999(1:39PM) DASturdevant\ZoninpWCT-15-99.FE.wpd
Act-15-99 703 E. Shiawassee Street
page 2 Acquisition of property for expansion of Oak Park Field Office
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The Department of Parks and Recreation is
considering the purchasing this property for use as an
addition to an existing field office facility. A total of
$128,883 for site acquisition was included in the
Parks Department FY 2000 Capitol Improvements
Budget which was recommended by the Parks Board.
AGENCY REFERRALS:
ASSESSOR: No comment
ATTORNEY: There is possible environmental contamination on this
site. In addition, the City was involved in a law suit
over this issue.
BOARD OF WATER & LIGHT: No response received
DEVELOPMENT: No comment
EDC/TIFA: No comment
FIRE MARSHALL: No objections
PARKS AND RECREATION: We support this acquisition. To approve the park's
field office additional land is necessary. The Parks
Board has approved this project for the Department's
FY2000 budget. City Forester; This is a great move
for the City and long overdue.
PUBLIC SERVICES : No response received
TRANSPORTATION: No response received
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 the Parks and Recreation Department's Oak
Park Field Office and the Norfolk-Southern railroad on the north side of E. Shiawassee
Street and south of the undeveloped right-of-way of E. Genesee Street.
October 20,1999(1:39PM) DASturdevant\ZoningWCT-15-99.FE.wpd
Act-15-99 703 E. Shiawassee Street
page 3 Acquisition of property for expansion of Oak Park Field Office
Character
The character of the area is essentially a vacant lot that is unmaintained and overgrown
with vegetation. The Parks Department has not provided specific plans for how they
plan to develop the property, but it will likely be used for additional parking of
maintenance equipment for the department.
Extent
The extent of the property acquisition proposed is fee simple ownership. Acquisition of
this property will permit the Parks Department to also double the size Oak Park Field
Office.
ZONING ISSUES
The adjacent Parks Department's Field Office is zoned "A" Residential District, which
requires a Special Land Use Permit for "A structure which is used by a governmental
entity."
The "H" Light Industrial District permits many different land uses, including off-street
parking facilities. However, "A structure which is used by a governmental entity" also
requires a Special Land Use Permit in the "H" Light Industrial District. If the Parks
Department's plans include additional structures on the site, a SLU may be necessary.
SUMMARY
The subject property is located at 703 E. Shiawassee Street. The character of the area
is essentially a vacant lot. The may be an issue of environmental contamination on the
site.
The Parks Board did recommend acquisition in its FY 2000 Capitol Improvements
Program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the request to acquire the property pending resolution of
any environmental contamination issues with the property and provided that the City
obtain an acceptable environmental assessment and good and marketable title to the
property.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Sturdevant, AICP
Senior Planner
ACT-15-99.FE.wpd
October 20,1999(1:39PM) D:\.Sturdevant\Zoning�ACT-15-99.FE.wpd
NORTH ACT-15-99
703 E. Shiawassee
11 �
y
a .J_ TENNIS
PAR N Q
COURTS V'� X x
850
z Iw
848.2 GENESSEE 844.6
z
z
w
/j' j U 2 26 2E
F8�
Q
,4 /61 d
�
26
30 29
�6
23 WALq.
26
84/ 5/.3 a`s U
Z
AL
/2 26 26
25 25 w -1 P215 28 27
26
Li
/0 WAL
.r— A
S 854.2
ALL
/3
29 26 2/ 20 2 27 U
42 /6 40
27
84/.0 WALL
O L 84co .2
X /3 r
U J ALL 26 L
Q
852.9
3 28 /5 23 854.2 r
26 I
Act-17-99
1000 Blk Britten & Braman, Close Alley to Through Traffic
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Mr. Gene Guile
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Adjacent Property Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Close alley between Britten & Braman
EXISTING LAND USE: Right-of-Way
EXISTING ZONING: N/A
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 14' x 321' = 4.494 sqft. - Rectangular
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential
S: Residential
E: Residential
W: Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "B" & "C" Residential
S: "B" Residential
E: "B" Residential
W: "B" Residential
MASTER PLAN
DESIGNATION: The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990
identifies the land use as residential 7-14 dwelling
units per acre.
-CASE HISTORY: Mr. Guile has been experiencing problems with fast
drivers, trash, thefts, and drug activities in the alley
between Braman Avenue and Britten Street.
Recently, his fence has been smashed and someone
tried to tear his compost bin out.
Prepared by Sam Quon Page 1
October21, 1999
Act-17-99
1000 Blk Britten & Braman, Close Alley to Through Traffic
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Mr. Guile is requesting to close off the alley from
public access. He is proposing that a barrier be
erected in the middle of the alley to prevent people
from driving through. The applicant feels that this will
eliminate the high amount of traffic going through the
alley and other problems that exist.
AGENCY RESPONSES
AMERITECH- No comment received
Assessor: No comment
Building Safety: No objection as long as all parcels have access to a
public way.
BWL: No objection
City Attorney: The current use of the alley is not shown. Planning
must be alerted to the inclusion of all property owners
or other parties in interest in the application process
or the resulting possibility of land locking rear lot
access.
Consumers Energy: No comment received
Media One: No comment received
Development Office: No comment other than any access to rear of
properties on Braman and Britten must be accessible.
Fire Marshal: No comment received
Transportation Engineer: See Attached
Prepared by Sam Quon Page 2
October 21, 1999
Act-17-99
1000 Blk Britten & Braman, Close Alley to Through Traffic
Police: No comment received
Code Compliance: No comment received
Public Service: Public Service Department has no objection to the
proposed alley closure
Forestry: The Forestry Section is responsible for the care of
trees along alley ways in Lansing. Closing an alley
via mechanical means coupled with the size and type
of trucks we use would make alley maintenance very
difficult if not impossible.
Moores Park
Neighborhood Association: No comment received
MDOT: No Comment
Evaluation
Act 285 requires that the character, location and extent of requests involving the
closing of a public right-of-way be evaluated.
Location
The alley is located east of M.L. King, south of Braman Street, north of Britten Avenue,
and west of Fletcher Street.
Character
Measuring 14' wide and 321' long, the alley connects Fletcher Street to M.L. King. It
provides the only means to access garages and parking areas for a majority of the
residents living on the 1000 block of Braman Street and Britten Avenue. The median
along M.L. King represents a boundary on the west. There are a few trees along the
alley, as well as, vegetation cascading over fences and into the right-of-way.
Extent
Closing the alley in the middle or at one end is a possibility. The intent of the closure is
to decrease the number of people from through the alley, eliminate litter, and prevent
other offensive activities in the alley.
However, closing the alley presents problems for the City's Forestry Division. This
would make alley maintenance very difficult due to access and the size of vehicles.
Prepared by Sam Quon Page 3
October 21, 1999
Act-17-99
1000 Blk Britten & Braman, Close Alley to Through Traffic
Public Service will also have problem with snow plowing if there is a barrier preventing
removal of snow.
There are several scenarios that can take place if a barrier was in place to close off the
alley (see existing alley layout). First, if the alley was closed near Fletcher Street then
access would be from M.L. King, which present a problem accessing the alley. North
bound traffic can expect to slowed down by a vehicle making a right turn into the alley.
Second, if the alley was closed near M.L. King then vehicles would access the alley
through Britten or Braman. Both the first two scenarios would require one vehicle to
back up for another if one was entering and the other exiting at the same time. Finally,
closing the alley near the middle would not solve the problems mentioned above.
Summary
The alley is located east of M.L. King, between Braman Street and Britten Avenue.
The 14' wide alley connects Fletcher Street to M.L. King. It provides the only means to
access garages and parking areas for a majority of the residents living on the 1000
block of Braman Street and Britten Avenue.
Closing the alley would decrease the number of people from through the alley, possibly
eliminating litter, and preventing other offensive activities in the alley. However,
closing the alley presents problems such as access for residents, the ability for the City
to maintain trees in the right-of-way, and the ability to plow snow from the alley.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denying this request to close the alley between the 1000 block of
Britten and Braman.
Staff believes that other alternatives should be explored. Staff suggest the following:
• Use signs such as no thru traffic or one-way to discourage traffic; or
• Install speed bumps to slow traffic down.
Prepared by Sam Quon Page 4
October 21, 1999
NORTH
I3 3❑ /5 22 I r I 27
828
27
ws ci
❑ 1 4
25
II d 17 BRANAN 857.8 856.5
853.2
25 I 24 I 26 I 27 24 2?
/2
855.7 i l I f
23 2-7 ❑r I ❑
C�
859 , a
854.4
W
2S 24 -J I I I I I /6 =
U
29
28 28 f 22 25 127 I 20 W I
/3 LL-
87�8 859.0 857.9
860
--- -- --- 25 20 29 28 24 26 26 28 3/
61
3 23 29 I I ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ El,
❑
l 860.5 ❑ ❑
859.0 62. -- Ej ❑
86 ./
24
2/
19 22 2i 24 23 2Fi
20 r— ❑ I ❑
3.863.5 86.3.0
� I r I
❑ - -
! 2 6 856.6 S I
� I 86/.6
Act-17-99, 1000 Blk Britten & Braman, Close Alley to Through Traffic
NORTH
Zoning
00
ES
PULASKI ST.
u BRA MAN ST
m
ALSDORFST. Res ci ►► ►►
B Re
"B" Res T" Res
BRITTEN
Q:� w
ND ST. = Q
w 0
U
w �
RD ST. SPARROW AVE.
Act-17-99, 1000 Blk Britten & Braman, Close Alley to Through Traffic
NORTH
Vicinity Map
,RR
DBEs Ri�ER
:PULAS:KIST. D
RA MAN ST
m > t a
w
BRITTEN AVE.
HAMMOND ST. = a
0
N � U
c�
EDWARD ST. SPARROW AVE.
z
w
� w
BARNES AVE. Q BARNES
BERTON ST.
uj
SMITH AVE. SMITH a
w E RGE ST.
l r_,'
_ _
— f' _
—_
• � � '
a i�
� r � �
It
.. e
j
i
� _
s _
1 1 `
{ � i
ACT-18-99
Page 1 SW Corner MILK at Main, Sale of Property in ROW
3301-20-205-221 & 3301-20-205-241
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: City of Lansing, Assessor.
Third Floor, City Hall
124 W. Michigan Avenue
Lansing, MI 48933
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner/Applicant
REQUESTED ACTION: Request an Act 285 Review; for the sale of two
parcels of land at or in the vicinity of the Southwest
corner of S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. at W. Main Street,
being portions of tax I.D. Parcel 3301-20-205-232-9,
aka #812 S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd.
The West 10 ft. of Lots 1, 2 & 3 and also the East 7 ft.
of Lots 1 & 2; Block 1, Sparrow's Subdivision of Lot 1
Block 14 of Townsend's Subdivision of N. Fractional
'/2 of Sec 20 T4N R2W
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant property
EXISTING ZONING: Un-zoned Rights-of-Way.
PROPOSED ZONING: "E-2" Local Shopping District.
SIZE AND SHAPE: Approximately 10' x 169.8' = 1,698 sq. ft., and
7' x 113.14' = 792 sq. ft. Total 2,490 sq. ft.
SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: 1 - 496 ROW
South: Vacant Land
East: Vacant Land and GM Property
WEST: Vacant Land and Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: ROW
South: "J" Parking and "F" Commercial District
East: "E-2" Local Shopping District &
"F" Commercial District
Report prepared by SC,reviewed by BR10/21/99.
A:\99ACT18.FE2
ACT-18-99
Page 2 SW Corner MILK at Main, Sale of Property in ROW
3301-20-205-221 &3301-20-205-241
West: "I" Heavy Industrial District &
"B" Residential District
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION:
The River Island Area Comprehensive Master Plan designates this area for park and
open space on the block face along Main Street from West Street east to Washington
Avenue and industrial immediately south of this park and open space area. South M.L.
King Jr. Blvd. is a major arterial and W. Main Street is a minor arterial.
CASE HISTORY:
In 1950, and in 1954, the City of Lansing was deeded two strips of land, which were to
be for a 7 foot widening of (then) S. Logan Street; and a 10 foot wide alley running
south off W. Main, to serve some buildings in the 800 Block of old S. Logan.
Both of these deeds contain, or imply Rights of Reversion: The Baryames deed states:
"to be used as an alley only". The Standard Oil deed says that the 7 and 10 foot strips
will revert to the owner of the lots (whoever they may be) when used for any purpose
other than street or alley purposes.
In 1977, City Council "vacated" the city's interest in these two strips. Since 1977, the
two strips have been assumed by all parties within the City to have been "vacated", and
thus transferred to the abutting owner, the Michigan Department of Transportation
(MDOT).
In 1986, the strips were combined with the rest of the Lots 1, 2 & 3, to reduce the tax
rolls. Since the parcel was "owned" by MDOT, the entire parcel has retained a tax-
exempt status. The Assessor has always presumed that MDOT was using the land for
public highway purposes. Recently, MDOT sold off it's holdings on Lots 1, 2 & 3 above
to Advanced Development and Realty Inc., but it did not sell the 7 foot nor the 10
foot strips.
These strips were acquired by the City in Deeds so a deed is required not only to
pass title to the next owner, but to give Public Notice of the extinguishment of
any reverter rights still in the City's hands.
Since the 1977 City Council action, MDOT has never claimed ownership of these strips
in their right-of-way holdings. An internal review by MDOT staff, concluded that the 7
foot strip, originally acquired to widen M.L. King/S. Logan Street/M-99 was no longer
needed as City or State trunkline, so the City could dispose of it to the abutting owner,
Report prepared by SC,reviewed by BR10/21/99.
