The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006 Plannig Board Mintues Jan-Sept FINAL Approved on 4-4-06 Draft to Clerk March 24,2006 Approved April 4,2006 To Clerk April 26,2006 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD . ? 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Fri Tuesday, March 21, 2006 j C i �1 1. OPENING SESSION c-) C) ro w The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair. = '- `n A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Cordill, Ruge, Czekai, Hollister. B. Staff Attending: Rieske. C. Excused absences: None. D. Absent: None. Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve an excused absence request for Mr. Czekai from the March 7th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch 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 (3 minutes each) Ms. Gretchen Cochran, resident of 403 N. Sycamore Street, presented written comments and recommendations regarding ACT-9-2005, 600 Blk. Sycamore St. South of Saginaw St., Close North End of Street. She recommended to broaden the study area north of Oakland, east at least to Chestnut Street, west to MLK and south to Ottawa, and to bring the Traffic Board's study to the Planning Board t for its consideration to carry out its legal obligations, as spelled out in Public Act 285 of the Municipal Planning Act. She stated that just because the Genesee Neighborhood Association's (GNA) boundaries stop at Saginaw and Pine Streets, the traffic does not stop at those edges. The proposed cul-de-sac was originally proposed as a crime fighting PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 2 mechanism. The crime statistics which the Police Department provided were based on the area spreading from MLK to Chestnut. Expanding the area north will encourage the Traffic Board in this new holistic approach being proposed, to take into consideration pedestrian traffic as well as vehicle traffic and encourage its thoughtfulness about a walkable community and what that means to the Saginaw Street and Pine Street corridors. Ms. Mary Swanson stated that she is here tonight representing Mr. Terry Terry regarding Z-2-2006, 1213 & 1215 Turner Street. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — February 21, 2006 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Ms. Bruch to approve the minutes of February 21, 2006. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of February 21, 2006 were APPROVED. Minutes for Approval — March 7, 2006 Ms. Bruch moved; seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the minutes of March 7, 2006. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of March 7, 2006 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-2-2006, 1213/1215 Turner Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District This is a request by Terry Terry to rezone the property at 1213/1215 Turner Street, more specifically described as: Lots 6 & 7, Moseley, Howard & Others Subdivision of a Part of Block 11, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "H" Light Industrial district to "G-1" Business district, for the purpose of converting the existing building at 1213/1215 Turner Street to a mix of commercial and residential uses. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 3 Staff recommended approval of Z-2-2006, 1213/1215 Turner Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District, based upon it's consistency with the master plan, surrounding land uses and surrounding zoning patterns. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously, (2-0). Ms. Bruch stated that there was not much access for pedestrians to get near to the river. Mr. Ruge stated that the river could be seen from the back of the building. Ms. Bruch asked if there was discussion about making connections to the river. Mr. Ruge stated that the river walk does run right behind the building. Ms. Bruch asked if any improvements would be made behind the building because it is a parking lot. Mr. Ruge stated that unfortunately, Mr. Terry does not own the parking lot. He owns some parking spaces immediately behind the building and the parking lot is owned by the people who own the Sir Pizza building. Ms. Bruch asked in cleanup if there was anything specific Mr. Terry would do besides the facade. Mr. Ruge stated that Mr. Terry would fix up the back of the building and possibly add decks to the back of the building, one on the first floor and one on the second floor. Ms. Bruch asked what would be happening to the back of the building. Ms. Mary Swanson, architect on the project, stated that Mr. Terry is applying for a couple of historic grants. With the back of the building he is going make it a solid stucco-type of finish and make it smooth. The brick is deteriorating and Mr. Terry cannot afford to re-brick it. After the stucco, it will be painted a solid color. The one apartment that is being put in upstairs will have a balcony. Mr. Terry's office area will also have a balcony and there will be a balcony off of the new restaurant. There will be entries into the two artist studios from the lower level. She stated that there is not much space to do anything behind the building besides park six vehicles and fix up the back side. Mr. Hollister stated that the back of Ferguson's building, that sort of look is what he got the impression Mr. Terry was talking about doing and that cleaning it up would make a big difference. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Czekai stated that this is incredibly exciting and that this is finally being redeveloped. This has been an eyesore in Old Town even when it was a bar and it has been a problem for a while. He would like to request that the Board make some type of formal requirement because there is some loose language and the Board would hope that there is some parking spaces in the back. Currently on Turner Street, it is flooded during the day making it next to impossible for people to find parking spaces to shop in the retail stores. He asked if some type of requirement could be added. Mr. Frederick stated that the Board cannot place any requirements on a zoning change. Mr. Ruge stated that there is parking in Lot 56. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of Z-2-2006, 1213/1215 Turner Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Z-3-2006, W. Edgewood Blvd., East of S. Washington Avenue, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District Mr. Ruge stated that the request was tabled to allow the applicant additional time to work with staff and to mold his development into something workable. C. Z-17-2005, Northwest and Northeast Corners of Benjamin Drive & Polly Avenue, "J" Parking & "C" Residential Districts to "G-2" Wholesale District Mr. Ruge stated that the request was tabled. The Committee felt that the type of development that went in would be very important to the neighborhood. Next meeting, Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 5 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Vice Chair a. ACT-2-2006, 2200 BlIk. Moores River Drive, ROW and Easement Acquisition The Department of Public Service requests authorization to acquire additional property for the ROW on the south side of Moores River Drive to rectify an existing encroachment of the roadway on private property. The applicant also wishes to acquire sanitary and storm sewer easements in the immediate area. The subject roadway will be reconstructed in the Spring of 2006. It includes a bridge over a drain that flows in a northerly direction into the Grand River. The Public Service Department is working with nearby residents to preserve the bridge and its key aesthetic features. The bridge wall that will require the most work is outside the scope of the proposed acquisition. The affected properties are owned by the Lansing Country Club and a nearby resident. The purpose of the proposed ROW acquisition is to rectify this situation, and to enable the City to rebuild the roadway entirely within the ROW. The sanitary sewer has been relocated from private property into the roadway to facilitate the construction of a house northwest of the bridge. A new easement of a shorter length is needed to tie the relocated sanitary sewer into the existing sewer on the east side of the property. Catch basins which were originally located on bridge were relocated during culvert repair. It was thus necessary to reroute the storm sewer to the west and north, which creates the need for a storm sewer easement. There are no trees located within the area to be acquired. The contractor is scheduled to begin April 17. Paving is scheduled for May 25-30, with only final clean-up and restoration remaining. The Project is to be totally completed by June 19. Staff recommended approval of ACT-2-2006, 2200 Blk. Moores River Drive, ROW and Easement Acquisition. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval of acquisition of ROW and sewer easements, with the following conditions: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 6 1. Ensure access for all local residents during construction; 2. Maintain visual qualities of the bridge and surrounding properties; and 3. Preserve existing plant material and vegetation and replace any that is damaged or destroyed; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Bruch asked about the sewer being moved and if it was because there is a need to tie it to a new proposed house. Mr. Rieske stated that the sewer was moved in order to clear the way for the house. However, the easement has not been secured. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of ACT-2-2006, 2200 Blk. Moores River Drive, ROW and Easement Acquisition with the following conditions: 1) Ensure access for all local residents during construction; 2) Maintain visual qualities of the bridge and surrounding properties; and 3) Preserve existing plant material and vegetation and replace any that is damaged or destroyed. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Mr. Frederick stated that the Committee discussed a special UDC meeting for CIP discussion. The Committee met this evening at 6:00 p.m. The Committee discussed the Capital Improvement items that are pending that the Planning Board would actually have some input on regarding recommendations of the most important projects to be sent up to the Mayor's Office to give them the Board's on what should be done. These are not items that are specifically for the Mayor's budget but are projects and other items (i.e. Master Plan) that the Board wants Planning and Development to work on. Mr. Rieske is preparing a list of the priorities that the Committee discussed and will have it ready for the Board at the meeting next Tuesday. The Committee will then discuss the items further, make any final adjustments that are needed and then will PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 7 present them to the Board at its next regular meeting for its recommendation and discussion. Hopefully, those recommendations can be forwarded to the appropriate parts in the City. Mr. Rieske also provided information regarding streamlining the ACT 285 review process. He stated that the Planning Office is looking at some procedural changes that will essentially put more of staff's efforts onto the bigger projects (e.g. Master Planning). The Planning Office is trying to adhere to the legal requirements but change the procedure around to hopefully reduce some steps that may not be necessary. Next meeting, Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE C. Old Business 1. ACT-9-2005, 600 Bilk. Sycamore St. South of Saginaw St., Close North End of Street Mr. Rieske stated that the ACT 285 centered on one issue: Sycamore and Saginaw Streets. The Transportation and Parking Office can and is taking a wider look at this request, including some of the recommendations that the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA) put together. Basically, under review by the Board was Sycamore and Saginaw Streets. The GNA recommendation was not within the scope of the review. By handing this off to the Traffic Board, the Planning Board enables the Traffic Board to take a wider look at a wider area. The Transportation Office has begun to take traffic counts and is able then to take a look at other alternatives that may be relevant to solving the problems that are being referred to by the GNA. The Planning Board appeared to be at an impasse because of the neighborhood being at an impasse. By enabling a wider, more holistic look at this problem, it can accommodate a wider viewpoint with multiple solutions rather than a single solution. It seemed very appropriate to hand the request to the Transportation and Parking Office so they could deal with this in a more complete manner. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 8 The approaches that were put forth involve neither vacating the street nor expanding the additional right-of-way acquisition in order to implement the turn around or the right turn only option which were the two options that were proposed. The Board's role in terms of the ACT 285 was dealing with the right-of-way width and the property acquisition, and neither of these are an issue anymore. This was another factor prompting the idea of referring this request to the Traffic Board who can take a better, bigger and more comprehensive look at it and still take advantage of all the public input and comments made to the Board, and yet receive additional input and suggestions on solving these problems. Ms. Bruch stated that the neighborhood was as an impasse because the neighbors were split between what to do and what not to do. Handing the request off to the Traffic Board to do a wider study and provide more information, she is not sure that it going to change the fact that there are some neighbors who are wanting to close and some neighbors not wanting to close the street. If greater information still leads to an impasse, who makes the decision? She thought that closing off a street was actually part of the purview of the Planning Board rather than the Traffic Board. She stated that she is all for getting a more holistic view, expanding the boundaries and reviewing it, but the final decision of what should be done does not belong to the Traffic Board. She thinks it belongs to the Planning Board. Mr. Rieske stated that the traffic calming program involves a number of these kinds of moves such as chicanes and roundabouts. The Traffic Board initially worked with the Planning Office and the Planning Board on approving a number of different strategies but that program evolved to the point where there was a tool box of strategies approved by the Planning Board in previous examples and were able to move on to other neighborhood traffic studies and traffic calming without Planning Board action. Mr. Czekai asked why the request came before the Board in the first place. Mr. Rieske stated there are two reasons: 1) Mr. Ruff was looking at the potential of vacating the right-of-way and looking at the possibility of property acquisition not knowing what kind of solutions could come out of it. It made sense to give it to the Planning Office and Planning Board; and 2) The Planning Board holds public hearings and receives public input on an official basis. Mr. Hollister inquired about who would be making the decision. Mr. Rieske stated that the decisions are going to be made by City Council. As far as the final recommendation, the Board could ask that the Traffic Board send it back to the Planning Board. The Board would be asked to comment on the proposed plan anyway PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 9 so the Planning Office could get Board member comments on the proposed plan. The purview of traffic calming has been the Traffic Board because it has implemented through a variety of traffic control orders. Staff can make sure the Board is hooked into the process. Mr. Hollister stated that if the traffic plan comes up with a holistic approach and the Traffic Board decides it wants to construct a cul- de-sac at the end of the street, then it would require acquiring land and vacating the right-of-way. He asked if it would come back before the Board. Mr. Rieske stated that it would come back to the Board for those purposes. Mr. Frederick stated that if the applicant withdraws then that officially ends the Board's jurisdiction. He stated that this is a little different situation since it is the City who made the actual request. He stated that the City is not really withdrawing it but is just changing the name of it and moving it into another committee. Mr. Frederick's concern is that there were a lot of issues the Board discussed regarding traffic flow and why the drug dealers and customers that supposedly use that area circulated through it. It illustrated that the Board was in agreement with the problems that the Board had with traffic flow in general in Lansing. If traffic calming is being done, he has not seen any traffic calming being recommended or installed lately and certainly there was no traffic calming considered for that neighborhood that he was aware of until the Board brought it up. Since this particular item also has an affect on the Board's position on one-way streets that the Board has long agreed are problematic in the City as a whole, he would really not like to see the Board lose the opportunity to emphasize that it wants to see whatever traffic study is being done with the intent of changing the one-way streets as much as possible to eliminate the traffic problem in that neighborhood. He would also like to see the Board have some official input into the final recommendation that goes before City Council. The Board has put a lot of effort into this request and he still thinks that the Board has some authority or a position to make some recommendations for it. He did not consider the Board at an impasse. He thought the request was tabled so that the neighborhoods could meet, discuss and come up with something that they would concur with before the Board made recommendations. Mr. Rieske stated that it appeared that the public input was at a point where there were two diametrically opposed view points, and the Board was at a point of being undecided as a result. Mr. Frederick stated that the Board ordinarily does not like to impose its will on the neighborhood without them at least understanding the necessity for the decision being made and the Board rarely does that without concurrence PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 10 with the neighborhood anyway. Imposing their will is not something he recalls the Board ever having done without concurrence with most of the neighbors who are being affected. Mr. Ruge stated that he thinks the Traffic Board is probably better to do this because they have all the tools to do this. Mr. Rieske stated that he can ask the Traffic Board for their recommendations to be presented to the Planning Board. Ms. Bruch stated to go ahead and have the Traffic Board do the study and present it to the Board. She stated that the request should come back to the Board for a decision so that the Board can make the recommendations to City Council. Ms. Bruch stated that she thought some of the traffic calming was first addressed by the Board and then as the Traffic Board got more tools, they are now doing traffic calming without Planning Board input. Mr. Rieske stated that was not exactly what he meant to say. He stated that in the early stages of the neighborhood traffic calming program, they were still developing theirs for tool box. They were getting public input and working with the Planning Office and the Planning Board on recommendations. Their program matured to the point where they had stopped developing a tool box of recommendations but were rather getting into a better ability to use the tools they already had. At that point, the major commonalities of each traffic calming report were basically set. It was a technical matter as to which tool would apply to which situation depending upon the length of the road, length between two stop signs, etc. to the point where the Planning Board no longer became involved. It just became not necessary. Ms. Bruch stated that it is okay that the Traffic Board is making recommendations. Once the Traffic Board decided what it thinks that neighborhood needs, does the Planning Board actually get a chance to see where traffic calming is actually happening so that it can get the overall picture. The Planning Board may be dealing with other things around there and knowing all these things also helps. She is surprised that the Planning Board does not get to know where any traffic calming is going on. Mr. Rieske stated that he did not say that the Board did not know where new traffic calming was going on. He was saying that the Board does not review every roundabout and every chicane that is installed in the City. Ms. Bruch stated that the Board does get the information when the traffic calming is happening. In that case, she feels that the Board should get the review of this request. Mr. Czekai asked if the closure of north Sycamore Street is not going to happen. Mr. Rieske stated that what he is saying is that PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 11 the Traffic Board is going to be dealing with recommendations with regard to that in a combination of recommendations pertaining to other intersections that are outside of the scope of what the Board is dealing with here. Mr. Czekai stated that it seems a bit premature then to take ACT-9-2005 off the table if the closure of north Sycamore Street is indeed still an option. It would seem more appropriate to leave it on the table, elicit any type of comments from the Traffic Board and have those returned to the Planning Board along with any recommendations they may have. Mr. Ruge stated that he does not think the Board has a choice. Mr. Czekai stated that this is the City actually making the request and not a private entity. Therefore, he thinks this is a different subject and he would have to concur. Ms. Cordill stated that one of the alternatives the Traffic Board could go with is still to close Sycamore Street and maybe it would be appropriate that the Planning Board receive a Transportation recommendation. The Traffic Board is looking at a larger geographical area. She does not relish in the thought of this request coming back. It was contentious and it was difficult. She had heard that there was going to be a neighborhood summit and they were working things out. She remembered that the lieutenant saying this is not a traffic calming issue. Mr. Czekai stated that it was made very clear. Mr. Hollister stated that the impasse at the neighborhood level was being worked on in these summits. He went to one of those meetings and he knows that it has been happening. He does not know where that stands at this point and would be curious to know about it. He does not know if this is the appropriate move here unless the Board is saying that this is not an option then and are taking the vacating the right-of-way off the table. Then the Board would not have anything to discuss. If this is still an option and is out there, then he believes that it still belongs on the table and the Board should hear what everyone has to say. Mr. Czekai stated that this request is currently on the table and would require an action of a Board member to lift it off the table and remove it from the docket. Mr. Frederick stated that any applicant can withdraw it at any time and that the Board should take it off the table even to discuss it. Mr. Frederick stated that he does not want to usurp the Traffic Board's authority in it and probably should have been consulted right from the very beginning. There are some Planning issues that he would like to reserve the right to comment on when the Traffic Board is done its consideration and making its recommendations. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 12 He would like to see this come back to the Planning Board at least to address it from the Planning perspective rather than a traffic perspective. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to have the Planning Board retain Planning authority over this item and request that it be returned to the Planning Board for Planning purposes and comments when the traffic study is completed and the Traffic Board has made its recommendations. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). D. Report from Planning Manager— None. E. 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. Master Plan Project C. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering(May 20, 2003) b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) C. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) e. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) f. 2702 S.Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004) g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3, 2004) h. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs(February 15,2005) i. 2200 W. Holmes-Bad Habits-excessive signs (May 3, 2005) j. 2618 Cavanaugh Rd.-registered rental&front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) k. S. Pennsylvania-Church of the Rock-buffer parking lot along side street (October 4,2005) I. 2101 Luwanna Dr—registered rental&front yard parking (November 15,2005) 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Bruch recommended a traffic study to deal with some of the one-way streets and asked if now would be the time to deal with it. Mr. Frederick stated that from PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 13 what was discussed in the UDC regarding priorities, he believes that it would be well advised to wait until the UDC brings priorities back. Ms. Bruch inquired about more Board members and Planners. Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office is down several positions and have requested four positions as part of the Mayor's Critical Needs Committee to consider critical staffing needs and other critical needs of various departments as part of the discussion with budget cutting. There has been a hiring freeze and part of the critical needs was to find out was those needs were. The Planning Office has submitted Donna Wynant's and Michael Wee's positions as well as the Planning Manager position as critical needs. The Planning Office has not heard back as yet. He has talked with Mr. Johnson about this with the notion that we need to move on this stuff. Mr. Rieske stated that a memo has been sent to the Mayor's Office regarding the vacant positions. The Mayor's Office has received some applications and usually they screen the applications and ask the Planning Office to interview the applicants. Mr. Hollister stated that it might be good to have Ms. Cochran finish her comments from earlier. There were no objections from Board members. Ms. Gretchen Cochran stated that according to the ACT 285, it is the Board's responsibility to make and adopt a Master Plan and to respond to the removal, relocation, widening, narrowing, vacating and abandonment of any public rights- of-way. Under 125.39, Section 9, the ACT decrees the Board's oversite of streets, parks and other public ways. Under 125.43, any change in streets may not be made without approval of the Planning Board. Mr. Frederick stated that the Board's motion is appropriate and from what Ms. Cochran read, makes its return to the Board almost mandatory even though the ACT 285 is withdrawn. This is still a topic that the Board has authority over. Mr. Ruge stated that since Z-2-2006 was approved, the Board should revisit Z-1-1998 (Pending Item 1 a) and contact the applicants to see if they are still interested. The Board had a lot of questions and he believes that those questions have been settled because there was not a lot of concern about Mr. Terry's project. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that at the Dollar Store, 2400 block of east Kalamazoo Street, there are now 15 cars for sale in the parking lot. There is a line of vans on the side and a line of cars in the front. He stated that he would like to see the proper buffering. The lot is paved all the way to the sidewalk and if the applicant wants to use it for selling cars, that is fine but the owner needs to put in some buffering. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 21, 2006 Page 14 Mr. Ruge stated that on Michigan Avenue just west of Foster Avenue, there is some construction and now it is a barn red building built right up to the sidewalk. As part of the construction, the tree that was right in front of the building was cut down. Mr. Ruge inquired about the owner getting a permit and he stated that it looked like amateurs cutting down the tree. He would like to have this checked out. Mr. Hollister stated that at 1304 W. Barnes, there is lots of trash. Mr. Czekai asked about the zoning for "G-1" Business District and that this is the zoning for his apartment. He stated that the City came and took away his recycling bin because the property owner did not pay for this under "G-1". He stated that it seems that "G-1" does pay for recycling. From the Recycling Office the lady explained to him that the building was 100 percent commercial. Mr. Czekai stated that it was unclear. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.032106.doc Approved as written 3-21-06 Draft to Clerk March 13,2006 Approved March 21,2006 To Clerk March 22 2006 Minutes of the Regular Meeting fi LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers 'f Lansing City Hall Tuesday, March 7, 2006 n 9 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Hollister, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, Hollister. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Bruch, Cordill, Czekai. D. Absent: None. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there are only three members present tonight which is not enough for a quorum. The Board will hold the three scheduled public hearings and then the meeting will be adjourned. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA— None. 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-1-2006, 310-312 N. Chestnut Street, "DM-4" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Christian & Lori Kindsvatter to rezone the property at 310/312 N. Chestnut Street, more specifically described as: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of Lot 8, Thence East 82.5 Ft, South 57.75 Ft, West 16.5 Ft, North .75 Ft, West 66 Ft, North 57 Ft to Beginning; Block 86 Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "DM-4" Residential district to "D-1" Professional Office district, for the purpose of converting the building at 310-312 N. Chestnut Street to office use. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 7, 2006 Page 2 Mr. Ruge inquired about parking spaces. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there are two legal parking spaces for an office. For an office use, unlike single and two family residential, you cannot park back to back. The spaces have to be unobstructed spaces. Mr. Alan Tubbs, resident of 427 W. Shiawassee Street, stated that he owns 19 apartment units and a home which is a duplex on the corner of Shiawassee and Chestnut Streets. He is very opposed to rezoning the property. He was not aware that the River Island Plan was amended because Chestnut Street was supposed to be residential, with a zone that would allow office on the first floor and a residence on the second floor. He is not aware of when the plan was amended. He was not informed and he owns 25 percent of that block. He has a letter with him that says the request is not in conformance with the Master Plan and he is not aware of it ever being changed. Mr. Tubbs stated that he owns 320 N. Chestnut which is across the parking lot on the same side of the street. He owns the house on the corner of Shiawassee and the 300 block of N. Chestnut, the southeast Corner and he owns the 7 unit building at 419 W. Shiawassee Street. The Chestnut and Shiawassee property wrap around each other and there is a common parking area behind the building. All of his investments are within 300 feet of the proposed property. Since Mr. Tubbs has acquired these properties over the past 9 or 10 years, he has invested approximately $300,000 for improvements to these properties. The investment today reflects approximately a little over three quarters of a million dollars in that block for residential uses. Mr. Tubbs stated that he is very much opposed to converting a beautiful old house which can be used for residences or someone to live in for office use. There is only parking for one vehicle on that lot. There is a narrow driveway and someone can only put one car there. He cannot imagine an office use in there with one accessible parking space. If it were a homeowner, the vehicles could be stacked. As a business, it cannot be done. He certainly does not think that the applicant should be able to turn the front yard into parking in the event that, for some reason, the request gets approved. Mr. Tubbs stated that if someone looks at the entire block, there are only three office uses in that entire block. In the 1980s and 1990, the rest of them were rezoned for office use. The rest of the block is all residential. There are at least four homeowners in this area. He stated that the predominant use by far is residential. He stated that there is so much office space in the City that is vacant, and it has not gone away. Some of the large office buildings are being PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 7, 2006 Page 3 converted to housing because the City is providing incentives to bring housing to the downtown area. Mr. Tubbs stated that this area is already residential and he thinks that it would be self defeating if the City chips away at this residential block by rezoning it. He urged the Board to deny the request. Ms. Monica Zuchowski, resident of 320 N. Walnut and President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA), stated that she has a written statement but it is at her office. She will get that to the department for the Board members. Ms. Zuchowski stated that the DNA voted at its February meeting voted to oppose the request for rezoning. Once property is rezoned, it is permanent. The DNA feels that if the owner can show a need for the zoning to be changed, he should look at obtaining a special use permit. The DNA does not believe the owner can prove that either. The DNA does not oppose all zoning changes and takes them individually. The DNA felt strongly that in this particular case, because of the mixed uses in the area, changing the zoning permanently would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood. The house has been residential and if you add in the number of buildings along Ionia Street that continue to be for sale that are zoned for mixed use or office, if there is a need there are buildings available to fill that need. Mr. Chris Kinsvatter, property owner, stated that he is the only residence on that block and by looking at the map, members can see that it is surrounded by multi-family residences. He rescued the building from demolition about 5 to 6 years ago. He and his wife invested quite a bit of money into the property. He appreciates Mr. Tubbs comments regarding his investments into the neighborhood and the downtown area. In this area he has owned several office buildings including 416 W. Ionia Street, which he enhanced and was using as his personal office. The building next door, 412 W. Ionia Street, belonged to him and his wife. They enhanced it as a "D-1" office building. It subsequently was sold and has the present facility. This is a tough market and the property is not being sold. He has had only one visitor in the past six months look through the house with any interest. The visitor wanted the house for a multi family residence. There is interest in a "D-1" small office situation and that happens to be his business. He appreciates everyone's investments in their properties, especially with what Mr. Tubbs has done. Mr. Tubbs has kept the area very nice with his properties as many residents do downtown. He stated that he does see an opportunity in that whole block of Ionia, Walnut, Shiawassee, and Chestnut Streets. On the map, these areas are zoned either multifamily or "D-1" office. He is the only single person living there as a family that he can see within that block. The rest are all multi family residences. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 7, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Kinsvatter stated that there is a parking issue. There are two parking spots there when he constructed it. He would like to put this on hold and look at the parking situation as to the ingress and egress issue. He thinks it can be done very easily and with some other opportunities. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Hollister closed the public hearing and referred Z-1-2006, 310-312 N. Chestnut Street, "DM-4" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on March 15, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-2-2006, 1213/1215 Turner Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District This is a request by Terry Terry to rezone the property at 1213/1215 Turner Street, more specifically described as: Lots 6 & 7, Moseley, Howard & Others Subdivision of a Part of Block 11, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "H" Light Industrial district to "G-1" Business district, for the purpose of converting the existing building at 1213/1215 Turner Street to a mix of commercial and residential uses. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Lloyd Grandy, Representative for Terry Terry, stated that this building is slated to be used for an artist studio, restaurant, commercial use, loft apartments and is consistent with what Old Town has to offer. The front will be completely redone and Mr. Terry has already received a facade grant. Mr. Terry has asked for and has been tentatively approved for an opera district. Everything is on the move for this and he believes that it is a very appropriate use for this property. He believes it is in keeping with Old Town. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Hollister closed the public hearing and referred Z-2-2006, 1213/1215 Turner Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on March 15, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 7, 2006 Page 5 C. Z-3-2006, W. Edgewood Blvd., East of S. Washington Avenue, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District This is a request by Mark Conrad to rezone the vacant 1.46 acre parcel located on W. Edgewood Blvd., approximately 240 feet east of S. Washington Avenue, more specifically described as: Parts of Lots 9 thru 13 Lying North of North Line State Hwy 1-96 & Southerly of Southerly Line of Edgewood Blvd. right-of-ways, Supervisors Plat of Bridsons Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "A" Residential district to "C" Residential district, for the purpose of constructing three duplexes on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge asked if the property would be divided into three lots or if it was altogether one lot. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant has viewed the property both ways but is considering splitting the property into three parcels if he builds three duplexes or two parcels if he builds two duplexes. If the applicant leaves the property the way it is shown on the drawing, he would have to condominiumize it. She does not believe that the applicant would want to go through the legal hassles of doing so. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant would have to build a condominium because he can have only one building on a "C" residential lot without it being a PRD. The applicant does not want to go this route and would have to alter the site plan and reduce it by one duplex or make some other provisions for another driveway should this be approved. Mr. Frederick stated that he noticed two things on the rough plan. The applicant drew in driveways but no sidewalks and this would be an issue. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant would have to do sidewalks as part of the building permit process it the request were approved. Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant's duplex design has the garage sticking out. Ms. Stachowiak stated that they are snout houses. Mr. Frederick asked if the ordinance had been passed yet. Ms. Stachowiak stated the ordinance has not been passed. Mr. Frederick stated that since the applicant has to redraw things, he would discourage that design. Mr. Mark Conrad, applicant, stated that he is late and that he would like to construct three duplexes on that property. Mr. Frederick stated that there were two things that he pointed out when Mr. Conrad was walking in: 1) On the rough plan, there were no sidewalks and that would be a requirement; 2) On the drawings of the types of duplexes that Mr. Conrad builds, the garages extend out in front PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 7, 2006 Page 6 of the house and the Board discourages this type of design. Mr. Frederick stated that at this point, it is not prohibited but he would like to encourage Mr. Conrad to come up with a design where the garages are not sticking out beyond the front of the house. Mr. Conrad stated that the only reason he uses this type of design is because he is building that exact design in the City right now. He lives in that design. He already has the plans for it. This whole project will extend him to everything he has, not only with money but with every piece of his working soul to get this done. If this is what it takes, he can certainly address the house design. Mr. Frederick pointed out that it is not a requirement and he just wanted to let him know that the Board discourages this design. Certainly, it is permissible and if Mr. Conrad chooses to use it, go for it. Mr. Conrad stated that he listened to the City Council meeting the other day when members were talking about the sidewalks up and down Washington Avenue from Willoughby Road to Edgewood Blvd. He is completely aware of it because someone commented that there would be a proposed new building on the property he proposed. He knows all about the side walks and has inquired on the price. He asked about the regulations for sidewalks and if the sidewalks would go from property line to property line. Ms. Stachowiak stated yes. Mr. Conrad stated that the property is like a pizza shaped piece of property and that he would need 100 feet of footage to construct the third duplex on the end. There is a whole bunch of area that would lead him to the end of the pizza shaped property. This would mean that he would be building a sidewalk essentially to nowhere because there is nothing in that direction. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Hollister closed the public hearing and referred Z-3-2006, W. Edgewood Blvd., East of S. Washington Avenue, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on March 15, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) — None. 6. RECESS — None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION — None. