Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 Mins Planning Board Jan-Mar FINAL Approved as written 4-20-04 Draft to Clerk March 22,2004 Approved April 20,2004 To Clerk April 21,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION ' The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. r A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Foster. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Foster for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Mr. Ron Hatcher, resident of 1903 Lourdes Court, stated that he is a representative of the Hamilton Condominium Association and that he has some questions regarding SLU-1-2004, residential care facility on Aurelius Road. He stated that the association did not have a lot of time to respond and have their concerns addressed. He asked the Board to table SLU-1-2004 to allow the association more time to interact and present their concerns. Mr. Robert Mosher, representative of Community Mental Health - CEI, stated that if the original plan had been submitted, it would have fallen during the Christmas holiday and CMH-CEI did not want to do this. CMH-CEI is opposed to tabling SLU-1-2004 and are proceeding with bids. CMH-CEI would like to move on to other things that need to be done when they meet with the City Forester. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 2 He stated that CMH-CEI is opposed to the requirement of placing a fence in the back yard. He does not object to prohibiting a chain link fence. Fences are only installed when required by the program and while CMH-CEI currently plans to do this, CMH may change the people who would be at the home or the residents may age to the point where a fence would not be necessary. The main reason for installing a fence was to make the neighbors feel better. He believes this is discriminatory to the residents. He stated that CMH-CEI agreed to the idea of the City Forester visiting the site and putting in some trees to block the parking area and more of the property. The property can hold a 12-unit family group home and CMH-CEI is asking for one large home but it will not have nearly the number of people. The home will be very low and aesthetic and it will be a one-story unit. If the cost of planting a number of trees, depending on size and how many, and if it is for the benefit of the Hamilton Condominium Association, then maybe the association should help contribute if the residents are so concerned. He noticed that the condominium north-south driveway had absolutely no trees or buffer of any type for the neighbors. The condominium area was designed with units having drive ways for front yards. He believes that CMH-CEI is not doing anything at all that would harm the condominium property values or long term view once new trees were able to grow on the property. Mr. Micah Murrell, resident of 1907 Lourdes Court, stated that some of the concerns brought up by Mr. Mosher are the exact reason the request should be tabled. There are a lot of issues and concerns that Mr. Mosher just brought up that he believed needed to be resolved. He stated that Mr. Mosher commented about the condominium residents contributing towards the trees and the fence and he believes that the tax dollars that mainly support this home would be a pretty big contribution. The focus really needs to be on the 46 different homes that would be affected by this request. Ms. Patricia Nelson, resident of 1905 Lourdes Court, stated that she has two letters from Real Estate brokers who have said that the condominium residents will be affected in property values by this new facility. She stated that the fronts of the condominiums are drive ways so the only living areas that the residents have are in the back which views the trees. This area is the biggest selling point of the condominium properties. Ms. Foster inquired about Board members having questions for the applicant. Mr. McConnell asked Mr. Mosher to step to the podium. Mr. McConnell inquired about the concerns of the residents regarding the decreased property values. He stated that there were letters of testimony from well regarded realtors that the property values would decrease. He inquired about what research or data that Mr. Mosher has to present to the contrary, such as a realtor or an appraiser who is saying that this type of facility would not degrade or lower the property values of the condominiums. Mr. Mosher stated that he did not have any information with him and that at the previous meeting he did bring studies. He stated that PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 3 there have been a few studies done by appraisers not just on one particular property but on a number of properties and how it may have affected the property values. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the study was updated in 1996 and was included in the Planning Board packet. Mr. McConnell stated that the study was from the Planning Department dated October 1976, and Ms. Cordill stated that it was updated in 1996. Mr. Frederick stated that the 1996 information was presented at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting and there was also information mailed to the Committee members. He clarified that Mr. Mosher presented the information to the Committee members not the Planning Office. Ms. Cordill stated that she would like to make the report available at this time to anyone who was interested in the audience. She stated that Mr. McConnell mentioned that there were letters from real estate agents on what affect a project may have. She was under the impression that the condominium residents thought there would be mentally ill, not developmentally disabled, patients living in the home. She stated that this could be a distinction and someone's perception of a group home. She asked Mr. Mosher for clarification on what kind of resident would be living at the home and how much freedom the residents would have within and outside the facility. Mr. Mosher stated that CMH is planning on bringing developmental disability people into the home, but because CMH owns these homes for such long periods of time (some being 25 years) or occupies them under a lease, CMH cannot guarantee, some time in the future, what disabilities that the residents who are placed in the home may have. In the letter from Ms. Mary Clissoiv, everyone placed in the home is screened by CMH and no one is placed in a home that CMH would expect to cause harm to anyone else. CMH keeps a very close watch over the residents who need it in these types of facilities. There are some residents who can function better on their own. He stated that this is why the neighbors were told that a fence would be installed but CMH does not like to be required to install a fence. CMH makes very determined efforts to try to make sure that the services and the facility at any site are able to handle these types of residents. Mr. McConnell stated that he was still not clear on the influence of halfway houses and foster care facilities upon property values. He inquired about who gathered the data: the Planning Department or if it was independently done. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Department did the study and she was not aware that it existed. She stated that Mr. Mosher brought it to the attention of the Committee members. She stated that the Planning Department prepared the document years ago because questions like these are frequently asked. She stated that this study attempts to answer the questions so that every applicant does not have to have appraisers do the studies. The question: Do residential care facilities have a negative impact on neighborhoods? In conclusion, she stated that according to the study, the facilities do not have a negative impact on the neighborhoods. Mr. McConnell stated that his question to Mr. Mosher was: Has he and his group done an independent study? Ms. Stachowiak stated they have not done a study. Mr. McConnell stated that it was the Planning PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 4 Department who put these studies together and Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was Mr. Mosher who brought the study to the Committee's attention. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board really needed to close the Public Comment period and wait to discuss this further under the Zoning and Ordinance Committee after the report is given. Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Cordill closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS — None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — None. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. SLU-1-2004, Aurelius Rd., Special Land Use-Residential Care Facility This is a request by the Community Mental Health Authority of Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties, for a special land use permit to construct a residential care facility for up to 10 people, on a 1.8 acre site, located on the west side of Aurelius Road, between 3918 Aurelius and Hamilton Condominiums. The property is zoned "A" Residential District which permits residential care facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of rezoning. Staff recommended approval of the SLU-1-2004, a residential care facility for up to 10 people, with the following conditions: 1. Capacity of the facility be limited to ten persons; 2. Operation of the adult foster care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of adult foster care facilities; 3. The driveway be expanded to 22-feet to accommodate 2-way traffic; 4. The applicant screens the parking lot from view of the surrounding neighbors; and 5. Landscaping be planted along the Aurelius Road frontage of the site. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 5 In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. Capacity of the facility be limited to ten persons; 2. Operation of the adult foster care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of adult foster care facilities; 3. The driveway not be expanded to 22-feet, if possible; 4. The applicant screens the parking lot from view of the surrounding neighbors; 5. Landscaping be planted along the Aurelius Road frontage of the site; 6. Sidewalk be installed along Aurelius Road; 7. An aesthetically pleasing fence be constructed around the backyard; 8. A tree survey be conducted with the City Forester; 9. Large trees that are worth preserving, as determined by the City Forester, be identified and the drip lines protected with a fence prior to any construction on the site; 10. The location of the utility pole(s) near Aurelius Road be reviewed with the Board of Water and Light; 11. All exterior lighting be shielded and directed downward to prevent glare onto adjacent properties; and 12. Evergreen trees be planted along the south side of the site; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge stated that he will stop here and not go into the conditions listed. He does not want the people that are in the condominium association to feel like the Board is giving them the bum's rush and didn't give them a chance to review the request and provide any further thoughts that the residents would have on it. He believes that the Board can discuss the request at the next meeting which is in 3 weeks and do it expeditiously. He does not want the residents to feel like the City was not listening to them. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to table SLU-1-2004, Aurelius Rd., Special Land Use - Residential Care Facility. Mr. Frederick stated that he understands Mr. Ruge's concern and that he feels the same way. He stated that he is not sure if the condominium association understands the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 6 process. He clarified that the Board's decision tonight is going to be a recommendation to the City Council whether the special land use be granted. It is not the final word. There is still at least one Committee meeting that the Board's recommendation will go to and that is the Committee of City Council. He stated that City Council will hold a public hearing and then will vote. City Council has the option to accept or deny the Board's recommendation in full or accept any or all of the conditions that the Board may have set on the request. The Planning Board does not have the final word. He stated that there is more than enough time for the condominium association to make their objections and concerns known to the City Council, who will ultimately make the final decision anyway. He does not see any reason to delay the request. He stated that one of the positive things about the planning process in the City of Lansing is that it is expedited and that it does not take up a lot of time and make delays for the developers and others who are trying to get things done. Often the Board receives applications like this one that is fairly complex and expensive. Just as often, the Board receives applications for simple things from ordinary neighborhood residents (i.e. selling property and having a minor problem that needs to be resolved to satisfying financing). He stated that he cannot support a motion to table the request because he believes that the condominium association has had more than enough time to have their concerns addressed. Ms. Keene stated that normally there is not discussion on a motion to table a request. Mr. Frederick apologized for the discussion. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 2; Nays: 3. The motion did not carry. Mr. Ruge continued with the Zoning and Ordinance Committee report. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of SLU-1-2004, Aurelius Rd., Special Land Use-Residential Care Facility with the following conditions: 1) Capacity of the facility be limited to ten persons; 2) Operation of the adult foster care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of adult foster care facilities; 3) The driveway not be expanded to 22-feet; 4) The applicant screens the parking lot from view of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 7 surrounding neighbors; 5) Landscaping be planted along the Aurelius Road frontage of the site; 6) Sidewalk be installed along Aurelius Road; 7) Any fences that are constructed on the property be aesthetically pleasing (no chain link or cyclone fences) and characteristic of a residential neighborhood; 8) A tree survey be conducted with the City Forester; 9) Large trees that are worth preserving, as determined by the City Forester, be identified and the drip lines protected with a fence prior to any construction on the site; 10) The location of the utility pole(s) near Aurelius Road be reviewed with the Board of Water and Light; 11) All exterior lighting be shielded and directed downward to prevent glare onto adjacent properties; and 12) Evergreen trees be planted along the south side of the site. Mr. McConnell stated that he was obviously not present at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. He stated that he has a real problem with this request and he does not understand why no one else on the Board does. He has nothing against the mentally disabled or foster care homes. His grandmother is in a home, and he has other relatives who are mentally retarded and are in facilities. He has a problem with, on a common sense basis, the Board approving a request and relying on information that is almost 30 years old. He stated that it was information from 1976 that was updated in 1990. He has a real problem with the Board relying on information that is almost 30 years old and was updated in 1990, which is almost 15 years old. He stated that it should be up to somebody to get updated information as to the impact, whether negative or positive, on the neighborhood and the condominiums. He stated that it is ridiculous to approve the request based on this information. He stated that if the City does not have the information, then it should be up to the developer to put the information together. He stated that there are 48 condominium owners and 2 of the top brokers in Lansing saying that the development will negatively impact the neighborhood. He stated that not to have more information and just make a decision to him is ludicrous. Ms. Cordill stated that there could be additional information and that maybe the Planning Advisory Service would have more current information on the affects of adult care facilities in residential neighborhoods. Mr. McConnell asked what would be so hard about contacting the Michigan Association of Realtors or the Greater Lansing Association of Realtors and requesting some updated information. Ms. Cordill stated that this was another concern that she had when she was reviewing the information. Mr. McConnell PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 8 stated that to table the request for one meeting to obtain more current information is not asking for too much. Ms. Cordill stated that she saw the letters that Mr. McConnell referred to. When she read the letters, she did not feel that the people who provided the letters were given the full picture. Mr. McConnell asked if the Board has been given the full picture if they have to rely on this information. To him, he has not been given the full picture, and he stated that he is not going to make a decision voting aye or nay when he has to rely on information that is 26 years old. Ms. Cordill thanked Mr. McConnell for his input. She stated that he has made himself clear on the matter and that the Board knows where he is coming from. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Zoning Ordinance sets up 9 criteria which are to be used to evaluate special land use permits. The Board has 9 criteria set up by the Ordinance that is to be used to evaluate this request. Staff determined that it did comply with the criteria and the Committee agreed with staff's decision. Ms. Stachowiak stated that if Mr. McConnell disagreed with the decision, then he could vote nay on the request. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City has never required the developer to go out and pay for (nor did she know if it was legal) a study to determine the impact on the neighbors just because the perception is a negative impact on their property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not know what information the realtors were given nor what they used to make their determinations. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. McConnell was making her regret that she even passed out the study. Mr. McConnell stated that was her business that the information was passed out, and that the Board is relying on this information. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board is relying on the 9 criteria set up in the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the staff made the recommendation before they knew the study existed. Mr. McConnell stated that she said that the developer, Mr. Mosher, gave her the study. Ms. Stachowiak continued and stated that when the Zoning Ordinance Committee made its recommendation, they had not seen the study and neither had staff. Ms. Cordill struck the gavel to maintain order. Mr. Frederick stated that he was happy to read the study and that regardless of the study's age he believed it was meaningful. He had not read the study and was not even aware of it when he met with the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting to evaluate the full extent of what he believed his authority was and on which he based his decision, which was what was in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that this issue did come up and that the Committee's authority is limited. Maybe the City PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 9 Council can take up the issue or maybe not. He does not know City Council's authority. He stated that as nice as the study was, he does not think that he has the authority to make a decision based on whether this development is going to affect property values one way or another, because this is not a criteria that he has an authority to base his decision on. He stated that the Committee went through the criteria and discussed them at length. He reviewed the criteria and visited the site. He did not see anything that would allow him to vote against the request based on the Zoning Ordinance criteria. He stated that he also visited one of the applicant's other facilities located at Coulson Court, and that it took him a couple of minutes to figure out that it was even a facility. It fit into the neighborhood so well. He stated that it was larger than the other houses and that it was amongst the best houses on the entire length of Coulson Court. When he saw this, the only thing that he became absolutely sure of was that he would like to change condition number 3 where it says "the driveway not be expanded to 22 feet, if possible." He would like the words "if possible" struck from the record. He stated that the reason was a 22 foot driveway would detract from the residential nature of the development. He sees no reason to require a 22 foot driveway on a residential facility where it is not required under any residential development. He realizes that special land uses allow conditions and he stated that there were a lot of meaningful conditions listed for this request but he believes that all of them added to the residential nature rather than detract from it. He does not see where there would be any huge traffic issue that a 22 foot driveway is needed. What helped him to change his mind was the facility that he looked at on Coulson Court has a 12 foot driveway. When he was at this facility, there were 2 vehicles parked in the driveway. Clearly these vehicles were there because they belonged to the staff. He stated that the facility he visited looks so much like the plan that the applicant submitted and that the only real difference is that the driveway is not as long. He does not see any reason to deny the request and he does not see anything that gives him the authority to do anything except vote in favor of it. He stated that something can be developed at this site and the Zoning Ordinance says this is one of the things that can be constructed there. He stated that the Committee put in quite a few meaningful conditions and he urged the Board to support the request. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 10 Ms. Stachowiak stated that she prepared the report and that her name was on the public hearing notices that were mailed. The notices went out the second week in February and no one from Hamilton Condominium Association has contacted her requesting any information whatsoever about this development. It has been almost 6 weeks. Ms. Cordill inquired about who sees the staff report and when it is released to the public. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Zoning and Ordinance Committee meets on Wednesday and the full staff report is completed at least a week ahead of time. In this case, it was done 2 weeks ahead of time. She stated that the full staff report is available to anybody who would like a copy of it and that it is a matter of public record. The Planning office always provides the applicants with a copy and anyone else who asks for it. The Planning Office does not usually charge for the copy. Ms. Cordill stated that the public does have an opportunity to see the staff report. Ms. Stachowiak stated absolutely and that anything in the case file is available to the public. She stated that nobody at the Hamilton Condominium Association has asked for any information regarding this case. She mentioned that Forrest View Neighborhood Association, located on the east side of Aurelius Road, asked for information. She stated that the President of the association contacted her and wanted copies of all the information. She provided the information and answered their questions. She stated that if the Board will notice, no one from the Forest View Association has been here. If Hamilton Condominium Association had done this, it would have given the City an opportunity to respond to their concerns. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not know what information the realtors had but they did not receive anything from her. Ms. Cordill stated that Ms. Stachowiak was the contact person for this case. Mr. McConnell stated that when the 48 individuals signed this petition and the 2 letters from the realtors arrived at the Planning Office, he asked if Ms. Stachowiak had contacted any of the people. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not and that she does not do that. Mr. Frederick stated that it would not be proper protocol. Ms. Keene inquired about the number of square feet of the facility. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was listed in the staff report as 5,333 square feet for a single story facility. Ms. Keene inquired about where on the property the building would be located. Ms. Stachowiak referred to the map. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 11 Ms. Keene inquired about approximately how many feet the new facility would be from the side property line of the condominiums. Ms. Stachowiak stated it would be approximately 60 feet from the side of the building to Hamilton condominium side property line. Ms. Cordill inquired about the required side yard for the facility. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the required side yard is 10 feet. Ms. Cordill stated that the applicant has exceeded the side yard requirement. Ms. Cordill inquired if there would be any signage associated with the facility or if it would be just an address. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be just an address at this point and that the applicant would not be allowed any ground signage for the building. She stated that the applicant would be allowed a wall sign and that it would have to be a very small sign. Ms. Cordill asked Mr. Mosher to address the question. Mr. Mosher stated that do not put signs on the homes. Mr. Frederick stated that the facility located on Coulson Court looked so much like a residence that he had to stop and look real hard to figure out that he was looking at the facility because it looked so much like a home. The only reason that he could tell was that the facility was larger than the rest of the properties. He stated that the facility looked just like a residence. He walked this piece of property and was challenged by neighbors while doing it. He stated that the facility was large enough that he does not believe that this would really be noticeable to anyone living in this area. He referred to the diagram. He stated that there are some lots marked off to the north of this property. He found this to be puzzling because they are land-locked. When he looked at the lots, he found that the lots are owned by land owners along the street to the north (Rex Street). He stated that when one gets to the north and west edges of the property, the houses are a long ways away. He believes that no one will notice that this facility is here, and if it was noticed, he does not believe that it will be a problem. He stated that this would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Ms. Cordill inquired about a friendly amendment to the driveway. Mr. Frederick recommended the friendly amendment and Mr. Ruge accepted it. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 12 Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to have condition number 7 removed because he believes that CMH can determine whether or not a fence is needed. Mr. Frederick stated that he would accept it if the condition would read, that "if a fence is constructed, that it be of an aesthetic nature." This would give the applicant the ability to decide whether or not a fence is needed. Ms. Cordill inquired about aesthetically pleasing as in a wood fence or a wrought iron fence and if the Board should be specific. Mr. Frederick stated that he brought up at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting that there is an office and treatment facility located on Jolly Road, west of Pennsylvania Avenue, and that there is a large yard/open area in the back. He stated that the applicant constructed a green chain link fence. He stated that green is not a good color and chain link is not aesthetically pleasing. He made a recommendation to change aesthetically pleasing to "the type of fence that would be residentially aesthetically pleasing" or the kind of fence that could be found in a residential neighborhood. He stated no chain link or cyclone fences. He does not want to go to the length of making a list of fences that could not be installed. He felt that this would limit the responsibility and authority that CMH would have to make on their own. He does not want to see something that would he would not want to look at if he were to look out his back window. Mr. Stachowiak stated that the condition would read: "if a fence is to be constructed that it be the type that would normally be found in a residential setting, specifically that no chain link or cyclone fences be permitted." Mr. Ruge accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Keene stated that with adverse property value, she is troubled with that whole concept. She has seen so many projects where something is being constructed and the first thing that the neighbors want to say is that this would have a negative impact on the property value. Historically, people jump to this conclusion. CMH tends to take real good care of their properties and she does not see how this would have an adverse impact on the property values. The other thing that concerns her is that perhaps some of the residents did purchase the condominiums because they like the idea of having a forest in their back yard. The residents cannot control the land because they do not own the property, and if they want to continue to see a forest in their back yard then they should have purchased this property. To her, this is not a good enough reason to deny the request when it would be an asset to the area. The City does need residential-type facilities for CMH clients. She is in support of the request. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 13 She stated that City Council would decide and that the Board is just making recommendations. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 1; carried. APPROVED. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the motion carried. It will go to City Council and be scheduled for a public hearing some time in April. Mr. Frederick made a suggestion that the Hamilton Condominium Association be advised of the date of the public hearing. Ms. Stachowiak stated that post cards will be sent out to everyone who received them initially. b. LS-2-2004, 909 Cleveland & 1215 E. Oakland This is a request by William & Joyce Snider. The applicant is proposing to split off the west 43 feet of the property at 909 Cleveland and combine it with the property at 1215 E. Oakland, resulting in the following legal descriptions: 909 Cleveland: The east 89 feet of Lot 10, Block 2, Plat of Rouse's Subdivision of Lot 13 of Seymour Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. 1215 E. Oakland. The west 42 feet of Lot 11 & the west 43 feet of Lot 10, Block 2, Rouse's Subdivision of Lot 13 of Seymour Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Section 1236.07(c) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot depth of 100 feet. If approved, the property at 909 Cleveland would have a lot depth of 89 feet. Section 1236.07(d) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, the property at 1215 E. Oakland would have a width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.96. Therefore, variances from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations are requested. Staff recommended approval of LS-2-2004, 909 Cleveland & 1215 E. Oakland PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 14 In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Frederick stated that there appears to be a practical difficulty in that this is an old part of the City and the property lines were drawn a long time ago. He believes that there is nothing that could be done in any other way to make the properties meet the required width to depth ratio. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of LS-2-2004, 909 Cleveland & 1215 E. Oakland. Frederick . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, April 14, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. McConnell, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Ms. Stachowiak stated that City Council did approve Z-15-2003. She will keep the Board informed from this point on as to what happens with the cases. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25,2003) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 15 C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29, 2003) e. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20, 2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage(August 19,2003) e. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) f. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home (January 20,2004) Ms. Stachowiak stated that the "weird vehicle" on E. Grand River has been determined not to be in violation and has been dropped from the list. Mr. McConnell commented that Ms. Stachowiak has sent the email to Ms. Fuller asking about some of the issues the Board has presented. He stated that the Board is still not getting answers (i.e. church on Jolly Road). Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board was given an update at the last meeting regarding the church on Jolly Road. She stated that she sent a letter to the church given them 30 days to take down the sign and cease all church services. She cannot make the church remove the Budda statue but she can have the church take down the sign and stop the church services. She stated that the church has not complied with her letter and that the home is being monitored. Mr. McConnell stated that he would like a copy of the letter and asked if it could be brought to the next meeting. Mr. McConnell inquired about the tree trimming business on Jolly Road. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has not received an update from the Code Compliance Office. However, she stated that she did receive updates on Super Wheel Auto Sales and Muffler Man, and she passed them out at the last meeting. She did update the Board regarding the church and the weird truck. She stated that there are a few left. Mr. McConnell stated that with the Muffler Man issue Ms. Stachowiak had said that they were in violation. Ms. Stachowiak stated that at the last meeting a Code Compliance Officer did view the site and that the person was out of town. She stated that the person did contact the Code Compliance Office and was informed of the City's regulations and if they want to pursue selling vehicles. Ms. Stachowiak also stated that Muffler Man is zoned for selling just cars but they have to install the required improvements which is only landscaping. Ms. Stachowiak did provide Muffler Man with the landscaping requirements and the Code Compliance Officer did give them 30 days to respond with a plan or to be rid of all the cars on the site. Mr. McConnell inquired about this notice being telephoned or in written documentation. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Dave Vincent visited with the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 16 owner in person and then he called Ms. Stachowiak to get the requirements. Mr. McConnell asked if a letter was sent by Ms. Stachowiak. She stated that she has not sent Muffler Man any letters. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she faxed Muffler Man the requirements. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill requested an excused absence from the next meeting, April 6. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Cordill for the April 6th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that 201 Jones Street, a corner lot, has a 6 foot wooden fence along the one side up against the sidewalk. Mr. Ruge stated that 1340 Eureka Street has trash and a junk car in the driveway. Mr. Ruge stated that 200 Clifford Street has 2 junk cars. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.031604.doc Draft to Clerk March 22,2004 Approved 2004 To Clerk 2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Wynant. C. Excused absences: Foster. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Foster for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Mr. Ron Hatcher, resident of 1903 Lourdes Court, stated that he is a representative of the Hamilton Condominium Association and that he has some questions regarding SLU-1-2004, residential care facility on Aurelius Road. He stated that the association did not have a lot of time to respond and have their concerns addressed. He asked the Board to table SLU-1-2004 to allow the association more time to interact and present their concerns. Mr. Robert Mosher, representative of Community Mental Health - CEI, stated that if the original plan had been submitted, it would have fallen during the Christmas holiday and CMH-CEI did not want to do this. CMH-CEI is opposed to tabling SLU-1-2004 and are proceeding with bids. CMH-CEI would like to move on to other things that need to be done when they meet with the City Forester. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 2 He stated that CMH-CEI is opposed with the requirement to place a fence in the back yard and that he does not object to it being required if there is not going to be chain link fence. Fences are only installed when required by the program and while CMH-CEI currently plans to do this, CMH may change the people who would be at the home or the residents may age to the point where a fence would not be necessary or would need to replace one in the future. The main reason for installing a fence was to make the neighbors feel better. He believes this is discriminatory for the residents. He stated that CMH-CEI agreed to the idea of the City Forester visit the site and put in some trees to block the parking area and more of the property. CMH-CEI is concerned with this. The property can hold a 12-unit family group and CMH- CEI is asking for one large home but it will not have nearly the number of people. The home will be very low and asthetic and it will be a one-story unit. If the cost of planting a number of trees, depending on size and how many, and if it is for the benefit of the Hamilton Condominium Association, then maybe the association should help contribute if the residents are so concerned. He noticed that the condominium north-south driveway had absolutely no trees or buffer of any type for the neighbors. The condominium area was designed with units having drive ways for front yards. He believes that CMH-CEI is not doing anything at all that would harm the condominium property values or long term view once new trees were able to grow on the property. Mr. Micah Murrell, resident of 1907 Lourdes Court, stated that some of the concerns brought up by Mr. Mosher are the exact reason the request should be tabled. There are a lot of issues and concerns that Mr. Mosher just brought up that he believed needed to be resolved. Some of the facts regarding the residents being prejudiced towards the members who are coming in here has nothing to do with this request. He stated that Mr. Mosher commented about the condominium residents contributing towards the trees and the fence and he believes that the tax dollars that mainly support this home would be a pretty big contribution. The focus really needs to be on the 46 different homes that would be affected by this request. Ms. Patricia Nelson, resident of 1905 Lourdes Court, stated that she has two letters from Real Estate brokers who have said that the condominium residents will be affected in property values by this new facility. She stated that the fronts of the condominiums are drive ways so the only living areas that the residents have are in the back which views the trees. This area is the biggest selling point of the condominium properties. Ms. Foster inquired about Board members having questions for the applicant. Mr. McConnell asked Mr. Mosher to step to the podium. Mr. McConnell inquired about the concerns of the residents regarding the decreased property values. He stated that there were letters of testimony from well regarded realtors that the property values would decrease. He inquired about what research or data that Mr. Mosher has to present to the contrary. Mr. McConnell stated that a realtor and appraiser who are saying that this type of facility would not dedigrate or PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 3 lower the property values of the condominiums. Mr. Mosher stated that he did not have any information with him and that at the previous meeting he did bring studies. He stated that there have been a few studies done by appraisers not just on one particular property but on a number of properties and how it may have affected the property values. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the study was updated in 1996 and was included in the Planning Board packet. Mr. McConnell stated that the study was from the Planning Department dated October 1976, and Ms. Cordill stated that it was updated in 1996. Mr. Frederick stated that the 1996 information was presented at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting and there was also information mailed to the Committee members. He clarified that Mr. Mosher presented the information to the Committee members not the Planning Office. Ms. Cordill stated that she would like to make the report available at this time to anyone who was interested in the audience. She stated that Mr. McConnell mentioned that there were letters from real estate agents on what affect a project may have. She was under the impression that the condominium residents thought there would be mentally ill, not developmentally disabled, patients living in the home. She stated that this could be a distinction and someone's perception of a group home. She asked Mr. Mosher for clarification on what kind of resident would be living at the home and how much freedom the residents would have within and outside the facility. Mr. Mosher stated that while CMH is planning on bringing development disability people into the home, but because CMH owns these homes for such long periods of time (some being 25 years) or occupied them under a lease, CMH cannot guarantee some time in the future that the residents who are placed in the home what their disabilities may or may not be. In the letter from Ms. Mary Clissoiv, everyone place in the home is screened by CMH and no one is place in a home that CMH would expect to cause harm to anyone else. CMH keeps a very close watch over the residents who need it in these types of facilities. There are some residents who can function better on their own. He stated that this is why the neighbors were told that a fence would be installed but CMH does not like to be required to install a fence. CMH makes very determined efforts to try to make sure that the services and the facility at any site are able to handle these types of residents. Mr. McConnell stated that he was still not clear on the influence of halfway houses and foster care facilities upon property values. He inquired about who gathered the data: the Planning Department or if it was independently done. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Department did the study and she was not aware that it existed. She stated that Mr. Mosher brought it to the attention of the Committee members. She stated that the Planning Department prepared the document years ago because questions like these are frequently asked. She stated that this study attempts to answer the questions so that every applicant does not have to have appraisers do the studies. The question: Do residential care facilities have a negative impact on neighborhoods? In conclusion, she stated that according to the study, the facilities do not have a negative impact on the neighborhoods. Mr. McConnell stated that his question to Mr. Mosher was: Has he and his group done an independent study? Ms. Stachowiak stated they PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 4 have not done a study. Mr. McConnell stated that it was the Planning Department who put these studies together and Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was Mr. Mosher who brought the study to the Committee's attention. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board really needed to close the Public Comment period and wait to discuss this further under the Zoning and Ordinance Committee after the report is given. Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Cordill closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS — None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — None. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. SLU-1-2004, Aurelius Rd., Special Land Use-Residential Care Facility This is a request by the Community Mental Health Authority of Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties, for a special land use permit to construct a residential care facility for up to 10 people, on a 1.8 acre site, located on the west side of Aurelius Road, between 3918 Aurelius and Hamilton Condominiums. The property is zoned "A" Residential District which permits residential care facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of rezoning. Staff recommended approval of the SLU-1-2004, a residential care facility for up to 10 people, with the following conditions: 1. Capacity of the facility be limited to ten persons; 2. Operation of the adult foster care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of adult foster care facilities; 3. The driveway be expanded to 22-feet to accommodate 2-way traffic; 4. The applicant screens the parking lot from view of the surrounding neighbors; and 5. Landscaping be planted along the Aurelius Road frontage of the site. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 5 In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. Capacity of the facility be limited to ten persons; 2. Operation of the adult foster care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of adult foster care facilities; 3. The driveway not be expanded to 22-feet, if possible; 4. The applicant screens the parking lot from view of the surrounding neighbors; 5. Landscaping be planted along the Aurelius Road frontage of the site; 6. Sidewalk be installed along Aurelius Road; 7. An aesthetically pleasing fence be constructed around the backyard; 8. A tree survey be conducted with the City Forester; 9. Large trees that are worth preserving, as determined by the City Forester, be identified and the drip lines protected with a fence prior to any construction on the site; 10. The location of the utility pole(s) near Aurelius Road be reviewed with the Board of Water and Light; 11. All exterior lighting be shielded and directed downward to prevent glare onto adjacent properties; and 12. Evergreen trees be planted along the south side of the site; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge stated that he will stop here and not go into the conditions listed. He would like to discuss this request for the rest of folks point is. He does not want the people that are in the condominium association to feel like the Board is giving them the bum's rush and didn't give them a chance to review the request and provide any further thoughts that the residents would have on it. He believes that the Board can discuss the request at the next meeting which is in 3 weeks and do it expeditiously. He does not want the residents to feel like the City was not listening to them. Mr. Frederick stated that he understands Mr. Ruge's concern and that he feels the same way. He stated that he is not sure if the condominium association understands the process. He clarified that the Board's decision tonight is going to be a recommendation to the City Council whether the special land use be granted. It is not the final word. There is still at least one Committee meeting that the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 6 Board's recommendation will go to and that is the Committee of City Council. He stated that City Council will hold a public hearing and then will vote. City Council has the option to accept, deny or the Board's recommendation in full or accept any or all of the conditions that the Board may have set on the request. The Planning Board does not have the final word. He stated that there is more than enough time for the condominium association to make their objections and concerns known to the City Council, who will ultimately make the final decision anyway. He does not see any reason to delay the request. He stated that one of the positive things about the planning process in the City of Lansing is that it is expedited and that it does not take up a lot of time and make delays for the developers and others who are trying to get things done. Often the Board receives applications like this one that is fairly complex and expensive. Just as often, the Board receives applications for simple things from ordinary neighborhood residents (i.e. selling property and having a minor problem that needs to be resolved to satisfying financing). He stated that he cannot support a motion to table the request because he believes that the condominium association has had more than enough time to have their concerns addressed. Ms. Keene stated that normally there is not discussion on a motion to table a request. Mr. Frederick apologized for the discussion. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to table SLU-1-2004, Aurelius Rd., Special Land Use - Residential Care Facility. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 2; Nays: 3. The motion did not carry. Mr. Ruge continued with the Zoning and Ordinance Committee report and listed the conditions. Mr. McConnell stated that he was obviously not present at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. He stated that he has a real problem with this request and he does not understand why no one else on the Board does. He has nothing against the mentally disabled or foster care homes. His grandmother is in a home, and he has other relatives who are mentally retarded and are in facilities. He has a problem with, on a common sense basis, the Board approving a request and relying on information that is almost PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 7 30 years old. He stated that it was information from 1976 that was updated in 1990. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is not up to the City to...... she was interrupted by Mr. McConnell. He stated that he was talking. He has a real problem with the Board relying on information that is almost 30 years old and was updated in 1990, which is almost 15 years old. He stated that it should be up to somebody to get updated information as to the impact, whether negative or positive, on the neighborhood and the condominiums. He stated that it is ridiculous to approve the request based on this information. He stated that if the City does not have the information, then it should be up to the developer to put the information together. He stated that there are 48 condominium owners and 2 of the top brokers in Lansing saying that the development will negatively impact the neighborhood. He stated that not to have more information and just make a decision to him is ludicrous. Ms. Cordill stated that there could be additional information and that maybe the Planning and Advisory Service would have more current information on the affects of adult care facilities in residential neighborhoods. Mr. McConnell asked what would be so hard about contacting the Michigan Association of Realtors or the Greater Lansing Association of Realtors and requesting some updated information. Ms. Cordill stated that this was another concern that she had when she was reviewing the information. Mr. McConnell interrupted Ms. Cordill and stated that it would only take 5 minutes for the Lansing Board of Realtors to give an analysis on if there was an impact over the last 26 years. He stated that to table the request for one meeting to obtain more current information is not asking for too much. Ms. Cordill stated that she saw the letters that Mr. McConnell referred to. When she read the letters, she was under the impression that maybe other Board members did not know very about the proposal and were relying on people expressing concerns about a development in their "backyard." She did not feel that the people who provided the letters were given the full picture. Mr. McConnell asked if the Board has been given the full picture if they have to rely on this information. To him, he has not been given the full picture, and he stated that he is not going to make a decision voting aye or nay when he has to rely on information that is 26 years old. Ms. Cordill thanked Mr. McConnell for his input. She stated that he has made himself clear on the matter and that the Board knows where he is coming from. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Zoning Ordinance sets up 9 criteria which are to be used PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 8 to evaluate special land use permits. The Board has 9 criteria set up by the Ordinance that is to be used to evaluate this request. Staff determined that it did comply with the criteria and the Committee agreed with staff's decision. Ms. Stachowiak stated that if Mr. McConnell disagreed with the decision, then he could vote nay on the request. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City has never required the developer to go out and pay for (nor did she know if it was legal) a study to determine the impact on the neighbors just because the perception is a negative impact on their property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not know what information the realtors were given nor what they used to make their determinations. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. McConnell was making her regret that she even passed out the study. Mr. McConnell stated that was her business that the information was passed out, and that the Board is relying on this information. Ms. Stachowiak stated not necessarily and that the Board is relying on the 9 criteria set up in the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the staff made the recommendation before they knew the study existed. Mr. McConnell interrupted Ms. Stachowiak, and stated that she said that the developer, Mr. Mosher, gave her the study. Ms. Stachowiak continued and stated that when the Zoning Ordinance Committee made its recommendation, they had not seen the study and neither had staff. Ms. Cordill struck the gavel to maintain order. Mr. Frederick stated that he was happy to read the study and that regardless of the study's age he believed it was meaningful. He had not read the study and was not even aware of it when he met with the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting to evaluate the full extent of what he believed his authority was on which he based his decision, which was what was in the Zoning and Ordinance code. He stated that this issue did come up and that the Committee's authority is limited. Maybe the City Council can take up the issue or maybe not. He does not know City Council's authority. He stated that as nice as the study was, he does not think that he has the authority to make a decision based on whether this development is going to affect property values one way or another, because this is not a criteria that he has an authority to base his decision on. He stated that the Committee went through the criteria and discussed them at length. He reviewed the criteria and visited the site. He did not see anything that would allow him to vote against the request based on the Zoning and Ordinance criteria. He stated that he also visited one of the applicant's other facilities located at Coulson Court, and that it took him a couple of minutes to figure out PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 9 that it was even a facility. It fit into the neighborhood so well. He stated that it was larger than the other houses and that it was amongst the best houses on the entire length of Coulson Court. When he saw this, the only thing that he became absolutely sure of what that he would like to change condition number 3 where it says "the driveway not be expanded to 22 feet, if possible." He would like the words "if possible" be struck from the record. He stated that the reason was a 22 foot driveway would detract from the residential nature of the development. He sees no reason to require a 22 foot driveway on a residential facility where it is not required under any residential development. He realizes that special land uses allow conditions and he stated that there were a lot of meaningful conditions listed for this request but he believes that all of them added to the residential nature than detract from it. He does not see where there would be any huge traffic issue that a 22 foot driveway is needed. What helped him to change his mind was the facility that he looked at on Coulson Court has a 12 foot driveway. When he was at this facility, there were 2 vehicles parked in the driveway. Clearly these vehicles were there because they belonged to the staff. He stated that the facility he visited looks so much like the plan that the applicant submitted and that the only real difference is that the driveway is not as long. He does not see any reason to deny the request and he does not see anything that gives him the authority to do anything except vote in favor of it. He stated that something can be developed at this site and the Zoning Ordinance says this is one of the things that can be constructed there. He stated that the Committee put in quite a few meaningful conditions and he urged the Board to support the request. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she prepared the report and that her name was on the public hearing notices that were mailed. The notices went out the second week in February and no one from Hamilton Condominium Association has contacted her requesting any information whatsoever about this development. It has been almost 6 weeks. Ms. Cordill inquired about who sees the staff report and when it is released to the public. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Zoning and Ordinance Committee meets on Wednesday and the full staff report is completed at least a week ahead of time. In this case, it was done 2 weeks ahead of time. She stated that the full staff report is available to anybody who would like a copy of it and that it is a matter of public record. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 10 The Planning office always provides the applicants with a copy and anyone else who asks for it. The Planning Office does not usually charge for the copy. Ms. Cordill stated that the public does have an opportunity to see the staff report and recommended conditions. Ms. Stachowiak stated absolutely. Anything in the case file is available to the public. She stated that nobody at the Hamilton Condominium Association has asked for any information regarding this case. She mentioned that Forrest View Neighborhood Association, located on the east side of Jolly Road, asked for information. She stated that the President of the association contacted her and wanted copies of all the information. She provided the information and answered their questions. She stated that if the Board will notice, no one from the Hamilton Condominium Association has been here. It would have given the City an opportunity to respond to their concerns. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not know what information the realtors had but they did not receive anything from her. Ms. Cordill stated that Ms. Stachowiak was the contact person for this case. Mr. McConnell stated that when the 48 individuals signed this petition and the 2 letters from the realtors arrived at the Planning Office, he asked if Ms. Stachowiak had contacted any of the people. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not and that she does not do that. Mr. Frederick stated that it would not be proper (protocol ????). Ms. Cordill stated one more question quickly for Mr. McConnell. Mr. McConnell inquired about Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff report has been done and would you like to see a copy of the recommendations. He stated that since there are obviously some issues, 48 who signed the petition and 2 letters of concern, here is the staff report, mail a copy to them, and would you like to see what was recommended. He asked her if that would not be appropriate. Ms. Stachowiak stated that normally she does not do this, and that at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting Jeff is the President of the association. She stated that she gave Jeff a copy of the completed staff report. Ms. Keene inquired about the number of square feet of the facility. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was listed in the staff report as 5,333 square feet for a single story facility. Ms. Keene inquired about where on the property the building would be located. Ms. Stachowiak referred to the map. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 11 Ms. Keene inquired about approximately how many feet the new facility would be from the side property line of the condominiums. Ms. Stachowiak stated it would be approximately 60 feet from the side of the building to Hamilton condominium side property line. Ms. Cordill inquired about the required side yard for the facility. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the required side yard is 10 feet. Ms. Cordill stated that the applicant has exceeded the side yard requirement. Ms. Cordill inquired if there would be any signage associated with the facility or if it would be just an address. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be just an address at this point and that the applicant would not be allowed any ground signage for the building. She stated that the applicant would be allowed a wall sign and that it would have to be a very small sign. Ms. Cordill asked Mr. Mosher to address the question. Mr. Mosher stated that do not put signs on the homes. Mr. Frederick stated that the facility located on Coulson Court looked so much like a residence that he had to stop and look real hard to figure out that he was looking at the facility because it looked so much like a home. The only reason that he could tell was that the facility was larger than the rest of the properties. He stated that the facility looked just like a residence. He walked this piece of property and was challenged by neighbors while doing it. He stated that the facility was large enough that he does not believe that this would really be noticeable to anyone living in this area. He referred to the diagram. He stated that there are some lots marked off to the north of this property. He found this to be puzzling because they are land-locked. When he looked at the lots, he found that the lots are owned by land owners along the street to the north (Rex Street). He stated that when one gets to the north and west edges of the property, the houses are a long ways away. He believes that no one will notice that this facility is here, and if it was noticed, he does not believe that it will be a problem. He stated that this would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Ms. Cordill inquired about a friendly amendment to the driveway. Mr. Frederick recommend the friendly amendment and Mr. Ruge accepted it. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 12 Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to have condition number 7 removed because he believes that CMH can determine whether or not a fence is needed. Mr. Frederick stated that he would accept it if the condition would read, that "if a fence is constructed, that it be of an aesthetic nature." This would give the applicant the ability to decide whether or not a fence is needed. Ms. Cordill inquired about aesthetically pleasing as in a wood fence or a wrought iron fence and if the Board should be specific. Mr. Frederick stated that he brought up at the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting that there is an office and treatment facility located on Jolly Road, west of Pennsylvania Avenue, and that there is a large yard/open area in the back. He stated that the applicant constructed a partially around it and half way in a green chain link fence. He stated that green is not a good color and chain link is not aesthetically pleasing. He made a recommendation to change aesthetically pleasing to "the type of fence that would be residentially aesthetically pleasing" or the kind of fence that could be found in a residential neighborhood. He stated no chain link or cyclone fences. He does not want to go to the length of making of list of fences that could not be installed. He felt that this would limit the responsibility and authority that CMH would have to make their own determination. He does not want to see something that would he would not want to look at if he were to look out his back window. Mr. Stachowiak stated that the condition would read: "if a fence is to be constructed that it be the type that would normally be found in a residential setting, specifically that no chain link or cyclone fences be permitted." Mr. Ruge accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Keene stated that with adverse property value, she is troubled with that whole concept. She has seen so many projects whenever something is being constructed the first thing that the neighbors want to say is that this would have a negative impact on the property value. Historically, people jump to this conclusion. Given how CMH tends to take real good care of their properties and these properties look nice, she does not see how this would have an adverse impact on the property values. The other thing that concerns her is that perhaps some of the residents did purchase the condominiums because they like the idea of having a forest in their back yard. The residents cannot control the fact that they do not own the property, and if they want to continue to see a forest in their back yard then they should have purchased this property. To her, this is not a good enough reason to deny the request when it would be an asset to the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 13 area. The City does need residential-type facilities for CMH clients. She is in support of the request. She stated that City Council would decide and that the Board is just making recommendations. (Note: Sue, please double check the wording — I think I missed one — maybe #3??) Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of SLU-1-2004, Aurelius Rd., Special Land Use-Residential Care Facility with the following conditions: 1) Capacity of the facility be limited to ten persons; 2) Operation of the adult foster care facility must meet all federal, state, and local ordinances for the licensing of adult foster care facilities; 3) The driveway not be expanded to 22-feet, if possible; 4) The applicant screens the parking lot from view of the surrounding neighbors; 5) Landscaping be planted along the Aurelius Road frontage of the site; 6) Sidewalk be installed along Aurelius Road; 7) If a fence is to be constructed that it be the type that would normally be found in a residential setting, specifically that no chain link or cyclone fences be permitted; 8) A tree survey be conducted with the City Forester; 9) Large trees that are worth preserving, as determined by the City Forester, be identified and the drip lines protected with a fence prior to any construction on the site; 10) The location of the utility pole(s) near Aurelius Road be reviewed with the Board of Water and Light; 11) All exterior lighting be shielded and directed downward to prevent glare onto adjacent properties; and 12) Evergreen trees be planted along the south side of the site. Frederick . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 1; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the motion is carried. It will go to City Council and be scheduled for a public hearing some time in April. Mr. Frederick made a suggestion that the Hamilton Condominium Association be advised of the date of the public hearing. Ms. Stachowiak stated that post cards will be sent out to everyone who received (???????) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 14 b. LS-2-2004, 909 Cleveland & 1215 E. Oakland This is a request by William & Joyce Snider. The applicant is proposing to split off the west 43 feet of the property at 909 Cleveland and combine it with the property at 1215 E. Oakland, resulting in the following legal descriptions: 909 Cleveland: The east 89 feet of Lot 10, Block 2, Plat of Rouse's Subdivision of Lot 13 of Seymour Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. 1215 E. Oakland: The west 42 feet of Lot 11 & the west 43 feet of Lot 10, Block 2, Rouse's Subdivision of Lot 13 of Seymour Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Section 1236.07(c) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot depth of 100 feet. If approved, the property at 909 Cleveland would have a lot depth of 89 feet. Section 1236.07(d) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, the property at 1215 E. Oakland would have a width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.96. Therefore, variances from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations are requested. Staff recommended approval of LS-2-2004, 909 Cleveland & 1215 E. Oakland In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Frederick stated that there appears to be a practical difficulty that this request is no fault to the property owner. This is an old part of the City and the property lines were drawn a long time ago. He believes that there is nothing that could be done in any other way to make the properties meet the required width to depth ratio. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of LS-2-2004, 909 Cleveland & 1215 E. Oakland. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 15 Next meeting, Wednesday, April 14, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. McConnell, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Ms. Stachowiak stated that City Council did approve Z-15-2003. She will keep the Board informed from this point on as to what happens with the cases. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25,2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29,2003) e. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20,2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd. -landscaping & buffering (May 20, 2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage(August 19,2003) e. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) f. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home (January 20,2004) Ms. Stachowiak stated that the previous Code Compliance Officer for this area, Ms. Jeannie Wood, said in an email a few months ago that she would not touch the weird vehicle. The new Code Compliance Officer, Ms. Delores Fuller, stated the same thing. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she went to their boss, Ms. Eleanor Love, and informed her that this item was being held in place by boards. Ms. Love stated that the Code Compliance Office will not be doing anything about it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has no choice but to drop the issue. Ms. Stachowiak PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 16 stated that this was not the first time the issue was brought up. Somehow through the years the Code Compliance Office has determined since the property has been used for 30 years for automotive repair and because this vehicle has been at the same location predating the ordinance, it was all grandfathered in. Code Compliance will not touch it. Mr. McConnell commented that Ms. Stachowiak has sent the email to Ms. Fuller asking about some of the issues the Board has presented. He stated that the Board is still not getting answers (i.e. church on Jolly Road). Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board was given an update at the last meeting regarding the church on Jolly Road. She stated that she sent a letter to the church given them 30 days to take down the sign and cease all church services. She cannot make the church remove the Budda statue but she can have the church take down the sign and stop the church services. She stated that the church has not complied with her letter and that the home is being monitored. Mr. McConnell stated that he would like a copy of the letter and asked if it could be brought to the next meeting. Mr. McConnell inquired about the tree trimming business on Jolly Road. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has not received an update the Code Compliance Office. However, she stated that she did receive updates on Super Wheel Auto Sales and Muffler Man, and she passed them out at the last meeting. She did update the Board regarding the church and the weird truck. She stated that there are a few left. Mr. McConnell stated that with the Muffler Man issue Ms. Stachowiak had said that they were in violation. Ms. Stachowiak stated that at the last meeting a Code Compliance Officer did view the site and that the person was out of town. She stated that the person did contact the Code Compliance Office and was informed of the City's regulations and if they want to pursue selling vehicles. Ms. Stachowiak also stated that Muffler Man is zoned for selling just cars but they have to install the required improvements which is only landscaping. Ms. Stachowiak did provide Muffler Man with the landscaping requirements and the Code Compliance Officer did give them 30 days to respond with a plan or to be rid of all the cars on the site. Mr. McConnell inquired about this notice being telephoned or in written documentation. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Dave Vincent visited with the owner in person and then he called Ms. Stachowiak to get the requirements. Mr. McConnell asked if a letter was sent by Ms. Stachowiak. She stated that she has not sent Muffler Man any letters. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she faxed Muffler Man the requirements. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2004 Page 17 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill requested an excused absence from the next meeting, April 6. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Cordill for the April 6th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that 201 Jones Street, a corner lot, has a 6 foot wooden fence along the one side up against the sidewalk. Mr. Ruge stated that 1340 Eureka Street has trash and a junk car in the driveway. Mr. Ruge stated that 200 Clifford Street has 2 junk cars. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.031604.doc Approved as written 4-20-04 Draft to Clerk March 12,2004 Approved April 6,2004 To Clerk April 20,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, March 2, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Wynant. C. Excused absences: Keene. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Keene for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-1-2004, Aurelius Road, Special Land Use - Residential Care Facility This is a request by the Community Mental Health Authority of Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties, for a special land use permit to construct a residential care facility for up to 10 people, on a 1.8 acre site, located on the west side of Aurelius Road, between 3918 Aurelius and Hamilton Condominiums. The property is zoned "A" Residential District which permits residential care facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of rezoning. Mr. Ruge inquired about the types of disabilities of the residents. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has only heard handicapped, and this is a question that has been asked by a lot of the neighbors. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Ruge stated there is not an elevation of what the building would look like and that he would like for the property to have residential character rather than institutional. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this was a question asked of the applicant. She stated that it will be a single-story facility and that the applicant will try to keep with the residential character, not only for the surrounding area but also for the residents who will live at the facility. The applicant also has other facilities in the City that are identical to this facility and are listed in the completed staff report. Mr. Robert Mosher, applicant and resident of 6168 Cottage Drive, stated that he works with Community Mental Health regarding these homes. He was very fortunate in finding this property and because of it being larger, there were adequate set backs. The property was on the market in August 2003 when the partnership fell apart and he was able to purchase the property last November. He looks for the larger lots because he likes to have the set backs more than what is required by code. The only area that was close was some of the parking spaces in one corner of the driveway. This home will look much like the facility at Coulson Court. One would not know that it was a residential care facility unless one could spot the high volume vans for wheel chairs. He tries to keep the homes so that they fit into the area. The facility will be a one-story because it needs to be all barrier free. The front side is intended to be bricked and siding would cover the rest of the home. He tries to build a very good quality home because over 25 years usually 40% of the cost would be in maintenance and utilities. He likes to own the home because it is less expensive and he does a much better job than someone who is providing care on contract. The home is sized to hold 12 residents. He likes for the homes to be a bit larger than what is absolutely necessary so that the clients are not crowded. Ms. Mary Clissoiv, Residential Services Supervisor for Community Services for the Developmentally Disabled (an agency of Community Mental Health), stated that she did bring a photograph of the home located on Loretta Street. The residents have developmental disabilities and this covers three types of disabilities: mental retardation, autism, and cerebral palsy. CMH certainly operates homes for other people but the purposes in this instance would be for residents with these types of needs. Staffing would be 24 hours a day because the residents need quite a bit of assistance for meeting their basic needs. The residents need help from staff for cooking and cleaning, and some instances for bathing, dressing or eating. With a licensed facility, there is a requirement for staff whenever the residents are in the home. Ms. Foster inquired about traffic flow. Ms. Clissoiv stated that a typical routine for the day would be activities outside the home for the residents. If the residents are of school age, between 18 years to 26 years, there may be a bus. If the residents are over the age of 26 years, more than likely staff would provide the transportation. There would be traffic in the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page 3 morning. There would be one or two staff members who would be at the facility during the daytime. Around 3:00 p.m., the residents would return and majority of staff would arrive for their shift around 3:00 p.m. If there were outside activities in the evening in the community, there may be a little bit of traffic. There would be a shift change around 11:00 p.m. and another one in the morning. Staff meetings would be held every other week at the home so there may be more traffic on those days. Ms. Foster stated that the plan shows a single driveway and Transportation is asking that it be widened to 22 feet. She inquired about having enough traffic to only need a one-lane driveway. Ms. Clissoiv stated that the submitted site plan shows a circle drive so people could pull in and pull out. Ms. Clissoiv stated that there is not a two-way driveway in any of the settings and that it should not be a problem. Mr. Jeff Spitz, resident of 4117 Ruth Street, inquired about how similar this house would be to the one located at 634 MAC, East Lansing. Ms. Clissoiv stated that the residents at MAC, East Lansing are people primarily with a diagnosis of mental illness as opposed to a developmental disability. He also inquired about CMH owning the house and if a special use permit is granted, would there be a guarantee that the home is not going to change from a place for people with disabilities to a place for people with mental illnesses. He inquired about restrictions preventing CMH from changing who inhabits the home. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there will be nothing preventing the home to change from one to another, and that this is something that can be further researched. He stated that he works in East Lansing and that the Police Department responds to the MAC home. There are approximately 3 to 12 phone calls per week to this residence. His property abuts the property to the home and he has concerns. He stated that if it is a home for disabilities (i.e. mentally retarded, autistic), he does not have an issue with it. Once CMH receives their use permit, he does not want the residency to change. He is aware that it is really hard to find property for those with mental illnesses. He stated that Aurelius Road is a very busy street and that there is a store across the street. He asked the Board to consider the safety of the residents when they cross Aurelius Road. The MAC residents can come and go as they please and they wander the streets aimlessly. This is a big concern for him. Ms. Valerie Spitz, resident of 1908 Rex Street, stated that she is concerned with this area and that 42 years ago this was a very flood prone area. The water backed up to the rear doors of the residents on Rex Street. The people in the neighborhood paid a tax to have a drain system constructed (Robinson Drain). This is in the area where the home would be built. She inquired about the home being built on this site and if there PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page 4 would be the possibility of flooding. She does not want to see this happen. The apartments were built up on Aurelius Road, and if the home does the same, the neighbors would probably be flooded again. She stated that the Board needs to take this into consideration. There are a lot of families who live in the area and they do not want to take a chance again of becoming flooded. She stated that she has no problem with a home being constructed in this area as long as there is no flooding and CMH sticks to what they say about the type of residents that would be at this site. Ms. Foster stated that the water that falls on the site would have to be dealt with. Mr. Jeff Trust, President of the Hamilton Condominium Association, stated that he represents 46 units and currently would like to ask for a postponement on the decision. He would like to gather as much information as possible so that it can be presented to the community members to answer any questions or concerns that they may have regarding the development. He would also like to see a picture of the proposed development. He has several pictures of existing properties, and has personally visited two of the sites. He stated that the facilities seem to be well maintained. He stated that there are concerns about traffic on the street because it does get busy especially during the rush hour. It can take several minutes for someone to exit the community. The party store across the street generates a lot of activity and it also generates several robberies throughout the year. He stated that this may be a concern for the residents at the new facility. He stated that as far as the flood zone area, there is at least a 12 foot difference between his land and the proposed development property. All the water from the Hamilton Condominium community and the surrounding areas drain down into the proposed 1.8 acre lot. When there are heavy rains, one can look at this area and see that it is underground. He has lived in the community for at least 12 years and this lot has been for sale ever since he moved to the area. There has been a problem with trying to sell the property because the land is so low that for one to develop it, they would have to build the land up several feet in order for it to have proper drainage. There is an annual association meeting on March 21St and at that time he would like to present all of the information to the community members. Ms. Carol Parry, resident of 1923 Lourdes Court, stated the area where she lives is part of the Hamilton Condominium Association and that at the annual association meeting the residents would have an opportunity to review the information. She did receive a copy of the site plan and reviewed it. She could tell where the driveway and the structure would be. She wanted to know about the type of lighting that would be included PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page 5 along the driveway and if it would reflect into the windows of the area residents. She would also like to know about the landscaping plans, and if there would be a garbage dumpster placed on the property that would be emptied every week. Ms. Clissoiv stated that the driveway usually is not lighted and that there may be an outside light near the home or garage. She stated that Captain Kirby's is used for trash disposal and that they would pick up the trash during normal business hours. She also stated that the lots are usually landscaped nicely and that currently there is not a final landscape plan. There was a discussion about having cedar or pine trees along the driveway. For this group of people, they would need a fence so that they would have the freedom to go out into the yard without staff supervision. There would be 2 or 3 staff on duty cooking dinner or doing laundry and this way the residents would not have to wait to go outside. If there is a fence, then staff would not have to worry about Aurelius Road for safety reasons. Ms. Jill Bronkan, resident of 1901 Lourdes Court and member of the Hamilton Condominium Association Board, stated that she would also like a postponement for a month so that the association can discuss the development at the annual meeting on March 21St. She stated that this facility would affect approximately 15 to 20 condominiums. The units are in a long row and the residents can see out into the woods. The condos are situated so that they are faced to the back, and they have 20 foot tall windows. The views and privacy are very important and valuable to the residents. The neighborhood is very quiet. Many of the residents would be affected by the way the home would be situated on the lot because the home would not be up against the road like a normal home. It would be perpendicular to Aurelius Road and along the row of the condominiums. It will affect a number of people. Ms. Foster recommended that CMH meet with the Hamilton Condominium Association and present all their information regarding this development. She stated that maybe this would help the residents to understand what the development would be like, and that this would open the doors of communication between them. Ms. Cordill inquired about the petition and if the home could be changed to a home with people with mental illnesses. Mr. Mosher stated that in the system there are homes that have been owned for over 20 years and that he cannot predict what would happen. Most of the homes are intended to be kept for another 20 years. Usually one does not want to change the use of a home because it means a complete re-licensing. If the population was changed then the home would have to be completely vacated and brought up to the standards of the different population and need new licenses. The homes tend to stay in the same type of use but there is nothing that can guarantee what would happen in the future. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page 6 Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred SLU-1-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on March 10, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. LS-2-2004, 909 Cleveland & 1215 E. Oakland This is a lot split request by William & Joyce Snider. The applicant is proposing to split off the west 43 feet of the property at 909 Cleveland and combine it with the property at 1215 E. Oakland, resulting in the following legal descriptions: 909 Cleveland. The east 89 feet of Lot 10, Block 2, Plat of Rouse's Subdivision of Lot 13 of Seymour Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. 1215 E. Oakland: The west 42 feet of Lot 11 & the west 43 feet of Lot 10, Block 2, Rouse's Subdivision of Lot 13 of Seymour Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. Section 1236.07(c) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot depth of 100 feet. If approved, the property at 909 Cleveland would have a lot depth of 89 feet. Section 1236.07(d) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.5 for residential lots. If approved, the property at 1215 E. Oakland would have a width to depth ratio of 1 to 2.96. Therefore, variances from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations are requested. William and Joyce Snider, applicants and residents of 330 East Main, Ionia, stated that all they are trying to do is improve from a tiny, 26 foot back yard to a yard that children could play in. Mrs. Snider stated that the property located at 909 Cleveland has already been sold and was surveyed to the fence. When the fence was constructed, she stated that they did not know about the 100 foot depth requirement and she apologized for not doing it correctly. Now they want to correct the situation. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred LS-2-2004 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on March 10, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. ACT-1-2004, Muskegon Ave., Street Reconstruction Project This is a request by the City of Lansing Public Service Department to conduct a review of a proposed reconstruction project, involving PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page 7 Muskegon Ave. which stretches from Comfort Street to Robertson Avenue, to improve the street and add storm sewer and curb and gutter. It is located substantially on property that is currently owned by the Board of Water and Light (BWL). The Act 285 review and related corresponding BWL Transfer of Jurisdiction review is necessary to: 1) Clear up ownership issues between the BWL and the City on the roadway known as Muskegon Avenue between Comfort Street and Robertson Avenue. 2) Obtain easements to the City from the Board of Water and Light and Pennsylvania Line Railroad to provide a storm sewer outlet for the proposed street improvements, and 3) Formalize arrangements to give Mac's All Car access over BWL-owned land that is presently being used as the Mac's All Car private driveway. The Planning Board will consider this matter in accordance with P.A. 285 Public Acts of 1931, as amended. Ms. Jeanine Eno, resident of 1901 Comfort Street, stated that she has concerns about this request. She has lived at her residence for over 7 years. The road being unpaved is the only thing that keeps the road safe. The cars that travel on this road go flying down the road. There are 10 kids who live in the homes on Muskegon Avenue, and she lives on the corner with her 2 kids. Because there are no sidewalks and no place for the kids to walk but on the side of the road, the gravel keeps the street safe for them to walk to each others' homes. She has spoken to a lot of her neighbors who have lived in the area for over 30 years. They are very concerned about paving the road, who would have to pay for it, and if the residents would have to pay for the gutters and curbs. She lives at the dead end of Comfort Street where Muskegon Avenue and Comfort Street cross. Muskegon Avenue runs in to her front yard and she would like to know what will happen to her front yard. She is aware that curbs and gutters will be put in. She has had 5 cars end up in her front yard in 7 years and the only thing that has kept the cars from hitting her house is the road not being paved. The dirt seems to slow them down a little bit. The neighbors requested that Board of Water and Light (BWL) put a chain on the poles at the dead end, which they did. The cars would go down to the dead end and dump their trash in the woods. She would pick up the trash from the woods and put it in her Granger to try and keep the woods cleaned up. When the cars are parked and the people go to the river to fish, they already park in front of her house, driveway, and the chained poles. She inquired about something being set up in this area and how it would be handled. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page 8 Mr. Frederick stated that this request would be referred to the Urban Development Committee and when the decision is made in Committee, he would be interested in the answers to these concerns. He believed that the concerns were legitimate and that he would like to see some solutions suggested that would handle these situations. Mr. Rieske stated that having questions now is good. If Ms. Eno came to the Urban Development Committee meeting, it gives the Planning Office time to know what the questions are and to see what can be done. He stated that there is not a Public Comments period in the Committee meetings but the public is certainly welcome to attend. He stated that questions are usually addressed during the course of the meeting and that this was not the wrong place for Ms. Eno's questions. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster referred ACT-1-2004 to the next Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on March 23, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS — None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — January 20, 2004 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the minutes of January 20, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of January 20, 2004 were APPROVED. Minutes for Approval — February 17, 2004 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of February 17, 2004 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of February 17, 2004 were APPROVED WCORRECTIONS. Pg. 7, 2nd line from the bottom, "Mayor's Office" s/b "Planning Board". PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page 9 B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, March 10, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. McConnell, Chair a. Act-11-2003, 227 E. Hazel Street, Vacate portions of Hazel & Platt Streets, Acquire portion of Riverfront Park The applicants, Sandra and Ronald Green, wish to correct encroachments of a newly constructed garage and fence on City dedicated park land (River Point Park and public right- of-way of E. Hazel and Platt Street) by acquiring the additional land, through purchase of the land for private ownership, and combining the parcels. Specifically, the applicants are requesting three (3) actions: 1. the sale of a portion of River Point Park to the applicants to eliminate the encroachment of their garage onto Park property. 2. the vacation of the west 26.45' of the Platt Street ROW to eliminate the encroachment of the driveway and fence, located in the ROW on the east side of the property at 227 E. Hazel. 3. the vacation of the north 7' ± of the Hazel Street ROW to eliminate the encroachment of the fence, located just north of the sidewalk south of (in front of) 227 E. Hazel. Parcel A is the applicants' property, a platted parcel, 33' x 99' (3,267 square feet), at 227 E. Hazel Street. Parcel B would include a 350.7 square foot (6' x 33' + 25.45') strip along the front of 227 E. Hazel St., plus sections of River Point Park and Platt St., 3959.25 square feet [(33' x 33') + (25.45' x 33' + 99')], totaling 4,309.95 square feet. The combined parcels would result in a 7,226.25 square foot lot, more than doubling the size of the existing lot of record. Staff recommended approval, with modifications and conditions, of the street vacations requested by the applicants, and denial of their request to purchase parkland. In Committee, the following recommendations were made: 1. denial of the request by Sandra and Ronald Green that the City sell any portion of River Point Park, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page_10 2. the vacation of the west 16.45 feet of the Platt Street ROW that is directly adjacent to the applicant's property at 227 E. Hazel Street, conditioned on the following: A. the garage and associated concrete be removed from the River Point Park property, B. the current site of the garage be restored, including filling to the surrounding grade with top soil and seeding with an acceptable mixture, as directed by the Parks Department, C. all fencing located within the Platt Street ROW that is not to be vacated shall be removed, 3. the conveyance of an easement to the applicant, authorizing access across the adjacent parking area of River Point Park to the applicant's rear yard, and stating that the City will not be responsible for any maintenance activities or improvements within the easement area needed to facilitate the applicant's access to the rear yard, 4. the vacation of the north seven feet of the Hazel Street ROW that is directly adjacent to the applicant's property at 227 Hazel St. and the portion of the Platt St. ROW to be vacated, conditioned on the removal of any fencing located within the Hazel Street ROW that is not to be vacated, 5. that no street ROW be vacated, and that no easement be granted, unless all the foregoing conditions are satisfied by the applicant on or before September 1, 2004. and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Rieske clarified that the Committee recommendation was for the denial of the request to sell park property and approval, with modifications and conditions, of the vacation of portions of Platt and Hazel Streets. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend denial of Act-11-03, 227 E. Hazel Street, Vacate portions of Hazel & Platt Streets, Acquire portion of Riverfront Park with the following conditions: 1) Denial of the request by Sandra and Ronald Green that the City sell any portion of River Point Park; 2) The vacation of the west 16.45 feet of the Platt Street ROW that is directly adjacent to the applicant's property at 227 E. Hazel Street, conditioned on the following: a) the garage and associated concrete be removed from the River Point Park property, b) the current site of the garage be restored, including filling to the surrounding grade with top soil and seeding with an acceptable mixture, as PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page 11 directed by the Parks Department, c) all fencing located within the Platt Street ROW that is not to be vacated shall be removed; 3) The conveyance of an easement to the applicant, authorizing access across the adjacent parking area of River Point Park to the applicant's rear yard, and stating that the City will not be responsible for any maintenance activities or improvements within the easement area needed to facilitate the applicant's access to the rear yard; 4) the vacation of the north seven feet of the Hazel Street ROW that is directly adjacent to the applicant's property at 227 Hazel St. and the portion of the Platt St. ROW to be vacated, conditioned on the removal of any fencing located within the Hazel Street ROW that is not to be vacated; and 5) that no street ROW be vacated, and that no easement be granted, unless all the foregoing conditions are satisfied by the applicant on or before September 1, 2004. Frederick . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. Ave McConnell Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Ms. Stachowiak stated that everyone signed the letter that would be sent to the Mayor's Office. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25, 2003) c. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003) e. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20,2003) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page 12 b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) c. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage(August 19, 2003) e. Pryor's Towing-time frame for completion of conditions(September 3,2003) f. Super Wheel Auto Sales-S.Cedar Street, South of Mt. Hope- heavy equipment taken off dirt&placed in parking area over gas easement(September 10,2003) g. Grand River-weird truck(September 10,2003) h. Muffler Man,Jolly& MLK-cars for sale (January 6,2004) i. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) j. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home (January 20, 2004) Ms. Stachowiak gave an update on the pending items. She asked Mr. Frederick about item 5f and if there was still a violation on the site. She stated that the Code Compliance Officer did not see any violations. Mr. Frederick stated that when he first referred this item, there was a front loader parked on what looks like a newly constructed parking lot. He inquired about whether or not it was appropriate for the owner to extend the parking lot on what is basically an empty piece of property and if a permit was needed to do it. Mr. Frederick stated that it was clearly not a parking lot when the owner started. The heavy equipment is gone and it was parked over a natural gas easement. He stated that there must be a natural gas pipe underground. He stated that someone took away the sign that said that there is an easement there or an underground line. Ms. Stachowiak gave Mr. McConnell an update on item 5h. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she sent a letter to the church, item 5i, and that she gave them 30 days to cease all church activities and find another location. She has not heard from the church yet. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Foster stated that she did complete the Planning Board evaluation and will mail it to the Planning Office. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge inquired about what was happening with Bancroft Court. Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office requested further information from the applicant and has not yet received it. He was hoping that the information would have been available at the Urban Development Committee meeting on February 24th. He stated that it is on his tentative agenda for the next Committee meeting on rd March 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page 13 Mr. McConnell stated that he met with Ms. Gretchan Cochran of the City Pulse today and that she had concerns regarding accessibility of Planning information (i.e. dates of meetings, master plan information). He stated that there were also Planning Department concerns (i.e. recommendations). She will be writing an article soon about the Planning Department. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. Rieske and Mr. Ruff spent 2 hours with Ms. Cochran this afternoon. Mr. Frederick stated that he did chat with Ms. Cochran about a week ago. Ms. Cordill complimented Mr. Rieske on the Committee meeting minutes and making them understandable. Ms. Foster inquired about the Master Plan. Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office is updating a variety of different portions of the plan, more element by element. There are some demographics work that has been completed in part pursuant to the community government project through the Mayor's Office. There is some draft language that the Planning Office is working on. The Planning Office is working with the Parks Board regarding their 5 year Master Plan update and this will be placed in the community facilities element. There is a housing task force through the Mayor's Office that is working on a variety of different things regarding market rate housing in Lansing. The Planning staff had a meeting regarding their comments as a staff in order to make suggestions for revisions and this will go into the housing element. The Planning Office is working on the consolidated plan and this plan deals more with housing assistance programs and assisted housing and the expenditure of community development funds for those ends. This will also be included in the plan. He stated that all of these items are components of the plan. The Planning Office is receiving updates on a regular basis from the community summits from Ron Whitmore and Jo Nelson. The Planning Office is working on a small Master Plan amendment along with a Neighborhood Preservation Program application for the Baker Donora which runs between Pennsylvania Avenue and Cedar Street, south of the river and north of Mt. Hope Avenue. This involves a number of activities. The Planning Office is working on Area 17 Traffic Calming and recently reviewed it. There are a variety of things that can go into Master Planning. The Planning Office has been working on the Regional Growth project in terms of the planning process but it has not been completed. Mr. Rieske stated that there are Regional Growth themes and principles relating to land use, transportation, etc. and there is a companion plan (Regional 20/25 Plan) to the Regional Growth Plan. This plans has its set of goals and objectives and the Planning Office is working towards having them being compatible with each other. He has worked with them on having more growth containment (Wise Growth) to prevent sprawl. He is hoping to move towards revitalization. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 2, 2004 Page 14 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.030204.doc APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk February 23,2004 PG 7,2"d line from the bottom, "Mayor's Office"s/b"Planning Board" Approved March 2,2004 To Clerk March 3,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, February 17, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: None. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Foster for the February 3rd meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ms. Foster stated for the record that Mr. McConnell has arrived after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) r Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS — None. �_--, c? r i C71 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — February 3, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 2 Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the minutes of February 3, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of February 3, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-1-2004, 3200 N. Grand River, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional District This is a request by Daniel Korrey to rezone the property at 3200 N. Grand River, more specifically described as: Lot 26, Westwood Subdivision No 1, City of Lansing, Eaton County, Michigan from "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the existing use of the building as an office into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommended denial of Z-1-2004, 3200 N. Grand River, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional District because the rezoning would not be consistent with the Master Plan or existing land uses in the area. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. McConnell inquired about the business still operating at the site without the rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the business can operate at the site with restrictions. One of the restrictions is that the business has to maintain its residential character and that only 50% of the floor area of the building can be used for the business. The other 50% has to be used for residential purposes. The property owner has to occupy the residential portion of the building. The restrictions were basically focused towards keeping the property as residential as possible and minimizing the office use. The business has been limited to 15 clients per day and the Planning Office has no evidence that the applicant has violated any of those conditions. Mr. McConnell inquired about the list of conditions. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the conditions were in the staff PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 3 report. Ms. Stachowiak stated that NCU-10-1991 lists the conditions and she read them aloud. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the concern of staff and Committee when the recommendation was made to deny the rezoning, was that if the rezoning was approved, the applicant would not be required to meet any of the conditions of the approved NCU. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend denial of Z-1-2004, 3200 N. Grand River, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional District. Frederick . .Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave McConnell. .Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIED. b. Ordinance Amendment - Accessory Structures Mr. Ruge stated that there wasn't anything that needed to be done tonight and that it was only being reported out of Committee so that a public hearing could be scheduled. C. Overlay District Mr. Ruge stated that in Committee, the motion was passed for the Planning Office to distribute this amendment to the effective community groups for their input before further action could be taken. Next meeting, Wednesday, March 10, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. McConnell, Chair a. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home and Emergency Shelter Programs, FY 2005 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 4 Mr. McConnell stated for the record that he and Mr. Frederick volunteered to help with the neighborhood cleanup. He stated that it is a good program and would like to have it expanded. Currently, there is not a lot of money to expand the program. Anyone else willing to help clean up the neighborhoods would be welcomed. This would do the City a lot of good. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. McConnell stated that there is a new fair housing center that is being supported by the City. He would like to make a friendly amendment to offer support, if possible, for this new center. Ms. Keene accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Foster inquired about how the budget was decided. Mr. Lysakowski stated that the current proposal for the budget is one that has been consistent with prior years' funding sources. Public services are organizations that have come to the Planning and Neighborhood Development division and inquired about funding assistance. Administration was able to have 20% of the CDBG funds assigned for Administration and that the level is currently at 14 to 15 percent. Development is trying to keep administration funding as low as possible in order for Development to spend more on bricks and mortar. Ms. Foster stated that this is a typical budget and that by spreading things too thin, not much may get done. She inquired about having more funds designated to a specific area in hopes of more being accomplished. Mr. Lysakowski stated that the Development Office has been pretty successful with what is being done, and that there is an evaluation at the end of the fiscal year. If there are left over funds in certain areas, the funds would need to be readjusted and transferred to other areas (i.e. public improvements, urban development). He stated that a public hearing is held to obtain comments from Lansing citizens so that the City knows its direction based on the needs of the citizens. Ms. Stachowiak inquired about which department the new center was affiliated with. Mr. McConnell stated that Human Relations was overseeing the center. One of the items that is needed by the new center is financial support. One of the items in the budget is money for fair housing initiatives, and he would like to see some of the funds used for the new center. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Lysakowski stated that the department did finally receive allocation of these funds. The only adjustment from what was presented at the UDC meeting is that there is approximately an additional $2,500 in CDBG funds. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to recommend approval of Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home and Emergency Shelter Programs, FY 2005 with the condition that the City offer support for the new fair housing center. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Aye Keene Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave McConnell Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, February 24, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Ms. Stachowiak stated that if Board members have not already turned in their evaluations, she would like to have them by the next meeting. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25, 2003) c. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003) e. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20,2003) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 6 b. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) c. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage (August 19, 2003) e. Pryor's Towing-time frame for completion of conditions(September 3,2003) f. Super Wheel Auto Sales-S. Cedar Street, South of Mt. Hope-heavy equipment taken off dirt&placed in parking area over gas easement(September 10, 2003) g. Grand River-weird truck(September 10,2003) h. Muffler Man, Jolly& MLK-cars for sale (January 6,2004) i. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) j. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home(January 20,2004) 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Amendments to the Planning Board Rules of Administrative Procedure Ms. Stachowiak stated that there has not been more than three members on the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for a long time. At one time t there were four members on the Urban Development Committee. This creates a problem when one Board member is absent. There have been a few situations where there was not a quorum and the members who were present were not able to take action. Under the proposed amendment, instead of three members being a majority of the four, it would take a majority of the seated quorum in order to make decisions. From this, instead of taking three people to make decisions for the Committee, two would be able to make decisions if there were only three members total on the Committee. Whatever the Board decides is final. This would not go before City Council. Ms. Cordill inquired about the new information being different from what was in the packet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the new information was written differently. Mr. McConnell stated that in a discussion with Mr. Rieske the issue had come up before but no action was taken. He mentioned absentee voting and if a member was not present at a meeting could still vote on a particular issue. He is not sure whether or not this could be interjected in conjunction with the administrative procedure. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there does not need to be action taken this evening, and that the issue could be addressed at the next meeting if Board members are not prepared to take action. Mr. Frederick inquired about the absentee voting. Ms. Keene stated that she picks up information from the audience and other Committee members that she had not thought about. She believes that it is important to have the deliberation process. Mr. McConnell stated that by not being in attendance, one would not have the whole picture. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this type of voting has never been done. Mr. Ruge stated that it could be a workable idea if a person could by telephone listen to the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 7 meeting and take part in it. He agreed that a lot of information is picked up at the meetings. Ms. Stachowiak stated that someone could be placed on speaker phone but she was not sure of how well the discussion would be picked up. Mr. Frederick stated that he has done this before and if two people were absent then two speakers would need to be set up. In his experience, it was never as good as being present at the meeting to have the interaction between the applicants and staff. There is always more information that keeps surfacing. Ms. Foster inquired about what would happen if only two members were on the Committee. This would almost allow the Boards to become smaller. There needs to be something to say that the Boards need to be filled. She stated that there should be a time limit. Mr. Frederick stated that this is only for the Committees and not the Planning Board. The only alternative, if there are not enough people in attendance at the Committee to make a recommendation to the full Board, then the options would be to convene to the Committee of the Whole or have the Committee meeting before the Board meeting and hope for everyone to be in attendance. Ms. Foster stated that the Committee should have four members so that if one member is absent, it would not be big deal. Currently, there are only three Committee members and when one is absent, it becomes a bigger issue. She believes that because there is not a full Board it is more of a problem. Mr. Frederick stated that there have always been three Committee members, even when there was a full Board. Mr. Ruge stated that he remembers when there were eight Board members and there were four members on each Committee. Ms. Keene stated that when she started on the Board, there were eight members and four members on each Committee. Ms. Foster stated that there needs to be something written forcing the Mayor's Office to take action. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it could be written to have not less than two members constitute a majority. She also stated that the Board could ask that their concerns regarding membership on the Board be sent to the Mayor's Office. A letter on behalf of the Board can be drafted and sent to the Mayor. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there are no time constraints for action on this item. Mr. Frederick stated that he was in agreement with sending the Board's concerns to the Mayor's Office. If there are not enough members on the Board and there is no quorum, then business slows down. This is not good for the City. Citizens would become annoyed and they should expect a prompt flow of business. Even if the application is denied, citizens should know where they are in the process. Ms. Cordill stated that one of the concerns was a Committee not being able to meet, and she appreciated Mr. Frederick sitting in on her behalf when she couldn't make the last meeting. Because there are only three members on the Committee and the existing language is such that there needs to be three members for a quorum, she inquired about adding a stop-gap now so that at least two out of three members would be able to forward a recommendation to the ' Planning Board. Ms. Stachowiak stated that business needs to be done. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 8 Ms. Foster agreed. Ms. Keene stated that the Board needs to keep business moving and that she values the input from the audience. There is not as much input when there are only two Committee members versus having three members. There are not enough ears and eyes to review the information. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the Proposed Amendments to the Planning Board Rules of Administrative Procedure with the condition that the maximum membership would be four and that the minimum membership would be two. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Ruge stated that under the Committee of the Whole, it should read consistent with the majority of the total City board membership instead of community membership. He stated that community membership would be whoever is present at the time. Ms. Cordill inquired about the purpose of the Committee of the Whole. Ms. Stachowiak stated that every case has to go through a Committee. There have been a few instances where the Zoning and Ordinance Committee could not meet. Rather than delaying the case until the next month when the Committee can meet, it is brought to Committee of the Whole for discussion. Mr. Frederick stated that ordinarily the Committee of the Whole meets when the whole Board is seated. When there is not a majority seated, then the Committee of the Whole could not meet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the same rules apply as they would for the entire Board. If there is no majority of the Board, then a meeting could not be held. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. McConnell inquired about the Code Member Notification Reports and updates from the department and stated that lately there has been some slacking. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she gave an update at the last meeting but Mr. McConnell was not present. She stated that she will have more information at the next meeting. Mr. Ruge stated that the weird truck on Grand River has been moved. It is still in the same area. It used to be parked at an angle but now has been parked straight in so that the nose of the vehicle faces the street. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 9 Mr. McConnell inquired about updates from the last meeting and if Ms. Stachowiak had the correspondence with her. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not have the correspondence with her and that the items had been stricken off the agenda pending list. Mr. Frederick stated that it was the sign being constructed on the grounds of the Beekman School. He stated that the school did have a permit for the sign. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.021704.doc Draft to Clerk February 23,2004 Approved 2004 To Clerk 2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers r— Lansing City Hall Tuesday, February 17, 2004 Ul y 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: None. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Foster for the February 3rd meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ms. Foster stated for the record that Mr. McConnell has arrived after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS — None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — February 3, 2004 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 2 Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the minutes of February 3, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of February 3, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-1-2004, 3200 N. Grand River, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional District This is a request by Daniel Korrey to rezone the property at 3200 N. Grand River, more specifically described as: Lot 26, Westwood Subdivision No 1, City of Lansing, Eaton County, Michigan from "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the existing use of the building as an office into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommended denial of Z-1-2004, 3200 N. Grand River, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional District because the rezoning would not be consistent with the Master Plan or existing land uses in the area. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. McConnell inquired about the business still operating at the site without the rezoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the business can operate at the site with restrictions. One of the restrictions is that the business has to maintain its residential character and that only 50% of the floor area of the building can be used for the business. The other 50% has to be used for residential purposes. The property owner has to occupy the residential portion of the building. The restrictions were basically focused towards keeping the property as residential as possible and minimizing the office use. The business has been limited to 15 clients per day and the Planning Office has no evidence that the applicant has violated any of those conditions. Mr. McConnell inquired about the list of conditions. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the conditions were in the staff PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 3 report. Ms. Stachowiak stated that NCU-10-1991 lists the conditions and she read them aloud. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the concern of staff and Committee when the recommendation was made to deny the rezoning, was that if the rezoning was approved, the applicant would not be required to meet any of the conditions of the approved NCU. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend denial of Z-1-2004, 3200 N. Grand River, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional District. Frederick .Ave Foster. Ave Keene Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell. .Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIED. b. Ordinance Amendment -Accessory Structures Mr. Ruge stated that there wasn't anything that needed to be done tonight and that it was only being reported out of Committee so that a public hearing could be scheduled. C. Overlay District Mr. Ruge stated that in Committee, the motion was passed for the Planning Office to distribute this amendment to the effective community groups for their input before further action could be taken. Next meeting, Wednesday, March 10, 2004 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. McConnell, Chair a. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home and Emergency Shelter Programs, FY 2005 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 4 Mr. McConnell stated for the record that he and Mr. Frederick volunteered to help with the neighborhood cleanup. He stated that it is a good program and would like to have it expanded. Currently, there is not a lot of money to expand the program. Anyone else willing to help clean up the neighborhoods would be welcomed. This would do the City a lot of good. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. McConnell stated that there is a new fair housing center that is being supported by the City. He would like to make a friendly amendment to offer support, if possible, for this new center. Ms. Keene accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Foster inquired about how the budget was decided. Mr. Lysakowski stated that the current proposal for the budget is one that has been consistent with prior years' funding sources. Public services are organizations that have come to the Planning and Neighborhood Development division and inquired about funding assistance. Administration was able to have 20% of the CDBG funds assigned for Administration and that the level is currently at 14 to 15 percent. Development is trying to keep administration funding as low as possible in order for Development to spend more on bricks and mortar. Ms. Foster stated that this is a typical budget and that by spreading things too thin, not much may get done. She inquired about having more funds designated to a specific area in hopes of more being accomplished. Mr. Lysakowski stated that the Development Office has been pretty successful with what is being done, and that there is an evaluation at the end of the fiscal year. If there are left over funds in certain areas, the funds would need to be readjusted and transferred to other areas (i.e. public improvements, urban development). He stated that a public hearing is held to obtain comments from Lansing citizens so that the City knows its direction based on the needs of the citizens. Ms. Stachowiak inquired about which department the new center was affiliated with. Mr. McConnell stated that Human Relations was overseeing the center. One of the items that is needed by the new center is financial support. One of the items in the budget is money for fair housing initiatives, and he would like to see some of the funds used for the new center. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Lysakowski stated that the department did finally receive allocation of these funds. The only adjustment from what was presented at the UDC meeting is that there is approximately an additional $2,500 in CDBG funds. Mr. McConnell made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to recommend approval of Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home and Emergency Shelter Programs, FY 2005 with the condition that the City offer support for the new fair housing center. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, February 24, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager Ms. Stachowiak stated that if Board members have not already turned in their evaluations, she would like to have them by the next meeting. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25, 2003) c. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003) e. Act-1 4-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20,2003) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 6 b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.- landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) c. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage (August 19,2003) e. Pryor's Towing-time frame for completion of conditions (September 3,2003) f. Super Wheel Auto Sales-S.Cedar Street, South of Mt. Hope-heavy equipment taken off dirt&placed in parking area over gas easement(September 10,2003) g. Grand River-weird truck(September 10,2003) h. Muffler Man, Jolly&MLK-cars for sale(January 6,2004) i. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) j. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home (January 20,2004) 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Amendments to the Planning Board Rules of Administrative Procedure Ms. Stachowiak stated that there has not been more than three members on the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for a long time. At one time t there were four members on the Urban Development Committee. This creates a problem when one Board member is absent. There have been a few situations where there was not a quorum and the members who were present were not able to take action. Under the proposed amendment, instead of three members being a majority of the four, it would take a majority of the seated quorum in order to make decisions. From this, instead of taking three people to make decisions for the Committee, two would be able to make decisions if there were only three members total on the Committee. Whatever the Board decides is final. This would not go before City Council. Ms. Cordill inquired about the new information being different from what was in the packet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the new information was written differently. Mr. McConnell stated that in a discussion with Mr. Rieske the issue had come up before but no action was taken. He mentioned absentee voting and if a member was not present at a meeting could still vote on a particular issue. He is not sure whether or not this could be interjected in conjunction with the administrative procedure. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there does not need to be action taken this evening, and that the issue could be addressed at the next meeting if Board members are not prepared to take action. Mr. Frederick inquired about the absentee voting. Ms. Keene stated that she picks up information from the audience and other Committee members that she had not thought about. She believes that it is important to have the deliberation process. Mr. McConnell stated that by not being in attendance, one would not have the whole picture. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this type of voting has never been done. Mr. Ruge stated that it could be a workable idea if a person could by telephone listen to the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 7 meeting and take part in it. He agreed that a lot of information is picked up at the meetings. Ms. Stachowiak stated that someone could be placed on speaker phone but she was not sure of how well the discussion would be picked up. Mr. Frederick stated that he has done this before and if two people were absent then two speakers would need to be set up. In his experience, it was never as good as being present at the meeting to have the interaction between the applicants and staff. There is always more information that keeps surfacing. Ms. Foster inquired about what would happen if only two members were on the Committee. This would almost allow the Boards to become smaller. There needs to be something to say that the Boards need to be filled. She stated that there should be a time limit. Mr. Frederick stated that this is only for the Committees and not the Planning Board. The only alternative, if there are not enough people in attendance at the Committee to make a recommendation to the full Board, then the options would be to convene to the Committee of the Whole or have the Committee meeting before the Board meeting and hope for everyone to be in attendance. Ms. Foster stated that the Committee should have four members so that if one member is absent, it would not be big deal. Currently, there are only three Committee members and when one is absent, it becomes a bigger issue. She believes that because there is not a full Board it is more of a problem. Mr. Frederick stated that there have always been three Committee members, even when there was a full Board. Mr. Ruge stated that he remembers when there were eight Board members and there were four members on each Committee. Ms. Keene stated that when she started on the Board, there were eight members and four members on each Committee. Ms. Foster stated that there needs to be something written forcing the Mayor's Office to take action. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it could be written to have not less than two members constitute a majority. She also stated that the Board could ask that their concerns regarding membership on the Board be sent to the Mayor's Office. A letter on behalf of the Board can be drafted and sent to the Mayor. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there are no time constraints for action on this item. Mr. Frederick stated that he was in agreement with sending the Board's concerns to the Mayor's Office. If there are not enough members on the Board and there is no quorum, then business slows down. This is not good for the City. Citizens would become annoyed and they should expect a prompt flow of business. Even if the application is denied, citizens should know where they are in the process. Ms. Cordill stated that one of the concerns was a Committee not being able to meet, and she appreciated Mr. Frederick sitting in on her behalf when she couldn't make the last meeting. Because there are only three members on the Committee and the existing language is such that there needs to be three members for a quorum, she inquired about adding a stop-gap now so that at least two out of three members would be able to forward a recommendation to the Mayor's Office. Ms. Stachowiak stated that business needs to be done. Ms. Foster agreed. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 8 Ms. Keene stated that the Board needs to keep business moving and that she values the input from the audience. There is not as much input when there are only two Committee members versus having three members. There are not enough ears and eyes to review the information. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the Proposed Amendments to the Planning Board Rules of Administrative Procedure with the condition that the maximum membership would be four and that the minimum membership would be two. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Ruge stated that under the Committee of the Whole, it should read consistent with the majority of the total City board membership instead of community membership. He stated that community membership would be whoever is present at the time. Ms. Cordill inquired about the purpose of the Committee of the Whole. Ms. Stachowiak stated that every case has to go through a Committee. There have been a few instances where the Zoning and Ordinance Committee could not meet. Rather than delaying the case until the next month when the Committee can meet, it is brought to Committee of the Whole for discussion. Mr. Frederick stated that ordinarily the Committee of the Whole meets when the whole Board is seated. When there is not a majority seated, then the Committee of the Whole could not meet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the same rules apply as they would for the entire Board. If there is no majority of the Board, then a meeting could not be held. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. McConnell inquired about the Code Member Notification Reports and updates from the department and stated that lately there has been some slacking. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she gave an update at the last meeting but Mr. McConnell was not present. She stated that she will have more information at the next meeting. Mr. Ruge stated that the weird truck on Grand River has been moved. It is still in the same area. It used to be parked at an angle but now has been parked straight in so that the nose of the vehicle faces the street. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 17, 2004 Page 9 Mr. McConnell inquired about updates from the last meeting and if Ms. Stachowiak had the correspondence with her. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not have the correspondence with her and that the items had been stricken off the agenda pending list. Mr. Frederick stated that it was the sign being constructed on the grounds of the Beekman School. He stated that the school did have a permit for the sign. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.021704.doc Approved as written 2-17-04 Draft to Clerk February 4,2004 Approved February 17,2004 To Clerk February 19,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, February 3, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Keene, Cordill. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Ruge, Foster, McConnell. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board does not have a quorum and therefore, the members who are present will only be holding the scheduled public hearing and taking public comments. She further stated that no action would be taken at this meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA- None. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-1-2004, 3200 N. Grand River, "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional District This is a request by Daniel Korrey to rezone the property at 3200 N. Grand River from "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the existing use of the building as an office into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board previously granted a Class A, NCU on the property, and as a condition of approval, required that part of the house remain residential. She said that this condition has been fulfilled. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Daniel Korrey, 3200 N. Grand River Avenue, spoke in support of his request and stated that he is a general contractor. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 3, 2004 Page 2 Ms. Cordill inquired about whether or not Mr. Korrey keeps any construction vehicles, equipment or materials on the property. Mr. Korrey stated that the only vehicles on the property are his own and that he has a site elsewhere where he keeps his supplies and equipment. Mr. Korrey also stated that his employees come to this site to pick up their paychecks and that there is not much traffic generated by this use. Ms. Cordill inquired about Mr. Korrey living in the house. Mr. Korrey stated that he does live in the house. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill closed the public hearing. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Cordill closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION - None. 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board MN.020304.wpd Draft to Clerk February 4, 2004 Approved 2004 To Clerk 2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, February 3, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Keene, Cordill. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Ruge, Foster, McConnell. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board does not have a quorum and therefore, the members who are present will only be holding the scheduled public hearing and taking public comments. She further stated that no action would be taken at this meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - None. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-1-2004, 3200 N. Grand River, "A" Residential District to Professional District This is a request by Daniel Korrey to rezone the property at 3200 N. Grand River from "A" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the existing use of the building as an office into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board previously granted a Class A, NCU on the property, and as a condition of approval, required that part of the house remain residential. She said that this condition has been fulfilled. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Daniel Korrey, 3200 N. Grand River Avenue, spoke in support of his request and stated that he is a general contractor. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 3, 2004 Page 2 Ms. Cordill inquired about whether or not Mr. Korrey keeps any construction vehicles, equipment or materials on the property. Mr. Korrey stated that the only vehicles on the property are his own and that he has a site elsewhere where he keeps his supplies and equipment. Mr. Korrey also stated that his employees come to this site to pick up their paychecks and that there is not much traffic generated by this use. Ms. Cordill inquired about Mr. Korrey living in the house. Mr. Korrey stated that he does live in the house. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Cordill closed the public hearing. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Cordill closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION - None. 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board MN.020304.wpd Draft to Clerk January 28,2004 Approved 2004 To Clerk 2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers t.... Lansing City Hall Tuesday, January 20, 2004 , 1. OPENING SESSION r - 0 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Keene, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell (McConnell arrived at approximately 7:20 p.m.). B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct. Alley This is a request by Mr. Eugene Townsend, 521 Leitram Street that the City vacate the eastern half of Bancroft Court alley and attach it to his adjoining parcel (PPN 3301-01-17-229-353) at 521 Leitram Street. The applicant filed this request in order to provide off-street parking for 3 properties (519 and 521 Leitram Street, and 737 Bancroft Court) and enhance these parking spots with brick pavers. Mr. Ruge inquired about easements and if the easements will need to be obtained in order to provide joint access for the properties involved. Mr. Rieske stated that Transportation has recommended a joint maintenance agreement and that the easements for utilities and access will have to be obtained. Ms. Ruth Hallman, resident of 1014 W. Lapeer, stated that she submitted a letter outlining the Genesee Neighborhood Association's (GNA)concerns. She approves of the work that has been done to the homes, and that the people who are occupying these homes are fine people. She is concerned about the work that has been done to the alley without proper permits, and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 2 expressed additional concerns about the houses becoming rentals because there are no driveways which would force people to park in the front yards. She stated that there is no access way for an ambulance to get to 737 Bancroft. Mr. Ruge inquired about the Genesee Neighborhood Association discussing any possible solutions to these issues. Ms. Hallman stated that no solutions were discussed. Ms. Keene inquired about how many members of the GNA were present at the meeting when this issue was voted upon. Ms. Hallman stated that there were approximately 20 members present. Ms. Jessica Yorko, resident of 521 Lietram, stated that she is a partner to Gene Townsend, applicant for this request. She stated that parking for 737 Bancroft is on the north side of 738 Bancroft and that only the south side of Bancroft alley has been bricked. The north side, which is the subject of this request, has not been altered. Mr. Ruge inquired about parking and how it will work if there are 7 to 8 cars in the lot. Ms. Yorko stated with everyone parking at an angle, they are able to pull in and back out of a parking space without any difficulty. Mr. Ruge asked if using the area behind 519 Lietram for parking had been considered. Ms. Yorko stated that it had been considered. However, it was decided that this area would be better used as a community garden. Mr. Michael Hamlin, resident of 732 W. Genesee, stated that the total space available for this project is more than enough to accommodate parking for everyone involved and that the project will provide more parking for these homes than most of the other homes in the Genesee neighborhood area. Ms. Elaine Gates, resident of 525 Lietram, stated that she wrote a letter to the Planning Board expressing her opposition to this request. She stated that there was a garage and a driveway located at 737 Bancroft that provided room for 4 cars and that this project is not in the best interests for the Genesee neighborhood. She also stated that the alley abuts her property and it would be very noisy having people start thier cars at night and in the morning. Ms. Sherry Brantley, resident of 510 Lietram, spoke in support of the request. She stated that the parking situation is working and the group is building a relationship with the neighborhood. Mr. MC Rothhorn, resident of 519 Lietram, stated that he and his wife are partners in this project and he spoke in support of the request. He stated that this project provides an opportunity for them to live in a place where they can walk to their destinations rather than drive. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 3 Ms. Karen White, resident of 800 Bancroft, stated that she lives in the last house on the east end of Bancroft Court and that she strongly supports this request. She also stated that this is a vast improvement over the previous situation. Ms. Zhewei Dai, resident of 732 W. Genesee, spoke in support of the request and stated that she believes this project is very positive for the Genesee neighborhood area. Ms. Keene inquired about howthe Fire Departmentwould access the houses that are landlocked in the event of an emergency. She also inquired about how parking was handled for 737 Bancroft when ACT-17-1996 was approved. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster closed the public hearing and referred this matter to the Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on January 27, 2004 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of January 6, 2004 with the following correction: Pg. 14, under item 10, first line, Ms. Cordill spoke about making curbs handicapped accessible. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of January 6, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-14-2003, 2721 N. Grand River Avenue &Adjacent Vacant Parcel to the West, "D-1" Professional Office, "A" & "DM- 1" Residential and "E-1" Apartment Shop Districts to "H" Light Industrial District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 4 This is a request by Liebler Construction Inc., on behalf of the owners, Gary Bauman and Alfred Buchner, to rezone the properties at 2721 N. Grand River Avenue and the adjacent, vacant parcel to the west from "D-1" Professional Office, "A" & "DM-1" Residential and "E-1" Apartment Shop Districts to "H" Light Industrial District. If approved, the applicant intends to utilize the subject parcels for mini-storage. Staff recommended denial of the request to rezone the properties to "H" Light Industrial based upon it's inconsistency with the Master Plan and surrounding land uses. It was further recommended that the Committee consider the "G-2" Wholesale District as an alternative. In Committee, Ms. Wynant stated that the "G-2" Wholesale District would also accommodate the proposed use and would be more in line with the Master Plan, and that the southern half of the subject properties are in a floodplain. The Committee members expressed a concern about the potential use of the 100 year floodplain for parking or storage. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Committee could consider leaving the floodplain area in the "A" Residential District to prevent any future use of this land for anything otherthan open space or park land. In Committee, the original request was recommended for denial. However, a recommendation was made to approve a rezoning of the entire parcel at 2721 N. Grand River and the area north of the 100 year floodplain on the vacant parcel to the west to "G-2" Wholesale District and the area within the 100 year floodplain on the vacant parcel to the west to "A" Residential. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ed Liebler, 2611 N. Grand River, stated that he intends to work with the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the use of the land to the south for future extension of the river trail. He stated that the river is one of Lansing's greatest natural resources and that it should be protected. He agreed with staff that the "G-2" Wholesale designation would be most appropriate for this property and that the floodplain on the parcel to the east was filled in during the sewer separation project. He would like this area rezoned to "G-2" as well. Mr. Ruge inquired about the location of the driveway. Mr. Liebler stated that he envisions the driveway being located near the west boundary of the subject properties and that the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 5 driveway location would need to be reviewed by the Public Service and Transportation Offices. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend denial of the original request to rezone Z-14-2003, 2721 N. Grand River Avenue and the adjacent vacant parcel to the west from "D-1" Professional Office, "A" & "DM-1" Residential and "E- 1" Apartment Shop Districts to "H" Light Industrial District; and to recommend approval of rezoning the entire parcel at 2721 N. Grand River and the area north of the 100 year floodplain on the vacant parcel to the west to "G-2" Wholesale District and the area within the 100 year floodplain on the vacant parcel to the west to "A" Residential. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene Ave Ruge. Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Z-15-2003, West 69.75 feet of 5827, 5839 & 5901 S. Pennsylvania, "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Ledy Design Group Inc., on behalf of Sonic Automotive to rezone the west 69.75 feet of the properties at 5827, 5839 & 5901 S. Pennsylvania from "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a building addition that would encroach into the existing area of the site that is currently zoned "J" Parking. Staff recommended approval of Z-15-2003, West 69.75 feet of 5827, 5839 & 5901 S. Pennsylvania, "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District. In Committee, Ms. Foster inquired about the west 69.75 feet and if it could be rezoned to "F" Commercial so that it would be consistent with the master plan. Mr. Hodges stated that it is unclear in the master plan as to how much area is planned for commercial land use and that he is not sure what the intent of the master plan was in designating the frontage as commercial and the remainder of the property as "H" Light Industrial. In Committee, Mr. Ruge inquired about what type of land uses could potentially locate in the "H" Light Industrial District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the only land use in the "H" Light PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 6 Industrial District that would be inappropriate to have near the road would be a storage yard and that is a use that would require a Special Land Use permit. Mr. Ruge stated that it would be best to rezone the entire parcels to T" Commercial. Mr. Frederick stated that determining the future land use designation of these parcels could be handled during the master plan process. In Committee, Mr. Hodges stated that by rezoning the land,the applicant would be required to install an 8-foot landscape buffer along the entire road frontage of all three parcels. He also stated that the applicant should not be displaying vehicles in the "T Parking District and therefore, this rezoning would remove an existing violation of the Zoning Ordinance. In Committee,the requestwas recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-15-2003, West 69.75 feet of 5827, 5839 & 5901 S. Pennsylvania, "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene Ave Ruge. Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. Ordinance Amendment - Wellhead Protection/Site Plan Review Mr. Ruge stated that the Planning Board held a public hearing on November 18, 2003 at which no one spoke regarding the proposed amendments. He also stated that on December 10, 2003, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee voted unanimously(3-0)to recommend approval of the amendments. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment -Wellhead Protection/Site Plan Review. Frederick . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Aye Cordill. . . Aye McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 7 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 5:15 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, January 27, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager - None D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N.Grand River Ave.,Church in the"F"Commercial District&"J" Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25,2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003,SE Corner Michigan&Washington,Lot 3,Block 111,Orig Plat,Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003) e. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20, 2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MILK Blvd.-landscaping&buffering (May 20,2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage(August 19, 2003) e. Pryor's Towing-time frame for completion of conditions (September 3, 2003) f. Super Wheel Auto Sales- S. Cedar Street, South of Mt. Hope- heavy equipment taken off dirt&placed in parking area over gas easement(September 10,2003) g. Grand River-weird truck(September 10, 2003) h. Aurelius Road- Keeps Party Store-sign (November 5,2003) i. Corner of Lathrop Street and Michigan Avenue- new party store-sign (November 5,2003) j. North Pennsylvania-Neogen-front yard parking (November 5, 2003) k. Beekman School-sign (January 6, 2004) I. Muffler Man,Jolly& MLK-cars for sale(January 6,2004) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Foster inquired about the status of the overlay zone. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she expects it to be on the February Zoning & Ordinance Committee agenda PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 8 for further discussion. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge requested an excused absence from the February 3, 2004 meeting. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to grant an excused absence to Mr. Ruge for the February 3, 2004 Planning Board meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. McConnell requested an excused absence from the February 3, 2004 meeting. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to grant an excused absence to Mr. McConnell for the February 3, 2004 Planning Board meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Frederick asked Ms. Stachowiak to thank Scott Sanford for checking on the sign at Keep's Party Store. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that no cars are parking in the front yard of the Neogen site on N. Pennsylvania site and that they are plowing the front yard. Mr. McConnell stated that there is a house on W. Jolly that is being used for a church and that there is a large statue in the front yard. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is familiar with the situation and is working with the Code Compliance Office to have the matter corrected. Mr. McConnell stated that there is a sign advertising wood for sale at a house on Jolly Road and that the owners of the house built a new garage without a building permit. They are operating a tree trimming business. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.012004.wpd Approved as written 3-2-04 Draft to Clerk January 28,2004 Approved March 2,2004 To Clerk March 3,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1. OPENING SESSION — The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. �21 v, A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Keene, Foster, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell (McConnell arrived at approximately 7:20 p.m.). B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct. Alley This is a request by Mr. Eugene Townsend, 521 Leitram Street that the City vacate the eastern half of Bancroft Court alley and attach it to his adjoining parcel (PPN 3301-01-17-229-353) at 521 Leitram Street. The applicant filed this request in order to provide off-street parking for 3 properties (519 and 521 Leitram Street, and 737 Bancroft Court) and enhance these parking spots with brick pavers. Mr. Ruge inquired about easements and if the easements will need to be obtained in order to provide joint access for the properties involved. Mr. Rieske stated that Transportation has recommended a joint maintenance agreement and that the easements for utilities and access will have to be obtained. Ms. Ruth Hallman, resident of 1014 W. Lapeer, stated that she submitted a letter outlining the Genesee Neighborhood Association's (GNA)concerns. She approves of the work that has been done to the homes, and that the people who are occupying these homes are fine people. She is concerned about the work that has been done to the alley without proper permits, and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 2 expressed additional concerns about the houses becoming rentals because there are no driveways which would force people to park in the front yards. She stated that there is no access way for an ambulance to get to 737 Bancroft. Mr. Ruge inquired about the Genesee Neighborhood Association discussing any possible solutions to these issues. Ms. Hallman stated that no solutions were discussed. Ms. Keene inquired about how many members of the GNA were present at the meeting when this issue was voted upon. Ms. Hallman stated that there were approximately 20 members present. Ms. Jessica Yorko, resident of 521 Lietram, stated that she is a partner to Gene Townsend, applicant for this request. She stated that parking for 737 Bancroft is on the north side of 738 Bancroft and that only the south side of Bancroft alley has been bricked. The north side, which is the subject of this request, has not been altered. Mr. Ruge inquired about parking and how it will work if there are 7 to 8 cars in the lot. Ms. Yorko stated with everyone parking at an angle, they are able to pull in and back out of a parking space without any difficulty. Mr. Ruge asked if using the area behind 519 Lietram for parking had been considered. Ms. Yorko stated that it had been considered. However, it was decided that this area would be better used as a community garden. Mr. Michael Hamlin, resident of 732 W. Genesee, stated that the total space available forthis project is more than enough to accommodate parking for everyone involved and that the project will provide more parking for these homes than most of the other homes in the Genesee neighborhood area. Ms. Elaine Gates, resident of 525 Lietram, stated that she wrote a letter to the Planning Board expressing her opposition to this request. She stated that there was a garage and a driveway located at 737 Bancroft that provided room for 4 cars and that this project is not in the best interests for the Genesee neighborhood. She also stated that the alley abuts her property and it would be very noisy having people start thier cars at night and in the morning. Ms. Sherry Brantley, resident of 510 Lietram, spoke in support of the request. She stated that the parking situation is working and the group is building a relationship with the neighborhood. Mr. MC Rothhorn, resident of 519 Lietram, stated that he and his wife are partners in this project and he spoke in support of the request. He stated that this project provides an opportunity for them to live in a place where they can walk to their destinations rather than drive. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 3 Ms. Karen White, resident of 800 Bancroft, stated that she lives in the last house on the east end of Bancroft Court and that she strongly supports this request. She also stated that this is a vast improvement over the previous situation. Ms. Zhewei Dai, resident of 732 W. Genesee, spoke in support of the request and stated that she believes this project is very positive for the Genesee neighborhood area. Ms. Keene inquired about howthe Fire Departmentwould access the houses that are landlocked in the event of an emergency. She also inquired about how parking was handled for 737 Bancroft when ACT-17-1996 was approved. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster closed the public hearing and referred this matter to the Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on January 27, 2004 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of January 6, 2004 with the following correction: Pg. 14, under item 10, first line, Ms. Cordill spoke about making curbs handicapped accessible. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of January 6, 2004 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-14-2003,2721 N. Grand River Avenue&Adjacent Vacant Parcel to the West, "D-1" Professional Office, "A" & "DM- 1" Residential and "E-1" Apartment Shop Districts to "H" Light Industrial District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 4 This is a request by Liebler Construction Inc., on behalf of the owners, Gary Bauman and Alfred Buchner, to rezone the properties at 2721 N. Grand River Avenue and the adjacent, vacant parcel to the west from "D-1" Professional Office, "A" & "DM-1" Residential and "E-1" Apartment Shop Districts to "H" Light Industrial District. If approved, the applicant intends to utilize the subject parcels for mini-storage. Staff recommended denial of the request to rezone the properties to "H" Light Industrial based upon it's inconsistency with the Master Plan and surrounding land uses. It was further recommended that the Committee consider the "G-2" Wholesale District as an alternative. In Committee, Ms. Wynant stated that the "G-2" Wholesale District would also accommodate the proposed use and would be more in line with the Master Plan, and that the southern half of the subject properties are in a floodplain. The Committee members expressed a concern about the potential use of the 100 year floodplain for parking or storage. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Committee could consider leaving the floodplain area in the "A" Residential District to prevent any future use of this land for anything other than open space or park land. In Committee, the original request was recommended for denial. However, a recommendation was made to approve a rezoning of the entire parcel at 2721 N. Grand River and the area north of the 100 year floodplain on the vacant parcel to the west to "G-2" Wholesale District and the area within the 100 year floodplain on the vacant parcel to the west to "A" Residential. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ed Liebler, 2611 N. Grand River, stated that he intends to work with the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the use of the land to the south for future extension of the river trail. He stated that the river is one of Lansing's greatest natural resources and that it should be protected. He agreed with staff that the "G-2"Wholesale designation would be most appropriate for this property and that the floodplain on the parcel to the east was filled in during the sewer separation project. He would like this area rezoned to "G-2" as well. Mr. Ruge inquired about the location of the driveway. Mr. Liebler stated that he envisions the driveway being located near the west boundary of the subject properties and that the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 5 driveway location would need to be reviewed by the Public Service and Transportation Offices. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend denial of the original request to rezone Z-14-2003, 2721 N. Grand River Avenue and the adjacent vacant parcel to the west from "D-1" Professional Office, "A" & "DM-1" Residential and "E- 1" Apartment Shop Districts to "H" Light Industrial District; and to recommend approval of rezoning the entire parcel at 2721 N. Grand River and the area north of the 100 year floodplain on the vacant parcel to the west to "G-2" Wholesale District and the area within the 100 year floodplain on the vacant parcel to the west to "A" Residential. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Z-15-2003, West 69.75 feet of 5827, 5839 & 5901 S. Pennsylvania, "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Ledy Design Group Inc., on behalf of Sonic Automotive to rezone the west 69.75 feet of the properties at 5827, 5839 & 5901 S. Pennsylvania from "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District. If approved,the applicant intends to construct a building addition that would encroach into the existing area of the site that is currently zoned "J" Parking. Staff recommended approval of Z-15-2003,West 69.75 feet of 5827, 5839 & 5901 S. Pennsylvania, "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District. In Committee, Ms. Foster inquired about the west 69.75 feet and if it could be rezoned to "F" Commercial so that it would be consistent with the master plan. Mr. Hodges stated that it is unclear in the master plan as to how much area is planned for commercial land use and that he is not sure what the intent of the master plan was in designating the frontage as commercial and the remainder of the property as "H" Light Industrial. In Committee, Mr. Ruge inquired about what type of land uses could potentially locate in the "H" Light Industrial District. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the only land use in the "H" Light PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 6 Industrial District that would be inappropriate to have near the road would be a storage yard and that is a use that would require a Special Land Use permit. Mr. Ruge stated that it would be best to rezone the entire parcels to T" Commercial. Mr. Frederick stated that determining the future land use designation of these parcels could be handled during the master plan process. In Committee, Mr. Hodges stated that by rezoning the land,the applicant would be required to install an 8-foot landscape buffer along the entire road frontage of all three parcels. He also stated that the applicant should not be displaying vehicles in the "J" Parking District and therefore, this rezoning would remove an existing violation of the Zoning Ordinance. In Committee,the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of Z-15-2003, West 69.75 feet of 5827, 5839 & 5901 S. Pennsylvania, "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District. Frederick . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. Ordinance Amendment - Wellhead Protection/Site Plan Review Mr. Ruge stated that the Planning Board held a public hearing on November 18, 2003 at which no one spoke regarding the proposed amendments. He also stated that on December 10, 2003, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee voted unanimously(3-0)to recommend approval of the amendments. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster, to recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment -Wellhead Protection/Site Plan Review. Frederick Ave Foster. Ave Keene Ave Ruge. Aye Cordill. Ave McConnell Ave PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 7 On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 5:15 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, January 27, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager- None D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District (Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N.Grand River Ave.,Church in the"F"Commercial District&"J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25, 2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003,SE Corner Michigan&Washington,Lot 3,Block 111,Orig Plat,Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) e. Act-14-2003, Conveyance of Bancroft Ct.Alley(Tabled on November 25,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20, 2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping& buffering (May 20,2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1, 2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage(August 19,2003) e. Pryor's Towing-time frame for completion of conditions(September 3,2003) f. Super Wheel Auto Sales- S. Cedar Street, South of Mt. Hope- heavy equipment taken off dirt&placed in parking area over gas easement(September 10,2003) g. Grand River-weird truck(September 10,2003) h. Aurelius Road- Keeps Party Store-sign (November 5,2003) i. Corner of Lathrop Street and Michigan Avenue- new party store-sign (November 5,2003) j. North Pennsylvania-Neogen-front yard parking (November 5,2003) k. Beekman School-sign (January 6,2004) I. Muffler Man, Jolly&MLK-cars for sale(January 6, 2004) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Ms. Foster inquired about the status of the overlay zone. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she expects it to be on the February Zoning & Ordinance Committee agenda PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 20, 2004 Page 8 for further discussion. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge requested an excused absence from the February 3, 2004 meeting. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to grant an excused absence to Mr. Ruge for the February 3, 2004 Planning Board meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. McConnell requested an excused absence from the February 3, 2004 meeting. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to grant an excused absence to Mr. McConnell for the February 3, 2004 Planning Board meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Frederick asked Ms. Stachowiak to thank Scott Sanford for checking on the sign at Keep's Party Store. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that there are no cars parking in the front yard of the Neogen site on N. Pennsylvania and that they are plowing the front yard. Mr. McConnell stated that there is a house on W. Jolly that is being used for a church and that there is a large statue in the front yard. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is familiar with the situation and is working with the Code Compliance Office to have the matter corrected. Mr. McConnell stated that there is a sign advertising wood for sale at a house on Jolly Road and that the owners of the house built a new garage without a building permit. They are operating a tree trimming business. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J ames A. Ruff 'Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.012004.wpd APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk January 14,2004 PG 14, under item 10, 1ST LINE, "homes and facilities"s/b"curbs" Approved January 20,2004 To Clerk January 28,2004 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, January 6, 2004 = 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Foster, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Keene, Foster, Ruge, McConnell, Cordill. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Witherspoon C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-14-2003, 2721 N. Grand River Avenue & Adjacent Vacant Parcel to the West, "D-1" Professional Office, "A" & "DM-1" Residential and "E-1" Apartment Shop Districts to "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Liebler Construction Inc., on behalf of the owners, Gary Bauman and Alfred Buchner, to rezone the properties at 2721 N. Grand River Avenue and the adjacent, vacant parcel to the west from "D- 1" Professional Office, "A" & "DM-1" Residential and "E-1" Apartment Shop Districts to "H" Light Industrial District. If approved, the applicant intends to utilize the subject parcels for mini-storage. Mr. Ruge asked why the property has "E-1" zoning. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is an unusual location for "E-1" zoning and she is not sure why this property was zoned as such. Mr. Frederick asked if the existing storage buildings were in the floodplain. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would find out. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Ed Liebler, resident of 2611 N. Grand River, stated that he would like to increase the existing mini-storage business to the east of these properties and that these properties have been on the real estate market for more than 15 years. These properties have not been used. He also stated that he is willing to work with the City on the rivertrail at the south end of his property along the Grand River. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster closed the public hearing, and referred Z-14-03 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on January 14, 2004 at 5:15 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-15-2003, 5827, 5839 & 5901 S. Pennsylvania, "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Ledy Design Group Inc., on behalf of Sonic Automotive to rezone the west 69.75 feet of the properties at 5827, 5839 & 5901 S. Pennsylvania Avenue from "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a building addition that would encroach into the existing area of the site that is currently zoned "J" Parking. Ms. Foster asked if the frontage could be rezoned to "F" Commercial to be consistent with the Master Plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a complete analysis of this request would be prepared for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. David Starr, Ledy Design Group, 3115 Pine Tree Road, spoke in support of his request. Mr. Patrick Lind, 5821 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, stated that he owns the property directly across from the property that is the subject of this request. He stated that he is supportive of the applicants request, so long as this request does not result in a rezoning of his property. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster closed the public hearing and referred Z-15-03 to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on January 14, 2004 at 5:15 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home and Emergency Shelter Programs (ESG), FY 2005 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 3 Mr. Jamie Czekai, 1000 S. Washington Avenue, stated that he represents the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) which provides support and funding to other non-profits who are working to improve the Lansing community. He provided background information on the development projects receiving funding. He thanked the City for its support of this initiative. Ms. Priscilla Holmes, 1105 S. Washington, stated that she is representing Reo Town. She further stated that this organization is in need of $20,000 for its continued improvements in the Reo Town area. She talked briefly about the two major projects coming to Lansing in 2004: the Michigan Parade and the Reo Centennial homecoming. Ms. Holmes thanked the Planning Board for its support. Ms. Beverly Wiener, 311 S. Jenison, representing Haven House, thanked the City for it's past and future support of Haven House. She said that this is a 28-bed facility which has provided shelter to people in the Lansing area for the past 20 years. The average stay at Haven House is just under 30 days. She also said that the goal of Haven House is to assist families so that they can reach their goals. She thanked the City for the support of ESG funding Ms. Denise Pacquette, 1137 Haco Drive, stated that she represents Habitat for Humanity which builds houses for low income families in the Lansing area. The funding has help to build 10 houses in the Lansing area. Ms. Pacquette thanked the City for it's past and future support of Habitat for Humanity. Ms. Denise Peek, 520 W. Ionia, stated that she represents the Lansing Community Micro-Enterprise Fund (LCMF) which assist people interested in opening small businesses in the Lansing area. Ms. Peek thanked the City for it's past and continued support of CDBG funds. Ms. Patty Jongkind, 1809 Osborn, representing Ballentine Stepping Stone, a transitional housing program and the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network (GLHRN). Ms. Jongkind stated that GLHRN is a coalition of local agencies and organizations working collaboratively to address and reduce the causes of homelessness in the Lansing area. She thanked the City for it's support in this endeavor. Ms. Kate Koskinen, 1619 E. Kalamazoo, stated that she is representing the Lansing Eastside Community Development Corporation (LECDC) and the East Michigan Avenue project. Ms. Koskinen stated that these groups are working with businesses and community groups to improve the East Michigan corridor. She also stated that they have a grant program to help property owners improve the appearance of their businesses along East Michigan. Ms. Koskinen thanked the City for its support. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 4 Ms. Hazel Bethea, 1002 W. Shiawassee, stated that she is representing the Genesee Neighborhood Association and the Capitol Neighborhood Watch #120. She read a letter on behalf of Ms. Ruth Hallman, Coordinator of these two organizations, stating that the Genesee Neighborhood area is in need of funds for the neighborhood clean-up and street closures. Also, the need to increase the budget for the Lansing Neighborhood Council (LNC) was mentioned. Ms. Bethea thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak and she submitted copies of the letter from Ms. Hallman. Ms. Joan Nelson, 1619 E. Kalamazoo, stated that she is representing the Allen Neighborhood Center (ANC). Ms. Nelson submitted a letter to the Board requesting $12,500 in pre-development funds for early design work, a market/feasibility study, and site control of the Kircher Building on Lansing's Eastside. Ms. Nelson stated that this project is pivotal to the renewal and revitalization of the Eastside Neighborhood. Ms. Nelson thanked the City for its anticipated support. Mr. Gene Miller, 609 West Street, stated that he is representing Franklin Street Community Housing Corporation (FSCHC) which is a non-profit entity that restores/rehabilitates homes in the Lansing area. Mr. Miller thanked the City for its continued and future support of FSCHC. Mr. Al Swain, 1048 Pierpont, stated that he is representing the Capital Area Center for Independent Living. Mr. Swain stated that it is important that all facilities and homes are handicapped accessible as well as visitable so that people with disabilities are not limited in where they can go. He stated that his organization helps people who are disabled so that they can live independently. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. Ms. Monica Zuchowski, 320 N. Walnut, President of the Lansing Neighborhood Council (LNC) Board, stated that the Board's continued support of LNC is vital to Lansing's neighborhoods. Ms. Zuchowski stated that there are currently 48 neighborhood organizations in the City of Lansing and there are more being formed. She talked briefly about some of the activities and stated that these organizations help keep Lansing's neighborhoods vibrant and safe. She thanked the City for its past and future support of LNC. Ms. Judy Hackett, 625 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, representing the Oak Park Neighborhood Association and the Lansing Neighborhood Council. Ms. Hackett thanked the City for it's past support of Lansing's neighborhood organizations and asked that this support continue in the future as these organizations are important to Lansing's neighborhoods. She also mentioned the need to increase the budget for the LNC. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Walter Brown, 847 W. Willow, President of North Network Center, spoke on behalf of the North Network Center. He is working with several organizations and the police department on improvements in his neighborhood. Mr. Brown requested $5,000 to start a GED program at the center. He thanked the City for the programs provided in the Lansing area. Ms. Nancy Parsons, 430 N. Fairview, President of Eastside Neighborhood Organization, spoke in favor of continued CDBG support for Lansing's neighborhood organizations. She talked briefly about some of the neighborhood organization's projects ( i.e. information and referral, neighborhood clean-ups, etc) and other eastside projects in the area. Ms. Laura Millard, 1232 Turner, stated that she is representing the Old Town Commercial Association (OTCA). Ms. Millard stated that OTCA has been working with the property owners in Old Town, which is Lansing's oldest commercial district in the City, to improve the area and to keep this a vibrant commercial district. She is requesting funding for operating and staff support. She thanked the City for the programs provided in the Lansing area. Mr. Bill Houghtaling, 4824 Sycamore, stated that he is representing Northtown Neighborhood Association. Mr. Houghtaling stated his support for continued funding for Lansing's neighborhood organizations. Ms. Cheryl Risner, 500 W. Lenawee, Executive Director, Lansing Neighborhood Council (LNC) stated that the CDBG funding that is received from the City is very important to the operations of the LNC. She thanked the Board for its past and future support. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Foster closed the public hearing and referred the Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Fund Resources, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home and Emergency Shelter Programs (ESG), FY 2005 to the Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on January 27, 2004 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Foster closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 6 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes of December 2, 2003 with the following correction: Pg. 5, under section B, Committee Reports, Mr. McConnell delivered the UDC report instead of Ms. Cordill as shown. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of December 2, 2003 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, January 14, 2004, at 5:15 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, January 27, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a. Work Program FY 2004-2005 Ms. Stachowiak stated that the work program was distributed at the dinner meeting in December. She stated that staff is requesting that the work program be approved. Ms. Foster stated that the work program should indicate that more planning staff is needed so that projects like the master plan can be accomplished. She also said that the Preservation Planner position should be filled. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to recommend that the Preservation Planner position be filled. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend that the City hire more professional planning staff, recognizing that the master plan has been delayed for PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 7 lack of staff time available to work on the project. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the Work Program FY 2004-2005, with the recommendations for hiring new staff. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). b. Delta Township Plan Mr. Rieske reviewed the comments contained in his letter. Overall Document - The comprehensive plan document is written in plain language, relatively free of jargon and confusing acronyms. It has a readable format, with a generous use of photos, text boxes, tables, and graphics, some of which reinforce the message in a humorous manner. Section 1 - Community Profile - The plan includes a good discussion of soils. A concluding paragraph which interprets the information given would be a good enhancement, particularly if it identified the most suitable soils for agricultural preservation. The discussion of transportation is split into several different sections. The road network is under "infrastructure", transit is under "public services", and nonmotorized is under parks and open space, and on a map in Appendix B. It may be useful to integrate these topics under a "transportation" category, which would be able to address transportation, and its relationship to land use, in a comprehensive manner. Section 2 - Social Features - "Gender and age distributions" and the aging of the population are covered very well. The discussion of race (P. 26) is somewhat brief, and would be enhanced by including persons of Hispanic origin. The discussion of housing occupancy on Page 29 includes assertions about renters' vested interest in the community, without supporting data. This information should be provided, and may be available from the Community Opinion Survey, mentioned in Section 4. The discussions of "housing value" and "monthly gross contract rent" note on Page 31 that high values and high PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 8 rents are an indicator of quality (as well as supply and demand). This section would be enhanced by including a discussion of housing affordability and public or assisted housing. The first paragraph of Page 35 discusses the percent of the Township's population employed in the service sector, and asserts that many of these service sector jobs are probably held by employees living elsewhere. This assertion is not supported by the "employment by place of residence" data on Page 34. The discussion on travel times to work could be strengthened by including transportation mode to and from work. Section 3 - Existing Land Use - Multiple-family residential is missing from the discussion of land use classifications (P. 39). Section 4 - Community Input - The township used a community opinion survey, distributed in the Township's Delta Magazine, and available at the public library and on the web. Public workshops, public meetings, and public hearings were also used. More documentation from these efforts, perhaps including a copy of the survey instrument, should be included in the appendix. Page 52 of the plan states that a majority of the respondents (45.7%) "strongly agree" that single family housing should be encouraged. This may be a typographical error, or an error of interpretation. Section 5 - Goals and Objectives - The goals and objectives are well stated - simple and understandable. They proceed by subject matter, including Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Public Services and Facilities, Land Use Planning, Transportation, Open Space and Recreation, and Environment. Although no vision statement was provided in this section, the goals and objectives appear to be based on the public input received. Section 6 - Future Land Use - The plan states that new residential development should be in clusters, to minimize consumption of open space and farmland. Saginaw Street will continue to be the primary commercial corridor, with industrial uses concentrated toward the southern portion of the township. The primary agricultural area is in the SW quadrant of the township, presumably where the soils are most suitable. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 9 The table on Page 77 shows the additional population and housing units planned through the year 2020 by five-year increment. The table on Page 79 reflects the existing and projected land use acreage, their proportions, and the projected change by acre and percent. While the "Woodlands" share drops to zero, the future land use map shows "Woodland Overlay Areas", which indicates substantial areas of the township where efforts should be taken to preserve woodlands regardless of land use. A description of these efforts and safeguards might be an appropriate addition. Under "Recreation" the plan discusses the distribution of parkland and providing more parkland in some underserved areas. This could also be listed as an objective in Section 5. Page 81 of the plan discusses the concept of "concurrency", the staging of utility extensions and road improvements in the same time frame as the development of the land. This may reinforce the stated goals of controlled and managed growth, cluster residential development and agricultural and natural resource preservation. The Future Land Use Map also shows the future water and sanitary sewer service boundaries, which encompass virtually the entire township. Showing a comparison between the existing and future utility service areas may also be helpful. Section 7 - Implementation - The Implementation section discusses such tools as public investment strategies, intergovernmental cooperation, information and education, the CIP, and the Regional Growth Project. It could be enhanced by including a discussion of land use controls (e.g., zoning and subdivision regulations) as important tools for implementing the land use recommendations of the plan. The Implementation Program table provides a lot of good information in a succinct and understandable format, and provides clear direction for the completion of the plan's recommendations. The mention of the Regional Growth project in this section appears to be obsolete, and could be strengthened. The Township plan notes that local jurisdictions are making land use decisions with little oversight and coordination. The Regional Growth project is nearing completion, and the transportation goals, objectives, and recommendations have been finalized and approved in the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 10 Appendices - Appendix A lists the responses to open- ended survey questions. Perhaps other documentation of public participation could be included here. The Planning Board members made the following comments: The existing land use map would be strengthened by depicting the existing water and sanitary sewer service boundaries, to allow a comparison with the service areas on the future land use map. The plan states that it supports all modes of transportation. It might be strengthened by providing recommendations concerning transit and nonmotorized transportation among the separated land uses within the township. The Board suggested that the staging of development be depicted on the Future Land Use map. The relationship between the Township's plan and the Regional Growth project should be discussed and reinforced. The Board strongly suggested greater adherence to the Regional Growth and Regional 2025 Transportation Plan, including the regional vision, themes and principles, the transportation goals and objectives, and recommendations, including a greater emphasis on the staging of development according to priority areas, and transit and nonmotorized modes of transportation. The Board also suggested that the plan encourage coordination of service by the transit providers, improved service to trip generators throughout the Township, and the incorporation of transit in future development hubs. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to submit the comments prepared by Mr. Rieske as well as those provided by the Planning Board at this meeting, to Delta Township in response to their request for comments on the proposed Comprehensive Plan. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). C. NCU-3-2003, 900 E. Mt. Hope, Class A Nonconforming Status The applicant is requesting a "Class "A" nonconforming status for 900 E. Mt. Hope Avenue to reconstruct/repair the damage to the existing church building that was caused by a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 11 fire. The property is nonconforming for lot area and off- street parking. Without approval of a Class A, the cost of restoration would be limited to 50% of the pre-catastrophe fair market value ($175,000). The contractor's estimate to repair the damage is $300,000 - $350,000. Therefore, this is a request for a Class A nonconforming status change in order to permit the complete restoration of the church. The proposed application for a Class A Nonconforming Status at 900 E. Mt. Hope for the repair/reconstruction of the damage to the church building will not create any traffic, pollution or parking problems for the area in which it is located. Staff recommends that the Class "A Nonconforming Status be approved, as requested, subject to completion of the reconstruction work within one year from the date of this approval. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant has a parking agreement with the office building to the west for use of their parking area. Mr. McConnell stated that he would like to see a copy of the parking agreement. He also stated that the church has already began the reconstruction on the building. Ms. Foster stated that there is no landscaping on this site. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve NCU-3-2003, 900 E. Mt. Hope, Class A Nonconforming Status, with the following conditions: (1) The building construction and landscaping be completed within one year from the date of this approval, (2) The church provide a copy of the parking agreement to the Planning Office before a building permit is issued, (3) The church be charged a re-inspection fee for beginning the work without a permit, and (4) Street trees be added along both street frontages and additional landscaping be added to the interior of the site. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a. Work Program FY 2004-2005 Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the Work Program FY 2004-2005, with the recommendations for hiring new staff. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 12 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster. . . Ave Keene . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . Aye McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Delta Township Plan Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to submit the comments prepared by Mr. Rieske as well as those provided by the Planning Board at this meeting, to Delta Township in response to their request for comments on the proposed Delta Township Comprehensive Plan. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . Ave Ruge . Ave Cordill. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. NCU-3-2003, 900 E. Mt. Hope, Class A Nonconforming Status Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve NCU-3-2003, 900 E. Mt. Hope, Class A Nonconforming Status, with the condition that the building construction and landscaping be completed within one year from the date of this approval, the church provide a copy of the parking agreement to the Planning Office before a building permit is issued, the church be charged a re-inspection fee for beginning the work without a permit and that street trees be added along both street frontages and additional landscaping be added to the interior of the site. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . . Ave Ruge . Ave Cordill. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - None. C. Report from Planning Manager - None PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 13 D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), (Tabled March 25,2003) C. Master Plan Project d. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29,2003) e. Act-3-2003, Hazel St.W of Cedar, Close intersection with Cedar(Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board a. Proposed Kennel Definition Ordinance Amendment (Tabled on September 16,2003) 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20, 2003) b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd. -landscaping&buffering (May 20,2003) C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) d. 4831 Eastlawn Drive-huge garage(August 19, 2003) e. Pryor's Towing-time frame for completion of conditions(September 3,2003) f. Super Wheel Auto Sales-S. Cedar Street, South of Mt. Hope-heavy equipment taken off dirt&placed in parking area over gas easement(September 10,2003) g. Grand River-weird truck(September 10, 2003) h. Aurelius Road-Keeps Party Store-sign (November 5,2003) i. Corner of Lathrop Street and Michigan Avenue-new party store-sign (November 5, 2003) Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to remove the Proposed Kennel Definition Ordinance Amendment from the table. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 4a. Proposed Kennel Definition Ordinance Amendment Ms. Stachowiak asked since there are 6 members present at this meeting, the ordinance amendment be recommended for approval. Ms. Cordill mentioned that one of the documents indicates five household pets is a kennel and the other indicates four. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it should be five household pets. Mr. Ruge stated that he has concerns about the definition for a kennel including restrictions on exotic animals. The Board members agreed to remove the second sentence in the proposed kennel definition and to make this sentence it's own definition of "exotic animal". Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene, to recommend approval of the Proposed Kennel Definition Ordinance Amendment, with the change to the definition headings. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 14 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Foster. . . Aye Keene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge. . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . Aye McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Cordill inquired about making hornes and facilities curbs handicapped accessible as recommended by Mr. Swain who spoke at the CDBG public hearing. Mr. McConnell inquired about whether all homes, businesses, etc. should be made handicapped accessible, particularly those who are received CDBG funding. Ms. Stachowiak stated that not all houses in the City will be able to be made handicapped accessible. Ms. Foster stated that perhaps the State Construction Code should be changed to require handicapped accessibility for all structures. Ms. Cordill stated that the City could use texturized curbs to assist blind people. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to recommend the use of Universal Design Standards for all transportation systems in the City and to recommend that all houses using CDBG money be handicapped accessible, where possible. On a voice vote, the motion carried (6-0). 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that it appears a new sign is being erected on the west side of 1-27 on the Beekman School property. There are 3 new poles that have been put up which appear to be the supports for a large sign. Mr. McConnell stated that there are cars for sale at the Muffler Man on the corner of MLK and Jolly Road. Mr. Ruge inquired about the landscaping at Amos Auto sales and if it is legal. Ms. Stachowiak stated it is not legal and that the Planning Office is looking into the matter. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 6, 2004 Page 15 Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.010604.wpd