A:\99ACT18.FE2
ACT-18-99
Page 3 SW Corner MLK at Main, Sale of Property in ROW
3301-20-205-221 & 3301-20-205-241
without concern for retaining it for future use as street. Further, MDOT recommends
that the City should deed directly to "Advanced".
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL:
A 1977 "vacation" may not have been sufficient to transfer title from the City's Deed for
the two legal descriptions to MDOT or to Advance Development Realty. Close chain of
title with an Act 285 Review. The strips in question are no longer needed as an alley,
nor as S. M.L. King Jr. rights-of-way. A deed is therefore required to divest the City of
all right, title and interest and to extinguish any reverter interest still held by the City
due to the deeds of Liber 692 page 586 and Liber 633 page 106 of Ingham County
records.
AGENCY RESPONSES:
AMERITECH: No response has been received at this time.
Assessor's Office: Applicant.
AT & T Cable Sevices: AT & T has no cable facilities in this vicinity that will be
(formerly Media One) adversely impacted by the action described in this notice.
Board of Water & Light: Electric No objections.
Water No conflict with transfer of title.
Steam No steam at this location.
Building Safety: No response has been received at this time.
City Attorney: No response has been received at this time.
Consumers Power: No response has been received at this time.
Development Office: No Comment.
Downtown Neigh. Assoc: No response has been received at this time.
Fire Marshall: No response has been received at this time.
Historic District Comm.: The Commission has no opinion on the matter.
Report prepared by SC,reviewed by BR10121199.
A:\99ACT16.FE2
ACT-18-99
Page 4 SW Corner MILK at Main, Sale of Property in ROW
3301-20-205-221 & 3301-20-205-241
Lansing Neigh. Council: No response has been received at this time.
MDOT: No response has been received at this time.
Parks & Recreation: No comment. Paul Dykema, Forestry.
Police Department, No response has been received at this time.
Cap. Rick Cook:
Public Service: No comment.
Transportation Dept.: No response has been received at this time.
Westside Neighbor. Assoc.: No response has been received at this time.
ANALYSIS
The applicant requests the abandonment of two strips of land which are no longer
needed as an alley, or as S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. rights of way.
A deed is required to extinguish any reverter interest still held by the City accrued due
to the previous deeds of Liber 692 page 586 and Liber 633 page 106 of Ingham County
records.
EVALUATION
The Planning Board, in accord with Act 285, Public Acts of 1931, is required to review
and make recommendations regarding location, character and extent of this project.
LOCATION
The two strips located at or in the vicinity of the SW corner of S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. at
W. Main Street.
CHARACTER
The two strips are abandoned or unneeded by the City as an alley, or as a S. M.L. King
Jr. Blvd. rights-of-way. There would be no change in character.
EXTENT
The most recent deed of record does not describe the entire tax parcel. Therefore,
these two strips will have to be split from the rest of the parcel beginning in 2000 if the
Report prepared by SC,reviewed by BR10/2 M.
A:\99ACT18.FE2
ACT-18-99
Page 5 SW Corner MLK at Main, Sale of Property in ROW
3301-20-205-221 &3301-20-205-241
applicant's request is not approved.
SUMMARY
If approved, the City will divest itself of any obligations in two parcels which are
apparently unnecessary for use as Public rights-of-way. The new owner will have a
deed clearly removing the City's reversion rights from the parcel, that is, Title will be
closed on the reversion issue. The Assessor will be able to return the entire parcel to
the rolls as a taxable entity.
If denied, the City may continue to hold rights, or actual title, in two parcels of
unneeded real estate. MDOT considers these descriptions to be owned outright by the
City. These parcels will be occupied and used by a non-public entity. There is no
physical evidence on the ground to differentiate "Advanced" holdings from the City's
two parcels. "Advanced" will use the entire area of the parcel regardless of title.
However, "Advanced" said that if the deed is not resolved, problems may develop in the
future when the owner of the surrounding parcel applies for a building permit.
These parcels remain un-assessed as long as they are owned by a Public Agency.
Ownership of the two strips effectively adds 2,490 square feet to the parcel.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the proposal be approved and that the chain of title on these
parcels be closed.
It is recommended also that Council authorize the preparation of a Quit-Claim deed to:
Advanced Development and Realty Inc.
5923 Bradford
Lansing, MI 48917
for the legal description(s):
The East 7 feet of Lots 1 & 2, and also the West 10 feet of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in
Block 1 of Sparrow's Subdivision of Lot 1, Block 14, Townsend's Subdivision of
the North Fractional One-Half of Section 20, Town 4 North, Range Two West,
now City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
Report prepared by SC,reviewed by BR10/21M.
AA99ACT18.FE2
L L I ACT-18-99, SW Corner S. M.L. King Jr.at W. Main St.
NORTM Sale of Residual Street ROW.
- ST. SEE 3301 - 17- 400-
W-` S,T.
ti '
463.4 G`I
59 •�
i 14 13 12 II 10 9 8 1- 6 59 58 57 53 52 49 48 45 4z
I . - 496 ao✓ i- 1 _I- 496
5
iT -LTL h 60 I �1
co
a0� ~ 2
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 f- Aim
56 55 54 51 50 47 46 4
s�o.:s•
ST. W. MAIN
lol 179•y- it 9. J lw' 120
I �
J V,00'y0 0 3 c 64 65
1 .; 68 69 70 1 71 72 73
1 U I 6 ,�� 5 4 0 `� � Y a 01 ✓ a t
h
U 2
67
9 T L
4
IT
_
�to1 coHM /l. � �" 4 � 1
� Z 95 �
N D U S'TP.-i A
10 1 7 8 9 97 1 96 93 92 91 90 89
1 12
z99,
Act-19-99
NW End of Valencia Blvd, Purchase of Cul-de-Sac
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: City of Lansing Public Service Department
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Option to buy
REQUESTED ACTION: Acquire property to build a cul-de-sac at the
northwest end of Valencia Boulevard.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: -8,000 sqft. - Triangular
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Consumers Power ROW
S: Vacant
E: Vacant
W: Vacant
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential
S: "A" Residential
E: "A" Residential
W: "A" Residential
MASTER PLAN
DESIGNATION: The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990
identifies the land use as residential 0-7 dwelling
units per acre.
CASE HISTORY: None
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The Public Service Department proposes to purchase
the property for $1.00 in order to construct a cul-de-
sac at the northwest end of Valencia Boulevard.
Page 1
Act-19-99
NW End of Valencia Blvd, Purchase of Cul-de-Sac
Acquisition of this property will allow road and sewer
improvements to be constructed.
AGENCY RESPONSES
Ameritech: No objection
Assessor: An unrecorded deed for the parcel in question has just come
to my desk. I will likely proceed with a description change
for 2000 on that basis.
Building Safety: No objection
BWL: No objection
City Attorney: No comment received
Consumers Energy: No comment received
Media One: No comment received
Development Office: There could be title problems associated with Markey
property. Recommend designing cul-de-sac south of
Valencia where 30 foot easement is being purchased.
Fire Marshal: No comment received
Transportation Engineer: Transportation and Parking Office supports this plan to
acquire and construct a cul-de-sac at this location.
Capt. Mark Alley,
South Precinct: I see no reason why this should not be done.
Code Compliance: No comment received
Public Service: No objection
Forestry: I have no comment on this issue
Lansing
Page 2
Act-19-99
NW End of Valencia Blvd, Purchase of Cul-de-Sac
Neighborhood Council: No comment received
ANALYSIS
Evaluation
Act 285 requires that the character, location and extent of requests involving the
purchase of property for a public right-of-way be evaluated.
Location
The site is located northwest of M.L. King Jr. Boulevard at the end of Valencia
Boulevard.
Character
The parcel intended for acquisition is triangular and is approximately 8,000 square feet
in size. Residential properties are located to the southeast. Properties to the northeast
and southwest are vacant. Consumers Power has a utility easement on the northwest
side of the property. Currently, construction is taking place to install sanitary sewer and
storm drains along the existing right-of-way.
Extent
Acquisition of the property by the City would allow Public Service to extend sewer
service out to this area and pave the street right-of-way. Approval of this ACT 285 is
required to acquire the property.
According to Assessor's Office records, the parent parcel has been split several times
and there are back taxes still delinquent on the parent parcel.
AL Investments has provided a warranty deed to the subject property, which has not
yet been accepted by the City, along with a commitment for title insurance showing that
all encumbrances have been paid.
Summary
Public Service is requesting to acquire property to install a sewer line and build a cul-
de-sac at the northwest end of Valencia Boulevard. The property is located southeast
of Consumers Power's utility lines in an undeveloped portion of a residential
neighborhood.
Page 3
Act-19-99
NW End of Valencia Blvd, Purchase of Cul-de-Sac
Recommendation
Staff recommends approving the request to purchase property for $1.00 in order to
construct a sewer line and cul-de-sac at the northwest end of Valencia Boulevard,
provided that the City obtain a good and marketable title to the property.
Page 4
Act-19-99
NORTH NW End of Valencia Blvd, Purchase for Cul-de-sac
Vicinity Map
S ' Se
PEN
MARK TWAT
RD.
G
S �q`���'i c'yFs� WEYMOUTH
q O
ASHLEY
L
DESOTO cF O
DR
DESOT LO �,
QF'
�J
�F
�S
Act-19-99
NORTH NW End of Valencia Blvd, Purchase for Cul-de-sac
Zoning
S t
'A" Res
RD.
'A„ Res
ti
61
DESOTO cF O
DR.
T �O
�O�
9-10-99 pc�
' s
VALENCI BLVD 401 4 3
10 . _ PROPOSED 1' B-8
IE 12" CMP 866.
l
15' R EL-B
MH 1 to �5 10o B 1E �$ MH s�
I ^70, o
o
MH S1 " ---12" STM S --8* SAN o m —
m 12' STM — —�
I , MH 1L CB 1K MH 1,:1:
i MH 1F C8 1D
15 00 I
IZ I
IN N I
N I ROPOSED 30'
EASEMENT
I I I
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
Foot: Roy Markey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 11 except the Southeasterly 851 feet, Supervisor's Plat of
Valleau's Subdivision, part of the SW 1/4 of Section 5, T3N, R2W, City of Lansing,
Ingham County, Michigan.
CO /VSUMERS 01 POI/VER fZ /W
G9.9'P. ❑ 250.9' P. 250. 69'PR. `.*
ti
\ V R R
O
N7=\� e0h
5
41
� h
0
y
LEGEND
y
1). o indicates a 5/8" iron rod and cap No. 11370 set.
2). • indicates an iron stake found.
3). P. indicates a platted dimension.
4). PR. indicates a proportioned dimension.
5). A survey of the plat boundary indicates the presence of errors, overages, and
shortages in platted dimensions. The dimension of this parcel , as staked, were
proportioned from original monuments or markers perpetuating their location.
WE CERTIFY TO THE ABOVE NAMED PARTIES THAT WE HAVE SURVEYED THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE. AND THAT THE
IMPROVEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS AFFECTING SAID PROPERTY. IF ANY, ARE LOCATED AS SHOWN ABOVE.
R.W. STEADMAN 8k ASSOCIATES, INC.
DATE
3—30 — 9 ry LAND SURVEYING 6 ENGINEERING
DM WING NO.
96 024 — // LANSING, MICHIGAN
DRAWN BY fZ. W. S.
by:
REGISTERED LAND SuRVkruR
J & L Investment Co., LLC
P .O. Box 24125
Lansing, MI 48909
517-882-0200
517-882-8741 Fax
10-22-99
To : Jane Dykema
John Grannell
Bill Rieske
RE: Valencia Blvd turn-around
Please find enclosed Title Commitment# 53320833 form Transnation Title Insurance
Company.
Please note that ALL TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID ON THE PARENT PARCEL
including the July 99 taxes.
J&L Investment Co., LLC, has prepared for your review only;a Warranty Deed for the
turn-around. This deed has not been recorded, and will not be, until the proper resolution
from the City of Lansing is passed.
Any questions , please do not hesitate to call me.
Michael Markey
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
Revision No. 2
Your Ref:
Commitment No. 532083
/
File No. 532083
1. Effective Date: July 20, 1999 at 8:00 AM
2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount
(a) Owner' s Policy $1.00
Proposed Insured:
City of Lansing
(b) ALTA Loan Policy: 10-17-92, without exceptions . $
Proposed Insured:
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this
Commitment and covered herein is fee simple and is at the effective date
hereof vested in
J & L Investment Company, L.L.C. , a Michigan Limited Liability Company
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the City of Lansing,
County of Ingham, State of Michigan, and described as follows:
A triangular parcel commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 11
Supervisor' s Plat of Valleau's Subdivision, part of the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 5, Town 3 North. Range 2 West, City of Lansing Ingham Co
untyy
Michigan, thence South 44 degrees 20 minutes 24 seconds East 122 feet'along
the lot line: thence North 45 degrees 05 minutes 56 seconds East to the
North Lot line: thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 02 seconds West along the
said lot line to the point of beginning.
ALTA Commitment-Schedule A
Form 1004-264
Revision No. 2
Commitment No. 532083
File No. 532083
SCHEDULE B—SECTION I
REQUIREMENTS
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
1. Standard requirements set forth on inside front cover.
2. Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be insured must
be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record.
3. Warranty Deed from recited owner to recited purchaser.
1999 July taxes are paid in the amount of $386.76.
Permanent Property No. 3301-05-05-302-200-0.
1998 Delinquent taxes are ppaid in the amount of $515.50.
Permanent Property No. 3301-05-05-302-200-0.
1997 Delinquent taxes are ppaid in the amount of $255.81.
Permanent Property No. 3301-05-05-302-201-0.
1996 and prior taxes are ppaid.
Permanent Property No. 33D1-05-05-302-001-0.
SCHEDULE B—SECTION II
EXCEPTIONS
Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the
following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Company.
1. Standard exceptions set forth on inside back cover.
2. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any,
created, first gearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to
the effective da e hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured
acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon
covered by this Commitment.
3. Liens for any tax and/or assessment which become due and payable on or
after the effective date of this Commitment.
4. Oil , gas, mineral and aboriginal antiquities reserved by the State of
Michigan by deed dated March 27, 1995, recorded July 3, 1995 in Liber
2269, Page 1257.
PSV/jsu
Form 1004-89 (Rev. 6-1-87)
Page 2
WARRANTY DEED
J& L Investment Company, L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability company,whose address is P.O. Box 24125,
Lansing, MI 48909 Conveys and Warrants to City of Lansing, a Michigan Municipal Corporation, whose
address is 124 West Michigan Avenue, Lansing, Michigan 48933, the following described premises situated in
the City of Lansing, County of Ingham and State of Michigan:
A triangular parcel commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 11 Supervisor's Plat of Valleau's Subdivision, part
of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, Town 3 North, Range 2 West, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan,
thence South 44deg 20'24" East 122 feet along the lot line; thence North 45deg 05'56" East to the North Lot line;
thence North 89deg 58'02" West along the said lot line to the point of beginning.
for the full consideration of One Dollar and 00/100($1.00), subject to easements and restrictions of record, if
any.This parcel is to be used for street purposes as part of the present dedicated street right of way of Valencia Boulevard
at its present northwesterly terminus.
Dated this September in 1999
WTes-.�P��
ses: J&L Investment Company, L.L.C.
By:
J hn Michael Markey, agent
Ma H. H shle
ATE OF MICHIGAN )
COUNTY OF INGHAM )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of September, 1999 by Michael
Markey,agent of J&L Investment Company,L.L.C.,a Michigan 1' a ' ' company on behalf of the said
company.
lurk . Has ley, Public
Ja on County,ac g in Ingham County, Michigan
y commission expires: 10/8/03
Instrument Drafted by: DOOD AND WILSON,4665 Dobie Rd.,Suite 120,Okemos, MI48864
Recording Fee$9.00 When recorded return to: Grantee
State Transfer Tax: Exempt Send subsequent tax bills
County Transfer Tax: Exempt to: Grantee
-10o
Tax Parcel N: 3301-05-05-302-J,6 (part of )
Act-20-99
1950 N. Waverly Road
Vacation of Drain Easement Across Residential Property
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: The Emanuel and Mary Baillos Family Irrevocable
Trust, Donald P. Baillos, Trustee
1950 N. Waverly Road
Lansing, MI 48906
LOCATION: (see Figure 1, Area Map)
EXISTING ZONING: "A" Residential District
REQUESTED ACTION: Vacation of 30 foot wide (by approximately 425 feet in
length) drain easement across lots 118, 119, and
120, Waverly Heights No. 6 subdivision
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant Residential property
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 311.3 feet by 349.8 feet (approximately 2.5 acres)
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residential
S: Single Family Residential
E: Single Family Residential
W: Single Family Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "A" Residential District
S: "A" Residential District
E: "A" Residential District
W: "A" Residential District
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future
Land Use Map, designates the vicinity of the subject
site for low density residential uses
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting vacation of the drain
easement. Staff assumes the purpose of this request
is to make the lots salable for residential
development. Any new construction other than one
single family residence on each lot of record would
require either a change in the current zoning of "A"
Residential District or approval of a special land use
permit (SLU) by the city council.
October 20,1999(10:10AM)(8:57AM) DAStu rd evant\Zon in g\ACT-20-99.F E.wpd
Act-20-99 1950 N. Waverly Road
page 2 Vacation of Drain Easement Across Residential Property
AGENCY REFERRALS:
AMERITECH TELEPHONE: No response received.
BOARD OF WATER & LIGHT: Electric; No conflicts. Water; No conflict with
vacation.
CONSUMERS ENERGY: No response received.
INGHAM CO. DRAIN COMM: No response received.
MEDIA ONE: No response received.
PUBLIC SERVICES : In accordance with the conditions stated in Liber
1005, page 522, the Public Service Department has
no objection to the proposed vacation.
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 at the northeast corner of Waverly Road and Tecumseh
River Drive. There are four contiguous residential lots that constitute approximately 2.5
acres at this corner. The drain easement for which vacation is requested begins at the
southwest corner of these parcels and extends in a northeasterly direction, diagonally
across three of the four contiguous residential lots.
Character
There is one single family residence situated on the property. The area that is currently
subject to the drain easement is essentially part of the lawn for the residential parcel
that it bisects (see Figure 2, Site Plan). The parcel itself is higher in elevation than
adjacent Waverly Road and Tecumseh River Drive. Currently, the site could be
developed for three additional single family homes. However, because of the high
traffic/high noise associated with Waverly Road, it would be most desirable to place any
new residential structure as far back on the lot as possible; the current easement
location prevents this.
There is an existing 12-inch storm sewer within this easement, however, the pipe has
been abandoned subsequent to completion of the Ridgefield sanitary and storm sewers
which were built adjacent to the north property line of Lot 120.
Extent
October 20,1999(10:10AM)(8:57AM) D:Wturdevant2oning\ACT-20-99.FE.wpd
Act-20-99 1950 N. Waverly Road
page 3 Vacation of Drain Easement Across Residential Property
The extent of the easement vacation requested is the total easement (30 feet in width
by approximately 425 feet in length).
SUMMARY
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Waverly Road and Tecumseh
River Drive. Vacation of the easement will help make the subject property more
desirable for development of single family residential structures.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation request.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Sturdevant, AICP
Senior Planner
ACT-20-99.FE.wpd
October 20,1999(10:10AM)(8:57AM) DA.Sturdevant\ZoninpWCT-20-99.FE.wpd
NORTH 14/ea wtia
ACT-20-99
1950 N. WAVERLY ROAD
A6
862.6
a
W L
I ALL I
622
J p II '• �---- 862.E
/I
N
17
/7
I!
RIDGEFIEL
842.
/4
I 1 16 I! 17
/ 1
/6
B4mw 3. 1
1
WALL /4
/J
841.7
= 5
43.
1 8-
/ I /s
840
/ I
/7
/ J s
83 _
• 17 1 17 WALLS
ly
g36
823.0 TECUMSEH 030
16
a wAL Z
I _
I /J
819.4 81
s 010
812.5
808.3
811.8 810
l
t
e � 6
NORTH
ACT-20-99
1950 N. WAVERLY ROAD
legal Description (as provided): Beginning at a point 50.00 feet East of the Northwest
corner of Section 7, T4N, R2W, Lansing Township, now City of Lansing, Ingham County,
Michigan, thence South parallel with the Section line 248.70 feet, thence East 311.30
feet, thence North parallel with the Section line 349.8 feet, thence West 311.30 feet;
thence South 101.10 feet to beginning, now known as Lots 117, 118, 119, and 120,
Waverly Heights No. 6, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, according to the
recorded plat thereof. as recorded in Liber 21 of Plats, Pages 9 and 10, Ingham County
Records.
10' RIDGEFIELD SANITARY AND
STORM SEWER EASEMENT
LIBER 1005. PAGE 522 A LOT SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR
THE EXACT LOCATION OF FENCE
AND PROPERTY LINES.
R311.3'
5' UTILITY EASEMENT
RESERVED
LIBEk' 73 MR, PAGE 57
O
1 LOT 12� S,IF 30' DRAIN
/ EASEMENT
NORTHWEST CORNER PER PLAT
SECTION 7, T4N, R2w — — R311-3 � — LOT LINE J
1 R50' - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R2 22.3' R109'
UTILITY EASEMENT
RESERVED --� �--�
LIBER 73 MR, PAGE 57 OI
o:
LOT 119
5' UTILITY EASEMENT 10i
' I I RESERVED
Q — R202.3' — _LOT LINE J LIBER 73 MR, PACE 571 Of
3: -
-H I I LOT 117 NI
N / / HOUSE do 0 IN �I
Z W / / / GARAGE (t
22'1 I w I
36.5 I Z I
5'
�- / / Y t o I
N
5' �I I 1
_O 0 LOT 118 4� 12.5
R202.3 R109,
R311.3' .
1 to
0 601 EDGE OF ASPHALT
TECUMSEH RIVER ROAD
. t
1
S
r .
APPROVED AS PRINTED DECEMBER 7, 1999. Draft to Clerk 112999
Approved 120799
To Clerk 012400
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 p.m., City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue _-
Tuesday, November 16, 1999
1. OPENING SESSION:
C
Chairman Nischan called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Ruge,
Smith. Seven members present, one vacant seat.
B. Excused Absences - None.
C. Introductions. James A. Ruff, Zoning Administrator, introduced staff
present; William C. Rieske, Principal Planner, and Louise H. Christian,
Recording Secretary.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was approved as printed.
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter from Board of Water and Light Re: LS-22-99, 921, 927, 1000, 1004,
1008, 1010, 1016, 1020 West Lenawee
B. Packet of materials Re: Krentel Block Historic District Plan. Referred to
Urban Development Committee meeting November 23, 1999.
4. HEARINGS
A. Amendments to the Planning and Zoning Code
Mr. Ruff presented a synopsis of the proposed amendments to the
Planning and Zoning Code for the following purposes:
1. To provide language for outdoor sales facilities to include rental
and leasing in each district in which the use is allowed. Outdoor
sales facilities may include automotive, new or used vehicles,
implements such as tractors, and other types of outdoor sales
facilities such as furniture. It would also include language
specifically that would allow rental and leasing as well as the sale
of those items.
2. To provide a consistent minimum buffering standard for outdoor
sales facilities that would raise the current standard improving the
aesthetics of these facilities.
3. To clarify the types of storage yards permitted in the "H" Light
Industrial District. It is a minor revision.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 2
4. To provide for floodplain regulation exemption of buildings in local
historic districts.
These amendments to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lansing
would amend Chapters 1268, "F" and "F-1" Commercial Districts; 1272,
"G-2" Wholesale District; 1274, "H" Light Industrial District; 1276, "1"
Heavy Industrial District; and 1278, "J" Parking District; also 1288,
Floodplain Control Chapter 1288 of the Planning and Zoning Code, being
Part 12 of the Lansing Code of Ordinances.
The amendment to Section 1274.02(g) would clarify the types of storage
yards permitted in the "H" Light Industrial District. The word "any" in the
description is too encompassing, and is proposed to be stricken from the
regulation. It presently diminishes the intent to provide for intensity levels
of outdoor storage. That makes it difficult to enforce. It was intended,
when written, to allow accessory outdoor storage, not all outdoor storage.
If the word "any" is stricken from that section, that can be achieved. The
amendments to Sections 1268.03(g), 1272.03(e), 1274.03(g) and
1276.03(g) would allow leased items as well as items for sale to be
displayed under "Uses Permitted Subject to Special Conditions" in the
respective districts with additional buffering conditions. The Amendments
to Section 1278.04(c) would allow leased items as well as items for sale
to be displayed under "Special Land Uses" in the "J" Parking District with
additional buffering conditions. The buffering requirements would include
minimally a five ft buffer between the display area in both street rights-of-
way as well residentially-used properties. This is consistent with the
Landscape Screening and Buffering ordinance, but now requires it for
outdoor display areas, primarily for vehicles. A graphic illustration is
attached. The Amendment to Section 1288.02(p) which defines
"Substantial improvement" would exempt buildings in Local Historic
Districts from meeting federal and state floodproofing requirements just as
buildings on the National Register of Historic Places and State Register of
Historic Sites are presently. The reference chapters are included in their
entirety for your information. Added words are bold and all capitals.
Words to be stricken have a line through them.
Mr. Ruge said the summary states that it would allow leased and rented
items as well as items for sale to be displayed under uses permitted
subject to special conditions. When you go to the actual ordinance, the
ordinance talks about the use of a lot for the sale, rent or lease, rather
than things being displayed. That is more encompassing than just
displaying them. You could park something on the back of the lot and say
I am not displaying it, I am storing it.
Mr. Ruge was pleased the addition of a buffering requirement around the
lots for the sale, rent or lease. He asked why don't we add screening and
buffering requirements to all zonings. In the "I" Heavy Industrial District,
you don't need any buffering between a power plant and a residence, but
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 3
you do between a used car lot and a residence. Mr. Ruff said if a new
structure is to be built, then landscape screening and buffering
requirements come into play. A minimum five- to twenty-foot buffer
between those uses is required. What happens with these types of
facilities is that there is an existing building with an office, or a gas station
that was built years ago, and now they want to display vehicles or another
item for sale. No building permit is required, only a license if it is a motor
vehicle sales facility and it is a use subject to special condition. The
conditions now apply. Most don't require a building permit. So the
Landscape Screening and Buffering ordinance would not apply. For
existing industrial facilities, we can't go backwards and now require
additional buffering. We get a lot of dealership licenses. There is not a
consistent requirement. The only requirements in effect are the four listed
in the ordinance. The area has to be hard-surfaced; points of egress
have to be at least 60 ft from the intersection of two streets. Any repair or
refinishing has to be done inside of the building. Lighting has to be
directed away from residences. There is no buffering requirement. We
are trying to raise the standard. We believe we can because we are
allowing more uses than previously allowed. It was recently argued in
court that one vehicle dealer did not have to pave the area because these
were cars for lease, not for sale. Our interpretation of the ordinance has
always been that sale includes lease or rent. This should cover the
definitions.
Mr. Nischan asked about 1274.02(g), any. Mr. Ruff explained that under
the list of principally permitted uses, item (g) includes an accessory
structure or use customarily incidental to any principal use permitted in
the "H" District, including but not limited to a caretaker or watchperson's
residence and any outside or inside storage of materials or equipment
used in the normal function of the principal permitted use. The intent was
that it be only accessory storage, but the word any helps the argument
that it is not just accessory storage, it is any outside storage. Somebody
can take a piece of industrially zoned property and not have a principal
business other than storage. That contradicts the salvage yard, storage
yard and junkyard sections of the same chapter. We don't want to do
that. On the advice of the Law Dept., the word has been stricken.
Seeing no one wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the close of
the public hearing for the Amendments to the Planning and Zoning Code
and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting during the
Recess.
A. LS-22-99, 921, 927, 1000, 1004, 1008, 1010, 1016, 1020 West Lenawee
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by the Development Office of the
City, owner of a majority of these parcels, to redivide the parcels to
accommodate the anticipated and more evenly distributed development of
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 4
the property for residential purposes. This lot split involves eight lots.
Five lots are 33 ft wide, one is 38 ft wide, and two lots are 66 ft wide.
The property is zoned "C" Residential, with primary uses including single-
and two-family dwellings. Most of the splits are on the north side of West
Lenawee, but the first two splits are on the south side of West Lenawee.
The City has a vacant lot formally known as 927 West Lenawee which is
66 ft wide. It is adjacent to 921 West Lenawee, which has a 33 ft wide lot.
In an effort to provide access for that lot, prior to adding a home on the
vacant lot, the City wishes to transfer 12 ft of property from the 66 ft wide
lot and add it to the 33 ft wide lot, thus providing additional driveway
space for the owner of 921 West Lenawee. The vacant parcel, formerly
known as 927 West Lenawee, would have a new home built on it, similar
to the homes built on S. Butler this past year. These lot splits are before
the Board because they require a variance in the lot width-to-depth ratio,
as well as the lot width of some of the lots. The proposed lots for 921 will
be broadened from 33 ft to 45 ft wide. The 66 ft lot would be reduced to
54 ft, so both of those are less than the 60 ft required under the current
subdivision regulations of Section 1236.07, whereas the lot width-to-depth
ratio, because these lots were platted so deep, without trying to build
housing behind them and subdividing more land, we end up with a greater
width-to-depth ratio than what is allowed. A ratio of 1:2.5 is allowed by
regulation. The width-to-depth ratios for the first two will be 1:4.4 and
1:3.6 respectively, although we are not increasing their depth, only
changing the width. That changes the ratio of lot width-to-depth. The
other part of the lot split includes six lots on the north side of West
Lenawee Street including the property at 1000 West Lenawee and vacant
lots formerly known as 1004, 1008 and 1010 West Lenawee. This also
includes the homes at 1016 and 1020 West Lenawee, which are also
owned by the City. These six lots are proposed to be redivided into four
lots. This will accommodate the relocation of two houses for the benefit of
constructing a cul-de-sac at the west end of West Lenawee. It will also
allow another house to be built in between on a vacant piece of property
next to the house at 1000 West Lenawee.
Mr. Ruge asked how many houses are proposed to be demolished on
West Lenawee; Mr. Ruff said to accomplish this proposal, no houses
would be demolished.
DIANNE CLARK, 921 WEST LENAWEE. I would like to express my
disappointment because the Development Office has not presented any
of this to the Seven Block Citizens District Committee to my knowledge. I
am also confused—you indicate you want to add property to 921 West
Lenawee. Initially, in the Plan, 921 West Lenawee was slated for
acquisition and demolition. Also, if you are going to add 12 ft, with what's
remaining, I don't see how you can build another house.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 5
Mr. Ruff said the remaining vacant lot would be 54 ft wide. It would be
wider than the property at 921.
Mr. Rieske said an agency referral was sent to the Seven Block Area
Citizens District Council, but no response has been received as yet.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced the
close of the public hearing and referral of LS-22-99, 921, 927, 1000,
1004, 1008, 1010, 1016, 1020 West Lenawee to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee, meeting during the Recess.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None.
6. RECESS - Both the Zoning and Ordinance and Urban Development Committees
met during the recess.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval - Minutes for Approval: November 2, 1999
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the
minutes of November 2, 1999, with one correction, on P. 21 as follows:
Mr. Mille SMITH made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, 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-20-99 . . .
With that correction, on a Voice Vote, unanimous, carried; the Minutes of
November 2, 1999 were APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman.
a. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to
"G-1" Business (Tabled August 12, 1998)
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried
unanimously 3-0 to remove Z-8-98, 208 East Grand River
Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business District, from
the table. The Committee then considered Z-8-98.
This is a request by Brian T. Huggler to rezone the property
at 208 E. Grand River from "F-1" Commercial District to
"G-1" Business District. The applicant proposes to
rehabilitate the structure for retail space on the ground floor
and apartments on the second and third floors. The "G-1"
Business District zoning does not require a property owner
to provide off-street parking. The building is located at the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 6
southwest corner of East Grand River Avenue and Race
Street.
The applicants are requesting rezoning of a commercial
building from "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business
District 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. Recent approval of plans to expand the
adjacent parking lot should assure that there is adequate
parking to serve the building.
The proposed zoning and land use are 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.
Because the subject property is similarly situated to 1131-
1133 Race Street and is adjacent to and will be well served
by the proposed expanded parking lot, staff recommends
that the request be recommended for approval.
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 Z-8-98, 208
East Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1"
Business 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-8-98, 208 East Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business
District.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby .Ave
Keene. . . Aye Miller. . . Ave
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a Roll Call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Z-8-98, 208 East
Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1" Business District was APPROVED.
b. SLU-12-99, 3220 S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Church in
"F" Commercial District
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 7
This is a request by Dr. Frederick Hogan for a Special Land
Use permit to allow a church to occupy tenant space on
property located at 3222 S. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Boulevard, the Logan Square Shopping Center.
The church is proposed to occupy a 10,850 sq ft tenant
space next to the Save-A-Lot food store. The maximum
occupancy load is 522 persons, yet the applicant anticipates
a maximum occupancy of 450 persons. No additions to the
building are proposed. The property is zoned
"F" Commercial District, and a church is allowed if a Special
Land Use permit is granted by the City Council. Staff
recommends approval.
The Committee found, based on testimony, evidence and
the staff report, that based on the analysis of the Special
Land Use permit, all nine criteria are met.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried
unanimously 3-0 to recommend approval of SLU-12-99,
3220 S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Church in
"F" Commercial 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 SLU-12-99, 3220 S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Church in "F" Commercial
District.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Goolsby .Aye Keene. . . Aye_
Miller. . . Ave Ruge . Ave
Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
On a Roll Call Vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; SLU-12-99,
3220 S. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Church in "F" Commercial District was
APPROVED.
C. LS-22-99, 921, 927, 1000, 1004, 1008, 1010, 1016, 1020
West Lenawee
After the Committee discussed the request, and listened to
concerns of area citizens, members requested that staff
provide answers to specific questions that arose during the
Committee meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 8
In Committee, pending receipt of further information,
LS-22-99, 921, 927, 1000, 1004, 1008, 1010, 1016, 1020
West Lenawee was TABLED.
d. Amendments to the Planning and Zoning Code
A public hearing was held on the amendments presented
this evening by Mr. Ruff.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried
unanimously (3-0) to approve the Amendments to the
Planning and Zoning Code.
Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to approve the Amendments to the
Planning and Zoning Code.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Keene. . . Aye Miller. . . Ave
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith . .Ave
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Goolsby Ave
Nischan . . Aye
On a Roll Call vote, there were Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; the Amendments
to the Planning and Zoning Code were APPROVED.
Next meeting, if necessary, would be Wednesday, December 15,
1999, at 4 p.m. in the Conference Room, Department of Planning
and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Chair. The
Committee met this evening during the recess.
a. Act-13-99, 815 East St. Joseph Street, Private Fence in
Right-of-way
The applicants are proposing to retain an existing private
wood fence that encroaches 5 ft into the right-of-way at
815 E. St. Joseph. The fence varies from 4 ft to 4 ft 7 inches
high. The top 12 inches consists largely of a wood lattice
anchored to the structural members of the fence.
The property at 815 E. St Joseph Street is surrounded by
residential uses to the north, east and west. To the south is
an auto repair shop. The 4 ft 7 inch wood fence faces south
on St. Joseph Street and is located 1 ft 4 inches from the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 9
sidewalk and encroaches 5 ft into the right-of-way. The
fence runs east-west along the street and north-south along
the west side of the driveway. At that location, the fence
obscures the driver's view to the west when backing out of
the driveway and raises safety issues. The fence does not
adversely impact the residential character of the area, but
still raises safety concerns by obscuring the view of the
sidewalk to the west.
Residential character of the neighborhood remains the
same. Front yard setbacks are narrow and slope downward
toward the sidewalks. Some properties have steps or
retaining walls within the right-of-way to compensate for the
slope. The fence does not adversely impact the residential
character of the area. A building permit is not required for
the fence as along as it meets code requirements.
In the front yard, a maximum of 3 ft high for solid fences and
hedges, and 4 ft tall if the fence is 75 percent open, is
allowed without a permit. The subject fence ranges from 4 ft
to 4 ft 7 inches tall, and is made of solid wood. It does not
meet code requirements and may create an unsafe
situation.
Staff agrees with the suggestion of the Public Service
Department, and recommends that the north 5 ft of the
St. Joseph Street right-of-way be vacated along this entire
block to accommodate the fence and other private
improvements in the right-of-way.
The Committee considered the case, based on character,
extent and location.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried
unanimously 4-0 to approve Act-13-99, 815 East St. Joseph
Street, Private Fence in Right-of-way.
Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, based on testimony, evidence, and
the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, to approve
Act-13-99, 815 East St. Joseph Street, Private Fence in Right-of-way.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
The fence is illegal because it is too tall; however, other owners also have items
encroaching into the right-of-way. A fence on the other side of the street is completely
out of conformity. There is only local traffic at this location.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 10
Miller. . . Ave Ruge . .Ave
Smith . . .Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Goolsby . Aye Keene. . . Aye
Nischan . .Aye
On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous, Act-13-99, 815
East St. Joseph Street, Private Fence in Right-of-way was APPROVED.
Mr. Goolsby explained that he hesitated before voting because he and Mr. Ruff dealt
extensively with a fence in the Moores River area; however, this fence is located on a
street that dead ends so it impacts only local traffic, primarily the residents in a very
confined area. "If this had been an open street going through, I probably would have
voted no just to be consistent with some other issues."
Next meeting Tuesday, November 23, 1999, at 4 p.m.,
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
3. Executive Committee - None.
C. Report from Planning Manager
Mr. Ruff reported that the Council Committee on Development and
Planning recommended Jan Patrick for appointment to the Board. Her
appointment will be before the City Council on Monday, November 22,
1999.
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)
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)
d. Act-14-99, 100 Blk. West Elm Street, Sale of Property (Tabled
October 26, 1999)
e. Act-15-99, 703 East Shiawassee Street, Purchase of Property for Parks
Dept. Oak Park Field Office (Re-referred to Committee November 2,
1999).
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PAGE 11
8. NEW BUSINESS - Planning Board Evaluation. The evaluation will be taken up
at the dinner meeting to be held December 8, 1999 at 5.30 p.m. at the
Parthenon.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - Chairman Nischan encouraged
committee chairs to look at pending items that can be pulled from the agenda.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Ruge asked about the new fence at the Capitol Hill Station put up by GM
that looks too close to the curb. Mr. Ruff said potentially there is an issue with it,
and with barbed wire atop the fence. Mr. Ruge asked about screening and
buffering requirements; Mr. Ruff responded that because it is across from
residences, some screening is required on the east half of the frontage on South
Street.
Mr. Ruge, who will be out of town the week of December 6, requested an
excused absence for December 7; motion by Mr. Miller, seconded by
Mr. Goolsby, to grant Mr. Ruge an excused absence; unanimous; carried.
Mr. Goolsby announced that his Christmas party will be held Saturday,
December 11, 1999. Everyone is invited. Ionia is now a two-way street.
Mr. Ruge asked about the two billboards on Kalamazoo Street that were storm
damaged. They were replaced. Mr. Ruff is trying to get them eliminated, but he
has encountered delays. The replacement structures were installed without
permits.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
12. ADJOURNMENT was at 8.54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
mn111699 a:\52
SLU-12-99 3222 S. M.L. King
Page 1 Special Land Use for a Church
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Dr. Fredrick A. Hogan
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Leasee
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use (SLU)
to locate a church at 3222 S. M.L. King.
EXISTING LAND USE: Commercial (Logan Square Shopping Center)
EXISTING ZONING: "F" Commercial
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 29 Acres on an irregular lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Industrial
S: Commercial & Residential
E: Commercial
W: Industrial & Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "H" Light Industrial
S: "F" Commercial
E: "F" Commercial
W: "D-1" Professional Office & "I" Heavy Industrial
MASTER PLAN
DESIGNATION: Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990,
designates the land use as commercial.
Background: Growth and Change Community Church is interested
in locating their outreach in Logan Square. Their
purpose is to provide religious instruction for the
community.
SLU-12-99 3222 S. M.L. King
Page 2 Special Land Use for a Church
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to build-out 10,850
square feet at Logan Square for a church. The .
maximum occupancy is for 522 persons, yet
the applicant anticipates a maximum
occupancy of 450 people.
AGENCY RESPONSES,
Assessor: Requires more information on site to determine
location.
Building Safety: Plans sealed by a registered architect or
engineer must be submitted to the Building
Safety Office for review to determine
compliance with the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code for an assembly use.
Questions concerning the permit procedure
may be directed to Chris Segerlind.
Fire Marshal: No Response Received
Lansing Neighborhood Council: No Response Received
Lansing Police Dept.: No Response Received
Parks and Recreation: Does not impact park operations.
Public Services: No objection to the proposed special land use.
Transportation: No comments or requirements.
APPLICANTS PROPOSAL
Currently, the 90 members of Growth and Change Community Church meet in the lower
level of Dr. Hogan's Office at 5135 S. Pennsylvania Avenue. The applicant is proposing
to build-out 10,850 square feet of existing commercial space at 3220 S. Martin Luther
King Boulevard (Logan Square Shopping Center) just north of Save-A-Lot (see site and
floor plans). The maximum occupancy is 522 persons, yet the applicant anticipates a
maximum occupancy of 450 people. This location will provide enough space for the
church to grow.
SLU-12-99 3222 S. M.L. King
Page 3 Special Land Use for a Church
ANALYSIS
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?
Properties surrounding the proposed church are zoned commercial and
industrial, with some residential properties to the west. Vehicles can access and
leave the site from Holmes Road and M.L. King Jr. Boulevard. The parking lot
has over 1,400 parking spaces, and approximately 670 parking spaces are within
300 feet from the church.
2. Will the proposed special land use change the essential character of the
surrounding area?
The proposed church will not change the physical character of the shopping
center. Improvements proposed by the church will be inside the existing building.
There will be a main sanctuary, receiving area, hospitality suite, crying room, and
storage within the church (see floor plan)
3. Will the proposed special land use interfere with the general enjoyment of
adjacent property?
General enjoyment on adjacent properties will not be impacted by the church. A
concern could be parking as the church grows. Staff does not anticipate a
problem because of the hours of operation. There will be two services on
Sunday from 10:30 a.m. -12:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. -8:00 p.m., meetings will be
held on Tuesday from 6:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m. and sometimes on Thursday from
6:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m., and a prayer service will be from 8:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m. on
Saturday.
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?
In recent years, Logan Square has experienced a decline due to increased
vacancy. The proposed church represents an improvement to the shopping
center. This church is a destination type use that can complement and support
other businesses within the shopping center.
SLU-12-99 3222 S. M.L. King
Page 4 Special Land Use for a Church
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 church does not pose any hazards to adjacent properties. Hours of
operation and use will not generate any excessive traffic, additional noise,
smoke, odor, fumes, or glare that will impact businesses or residents in the area.
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;
Public services and utilities are adequately provided at the site.
7. Will the proposed special land use place demand on public services and
facilities in excess of current capacity?
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 "F" Commercial. A church is permitted in the "F"
Commercial District with a Special Land Use permit. Section 1268.04(b) of the
Zoning Code states that a church may be permitted in an "F" Commercial District
if the lot abuts a collector, principal arterial, or minor arterial. The subject property
is located adjacent to M.L. King, a major arterial, and Holmes Road, a minor
arterial.
The Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990 classifies churches under
community facilities. Land used for community facilities should be dispersed in
and around residential areas and are considered "good neighbors". Their
presence should provide a landmark or focal point for the community.
SLU-12-99 3222 S. M.L. King
Page 5 Special Land Use for a Church
9. Will the proposed special land use meet the dimensional requirements of
the district in which the property is located?
The proposed 10,850 square foot church build-out is in an existing shopping
center that meets all dimensional requirements of the "F" Commercial District.
SUMMARY
Based on the analysis of the Special Land Use permit, it meets all nine criteria.
The proposed Special Land Use is harmonious with the character of adjacent property
and surrounding uses.
The proposed Special Land Use will not change the essential character of the
surrounding properties.
The proposed Special Land Use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent
properties.
The proposed Special Land Use represents an improvement to the use and character of
the property.
The proposed Special Land Use will not be hazardous to adjacent properties.
The proposed Special Land Use will be adequately served by public services and
utilities.
The proposed Special Land Use will not place any demand 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
objective of the Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed Special Land Use will meet the dimensional requirements of the district in
which the property is located.
SLU-12-99 3222 S. M.L. King
Page 6 Special Land Use for a Church
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Special Land Use permit as requested.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sam Quon
Senior Planner
,�- .. ..
HOSPITALITY PLATFORM ; OFFICE
.LLB eo�a�e�
RECEIVING —
x � �
AREA _
5
,o'uowo.a metro u�� _ e
w w:ew.vp°ic� o..®r moee'�OL'mn.�,•"
�OUNC3E
ENTRY
NEW FLOOR PLAN
xxE,va•.r_o-
�- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - ---�
TENANT NXX O.WN CENTER) a lY VE[PAaa LIB PHN�c TENANT t'DEX HIIES BULOM
A y ::
t LDGN 9110 CAVE MOO SO FT ' - "- "" "-
:"----••-------------•----------•-••---•--�) � L UEATER IAMW V51TW F.IAGfS 1200 50 Fl
2. ACO HARMATE 5•SA SO IF 2. OUTER LAM IC VSIT'L HJGES 120D 50 rf
1, BG 10i5 ],WO 50 FT J. U'EATrn LAMSW Y61TrC HILSES 470 50 FT
5. FWAE[AT[ICF 7272 SO rl �•) C) � I 1. ❑fA If 11 IAK.r1:VGII IG HICIS 1,3n.r4 It
6. VACANT 1,011 SO 1'I Uugll lAx:rG Vp11111 WWA'; 1-tU:7)Of
_ U'll �IIIUfi1X
I. I4QN REDIQOTHIFC OD40 5o rl -� - - n. OCAII'R LAX.W VGIIPC HIUS 12Ln F4 11
W.VACANT 2511 50 FT LrI) .. .. -L- -- -' '- •- 1. 11111 111 CAI I'00 s0I I
N.VACANT 1.832 50 FT O 0 n O O O (D • O 0 '�' (l) p n 6. N)NU LEDCAL 1.n so 11
p. AVvfiS H.717.5 SO FT I 9. CASfU1 DOLXIXL CPIC h TAX 1'00 SO Fr
`� ne i IOfM
r
M. VACANT 62025 50 FT ...-..___-_. _ ._____ .__.....___ �.'. � _� �"�•�"O"•� Wrt¢ I O. IN DAM AEDCAL CENTER CUP. 1200 s0 FI
D. VACANT 1>7]50 FT Q m 11. WUA1-.C-CENTER CUP. 200 so IT
H. COLLAR PALACE /,657 SO FT . P. WAM hEDCAl CENI[n CUP. 2.T00 SO It
5. YACANT B.D10 50 FT p -/ L- J L J V- G 'J D. NO AM MEDICAL QNIIR COI'. L615 50 It
17. RITE AD 13,991 SO FT O O \•� N. WI,VA LEOCAL CENTER CUP. LOW SO FT
20. UTENTAL MARE 2200 SO FT o 1 � I 5. µOW.(LEDCAL CENTER CUP. WOO SO FT
n VACANT 2220 50 FT Q E. SBWAY FFSrAUUNT 906 50 FT
25. FASCH 9.L 7.875 SO FT I f7. PARYALES CLEANERS LOW SO FT
25. HILWOS FKLOAA( TU12 SO FT O 13 VACANT L=s0 FT
27, VACANT 5.IX 5O FT � y u I A.FAMILY OPTICAL LAAI I.6C0 SO FT
275. LESA LOVES U22 SO FT �O• ON 20. WNTI NAL SAL 21700 s0 FT
20. SAYE A LOT 17,060 5O FT I I it CUfARVA HD.E IEk TH GCE 2L00 SO FT
29. FABACAPEAANOHY i QEti ERG 3292 SO FT u V JU 72An. PENT-A-QMER J.DOO 50 FT
emm
30. PATSY WAi50I 7,700 50 FT Ir`]' ■o o I1625. YCAf1iS BEAUTY Sf'FLV 5.000 SO FT
]L VACANT 2567 50 FT ID s0 Ff
2O.METER RDCAI
32. VAS40 0.953 50 FT O n n
>J. TNOF LEATHER l513 50 FT y I�
]r. FHA BLCO( U45 SO FT t �-
35. VACANT 1.000 SO FT
36. VACANT 711 SO FT I -- O I\ y 71 '-L J I rO s I O I
37. LOGN StL1AlE BARER W4 SO FT CCJJ LL]] t
AN 663 50 FT
39. VACANT
L615 50 rl /I �O- v7 .IFrus
11, BIG LOTS 21.01 10 Ff
Il tEPT,ff TPA16FgnTATW tl,E]SO FT y � u •
IY.WEsnA,D IiHtIBFW s2se 50 FT
17 DEPT.CF CC14ECT I y �eO •O O(D ^- - O(E
. �d 2L065 SO FT 6 I = _
25A.UAHI.DEPARTAENT 1,026 SO FT
16. )SNT(A(Y FRED 0I01EN LL
1 e O V y // \I I IMR SITt 61•
�
72Y VACANT 7PC0 50 FT _
1 v
M CAPITAL CAW WASH 4-56 5O FT o -A
BULDW DATA
NORTH
LOAN CENTER 228,775 SO FT J 0o s
DUT BJIDK.S 6]5.9 50 FT
Y11( r-E9 9'
HX Es BULDW 37D00 SO FT H 0 L M E S R 0 A D
TOTAL 277,06 5O FT
EXISTING PAWING SPACES•1.769
®Keystone LOGAN SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER
design Croup 0222 SOUTH LOCAN ST. - II.L. CINC IRA BLVO.
Ai841uN>Q � LANE INC. U ICHI CAN 10910
�_•••�•• •+••^a•••�� •�•••••••- rye�.900896 •J•N 71,DX1
SLU-12-99
NORTH 3222 S . M.L. King
Vicinit Map
w
m DUNLAP ST. a
d N
z_ a
LOA ST.
5 ? �
�o
0
SOUTHLAND AVE.
LOGAN PLAZA o? BERRY
SHOPPING CENTER
2
Z
o �
J
m
U'
Z
Y �
J W
L�
� 2
U
WARWICK DR.
m
I '
•
- - - -
Imo•
i
!r i►' �r it
Z-8-98
"F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District
208 E. Grand River Ave.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT/OWNER: Brian T. Huggler
505 Carey Street
Lansing, MI 48915
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 208 E. Grand River Ave.
EXISTING ZONING: "F-1" Commercial District
REQUESTED ZONING: "G-1" Business District
EXISTING LAND USE: Commercial on ground floor, one residential unit on
upper floors
PROPOSED LAND USE: Commercial on ground floor, one residential on each
of the upper two floors (two units total)
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: 79.3 feet by 24 feet (1900 square feet), the building
has three stories and a basement
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial
S: Commercial
E: Public & Commercial
W: Commercial
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "F-V Commercial District
S: "H" Light Industrial District
E: "F-V Commercial District
W: "F-V Commercial District
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: The Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan, Future
Land Use Map, designates this area for commercial
development
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
This request is to rezone the existing building "G-1" Business District. The applicant's
intent is to remove the Zoning Code's burden of off street parking regulations. The
applicant has filed a building permit application to rehabilitate the structure for retail
space on the ground floor and apartments on the second and third floors.
Z-8-98 "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District
page 2 208 E. Grand River Ave.
AGENCY RESPONSES:
ASSESSOR: No Comments.
BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT: Electric Customer and Marketing Department -
No Objections. Water Technical
Support/Distribution - Owner or contractor to
confirm if existing water service is right for
rehabilitation.
BUILDING SAFETY: The renovation to the retail space and
apartments will necessitate the submission of
construction documents sealed by a licensed
architect or engineer registered in the State of
Michigan. Upon review and approval a
building permit will be issued. Questions
regarding the permitting process may be
directed to me at 483-4315.
OLD TOWN MAIN STREET: Supports.
CODE COMPLIANCE: No comments received.
DEVELOPMENT: Recommend approval pursuant to well
established precedent for area. Still need to
account for parking...
EDC/TIFA: We have no objections to the proposed
rezoning. We request that you keep the EDC
informed regarding the status of this project.
FIRE MARSHALL: No comments received.
MI DEQ: No comments received.
PARKS AND RECREATION: No comments received.
PUBLIC SERVICES : No comments received.
PRINCIPAL SHOPPING DISTRICT: No comments received.
TRANSPORTATION: See attached memo.
Z-8-98 "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District
page 3 208 E. Grand River Ave.
Description of Site
The subject property is bounded by Race Street on the east, E. Grand River Avenue on
the north, a ten foot wide platted alley separates the property from 1131-1133 Race
Street to the south, and the site is adjacent 206 E. Grand River Avenue on the west.
The property sits at an elevation from one to four feet below the elevation of the 100
year flood (826.5 feet above sea level).
The building has recently undergone extensive renovations. It has three floors and
contains roughly 650 square feet of commercial floor area on the ground floor and one
apartment each on the second and third floors. The ground floor also contains a two
car attached garage that serves as some of the off-street parking for the two upstairs
apartments. As part of the requirement for obtaining approval of the building permit for
the renovations, the applicant was required to provide lease documents for six off-street
parking spaces on commercially zoned property within 300 of the subject property.
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).
On August 4, 1998, the Lansing Planning Board held a public hearing on this request.
At that public hearing, the applicant spoke in favor of the request. Minutes from the
August 4, 1998 public hearing are attached.
On August 12, 1998, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee of the Lansing Planning
Board tabled the request pending completion of amendments to the master plan and/or
a detailed parking study for the area.
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.
Z-8-98 "F-1 " Commercial District to "G-1" Business District
page 4 208 E. Grand River Ave.
► 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.
► The Lansing Planning Board, at their meeting of September 21 , 1999,
recommended approval of 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.
► On September 27, 1999, this Committee removed from the table the request for
rezoning of adjacent property at 1131-1133 Race Street (Z-3-98), which had
been tabled since April 7, 1998 for the same reasons as the current request.
Subsequently, the Planning Board recommended approval of Z-3-98 to the
Lansing City Council.
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).
Alternatives
The Zoning Code provides three possible alternatives for "parking impaired" properties:
1. 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-1" 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.
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.
Z-8-98 "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District
page 5 208 E. Grand River Ave.
ANALYSIS
COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE
Rezoning the subject property will actually slightly reduce the number and type of land
uses which would be permitted on the subject property, but will remove limits on
building bulk (height and setback). 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 this historically significant structure 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 building,
in its current physical form, will only generate demand for approximately ten parking
spaces, two of which are accommodated inside the building.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
While the building is in the flood plain, its restoration and re-use will create no additional
environmental impact. Because the building is on the National Register of Historic
Places, they it is exempt from state and local flood plain management regulations.
IMPACT ON FUTURE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT
The redevelopment of this structure will have its greatest impact on future
redevelopment patterns in the area by serving as an example of a well done
rehabilitation project that preserves the architectural character of the building as well as
the historic district. The project also provides an example of how a mix of commercial
and residential uses in one building can be compatible with the historic character of
North Lansing/Old Town.
SUMMARY
The applicants are requesting rezoning of a commercial building from "F-1" Commercial
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. Recent approval of plans to expand
the adjacent parking lot should assure that there is adequate parking to serve the
building.
Z-8-98 "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1 " Business District
page 6 208 E. Grand River Ave.
The proposed zoning and land use are 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.
RECOMMENDATION
Because the subject property is similarly situated to 1131-1133 Race Street and is
adjacent to and will be well served by the proposed expanded parking lot, staff
recommends that the request Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue be removed from the
table and recommended for approval to the Planning Board and City Council.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Sturdevant, AICP
Senior Planner
Z-8-98.FE.wpd
NORTH
L
AREA MAP
Z-8-98 208 E. Grand River Ave.
Il U
`� ��fit\ V�\��t% ►� , ♦-
11 ti\J 11 11 1 MmwaDN
Loony BEREFT
7 -
vele
do
94
wr
I► I I �—
k�\ 1 )
f -may\t 1 1 1MOLE SIWEEIowe
\ I r 1
NORTR
SITE PLAN
Z-8-98 208 E. Grand River Ave.
G(�r�✓ A6 LR6TH M RT
Si�Cew ��
RCM WL'AOO STARS W/
LA{ORG TO 2poS T
RCIR BeH A VR OMa W/llfJl DUfTp�
009
STAR1
FOR EA tEx rrm. /
O
a
10 6ASEACM
'LCW w STARO EL
BftOM.
r
3
ON eft t C n
RETAL
LEASE
S SPAGE
C
m Tri' 1'-4 5/8' 3'�"
Rew snv wAus
/✓� TO CUG.
KW W DO STAR
w/ AL TO
fi f APPXABLE> 'CWM PC bm MW FLOOR AT
LT%M KST6LI2 ClV
AlG'CS 6l4 OL
f- �� KW RRrLAC1 W/
PEW BARBER TRR SS"6A _' _ AC.COPE.
RESTRCVM
4T'6A ...e 4I
A F.RESTRM r.T°'
- 4
B MT.6 orL x pj �
d A 3
5010 �
Rcw 4"LORC
SET n.STL7.D,
�+ W w6TC ON cloor
WW RVT WATRR SA-0 LLLLR
M TO rW1
AT"ON""CIA VFST "' WA"
0 ABOA 16. o `<
T�'�GLRG 3
L 30R k
� R k
S'y'REM GATE TO _ - TMPf7 SET _ 1-1 V!'S Vt'.S/% 'L
BASEMHR W/s"<Low M MA6TC I SiL MWlS rOR W{Tl
AW SRf LJV.ARCA 1'MN Sttr j'-3 VI j'-0 I,
rvRDMAE f{{ I+
S R LOPE QL7D I
WLZDmtY[s•24'OG
KW Wt'1CV STAR VMT I P
TO SLY.00 HOM �IOR RRw rtLY.R S�3! AT COOK 1 BV
T'IOWARO QO AT Ml OA t'-)'BttOW
we N Fe
i Vr�fl'N re1°
_ L GARAG FL E w Bd7 BA w/
TO BC
1"CAC SLA&W/6m VITRR Wl1
Kw ROOF TRL66ft_ VAO WWAL ON COMrACTCO TO BORON Or be"
A�H EWi NXT SLOM 2 TOWARD u
R707TS. OrlIBLM OCLRS q
SLOPE Kw FLOOR _> XX QI
'
I R ODOR
DCr2
0 Mw mAN"wove EMTb WfVOW5 VOW X&M.6 6 24.OC —
Af0 rLL W/AASGMT BLOCK
6VALAR TO ER6T6.
�71I O
q,� FIRST =LOOP, FLAN
rl S I
ti G
CITY OF LANSING
Public Service Department
Transportation Division
Interoffice Communication
ICHIGP
TO: Jim Sturdevant, Senior Planner (g98
FROM: David A. Berridge, Transportation Engineer ,LrNNlNG (�i
DATE: July 16, 1998
% �l
SUBJECT: Z-8-98: 208 E. Grand River Avenue
The Transportation Division has reviewed the rezoning request and has the
following comments and issues.
1) The removal of the parking supply requirement for this property through
rezoning will increase the responsibility.of the city to provide adequate public
parking in the Old Town area. This is true for all G-1 rezoning requests and
is not unique to this parcel.
2) This parcel is in the vicinity of a public parking lot and therefore, the impacts
will be less than for another site.
3) The City is presently working on a development plan to increase the number
of parking spaces in the vicinity in cooperation with the adjacent property
owners. This expanded parking area will provide the necessary relief to all
adjacent businesses in terms of parking supply.
4) In general, it appears that this rezoning request can be accommodated
through proper planning and design considerations if the development of the
expanded public parking area proceeds.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
file: Fish Ladder Lot
C:\Corel\Office7\WPWin7\DATA\PLANNING\z-8-98.js.wpd
Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 3
B. Z-8-98, 208 E. Grand River Avenue, "F-1" Commercial to "G-1 Business
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request from Brian Huggler to rezone the
property at 208 E. Grand River from its existing "F-1" Commercial District to
"G-1" Business District. This property was developed when cars were not too
numerous. The property has minimal space for parking. Mr. Huggler would
like to rehab the property with commercial on the ground floor and residential
on the upper two floors and also provide a couple parking spaces for the
residential use in a garage in the back of the building. The rezoning to "G-1"
Business would exempt them from parking requirements. This is similar to
other requests that you have received, most of them highlighted on your area
map and also on the back of your agenda as tabled items pending the outcome
of the parking plan for this area.
BRIAN T. HUGGLER, 505 CAREY ST., LANSING, owner of the property at
208 E. Grand River Avenue in Old Town. There are several properties coming
before you for this rezoning. I would like to point out, as Mr. Ruff said, that
currently the-building has no parking. The architect was able to provide two
on-site parking spaces in an attached a garage that would be built. This will
improve the parking a little.
Mr. Ruge asked is this a three-story building; are you going to put in two
apartments on each floor; and how big will those apartments be? Mr. Huggler
said this is a three-story building with a full basement; it will have an apartment
Planning Board Minutes, August 4, 1998 Page 4
on the third floor, an apartment on the second floor, and a commercial store on
the first floor. The apartments are approximately 1,000 square feet.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Ruge announced the close
of the public hearing for Z-8-98, 208 East Grand River Avenue,
"F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District and referral to the Zoning
and Ordinance Committee, meeting on August 12, 1998 at 4 p.m. in the
Department Conference Room, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
� 1 � � ' � �
� �
APPROVED AS PRINTED JANUARY 11, 2000 Draft to Clerk 122099
Approved 011100
To Clerk 011900
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7 p.m., City Council Chambers -
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall _0
124 West Michigan Avenue ,-"5
Tuesday, December 7, 1999 = r�
�a
1. OPENING SESSION: r' -- cj
Chairman Nischan called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Frederick, Goolsby, Keene, Miller, Nischan, Patrick,
Smith. Seven members present, one excused absence.
B. Excused Absences - Ruge. On November 16, 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, and Doris Witherspoon,
Senior Planner. Ms. Love also introduced Ms. Jan Patrick, here tonight
as a new Board member from the Second Ward.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Mr. Ruff noted one change, under 7, Recess, the
case reference is LS-22-99, 921, 927, 1000, 1004, 1008, 1010, 1016, 1020 West
Lenawee. The agenda was approved with that one change.
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Memorandum dated November 17, 1999 from Doris M. Witherspoon,
Senior Planner, presenting additional information Re: LS-22-99, 921, 927,
1000, 1004, 1008, 1010, 1016, 1020 West Lenawee
B. Communication from Rosemary Sullivan, BWL, to Doris M. Witherspoon,
RE: NCU-4-99, 1022 Eureka Street, Fire-Damaged Nonconforming 8-unit
C. Communication from Rosemary Sullivan, BWL, to Doris M. Witherspoon,
RE: SLU-13-99, 1200 Block Jerome Street, Parking Lot in "C" Residential
District
To accommodate citizens present for 5. Hearings, Chairman Nischan reversed
the order of 4. and 5.
5. HEARINGS
A. NCU-4-99, 1022 Eureka Street, Fire-Damaged Nonconforming 8-unit
Ms. Witherspoon presented the case, a request by Harvey Clarizio of
East Lansing for a Class A nonconforming status for property located at
1022 Eureka Street, an 8-unit apartment building zoned "DM-3"
Residential, having 8,068 sq ft of lot area. It contains seven 1-bedroom
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 2
units and one efficiency unit, which requires it to have 10,200 sq ft of lot
area. Currently, there are eight to nine parking spaces on-site; the
Planning and Zoning Code requires 11 parking spaces. Set-back
requirements in the "DM-3" Residential District are displayed; the
applicant is currently not meeting the required front yard setback for the
"DM-3" Residential District. Also, the property is lacking two to three
parking spaces, and 1,232 sq ft of lot area. The applicant would like to
restore the fire-damaged 8-unit structure. In a nonconforming situation,
he is limited to 50 percent of the value of the structure. The current value
of the structure is $96,096; therefore, the amount of repairs would be
restricted to 50 percent of that, or $48,048. The estimated cost of repairs
is $200,652.85.
HARVEY CLARIZIO, 236 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE, EAST LANSING. Ms.
Witherspoon said that there were seven to eight parking places there, she
was accepting my self-report on that. Typically, we do have seven to
eight cars there. We have low- to moderate-income tenants who
frequently do not have cars. This is only one block from Michigan
Avenue, close to a major bus line. Many will take the bus. Even at peak
times, we will not have more than eight cars there. If you look at the
parking layout, according to square footage, requirements by the City,
and figuring 9 ft x 20 ft per parking space, I probably do have the 11,
though I have never actually plotted them, because I have never needed
eleven spots. As far as parking goes, I think we are in good shape. This
building was originally built in 1922, and is one of the oldest apartment
buildings in Lansing. As such, it probably has some historical interest
and value. People going through the building comment on its
uniqueness—some apartments have alcoves; it has the old steel bathtubs,
hardwood floors, original finishes that haven't been painted over. The
insurance appraiser said he probably wouldn't be able to find a
comparable eight-unit building in Lansing; it was built as an eight-unit and
has remained as such. I think of the rest of the area as being
nonconforming in the sense that we were there first, and they did not
model after us, unfortunately. We do have, I think, ample parking there.
The building has been inspected regularly, last by Dan David in July,
1999. It passed inspection. There has always been a shortage of
moderate-income housing in Lansing. In the 20 years that we have had it,
it has done a good job of providing that housing. Frequently we will have
young professionals just starting out. The building fits in well with the
surrounding area. There is rental property nearby, and also owner-
occupied houses. We get along fairly well with neighbors, and have
allowed their friends to park in our lot. Our neighbor next door who
shares our driveway also uses our dumpster with our permission. We pay
for the upkeep of the shared driveway. Even though the amount of dollar
damage seems high, most of the damage was the result of smoke and
water. If you look at the pictures, three sides of the building are intact; it
was the back side of the building which had a wooden staircase that
burned. Most of the damage is in the rear, which affected the kitchen and
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 3
bathroom areas. Other areas had smoke and water damage. The
firemen did an admirable job. They put tarps over people's furniture and
pushed it together to prevent further damage. That is the first time I ever
saw that, and I commend the Fire Department for their professionalism in
that regard. We are going to try to restore the building in a manner
consistent with its original character. We plan to clean the brick and
restore it in the back. For those windows we have to replace, we will try
to get the same kind of windows so that it won't look like patchwork. If
you have questions, I will try to answer them.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Nischan announced
the close of the public hearing and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee meeting at 4 p.m. Wednesday, December 15, 1999, in the
Department Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
B. SLU-13-99, 1200 Blk. Jerome Street, Parking Lot in "C" Residential
Dist.
Ms. Witherspoon presented the case, a request by Sparrow Health
System, 1215 East Michigan Avenue, for a Special Land Use
permit to expand an existing surface parking lot in the 1200 Block
of Jerome Street north of Sparrow Hospital from 109 spaces to
approximately 390 spaces for Sparrow Hospital. The parking lot of
approximately 3 acres is temporary in nature. The surrounding
land uses consist of residential uses to the north, south, east and
west. Pattengill is to the west of the site. The North-East Area
Comprehensive Plan designates this area for open space and
school, and the Boys Training School Plan designates this area for
their Health Education Center, the Greater Lansing Health
Education Collaborative. Agency responses received have been
noted; Mr. Rick Kibbey of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization
phoned after the packets were mailed. He stated that the special
land use request appears to be consistent with the Boys Training
School Plan with the understanding that the proposed parking is a
temporary use, because this is the proposed location for the Health
Training Center.
Mr. Smith noted that no response has been received from the
Lansing School District. Ms. Witherspoon said that is correct. Mr.
Smith asked about what time period is viewed as "temporary." Ms.
Witherspoon noted that the applicant is in the audience. Mr. Ruff
commented that a better phrase might be "interim use" until
construction could begin. Ms. Keene asked who owns the
property; Ms. Witherspoon said Lansing School District.
IRA GINSBURG, VICE PRESIDENT, SPARROW HOSPITAL,
1215 EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE. When we first filed, we
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 4
expected we would own the property by the time of this hearing.
The School District is transferring this property to Sparrow Health
System; some BTS property will go to the School District from the
City on December 17, 1999. We will not be doing anything until
the property belongs to the Sparrow Health System. The property
is the old Eastern High School football field. It is surrounded by
parking, on the north by an 80-car parking space; on the south is a
109-car parking space. On the west is maybe 150 spaces; and on
the east is probably 300-350 spaces, one of Sparrow's existing
lots. This is temporary, a two- to three-year time frame. It is
consistent with the 1992 BTS Plan, because we are planning to
build a building there. If you look at the documents, parking was
designated on that property in addition to a parking deck of some
kind. For us to do that, we need to expand some temporary. We
have to get the parking decks in place before we can start
construction on the School District property. The School District is
aware of the use, as is Steve Cook, a member of the BTS
Committee.
DENNIS BRAVENDER, 1317 VINE STREET, on the east side of
the proposed property that Sparrow wants to develop. My living
room window overlooks that property. Right now it overlooks 300
cars. One of the temporary land uses they wanted to use that for
was employee parking. That would make it like 700 cars a day,
plus as it brings the employees more concentrated into Jerome
Street and Holmes and Michigan Avenue and Pennsylvania and
the school traffic, the volume of traffic is going to go up
enormously. It is already busy in mornings and afternoons. I have
no problems with them developing the land for a building or a
teaching center. Too, they want to build a child's pediatric critical
care unit in the visitors' parking lot. What I would like to suggest is,
they do have access to another parking lot. It is a little farther
away from Sparrow, at the Prudden Building. That would relieve
their parking problems for their employees if they would develop
and open that lot that they have access to. They have already
bought new shuttle buses for a third lot, then they decided not to
go with the new shuttle lot. As far as parking goes, if you are going
to permit land for surface parking, I and a couple other neighbors
have six-ft chain link fences. If you do allow the parking, one
stipulation should be privacy slats in the chain link to shield a 700-
spot parking lot from the neighborhood. They did have another lot
available for employee parking. Temporary parking for when they
build in the visitors' parking lot is fine. Have them make that a
visitors' lot over there in the football field. You should think about
letting them use it for employee parking. It is going to bring an
enormous number of cars into a little area again. If you do allow it,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 5
maybe you could, say, put up some privacy strips to help shield. I
have no major objections to development by Sparrow.
Ms. Love asked Mr. Ginsburg, "Typically you either designate
parking lots for visitor parking or for employee parking. Is this
going to be an employee parking lot, and if so, what are the hours
of operation? Is this for nurses who work 12-hour shifts?" Mr.
Ginsburg said primarily, depending on construction. If we do move
to a westerly tower on our building, it will be visitor parking for a
good portion of it, because we will lose our west lot parking while
construction is going on, so we will have visitor parking or use our
valet parking. Initially, it will be employee parking, day shift
primarily. It's not going to be until about 10 a.m. We have enough
parking for our initial shifts. It's when we start having our overlap,
and the 3 p.m. shift. It will not interfere with school traffic in the
morning. In the evening, there could be some conflict with the
3 o'clock, but we would hope not, because most of them have to be
in by 3.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced
the close of the public hearing for SLU-13-99, 1200 Block Jerome
Street, Parking Lot in "C" Residential District, and referral to the
Zoning and Ordinance Committee, meeting at 4 p.m. Wednesday,
December 15, 1999, in the Department Conference Room at
316 N. Capitol Avenue.
C. SLU-14-99, 6140 Pleasant Grove Road, Public Utility Facility in
"G-2" Wholesale District (Tower)
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by SBA, representing the
owner of the property, Mr. George Burkitt, to locate a cellular
communication tower at 4160 Pleasant Grove Road. The property,
zoned "G-2" Wholesale District, has a self storage facility, Budget
Self Storage. It would comprise a 90 ft x 90 ft area on a 4.5-acre
property. Abutting to the south is highway right-of-way and other
wholesale property to the west and to the east. It is near the
intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Pleasant Grove
and 1-96. For approximately the past six months, SBA has been
trying to negotiate with the Lansing School District for the Hill
Vocational School Site, which has an approved Special Land Use
and a height variance for the erection of a communications tower.
At one of their last meetings, the Lansing School Board refused to
approve the contract. In summary, we started out with a plan to
help the Lansing School District in their technology fields, or
general income. We looked at nine Lansing School District sites.
To date, none has been approved by the Lansing School District.
This was the last site in the City of Lansing under consideration.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 6
The applicant, SBA, which has pressure by communication
companies to have a tower in that area, has sought this alternative
location. If we hadn't looked at the Hill site originally, to
accommodate the school district, we would have looked near here,
because right next door the City has a storm water detention basin.
It would have been an ideal site for a cell tower. This is just as well-
located. It won't be in main sight views. For your information, we
have included a complete draft report, because the Board of
Zoning Appeals is meeting Thursday night to consider the height
variance. Staff, knowing what we have studied in the past, has
recommended approval and wanted to get that information on the
table pending this public hearing.
MARK ROBERTS, SBA, 26211 CENTRAL PARK BLVD., STE.
415, SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN. This site is in the same area we
were looking in previously; however, unfortunately, our plans with
the School District did not go well. Maybe this is a better site from
a planning standpoint. It is closer to the freeway intersection,
which is what we are trying to serve, and more removed from
residential areas. Overall, I think we have ended up at a better
place, but the long way around. I have reviewed staff's evaluation.
I concur with their analysis regarding special land use criteria. I
have reviewed conditions and have no objections to them as
written. If you have questions, I would be glad to answer them.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the Chairman announced
the close of the public hearing for SLU-14-99, 6140 Pleasant
Grove Road, Public Utility Facility in "G-2" Wholesale District
(Tower), and referral to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee,
meeting at 4 p.m. Wednesday, December 15, 1999 in the
Department Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
4. PRESENTATION
A. Parks and Recreation Department: Five-Year Plan
TANYA MOORE, PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT. We have
been working on the Parks & Recreation Department Five-Year Master
Plan for many months. The culmination is a thick document; you have
received excerpts from that document. The purpose, first, is that we need
to submit it to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources by March 1,
2000, in order to apply for grants for CIP projects. The other use is for
our department to identify CIP projects, which would be any project of
$15,000 or more, and for the Park Board and department administrators,
mayor, and council to set their priorities. We will be going to the Park
Board on December 15 for final recommendations. We have been to
them twice now, in October and November. The copies you have
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 7
received have the calendar outlining our present position, where we are
going, and where we have been. The critical deadlines fall in the next
couple of months. You have copies of the DNR checklists, items they
require us to cover in this Master Plan. You have the Director's
comments. You have an excerpt on the Administrative Structure, and the
Action Plan, which is probably the most important document. It tells what
we are going to do, why, and also contains a Capitol Improvements
Schedule, which has the potential grant-funded project. You have the
Master Projects list for all of the CIP projects for the next five years and
beyond. It is about seven or eight pages, maybe ten. You have the CIP
2001 list, which we submitted to Budget for next year, a copy of program
and operational needs which are additional staffing. Last would be maps
of the potential grant-funded projects. We will be going to Council with
this plan January 3, 2000, for final approval by them in February. They
will set a public hearing sometime in January. We would like your
comments and endorsement of this plan.
Mr. Frederick asked about the River Trail access to Cooley Gardens.
"We discussed that . . . I am glad to see that item there." Why is it in a
five-year projection? Ms. Moore said Parks does not have grants
specifically for the River Trail for the next couple years. Other entities
have approached Parks with partial funding for other sections, thus
lending higher precedence. To do the planning, apply for the grant and
construct the access puts it five years down the road. There is an existing
indirect link via sidewalk at South Washington Avenue.
Ms. Love commented this could be important in reviewing Act 285
petitions coming before the Board from the Parks Department for
completion of some programs, buying or selling property, or acquiring
easements that are required to go through the Planning Board. Now we
have an idea of where the projects fit in the overall Plan.
Mr. Smith asked about grading in Scotts Wood Park, and what area? Ms.
Moore said the trail is natural—not handicap accessible. The trail, over a
period of time, will be packed hard and covered with limestone to make it
more usable by handicapped people from Ingham Rehab, while at the
same time interfering with the natural landscape as little as possible. In
August, the five-year Parks millage will be before the voters. "We depend
for our CIP projects almost entirely on the millage."
Chairman Nischan thanked Ms. Moore for her presentation.
6. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (Five minutes each) - None.
7. RECESS - Zoning and Ordinance Committee will meet for new information on
LS-22-99, 921, 927, 1000, 1004, 1008, 1010, 1016, 1020 West Lenawee.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 8
2. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval - Minutes for Approval: November 16, 1999
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to approve the
minutes of November 16, 1999, as printed. On a Voice vote, unanimous,
carried; the Minutes of November 16, 1999 were APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee - Mr. Miller, Chairman. The
Zoning and Ordinance Committee met this evening.
a. LS-22-99, 921, 927, 1000, 1004, 1008, 1010, 1016, 1020
West Lenawee
Item will be taken up December 15, 1999; remains TABLED.
a. SLU-14-99, 6140 Pleasant Grove Road, Public Utility
Facility in "G-2" Wholesale District (Tower)
This request is consistent with the character of the adjacent
property. The location, adjacent to the expressway, is
probably better than the previously-discussed location. The
Lansing School District applied for a Special Land Use
permit (SLU-14-98) to construct a 200-foot tower at Hill
Center for Academics and Technology. The Lansing School
District has since decided not to approve the contract with
SBA, Inc. Now SBA, Inc. is considering 4160 Pleasant
Grove Road as an alternative location to build a cellular
tower. The tower will allow the co-location of antennas by
other telecommunication providers.
Since the proposal is consistent with the nine evaluation
criteria for approval of a Special Land Use permit, staff
recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. That the tower be a monopole type tower.
2. That the tower provide for the co-location of antennas
in order to reduce the need for additional towers.
3. That the use of the tower shall not interfere with the
telemetry communications of local hospitals and
emergency services.
4. That the tower be appropriately accessible and
fenced for security.
5. That the height variance is approved by the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
The Committee, considering testimony and evidence,
concurred with the staff report. In Committee, it was moved,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 9
seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend that
SLU-14-99, 6140 Pleasant Grove Road, Public Utility
Facility in "G-2" Wholesale District (Tower) be approved
with conditions as above.
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-14-99, 6140 Pleasant Grove Road, Public Utility Facility in "G-2"
Wholesale District (Tower).
PLANNING BOARD ACTION was as follows.
Goolsby .Aye Keene. . . Aye
Miller. . . Aye Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
Smith . . Aye Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
Nischan . . . ... . .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
On a Roll Call Vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; SLU-14-99,
6140 Pleasant Grove Road, Public Utility Facility in "G-2" Wholesale District (Tower),
with conditions as above was APPROVED.
C. SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology,
5815 Wise Road
This Special Land Use was approved for the Lansing School
District's Hill Technology School for a cellular tower at that
location. The School District has chosen not to take
advantage of the SLU. The Committee found, by not
pursuing revocation, that the goal of preventing the
proliferation of telecommunication towers could be
hampered if the Lansing School District decided then to later
build a tower where a substitute was approved.
In Committee, a motion was made, seconded, and carried
unanimously 3-0 to direct staff to pursue revocation of the
Special Land Use.
Mr. Miller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goolsby, to direct staff to pursue revocation
of approval of SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Road.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Mr. Frederick commented that he was very surprised that this particular site did not
receive approval, considering all the advantages to students who are trying to get a
technical education. He wholeheartedly supports staff pursuing revocation.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 10
On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous, regarding
SLU-14-98, Hill Center for Academics and Technology, 5815 Wise Road, staff was
directed to pursue REVOCATION OF THE SPECIAL LAND USE..
Next meeting, if necessary, would be Wednesday, December 15,
1999, at 4 p.m. in the Conference Room, Department of Planning
and Neighborhood Development, 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
2. Urban Development Committee - Mr. Smith, Chair. The
Committee met November 23, 1999.
a. Act-19-98, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1,
Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building
Preserved
This case was tabled on July 28, 1998; since then there has
been no action on it. In Committee, it was moved and
seconded to recommend that Act-19-98, 120 E. Shiawassee
Street, Fire Station #1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential
with Building Preserved, be dismissed without prejudice;
carried; unanimous, 3-0.
Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend that the Planning
Board dismiss without prejudice Act-19-98, 120 E. Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1,
Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building Preserved.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; Act-19-98, 120 E.
Shiawassee Street, Fire Station #1, Market/Sale for Mid-Rise Residential with Building
Preserved, was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
b. Act-20-97/Act-26-98, East St. Joseph Street, Vacate from
Cherry Street to Grand Avenue
This case was tabled on October, 1998. The suggestion
was made that the case be dismissed without prejudice. In
Committee, it was moved and seconded to recommend that
Act-20-97/Act-26-98, East St. Joseph Street, Vacate from
Cherry Street to Grand Avenue be dismissed without
prejudice; carried; unanimous, 3-0.
Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend that the Planning
Board recommend that Act-20-97/Act-26-98, East St. Joseph Street, Vacate from
Cherry Street to Grand Avenue be dismissed without prejudice.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 11
On a Voice vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried, Act-20-97/Act-26-
98, East St. Joseph Street, Vacate from Cherry Street to Grand Avenue was
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
C. 1000-1006 South Washington Avenue, Proposed Krentel
Block Historic District
The proposal would allow the Planning Board to collect
comments and make recommendation. On November 10,
1999, the Krentel Block Historic District Study Committee
transmitted its preliminary report on the proposed Historic
District to the Planning Board, in accordance with Section
1220.03 of the Historic Districts Ordinance. The ordinance
requires that this report be submitted to the Planning Board
for review and comment prior to a public hearing to be held
by the Study Committee in January 2000. The target date
for submission of these comments is the week ending
December 10, 1999.
The Planning Board's role in this review is not as historic
preservation experts, but as policy makers regarding
planning issues, neighborhood preservation and
revitalization, and other community goals. The Board's
comments and recommendations are relevant because
preservation is in part a planning implementation tool.
In Committee, it was moved, seconded and carried
unanimously 3-0 that the Planning Board concur with the
finding of the Historic District Study Committee, underscore
the land use importance of this building on the basis of its
findings, Nos. 3 and 5 referred to in the report, and
recommend that the Krentel Block be incorporated into a
larger local historic district within the River Point area, the
primary concern being that by naming one building a historic
district it did not seem quite appropriate given the
arguments presented by the presenter and that it would be
better if it were part of a larger historic district.
Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend that the concept of
the proposed Krentel Block Historic District be approved but that it be approved as part
of a larger historic district within the River Point area.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows.
Ms. Patrick stated that she would like to abstain from this vote because she does not
have adequate information. This is the first meeting she has attended, and she is not
familiar with the issue. Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to recuse
Ms. Patrick from the vote, at her request; Voice Vote, Ayes: 7, Nays: 0, unanimous, Ms.
Patrick was recused.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 12
Ms. Love provided the Board with an update on this issue. In general, City Council
seems favorable to grant this historic district. As they move through the historic district
process, which requires appointment of a study committee by resolution prepared by
the mayor and confirmed by the Council, they moved to establish the committee. They
had a report from the applicant's own historic district expert who is not from Lansing.
When the study committee met and read the report of the outside expert, Larry
Kastenbaum, it was their opinion that his report did not create sufficient justification for
a historic district in and of itself, and that there was not sufficient merit on its own from a
historic perspective. But, as Mr. Smith pointed out, from a land use perspective, we
want to save this building. It is indicative of what was typical along Washington
Avenue when it was built. Because it is indicative, it is what they would consider to be
a contributing building, but not one that in and of itself would stand alone as being
historic. There are several other buildings, however, in that area that are fairly
significant, and one of those happens to be a Mediteranean-style gas station just down
the street. The Study Committee found itself in a reverse situation in that they are the
ones not recommending a district, while the Council wants to pass the district. The
Committee, though wanting to establish the district, believed they could not justify it for
only the one building but said if the district is expanded, then they could justify it. We
want to do that, but the way the ordinance is written, we have to go back through
another resolution asking the mayor to reappoint the same people for the expanded
district, which should occur on Monday, December 13, 1999. The mayor's letter and
accompanying resolution will say that the original committee's report has been
received, and it does not stand on its own; however, it is contributing and the other
building should be added. We have a letter from the owner of the Mediteranean-style
gas station who says he wants to be in the historic district. So the mayor will
recommend expanding the district for the study committee to look at. Then we wait 60
days, and the study committee will have a public hearing in mid-February.
Ms. Love said it is important that the Planning Board support it on land use issues, not
on historic preservation issues. Maintaining the mass of the facade is important as a
land use strategy. "I think the Board is correct in making that recommendation."
Smith. . . Ave Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Goolsby Ave Keene. . . Ave
Miller. . . Ave Nischan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a Roll Call vote, there were; Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; Recused: 1; carried; unanimous;
concept of the proposed Krentel Block Historic District was approved, but as part of a
larger historic district within the River Point area; APPROVED.
The date for the next Urban Development Committee meeting has
not as yet been established.
3. Executive Committee - None.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 13
C. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Love reminded members of the working session on Wednesday,
December 8, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. at the Parthenon. Members should arrive
promptly so work can start promptly on the work program for next year.
We will evaluate last year's program as to accomplishments and work in
progress, and also add new items and reprioritize others.
For committee meetings, the new conference room can be accessed from
the north set of entrance doors from the alley through the set of wooden
doors to the right. The room has new tables and matching chairs.
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, "17-1" 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)
2. Urban Development Committee
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)
d. Act-14-99, 100 Blk. West Elm Street, Sale of Property (Tabled
October 26, 1999)
e. Act-15-99, 703 East Shiawassee Street, Purchase of Property for Parks
Dept. Oak Park Field Office (Re-referred to Committee November 2,
1999).
Mr. Ruff informed the Board that he has sent yet another letter to the
applicant of Z-19-97 regarding withdrawal without prejudice. Regarding
Z-1-98, Z-4-98 and Z-5-98, we are trying to resolve the issues.
9. NEW BUSINESS -
A. Board Meeting Schedule - Y2K Meetings
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to accept the
Planning Board Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2000; on a Voice
vote; there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; unanimous; carried; ACCEPTED.
10. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON -
Chairman Nischan noted that this is Mr. Goolsby's final meeting as a board
member. Members of the board, the City, and the people of Lansing are going
to miss him. "He helped shape my sense of esteem for the work of the Board.
He has always brought a very scholarly approach. He is well-informed and has
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE 14
a tremendous background of both knowledge and legal process." Chairman
Nischan also formally welcomed Jan Patrick to the Board. Ms. Patrick said she
expected her first appointment would be to a lesser board or committee. She is
very gratified to be able to start at the top.
Mr. Nischan said, regarding next year's schedule, he may have to miss a couple
months of meetings, maybe May, June and July, for being out of the country.
11. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Goolsby said he has enjoyed his tenure. "Part of the job of a Board member
is to educate the public. . . . It is not always easy to do that. . . . Everyone
should be proud of serving on this Board, and the way that everyone has
conducted themselves."
Mr. Frederick said the State Journal printed an article in today's paper stating
that the Planning Board has had the Central Lansing Downtown Plan for two
years and did not approve it. The Board should request a correction. Chairman
Nischan said it would be nice if slams like that were not left unchallenged. Ms.
Love said she will do it tomorrow. Mr. Frederick said that even though the
Journal missed the Central Lansing Downtown Plan being passed, they could
write a story about it now.
12. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Mr. Goolsby asked about Magic Auto Sales, the used car lot on the southwest
corner of Cavanaugh and Pennsylvania which has a sign in the right-of-way, and
if Scott Sanford, the sign inspector, could inform real estate companies not to
allow agents to place signs in the right-of-way.
Mr. Smith asked about the Drakes station on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. It
looks horrible. Ms. Love said last week our department had TransNation Title do
a title search on the Drakes station, and also on the Action Auto site on
Pennsylvania and Mt. Hope, and on the site that AutoZone wants in the 900
Block of West Saginaw. We have some leads relative to bankruptcy records,
and about the most recent owners. "I have given the information to the
Economic Development Corporation." As the brownfields redevelopment
authority, they can inform the parties about site remediation.
13. ADJOURNMENT was at 8:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
=120799 a:\53
SLU-14-99 6140 Pleasant Grove Road
Page 1 Special Land Use for Cellular Tower
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: SBA, Inc.
26211 Central Park Boulevard, suite 415
Southfield, MI 48076
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Representing Owner (Mr. George Burkitt)
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a Special Land Use (SLU)
to locate a cellular communication tower at 4160
Pleasant Grove Road.
EXISTING LAND USE: Self Storage Facility (Budget Self Storage)
EXISTING ZONING: "G-2" Wholesale District
PROPERTY SIZE & SHAPE: —4.61 acres & irregular in shape
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Vacant and residential
S: Right-of-way
E: Commercial
W: Vacant and storm water retention basin
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: "G-2" Wholesale District
S: Right-of-way
E: "G-2" Wholesale District & "F" Commercial District
W: "G-2" Wholesale District & "A" Residential District
MASTER PLAN
DESIGNATION: Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan 1990,
designates the land use as office.
BACKGROUND: The Lansing School District applied for a Special Land
Use permit (SLU-14-98) to construct a 200-foot tower
at Hill Center for Academics and Technology. The
Lansing School District has since decided not to
approve the contract with SBA, Inc. Now SBA, Inc. is
considering 4160 Pleasant Grove Road as an
alternative location to build a cellular tower. The
tower will allow the co-location of antennas by other
telecommunication providers.
SLU-14-99 6140 Pleasant Grove Road
Page 3 Special Land Use for Cellular Tower
APPLICANTS PROPOSAL
SBA, Inc. is proposing to construct a telecommunication facility at 6140 Pleasant Grove
Road. The facility will consist of a 190-foot cellular communications tower and one or
more structures to house communications equipment (see tower elevation). All
structures will be located in a 90' x 90' area on the southwest portion of the parent
parcel (see site plan).
ANALYSIS
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?
Properties to the north and west are vacant. Residential properties are located
further north along Miller Road. Commercial properties are located east of the
site. Interstate 96 is south of the subject property. Currently, the property is a
self storage facility. The only changes to the property will be the addition of a
cellular tower and structure(s) for equipment.
2. Will the proposed special land use change the essential character of the
surrounding area?
The character of the area will remain unchanged, but the proposed tower will
change the aesthetic views from surrounding properties.
3. Will the proposed special land use interfere with the general enjoyment of
adjacent property?
Staff does not anticipate any interference with the general enjoyment of
properties surrounding the site other than the aesthetic views resulting from the
proposed tower. One intent is for other telecommunication providers to co-locate
on the proposed tower in order to minimize the visual impact that towers can
have in Lansing.
4. Will the proposed special land use represent 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?
The communication facility will be an improvement to the property. A drain
SLU-14-99 6140 Pleasant Grove Road
Page 5 Special Land Use for Cellular Tower
9. Will the proposed special land use meet the dimensional requirements of
the district in which the property is located?
The maximum height of structures in the "G-2" Wholesale District is 40 feet. The
proposed tower will require a height variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
SUMMARY
The proposed Special Land Use is harmonious with the character of adjacent property
and surrounding uses.
The character of the area will remain unchanged, but the proposed communications
tower will change the aesthetic views from surrounding properties.
The proposed Special Land Use will not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent
properties other than the aesthetic views of a tower from surrounding properties.
The proposed Special Land Use represents an improvement to the use and character of
the property.
The proposed Special Land Use will not be hazardous to adjacent properties.
The proposed Special Land Use will be adequately served by public services and
utilities.
The proposed Special Land Use will not place any demand on public services and
facilities in excess of current capacities. It will improve telecommunication coverage in
the area.
The proposed Special Land Use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the
Southwest Area Comprehensive Plan does not address telecommunication towers.
The proposed Special Land Use will not meet the dimensional requirements of the
district in which the property is located. Therefore, a height variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals is required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Special Land Use permit with the following
conditions:
Pleasent Grove Rd.
N
_ _- _ _ _._.._.364- - - - - - - - - - --- -
.
20'x 290'BuildingText
Existing Driveway
Parent Parcel: v Ch
Storage facility Co m
m a) m Storage m
o a) CD Bldg.
a)
T
N 0 N O 0
U)
_CO Edge of paved lot ra—
v Proposed 15'
access and utilit
easement
Proposed
90'x 90' tower
site
- - =364- - - --- - - - - - - - - - --
O
of
AF
m
•
Site Name: Lansing Storage SBA Inc .
Address: 6140 Pleasent Grove Road
Lansing, MI 48911 26211 Central Park Blvd.
Suite 415
Section: 7,T3N, R2W Southfield,MI 48034
BZA 3562.99 & SLU 14-99
NORTH 6140 Pleasant Grove Road
Vicinit .Map
FORD NEWARK AVE. y
o Fj
ANBURY CROSSROAD
NEWARK AVE. a
CL 9LF
INDEPENDENCE BLIESENER a
y z
o z
x
w
x
W. MILLER RD a
k��GO 0
z �
S Y
id z
m
Z
0
ANNETA �
LABELLE
Off,
�00
O GEORGETOWN
EDGLc'y00D
ss
CD
Me o
TO: Louise Christian, Planning Department
FROM: Dixie Gilmore, City Clerk's Office
DATE: November 29, 1999
SUBJECT: 1999 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
A review of our records indicates the following board minutes are not on file in the Clerk's Office:
September 21, October 5, October 19,November 2 and November 16
The last board minutes placed on file with our office were for the meeting of November 2 (draft
only).
Would you please either provide the missing minutes or advise us of their status?
Thank you for your cooperation in bringing this file up to date.
/dlg
CITY of LANSING
INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL OFFICES, CLERK'S OFFICE, CITY HALL CASES,
PLANNING LOBBY
FROM: ELEANOR K:..LOVE, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: CANCELLATION OF DECEMBER 21, 1999 REGULAR MEETING OF
THE PLANNING BOARD
DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1999
The regularly scheduled December 21, 1999 meeting of the Planning Board has been
canceled. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board will take place
January 11,.2.000. See you then, and Happy Holidays!
c: Planning Board members
aAcnc1pbmt.d21 53
CZ) �l
W