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 7, 2006 Page 7 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ')p C11 Xk� K/vttt/v William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.030706.doc Approved as written 3-21-06 Draft to Clerk February 22,2006 Approved March 21 2006 To Clerk M rch�2006 i Minutes of the Regular Meeting TT LANSING PLANNING BOARD G' r) C 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall -< w Fri Tuesday, February 21, 2006 r fr N 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Bruch, Cordill, Ruge, Czekai, Hollister. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Frederick. D. Absent: None. Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused absence request for Mr. Ruge from the February 7th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister 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 (3 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 21, 2006 Page 2 A. Minutes for Approval — February 7, 2006 Ms. Bruch moved; seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the minutes of February 7, 2006. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of February 7, 2006 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Hollister, Vice Chair a. SLU-1-2006, 510 W. Willow Street, Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility This is a request by Lansing Teen Challenge to amend the previously approved Special Land Use permit for the purpose of increasing the occupancy of the building at 510 W. Willow Street from 40 residents to 64 residents. The property is zoned "C" Residential District which permits residential care facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended SLU-1-2006, 510 W. Willow Street, Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility based upon it's consistency with all of the criteria of Section 1282.03(f)(1)-(9) of the Zoning Code for evaluating Special Land Use permits. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. The capacity of the facility be limited to 47 residents, or as many as may be permitted by the Board of Zoning Appeals upon request for a variance to the lot area requirement, up to a maximum of 64 residents; and 2. Continued compliance with all 11 conditions of the approval for SLU-14-2000; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of SLU-1-2006, 510 W. Willow Street, Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility with the following conditions: 1) The capacity of the facility be limited to 47 residents, or as many as may be permitted by the Board of Zoning Appeals upon request for a variance to the lot area requirement, up to a maximum of 64 residents; and 2) Continued compliance with all 11 conditions of the approval for SLU-14-2000. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 21, 2006 Page 3 Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, March 15, 2006 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, February 28, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Executive Committee will not be able to meet before the March 7th meeting due to member absences. The next opportunity for the Executive Committee to meet would be on March 21st at 6:00 p.m. C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager— None. E. 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. Master Plan Project C. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 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. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) e. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004) f. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) g. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) h. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 21, 2006 Page 4 i. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004) j. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs(February 15,2005) k. 2200 W. Holmes- Bad Habits-excessive signs (May 3,2005) I. 2618 Cavanaugh Rd.-registered rental &front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) M. S. Pennsylvania-Church of the Rock-buffer parking lot along side street (October 4,2005) n. 2101 Luwanna Dr—registered rental&front yard parking (November 15,2005) Ms. Stachowiak stated that with item 5a, Teen Challenge has been removed. When the Board recommended approval of the original special land use, it was with the condition that Teen Challenge put a screen fence around the entire perimeter of the property. When it went before City Council, the neighbors who live immediately to the east of Teen Challenge went before Council and said that they do not want a fence between their property and Teen Challenge. The final resolution specifically stated that Teen Challenge would not fence in this neighbor's property. The rest of the fence that Teen Challenge was required to put up is in place. She stated that she has visited the site a couple of times lately and everything is in compliance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she will get updates on all of the pending items hopefully for the first meeting in March and definitely for the Executive Committee meeting. There are a few items that can be removed but she wants to double check to make sure the items are in compliance before she actually strikes them from the list. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Bruch asked about getting more Board members. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office is aware that more members are needed. Ms. Stachowiak informed the Board that the Planning Office lost another staff member, Michael Wee. The office is down to two Planners, John Hodges and Doris Witherspoon. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City has a hiring freeze but if the Planning Office can show a real need for staff, then we can write a memo and send it to the Critical Needs Committee. Mr. Rieske has already submitted a memo and there has not been a response yet. Ms. Bruch asked if the Board needs to do a letter. Mr. Czekai stated that he would draft a letter and send it out to everyone. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 21, 2006 Page 5 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated at the 2400 block of East Kalamazoo Street, there is a Dollar Store that also has six used cars for sale. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:11 p.m. Respectfull submitted, / William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.022106.doc Approved as written 2-21-06 Draft to Clerk February 14,2006 Approved February 21,2006 To Clerk February 22,2006 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall ? Tuesday, February 7, 2006 �•' .,.D 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Bruch, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister, Frederick (arrived at 7:10 p.m.). B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Ruge. D. Absent: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of support from Mount Hope Church regarding SLU-1-2006. B. Letter of support from Reverend J. Barrow regarding SLU-1-2006. C. Letter of support from Granger regarding SLU-1-2006. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-17-2005, Northwest and Northeast Corners of Benjamin Drive & Polly Avenue, "J" Parking & "C" Residential Districts to "G-2" Wholesale District This is a request by John Keenoy to rezone the properties located at the northeast and northwest corners of Benjamin Drive and Polly Avenue, more specifically described as: Lots 1 through 5 & 16 through 22 inclusive, Block 4 Lincoln Heights Subdivision & Lots 1 through 6 & 25 through 31 inclusive, Block 2 Lincoln Heights Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "J" Parking and "C" Residential Districts to "G-2" Wholesale District, for the purpose of developing the sites for office, warehouse and self- storage buildings. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 2 Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill stated that some clear, larger plans would be helpful. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has one full size ser of plans and that she has some 11 x 17 size plans that should be a lot easier to read. Ms. Bruch stated that it feels like strip development and asked if there is any way to modify it. Mr. Miles Cotton, resident of 1926 Polly Avenue, stated that he supports the request and has been in this neighborhood approximately 30 years. This has been an eye sore and he is excited to see some commercial development come into this area. He believes that this will be a big improvement for the neighborhood and that it will help the City. Mr. John Keenoy, resident of 7305 Misty View Court, Caledonia, MI, stated that up to a year ago, he had been life long resident of Lansing. His uncle was a fire chief in Lansing for a long time and his father was on the Police Department for years. He still owns and operates a business, Keenoy Masonry, in the Lansing area. He has never been to one of these meetings or asked for a request for rezoning. He worked with Dan Van Acker on the Melling Forging project. He is a mason contractor and he laid about 11,000 blocks inside the building. With Dan's help, he would like to coordinate this with him and make the project go hand-in-hand with the Melling Forging project. This is an opportunity for him to put back into the community and do something for the community. He believes in Lansing and would like to assure the neighbors that this will not be an eye sore. They will be attractive buildings, not a strip mall. Ms. Bruch asked if Mr. Keenoy has met with neighbors and found out what the neighborhood might need. Mr. Keenoy stated that he has only met with a few of the neighbors. He has spoken with Mr. Van Acker about what is needed in that area and the Milling Forging project is full. He has had more inquiries about different types of buildings (i.e. warehouse, office space). He stated that he is open to any ideas. Ms. Bruch stated that maybe by meeting with the neighbors he would also get more ideas of what might be good for the overall neighborhood that would support his business. Mr. Keenoy stated that he would like to create some jobs in this area and make the area viable and vibrant again. His hope is to bring back Lansing and the north end. Mr. Czekai asked if it would be possible to receive comments from the neighborhood organization in this area. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is a neighborhood group in this area that is very active. She will contact them and ask for their comments. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 3 Ms. Cordill asked if the intent was to demolish the houses. Mr. Keenoy stated that there is nothing to be demolished on the property. All of the property is vacant. On the one corner, there is a carport. Mr. Dan Van Acker, resident of 333 Woodhaven Drive, stated that he is the owner of the former Melling Forging Company site and he is trying to get into the Northtown Commerce Park. He is here to reinforce Mr. Keenoy's ideas on this rezoning. This is great and it would really help the neighborhood. Before he started the Melling Forging project, he canvassed the neighborhood just to see what their feelings were and if he would get any resistance from what he did or what their feelings are on what he could do to help enhance the area. Through doing this, he developed a bond with the neighborhood. It is a really nice community and one of its own separated by Larch Street and Gier Park. This is a really nice working class community. He would like to do all that he can to see it stay this way and improve and be a good place to raise families. He originally started out with buying the Willard building which has since been sold to Habitat for Humanity. They have done wonderful things with this building. They have cleaned up the lots, put a new roof on it and added a new front. This will be a viable part of the community and for the Lansing area. When he purchased the Melling Forging Company in the Boichoit area on the property, he ran into cement trucks with huge trees growing out of them. These are things that have been neglected for that long. Today in the Lansing State Journal, there is a really nice report on the progress and things have gone well. He is here today asking for the Planning Board's support on this rezoning, and the community and businesses to help support buildings in the Lansing area rather than going to Delta Township or the suburbs to help keep this and save the green space for farm ground and enhance the urban area with jobs where people can walk, ride their bikes, provide for their families, have their own business and dream. He stated that Mr. Keenoy had done all the block work for him at Melling Forging. He told him what his vision was and Mr. Keenoy said that he would like to be a part of it. Together they have developed these plans. He has a big investment there and it is very important to him what takes place across the street. They have worked together on this and with the response he has had in acquiring space, he believes that he can fill these buildings with good, clean industrial buildings and still make it aestetically pleasing for the neighborhood. He stated that he worked this summer on his curb appeal with the outside and now the inside is complete. He has trees ordered for the street and new lighting, landscaping, a new parking lot and new fencing. He believes PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 4 that this area is a real gem and this is very important to him that it is carried throughout the area and the momentum is kept going. He appreciates the Board's time and support of this request. Mr. Bill Houghtaling, President of Northtown Neighborhood Association, stated that there is a committee for safe housing and the committee was impressed with Mr. Keenoy's project. There have not been any problems. They were going to give him a place to store some paint supply materials and he will have to remind them of it. Mr. Keenoy does reach out to the neighborhood and that is very workable for us. Ms. Stachowiak asked if the Planning Office could get a written response from him as to whether or not he supports this request. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing and referred Z-17-2005, Northwest and Northeast Corners of Benjamin Drive & Polly Avenue, "J" Parking & "C" Residential Districts to "G- 2" Wholesale District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on February 15, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. SLU-1-2006, 510 W. Willow Street, Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility This is a request by Lansing Teen Challenge to amend the previously approved Special Land Use permit for the purpose of increasing the occupancy of the building at 510 W. Willow Street from 40 residents to 64 residents. The property is zoned "C" Residential District which permits residential care facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Bruch asked about parking requirements. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the parking requirements will increase a little bit but what the applicant has on site should be adequate. Mr. Frederick stated that there was an extended discussion on the number of residents that were going to be allowed under the previous special land use. He asked if it would be possible to get a copy of the minutes from that meeting. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there was an awful lot of discussion on that both at the Planning Board and City Council levels. There was also a lot of concern by the neighborhood with this facility going in. What the people who are going to be here like, is it going to cause some problems in the neighborhood. She stated that not only did the Planning Office not receive any negative comments from the neighborhood, everyone within 300 feet were notified, but all of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 5 comments that came in were positive. There are three letters of support tonight. Teen Challenge has proven itself to be a good neighbor. In fact one of the comments that just came in within the last day or two is from the neighborhood association. It stated that this facility has been very active in the neighborhood association in terms of neighborhood clean ups and Paint-a-Place. Pastor Jeff Turner, of Lansing Teen Challenge, resident of 4960 East Gresham Highway, Potterville, stated that he has been at this location for the past eight years. Originally Teen Challenge applied for only 40 residents because House of Commons wanted that building for 80 residents. It was a huge outrage. Teen Challenge had been in a house with only 12 residents and no one really knew that Teen Challenge was doing. He stated that the building can certainly house 80 residents. As far as parking, the facility has increased. Teen Challenge put up a fence screen in the front for landscaping. The residents in the program do not drive so there is no need for parking other than the ministry vehicles. As far as increasing the number of residents, there were more residents when this was a nursing home than what Teen Challenge has. He did it this way to get into the building and he never knew that the need would be this great. Part of the program is having the residents do volunteer work for other non-profits, neighborhood widows, and whoever else calls. There is probably 3,000 hours a year that the residents give to the community. Ms. Bruch asked if Teen Challenge at some point would need to expand to 80 residents. Pastor Turner stated that Teen Challenge would not do it with this building. There are some schools for sale and Teen Challenge may look into that. Teen Challenge also has a women's program for pregnant women on the south side of Lansing and the need has been so great for this program. Teen Challenge houses six ladies and has turned down approximately 500 women over the last 7 to 8 years. He added that Teen Challenge is part of an international organization with over 300 centers. They provide help for women with life controlling problems. Teen Challenge has the only center for pregnant women with life controlling problems where the residents can keep the baby with them and stay with Teen Challenge for their training. He is very proud of the program and Teen Challenge has done very well. The need is very great. Mr. Walter Brown, President of the Knollwood/Will Neighborhood Association and Executive Director of the North Network Center, stated that this is the area where Teen Challenge is located and he has supported the program from the start. Teen Challenge has only done good work since they have been in the neighborhood. They have helped the neighborhood in a tremendous way and have helped the entire Lansing community. They go all over Lansing when people call them and they do different types of work. They did a tremendous amount of work with the Knollwood/Willow Neighborhood Association. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Brown stated that since Teen Challenge has been in the area they have worked with the North Network Center and have devoted a tremendous amount of hours with helping people in the community (i.e. helping with food programs and the elderly). Teen Challenge has been a great asset to the whole community and he is here to support them in any way that he can. Ms. Phyllis Handley, resident of 1207 Linwood and Director of Food Movers, stated that Teen Challenge has provided a great resource to the Lansing community through its volunteer service. Food Movers get volunteers from Teen Challenge six days a week which helps Food Movers to accomplish its mission. Teen Challenge is a wonderful opportunity for men to gain control of their lives and be a positive influence in their communities. As a neighbor, Teen Challenge has done tremendous things to the building. It is now a very appealing building to the community. Mr. Kevin Webb, President of the Old Forrest Neighborhood Association and resident of 528 W. Grand River, stated that Teen Challenge has done a tremendous amount of work as far as keeping the neighborhood clean and helping out with neighborhood clean ups. They work very closely with Mr. Houghtaling and with Paint-a-Place, they have repeatedly done several different houses. They have done a super job and some of the guys who have gone through the program have all gone on to open up their own businesses in painting. Teen Challenge has turned a lot of people's lives around and he support the program. Mr. Bill Houghtaling, President of Northtown Neighborhood Association, stated that he has worked with Pastor Turner when they were on Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Northtown Neighborhood Association has worked with Teen Challenge since day one. He is proud of Teen Challenge and proud to see the progress. He was able to see the inner structure. What goes on behind closed doors and what happens when there are structure problems, he has seen some things happened and Teen Challenge has a good management program that has been able to handle things in house. It does not get out in the community. He would hope that this would be some of the Board's concerns. He believes that Teen Challenge has a good manageable structure to maintain things if the occupancy increased. He has seen a lot of positives come out of the Teen Challenge program. He knows of two individuals who did not live in the Lansing area but are now residents and are giving back to the community. One individual who went through the program now has people working for him. He stated that this is wonderful. He believes that the Board needs to work with Teen Challenge as much as it can. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing and referred SLU-1-2006, 510 W. Willow Street, Special Land Use Permit - Residential Care Facility to the Zoning and Ordinance PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 7 Committee, scheduled to meet on February 15, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — January 17, 2006 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the minutes of January 17, 2006. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of January 17, 2006 were APPROVED w/ Corrections. Pg. 1, add Ms. Bruch to the Roll call. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Hollister, Vice Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, February 15, 2006 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair a. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Block Grant HOME and Emergency Shelter Grant, Action Plan 2007 Ms. Boone presented the Action Plan. She reported that the City's overall allocation reflects a $400,000 reduction from previous years. Program Income is down somewhat because home refinancing activity has slowed. The Development Office has refocused its efforts, trying to lower project costs and to secure funding for lead paint remediation. No public improvements are proposed. Staff recommended approval of Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Block Grant HOME and Emergency Shelter Grant, Action 4 Plan 2007. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 8 In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Bruch asked about allocating funds. Mr. Czekai stated that one of the items discussed during Committee was that there has been a major gouge in funding so there has been a significant cut. Ms. Boon stated that with funding for the Down Payment Assistance program, there was a $100,000 home allocation to continue the down payment assistance program. The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was money specifically allocated to the Development Office from HUD solely for down payment assistance. This year, the Development Office received zero dollars in ADDI funding. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of the Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Block Grant HOME and Emergency Shelter Grant, Action Plan 2007. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Master Plan Amendment - Community Facilities/Reuse of School Facilities/Allen School According to the Municipal Planning Act, the City is now required to notify adjacent local units of its intent to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, then to provide a copy of the proposed amendment, followed by a lengthy comment period, before adopting the amendment. Moreover, the City Council must approve the distribution of the proposed amendment well in advance of the plan's adoption. On November 1, 2005, the Planning Board voted unanimously to initiate a Master Plan Amendment (MPA) regarding the future land use designation for the Allen School property at 1614 E. Kalamazoo Street. The notice of intent has been distributed, so now the proposed amendment must be approved for distribution to the local units. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 9 The proposed Master Plan Amendment (MPA) pertains to the future land use of school properties within the City. The amendment would have two components. 1. Change the North-East Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation of the Allen School property at 1614 E. Kalamazoo from "School, Parks/Open Space" to "Office". 2. Insert language in the City's Comprehensive Plan documents to permit office, residential, and/or commercial uses in closed school facilities, under certain conditions including zoning compliance. This component would affect multiple plan documents, and eliminate the need for a master plan amendment each time a school is reused. It also specifies that the reuse of school buildings be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff recommended preliminary approval of MPA-1-2005, Master Plan Amendment - Community Facilities/Reuse of School Facilities/Allen School for distribution to local units and for subsequent consideration by the Planning Board. In Committee, the request was recommended for preliminary approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Bruch asked if a school is closing and if a use wants to be at this location, will the Board see the site plan of the new use. Mr. Rieske stated that it is desirable to have conformity with the Master Plan especially when the land use decisions are being made based on the Master Plan. While those decisions are being made right now, it was with the understanding that a master plan amendment was included in the process. A rezoning proposal in conformity with the Master Plan would not allow the reuse of that building to be anything but a community facility if it were based on the Master Plan. The Master Plan provides no other alternatives. If the Master Plan was amended to say that the reuse of the school can be housing, office or commercial with concern for the impact on the neighborhood and conformity with the concerns, then the Planning Office would be over the Master Plan hurdle every time. If rezoning were required, then rezoning would need to be done. Ms. Bruch asked if no rezoning was required, would the Board see the site plan. Mr. Rieske stated that it would not come before the Board unless it was a rezoning or special land use request but that does not mean that the Board members would not be able to review the site plan. Ms. Bruch stated PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 10 that the Board should see the site plan. Mr. Frederick stated that it would depend on the zoning and since the schools have been there so long, the Board would at least look at it as a rezoning or maybe a special land use. Ms. Anne Misener, Planning Office Intern, stated that when she wrote the language, she tried to be very aware of it especially of the Master Plan the Planning Office is currently using and the way it is written. When schools are being reused, the City would need to take into consideration what the school was in that community. There would not be uses put in there like with a rezoning that would increase nuisance, traffic or those things on top of it. In the language in the second document it does say to keep in mind that if there is a park attached to a school facility, it may be the only recreation area for that neighborhood. It may be serving that purpose. In those cases, the Board would need to be aware of that when making decisions and to try to preserve it. Ms. Bruch stated this is her biggest concern. She wondered if a school closes, would the green space get taken over by the Parks Department so that it could become a neighborhood park. The use of the building and the parking area could be sold off and that would be okay because then the neighborhood park area gets preserved. Ms. Bruch is not sure if the Board could put it as an ordinance if the schools close, the open space goes to the Parks Department and then the building, parking lot and those areas are sold. Mr. Frederick stated that the only problem he has with that is the School District owns the buildings and the property. He does not think that the Board can laterally decide that the green space would automatically become City park land. There will have to be some financial consideration exchanged for that. The green space is a value to the school. Ms. Bruch agreed and stated that the green space is also a value to the neighborhood. Mr. Rieske stated that in many cases what the City has in the school-park concept is that a park and a school are located next to each other. In the cases of a City park and school owned property with open space, there is potentially a surplus of open space. This appears quite frequently on the park land map. Mr. Rieske added that there are two agencies that are pretty much hurting for money depending upon tax dollars. There is a real good chance that the City Park's Department or Administration would not be interested in taking on the additional maintenance responsibility of taking care of that open space when it has enough open space to take care of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 11 on its own when that particular piece of open space could also become a tax generating piece of property. Ms. Bruch disagreed and stated that she believes that there is not enough open space in the City to begin with. The City may not have the money to maintain it but it is really difficult to turn built property into open space. She believes that the City needs to preserve that space. Mr. Frederick asked how the City would get the space from the school district. Ms. Bruch stated that she does not have a plan but she does not like the fact that some of it could just go into development with neighborhoods being really short of green space. According to the national requirements for density, Lansing does not meet the size for neighborhood parks. Ms. Misener stated that it is true that in a lot of the school situations, the City does have an actual parks and recreation park adjacent to a school facility property. If the school district sells that property, that park is still owned by the Parks and Recreation Department. This is in several cases that she looked at when she reviewed the Master Plan for this. Ms. Misener stated that the value of this is that when there is a vacant school building sitting in a neighborhood, the detriment that the vacant building causes might outweigh a bigger cost in the neighborhood than the loss of a park. The park is very important. With the trend of increasing school closings, there are a lot of neighborhoods that will be stuck with large vacant buildings. Ms. Bruch stated that she is concerned with the loss of the green space and the green space being developed. The reuse of the building is absolutely necessary and is something that the Board should push for because it would be better for the neighborhood. Ms. Bruch would like for the Board to review the site plans when they come in. Ms. Bruch asked if this proposal means that the Board votes that the wording goes in and the Board does not get an opportunity to review the site plan. Mr. Rieske stated that this means the Board is approving the amendment on a preliminary basis for the purpose of sending it to other local jurisdictions and requesting their comments. The Board is not amending the plan at this time. A lot of this discussion is also very important when it comes time for approving the plan amendment. He would like to postpone action on that particular facet of it and move this ahead so that the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 12 Planning Office can distribute the plan and keep it rolling. The other jurisdictions will have approximately 55 days to comment on it during which time there will be 55 days to deliberate. Ms. Cordill asked if the Board will still see proposals. Mr. Rieske stated that the Board will still see school proposals coming forward as zoning issues (i.e. "D-1" classification, multiple residential). In those cases, the Board would still get the rezoning packet. If a property is zoned "A" Residential, chances of putting a single family home in a school building is rather small. The chances of the Board seeing something is pretty good. What the Planning Office is trying to do is eliminate the Board looking at a request from a zoning point of view and also having to look at a Master Plan amendment. Ms. Cordill stated that a rezoning is the mechanism for seeing specific proposals. However, the Board is not in the habit of assigning conditions to a rezoning. Mr. Rieske stated that the Board does not have the authority but the Board does look at site plans when rezonings are done. The Board's approval of a certain item may rest on the idea that the site plan is going to mitigate any negative factors that would make a certain land use unapproveable in the Board members' minds, and those concerns are conveyed to the applicant at the Planning Board meetings. If the land use cannot be mitigated, the land use is not recommended for approval. The site plan is a tool for doing this. Mr. Frederick stated that he was very impressed with Ms. Misener's work and the comments that she has made both here and in the UDC meeting. She deserves the Board's congratulations. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of MPA-1-2005, Master Plan Amendment - Community Facilities/Reuse of School Facilities/Allen School. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 13 C. Support and Endorsement of the Regional Growth Project At the February 18, 2003 Planning Board meeting, Jon Coleman, Executive Director of Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC), presented the Regional Growth to the Board. At the June 28, 2005, the Urban Development Committee reviewed a draft copy of the Summary Report (dated May, 2005), and submitted comments to the Planning Office. These comments were submitted to TCRPC. The final Summary Report is one of the final products of the Regional Growth project. The Planning Office has been involved in the planning process from the outset, and has worked closely with TCRPC staff throughout the duration. Staff recommended endorsement of the Summary Report and approval of the TCRPC's Draft Sample Resolution for City Council action, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. In Committee, it was found that the Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Summary Report and its themes and principles are consistent with the neighborhood preservation, land use, and economic development goals of the City of Lansing. The Committee recommended that the City support and endorse the Regional Growth Summary Report (dated September, 2005), and approve the Draft Sample Resolution, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Bruch stated that one thing that she saw that was lacking in the plan was some of the environmentally ecological corridors that she would like to see happening in Lansing. Although this resolution supports the idea of the regional planning, it looks like it has a few more teeth but not quite as many teeth as she would hope so that the regional plan could really happen throughout all the cities. She asked where modification would be going in this direction. Mr. John Coleman, Executive Director of Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC), stated that the very next step in the TCRPC is transitioning from the planning process as it is going out getting the resolutions of support. The TCRPC is also setting up the Implementation Steering Committee and a series of task forces. Some of the implementation activities fall under the category (i.e. environmental corridors, green ways). The TCRPC will be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 14 seeking participation in the task forces with fairly broad range of groups, agencies, governmental entities and environmental interest to help move this one step further. Currently, the TCRPC is seeking from all the units of government in the region is a general support for the growth project principles so that they will begin applying them in the local planning and development. The TCRPC recognizes that to take this to the next step with some more detailed planning, it needs the input of some of the other groups. Ms. Bruch asked what the TCRPC would need from the City for this regional plan for it to control over this to make it a reality. Mr. Coleman stated that the one thing the TCRPC does not have is land use powers. The Regional Planning Commission has no authority to carry out land use, planning or zoning. The TCRPC is primarily looking to the City to use its powers, both within the City and through coordination with partner jurisdictions, to try to implement some of these things. The TCRPC is looking to the local government for this. Ms. Bruch stated that if there is anything the Board can do to push it forward, she would support it. In the future, the TCRPC would need the land use power. Mr. Coleman stated that it needs a management structure that has some leverage, if not power. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend Support and Endorsement of the Regional Growth Project. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, February 28, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None. The Executive Committee will be scheduled in the near future, at a date to be announced. The agenda items will include the Planning Board Goals and Objectives and the Board Member Code Enforcement and Pending items. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 15 C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager— None. E. 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. Master Plan Project C. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) 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. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) e. 545 Baker Street-Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004) f. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) g. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) h. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) i. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3, 2004) j. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs(February 15,2005) k. 2200 W. Holmes- Bad Habits-excessive signs (May 3, 2005) I. 2618 Cavanaugh Rd.- registered rental&front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) M. S. Pennsylvania-Church of the Rock-buffer parking lot along side street (October 4,2005) n. 2101 Luwanna Dr—registered rental&front yard parking (November 15,2005) 8. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Frederick requested an excused absence for the February 21st meeting. Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request for Mr. Frederick for the February 21St meeting with the condition that fresh grapefruits are brought back for Board members. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Bruch stated that she ran into the owner of the Comedy Club. The Mayor is asking him to move his business to the downtown area. The owner also mentioned that the Mayor is talking about putting the trolley between Michigan PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 16 Avenue and MSU. She stated that it looks like the Mayor is trying to push it. Mr. Frederick stated that the trolley needs to go to the airport before it goes to MSU. If it does not, at least it needs to be extended to go from the downtown area to the airport. Ms. Bruch stated that for the night time business, the Mayor might be looking at the Friday and Saturday nights where there are no activities so that there would be the bringing of the business to the downtown area. . Ms. Bruch asked for an update on the overlay districts. She stated that the Board was supposed to vote on them but has yet to see them. Mr. Czekai stated that these will be reviewed at the Executive Committee meeting. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that at 904 Clark Street the resident has completely surrounded the entire back year with two 6 foot sections of fence. The fences are stacked one on top of the other and it looks like a fort. The fence is now 12 feet high. Mr. Frederick stated that at 1621 Jerome Street, it is a corner lot and has a 6 foot fence that extends into the front yard of one side of the lot. The resident extended the fence out beyond the back of the house. Ms. Bruch stated that under the Pending Items, item 5 — Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports, there is something from Teen Challenge about a wood privacy fence that was reported in 2003. Mr. Rieske stated that he would look into the matter. Mr. Czekai asked about getting information on the older Pending Items so that it could be presented to the Board at a later time. Mr. Frederick stated that the City needs to bet back into the sign enforcement business. Now that there has not been any enforcement, the sign violations are just becoming egregious. Ms. Cordill asked for an excused absence for the March 7th meeting. Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Cordill for the March 7th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ms. Bruch asked for an excused absence for the March 7th meeting. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Bruch for the March 7th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 7, 2006 Page 17 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (� , 9'�ML William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.020706.doc APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk January 19,2006 PG 1,add Ms. Bruch to the Roll call. Approved February 7,2006 To Clerk February 13,2006 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister,,� , B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. n C. Excused absences: None. `='' fir? c, D. Absent: None. C-; 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA r: Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — January 3, 2006 Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of January 3, 2006. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of January 3, 2006 were APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 17, 2006 Page 2 B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. SLU-7-2005, 3001 S. Washington Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Church in a "D-1" Professional Office District This is a request by Richard Evans on behalf of On This Rock Church for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the existing building at 3001 S. Washington Avenue for church services on weekends. The child care center at this location will continue to operate on weekdays. The property is zoned "D-1" Professional Office District which permits churches, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of SLU-7-2005, 3001 S. Washington Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Church in a "D-1" Professional Office District, with the condition that the seating capacity of the church be limited to the amount of parking available on-site or with a lease agreement within 300 feet of the site. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. The seating capacity of the church be limited to the amount of parking available on-site or with a lease agreement within 300 feet of the site; and 2. At least 3 trees are planted on the site; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge stated that with condition number 2, the trees he was referring to should be planted along Washington Avenue. Ms. Bruch asked about the tree requirement. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the requirements for landscaping were not in effect when this previous special land use was approved. Ms. Bruch stated that the Board had requested that some trees be planted and asked how many trees were requested then. She stated that the applicant does need to have some street trees on Dunlap as well as Washington Ave., and one or two trees in the play area just to give the kids shade during the summer. Ms. Stachowiak stated that trees can be a requirement and the only trees she recalled that were required before were a couple of them in the play area along Washington Street and buffering along the east property line between the parking area and the property owner to the east. She stated that the City Forrester will PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 17, 2006 Page 3 require the street trees as part of the approval. Ms. Bruch added a friendly amendment to require two trees in the back play area and two trees on the east side along the parking lot. Mr. Ruge accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Stachowiak stated that one tree is what the Ordinance would require. Ms. Bruch would like to see at least two trees. Mr. Hollister stated that there was some concern about the Fire Marshall and he made comments that it was up to the applicant to go and talk to the Fire Marshall. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant is not here. Mr. Hollister stated that if the applicant hasn't then he will not get a permit and he would not be able to have services. Ms. Stachowiak stated that becomes automatic. Ms. Bruch stated that the last time the site was given a special land use they did not plant trees. How is the Board going to know for sure that this will happen before they get their permits. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this time she will hold their certificate of occupancy knowing that it is a potential problem. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of SLU-7-2005, 3001 S. Washington Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Church in a "D-1" Professional Office District, with the following conditions: 1) The seating capacity of the church be limited to the amount of parking available on-site or with a lease agreement within 300 feet of the site; and 2) At least three trees are planted in the play area along Washington Avenue, one tree is planted along the east property line and two trees are planted in the play area south of the building. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. SLU-8-2005, 2101 Bruce Street, Special Land Use Permit - Child Care Facility This is a request by Montessori Children's House of Lansing for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the existing building at 2101 Bruce Street for a child care center. The property is zoned "A" Residential District which permits child care centers, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 17, 2006 Page 4 Staff recommended approval of SLU-8-2005, 2101 Bruce Street, Special Land Use Permit - Child Care Facility, with the conditions listed in the staff report. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. No fencing in the front yard along Bruce St.; 2. Fencing along St. Joseph St. to be setback at least ten feet from the road right-of-way; 3. Fencing to be screened from view of the street and adjacent residences with an evergreen landscape buffer consistent with the landscaping standards of the Zoning Ordinance; 4. Any additional area needed to meet the 2,500 sq. ft. requirement for outdoor recreational area to be located on adjoining school property and buffered along St, Joseph in the same manner as 2101 Bruce St.; 5. Parking and drop-off to be limited to the school parking lot; 6. A hard surfaced walkway to be constructed between school parking lot and day care center; and 7. A sign be erected that provides directions to the parking and pick-up/drop-off area on Heather Lane; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Bruch stated that all the business of dropping off and picking up kids happens on Heather Lane in the parking lot right behind the existing school. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there will be no additional pavement. Ms. Bruch asked if there would be lights to light the sidewalk for the kids and that by 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. it starts getting dark. She is not sure if the lights will be needed or if the school has enough light coming off the building. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she was not sure what the area looks like after dark. Mr. Frederick stated that his impression was that the lights in the parking lot would be sufficient. There are trees but not a huge amount of trees that would completely block out the lighting. The kids should be okay. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of SLU-8-2005, 2101 Bruce Street, Special Land Use Permit - Child Care Facility, with the following conditions: 1) No fencing in the front yard along Bruce St.; 2) Fencing along St. Joseph St. to be setback at least ten feet from the road right-of- way; 3) Fencing to be screened from view of the street and adjacent residences with an evergreen landscape buffer consistent with the landscaping standards of the Zoning Ordinance; 4) Any additional area needed to meet the 2,500 sq. ft. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 17, 2006 Page 5 requirement for outdoor recreational area to be located on adjoining school property and buffered along St, Joseph in the same manner as 2101 Bruce St.; 5) Parking and drop-off to be limited to the school parking lot; 6) A hard surfaced walkway to be constructed between school parking lot and day care center; and 7) A sign be erected that provides directions to the parking and pick-up/drop-off area on Heather Lane. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. Z-14-2005, 118 & 124 N. Larch Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District This is a request by Matt Fisher to rezone the property at 118 & 124 N. Larch Street, more specifically described as: Lots 16 & 17, Assessors Plat No 36 of Block 243, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District, for the purpose of utilizing the existing building at 124 N. Larch Street for a mix of residential and office uses. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning Z-14-2005, 118 & 124 N. Larch Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District, based upon its consistency with the surrounding land uses and the future land use being advanced in the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Cordill asked if the building was two stories. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant will construct additional floors. Ms. Cordill asked if the Committee had seen elevations. Ms. Stachowiak stated yes. Mr. Fisher, applicant, stated that at last week's meeting there was a preliminary rendering of the proposed building. If fact, last week was the first time that he had seen the drawing when it was presented. The concerns on the architectural features were heard and are being changed. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 17, 2006 Page 6 He stated that the north building has two stories and the south building is a really tall one story building. He is trying to avoid high rise construction so the overall height would be limited to 54 feet. The idea is to build what would probably be a four or equivalent of a five story building to take advantage of the sky line and the views. Ms. Cordill stated that the front elevation with the parapet is a character defining element. She encouraged preservation of the architectural features. Mr. Fisher stated that he would like to preserve it if he can. However, upon closer inspection, the features on the building are not in that great of condition. The odds are that they would probably have to be replaced or moved or somehow incorporated possibly higher on the building. Weathering over time has made them a little fragile and they may be relatively easy to replace. To incorporate them into the new building they would most likely be moved up instead of trying to build back up for structural ease of having to try to reconstruct and bring back a front wall would most likely be the most practical and cost effective way of doing it. Ms. Cordill stated that she encourages the type of uses that the applicant is proposing but she is not sure if this is the best building for it. Mr. Ruge asked if the property went all the way back to Pere Marquette Drive. Mr. Fisher stated no. Ms. Bruch stated that it does look like one of the parking spaces if half way in and out of the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is the way it is right now though and that it is a mess over there. The applicant is hoping to clean it up. There is another plan that shows the proposed parking layout. Ms. Bruch asked if the Ordinance would kick in for trees in the front street of North Larch. Ms. Stachowiak stated that in the "G-1" Business District, zero lot line, there is no landscaping required. It is exempt. Ms. Bruch stated that the only place she was thinking of was in the two green spaces right in front of the building on North Larch Street. Ms. Stachowiak stated only if the City Forrester will allow it. Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to make a recommendation that the Board put in two street trees because it is very dark. Mr. Frederick stated that the drawing showed some trees at least up on the fifth floor where the applicant's place will be. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 17, 2006 Page 7 He asked if the applicant was intending to have greenery on the upper level. Mr. Fisher stated that he actually is trying to limit the height and not have to put in high rise construction. The house he used to live in was a rather large place with gardens and he is trying to bring as much of that to this site as he can. The upper terrace area is to be reinforced for the idea that there may possibly be a pool and some greenery added. As far as the trees in front of the building, he asked about a height requirement and how mature the trees would have to be. He would be very happy to put in the front topiary style of trees to dress up the area. He would like to keep away from full grown trees because if there were balconies off the front potentially he would worry about trying to keep a tree from maybe growing into the building. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the trees would be low profile (i.e. canopy trees). Ms. Bruch stated that maybe the applicant could ask the City Forrester about trees that grow up rather than trees that spread out. Mr. Czekai asked if Mr. Ruge had any concerns with adding this as a recommendation. Mr. Ruge stated no. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it could be a recommendation but not a condition of approval. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of Z-14-2005, 118 & 124 N. Larch Street, "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave Hollister Ave Czekai. Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. d. Z-15-2005, 125/127 W. Barnes Avenue, from "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District This is a request by Matt Fisher to rezone the property at 125/127 W. Barnes Avenue, more specifically described as: North 107.25 Feet of Lot 9, Block 17, Park Place, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District, for the purpose of utilizing the existing structure at 125/127 for four residential units. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 17, 2006 Page 8 Staff recommended denial of the Z-15-2005, 125/127 W. Barnes Avenue, from "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District, based upon its inconsistency with the Master Plan and the surrounding zoning and land use patterns. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Bruch asked about the rental capacity of the building. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a two unit is what is permitted under the current zoning. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend denial of Z-15-2005, 125/127 W. Barnes Avenue, from "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. DENIED. e. Z-16-2005 & SLU-9-2005, 1614 E. Kalamazoo Street, Rezoning from "B" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District, Special Land Use Permit - Laboratory These are requests by Neogen Properties IV LLC. Z-16- 2005 is a request to rezone the property at 1614 E. Kalamazoo Street, more specifically described as: Part of SE 114 Section 15 commencing SE corner of Kalamazoo & Allen, thence S 12 rods, E 16 rods, N 12 rods, W 16 rods to begin.; also lots 61 through 72 inclusive & vacated alley commencing SW corner of lot 72, thence W 10 ft, N 198 ft, E 10 ft, S 198 ft to beginning, Clears Addition. from "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District, for the purpose of utilizing the building/property at this location for office and laboratory space. The "D-1" Professional Office district permits laboratories, if a special land use permit is approved by the City Council. SLU-9-05 is a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 17, 2006 Page 9 request for a special land use permit to operate a laboratory at 1614 E. Kalamazoo Street. Staff recommended approval of Z-16-2005 & SLU-9-2005, 1614 E. Kalamazoo Street, Rezoning from "B" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District, Special Land Use Permit -Laboratory, for Z-16-2005 based upon it's consistency with the surrounding land use and zoning patterns, and for SLU-9-2005 based upon its consistency with the nine criteria set forth in Section 1282 of the Zoning Ordinance In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. The dumpsters are to be removed from the parking areas; 2. If the parking area is expanded or reconfigured at some time in the future, the site will be limited to one access on Shepard Street, one access on Allen Street and the existing drive along Marcus Street is to be closed; and 3. The use of an alternative surface, such as grasscrete or brick pavers, for a future parking lot is to be permitted; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Czekai called a Point of Order and stated that since there are two different actions that the Board is taking, he requested that Mr. Ruge make two different motions. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the conditions go with the special land use and not with the rezoning. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of Z-16-2005, 1614 E. Kalamazoo Street, Rezoning from "B" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District. Frederick Ave Bruch Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of SLU-9-2005, 1614 E. Kalamazoo Street, Special Land Use Permit— Laboratory with the following conditions: 1) The dumpsters are to be removed from the parking PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 17, 2006 Page 10 areas and placed behind the building in the center of the property; 2) If the parking area is expanded or reconfigured at some time in the future, the site will be limited to one access on Shepard Street, one access on Allen Street and the existing drive along Marcus Street is to be closed; and 3) The use of an alternative surface, such as grasscrete or brick pavers, for a future parking lot is to be permitted. Ms. Bruch stated this will now become private property and asked if the neighbors and the kids will no longer be able to use this green space. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would be concerned about liability if she were Neogen. Mr. Czekai asked if there were any other parks in the area. Ms. Stachowiak stated that three blocks away is Hunter Park. Mr. Jim Houthoofd, Representative of Neogen Corporation, stated that he has not discussed this with the insurance company. There is a softball field and it would be kind of nice to have their own field. Ms. Bruch stated that the whole neighborhood probably considers this playground theirs. This will no longer be public land and if the playground equipment is not moved, that is an invitation for the kids to come play on it. Mr. Houthoofd stated that Neogen will do everything to save the playground. Ms. Bruch asked about where the dumpster will be moved. Mr. Ruge stated that it will be moved immediately behind the building in the center of the site. Ms. Bruch asked about the type of laboratory Neogen will have at this site. Mr. Houthoofd stated that Neogen makes diagnostic test kits that are used by Quality Control Departments for various food manufacturing companies. It is for natural recurring toxins in food. Ms. Bruch stated that it is not necessarily any kind of hazardous type lab. Mr. Houthoofd stated that there would be no hazardous material. Ms. Cordill stated that the Committee discussed landscaping for the lot and asked if the Board would like to include that in the conditions. Mr. Ruge stated that with the zoning change it will kick in the landscape and buffering requirements. The Committee did not have to require anything. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be required around the parking area, particularly in the area between the parking area and the property line along Allen Street, and also between the parking area and the property line along Marcus Street. There are some mature trees in there right now which can be seen from the aerial photo. Neogen may have to plant a few more trees in there to get the numbers that the zoning requires and also some shrubbery. Ms. Bruch stated that street trees should be added along Shepard Street where it is fairly bare. There is a corner tree. That way it doesn't get in the way of the baseball area but yet it still adds some sense of street trees that are not currently there. Mr. Czekai stated that this can be added as a friendly amendment. Mr. Ruge accepted it. Mr. Hollister stated that Neogen has been extremely neighborhood friendly and with all of the different neighborhood properties that it has redeveloped, Neogen has been a model of working with the neighbors on all of the different issues (i.e. playground, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 17, 2006 Page 11 landscaping). He stated that taking a facility that would be hard to redevelop and putting it into effective use is tremendous and you could not ask for someone better. Mr. Czekai stated that Neogen is very cognizant of what is going on in the neighborhood and Mr. Herbert actually just moved into the neighborhood. He is one of the few CEOs that will live in the City of Lansing and is part of the neighborhood organization. Mr. Herbert is very active with the residents and their concerns. Ms. Bruch asked if there was a possibility of also having the Parks Department involved, and maybe removing the liability from Neogen so that it allows the company to share the playground with the neighborhood. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is something that can be discussed with the Parks Department. Ms. Bruch stated that this may be a way to share the playground and everybody wins. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, February 15, 2006 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr. Rieske has asked if the meeting could be postponed until January 31St to allow additional time to work on the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Next meeting, Tuesday, January 31, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None. C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager Ms. Stachowiak stated that between now and April, the Zoning and Ordinance Committee will be Mr. Czekai, Mr. Hollister and Mr. Ruge. The PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 17, 2006 Page 12 Urban Development Committee will be Mr. Czekai, Ms. Cordill and Mr. Frederick. E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoninq 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. Master Plan Project C. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planninq 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. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) e. 545 Baker Street-Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20, 2004) f. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) g. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) h. 2702 S.Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) i. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.- no landscaping (November 3, 2004) j. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs (February 15,2005) k. 2200 W. Holmes-Bad Habits-excessive signs (May 3,2005) I. 2618 Cavanaugh Rd.-registered rental &front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) M. S. Pennsylvania-Church of the Rock- buffer parking lot along side street (October 4,2005) n. 2101 Luwanna Dr—registered rental &front yard parking (November 15,2005) 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Czekai stated that he is glad to be back and thanked Mr. Hollister for filling in while he was gone. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that he has a nonofficial, casual request from one of the judges over at Circuit Court. The intersections of Lenawee and Townsend Streets, and Kalamazoo and Townsend Streets are dangerous intersections for pedestrians. Traffic travels way too fast and vision is obscured. Mr. Frederick stated the judge had said the steam leak from Board of Water and Light (BWL) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 17, 2006 Page 13 also obscures vision at the intersection of Lenawee and Townsend Streets. He really believes that there needs to be some sort of traffic calming or enhanced enforcement, if possible. Something needs to be done because the cars roll off the stop signs and the people do not care. It is pretty serious. Whoever this could be passed along to, Circuit Court would really appreciate it. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.011706.doc Approved as written 1-17-06 Draft to Clerk January 9,2006 Approved January 17,2006 To Clerk January 18,2006 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers , Lansing City Hall ; Tuesday, January 3, 2006 -, 1. OPENING SESSION r— CFN The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Hollister, Vice Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, Cordill, Hollister. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Bruch, Czekai. D. Absent: None. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve excused absence requests from Ms. Bruch and Mr. Czekai for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Hollister stated that the Board will not be taking action at this time on ACT-9-2005 at the applicant's request. 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of support from Joan Nelson, Director of Allen Neighborhood Center, regarding Z-16-2005. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-15-2005, 125/127 W. Barnes Avenue, from "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District This is a request by Matt Fisher to rezone the property at 125/127 W. Barnes Avenue, more specifically described as: North 107.25 Feet of Lot 9, Block 17, Park Place, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District, for the purpose of utilizing the existing structure at 125/127 for four residential units. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 3, 2006 Page 2 Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge asked if the structure was built as a two-unit or four-unit. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not know the history of the structure and that the full report will include some history. She will have an answer to that for the meeting next week. Ms. Cordill stated that she would be interested in knowing the square footage of the building. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Hollister closed the public hearing and referred Z-15-2005, 125/127 W. Barnes Avenue, from "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on January 11, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-16-2005 & SLU-9-2005, 1614 E. Kalamazoo Street, Rezoning from "B" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District, Special Land Use Permit -Laboratory These are requests by Neogen Properties IV LLC. Z-16-2005 is a request to rezone the property at 1614 E. Kalamazoo Street, more specifically described as: Part of SE 114 Section 15 commencing SE corner of Kalamazoo & Allen, thence S 12 rods, E 16 rods, N 12 rods, W 16 rods to begin.; also lots 61 through 72 inclusive & vacated alley commencing SW corner of lot 72, thence W 10 ft, N 198 ft, E 10 ft, S 198 ft to beginning, Clears Addition. from "B" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District, for the purpose of utilizing the building/property at this location for office and laboratory space. The "D-1" Professional Office district permits laboratories, if a special land use permit is approved by the City Council. SLU-9-05 is a request for a special land use permit to operate a laboratory at 1614 E. Kalamazoo Street. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge stated that Neogen has always been a good neighbor over by the Oak Park area. The lot goes really deep into the neighborhood and he would like to see a site plan so the Board will know what the plans are and how the buffering will be for the parking lot. He stated that it looks like Neogen plans on having 45 employees at this location, which would generate quite a bit of traffic. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 3, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Hollister asked if Neogen was planning on doing any structural changes. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Neogen intends to occupy the building as it exists and will use the existing parking area. There may be some interior alterations to accommodate the offices and laboratories. Mr. Jim Herbert, President of Neogen Corporation, stated that Neogen is very pleased to be here tonight to discuss the building and very indebted to the City over the course of the past 20 years for the things that the City has allowed Neogen to do. Neogen has taken five old buildings built between 1910 and 1925, restored them and brought them back into use as a high tech part of the business. It has allowed the company to invest its dollars in people and technology which has created growth for the City and the company. Neogen determined from early on that its resources were better spent on people and technology than on new shiny buildings. Mr. Herbert stated that with the Allen Street property Neogen has continually been under the gun as it has expanded over the past number of years and will need to have space for the next expansion. Neogen has moved part of its operation just simply because of space. When Neogen saw the opportunity to develop the Allen Street property, this was a way for the company to get ahead of the game and maybe acquire some property so Neogen can go ahead and begin to do some remodeling and be ready for what is next. Neogen does have one operation to consider immediately and it would be moved from out of state. It would require approximately 7,000 feet of total 44,000 feet so that is not beginning to nearly occupy it but Neogen is continually looking at the other opportunities and has confidence that it can fill the space over time. He stated that Neogen's record hopefully speaks louder than the words he presents tonight as to what Neogen has been able to do with the neighborhood cooperation, which has been very important to Neogen as it took care of the Lesher Street property. The old original Oak Park school was built in 1916 and the building next door was built in 1925. Mr. Herbert stated that Neogen would not immediately fill the building and is not sure if it will be filled in 6 months. Neogen has plans to use all the space, otherwise the company would not be interested in a building of that size. It has been Neogen's procedure in the past to try to make buildings look good to fit into the neighborhood. As for parking, Mr. Herbert stated that Neogen does not have architectural plans at this point but does plan to do some things on the landscaping to make it fit into the neighborhood so people do not have to look at asphalt parking. The property does blend itself well and it sits on Kalamazoo Street which is a main thoroughfare. It would not require any traffic going through the neighborhoods. The entrance to the property on both sides is roughly 100 yards from Kalamazoo Street and would not interfere with neighborhood traffic. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 3, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Herbert asked the Board to favorably consider the request. Neogen has had some conversations with residents as indicated by the letter of support the Board received tonight. Mr. Ruge stated that the piece of property is pretty large, with the school building and parking area, and Neogen anticipates having 45 employees in the building. There will be a large piece of property left over. He asked if Neogen thought about what it would do with the large piece of property. Mr. Herbert stated that he is not sure if there will be a large piece of property left over. It would require a fair number of parking spaces for employees plus the opportunity to give a buffer zone between Neogen's property and the sidewalk. There will be a need to have a place for a truck turnaround for deliveries coming into the building. Mr. Herbert stated that there is adequate paved space to take care of that now. Mr. Ruge asked about how much truck traffic Neogen would expect. Mr. Herbert stated that there would be no more truck traffic than what Neogen has at any of the current facilities. He stated that there will not be trucks going through the neighborhood and that it would be less trucks through the neighborhood than what is generated now going into the Lesher Place property. Neogen does not anticipate that it would create any hazard as far as truck traffic going in and out of the business. Mr. Ruge asked if Neogen could provide information on how many trucks Neogen has going into the Lesher Place property. Ms. Cordill asked if the trucks were coming through during normal business hours or extended beyond 5:00 p.m. or before 6:00 a.m. Mr. Herbert stated that the trucks would not be making deliveries or shipments any time other than during the normal business hours. Mr. Rick Kibbey, Representative for Allen Neighborhood Center, stated that the Allen Neighborhood Center strongly supports Neogen. If anyone was around 20 years ago when Neogen had their first hearing regarding the Oak Park School, he was terrified and afraid there was going to be mutant pour and smut viruses dusting out into the neighborhood and that there would be all sorts of acids in there and fumes. None of that happened. There is more to be concerned with in a high school chemistry lab then there is from the Neogen projects. The residents have had 20 years without any problems. Mr. Kibbey Stated that Neogen was everything that you could ask for in a neighbor. Neogen is clean, neighborhood appropriate and takes very good care of the property. Mr. Herbert lives three blocks from the proposed property. When someone looks at a walkable community, this moves exactly in the direction that the neighborhood wants to move. These are 21st Century jobs that Neogen has and this is the kind of thing the neighborhood wants to see. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 3, 2006 Page 5 Across the street from the proposed site is mixed commercial and light industrial with the same type of traffic that Neogen would have at this site (i.e. UPS and FedEx trucks). Actually what Neogen would do if there is a tractor trailer, is park it on the street. Mr. Kibbey stated that he appreciates the comments on the buffering and that would be helpful. The traffic that Neogen is proposing he would estimate to be less than the current traffic and it will be more spread out during the day. Streets would not be jammed up with parents and people picking up their kids at least twice a day. Truck traffic will probably go up a little bit but the type of traffic Mr. Herbert is referring to is completely consistent with what is going on at Neogen now. Mr. Kibbey stated that the Allen Neighborhood Center is looking forward to having Neogen as a neighbor and Mr. Herbert is a real good guy to have as a neighbor. Mr. Herbert does not just run his business, he is also a part of the neighborhood. Mr. Herbert was a part of the Home Tour last year. He opened up his home and everyone wanted to see it because he lived in a house that nobody had been in before. Mr. Kibbey stated that the Allen Neighborhood Center is looking forward to working with Mr. Herbert above and beyond just the personal characteristics. Neogen is the type of business and use that the center believes is appropriate for a neighborhood. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Hollister closed the public hearing and referred Z-16-2005 & SLU-9-2005, 1614 E. Kalamazoo Street, Rezoning from "B" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District, Special Land Use Permit—Laboratory to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on January 11, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Block Grant HOME and Emergency Shelter Grant, Action Plan 2007 Ms. Erica Shifflet Gibson, Coordinator for the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network (GLHRN), stated that the GLHRN is a community collaborative of more than 20 agencies that provide services to homeless people in Ingham County. She thanked the City for its continued support of the GLHRN efforts to improve the community through services designed to prevent and alleviate homelessness. She stated that last year the GLHRN received over $90,000 from the City and the ESG grant. That money went to support emergency shelters at Haven House, Loaves and Fishes Ministries and Volunteers of America. It PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 3, 2006 Page 6 helps to support three transitional homes at Advent House Ministries, a transitional program for single moms at St. Vincent Catholic Charity Balentine Stepping Stones Program; Cross Roads which is a transitional program for homeless Youth; the Housing Placement Program at the Salvation Army; a Case Manager Salary at National Council on Alcoholism which helps people deal with substance abuse to find housing; Residential Substance Abuse Treatment through Capital Area Community Services; and support the Domestic Violence program at Ingham, Inc. The GLHRN has estimated that there are around 700 homeless people each night in the Lansing area and receives more than 450 requests per day for shelter. More than half of those requests come from families with children. The GLHRN admires and commends the City of Lansing for its understanding of this community problem and looks forward to the City's support of the GLHRN's continued community effort. Ms. Patricia Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Council on Alcoholism/Lansing Regional Area and Co-Chair of the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network (GLHRN), stated that she just wanted to take an opportunity to introduce herself and to echo Ms. Gibson's words that the NCA/LRA appreciates not only the dollars which mean a lot to all of the agencies, but also it gives them an opportunity to leverage those dollars with the other dollars received. The GLHRN also appreciates the support received from City staff, City Council and the Committees. This helps in many ways. Ms. Beverly Wiener, Director of Haven House, stated that Haven House is a shelter for homeless families. Haven House has received support through ESG funds in the past and hopes that this might be a continuing possibility. She thanked the Board for the City's concern about this issue and wanting to help deal with it. Ms. Susan Cancro, Director of Advent House Ministries and Chair of the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network (GLHRN), thanked the Board for its support of all of the programs through either ESG funds or the general City funds. Without this support, Advent House Ministries could not do what it does and the problem of homelessness would explode in the community. Ms. Cancro stated that another project at Advent House is the day shelter which is open on weekends and also on Christmas Day. There were 614 people who come through looking for food and basic assistance Christmas day. This is not the project funded by ESG but because Advent House has a transitional house and other programs, people who come to Advent House for those basic services know that there is more out there and that they can take that step up to get more stability and to develop themselves PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 3, 2006 Page 7 into better community members. Without these pieces altogether, Advent House cannot provide a really good set of services. She stated that whatever the Board does for the agencies as a group, the GLHRN has put together all the agencies to create a network that works for people to work for themselves. The GLHRN really appreciates the support. Ms. Aileen Gow, Executive Director of Urban Options, stated that Urban Options provides the energy fitness program service for the City of Lansing. She stated that Urban Options is really busy and with the energy crisis, they have been really swamped. She thanked the Board for its long term support of the energy fitness program. It enabled them to be ready this year for the citizens of Lansing. Today they had to install a new phone system because the current one could not handle the load of phone calls that they have been getting. Ms. Gow wanted to let the Board know what this program has done recently for the City. Because of the success of the program and improvement in energy savings that resulted from it, the Lansing Board of Water and Light (BWL) matched the program and Urban Options was able to provide twice as many homes with service. Urban Options was able to do that because it was ready and positioned, and the BWL wanted to support a program. Urban Options was there and ready to do it on a dime because the Board supported this program. Ms. Gow stated that the Michigan Public Service Commission provided Urban Options with state-wide funding. There is a Northern Options now located in Marquette, MI. Urban Options was able to bring in 30 new heating systems for residents of Lansing who were in dire need. Many were elderly and long time residents of the City who did not qualify for any other programs that were out there. Urban Options is happy to announce that it just received a second grant from the Public Service Commission and it hopes to be able to help another 20 or 30 families in Lansing with the same program. Ms. Gow stated that Urban Options really appreciates the Board's support and that it could not come at a better time. Lansing should be very proud of itself for having an energy program when many other cities are scrambling right now to do something for their residents. She stated that Urban Options hopes to have the program generate even more in the future. Ms. Julie Burtch, Representative of ReoTown Commercial Association located at 1027 S. Washington, stated that she is proud to work and live in Lansing and is very thankful that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds have been available for this community. In 2005-2006, ReoTown received $10,000 for its operational costs including a match for its Risk Americorp employee without which the ReoTown Comerical Association probably would not be around right now PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 3, 2006 Page 8 and also the crucial money for office supplies. With it, ReoTown has been able to do some really amazing things (i.e. attracting some new businesses, new investors — Neophase Development of East Lansing & Wayne Corporation Properties of Okemos —who brought in Studio Intrigue Architects). ReoTown is looking at doing a number of continuing projects (i.e. neighborhood cleanups), and partnering with neighborhoods and also with another local non-profit in ReoTown to provide a studio art center as a safe place for children and adults to do art and to socialize. ReoTown is continuing to work with City staff, Economic Development Corporation staff, Code Compliance officers and Police officers in making ReoTown a much better place to live, work, play and enjoy. She thanked the Board for its continued support and hopes that ReoTown will be receiving some funds in the upcoming fiscal year. Mr. Grant Hilts, North Park Neighborhood Association's Representative Board member and Vice President of the ReoTown Organization, stated that there has been a lot of really great things going on in ReoTown and the neighborhood residents have really noticed a big difference. There has been some facade work for some of the businesses which has really improved the look. The Reach Art Studio has received national recognition for the programs it has put on. Moores Park has its own non-profit organization to try and rehab at least one house per year. Reotown is going to be working with Moores Park organization to try and make some of this happen. This will help Lansing attract people. This is one of the things that needs to be done. Some of the older neighborhoods with older houses need to be upgraded and made to look nice. It really is important to Reotown that it has the continued ability to make a difference in Reotown and get some money from the City to do so. ReoTown needs money to accomplish things. Mr. Rick Kibbey, Representative for Lansing Eastside Community Development Corporation (LECDC), stated that the LECDC had another $54,000 in facade improvement. It doesn't come out of a dime of the Administration money. In the most recent campaign, every one of the candidates was talking about neighborhood commercial strips and commercial development. In order for that to happen there needs to be people on the ground. He hopes that as the Board approaches this from a strategic point of view, that it would keep in mind there are partners on the street who need support. With that support, the LECDC can go out and get additional money. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Hollister closed the public hearing and referred Proposed Objectives, Goals and Projected Use of Community Development Block Grant HOME and Emergency Shelter Grant, Action Plan 2007 to the Urban Development Committee, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 3, 2006 Page 9 scheduled to meet on January 24, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Hollister closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — November 1, 2005 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the minutes of November 1, 2005. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of November 1, 2005 were APPROVED. Minutes for Approval — November 15, 2005 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of November 15, 2005. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of November 15, 2005 were APPROVED. Minutes for Approval — December 6, 2005 Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the minutes of December 6, 2005. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). The minutes of December 6, 2005 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, January 11, 2006 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, January 24, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 3, 2006 Page 10 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None. C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske stated that he really appreciates everyone's work throughout this past year and in the coming year. It takes a lot of effort to be on the Planning Board, attend a lot of meetings, sift through a lot of paperwork and make a lot of decisions. He stated that the Planning Office really appreciates it and that it is an effort that really pays off for the City. Mr. Rieske stated that Mr. Bob Johnson is in the audience and that he is the new Director of the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department. His first day with staff was today. He did mention a few changes and some exciting possibilities. One of the main things that Mr. Johnson mentioned is the idea that the City will be facing a deficit totaling about $11 million. As far as revenue enhancement goes, the Planning and Neighborhood Development Department is kind of the tip of the spear to making in-roads to increase its property tax revenues, job creation, income tax revenues, etc. That will be an emphasis in the coming year. Mr. Rieske stated that one of the things Mr. Johnson mentioned was sensitivity to urban design type issues. Mr. Rieske stated that there is a lot to look forward to in the coming year and a good portion will be coming before the Board. Mr. Rieske stated that the Regional Growth project is pretty well ended and so he will be coordinating with Mr. Harold Leeman regarding the approach that the City takes in introducing it to the City of Lansing, not just for information but also for action. Ms. Stachowiak stated that some of the Committees have been changed around because there were some conflicts with scheduling. For the upcoming Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting next week, Ms. Bruch will not be able to attend. She asked for another member to fill in at the meeting. Mr. Frederick stated that he was still on the Committee and that he intends to be at the meeting. Mr. Frederick asked how long the time conflict was for. Ms. Stachowiak stated four months. Mr. Frederick stated that he has filled in for UDC and can do it if that would be the Board's desire. He stated that if that is decided, let him know and he will change over his schedule. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 3, 2006 Page 11 E. 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) C. Z-7-2005, South 99 Feet of 600 E. Kalamazoo Street,"B" Residential District to 7"Commercial District(Tabled July 13, 2005) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Master Plan Project C. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) 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. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) e. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004) f. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4, 2004) g. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) h. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) i. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and buffering (October 5,2004) j. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.- no landscaping (November 3,2004) k. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd- illegal signs(February 15,2005) I. 2200 W. Holmes- Bad Habits-excessive signs (May 3,2005) M. 704 S. Clemens Street-possible abandoned building (October 18,2005) n. 2618 Cavanaugh Rd. -registered rental&front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) o. S. Pennsylvania-Church of the Rock-buffer parking lot along side street (October 4,2005) P. 2101 Luwanna Dr—registered rental &front yard parking (November 15,2005) For item 1 c, Ms. Stachowiak stated that it has been withdrawn. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Hollister asked if Mr. Johnson or Mr. Leeman would like to introduce themselves. Mr. Johnson introduced himself and stated that his is looking forward to working with the Board on some of the exciting opportunities that lie ahead. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 3, 2006 Page 12 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.010306.doc Approved as written 7-5-06 Draft to Clerk June 12,2006 Approved July 5,2006 To Clerk July 7,2006 0 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD `w' c 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, June 6, 2006 1. OPENING SESSION o, The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Bruch. D. Absent: None. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve excused absence requests from Ms. Bruch for the June, July and August meetings. 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). Mr. Hollister inquired about item 6 under New Business, and asked if it could be removed. He thought the case had been put on hold. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the recommendation coming out of the Committee is a motion to initiate an ACT 285 for the closure of Polly Avenue. It requires full Planning Board support of that motion. Mr. Czekai stated because there is an objection, it is automatically placed under Committee Reports. Ms. Cordill stated that she had a question for discussion regarding SLU-3-2006. Mr. Czekai stated that SLU-3-2006 will be moved to Committee Reports. Mr. Ruge stated that because it was so contentious and the neighbors were so concerned, he does not feel comfortable having Z-4-2006 on the consent agenda. 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Page 2 4. HEARINGS A. Z-6-2006 & SLU-6-2006, 5601 S. Waverly Road, Rezoning from "J" Parking District to "B" Residential District, Special Land Use Permit - Telecommunications Tower These are requests by Haley Law Firm. Z-6-2006 is a request to rezone the east 284 feet of the property at 5601 S. Waverly Road from "J" Parking District to "B" Residential District. SLU-6-2006 is a request for a Special Land Use permit to construct a 125-foot high, monopole, telecommunications tower behind the existing church building at 5601 S. Waverly Road. The "B" Residential District permits public/private utility facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Hollister asked if the applicant could make it look like a tree. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it can be done. There are a lot of differences of opinion as to whether that is attractive or if it makes it stand out more. It is a matter of opinion as to whether that is a good thing to do or not, but it can be done. Mr. Frederick stated that he has seen one of those things. The first time he saw it, he wasn't sure what it was. He stated that it was no better looking than the ordinary run-of-the-mill cell tower. Mr. Wally Haley, representative for T-Mobile, stated that some of the better features of this site is that it is harmonious with the surrounding area. One of the reasons is the string of the tall lattice towers right next to it. The string of lattice towers will stand out much more than the tower behind the church. He has the dubious distinction of being the only guy in Michigan to put that tree tower in. Mr. Frederick stated that it was the one in West Bloomfield. Mr. Haley said that was correct and that it was in a commercial strip mall parking lot. There is not a tree within 500 feet of it that is higher than 25 feet. It does tend to stick out. It has to be twice the size width wise, dense wise, mass wise to support that extra weight. The cell tower Mr. Frederick saw was only 120 feet tall but it seems a lot larger. Mr. Frederick asked if Mr. Haley brought propagation charts. Mr. Haley stated that he did bring the charts and he stepped forward to review them with the Board members. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing and referred Z-6-2006 & SLU-6-2006, 5601 S. Waverly Road, Rezoning from "J" Parking District to "B" Residential District, Special Land Use Permit - Telecommunications Tower to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 14, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Page 3 and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. SLU-4-2006, 3215 W. Mt. Hope Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Telecommunications Tower This is a request by Haley Law Firm on behalf of T-Mobile Central, for a Special Land Use permit to construct a 125-foot high, monopole, telecommunications tower at 3215 W. Mt. Hope Avenue. The property is commonly known as Grand Haven Manor and the tower will be located at the south end of the site. The property is zoned "DM-3" Residential District which permits public/private utility facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge asked how far the tower will be from the south and west property lines of the residential neighbors. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is approximately 240 feet from the south property line, 215 feet from the west property line and 265 feet from the east property line, according to the site plan. Ms. Cordill asked about the capability of co-locating on the proposed tower. Ms. Stachowiak stated that they all lend themselves to being able to accommodate at least three co-locations. This benefits them as well as it benefits the City because then the City has less towers. When the City makes a recommendation on this request, just as it did with the Board of Zoning Appeals, both approvals will come with the same conditions. There is a set of six conditions that were set up to go along with all cell phone towers in the City a few years back when cell phones towers started coming into play. One of the conditions is that the applicant must allow for at least three co-locations. Others include that the towers not interfere with hospitals and that there be screening along the base of the tower where there is not existing vegetation. Mr. Dave Robertson, Administrator of the Grand Haven Living Center, asked about the height requirement for the fence around the compound and asked if there will be any landscaping around the fence to minimize that type of look at ground level for the residents to the west. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the fence will be at least 6 feet high, and that one of the conditions of approval from the Planning Board, City Council and the Board of Zoning Appeals is that there has to be vegetation around the base of the tower to screen the equipment from the surrounding property owners including the residents of Grand Haven Manor. Mr. Robertson asked about towers not going near hospitals and asked if that was due to the type of equipment a hospital may have and possible interference with it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is not that a tower PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Page 4 cannot go near hospitals. It is just a condition that was added and those conditions were added approximately 10 years ago when cell phone towers were coming into play. With the technology that has come about since then, it is really kind of a redundant condition anymore although it is still added. The City does not want the tower to interfere with any of the operations of the hospital although there is no evidence that the towers do so anyhow. The City will still add this as a condition. Mr. Robertson stated that under assisted living, he deals with a number of medical conditions with medical staff and he just wanted to make sure that there may not be some overlap there. Although he cannot think of anything that he has in place currently. Mr. Frederick stated that apparently some hospital telemetry can be interfered with or could have been interfered with when cell phones were first introduced. The telemetry equipment is the equipment that is hooked up to the patient that sends the vital information from the patient to a receiving unit in the nurses' station. There were apparently some problems with interference with that equipment and that is why the condition was originally added. Mr. Robertson stated that the only thing that is even similar is there are a number of residents who have pace makers which the facility does have to dial up and use land lines. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing and referred SLU-4-2006, 3215 W. Mt. Hope Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Telecommunications Tower to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 14, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. SLU-5-2006, "Outlot D", West of 3400 S. Waverly Road, Special Land Use Permit -Telecommunications Tower This is a request by Haley Law Firm on behalf of Nextel Communications for a Special Land Use permit to construct a 106-foot high, monopole, telecommunications tower on "Outlot D" located immediately west of 3400 S. Waverly Road. The property is zoned "F" Commercial District which permits public/private utility facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge stated that it looks like the tower is 90 feet away from one of the apartment buildings according to the survey plan. He is concerned about it. He does not know if any tower has ever fallen but he wanted to bring that to everyone's attention. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it has an additional 30 feet from inside the property line so it has a total distance of approximately 120 feet from the base of the tower to the nearest PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Page 5 apartment building and the pole is 106 feet. There is a little bit of leeway but not much. She believes that it is 46 feet in addition to the 90 feet for a total of 136 feet but she will confirm it before the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting next week. Ms. TJ Garrett, representative for Nextel Communications, stated that Nextel can provide a letter to the City regarding how the tower would crimp instead falling over. Instead of it falling at the base of the tower, it would actually have stress points at various points in the tower so it would actually be made to crimp in half. Nextel can provide a structural and a crimp letter from the tower manufacturer. She stated that the tower is 100 feet tall and it is over 100 feet from the residential area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing and referred SLU-5-2006, "Outlot D", West of 3400 S. Waverly Road, Special Land Use Permit - Telecommunications Tower to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on June 14, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Consent Items 1. Minutes for Approval — May 2, 2006 The minutes of May 2, 2006 were APPROVED w/Corrections. Pg. 10, 2nd bullet. 3`d line, "an allotable" s/b "a laudible". 2. SLU-2-2006, 310 Beaver Street, Residential Use in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Ryan Lowe for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the building/property at 310 Beaver Street for single family residential use. Residential uses are permitted in an "H" Light Industrial District, if a special land use permit is approved by the Lansing City Council. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Pane 6 Staff recommended approval of the SLU-2-2006, 310 Beaver Street, Residential Use in an "H" Light Industrial District, with the condition that the property is limited to single family use only. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). APPROVED w/o Objections. 3. LS-9-2006, 924 N. Sycamore Street, Lot Split This is a request by Gerald Laban to divide the property at 924 N. Sycamore Street into 2 separate parcels of land. Sections 1236.07(b) & (c) require a minimum width of 60 feet and a minimum depth of 100 feet for newly created lots. If approved, 1 of the resulting lots would be 45 feet in width and 99 feet in depth. Therefore, variances from the design requirements of the subdivision regulations are requested. Staff recommended approval of LS-9-2006, 924 N. Sycamore Street, Lot Split. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the proposal would eliminate an existing nonconforming situation and the resulting lots would be comparable in size to the surrounding area. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). APPROVED w/o Objections. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. SLU-3-2006, Vacant Lot, N. Larch Street, Residential Use in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Fady Inc. for a Special Land Use permit to construct a 4-unit residential townhouse building on the vacant property located between 918 and 1000 N. Larch Street. Residential uses are permitted in an "H" Light Industrial District, if a special land use permit is approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of the SLU-3-06, Vacant Lot, N. Larch Street, Residential Use in an "H" Light Industrial District with the following conditions: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Page 7 1. A decorative wall or screening fence, three feet in height, be constructed along the street side of the parking lot; and 2. A screening fence, six feet in height, be constructed along the side property lines. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. A decorative wall, three feet in height, be constructed along the street side of the parking lot; 2. A screening fence, six feet in height, be constructed along the side property lines; and 3. One small tree be planted in each of the grass areas north of the building and one large shade tree be planted in the grass area immediately west of the building; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Frederick stated that he disagrees with Mr. Hodges and that in the past, the Board had made conditions regarding driveways and parking. He believes that under a special land use, the Board could make that condition. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City cannot require a property owner, who is not an applicant, to do something. If the neighbors say no, they say no and the City has no control over them. Mr. Frederick stated that the Board could require the applicant to work with the neighbors. It does not necessarily mean the Board would require them to do it. Ms. Cordill stated that it is very encouraging that someone wants to invest in this kind of project in the City. She asked why they were putting all the parking street side. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is impossible to have parking behind the building. With the required amount of driveway width and setbacks, there is no way because this parcel is so narrow that it would be impossible. The applicant does not have the dimensions to make it work. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of SLU-3-2006, Vacant Lot, N. Larch Street, Residential Use in an "H" Light Industrial District with the following conditions: 1) A decorative wall, three feet in height, be constructed along the street side of the parking lot; 2) A screening fence, six feet in height, be constructed along the side property lines; and 3) One small tree be planted in each of the grass areas north of the building and one large shade tree be planted in the grass area immediately west of the building. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Page 8 Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Z-4-2006, 2216 S. Cedar Street, "B" Residential District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Craig Jansen on behalf of the City Rescue Mission of Lansing to rezone the property at 2216 S. Cedar Street, more specifically described as: Lot 15, Assessors Plat No 43, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "B" Residential district to "F" Commercial district, for the purpose of utilizing the former Maplewood School building/property at 2216 S. Cedar Street for office, retail and day/overnight shelter use. Staff recommended approval of Z-4-2006, 2216 S. Cedar Street, "B" Residential District to "F" Commercial District, based upon its consistency with the surrounding land use and zoning patterns. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Ruge stated that there was concern from the neighbors voiced about the possibility of criminal behavior and the Committee had a report from the Lansing Police Department that they really did not have any problems around the women's facilities. There were problems around the men's facilities. This facility will just have women and children and they really did not have any problems with it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did have the Police Department pull all of the police reports from a three year period. For two of the shelters in Lansing that are all women's shelters, each one of them had 2 or 3 calls over that entire period of time. It was really low. For the joint men and women shelter, there were a lot of calls but not from the women and children's shelter. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Page 9 Ms. Cordill asked if there was any information on the store that is now located to the south. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not get the statistics on it but she can. She is not aware of any problems with it. Ms. Cordill stated that the school seems to serve the Rescue Mission's objectives well. How is the City going to try and reassure the neighbors? Ms. Stachowiak stated that she does not know if there is any way of doing that. Mr. Mark Criss, City Rescue Mission, stated that the City Rescue Mission is already in the process of trying to organize that neighborhood. There is no association or neighborhood council. There was a neighborhood watch meeting last week and there were 15 people in attendance. Last year there were 2 people who attended. The City Rescue Mission is trying to open up the facility and have it available for the immediate neighborhood to utilize it and communicate. The City Rescue Mission's goal is to be able to talk with the neighbors and find out what their needs and concerns are. The City Rescue Mission is already actively trying to bring in the immediate neighborhood and potentially do an association so there can be regular monthly meetings with this group. It was a very positive meeting and he was very pleased with the results. As far as security is concerned, the current mode of operation does speak to how the facility runs its services. The women and children will be in the facility and on the property by 6:00 p.m. They cannot leave the property. Part of this is not knowing exactly how the facility is run. The unknown is out there, and the concerns are out there. He stated that the City Rescue Mission is readily available to address any concerns or issues the neighbors have. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of Z-4-2006, 2216 S. Cedar Street, "B" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Page 10 C. Z-17-2005, Northwest and Northeast Corners of Benjamin Drive & Polly Avenue, "J" Parking & "C" Residential Districts to "G-2" Wholesale District This is a request by John Keenoy to rezone the properties located at the northeast and northwest corners of Benjamin Drive and Polly Avenue, more specifically described as: Lots 1 through 5 & 16 through 22 inclusive, Block 4 Lincoln Heights Subdivision & Lots 1 through 6 & 25 through 31 inclusive, Block 2 Lincoln Heights Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "J" Parking and "C" Residential Districts to "G-2" Wholesale District, for the purpose of developing the sites for office, warehouse and self-storage buildings. In Committee, it was recommended that an ACT 285 review be initiated for the purpose of potentially closing Polly Avenue to through traffic and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). Ms. Cordill stated that the Committee did not act on this request. According to the minutes, a motion was made and seconded to initiate an ACT 285 Review for the purpose of potentially closing Polly Avenue to through traffic. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the rezoning has not been acted upon and it will not be until the ACT 285 Review is initiated and catches up to the rezoning. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to initiate an ACT 285 request to consider closing Polly Avenue to through traffic. Frederick Ave Rune. Ave Cordill. Ave Czekai. Ave Hollister . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Page 11 Ms. Stachowiak explained to Mr. Laban that his request, LS-9-2006, has been recommended for approval as part of the Consent Agenda and will be sent to City Council. She will notify him of the next meeting. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair Ms. Cordill stated that the Committee did meet in May. There was no official action. The Committee discussed the Master Plan update and mostly just an approach on how a plan could be undertaken. Ms. Cordill stated that Mr. Rieske was in the process of interviewing candidates for the Planning Board. Mr. Rieske stated that he is working on a memo to make a recommendation. The Planning Office interviewed four candidates from the Fourth Ward and he is making a recommendation on those. All of the candidates had attributes that made them good candidates. One of the concerns is diversity issues with the Board and City Council would like to have the Boards represent or correlate some how proportionally to the makeup of the city population. All of the candidates are caucasians and currently there is no racial diversity like the Board had before in Ms. Keene's position. He has not heard anything about a Third Ward candidate and he needs to contact the Mayor's Office. Mr. Hollister suggested that since he lives in the Fourth Ward and if Mr. Rieske has qualified people in different wards, maybe he could be moved from At-Large to Fourth Ward. Mr. Rieske stated that is a possibility and he will explore it with Randy Hannan and take it from there. The two vacancies are the Third and Fourth Wards. Next meeting, Tuesday, June 27, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Mr. Czekai stated that the Board is not entirely caucasian at this point as Ms. Bruch is a minority. She was born in Guatemala and is Native American Latino. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Page 12 C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske stated that they should discuss an Executive Committee meeting for the next meeting. He stated that he is continuing to push the MSU connection on the Master Plan and he has a meeting with Rex Lamour tomorrow. It is looking promising. He stated that the Governor signed the bill today that would enable the transfer of the Michigan School for the Blind property from the State of Michigan to the Mid-Michigan Leadership Academy contingent upon the Academy selling some acreage to the City of Lansing. E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. 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 b. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) 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) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Czekai stated that he has tickets for sale for the Festival of the Sun which will be June 24th. Tickets are $13.00 each. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS a. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4, 2004) e. Michigan Ave & Shepard Street-sign business - several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) f. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004) g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004) h. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd- illegal signs (February 15,2005) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Page 13 i. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs (May 3, 2005) j. 2618 Cavanaugh Rd.-registered rental &front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) k. 2400 Blk of E. Kalamazoo Str—Dollar Store—6 used cars for sale in parking lot(February 7, 2006) I. 1700 Alpha Street—fence in front yard (April 18,2006) m. 3027 Aurelius Road—fence in front yard (April 18,2006) n. 1712 W. Saginaw Street, W. of Sparrow's St. Lawrence campus— rogue used car salesman operating in a print shop (April 18,2006) o. SE corner of Leslie&Main Streets—junk in front yard (April 18, 2006) With the famous fence on Washington Blvd. south of Mt. Hope where the lady ended up going to court, Mr. Frederick stated that apparently they have reached some sort of accommodation. Somebody went in there and sawed the fence in half all the way across the top and it looks awkward. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the fence meets code requirements. Mr. Frederick asked about the property on Main Street, east of Martin Block approximately two blocks, directly across the street from two new Habitat for Humanity houses. The property was torn up. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it may be item o and it seems like the same area. Mr. Frederick stated that nothing has happened yet and not only is it torn up but it now needs to have the lawn mowed. Mr. Frederick stated that the lot across the street from Hawk Island is way over grown and needs to be mowed. Ms. Cordill stated that at 630 Kipling Blvd., the property changed hands and she had checked to see if it was a registered rental. There are at least 4 or 5 people living there. She is not sure if the City limits the number of non-related residents. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has investigated this extensively and the Code Compliance officers have been all over this one. They receive calls constantly from the neighbors and they are very familiar with it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the gentleman who lives there has his name on the deed which makes him an owner, which means he does not have to register it as a rental. He does have friends who stay there on and off, sort of a revolving door of friends crashing there. The people party all the time and disturb the neighbors. It is a real hassle and the police are out there a lot. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Code Compliance office has cited them for junk just recently because there was some trash over there. They have also been cited for front yard parking recently. The Code Compliance Office has basically been keeping an eye on the property so that they can catch things as they happen. It does not have to be registered as a rental. Since the owner just has friends that sort of flop there every now and then, he does not necessarily have people living with him. It is just a party house. Mr. Ruge stated that at the 2400 block of east Kalamazoo Street, he is happy to say that there is only one van for sale. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the owner has been cited for the violation and the Code Compliance Office cannot do anything about the one car. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 6, 2006 Page 14 Mr. Ruge asked about the Michigan Avenue tree that was cut down. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the workers did a lousy job but she has not checked to see if there was a permit for it. She stated that there was a permit for work that was done on the building. She will check to see if there was a permit for the tree. Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to see a tree back in that hole. Mr. Czekai asked when a company could start making noise in the morning. He stated that Friedland Industry, located on E. Maple Street, starts making noise at 6:00 a.m. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it should be at 7:00 a.m. and that she will look into the matter. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, , 1 William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.060606.doc APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk May 11,2006 PG 10,2"d bullet,3rd line,"an allotable"s/b"a laudable" Approved June 6,2006 To Clerk June 9,2006 Minutes of the Regular Meeting r LANSING PLANNING BOARD1 cP G� 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, May 2, 2006 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Cordill, Hollister, Czekai. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: None. D. Absent: None. �� 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hol a. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (E � 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of support from South Lansing Physical Environment Committee regarding Z-4-2006. B. Letter of opposition from Ms. Beth Gardner regarding Z-4-2006. C. Letter of opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Williams regarding Z-4-2006. D. Letter of opposition from Mr. Patrick J. Boog regarding Z-4-2006. E. Email of opposition from Mr. Mike Feldpausch regarding Z-4-2006. F. Letter of opposition from Mark and Michelle Szidik regarding Z-4-2006 G. Letter of opposition from Randall J. Hahn regarding Z-4-2006. H. Letter of concern from Wolverine Development Corporation regarding Z-4-2006. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-4-2006, 2216 S. Cedar Street, "B" Residential District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Craig Jansen on behalf of the City Rescue Mission of Lansing to rezone the property at 2216 S. Cedar Street, more specifically described as: Lot 15, Assessors Plat No 43, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 2 from "B" Residential district to "F" Commercial district, for the purpose of utilizing the former Maplewood School building/property at 2216 S. Cedar Street for office, retail and day/overnight shelter use. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Mark Criss, Executive Director of the City Rescue Mission, stated that the City Rescue Mission does have a men's shelter on Michigan Avenue. There is also a women's and children's shelter that was revived into 4 homes south of Wendy's on S. Cedar Street and they currently house approximately 40 to 45 women and children in those homes. The City Rescue Mission's intent is to move the family center to Maplewood School in order to meet the expanding the needs of the homeless women and children in the Lansing area. Mr. Chriss stated that the men's shelter will remain on Michigan Avenue. The Maplewood School, long term, will become a shelter for women and children. The City Rescue Mission hopes to house 90 to 100 women and children at that facility in the long term. For short term, hopefully by the end of June, the City Rescue Mission will have a free store. Currently, the free store is just south of Baker Street, only three blocks away. It will be moved from this location to Maplewood School on the eastside. The City Rescue Mission is also planning on having a day shelter for women and children. If the women and children are not staying at any shelter, they have the opportunity to come to Maplewood School and services provided for them. The City Rescue Mission is also planning on having a community center for the immediate community to utilize at the Maplewood School. Numerous reasons for that location is the planning. Michigan Works is just two buildings north of Maplewood School, which will help a lot of the women who are looking for jobs and looking to improve their jobs on job prospects. Just south, the very next building is the Women's Health Center for medical or a current health plan. The City Rescue Mission is hoping to help the women get on Medicaid from a current health plan and utilize that facility right next door. It is wonderful as far as the planning and the space, and that is why the City Rescue chose that location. The long term goal is to use turn it into a shelter for women and children. Ms. Sylvia Torrez, resident of 544 Edison Ave., stated that she has financial and social concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. She is concerned about property values in the surrounding areas that are being discussed tonight. She was able to obtain a petition for the rezoning and it shows a map that the area would encompass not only the school but also the residences that surround the school. It is a significant area as far as she is concerned as a property taxpayer. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 3 Ms. Torrez stated that there are a lot of new young families moving into the neighborhood and she is concerned about safety issues. She stated that the objective for the shelter are admireable and she understands the need for that but she also believes that the State of Michigan has done a really good job at providing those services. Michigan works is down the road. Also available is the Department of Human Services at www.Michi.gan.gov/dhs is a good website for those services and what it entails. There are numerous services available and she knows this because she is employed for the State of Michigan and works for social security and represents the Federal government. She adjudicates disability claims and in that process she has to contact a lot of numerous people outside of her employment. She has to deal with getting medical records for people who have mental or physical disabilities. A lot of the time, people who would require these services are people who are significantly impaired in some way or another and their actions are uncontrollable, unpredictable and sometimes they have no way of knowing what is going to happen. She asked what guarantee does the Planning Board have for the residents to feel safe where they live. These are legitimate concerns and are not just trivial things that the residents are concerned about. Are the property values going to decrease? Does it mean that another commercial entity can move into the area and build there and drive away the residents? We are supposed to encourage a little bit of young families coming into the neighborhood. If the City is looking to the future and the projection of this type of plan, it might drive away families and actually have a whole totally different area that is being considered here. She stated that the City should encourage the families to come here. In the past five years that she has lived at this residence, younger families have been moving in and retirees have been moving out. Ms. Beth Gardner, resident of 524 Pacific Avenue, stated that she has major concerns regarding property values and security issues, and has concerns about the homeless shelter going in at Maplewood. She lives real close to a bad neighborhood which is on the north side of Mt. Hope Ave. She does not want to bring trouble into the neighborhood. The residents have worked very hard to improve the homes and the properties in the neighborhood, and have earned the right to live there. She thinks the City needs to do things to enhance neighborhoods and she does not think that bringing a homeless shelter into the middle of a middle class neighborhood is necessarily the best choice. The real estate is an investment that the residents have made for themselves and for the City of Lansing. By improving their properties, they are improving the City. The City Rescue Mission is talking about a women and children's shelter but if the property is rezoned at any time, it can put anybody in there. If one looks at the other homeless shelters around in the south Cedar Street area traveling north, there is a lot of loitering going on and people hanging out. There are a lot of working PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 4 people and it is obvious when they go to work and come home. There are a lot of major concerns that she has and that a lot of my neighbors share. Mr. Eb Wesoloski, resident of 304 Riley Street and represents property owners of 300 Riley Street, 308 Riley Street, 312 Riley Street, and 224 Riley Street, stated that all of the 300 addresses represent four of the six lots who actually share a lot line with the Maplewood property. His back yard abuts the driveway that leads into the school. He stated that the current site plan does not call for access to the property from Cedar Street and instead would be accessed either by vehicles coming off of Riley or Rockford Streets, then traveling down Maplewood and turning into the school property. This would work a tremendous change into the quality and character of the neighborhood. He stated that a representative from the City Rescue Mission was in the neighborhood last night. His wife raised this concern and she was told that the City Rescue Mission had applied for a driveway permit from the State and had no reason to believe that it would not be denied. If this site plan does not currently include access only from Cedar Street and no access from Maplewood, there is not way that he and the property owners are going to buy into this in any way, shape or form. He stated that this did not feel right to him and he had to ask himself is it because he does not want homeless people in the neighborhood. He found himself thinking if that was the only reason maybe that is not a very good reason. Everybody needs some place to go. He would have the same concerns if some hotel or motel chain were asking to put a multiple unit housing facility in there. All of the attendant problems are the same. You are asking 50, 60, 70, or 100 people to come into the neighborhood every night. The neighborhood has been pretty quiet back there and has had its problems in the past. The residents were all remarking how they sort of enjoyed the peace and quiet they have had for the last few years. Regardless of what sort of use it is put to, if it includes housing for a large concentration of people in that building, it works a terrible change in the quality of the neighborhood. He thanked the Board for its time. Mr. Patrick Boog, attorney representing the owners of the property located across the street from this facility and his office address is 321 W. Lake Lansing Road, East Lansing, stated that he has already presented a letter. He has been involved in these types of things before and this appears to be a stealth campaign to put some things in there that are not as offensive to the neighborhood. The ultimate goal seems to be placing the City Rescue Mission there. He has been an attorney for approximately 25 years and about 20 years ago he was a court appointed attorney. Frankly, a lot of his court appointments were around that area where the City Rescue Mission was and people that go in there. This would be a dramatic change from the use of the this building when it was a school to something where people feel bad homeless people, but a percentage of these people are not the best people in the world. They PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 5 have unlimited needs and limited transportation so they are going to stay around that area and go into the neighborhoods. He stated that the Board should consider the impact this will have on these neighborhoods where there are women and children. There will be an increase in panhandling. That is a reality and the Board needs to look at the reality of what this does. It is not fair to the neighborhood or the business owners. The only commercial strip is right on Cedar Street. This will have a traumatic affect on those people and he hopes that the Board will look at it very carefully. Mr. Mike Wong, represents the Fleetwood Diner located at 2211 S. Cedar Street, stated that his main concern is that he has seen this type of thing before in Ann Arbor where he owns and operates a restaurant located at 300 S. Ashley, approximately a block and a half away from an overnight shelter. What happens when the overnight shelter turns away people that they do not deem to fit into the current situation whether they are inebriated or violent. These people end up at his diner and stay there overnight. This is a major concern for the safety of his employees and patrons. Ms. Kelly Spenski, resident of 516 Pacific Avenue, stated that she and her husband live three houses in from Cedar Street directly facing the Maplewood School. Her concern is safety for the neighborhood. There have been reports and studies that show when shelters come into a neighborhood, the value of the homes do significantly decrease in value. She has spent a lot of time, effort and money increasing the value of her house. She put a lot of money into the property and the residents are trying to turn it into a really nice neighborhood where families and people can move in. Bringing a homeless shelter in, though she understands the meaning behind it, she does agree that everybody needs help. She does not agree that it would do the best of things for the neighborhood. Her house is across the way from the crosswalk which means that people could very easily cross Cedar Street onto her side of the street. This would affect the Fleetwood Diner, her street directly and a doctor's office. At night if people do not have a place to go or during the day if they are turned away from the shelter, they are going to start wandering the streets and wandering around. There is also a play ground that is very close to Cedar Street off of Mt. Hope Avenue where children play all the time. It is her concern that if people do not have any place else to go, may start loitering around the playground where there are young children and the tennis courts. She does not believe that this is the best thing for her neighborhood. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Larry Seconsky and Ms. Suzanne Wilson, residents of 513 Pacific Avenue, stated that he is one house off Cedar Street. He has made a lot of improvements to his property and his concern is what the homeless people would do during the day time. He has noticed that around other shelters there is a lot of traffic. He is concerned about what it will do to his property value. He believes that there may be a lot of other places a facility like this might be able to go where it would not have the impact on a residential neighborhood such as his. Mr. Ruge stated that the public brought up a lot of issues and he would like to have some information when the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meets. He would like copies of police reports concerning trouble around the current women's shelter on Cedar Street and also from Stepping Stones. He stated that one person had said that there were studies that show that homeless shelters decrease property values. He was wondering if any research could be done to come up with studies like that. Ms. Bruch would like to add the long term traffic counts and what would be expected. Mr. Ruge stated that on Willow Road there is a Teen Challenge home for men who have substance abuse problems and for that property there was a special land use. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is was zoned Residential District and Teen Challenge did not want to have a mission free store. In the short term until Teen Challenge do the overnight shelter, everything they are doing there is commercial activity (i.e. office services, personal services and retail). In the long term, Teen Challenge wants to do that as well as an overnight shelter which falls under the commercial use and doing a special land use would be permitted by right. Mr. Ruge stated they need the commercial to have their offices located there and a store. Ms. Stachowiak stated and have the mixed use of all of that plus eventually the residential component of it. Ms. Bruch asked if there was any way to give an exception to it under the current zoning so that the Board does not have to change the zoning but allow them to do it. Ms. Stachowiak stated that under the current ordinance with a special land use, the only thing that could be permitted would be the overnight shelter use. The Board could not permit the office or the mission free store. There is no way to permit it except for rezoning. Ms. Bruch asked if it was possible to rezone for one current owner. Ms. Stachowiak said no. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing and referred Z-4-2006, 2216 S. Cedar Street, "B" Residential District to "F" Commercial District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 10, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 7 B. SLU-2-2006, 310 Beaver Street, Residential Use in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Ryan Lowe for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the building/property at 310 Beaver Street for single family residential use. Residential uses are permitted in an "H" Light Industrial District, if a special land use permit is approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill stated that immediately to the east there is a railroad line and she asked if it was active. Mr. Czekai stated that it is not active and that one of the residents in the neighborhood parks on the tracks. Mr. Ryan Lowe, resident of 202 Dodge River, Ferguson Development in Old Town, stated that the building was used as a warehouse and he would like to convert into his residence. The built up space would be roughly 3,300 to 3,500 square feet with three bedrooms and three and a half baths. The architect on the project is Swanson Design located in Old Town. This is a project that would bring value to the community and it is something the City looking for to increase property values there. He thanked the Board for its support. Mr. Ruge stated that there was a letter from the owner of 316 Beaver Street and he asked if the owner has some kind of industrial use at 316 Beaver Street and he was concerned that his noise was going to irritate somebody who wanted to live at the proposed property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that he did express that concern but she thinks Mr. Lowe recognizes that if he is going to locate his residence in an industrial area, it is not going to be as quiet as it would be in a single family neighborhood out in the country. A good part of the noise Mr. Lowe would have to accept. Mr. Frederick asked if any noise would be regulated by the City's noise ordinance anyway. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be regulated. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing and referred SLU-2-2006, 310 Beaver Street, Residential Use in an "H" Light Industrial District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 10, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. SLU-3-06, Vacant Lot, N. Larch Street, Residential Use in an "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Fady Inc. for a Special Land Use permit to construct a 4-unit residential townhouse building on the vacant property located PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Paqe 8 between 918 and 1000 N. Larch Street. Residential uses are permitted in an "H" Light Industrial District, if a special land use permit is approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Fady Aibout, owner of Fady Inc., stated that this is a vacant lot and has been vacant for a while. This would be a good opportunity to put in some new housing in the City and he believes that this will enhance the neighborhood the neighborhood. It will give the neighboring properties better values. He hopes the Board will approve the request. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing and referred SLU-3-06, Vacant Lot, N. Larch Street, Residential Use in an "H" Light Industrial District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on May 10, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Mr. Jerry Labin, resident of 1311 N. Magnolia Street, stated that he submitted a lot split application for 924 N. Sycamore and he thought Ms. Stachowiak asked for him to attend tonight's meeting. Ms. Stachowiak apologized for not having the lot split on tonight's agenda. She would make sure that it is on the next agenda which will be two weeks from tonight. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — April 4, 2006 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the minutes of April 4, 2006. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of April 4, 2006 were APPROVED w/Corrections. Pg. 1, under Opening Session, Ms. Cordill was excused from the April 18tn meeting. Pg. 2, under Committee Reports, Ms. Cordill gave the UDC report. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 9 Minutes for Approval — April 18, 2006 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the minutes of April 18, 2006. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). The minutes of April 18, 2006 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, May 10, 2006, at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, May 23, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai Mr. Czekai stated that the Committee discussed the Rules of Administrative Procedures and updating the general bylaws. The Committee made a change so that the Board had Consent Agenda items and have this reflected in the policies as well for agendas. A general update will be presented at the next Planning Board meeting with all the changes. Mr. Rieske stated that he could email this to everybody. Mr. Czekai stated that if anyone notices anything, he is acting as the clearing house for that so please email back to him or call him with any changes or suggestions. These will be introduced for adoption at the next meeting. There was nothing to terribly significant that was discussed in Committee as a major change. Mr. Czekai stated that the Executive Committee discussed the Planning Board Goals and Objectives. These were condensed because there were some changes at previous meetings. On the list, the Committee removed item 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 as they have already been dealt with or were collapsed into another issue. With the other items, the Committee was moving forward with them. However, there were some question from the staff and members present as to whether or not the Committee had majority support from the Planning Board as to whether or not the Committee would PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 10 move forward. He stated that the Board does not want to move forward on a particular issue in a certain direction and come to the Planning Board to find out that the majority of the members did not want that in that direction to begin with thereby wasting everyone's time. The Committee determined that probably the best approach would be to address some of those questioned Planning Board goals just to reaffirm whether or not there is full or majority Planning Board support behind those so that they are not wasting staff's time. Mr. Czekai reviewed items 1, 4 and 6 of the Planning Board Goals and Objectives. • With item 1, Complete update of master plans and capital improvement programming: Ms. Cordill stated she does not believe that the Board would have an issue of gaining Board support in updating master plan. When the Executive Committee met in the fall, there was a concern with the dwindling resources and whether the Board would be able to make an effort. The Board needs to look at it in light of the dwindling staff to undertake the Master Plan update. Mr. Frederick stated that one of the Board's primary duties is to work on master planning. He believes that reduced staff determines how quickly it gets done. Ms. Cordill stated that it would change the parameters. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Board would not be able to move quickly with it but it is still a priority and a goal. She stated that it should stay on the list. Mr. Czekai stated that it already has been adopted as a Planning Board goal so the Board does not need to take action. • With item number 4, Amend Sign Code to eliminate all billboards over a 5-vear period: Mr. Ruge stated that this was an allota a laudable goal and that it is probably not very possible. He is not opposed to the Board doing something about it and forwarding it to City Council. He does not want to put a whole lot of time into it. If the Board could get it done quickly, he would send it out tomorrow. • With item 6, Establish comprehensive design and maintenance standards for all buildings in the city (Fagade Guidelines): Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board would basically establish guidelines for the guidelines and that Mr. Hodges suggested that the Board look to see how Okemos feels with residents. Clearly, they must have some type of design guidelines and she will check into the matter. Mr. Czekai stated that one of the concerns was for all buildings in the City, and he asked if the Board wants to narrow it down to commercially zoned buildings. Mr. Frederick stated that his primary concern is with residences as well as commercial buildings. He stated that the City is now a mismatch of a lot of things that do not match all over the place, commercial and residential as well. He would PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 11 advocate that the standard to be set so as not to limit property owners' freedoms in developing the structures that they want but not allowing things that are clearly out of character and are an eyesore. Mr. Czekai asked Mr. Frederick to spearhead this initiative with staff. He said sure. • With item 10, Zoninq Ordinance amendment to require that all parking be located behind the front wall of a building: Ms. Cordill stated that there was discussion at the Committee meeting of seeing this in particular parts of town (e.g. East Michigan Avenue, Old Town, West Saginaw Street, REO Town, main streets or central business districts) not necessarily in other areas (e.g. Edgewood Blvd., a more suburban nature). Mr. Rieske stated that it was also discussed in Committee mentioned the idea of handling it through the overlay zones. Mr. Czekai asked if it would more appropriate to fold it into the item for Overlay Districts. Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to include this item in the Overlay District. Ms. Cordill asked if this was comprehensive enough of a list in order to tie it together. Mr. Czekai asked if the Board could say Overlay Districts for East Michigan Avenue, Old Town, West Saginaw Street, REO Town and any other major commercial corridor. Mr. Frederick asked if it would cover commercial buildings in areas elsewhere in the City, like the Dollar Store. Mr. Czekai stated that the way it currently stands, it would look at all to require that all parking be located behind. If the Board makes the change then it would not look at the Dollar stores. If the Board would like to keep those items on a list so it is more expansive and broad, then members should not support the change. Mr. Frederick stated that it changes the original goal and he cannot support it then. He stated that is takes the original goal that the Board agreed to and now is going back to limit them. This was not the intent. Mr. Czekai stated that what he is hearing in the conversation is to be sure to include items like a Dollar store. The motion, with the way it is currently worded, would not include that. He suggested withdrawing the motion and leave the Planning Board goals as is. Mr. Frederick officially withdrew his motion. Mr. Hollister stated that the alternative could be that the goals are not mutually exclusive. The Board can work on these in the Overlay District which is quicker and easier and at the same time work on this as a more long term comprehensive plan. This may accomplish what it trying to be done which is quickly PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 12 get these in the major areas and then work on some where else. Mr. Czekai stated that the purpose of bringing this up is whether there is support from the Planning Board to move forward with this goal as it is stated outside of the overlay districts. Mr. Frederick stated that was the original intent. Mr. Hollister asked if everyone concurs with it and the census was yes. Ms. Stachowiak stated that only three members said yes and she did not hear from Mr. Frederick, Ms. Cordill or Mr. Ruge. Mr. Frederick stated that in the absence of the motion to the contrary, he believes that the goal should stay the way it was originally. If there are objections, they should be voiced at the point that the Board is discussing right the agenda item. If there is not motion made, then the Board moves on. Ms. Cordill stated that it is hard to get a handle on it. She has thought of instances where there are big box-type stores or shopping centers where parking could be broken up where there may be parking in front. Parking would also be wrapping around the building and towards the back. In a large development, she can see that. She personally does not think that it is an awful thing to see it in some situations where there is parking in the front. In built up areas there may be houses all along and then all of a sudden there is a parking lot with a building all the way to the back. The Board would want to discourage that because it is in a built up neighborhood. She stated that it is not a completed issue at this time. She asked what is the Board trying to achieve (i.e. break up parking, put in landscaping). Ms. Bruch stated that what the Board is trying to achieve is making it pedestrian friendly. By moving it up front, even though it is a suburban-type area, it makes it sooner or later more pedestrian friendly. It starts with one store and then a suburban area grows a little bit more and a little bit more. That is how the City ended up with a lot of the sprawl stuff with a lot of the parking in the front. She believes that this is what the City is trying to get away from. If the buildings are forced to the front, then when the area keeps growing everybody is in the front. Then all of a sudden there is a small downtown in a suburban area. This was part of her thinking to move the parking into the back so that the pedestrian feel to the place, whether suburban or not, develops into a pedestrian friendly way. Mr. Czekai asked if the ordinance was changed and it state what the goal was, is it possible for an applicant to come in for type of variance. Ms. Stachowiak stated it would be pretty tough to get a variance. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 13 Mr. Ruge stated that he can see where this will work in some areas. With a Sam's or a Target store, the City can get them to build their store up to the front but if the parking is in the back, than the front of the building is really going to be in the back. The back will be facing the street along with the loading docks. Then the pedestrians will have to walk around the building to get to the front. Mr. Frederick stated that is where the design standards come in and application for variances can always be made whether it is a practical difficult. Mr. Frederick stated that in general what he sees the goals and objectives that were decided upon are now being diluted from what the original intent was. He is sure that there will always be exceptions to certain things that are developed and policies, procedures and codes. He does not think this is the place to debate it. The place to debate that is in the development of the ordinances. He looks a little bit askance at the direction this is going in diluting the original goals and agendas. Granted, staff is limited and that has nothing to do with changing the goals and objectives. It only means that the goals and objectives are not going to be achieved as quickly as before. It probably should be broken up into small steps to accomplish anyway whether there is adequate staff or not. He does not think that the Board should not be limiting what was originally decided on. Mr. Czekai stated that he would support keeping this on as originally stated. Mr. Ruge stated that he will also support this and said that Mr. Frederick was right about when getting down to the drafting portion, the nitty gritty can be worked out. Ms. Cordill stated that she was okay with it. This concluded the Executive Committee report. C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager— None. E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoninq and Ordinance Committee a. 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. Master Plan Project C. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 14 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20,2003) b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003) c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) e. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) f. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3, 2004) h. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Road-illegal signs(February 15, 2005) i. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3, 2005) j. 2618 Cavanaugh Road-registered rental&front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) k. 2400 Blk of E. Kalamazoo Street—Dollar Store—used cars for sale in parking lot (February 7,2006) I. 1304 W. Barnes Street—lots of trash (March 21,2006) m. 3623 Stoneleigh Drive—possible rental (April 18,2006) n. 1700 Alpha Street—fence in front yard (April 18, 2006) o. 3027 Aurelius Road—fence in front yard (April 18,2006) p. 1712 W. Saginaw Street,W.of Sparrow's St. Lawrence campus—rogue used car salesman operating in a print shop (April 18, 2006) q. SE corner of Leslie&Main Streets—junk in front yard (April 18, 2006) With item 5m, Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is not a rental. With items 5k, 5n, 50, and 5p, Ms. Stachowiak stated that letters have been sent. She has received a good response on item 5k. With item 51, Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Code Compliance officer went out and checked it, and it has been cleaned up. With item 5q, Ms. Stachowiak stated that it has been turned over to the Code Compliance Office. Mr. Ruge asked out the tree that was cut down at 2400 block of Michigan Avenue, south side of the street. Ms. Stachowiak stated she believes the company cleaned up its landscaping but she will look into the matter. She is pretty sure that the problem was corrected. Mr. Rieske asked the Board members about moving the whole list of Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports down to item 11 on the agenda. The Board can review the existing list and go thru the new items, and consolidate it for discussion. The Board members agreed. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Page 15 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Bruch stated that her semester is over and she can now participate on the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. She will be in and out over the summer but in general, she should be available. There was a general discussion regarding the members on the Zoning and Ordinance Committee. Mr. Czekai removed himself from the Committee. Mr. Ruge, Mr. Hollister and Ms. Bruch will now be on the Committee. On the Urban Development Committee, the members are Ms. Cordill, Mr. Frederick and Mr. Czekai. Ms. Bruch asked about the status of new Board members. Mr. Hollister stated that he talked with a gentleman today who lives in the Third Ward and he is interested. The gentleman is just graduating with a construction degree from Central Michigan University this week. Mr. Rieske asked if the gentleman has been a resident of the City for a year and stated that is a requirement. Mr. Rieske stated that there is another applicant working its way to the top of his pile to send to the Mayor's Office. Plus, he has received other names and he wanted to discuss them with the Ward council member. The Planning Office is moving forward on it. Ms. Bruch stated that her class did do its river corridor design presentation and they are going to go to the Planning Department at the Mayor's suggestion. Mr. Johnson will have control over the boards. All of the information is on digital format. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Res ectfully submitted, J William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board P B M i n u tes.050206.d oc APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk April 26,2006 PG 1, under Opening Session, change April 141h to April 18th; Approved Mav 2,2006 PG 2, under Committee Reports, Ms.Cordill gave the UDC report. To Clerk May 5,2006 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall r Tuesday, April 4, 2006 ui 1. OPENING SESSION ``) T1 The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair. ,:, co A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Cordill, Ruge, Czekai, Hollister B. Staff Attending: Rieske. C. Excused absences: None. D. Absent: None. Ms. Cordill requested an excused absence from the April 18th meeting. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Cordill from the April 14th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to approve the amended agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — General handouts. 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2006 Page 2 A. Minutes for Approval — March 21, 2006 Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Ms. Bruch to approve the minutes of March 21, 2006. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). The minutes of March 21, 2006 were APPROVED w/Corrections. (See Mr. Frederick's comments regarding ACT-9-2005) B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Mr. Ruge stated that the Committee will not be meeting on April 12th because there is no business. Next meeting, Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Vice Chair a. ACT-1-2006, 2208 E. Michigan Ave., ROW Encroachment for Access Ramp The property is located at 2208 E. Michigan Avenue on the south side of the street between Magnolia and Hayford Streets. The existing handicap access ramp has been at the location since 1985. The character of the area consists of commercial on the main street of Michigan Ave and residential properties to the south of the subject property at 2208 E. Michigan Avenue. The character of the area will not change due to the ramp encroachment. The applicant would like to have a permanent easement to retain the existing handicap access ramp. According to the applicant, the lease was not a recorded easement and a current easement is requested so that proper documentation can be recorded. Staff recommended approval of ACT-1-2006. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval for the authorization of the existing barrier-free access within the Michigan Avenue ROW, provided that this authorization would expire if the access ramp is demolished or substantially destroyed, and that adequate protection from City liability be provided, and the motion carried unanimously (2-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant is the current owner and their signage has been fine. It is the building purchaser who has egregiously disregarded the City sign ordinance. Mr. Ruge asked about which building this is. Mr. Frederick stated that it is the building that has round window in it and it comes right out to the sidewalk, and the back drops off precipitously. This is the one that is the issue of this hearing. He stated that it has a ramp incorporated into the design of the building but it is in the right-of-way. Ms. Cordill inquired about the Committee motion and asked if the Committee had talked about the building being destroyed or if it was simply the ramp. Mr. Frederick stated that it was substantially repaired rather than destroyed. Mr. Frederick stated that it should be if the access ramp or building is demolished or substantially repaired. Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of ACT-1-2006, 2208 E. Michigan Ave., ROW Encroachment for Access Ramp, authorization of the existing barrier-free access within the Michigan Avenue ROW, provided that this authorization would expire if the access ramp or building is demolished or substantially destroyed, and that adequate protection from City liability be provided. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Ms. Cordill stated that the Committee had just been given a list of proposed projects and the Committee thought it would receive them and study them later. C. ACT 285 Review Process Ms. Cordill stated that Committee members and Mr. Rieske discussed ways to streamline and improve the ACT 285 review process. The proposal is to conduct at staff level or administrative ACT 285 Reviews on some proposals and require full review on others. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2006 Page 4 Committee members agreed to refer this matter to the Committee of the Whole for consideration by the entire Board. Next meeting, Tuesday, April 25, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Mr. Hollister, Vice Chair a. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Mr. Hollister the Committee met earlier this evening to discuss two issues. First, was the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). A motion was made to approve the CIP program and outline in this tab 5 with the following amendments: 1) To add $90,000 for Master Plan funding in FY 2007 in addition to what has already been appropriated for FY 2006. A second amendment regarding parking was tabled to allow Board members additional time to receive input from the Parking Office on the need for the scooters and hand held devices which are the current condition of those and/or the potential to have a study on City wide parking; 2) For $100,000 to be added to FY 2007 for trees to be added in commercial areas. Mr. Ruge asked if the Board would approve the CIP and pass it on without dealing with the parking portion of it. Mr. Rieske stated that what the Board would be doing is if the CIP was approved now, would be to move it and ask for additional information about the parking. This would be in addition to the Board's recommendation. This would be able to be move onward, if approved tonight, it would go to the Mayor's Office for City Council consideration. If the Board chose to table the request, then he could try and have someone attend the next meeting about the parking situation. Ms. Bruch asked if everything else would be passed on but the parking section. Mr. Hollister stated that as it is right now, the request would go as is or the Board tabled the parking section and look for other information. He stated that the rest of the CIP would be forwarded on. Ms. Bruch asked if the parking section could be removed. Mr. Hollister stated that it is tabled. Mr. Czekai stated that the parking section is still in the Committee of the whole. Ms. Bruch stated that her class has done some things like putting benches on Saginaw Street and she is often PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2006 Page 5 wondering how does the CIP stuff happen so that the Board is not doing things that no one is ever going to use. Mr. Frederick stated that the State Department of Transportation put those benches in. Ms. Bruch asked if the Board had any control over what goes on in the City. This is ridiculous. People drive by there and laugh at these things. Mr. Hollister stated that it is a waste of money. Ms. Bruch stated that this is the type of thing the City needs to condone. Mr. Frederick stated that people laugh at putting sidewalks in front of property when they do not go anywhere at either end. But if they are not put in, they never will and it looks better than if had been left alone. He agrees that the area that was done looks a lot better than it was before it was started. Ms. Bruch stated that she just wishes that money was spent on something a little more useful. Mr. Rieske stated that is was something that was added at MDOT's discretion and his understanding was that MDOT discussed it with City's Transportation Office and possibly with the Public Service Department. Transportation said that it was not the greatest idea. There was widespread agreement among City staff that it was not the best use of funds. It was not City funds and the City does not own the right-of-way. Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) as amended with the exception of the parking portion. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave Czekai. Ave Hollister Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. ACT 285 Review Process Mr. Hollister stated that the ACT 285 Review Process was tabled. Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to remove the ACT 285 Review Process from the table. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Hollister stated that the Committee of the Whole was reviewing Mr. Rieske's March 30, 2006 memo regarding possible ACT 285 Review streamlining. Mr. Frederick stated that the first or second year that he started on the Board, Mr. Rieske approached the Board to discuss staff taking on a little more responsibility to streamline some of the procedures the Board had so that the Board was able to move items through the Planning Board process more quickly. The Board ultimately agreed to do that and the idea was to make the process quicker for the applicants, essentially saving the applicants time and money. In large projects, it can be quite costly as well as annoying to the applicant. Other items that were speeded up that would not save all that much money, the Board is still just as important to the applicant and by streamlining the process it became less annoying and reduce the amount of government interference in what essentially is the property owners' rights. He agreed that the Planning Board has to have oversight. It is a Public Safety issue because that is the whole foundation of planning and ordinances. It makes life safer especially health wise for the residents. The less government imposition in people's lives the more likely it is to be respected as a body and the more likely the decisions that the Board has to make will be respected. For example, at 2208 E. Michigan Avenue the State imposed this on us by default. When the State owned Michigan Avenue, it was all done by them. Now that they do not own it anymore, it is up to the Board. It is so permanent that the Board would not be in a position to deny it even if it could. If the Board reviews the list carefully and maybe remove some of the items, keep the ones that are clear that the Board should and maybe add a caveat that this list is not necessarily all inclusive but is simply to enumerate the ones that the Board knows it has to address, make some additions or maybe remove some from the list that the Board does not have to review, especially the ones that are not mandated by statute that do not affect public safety. He does not see any reason for the Board to impose its will on those because chances are the Board will follow staff's recommendations anyway. He stated that this is a good effort and Mr. Rieske has done a good job at putting together this list. He encouraged that the Board agree to streamline the whole process. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2006 Page 7 Mr. Czekai asked if it was possible to have included on the regular agenda a unanimous consent category where these types of items that are actually offered here are staff recommended items going to City Council anyway, the paperwork will already be done, and if the Board can manipulate the process this way, it can manipulate the process by not having to have a public hearing for that. If any Board member has any objections to any of those items, then the Board would move it under New Business and discuss it there. If not, then the items would be moved along and it would not be much longer before the process is done. His concern is that he feels the Board owes the process a certain amount of respect. Mr. Frederick stated under that proposal there would not be any need to send out notices to property owners because it would be on the agenda as part of the public notice of the meeting. There would be sufficient opportunity to address public safety and an opportunity for any public interest to be addressed. Maybe the Board would allow public comment or indicate at the beginning of the public comment session that if the public is here to comment now would be the time. This would make sure the public is aware that they have an opportunity to give their input. Mr. Rieske stated that he was not certain that it would create any substantial change. Mr. Hollister stated it would take it so that the first time it is placed on the agenda, it is under this "unanimous consent " item. If a member reads through the list, finds an item that is a no brainer and wants to move it, if any one else objects than it is sent to "New Items" and is sent to one of the Committees. Otherwise, the item is forwarded. Mr. Czekai stated that at the most, there would be a week or two added to the process but it is still preserving the oversight and preserves ahead the folks concerns on the Board. Mr. Rieske asked if this would pertain to both Zoning and Ordinance and Urban Development matters. Mr. Czekai stated that if the item is in this category then it would. Mr. Rieske stated that he was familiar with a consent agenda. He stated that you could put the agenda and the minutes under the unanimous consent section. Mr. Hollister asked if there would be a public hearing for it. Mr. Czekai stated that what would suffice would be the comments from the audience. Mr. Hollister stated that there would not be a reading of what the issue was before the Board. Mr. Czekai stated it would be posed in the minutes. Mr. Hollister stated PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2006 Page 8 beforehand when someone reads the agenda for the day, they would see the issue on the agenda and if they want to attend and speak about it, the option is there. Mr. Rieske stated this would mean there would not be Committee action. Ms. Bruch stated unless someone from the Board questions the issue. Mr. Hollister stated that is someone from the public has a question, then the Board would refer the issue to the Committee for discussion. Mr. Czekai stated to refer it to New Business. If the Board is still at an impasse or needs additional information, then refer it to the Committee. Otherwise, it might be resolved under New Business at that time. The idea is to streamline. Mr. Frederick stated that this process could go on at the same time that it is being developed to refer on to City Council by staff. He envisions a simultaneous thing so it would not necessarily extend the length of time that it would take for the issue. Mr. Rieske stated that would not be the case. The Board reports Planning Board action as under the scenario that was discussed earlier (i.e. letter with staff findings). Letters to the Mayor are sent on Wednesdays for City Council packets to be mailed on Fridays. Mr. Czekai stated it would include approved by unanimous consent of the Planning Board. Mr. Rieske stated that the placing the issue on the Planning Board agenda would delay it a week. Mr. Frederick stated that it would be a definite improvement. Mr. Hollister stated that if there are any concerns, the Board would see it beforehand. Mr. Rieske stated that the problem with the consent agenda idea is that the Board is rarely at the unanimous consent on most things without at least having a discussion. Mr. Hollister stated that it does not necessarily have to be an impasse. Mr. Czekai stated that there would not be discussion unless someone under unanimous consent rules there is no discussion on the items unless someone has an objection to the item. Then it is automatically moved to New Business. Mr. Frederick gave an example of preserving the underground easement to sewer easement and the liability issue was raised and was automatically included. If the Board approves an easement, it will happen no matter what with these protections whether they are liked or not. In this case the Board will like it. Mr. Ruge asked if there would still be a report in the Planning Board packet. Mr. Czekai stated that it is still going to City Council and is still not creating additional work. Mr. Rieske stated that the Board may get a draft letter to the Mayor along with supporting materials to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2006 Page 9 resemble at times and not at other times the full staff report. Mr. Rieske stated that the Board could try and see what happens. Mr. Hollister stated that it would not be more work. Mr. Rieske stated that it will be but it would be more delays and then it has to be included in the Planning Board minutes. He stated that it is worth trying. Mr. Frederick stated that the Board can amend the motion to try this for a six month or three month period, see how it works and then evaluate it after that time. Mr. Ruge stated that he thinks the Board should just go along and do it and if there are problems, change it. He stated that the procedure needed to be in the motion. Mr. Hollister stated that the motion basically says that all the items on page 2 of Mr. Rieske's memo will be considered under unanimous consent agenda items. The Board needs to review the list and figure out if there is any item that needs to be stricken from list before Board continues. Ms. Cordill stated that the sidewalk is part of the State requirement of public ways. Although the example that Mr. Rieske gave the Board seemed like a reasonable thing to connect the ends of the sidewalk. She does not see how the Board can get around it. It says public way and is approved by the Commission, not by the City. Mr. Hollister that that in this case, it would be approved and it would not be sent to Committee. The Board would still review the issue and move it unless there was an objection. Mr. Ruge stated that he is not sure if the Board needs to enumerate all the items that would fall under this. It might be better to say that staff can create a consent agenda and whatever is on the list, the Board can review. This would allow flexibility. Mr. Czekai stated that if anything needs to be changed, the Board will make the change. Mr. Rieske stated that the public hearing requirements will remain the same, and the Board can talk further, with Ms. Stachowiak involved in the discussion, about Board action subsequent to a public hearing. Mr. Czekai stated that at that point, it would be up to Mr. Rieske or Ms. Stachowiak to put in on the agenda. Mr. Rieske stated that would work. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch, that in an effort to streamline the Planning process, to have staff create a Unanimous Consent Agenda Items category to include any item that staff considers appropriate. A review of by-laws will be checked and any conflicts will be resolved. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Czekai asked if this was in the by-laws and wanted to make sure it was not against the by-laws in any way. Mr. Rieske stated that it was not in the by-laws but if the Board tries it for a certain period of time, it can be subsequently changed. As part of this motion, the Board could review the by-laws to avoid any conflicts as needed. Mr. Ruge made this amendment to the motion. Mr. Czekai accepted it. Mr. Czekai stated that the Executive Committee will review it and can make the change. Mr. Rieske stated that the by- laws cannot be changed without prior notification. Mr. Czekai stated that the Board can make the motion and move it forward now and if there is a conflict, it will be resolved later. Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Mr. Hollister a. ACT 285 Review Process Mr. Hollister stated that the Committee met tonight and in an effort to streamline the Planning process, a motion was made to create a Unanimous Consent Agenda Item category to include any item that staff considers appropriate. A review of the by-laws will be check and any conflicts will be resolved. Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch, that in an effort to streamline the Planning process, have staff create a Unanimous Consent Agenda Items category to include any item that staff considers appropriate. The Rules of Administrative Procedure will be checked and any conflicts will be resolved. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave Czekai. . . Ave Hollister . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2006 Page 11 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Mr. Czekai recommended a tentative date of May 2nd for the next meeting. Mr. Hollister and Mr. Ruge agreed. C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske stated that it is budget time and staff has been putting together the Planning and Neighborhood Development budget that will go to the City Council Committee of the Whole on Thursday. It will be reviewed again by City Council at a budget hearing on April 27th. The infrastructure budget regarding CIP is going to be considered in a budget hearing on May 2nd Mr. Rieske stated that staff is meeting a great deal about the Master Plan process. Mr. Johnson and he met with Joan Nelson, who was a Transition Team member regarding Detroit's cluster planning process. Lynn Martinez, Ron Uken, Brian Anderson and he went down to Detroit and discussed that process with some of the participants. He did not talk with the Detroit Planning staff because they did not attend the meeting. He is trying to schedule follow-up meetings with them as well as June Thomas at MSU, who is sort of an expert on planning in Detroit. Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office is reviewing ways to partner given the shortage of funds. He is encouraged by the amount of progress the Planning Office is making. Mr. Hodges is also working on a GIS map of what is currently in the Consolidated Future Land Use Plan. Mr. Rieske stated that the Department has been involved in a proposal to acquire the Michigan School for the Blind property and has been providing some of the information behind that proposal. E. 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. Master Plan Project C. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd.- landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2006 Page 12 b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) C. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) e. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) f. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004) g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004) h. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs (February 15,2005) i. 2200 W. Holmes-Bad Habits-excessive signs (May 3, 2005) j. 2618 Cavanaugh Rd. - registered rental &front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) k. S. Pennsylvania-Church of the Rock- buffer parking lot along side street (October 4, 2005) I. 2101 Luwanna Dr—registered rental &front yard parking (November 15,2005) M. 2400 Blk of E. Kalamazoo Str—Dollar Store—used cars for sale in parking lot (February 7,2006) n. Michigan Ave.just west of Foster Ave.—building constructed up to the sidewalk &possibility of no permit(March 21, 2006) o. 1304 W. Barnes Str.—lots of trash (March 21, 2006) Mr. Rieske stated that with item 1 a, Mr. Hodges recommended that staff review the case again and he has asked Ms. Stachowiak to review it. 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Bruch invited everyone to the City Market on Thursday, April 27th at 6:00 p.m. Her class is showing their master plans for the river corridors in the City of Lansing. Her class did a large scale master plan for the river corridors and went into specific areas and did a smaller master plan. It is just ideas of what is the potential for these river corridors. She stated that the Mayor's Office was informed of the event and she will invite all of the City Council members. She has called everyone in the neighborhood associations that is surrounding the river. Ms. Bruch stated that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee talked about updating a lot of the ordinances. Ms. Bruch asked about the vacant Board member positions. Mr. Rieske stated that he sent the Mayor's Office a memo pertaining to a variety of prospective Board members for the Planning Board and the Historic District Commission. There was an email discussion about it and essentially the strategies have been approved for getting this done. The Board is short two members and the most crucial is the Third Ward because there is no active member representation. Further, staff is looking at diversity issues. He stated that there is no prospect of Third Ward applicants as of yet. He will talk with City Council members who PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2006 Page 13 either represent the Third Ward or work in the Third Ward to obtain ideas for people who would be good for the Planning Board, interested in serving, etc. He stated that the applicant would need to live in the City, not owe the City any money, not be convicted of any felonies in the last 20 years, etc. He stated that one position is reserved for the Third Ward and there is a vacancy in the Fourth Ward. He stated that there is one applicant for the Fourth Ward that he just received approval to interview. Mr. Rieske stated that there was interest from the First Ward but there are no vacancies. The Board's At-Large membership has double representation from the First Ward. Ms. Cordill asked if the neighborhood organization could be a source of potential membership. Mr. Rieske stated the process is coordinated by the Mayor and the Planning Office. With the new Mayor, It has been hard to set up the understanding under which this can be done more efficiently. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick turned in his item during the Urban Development Committee because it was a sign issue. Mr. Ruge stated that with item 5n, the address is 2312 E. Michigan. He stated that it was not that the building was constructed with the possibility of no permit. The applicant had cut down the street tree and he did not think there was a permit to do that. Mr. Rieske will look into the matter. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.040406.doc Approved as written 5-2-06 Draft to Clerk April 26,2006 Approved May 2,2006 To Clerk May 5,2006 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Halle, Tuesday, April 18, 2006 G? ✓y J-n 1. OPENING SESSION ' — n CO The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mr. Hollister, Vice Chair. �n A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Hollister. co i n B. Staff Attending: Rieske. C. Excused absences: Cordill, Czekai. D. Absent: None. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to approve an excused absence request from Mr. Czekai for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Hollister closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval — (Minutes will be presented for consideration at a later date) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 18, 2006 Page 2 B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, April 25, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3a. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Ms. Bruch, Presiding a. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to remove the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) from the table. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Ruge stated that it is a good idea to replace worn equipment. Mr. Frederick suggested an overall parking study, starting with areas that need it the most. He would like to see the space adjusted between vehicles on Capitol Avenue and Townsend Street to create more parking spaces. Mr. Frederick stated that Washington Square is dangerous. He suggested traffic calming, speed bumps, angle parking spots, and parking rate adjustments for more parking turnover. Mr. Ruge said to raise the parking rates. Ms. Bruch stated that there is no long range plan. Mr. Hollister stated that there is a lot of off-street parking along S. Grand Ave. Mr. Frederick stated that there is lack of enforcement outside of the downtown area. He suggested examining enforcement of overnight parking and front yard parking. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 18, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the parking items of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to additionally recommend that a parking study be done by the Department of Transportation Parking Office to include the downtown area and other issues, not necessarily revenue generating, to increase efficiency, revenues and consistency. Also, provide a parking study or an update of an existing study. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3b. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Ms. Bruch, Presiding a. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) At its meeting on April 18, 2006, the Planning Board voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of the Proposed FY 2007 Capital Improvement Program, and to recommend these additional items: 1. $90,000 for the Master Plan project (in addition to the $90,000 in carry-over funds), 2. $100,000 for tree planting in commercial areas, 3. a parking study of the downtown and other areas of the City to enhance efficiency, consistency, revenues, and enforcement of overnight and front yard parking regulations. Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend approval of the Parking Section of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge. Ave Hollister Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend that a Parking Study be done the Department of Transportation Parking Office. Frederick Ave Bruch Ave Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . Aye Hollister Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 18, 2006 Page 4 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Mr. Hollister stated that the Executive Committee will meet on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss Rules of Procedure and Planning Board Goals and Objectives. C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager— None. E. 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. Master Plan Project C. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat, Vacate Alley(part) (Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports a. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd. -landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) C. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) e. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) f. 2702 S. Cedar Street- no landscaping (May 18,2004) g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave. -no landscaping (November 3, 2004) h. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Road-illegal signs(February 15,2005) i. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3, 2005) j. 2618 Cavanaugh Road- registered rental&front yard paved, used for parking (October 4, 2005) k. S. Pennsylvania Ave-Church of the Rock- buffer parking lot along side street (October 4,2005) I. 2101 Luwanna Drive—registered rental &front yard parking (November 15, 2005) M. 2400 Blk of E. Kalamazoo Street—Dollar Store—used cars for sale in parking lot (February 7,2006) n. 2312 E. Michigan Ave.just west of Foster Ave.—street tree removed, possibly no permit(March 21, 2006) o. 1304 W. Barnes Street—lots of trash (March 21,2006) 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 18, 2006 Page 5 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Bruch stated that she had Board member names listed beside the Planning Board goals from Mr. Czekai for the Executive Committee meeting. Ms. Bruch invited everyone to the City Market on Thursday, April 27th at 6:00 p.m. Her class is showing their master plans for the river corridors in the City of Lansing. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Frederick stated that at 3623 Stoneleigh Drive, it appears to be a rental because there are lots of people. Mr. Frederick stated that at 1700 Alpha Street, a new fence was built way out in the front yard. Mr. Frederick stated that at 3027 Aurelius Road, a fence that was legal is now moved out to the front yard. Mr. Ruge stated that there may be a rogue used car salesman operating in a print shop at 1712 W. Saginaw Street, west of Sparrow's St. Lawrence campus. Mr. Hollister stated that at the SE corner of Leslie and Main Streets, there is a lot of junk in the yard. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted V lJ William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.041806.doc APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk September 22,2006 PG 4,3`d para from the bottom,change the last sentence to read: as long as Approved October 3,2006 "the City does not dictate what the applicant can teach with respect to the To Clerk October 12,2006 Christian doctrine." PG 5, 15`line,"Mr. Cordill"s/b"Ms. Cordill" f._ N Minutes of the Regular Meeting :r call LANSING PLANNING BOARD -_'J 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers �-; Lansing City Hall Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1. OPENING SESSION r— C'1 un The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Bruch, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak C. Excused absences: Frederick, Ruge D. Absent: None. Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused absence from Mr. Ruge for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Cordill made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the agenda as written. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Consent Items 1. Minutes for Approval - September 5, 2006 The minutes of September 5, 2006 were APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 19, 2006 Page 2 2. SLU-9-2006, 609 N. Verlinden Avenue, Special Land Use Permit -Child Care Center This is a request by Brynn Kelley for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the building/property at 609 N. Verlinden Avenue (Former Verlinden School) for a child care center. The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits child care centers, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of the request based upon its compliance with the criteria of Section 1282.02(f), with the following conditions: 1. The number of children and employees be limited to the number of on-site parking spaces; and 2. The location of fencing and signs be approved by the Planning Office. APPROVED w/o Objections. 3. SLU-10-2006, 2908 Andrew Avenue, Special Land Use Permit— Community Center This is a request by Brent Baker for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the building/property at 2908 Andrew Avenue (Former Northwestern Elementary School) for a faith-based community center with living space for the operators of the facility. The property is zoned "A" Residential District which permits community centers, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. This item was removed from the consent agenda and placed under new business. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Ms. Bruch, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, October 11, 2006, at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair Ms. Cordill stated that she will not be available for this meeting. Next meeting, Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 19, 2006 Page 3 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager- None E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. 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. Master Plan Project c. Act-1-2003, SE Corner Michigan&Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat,Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29,2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS A. SLU-10-2006, 2908 Andrew Avenue, Special Land Use Permit— Community Center This is a request by Brent Baker for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the building/property at 2908 Andrew Avenue (Former Northwestern Elementary School) for a faith-based community center with living space for the operators of the facility. The property is zoned "A" Residential District which permits community centers, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of SLU-10-06 based upon its compliance with the criteria of section 1282.03(f), with the following conditions: 1. On-site parking in accordance with city standards prior to issuance of an occupancy permit; 2. Lighting of the grounds and parking lots in such a manner as to afford adequate visibility from the street of all outdoor areas; 3. All areas of the building and grounds to have adult supervision during hours of operation; 4. No residential use will be allowed on-site in conjunction with the community center; and 5. Activities will be limited to those typically provided by a community center, as exemplified by the other community centers in the city of Lansing. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 19, 2006 Page 4 Ms. Cordill stated that condition number 3 could be restated to require supervision "during poster hours of operation". She also stated that the acceptable uses should be listed so that it is clear as to what is being approved. Mr. Czekai stated that the acceptable uses are described on page 7 of the staff report and that he is fine with leaving condition number 5 as is. Mr. Hollister asked about the concerns raised at the public hearing with regard to traffic and property values. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she has no information on how a community center will affect property values and that the traffic for this use will be very minimal as most users of the facility will live in the neighborhood. Mr. Czekai suggested adding a sixth condition to require an anti- discrimination policy since this is not a 501.C.3. He suggested that the applicant be required to follow the same policy that is in effect for the City. More specifically, Mr. Czekai recommended a sixth condition stating: "The community center will uphold a non-discrimination policy on- site and with all community center programs as defined by the City of Lansing." Ms. Cordill stated that she has concerns with the anti-discrimination policy condition because we do not place that condition on other community centers. She stated that as a faith-based operation, she would assume that they would welcome a diverse population. Cristo Rey is a Catholic Organization but it welcomes people of all faiths. Mr. Hollister stated that Catholic teachings are not the goal of Cristo Rey Community Center and that they are not teaching the Catholic doctrine. Mr. Czekai stated that a 501.C.3. has to have a non-discrimination policy in its by-laws . Since this is not a 501.C.3, the only way to ensure that they do not discriminate is to include a condition. Ms. Cordill stated that she does not object to the condition as long as i does not diGtatewhatthe app"Gant'S Gan tea the City does not dictate what the applicant can teach with respect to the Christian doctrine. Ms. Bruch asked why condition number 3 was included since we do not require outdoor supervision of other community centers. She stated that the residential use is out of the ordinary, but we are trying to encourage mixed use developments. Mr. Czekai stated that if the applicant's live there, the business would be a home occupation and a community center is not permitted as a home occupation. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 19, 2006 Page 5 I►A . Ms. Cordill stated that she agrees with Ms. Bruch that the residential use should be permitted. Mr. Czekai stated that he disagrees because a community center cannot be part of someone's home. He would like condition number 4 to stay the way it is. Ms. Cordill stated that the building should be looked at by an architect to determine how the two uses can be accommodated in the same building. She said that this is similar to a bed and breakfast where the owners live in the house. Mr. Hollister stated that the applicant has said that the only way that this can work is for more than one family to live in the facility. This would be a multiple family use that would not be permitted without a rezoning. Brent Baker, the applicant, stated that he is checking into a 501.C.3. If they were to obtain a 501.C.3., finances would be less important because then they could receive donations, grants, etc. However, without the 501.C.3., they have to rely on the household finances of the people who operate the facility and that is why it is so important for them to be able to live there. He stated that if no one is allowed to live there, the project will not happen. They were hoping to launch this project privately until it can stand on its own, at which time the residential use will not be necessary. He stated that it could take up to a year to get the 501.C.3. Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to change condition number 4 to permit single family residential use of the building. Mr. Hollister stated that the staff report is written on the premise that a residential use would not be permitted. If condition number 4 is changed, the staff report should be changed to evaluate whether a residential use would comply with the criteria of Section 1282.02(f) of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hollister stated that the most appropriate thing to do would be to table the case until staff has a chance to evaluate the residential use. Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch, to table SLU-10- 2006 until the October 3, 2006 meeting, giving staff an opportunity to evaluate the residential use of the building in accordance with the criteria of Section 1282.02(f) of the Zoning Ordinance; to reevaluate whether outdoor, adult supervision is needed; and to review the City's nondiscrimination policy for inclusion as a condition of a approval. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Czekai stated that this would be placed under new business on the October 3, 2006 agenda. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 19, 2006 Page 6 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Czekai stated that Ms. Bruch has prepared a letter to the City Council and the Mayor regarding the loss of green space as a result of the sale of the neighborhood elementary schools. Ms. Cordill stated that the word "associated" in the second sentence of the second paragraph should be changed to "adjacent". 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS — None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS a. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping&buffering (May 20,2003) b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) e. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to theoutside of building (May 4,2004) f. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004) g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave. -no landscaping (November 3,2004) h. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs (May 3, 2005) i. 2618 Cavanaugh Road.-registered rental&front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) j. 3027 Aurelius Road—fence in front yard (April 18,2006) k. 1712 W. Saginaw Street,W.of Sparrow's St. Lawrence campus—rogue used car salesman operating in a print shop (April 18,2006) I. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Road-illegal signs(July 5,2006,July 18,2006&September 5,2006) m. Southeast Corner of Cavanaugh and Dunkel Roads—selling luxury cars at a residence(September 5, 2006) 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.091906.doc Approved as written 9-19-06 Draft to Clerk September 6,2006 Approved September 19,2006 To Clerk September 22,2006 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD C^0 � 71 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers - Lansing City Hall G'' C.) n `-'Tuesday, September 5, 2006 "' P-1 Y p 1. OPENING SESSION �? The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister. B. Staff Attending: Rieske, Stachowiak C. Excused absences: None. D. Absent: None. Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused absence from Mr. Czekai for the August 1st meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused absence from Mr. Frederick for the August 1st meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to approve an excused absence from Mr. Hollister for the August 25th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch to approve an excused absence from Mr. Frederick for the September 19th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda as written. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-14-2006, 1108 & 1110 E. Grand River Avenue, "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 5, 2006 Page 2 This is a request by Juan Sandoval to rezone the properties at 1108 and 1110 E. Grand River Avenue, more specifically described as: Lots 1 & 2, Browns Second Subdivision, city of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District for the purpose of bringing the residential use of the properties into compliance with the zoning ordinance. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning based upon its consistency with the master plan and the surrounding zoning and land use patterns. Ms. Bruch stated that all of the lots in this area that are zoned "F" Commercial are being used residentially and should be rezoned. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the property owners would have to initiate the rezoning. She stated that the Northtown Neighborhood Association could start a petition of the affected property owners to get the rezoning started. Mr. Hollister stated that the map in the packet should show the zoning. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing for Z-14-2006, 1108 & 1110 E. Grand River Avenue, "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District. B. SLU-9-2006, 609 N. Verlinden Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Child Care Center This is a request by Brynn Kelley for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the building/property at 609 N. Verlinden Avenue (Former Verlinden School) for a child care center. The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits child care centers, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a full report, including a recommendation, will be presented to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee at the next meeting. Ms. Bruch stated that the softball fields and the playground areas will be turned over to the applicant and taken out of public use. She stated that this is another example of the neighborhood losing green space. Mr. Hollister asked if the Westside Neighborhood Association responded to the agency referral. Ms. Stachowiak replied no. Ms. Cordill stated that this request is different from the Walnut School request because the child care center will likely continue to use the playgrounds and ball fields. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 5, 2006 Page 3 Ms. Bruch stated that there could be legal issues with opening up the playgrounds and ball fields to the public. Brynn Kelley, resident of 11702 Sara Ann Drive, DeWitt, MI, spoke in favor of the request. Ms. Kelley stated that she has a degree from Baker University in early education and seven years of experience in child care. She stated that the center will be for children, 0-12 years old, Monday through Friday. Ms. Kelley also stated that that she met with the Westside Neighborhood Association and they were very happy with the proposal. In response to a question from Ms. Stachowiak, Ms. Kelley stated that they will have approximately 100 children in the center. Ms. Cordill asked if they will be keeping the playground. Ms. Kelley stated that they have to fence the outdoor play area and if they make it available to the general public, it would have to be restricted to the times when the center is not in operation. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing and referred SLU-9-2006, 609 N. Verlinden Avenue, Special Land Use Permit -Child Care Center to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 19, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room, 124 E. Michigan Avenue. C. SLU-10-2006, 2908 Andrew Avenue, Special Land Use Permit - Community Center This is a request by Brent Baker for a Special Land Use permit to utilize the building/property at 2908 Andrew Avenue (Former Northwestern Elementary School) for a faith-based community center with living space for the operators of the facility. The property is zoned "A" Residential District which permits community centers, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a full report, including a recommendation, will be presented to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee at the next meeting. Mr. Hollister asked if a faith-based community center would permit church services. Ms. Stachowiak stated that church services would not be permitted unless the applicant applies for another special land use permit specifically for a church. Brent Baker, resident of 3074 Rolfe Road, Mason, MI, spoke in favor of the request. He stated that the community center is intended for the residents of the neighborhood and a lot of the services that would be provided would depend upon the needs and desires of the neighborhood. He stated that he is a member of a church, but that this community center would not be affiliated with a church. Mr. Baker stated that they will PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 5, 2006 Page 4 provide activities for children and seniors. The hours would be limited and the workers would have to undergo background checks. He also stated that he and his family are selling their house in Mason and intend to use the proceeds from that sale to start the community center. Since the center will be funded by the household income of he and some other individuals, it is necessary for them to be able to live in the center. Mr. Czekai stated that there have been some concerns expressed about the residential aspect of this proposal. He asked what the applicant would do to alleviate the concerns of people who would be using the center and would feel like they are going into someone's home. Mr. Baker stated that the living area would be completely separated from the community center. Mr. Czekai asked Ms. Stachowiak about the funding for other community centers in the city. Ms. Stachowiak stated that all of the ones that she is aware of are non-profits. Mr. Frederick asked Ms. Stachowiak about the number of people that can live under the same roof in the "A" Residential zoning district. Ms. Stachowiak stated 3 unrelated persons. Mr. Hollister asked Mr. Baker to describe which area of the building would be used for housing. Mr. Baker stated that it would be the area closest to the ball field. Homer Sprague, resident of 2920 Lafayette Avenue, spoke in support of the request. He stated that he lives right next door to the school and he could not be more pleased with this proposal. Mr. Hollister asked Mr. Sprague how long the school has been vacant. Mr. Sprague stated about 3 years. Tim Miles, resident of 3000 Lujer Circle, spoke in support of the request. Mr. Miles stated that the property values in the area have decreased since the school has been sitting vacant. He stated that he is very pleased with the applicant's proposal. Juan Macias, resident of 2812 Northwest Avenue, stated that he would like to know exactly what types of services will be provided. He would like to know if there are any studies that show how property values are affected by community centers and what affect the center will have on traffic in the area. Mr. Czekai stated that Mr. Macias should get his questions to Ms. Stachowiak so that she can answer them. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would contact Mr. Macias. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 5, 2006 Page 5 Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing and referred SLU-10-2006, 2908 Andrew Avenue, Special Land Use Permit- Community Center to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on September 19, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room, 124 E. Michigan Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Rich Kelley, resident of 11702 Sara Ann Drive, DeWitt, MI, spoke in favor of SLU-9-2006 and stated that he is the applicant's husband. He stated that they met with the Westside Neighborhood Association and were asked many questions about the proposal. The meeting lasted a long time and was very productive. He stated that they received a lot of positive feedback and the neighborhood appears to be very happy with the proposal. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Consent Items 1. Minutes for Approval — July 5, 2006 The minutes of July 5, 2006 were APPROVED. Minutes for Approval — July 18, 2006 The minutes of July 18, 2006 were APPROVED w/corrections: Pg. 2, item 5, 1st para., 3rd line, change "margel" to "marginal". Pg. 7, 5th para., change "The applicant is on record as not intending a check cashing business." to "The applicant is on record as stating that he will not have a check cashing business on the site." Minutes for Approval — August 1, 2006 The minutes of August 1, 2006 were APPROVED, w/correction: Pg. 1, under Staff Attending, change "Rieske" to "Stachowiak". PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 5, 2006 Page 6 Minutes for Approval — August 25, 2006 The minutes of August 25, 2006 were APPROVED. 2. Z-14-2006, 1108 & 1110 E. Grand River Avenue, "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District This is a request by Juan Sandoval to rezone the properties at 1108 and 1110 E. Grand River Avenue, more specifically described as: Lots 1 & 2, Browns Second Subdivision, city of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "F" Commercial District to "C" Residential District for the purpose of bringing the residential use of the properties into compliance with the zoning ordinance. APPROVED w/o Objection. B. Committee Reports Mr. Czekai stated that both Committees need to have officer elections at their next meetings. 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, September 13, 2006, at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair Ms. Cordill stated that she will not be available for this meeting. Next meeting, Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None C. Old Business — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 5, 2006 Page 7 D. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske stated that he has been working with MSU on the Master Plan update. He stated that they have had several meetings and although no partnership has been created, this gives hope that the master plan update will be moving forward in a timely manner. Mr. Rieske stated that there is a meeting of neighborhood leaders on Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at the Foster Community Center to discuss the master plan. Mr. Rieske reported that the Grand Vision is moving forward and that the oversight committee will be meeting next Wednesday. Ms. Bruch stated that the neighbors are upset that they were not notified first before MSU got involved. E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. 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. Master Plan Project c. Act-1-2003,SE Corner Michigan &Washington, Lot 3, Block 111, Orig Plat,Vacate Alley(part)(Tabled on April 29, 2003) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Officers Ms. Stachowiak called for nominations for Chairperson. Mr. Frederick nominated Mr. Czekai for Chairperson. Mr. Hollister seconded the motion. On a voice vote, 6-0, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Czekai called for nominations for vice-chairperson. Ms. Bruch nominated Mr. Hollister for vice-chairperson. Ms. Cordill seconded the motion. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 5, 2006 Page 8 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Czekai asked if anyone wanted to change committees. Ms. Bruch stated that she does not get out of class until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays and 6:00 p.m. on Mondays and Fridays. Mr. Frederick stated that he can fill in on both committees, although he will not be available for the September meetings. Ms. Cordill stated that she can serve on either committee but not both. Mr. Czekai stated that the committees can stay the way they are for right now and we will use substitutes as needed. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge stated that he is disappointed to see the tree in front of 2310 E. Michigan Avenue not being replaced. Ms. Stachowiak stated that according to the City Forester, it does not have to be replaced. She stated that she does not know the reasons why. Mr. Frederick asked that street trees be placed on the agenda as a discussion item. He stated that he would like to know the rules regarding street trees and tree replacements. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would get answers to these questions and that she would get copies of the ordinances that pertain to street trees for the Board to review. The Board decided to put this item on the October 3, 2006 meeting agenda for discussion purposes. Ms. Cordill asked about the process for getting a street sign erected. Ms. Stachowiak gave Ms. Cordill the name and number of the Assistant Transportation Engineer. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS a. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4, 2004) e. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to theoutside of building (May 4, 2004) f. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004) g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004) h. 2200 W. Holmes Road-Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3,2005) i. 2618 Cavanaugh Road.-registered rental &front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) j. 1700 Alpha Street—fence in front yard (April 18,2006) k. 3027 Aurelius Road—fence in front yard (April 18,2006) I. 1712 W. Saginaw Street,W.of Sparrow's St. Lawrence campus—rogue used car salesman operating in a print shop (April 18,2006) m. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Road-illegal signs(July 5, 2006&July 18,2006) n. 2614&2622 Hazelwood Drive—lawns need mowing (July 5,2006) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 5, 2006 Page 9 o. SE corner of Leslie&Main Streets—needs more clean up(July 18,2006) p. Dard, Inc., 1213 Center Street—waist high weeds growing in sidewalk(July 18, 2006) Mr. Frederick stated that there is a house at the southwest corner of Cavanaugh and Dunckel Roads that is being used for the sale of luxury cars. Mr. Frederick stated that Keeps Party Store has more illegal signs on the property. Mr. Frederick stated that Habitat for Humanity is in the process of building on the property at the southeast corner of Leslie and Main Street. Mr. Czekai stated that the weeds in front of Dard Inc. have been trimmed. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1/ William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.090506.doc Approved as written 9-5-06 Draft to Clerk August 29,2006 Approved September 5,2006 To Clerk September 8,2006 Minutes of the Special Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 4:00 p.m., P & N D Department Conference Roomer ; 316 N. Capitol Avenue, t; Friday, August 25, 2006 � 1. OPENING SESSION: The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m: b Vlr. Czekai, Chair. A. Roll call: Present: Czekai, Ruge, Bruch, Cordill & Frederick. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak. C. Excused absences: Hollister. D. Absent: None. 2. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS A. Z-13-2006 & SLU-8-06, 1012 N. Walnut Street, Rezoning from "C" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District, Special Land Use Permit—Laboratory This is a request to rezone the property at 1012 N. Walnut Street, more specifically described as: LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, BLOCK 39, ORIGINAL PLAT, INGHAM COUNTY, LANSING, MI from "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District, for the purpose of utilizing the building/property at this location for office and laboratory space. The "D-1" Professional Office district permits laboratories, if a special land use permit is approved by the City Council. SLU-8-2006 is a request for a special land use permit to operate a laboratory at 1012 N. Walnut Street. Staff recommended approval of these requests. Mr. Ruge stated that there is an existing fence on the site along with some plant materials that are providing a buffer. He asked what the buffering requirement would be for this site. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a landscape buffer would be required for all lot lines, but that any existing buffering would count towards the requirement. Mr. Ruge asked if another building could be constructed where the baseball diamond currently is on the site. Ms. Stachowiak stated that another building could be built at that location, but to her knowledge, the applicant has no plans to do so at this time. PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES August 25, 2006 Page 2 Ms. Bruch stated that when these schools are purchased for private use, the green space is lost for the neighborhood. She asked if the City would be willing to buy the green space for use by the neighborhood. Ms. Cordill stated that it would make a good community garden. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not know if the City was interested in purchasing more land, but that she would pass the Planning Board's suggestions along to the City Council and to the Parks and Recreation Department. Beth Grimm, applicant, Niowave, Inc., stated that the parking on the site will be needed for additional employees in the future. She said that her insurance company will not allow them to maintain the playground for use by the neighborhood because of the liability involved. Mr. Frederick asked if Niowave works with any type of hazardous materials. Ms. Grimm stated that they do not and that they can touch the materials that they work with as they are not toxic or radioactive. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of Z-13-06, 1012 N. Walnut Street, Rezoning from "C" residential to "D-1" Professional Office. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bruch, to recommend approval of SLU-8-06, Special Land Use permit for a laboratory in the "D-1" Professional Office District at 1012 N. Walnut Street. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . Aye Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to send a letter to the City Council and the Mayor's Office requesting that they address the loss of green space to the neighborhoods caused by the schools being sold to private entities. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES August 25, 2006 Page 3 B. Act-4-2006, 227 S. Washington Square, Outdoor Seating with Alcohol Service in Right-of-Way This is an application from Brad Manhoff of 227 S. Washington LLC, requesting permission to provide outdoor seating with alcohol service in the S. Washington Square right of way in front of the building at 227 S. Washington Square. The proposed outdoor seating area will accommodate tables along the building frontage. Staff recommended approval of the request with certain conditions. Ms. Bruch asked if the railing would be removed at the end of the season when the outdoor seating area is not in use. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be removed. Mr. Ruge asked if the seating area would be north or south of the building entrance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the drawing makes it look like it will be south of the building, but there would not be enough room in that area for outdoor seating. She stated that it is most likely located north of the entrance. The Planning Board discussed the facade changes. Mr. Frederick recommended adding a ninth condition that the facade be returned to its original design as accurately as possible and that the stucco be removed. Mr. Ruge asked that the condition be amended to state that the facade shall be of the same design and character from the period in which the building was originally constructed. The Planning Board found that: 1. The use of the outdoor eating area as incidental to a restaurant would be in keeping with the use being advanced in the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, 2. The proposed use is consistent with the revitalization of Downtown, and is similar to that approved for 206, 1115, S. Washington and 621 E. Michigan Avenue, 3. Given its high visibility, pleasing outdoor activities at this location could be of significance in attracting people to Downtown Lansing and aid in its revitalization, 4. Approval of the request could meet the intent of Act 285, with respect to location, character, and extent considerations, provided that it can be done in a manner that provides adequate safeguards to the City for reversion and pedestrian circulation. Ms. Bruch made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to recommend approval of Act-4-2006, to allow seasonal outdoor seating within the ROW at 227 S. PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES August 25, 2006 Page 4 Washington Square by annual permit, with the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall remove the existing structure extending into the Washington Square ROW, which was permitted by Council Resolution #0482, approved on September 21, 1987; 2) The applicant shall maintain an unobstructed pedestrian walkway, a minimum of seven (7) feet in width be maintained and adequate space near the curb be provided for entering and exiting of parked vehicles; 3) The applicant shall remove all tables, chairs and accessory items during the off- season and for construction and/or tree maintenance at the location; 4) The applicant shall not anchor, fix, use or alter any improvements or sidewalks in a manner that damages or alters the sidewalk or any public improvements located in the right-of-way; 5) The applicant shall maintain the area in a clean, safe, and orderly manner at all times; 6) The applicant shall comply with all applicable noise and parking regulations; 7) The applicant shall abide by the security requirements of the State of Michigan Liquor Control Commission; 8) The applicant shall indemnify and hold the City of Lansing harmless for any and all liability resulting from applicant's use of the City's right of way and shall name the City of Lansing coinsured with respect to its use of the right-of-way area; and 9) The building fagade shall be of the same design and character from the period in which the building was originally constructed. Frederick . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. Aye Ruge Ave Czekai. . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Resp ctfully submitted, M),-, �� C= , William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.082506.Special Mtg.doc APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk August 3,2006 PG 1,under Staff Attending,"Rieske"s/b"Stachowiak" Approved September 5,2006 To Clerk September 8,2006 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, August 1, 2006 1. OPENING SESSION r_ N c The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Acting. ('0 n rrj y�1 A. Roll call: Present: Cordill. B. Staff Attending: Rieske Stachowaik. VT C. Excused absences: Bruch, Frederick, Czekai, Hollister, Ruge. D. Absent: None. r- M rJ Ms. Stachowiak explained that there were not enough members for a quo-Ftam this evening, but that the public hearing would still be held. She stated that all of the comments would be entered into the minutes and provided to all members of the Planning Board. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA— None. 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-13-2006 & SLU-8-06, 1012 N. Walnut Street, Rezoning from "C" Residential District to "D-1" Professional Office District, Special Land Use Permit -Laboratory This is a request to rezone the property at 1012 N. Walnut Street, more specifically described as: LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, BLOCK 39, ORIGINAL PLAT, INGHAM COUNTY, LANSING, MI from "C" Residential to "D-1" Professional Office District, for the purpose of utilizing the building/property at this location for office and laboratory space. The "D-1" Professional Office district permits laboratories, if a special land use permit is approved by the City Council. SLU-8-2006 is a request for a special land use permit to operate a laboratory at 1012 N. Walnut Street. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 1, 2006 Page 2 Ann Smiley, resident of 423 W. Grand River Avenue, spoke in favor of the requests. Ms. Smiley stated that she was delighted that Niowave will be her new neighbor in the area and that the applicants have been very open and forthcoming with information which is greatly appreciated. Penny Gardner, resident of 1035 N. Seymour Street, stated that she supports the special land use permit and the rezoning request. Ms. Gardner stated that she looks forward to having Niowave in the neighborhood. Katie Donovan, resident of 1035 N. Washington Avenue, stated that she owns several properties in the area and is happy to see Niowave come in to the neighborhood. Ms. Donovan stated that Niowave will bring jobs, new neighbors and hopefully new residents to the area. Kenetha Gibson, resident of 1009 N. Walnut Street, spoke in support of the requests. Ms. Gibson stated that as the President of the Walnut Neighborhood Association, she would like to welcome Niowave to the area. Beth Grimm, resident of 2381 Hickorywood, Okemos, spoke in support of her requests. Ms. Grimm stated that she is the Vice President of Finance for Niowave, Inc. and is happy with the reception that they have received from the neighborhood. Niowave will do their best to be good neighbors. Rich Wade, Vice-President of Operations for Niowave, Inc., stated that Niowave is a high-tech firm that will have a stabilizing affect on the area. He stated that numerous employees of Niowave already live in the Walnut Neighborhood area and they hope to bring many others to the area as well. Mr. Wade stated that they intend to make a large investment in Lansing and the zoning approvals set the stage for that investment to occur. He also sated that he appreciates the support from the neighborhood. Dale Benjamin, resident of 1323 N. Chestnut Street, stated that as President of the Edmore Park Neighborhood Association, he fully supports the requests by Niowave. Mary Kiener, resident of 1027 N. Seymour Street, welcomed Niowave to the area. Lavon Martemucci, resident of 934 N. Seymour Street, expressed her support for the requests by Niowave, Inc. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City Council will be holding its public hearing on SLU-8-2006 & Z-13-2006 on August 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 1, 2006 Page 3 City Council Chambers. She stated that everyone is welcome to attend that meeting to further comment on these requests. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) — None. 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 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMinutes.080106.doc APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk July 25,2006 PG 2,item 5,15t para.,3`d line,"margel"s/b"marginal" Approved September 5,2006 PG 7,51h para.,s/b"The applicant is on record as stating that he will not have a To Clerk September 8,2006 check cashing business on the site." Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall !� Tuesday, July 18, 2006 c.n cn 1. OPENING SESSION a� n c zY' >i 1 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair. ' A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister. B. Staff Attending: Rieske. C. Excused absences: Bruch, Ruge. D. Absent: None. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request from Mr. Ruge for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused absence request from Mr. Ruge for the August 1st meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request from Mr. Hollister for the August 1st meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request from Mr. Hollister for the August 15th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused absence request from Ms. Cordill for the August 15th meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Email of opposition from Brian McGrain regarding Z-10-2006 B. Letter and petition of opposition from Nancy Parsons Mahlow regarding Z-10-2006 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 18, 2006 Page 2 C. Letter of support from Paul Martin regarding Z-10-2006 4. HEARINGS — None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Mr. Ricardo Cooney, resident of 129 N. Clemens, spoke in opposition of Z-10-2006 and stated that the neighborhood has met regarding the proposal. The housing question is not margel< marginal and has two tenants in 12 years, indicating a long tenure by the occupants. An expansion to 24-hour operation means more traffic and more business at the corner of Clemens Street that already has a large share of traffic. The property to the west may have a higher price but it is a vacant building which could be available. He is opposed to encroachments into the neighborhood and encourages Marathon to explore other alternatives. Mr. Dennis Kelly, resident of 1220 Prospect and representative of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization (ENO), spoke in opposition of Z-10-2006 and stated that the proposed expansion of Speedway is an encroachment into the right-of-way. Although the company plans to landscape this building, there was no plan earlier to replace trees when they needed replacement. The expansion and the 24 hour operation will bring more business and necessitate more business to make the project affordable. More business yields more profit and the neighborhood does not have a need for the new products being sold. There is a Quality Dairy and another gas station within four blocks. A 24 hour operation will attract Green Door bar patrons who will use the proposed site after hours late at night and it will make it a crime target. This project is not needed and is just another business move by big oil. Ms. Nancy Parsons-Mahlow, resident of 430 N. Fairview and President of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization (ENO), spoke in opposition of Z-10-2006 and stated that this was an established Total gas station when Speedway took over. The Total gas station was open 24 hours a day. The neighborhood has discussed this proposal with Marathon. The Eastside Neighborhood Organization (ENO) wants to save homes on the eastside and opposes the demolition of this house and the proposed expansion. People in the neighborhood appreciate the Speedway gas station but do not want to lose housing. There are also security issues —there is a shed behind the building on the site plan which would create hazards for both employees and the neighborhood if it is used for a hideaway. She commented on fencing and trees, and stated that shrubbery should be kept fairly low for security reasons. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 18, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Paul Martin, representative of Marathon/Speedway, 529 S. Main Street, Findlay, OH, spoke in favor of Z-10-2006 and stated that the Speedway station never operated at 24 hours. It was 18 hours per day which it is currently. The problem with expanding to the west is that frontage is not an issue. The site needs depth for better circulation particularly for tankers which need to back up currently in order to get around on the existing site. This represents a long term commitment by Marathon Oil to the City and the neighborhood. The increase traffic cited by the neighborhood people is probably not the case. This is a well established area and future traffic in the area is expected to be consistent with past traffic levels. More traffic would stop at the site and conduct business. He stated that 23 parking spaces are required and the expanded facility would provide 15 new parking spaces. Currently, the site has six parking spaces and these figures are net of the loading areas. The expanded station will also offer E85 flexible fuels. Ms. Cordill noted her concerns with circulation. Mr. Martin replied that currently the tankers need to go in reverse so there is less smooth movement on site and operating a large truck in reverse is more dangerous than moving forward. Mr. Gene Larsen, representative of Marathon/Speedway, 529 S. Main Street, Findlay, OH, spoke in favor of Z-10-2006 and stated that the Master Plan supports the purchase and rezoning of the property. He requested the "F-1" zoning designation because the "E-2" would require a zoning variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The 24 hour operation of a well lit gas station would prevent crime and the lighting would act as a deterrent to crime. The station would be much more modern, convenient and beneficial to the neighborhood. Ms. Cordill stated that this project would increase the building size from 2,200 square feet to 3,900 square feet. Mr. Hollister inquired about the status of the building to the west. Mr. Larsen stated that the company had tried to negotiate with the building owner but the owner was not interested. Frontage is not a concern in the site plan, only the lot depth. Ms. Cordill stated that her understanding is that the building is available now. Ms. Shelley Hansen, resident of 415 Bretta (??) Drive and Manager of the Speedway station, spoke in favor of Z-10-2006 and stated that the property and proposed expansion would be safe. They have had not robbers to date and will have bullet proof glass. They can relocate the shed to another area on the site. She asked about the condition of the house that the neighborhood would like to retain. She feels that she has as much support as the opposition does but has no petition to demonstrate it. There will always be beggars but with the diligence PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 18, 2006 Page 4 of the Speedway personnel, the neighborhood and the Police Department, that is recently reduced. Steve Ray, representative of Marathon/Speedway, 529 S. Main Street, Findlay, OH, spoke in favor of Z-10-2006 and is interested in ramifications of the "F-1" district versus another. He stated that the investment by Marathon would be $1 to $2 million in the site and creates basically a 20 year commitment to the City of Lansing and the neighborhood. He wants to be a good neighbor. Modernization is required for the long term viability of the gas station at that site. The traffic flow on the larger site will be better and it will be a better facility overall. The hours of operation would be 24 hours. The facility was 24 hours but the level of business did not warrant it so the current operation is 18 hours per day. The hours of operation of the expanded facility would be evaluated based on the business needs. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Consent Items 1. Minutes for Approval — (Minutes will be presented for consideration at a later date) B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Acting a. Z-10-2006, 115 N. Clemens Street, rezoning from "C" Residential District to "F-1" Commercial District This is a request by L & R Construction Services, Inc. to rezone the property at 115 N. Clemens Street, more specifically described as: East 102 Feet of Lot 6 Except the North 1.5 Feet, Also the East 102 Feet of Lot 5 Except the South 10 Feet of the East 74.2 Feet,Adam's Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential district to "F-1" Commercial district. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the Speedway gasoline station at 1923 E. Michigan Avenue and to utilize the property to the north at 115 N. Clemens Street for the new gas station building. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 18, 2006 Page 5 Staff recommended approval of the request based upon its consistency with the surrounding zoning and land use patterns. In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and the motion carried (2-1). In Committee, the request was recommended to be rezoned from "C" Residential District to "E-2" Local Shopping District, and the motion carried (2-1). Mr. Frederick made a motion to recommend approval of Z-10-2006, 115 N. Clemens Street, rezoning from "C" Residential District to "E-2" Local Shopping District. The motion did not carry due to lack of a second Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend denial of Z-10-2006, 115 N. Clemens Street, rezoning from "C" Residential District to "F-1" Commercial District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Mr. Frederick explained that the basis of this recommendation is that the Master Plan does not appear to provide a definitive line between the neighborhood and the commercial area but someone can pretty much visualize a line by using the rear property line of the properties fronting Michigan Avenue. Mr. Frederick added that the line is informally drawn in the Master Plan and that the definition of the line is not specific. The 1990 Housing Market Study "housing in Lansing in the 21St Century" indicates that preservation of housing is a priority. The house is a viable house and should be preserved. Mr. Czekai stated that at one time he lived at 122 N. Clemens and can empathize with the neighborhood. The rezoning would provide more customers which would create more traffic and be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick, to recommend denial of Z-10-2006, 115 N. Clemens Street, rezoning from "C" Residential District to "E-2" PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 18, 2006 Page 6 Local Shopping District and any further encroachment into the neighborhood. Frederick . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Z-11-2006, South side of Edgewood Blvd., West of Washington Ave, rezoning from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Gedeon Development to rezone the vacant property located on the south side of Edgewood Boulevard, approximately 340 feet west of Washington Ave., more specifically described as: Those Parts ofE1/2ofNE1/4 & N1/2ofSE1/4 Sec 8 Lying S of S Line Edgewood Blvd, W of C/1 S Washington Ave & N of N Line 1-96; Exc IN 3 a of S 8 a of E 1/2 of Said NE 1/4, Also Exc Parts Lying E'ly of Line Com on N'ly Line 1-96 300 Ft Nw'ly of Int'n Said N Line & C/1 Said Ave, Th Ne'ly Parll Said Ave 126.31 Ft, Se'ly Parll N Line 1-96 116.27 Ft, N 17deg 00min 20scd E 100 Ft, S 72deg 59min E 183 Ft to C/1 S Washington Ave & POE, Sec 8 T3N R21N, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District for the purpose of permitting general commercial uses on the site. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Staff recommended that the property be rezoned to "E-2" Local Shopping District to accommodate the applicant's proposal and would prevent the types of uses that may not be suitable for this location. In Committee, it was recommended that the 4.16 acre site located on the south side of Edgewood Blvd., West of Washington Avenue, be rezoned from "D-1" Professional Office to "E-2" Local Shopping District, and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). The applicant accepted the "E-2" Local Shopping District designation. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 18, 2006 Page 7 Mr. Czekai stated that in an earlier project at the corner of Washington Avenue and Edgewood Blvd., the applicant appeared to say that he did not care about the neighborhood. Mr. Hollister stated that the person who made the comment was the builder and he did a good job. He was not the applicant and could not speak for the applicant. Mr. Gedeon stated that this project, like the last one, will not have a check cashing business. He has promised that and would be willing to put in writing. He has not asked for any City assistance and is not using the same builder that made the comment, although that builder did a good job. He plans to install a sidewalk along the front of the site along Edgewood Blvd. Ms. Cordill stated that the site plan does not show any interior landscaping. The applicant stated that he complied with the City requirements to place landscaping along the perimeter. Mr. Frederick stated that excluded from the Zoning and Ordinance report was the idea that the "E-2" Local Shopping District zoning designation is a step down from the "F-1" Commercial District on the corner of Washington Avenue and Edgewood Blvd., to the "D-2" Residential/Office zoning to the west of the site. The applicant is on record as stating that he will not have a check cashing business on the site. Mr. Frederick stated that he hears a civic commitment in the applicant's proposal and that is good to see. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to recommend approval of Z-11-2006, South side of Edgewood Blvd., West of Washington Ave, rezoning from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District. Frederick . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 18, 2006 Page 8 C. Z-12-2006 & SLU-7-2006, 2727 Lyons Avenue rezoning from "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District, Special Land Use Permit - Residential Use This is a request by Laurey Wyble to rezone the north 140 feet of the property at 2727 Lyons Avenue, more specifically described as: COM 521 FT N OF SE COR SOUTH PARKWOOD SUB, TH E 836.1 FT, N 309.1 FT TO W'LY LINE CONSUMERS POWER CO R/W, NW'LY ALONG SAID R/W 290.1 FT TO E&W 114 LINE, W ON 114 LINE 754 FT TO E LINE SOUTH PARKWOOD SUB, S 581.55 FT TO BEG; SEC 27 T4N R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "J" Parking district to "H" Light Industrial district, for the purpose of developing the entire property at 2727 Lyons Avenue for residential use. More specifically, the applicant is proposing to construct 28 single family detached units, six 8-unit townhouse buildings and two 12-unit apartment buildings. The applicant is also requesting a special land use permit to allow residential uses in the "H" Light Industrial district. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning. Staff also recommended approval of the Special Land use permit with the following conditions: 1. A staggered row of evergreen trees, 15 feet on center, be planted and maintained along those property lines where multi-family housing abuts single family residential use; 2. The gross density not exceed 5.7 units per acre, or the gross density not to exceed 10.8 units per acre with the following design conditions to better integrate the development into the neighborhood: a. All housing units to face a public or private street; b. Parking limited to side and rear yards; C. Parking areas screened from the street with landscaping, in accordance with City specifications for buffer strips; d. front porches facing the street for all units; e. an open outdoor area for all units in the side or rear yard; f. pedestrian linkages within the site and to other neighboring destinations including the school, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 18, 2006 Page 9 park, and surrounding residential developments; g. better use of available open spaces, including storm water retention areas, for passive recreational use; h. one street tree per 20 lineal feet of street (public or private) frontage and one tree for every two parking spaces. 3. An approved site plan, in accordance with City standards and the conditions of this permit. In Committee, the request was recommended to be tabled, and the motion carried (3-0). Mr. Rieske stated that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee tabled the proposal and it remains with the Committee. Ms. Cordill stated that condition number 2 was a very good idea. Mr. Frederick stated that the design conditions apply to the 10.8 units per acre scenario if the applicant chooses to pursue that strategy. Otherwise the density will be far less. The Brownfield improvements will benefit the neighborhood through the cleanup of the site. As this project continues to be reviewed more conditions are likely to come up. Next meeting, Wednesday, August 9, 2006, at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, July 25, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Mr. Czekai stated that the Executive Committee met earlier this evening and reviewed the Rules of Administrative Procedure in its entirety. He presented a draft that incorporated the comments from the previous discussion. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JuIV 18, 2006 Page 10 The following suggestions were summarized as follows: a. In Section 1.1, a clause was added to say that both the Chair and Vice Chair cannot serve also as a Chair or Vice Chair of Committee. b. There was some clarifying language and punctuation put in subsection B. c. In Section 1.2, paragraph C was added providing for an override of the one year term limitation for officers. d. Section C became Section D. e. On page 10, item B, subsection 1 was amended to say that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee shall by a majority vote of its membership elect a Chairperson and a Vice Chair from its membership in the meeting after the beginning of the term. f. In subsection 1 of C, the same clause was added for the Urban Development Committee. Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the proposed Rules of Procedure change subject to editing. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. The Rules of Administrative Procedure, as amended, will be presented at a future meeting. C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager Mr. Rieske gave a brief update regarding the Master Plan project and the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Rieske stated that he was still working with Michigan State University (MSU) regarding a partnership on the Master Plan, and had met with Angela Bennett, Budget Manager, regarding the Capital Improvements Program that morning. E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&"J" Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 18, 2006 Page 11 2. Urban Development Committee b. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign.Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) 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) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Czekai stated that Old Town was bringing back its Oktoberfest on October 14, 2006, from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. This festival has not been around since 2002 when it was conducted by a different organization. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Frederick suggested that staff consult with Mr. Hodges to discuss specific ordinance amendments that should be reviewed. Mr. Hollister stated that there will be a pig roast taking place on Thursday, July 20th. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS a. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20,2003) b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW (July 1,2003) c. 2714 W. Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20, 2004) d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004) e. Michigan Ave & Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4, 2004) f. 2702 S. Cedar Street- no landscaping (May 18,2004) g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004) h. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs (February 15,2005) i. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3,2005) j. 2618 Cavanaugh Rd.-registered rental &front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) k. 1700 Alpha Street—fence in front yard (April 18,2006) I. 3027 Aurelius Road—fence in front yard (April 18,2006) m. 1712 W. Saginaw Street,W. of Sparrow's St. Lawrence campus—rogue used car salesman operating in a print shop (April 18,2006) n. SE corner of Leslie& Main Streets—junk in front yard (April 18,2006) o. Lot across from Hawk Island—overgrown and needs mowing (June 6,2006) Mr. Frederick stated that with Keeps Party Store the illegal signs are creeping back again (item h). Mr. Frederick stated that the weeds were cut at Leslie and Main Streets (item n) but it still does not look good. They did do some cleanup. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 18, 2006 Page 12 Mr. Czekai stated that at 1213 Center Street, Dard Inc., the weeds growing in the sidewalk are nearly waist high. He reported this to the Code Compliance but the situation remains. Mr. Rieske stated that he would mention it to the Department of Public Service which is in charge of the right-of-way. Mr. Czekai stated that the Old Town Commercial Association will be hosting a press conference at which Governor Granholm will make an announcement regarding the Cool Cities program. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J;42 - L William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.071806.doc Approved as written 9-5-06 Draft to Clerk July 19,2006 Approved September 5,2006 To Clerk September 8,2006 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers r N Lansing City Hall = Tuesday, July 5, 2006 c r 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Czekai, Chair. =L: t C v A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister (latgrri N1). B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. >; C. Excused absences: Bruch. D. Absent: 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 (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition from South Lansing Physical Environment Committee regarding Z-12-2006 & SLU-7-2006 B. Letter of opposition from Brad & Dawn McCune regarding Z-12-2006 & SLU-7-2006 C. Letter of opposition from Myron and Phyllis Smith regarding Z-12-2006 & SLU-7-2006 D. Email of opposition from Brad and Lynne Hawes regarding Z-12-2006 & SLU-7-2006 E. Email of opposition from Chris and Michelle Stimson regarding Z-12-2006 & SLU-7-2006 F. Email of opposition from Robert and Eula Burgess regarding Z-12-2006 & SLU-7-2006 G. Phone call of opposition from Emily Horne regarding Z-12-2006 and SLU-7-2006 H. Letter of opposition from Walt and Juanita Jacquemain regarding Z-12-2006 and SLU-7-2006 4. HEARINGS A. Z-7-2006, 1221 Turner Street, rezoning from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 2 This is a request by Turner Street, LLC to rezone the property at 1221 Turner Street, more specifically described as: Lot 10, Moseley, Howard & Others Subdivision of a Part of Block 11, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "H" Light Industrial district to "G-1" Business district, for the purpose of converting the existing building at 1221 Turner Street to a mix of commercial and residential uses. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing for Z-7-2006, 1221 Turner Street, rezoning from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District. B. Z-8-2006, 628 E. Michigan Avenue, rezoning from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District This is a request by Fady, Inc. to rezone the property at 628 E. Michigan Avenue, more specifically described as: Lot 5, Connard's Subdivision of Lot 1, Block 242, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "H" Light Industrial district to "G-1" Business district, for the purpose of converting the existing building and a proposed second story addition at 628 E. Michigan Avenue to a mix of office and residential uses. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing for Z-8-2006, 628 E. Michigan Avenue, rezoning from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District. C. Z-9-2006, 317 E. Grand River Avenue, rezoning from "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District This is a request by Lingg Brewer to rezone the property at 317 E. Grand River Avenue, more specifically described as: West 25 feet of Lot 25, Assessor's Plat No. 31 of Block 6, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "F-1" Commercial district to "G-1" Business district, for the purpose of converting the existing building at 317 E. Grand River Avenue to a mix of commercial and residential uses. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Czekai asked what the applicant's plans were for getting rid of the vulgar check cashing place on the first floor. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the check cashing place is closed. Mr. Brian Anderson, City of Lansing Economic Development Corporation, stated that he is working on this project and that the rezoning is necessary for the OPRA. The applicant is planning on putting in more productive commercial interests. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing for Z-9-2006, 317 E. Grand River Avenue, rezoning from "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District. D. Z-10-2006, 115 N. Clemens Street, rezoning from "C" Residential District to "F-1" Commercial District This is a request by L & R Construction Services, Inc. to rezone the property at 115 N. Clemens Street, more specifically described as: East 102 Feet of Lot 6 Except the North 1.5 Feet, Also the East 102 Feet of Lot 5 Except the South 10 Feet of the East 74.2 Feet,Adam's Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential district to "F-1" Commercial district. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the Speedway gasoline station at 1923 E. Michigan Avenue and to utilize the property to the north at 115 N. Clemens Street for the new gas station building. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about an adequate buffer. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City requires 8 feet and it requires 5 shrubs for each 20 linear feet of buffer area and 1 tree for each 30 linear feet of buffer area, or with a combination of fencing and plant materials, the number of plant materials is reduced if screen fencing in put in. The applicant is proposing a fence separating the gas station from the residential property to the north. Mr. Ruge asked if the dumpster would be put back there and if there would be access for loading and unloading trucks. It is a pretty big space. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a big space but the applicant is not proposing a driveway over there. From her reading of the site plan, it looks like the applicant is proposing a shed for some storage and then some open green space. There is a joint driveway that is currently there but the applicant would not be able to use that for commercial purposes to access a dumpster, or for loading or unloading trucks. This would take place in the parking area. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Frederick inquired about other uses in the "F-1" Commercial District. Ms. Stachowiak stated any type of retail or office use, restaurant, car lot or car wash. Mr. Frederick stated that they could get surprised and not get a gas station at all but get a used car lot. Ms. Stachowiak said yes. Ms. Cordill stated that she is inclined to take this off the consent agenda because there are too many questions. Mr. Steve Ray, of LNR Construction Services and representative of Speedway, stated that the refuge disposal or the trash containers are proposed to be located on the west property line in front of the building and would be accessed from the normal traffic flow around the site. The rear of the building would be a landscaped buffer with a proposed storage building to contain things like recyclables, returnables and other miscellaneous bulk storage items. Mr. Ruge asked if the plan for behind the building includes a shed, garage and some grass. Mr. Ray stated that he would comply with the ordinances as far as the buffering requirements. The storage shed is not accessible by truck or vehicle and only accessible by foot. It is meant for returnables and other bulk storage items. Mr. Ruge asked if there would be picnic tables back there. Mr. Ray stated that there is no outdoor seating proposed for this facility. Mr. Ruge stated that he is concerned with people loitering back there. Mr. Ray stated that it would be a landscape buffer with a combination of fence, plantings, etc. Ms. Cordill stated that where the property bumps out to the west, she asked if this is where it is indicating dumpsters. It seems like there are doors and she also sees a symbol that looks like plant materials. She is looking for clarification. Mr. Ray stated that there is not a formal landscaping plan done at this particular time. There was a preliminary planning review as far as setback, curbing and parking requirements. He acknowledges that there are going to be landscaping requirements and that would be addressed during the planning process. What the Board is looking at is basically an indication of what is existing. The dash line means that it is existing and it would be not part of the improvement. He stated that the trash enclosure specifically means if you are looking at the southwest corner of the building, due west of that would be the proposed trash enclosure location. Mr. Ray stated that what the Board is seeing is existing landscaping or existing trees. Ms. Cordill stated that from a site plan point of view, from a southwest exposure, you would want to have trees. She asked if this implies that the trees would be removed if the dumpsters are located there. Mr. Ray said yes. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Ricardo Cooney, resident of 129 N. Clemens Ave., stated he has some concerns he would like to have addressed. If there is separation between the business and the residences, he would like for it to look a little more appealing. So if there is a nice shrubbery back there to separate what would be the back end of the business as opposed to a residential area, he would like to see that. He asked if there was any thought that the project would go to the west on Michigan Avenue instead of moving more into the neighborhood. From what he understands, the house will be demolished. Mr. Cooney stated that this is a pretty busy street and the speed limit is 25 mph. He has sat on his porch many days on the corner of Jerome Street and Clemens Avenue, and maybe 1 out of every 10 to 15 cars even comes close to traveling 25 mph. It is his understanding that this would be a 24 hour business and now there would be more traffic added from the Green Door and the Speedway gas station. He is talking about more traffic and about people who really do not obey the speed limit. This is a residential area with a lot of kids. He has lived there for four years and he believes that there would be a chance of some kids getting hurt because people do not obey the speed limit. His basic problem with the whole project is moving into the residential neighborhood and how it is going to work out with his house and his property. There is always trash in his yard from that Speedway from kids who buy things and drop their trash coming down the street. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing for Z-10-2006, 115 N. Clemens Street, rezoning from "C" Residential District to "F-1" Commercial District. Mr. Frederick asked about the case being referred to Committee. Mr. Czekai stated that when the Board comes to the consent items, he will ask if there are any objections which it sounds like there are, and then it will automatically be sent to Committee. E. Z-11-2006, South side of Edgewood Blvd., West of Washington Ave, rezoning from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Gedeon Development to rezone the vacant property located on the south side of Edgewood Boulevard, approximately 340 feet west of Washington Ave., more specifically described as: Those Parts of E 1/2 of NE 1/4 & N 1/2 of SE 1/4 Sec 8 Lying S of S Line Edge wood Blvd, W of C/1 S Washington Ave & N of N Line 1-96; Exc IN 3 a of S 8 a of E 1/2 of Said NE 1/4, Also Exc Parts Lying E'ly of Line Corn on N'ly Line 1-96 300 Ft Nw'ly of Int'n Said N Line & C/1 Said Ave, Th Ne'ly Parll Said Ave 126.31 Ft, Se'ly Parll N Line 1-96 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 6 116.27 Ft, N 17deg 00min 20scd E 100 Ft, S 72deg 59min E 183 Ft to C/1 S Washington Ave & POE, Sec 8 T3N R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District for the purpose of permitting general commercial uses on the site. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Frederick asked why this case did not go on the consent agenda. Ms. Stachowiak stated that since there has been so much discussion on this request in the past that the Committee would probably want to discuss it further. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing and referred Z-11-2006, South side of Edgewood Blvd., West of Washington Ave, rezoning from "D-1" Professional Office to "F" Commercial District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on July 12, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. F. Z-12-2006 & SLU-7-2006, 2727 Lyons Avenue, rezoning from "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District, Special Land Use Permit - Residential Use This is a request by Laurey Wyble to rezone the north 140 feet of the property at 2727 Lyons Avenue, more specifically described as: COM 521 FT N OF SE COR SOUTH PARKWOOD SUB, TH E 836.1 FT, N 309.1 FT TO W'LY LINE CONSUMERS POWER CO R/W, NW'LYALONG SAID R/W 290.1 FT TO E&W 1/4 LINE, W ON 1/4 LINE 754 FT TO E LINE SOUTH PARKWOOD SUB, S 581.55 FT TO BEG; SEC 27 T4N R2W, CITY OF LANSING, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN from "J" Parking district to "H" Light Industrial district, for the purpose of developing the entire property at 2727 Lyons Avenue for residential use. More specifically, the applicant is proposing to construct 28 single family detached units, six 8-unit townhouse buildings and two 12-unit apartment buildings. The applicant is also requesting a special land use permit to allow residential uses in the "H" Light Industrial district. Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge asked if a traffic study would be done. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is not something that she or the City engineers in the Transportation or Public Service Departments have called for at this time. The applicant is not requesting enough units to call for something like this. The level of units on a street like Lyons Street does not warrant requiring the applicant PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 7 to do a traffic study. Mr. Ruge stated that his experience with Lyons Street is that there is not good access to Pennsylvania Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a narrow street as well. Mr. Ruge asked if the Board could get trip generation information so that it could have an idea of what the increase in traffic will be. Mr. Frederick stated that he was having a hard time understanding the logic of rezoning something to Light Industrial to put a residential use in. He asked if there was a zoning ordinance designation that would allow for something like this that the Board could change the whole parcel to rather than make it "H" Light Industrial. Currently, this is a pretty nice area and while the plan may or may not be appropriate for what is intended to go there, that does not necessarily mean 20 or 30 years in the future that it would have to be there although one would expect housing like this to be permanent. If it is "H" Light Industrial, it could end up being a lot of other things that are certainly not appropriate for that area. There is a healthcare office across the railroad tracks and everything else around it is homes. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the property is currently zoned Light Industrial. The only thing that is being rezoned is a very small strip which probably represents about 10 percent of the lot along the north border. There were two ways to rezone the request: 1) rezone the whole property to a Residential designation and then determine which one would be most appropriate based on the density level, or 2) rezone the small strip to "H" Light Industrial District and then have the applicant apply for a special land use permit. Since the "H" Light Industrial District allows a very high density, the Planning Board could determine by a special land use permit which would be most appropriate under that designation. It all works out to be the same thing. It could have been done either way. She stated that it is currently zoned industrial so anybody could do pretty much anything there right now. Ms. Laurey Wyble, applicant, stated that her desire is to clean up that site. She grew up in the neighborhood on Lincoln Avenue and she went to Lyons Avenue school. She saw an empty building that has been vacant for approximate five years. It is a dirty site. She would use Brownfield monies to clean it up and bring it back up to residential standards. She wants to make it a viable, nice spot in the neighborhood. There is a preliminary site plan that shows access on Lyons Avenue which is not necessarily a perfect situation but it is a start. She wants to clean up the site and make it part of a neighborhood so that families could be brought into the neighborhood and not have industrial uses. She stated that light industrial does not belong in that neighborhood. She is not sure if any of the Board members are familiar with the neighborhood. She attended Lyons Avenue school when Olofsson's was a working viable business, and sat in the classrooms and watched the metal shavings happening next door. She wants to get rid of that and make it part of a nice community. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 8 Mr. Frederick asked Ms. Wyble if it mattered what the zoning is as long as she could clean it up and make it into residential. Ms. Wyble stated that the reason why she approached it the way she did is because Ms. Stachowiak requested that it be done this way. She talked with Ms. Stachowiak on several occasions over the last year and this is what was recommended. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board could recommend that Council take action on any zoning designation that is less intensive than the "H" Light Industrial District. It could be recommended to be rezoned to "A", "B" or "C" Residential District. Mr. Frederick stated that it seems like there are some real advantages that could be taken by the developer for this particular plot, especially if it is dirty. Ms. Stachowiak stated that you have to be careful though. Depending on the size of the lot, the resident development could be permitted by right. It would not require a special land use permit. It is something that certainly could be looked into. Ms. Cordill asked about how the circulation was used when it was a factory. Ms. Wyble stated that Park Blvd. is wider than any of the other streets and as a kid, she does not remember which way the trucks went in and out. The parking lot is directly across from Park Blvd. She does not know whether or not this was the main avenue of ingress and egress to the factory. Ms. Wyble stated that her environmental engineer is present tonight if the Board members have any questions for him. He would be able to address any environmental issues that exist on the site. Ms. Sandy Kramer, resident of 817 Hamilton, stated that she is concerned about the project and respectfully asks for some answers before the rezoning occurs. She is concerned with the increased traffic flow. Given that there will be close to 100 different units with approximately 1 to 2 vehicles, she considers this to be a huge increase for the neighborhood. Recently, Lyons Street had to have three four-way stops imposed because there were a lot of speeders in the area. There is a school in the area and when children are being dropped off or picked up because of the traffic, there are considerations for child safety. With the additional vehicles, there could be issues. She stated that the neighborhood had to also endure some road closings as a result on the Pennsylvania bridge. There was a terrible increase of traffic flow into her neighborhood. A lot of the roads are damaged and the residents are concerned with the increased traffic flow could cause further damage. She asked who would take care of the construction and the repair. She is concerned with the removal of the toxic substances and also for the storm drain run-off issues. The residents are asking that we look at the detailed plan. Is the funding for the project private based or is it federally subsidized housing going up in the area? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page_9 Mr. Gary Andrews, resident of 560 Brookland Blvd., stated that he is one of the authors of the Southeast Area Master Plan. He grew up in this neighborhood and he still lives in this area. The Board received a letter from the South Lansing Physical Environment Committee of which he is a member, and he co-signed as the Chairman of the Land Use Committee for the Old Everett Neighborhood Association of which he is an organizer. He is very familiar with this neighborhood and this site. In looking at the redevelopment proposal, he stated that it does not fit within the context of the area that he calls his neighborhood. His neighborhood is a single family residential neighborhood, and the intent of the City Master Plan would be to retain that kind of neighborhood. The imposition of a large apartment and townhouse complex is not a kin to the neighborhood. The existing apartment developments in the neighborhood have caused various problems which ultimately have to be resolved by the Police Department. He believes that the enhanced traffic will have an impact on the entire residential neighborhood. Mr. Andrews stated that most of the neighbors would not have a major, major problem with the redevelopment of this site, if it was a single family residential neighborhood. The way this is laid out, the traffic is going to shoot right straight down Willard Street or it is going to turn onto Lyons Street and congest the rest of the neighborhood. If someone lived in Cedarbrook or one of the surrounding neighborhoods, you would understand his concerns. Mr. Frederick asked if Mr. Andrews was one of the people involved in developing the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Andrews stated that his name could be found on face pages as one of the authors of the Southeast Area Master Plan. Mr. Frederick asked what his thinking was at that time to designate this particular piece of property as Light Industrial and that there was another point in the plan where it said the most important element of the Southeast Area Plan is a concern for the preservation of neighborhoods and the housing stock. He stated that those two things seem to conflict and he would like to get Mr. Andrews thinking on it. Mr. Andrews stated that the southeast area of the City is primarily residential in its character. The extreme southern part of the city is an industrial development. In the late 1970's, Olofsson's Corporation was a growing concern. They were still flat off their military contracts and they had a large employment base. As a matter of fact, they had just done some expansions of the facility. Olofsson's was originally established on that property before WW II and was a very small machine concern, centrally about a six car garage. As time went on and their business grew, their plant grew. It has always been a nonconforming use in the midst of a residential neighborhood. At one time, it sat in the middle of a huge field. Before the school was built and before the homes were built on Greenlawn, there was a shop in the middle of a field out in the middle of nowhere. The City grew up around it. This was taken into consideration. A heavy industrial zoning allows for a use up to that level PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 10 of intensity, which means that housing could be built on an industrial site. It is impractical to do it that way. A planned residential development like this with a combination or a mix of multiple units and single family units is not in concert with the majority of the neighborhood. There are only several spot developments of multiple units within that whole area and the neighbors surrounding it spoke out in opposition against it and then suffered the consequences of the approvals. There is a definite difference in the value of people who own properties and those who rent properties. Most of the people who live in these neighborhoods are property owners. This is obvious from the surrounding zoning, which is almost completely residential. Proposals to construct a road through the park to add congestion are a "pie-in-the-sky" dream requiring the vote of the people to get rid of park land to develop access for a private development and that will not happen. Mr. Frederick stated that Mr. Andrews was getting beyond the scope of what his question was, and that he was interested in a historic perspective on how the plan would say that the property should remain industrial. Mr. Frederick stated he really appreciated getting the historical perspective from somebody who actually was in on the decision making process. Mr. Andrews stated that it was an existing and ongoing concern when the plan was written. No one realized that Olofsson would sell out and the liquidators would belly it up. It was always viewed as a good neighbor. Mr. Andrews stated that access to Olofsson's Corporation was down Lyons Avenue. They worked to keep a lot of their trucks coming and going at times when the school was either in session or at night time. Olofsson's was a good neighbor and kept its property well maintain on the front side. Ms. Gail Fournier, Co-President of Old Everett Neighborhood Association and resident of 717 E. Willard, stated that she lives on the corner of Lyons and Willard Avenues. She has spoken with Ms. Wyble about the proposal and applauds the residential development at this location. She is concerned about the traffic. The main thoroughfare for the multiple units would be straight out Willard Avenue. The roads are still not back from when the bridge construction was done on Pennsylvania Avenue. Her property is zoned single family residential and she appreciates the fact that the developer wants to put in housing in the $160,000 to $200,000 range which is actually above the area and comparable to Hamilton and South. There are a number of good things about this but the fact that the Transportation Department does not even think that this is worth a study is just incredible to her. There is also a school in the area. The neighbors are trying to not have rental units in the area and have worked hard with the City Council and others to talk about rental units. The residents would like to have more owner occupied in the area and this is where they would like to stay. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 11 Ms. Fournier stated that she lived there since 1981 and Olofsson's was a good neighbor. Light industrial or industrial does not have to be a bad neighbor even in a neighborhood. Mr. Brian Anderson, employee of the City of Lansing Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and resident of 1515 Boston Blvd., stated that he has worked with Ms. Wyble for approximately eight or nine months now on this project. They have gone in front of the school, a few residents, some of the teachers, Dr. Sharron Banks and a few different people, all of whom have had overwhelming support for this project. Some of the fears about density, The EDC is doing its best to try to alleviate the fears about density through using Brownfield tax increment financing, and doing some of the things that can hopefully get Ms. Wyble's cost down as far as possible to help make this a great venture for her. Obviously with the developer, there are considerations that she does want to make money on this. The density is an issue basically due to the price of acquiring the development. He has spoken in his 11 months with the EDC, with probably a half dozen potential prospects for this site. Every single one has been industrial other than Ms. Wyble's. He did his best to fend them off and did everything he could basically to tell them that there would be massive opposition. Ultimately, they could put in an industrial use in this site and then there would be semis. There is a lot of contamination on this site which he realizes that is the way things used to be but there is an opportunity to clean it up. Not only just of homes but green built homes that are very eco friendly manner and putting in rain gardens that are more advantageous to an environmentally friendly use. Denying the special land use would be very detrimental to the neighborhood. To say that land values would be a concern perplexes him because as far as he has known, there is at least 3 percent inflation on the tax bills for several years running now and that is the max that anyone's taxable value can go up. So the residents are not going to be paying different taxes but the benefit to that would be having the housing value go up. Someone can ideally sell their home for more money. Industrial usage does not really help your housing value at all. Under the current zoning, an industrial usage could come in and people would work there. He does not see where this is going to improve housing values. He believes that this is a great project and that it is a once in a lifetime opportunity. The EDC is working on the density issue and there has to be feasibility and viability for all. He recommended that the Board support this project. Mr. Charles Seavolt, resident of 835 E. Greenlawn, stated that he does not have any concerns about the single family residential homes but has concerns about townhouses and apartments going in this area. He is concerned about the traffic because of the school. He stated that the route the trucks came in to Olofsson's was down Park and Willard. He has the unique advantage of someone who lives in that neighborhood and who also made the deliveries to Olofsson's. On Lyons Avenue, it is a no PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 12 truck zone. Trucks came down Park or Willard. As of right now, if someone puts in residential, it will go both ways. The school is already congested in the morning and afternoon. He believes that this is just going to make it worse. For the Transportation Department not wanting to do a traffic study for this area is wrong. He believes that the Board will find all of the neighborhood has the same concern. Mr. Ken Gemalsky, resident of 838 E. Greenlawn, stated that his property abuts Olofsson's property and they were good neighbors when they were there. When they were bought out and sold off, then it became a problem. He likes single family dwellings and opposes the apartments. There are apartments on Lynlawn and they are constantly changing tenants who are causing trouble. Lately there has not been any trouble. The Police Department usually takes care of the problem. Apartments and multi family dwellings for people who do not own the property is a problem for him. Nowadays it is schools of choice. There are probably a third of the kids who attend the school who do not live in the neighborhood and are dropped off. There are anywhere from 40 to 50 cars on both sides of the street making it impossible to go down the street at 8:45 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. There are too many people. Kids are crossing the street and it is really unsafe. Adding too many units to the area would make it worse. Mr. Dennis Bunch, resident of 905 Hamilton Road, stated that everyone here tonight is doing a great job expressing the feelings in the neighborhood. He does not care how much money Ms. Wyble makes and how the residents can sell their houses for more money. He stated that the residents are here because they do not want to sell their houses. He does not appreciate those two comments. Mr. Trent Bogle, resident of 2608 Lyons Avenue, stated that last year the school redid their parking lot to accommodate people pulling in and dropping off their children. This has not eradicated the traffic flow in the area so he does not see how adding this many units with that many vehicles is going to take care of that problem. For those that do not think it is a problem with the traffic there, he lives right on the corner. When the Pennsylvania Avenue construction went on, he sat there and called the Police Department 2 or 3 times a day and emailed the South Precinct. They do not have the man power to come out there and take care of the issues on traffic, not even now since the construction has been completed. One of his issues is the money issue. He stated that Ms. Wyble needs to find some other way to make money because his primary concern is the children. There is so much traffic in the area now and he has concerns about picking up a child out of the middle of the road down there. There are a lot of children and maybe a third of them come from another district or wherever, but there are a lot of children in the neighborhood who walk these streets. The traffic flow is not going to help the matter at all. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 13 He stated that he is appalled by the comment that they have talked to several people in the vicinity to get their input. He lives kitty corner from the parking lot entrance. Not only did he not get a visit from Mr. Anderson, he did not get a notice. He had to find out from a neighbor. If his grass gets even six inches tall, he has someone out there complaining about it and yet when a major issue like this happens, he does not even hear about it. He has to hear about it from another neighbor when he is mowing his lawn. Ms. Pam Bogle, resident of 2608 Lyons Avenue, stated that she lives on the corner of Greenlawn and Lyons where there is a 4-way stop. When the 4-way stops were put in there, they were put in because of the traffic congestion and the safety of the children. People still come to a slow, rolling stop and do not come to a complete stop. Whenever the Police Department are over there in the area, they are checking the traffic. There are always several tickets that are issued because of the constant flow of traffic. Last year when the Pennsylvania bridge was being constructed and she had concerns about what was going on with all the traffic coming through the area that was not even supposed to be there because barriers were put up and cars would run the barriers over. You would see people's tail pieces, front end pieces, light pieces and mirror pieces because they would use their cars to run the barriers to get through anyway. Since then, they never even came back to fix the roads. This was done from last summer. She has concerns with the City or whoever was supposed to complete the job. One side of the street is designated as no stopping, standing or parking, and it does not matter. Not only does the school permit it, whenever she has called to try to figure out whose job is it to control that area and that situation, everyone tells her that it is someone else's job. The engineers have told her that it is the school; the school has told her that it is the Police Department; the Police Department has told her that it is the City; the City tells her that it is the Police Department. All that she has gotten for a year and a half now is a run around as to whose job it is to make sure that these kids are safe and that the people who live in that neighborhood paying the taxes have the right to use their own streets. No one can ever answer that for her. If the City is going to allow more houses and individuals to come into this neighborhood and your own engineer is saying that he does not even think there needs to be a study, she believes the whole thing is messed up from the very beginning. Ms. Evelyn Sally Harvey, resident of 850 Lincoln Avenue, stated that she does not mind seeing private homes going up but she is sure opposed to all the other stuff. You can hardly get through because of cars being parked on both sides of the street. She has also called the Police Department and they say it is the school; she has called the school and they say it is the Police Department's fault. No one will take care of it. Nowadays probably most of these places will have a minimum of two vehicles per unit and some will have three vehicles. Where will the visitors PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 14 park? The only way to get out onto Lyons Avenue is on the north side of the property. It will lower the value of properties and she is sure opposed to it. Everyone she has spoken with is opposed to the development and there are a lot of people who did not get any card regarding the proposal. She had to hear it from a neighbor and she does not think this is right. Mr. Frederick asked Ms. Stachowiak to give a brief rundown of what the requirements are for notification. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Office notified all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property and the computer generates the labels off the City Assessor's data base. She has a list available of all the property owners who received notification, and the list is six pages long. Mr. Frederick asked if it was a legal requirement. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is a legal requirement. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mr. Czekai closed the public hearing and referred Z-12-2006 & SLU-7-2006, 2727 Lyons Avenue, rezoning from "J" Parking District to "H" Light Industrial District, Special Land Use Permit - Residential Use to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on July 12, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (3 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Czekai closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Consent Items 1. Minutes for Approval — June 6, 2006 The minutes of June 6, 2006 were APPROVED. 2. Zoning and Ordinance Committee Report: June 14, 2006 APPROVED. 3. SLU-5-2006, "Outlot D", West of 3400 S. Waverly Road, Special Land Use Permit -Telecommunications Tower This is a request by Haley Law Firm on behalf of Nextel Communications for a Special Land Use permit to construct a 106- PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 15 foot high, monopole, telecommunications tower on "Outlot D" located immediately west of 3400 S. Waverly Road. The property is zoned "F" Commercial District which permits public/private utility facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of the SLU-5-2006, "Outlot D", West of 3400 S. Waverly Road, Special Land Use Permit - Telecommunications Tower, with the following conditions: 1. Evergreen trees placed fifteen feet on center or evergreen shrubs placed six feet on center be planted around the fenced enclosure and maintained by the applicant for the duration of the permit; and 2. A variance to the height limit for the district be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. Evergreen trees placed fifteen feet on center or evergreen shrubs placed six feet on center be planted around the fenced enclosure and maintained by the applicant for the duration of the permit; 2. The tower shall be "monopole " type; 3. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 4. The tower shall not interfere with telemetry communications of hospitals and emergency services; 5. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 6. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security; 7. The tower and any mechanical equipment be consolidated and placed in locations as far away from surrounding residential uses so as to minimize the visual impact; and 8. The applicant obtain a soil erosion permit from the Public Service Department prior to any work commencing on the site; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). APPROVED w/o Objections. 4. Z-6-2006 & SLU-6-2006, 5601 S. Waverly Road, Rezoning from "J" Parking District to "B" Residential District, Special Land Use Permit - Telecommunications Tower These are requests by Haley Law Firm. Z-6-2006 is a request to rezone the east 284 feet of the property at 5601 S. Waverly Road from "J" Parking District to "B" Residential District. SLU-6-2006 is a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 16 request for a Special Land Use permit to construct a 125-foot high, monopole, telecommunications tower behind the existing church building at 5601 S. Waverly Road. The "B" Residential District permits public/private utility facilities, with a special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council. Staff recommended approval of Z-6-2006, east 284 feet of 5601 S. Waverly Road, Rezoning from "J" Parking District to "B" Residential District. Staff also recommended approval of SLU-6-2006, "Outlot D", West of 3400 S. Waverly Road, Special Land Use Permit - Telecommunications Tower, with the following conditions: 1. Evergreen trees placed fifteen feet on center or evergreen shrubs placed six feet on center be planted around the fenced enclosure and maintained by the applicant for the duration of the permit; and 2. A variance to the height limit for the district be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). In Committee, the request for rezoning was recommended for approval and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). The Committee also recommended approval of SLU-6-2006, "Outlot D", West of 3400 S. Waverly Road, Special Land Use Permit - Telecommunications Tower, with the following conditions: 1. Evergreen trees placed fifteen feet on center or evergreen shrubs placed six feet on center be planted around the fenced enclosure and maintained by the applicant for the duration of the permit; 2. The tower shall be "monopole " type; 3. The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 4. The tower shall not interfere with telemetry communications of hospitals and emergency services; 5. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 6. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security; and 7. The tower and any mechanical equipment be consolidated and placed in locations as far away from surrounding residential uses so as to minimize the visual impact; and the motion carried unanimously (3-0). APPROVED w/o Objections. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 17 5. Z-7-2006, 1221 Turner Street, rezoning from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District This is a request by Turner Street, LLC to rezone the property at 1221 Turner Street, more specifically described as: Lot 10, Moseley, Howard & Others Subdivision of a Part of Block 11, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "H" Light Industrial district to "G-1" Business district, for the purpose of converting the existing building at 1221 Turner Street to a mix of commercial and residential uses. APPROVED w/o Objections. 6. Z-8-2006, 628 E. Michigan Avenue, rezoning from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District This is a request by Fady, Inc. to rezone the property at 628 E. Michigan Avenue, more specifically described as: Lot 5, Connard's Subdivision of Lot 1, Block 242, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "H" Light Industrial district to "G-1" Business district, for the purpose of converting the existing building and a proposed second story addition at 628 E. Michigan Avenue to a mix of office and residential uses APPROVED w/o Objections. 7. Z-9-2006, 317 E. Grand River Avenue, rezoning from "F-1" Commercial District to "G-1" Business District This is a request by Lingg Bremer to rezone the property at 317 E. Grand River Avenue, more specifically described as: West 25 feet of Lot 25, Assessor's Plat No. 31 of Block 6, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "F-1" Commercial district to "G-1" Business district, for the purpose of converting the existing building at 317 E. Grand River Avenue to a mix of commercial and residential uses. APPROVED w/o Objections. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 18 8. Z-10-2006, 115 N. Clemens Street, rezoning from "C" Residential District to "F-1" Commercial District This is a request by L & R Construction Services, Inc. to rezone the property at 115 N. Clemens Street, more specifically described as: East 102 Feet of Lot 6 Except the North 1.5 Feet, Also the East 102 Feet of Lot 5 Except the South 10 Feet of the East 74.2 Feet,Adam's Addition, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "C" Residential district to "F-1" Commercial district. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the Speedway gasoline station at 1923 E. Michigan Avenue and to utilize the property to the north at 115 N. Clemens Street for the new gas station building. Mr. Czekai stated that this request can be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee or if the Board feels its questions or comments can be distinguished under New Business then it can be referred there. He stated that it is up to those who are objecting to the request. Mr. Frederick stated that he would like to see the request be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for an opportunity of some more in depth research. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to refer Z-10-2006, 115 N. Clemens Street, rezoning from "C" Residential District to "F-1" Commercial District to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on July 12, 2006 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 9. Urban Development Committee Report: June 27, 2006 APPROVED. 10. Neighborhood Enterprise Zone — Prudden Place The NEZ program is a plan implementation tool to encourage the construction and improvement of housing units located within designated zones. It would provide property tax abatements within the proposed zone to promote the major housing renovation and new construction in the subject area. The current proposal establishes the zone in which these abatements are available. Individual property owners wishing to avail themselves of this incentive apply on an individual basis, based on the rehabilitation or construction work they propose on properties within the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 19 The proposed NEZ is centrally located east of and between Downtown and Old Town. It is bounded by Sheridan Street on the north, May Street on the south, N. East Street on the east, and N. Larch Street on the west. The western portion of this area is zoned "H" Light Industrial". The balance, which abuts the railroad, is zoned "I" Heavy Industrial, and is owned by the Gillespie Group. Housing is permitted in the "I" Heavy Industrial zone with a special land use permit. The applicant proposes to construct 48 residential condominiums and 24 luxury rental apartments, with an approximate investment of $3,500,000. The applicant feels that an NEZ designation will be essential in the marketing effort of the condos. It will reduce the tax payment for buyers, thus making the units more affordable for residents, and help enable young people to buy instead of rent, and to choose a location near downtown. The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for "High Technology/Light Industrial" uses. The Zoning Ordinance, which implements the Plan, allows residential use in the industrial zoning districts up to the "DM-4" Residential density allowance. Industrial and warehouse use would still be allowed under this zoning. Both the Planning Board and City Council have already approved SLU-2-2003, authorizing the housing development and finding that the proposal is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning code and the objectives of the current comprehensive plan. The finding below is consistent with that finding. If this proposal is approved, the City will still have well over 80% of its legal capacity for NEZs remaining. Staff recommended approval of Neighborhood Enterprise Zone— Prudden Place. In Committee, the request was recommended for approval and the Committee found that the draft resolution was consistent with: 1. The Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, adopted in August, 1999, 2. Neighborhood preservation and economic development goals of the City of Lansing, 3. The "Goals & Objectives of the 215t Century," as adopted in May 1993, and 4. The goals and objectives of the Consolidated Plan, as prepared by the City of Lansing for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and already approved by the Planning Board and City Council annually. APPROVED w/o Objections. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 20 11. ACT-3-2006, 206 S. Washington, Outdoor Seating This is a sidewalk cafe in which alcohol would be served, similar to the 621 Club, Moriarty's, Izzo's Pub, and the Cadillac Club. The Act 285 review is involved because alcohol will be served. Staff recommended approval of ACT-3-2006, 206 S. Washington, Outdoor Seating. The Committee recommended approval of the City Council resolution (Draft #1) and found that the proposed outdoor seating is consistent with the Central Lansing Comprehensive Plan, and recent practices on similar cases. APPROVED w/o Objections. 12. Amendment to ACT-18-2004, 500 Blk. E. Michigan, Stadium District, Easement over LBWL Parcel ACT-18-2004 basically involved the sale of an "L" shaped City property on Michigan Avenue across from Oldsmobile Park to the Gillespie Group for the Stadium District development. An amendment is needed to include easements over BWL property at two locations that are just outside of the original development area: • An easement (E1) is needed to accommodate a smoother turning radius fro vehicles exiting the development onto Cedar Street, and • A triangular easement (E2) is needed to accommodate a dumpster located at the crotch of the "L" shaped property. This dumpster is needed for the housing units proposed for the development. The project fills the site, with no room to spare. These easements are very small, but are necessary for the project to be implemented as proposed. Staff recommended approval of the amendment to ACT-18-2004, 500 Blk. E. Michigan, Stadium District, Easement over LBWL Parcel. The Committee found that: • the proposed easements are necessary and appropriate for the completion of the Stadium District development, • the appropriate safeguards will be included in the easement document to protect the nearby BWL well site, and • BWL approval of the proposed easements is in process. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 21 The Committee recommended approval of the proposed easements, subject to LBWL approval. APPROVED w/o Objections. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, July 12, 2006, at 4 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Cordill, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, July 25, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Mr. Czekai stated that the Executive Committee is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. C. Old Business — None. D. Report from Planning Manager— None. E. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. 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 b. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled June 27, 2000) 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) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS — None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 22 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Hollister asked about the person who applied directly to the Mayor's Office for the Third Ward opening. Mr. Rieske stated that he touched base with the Mayor's Office and they are sending it down to his office. It has not happened quite yet. Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office has interviewed quite a few applicants and the stopping point on it is a memo from him regarding comments about each of the applicants. There were more than four Fourth Ward applicants with one applicant no longer interested. The Planning Office interview the other four and the results of that process need to go to the Mayor's Office for appointment. Those prospects had been referred to the Planning Office by the Mayor's Office. Mr. Rieske stated that Mr. Frederick and Mr. Ruge have been reappointed and confirmed. Mr. Hollister stated that he is willing to be switched since he is an At-Large member but he lives in the Fourth Ward. Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office is striving for more representation on the At-Large seats as well. Mr. Ruge asked if the Board could get some information from the Police Department or Transportation Department regarding the traffic problems and a spike in crime from the other renters. Mr. Hollister stated that there was a comment from the gentleman regarding the homes being low income or subsidized housing. He saw that in one of the letters. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she said something along the way about housing for veterans. Mr. Hollister stated that he would like to hear more details about that because there are $200,000 units and then there is subsidized housing. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS a. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MLK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20, 2003) b. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003) c. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004) d. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4, 2004) e. Michigan Ave & Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to the outside of building (May 4,2004) f. 2702 S.Cedar Street- no landscaping (May 18,2004) g. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004) h. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs (February 15, 2005) i. 2200 W. Holmes Road- Bad Habits-excessive signs(May 3, 2005) j. 2618 Cavanaugh Rd.-registered rental &front yard paved, used for parking (October 4,2005) k. 2400 Blk of E. Kalamazoo Str—Dollar Store—6 used cars for sale in parking lot(February 7,2006) I. 1700 Alpha Street—fence in front yard (April 18, 2006) m. 3027 Aurelius Road—fence in front yard (April 18,2006) n. 1712 W. Saginaw Street, W. of Sparrow's St. Lawrence campus— rogue used car salesman operating in a print shop (April 18, 2006) o. SE corner of Leslie&Main Streets—junk in front yard(April 18,2006) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 5, 2006 Page 23 Mr. Frederick stated with item h, apparently someone did something. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Code Compliance Office has been enforcing all of them. Mr. Frederick stated that the signs are creeping back. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it will be an ongoing problem. Mr. Frederick stated that the pizza and money order signs are back. Ms. Stachowiak stated that with items a and i, they have been cited also, and that the Code Compliance Officer has done mass sign code enforcement over the last couple of weeks. Mr. Frederick stated that someone applied for a commercial rezoning on the corner of Hazelwood Drive and Dunckel Road, the Planning Office denied his request so out of spite the applicant said he would build two dumpy houses on the site. There were two nice houses built and the only problem is the owner does not mow the lawn. Both houses are empty and the lawns are really bad. The address is 2622 and 2614 Hazelwood Drive. Mr. Frederick stated that the property across from Hawk Island Park is being mowed. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, William C. Rieske, Secretary, Planning Board PBMi nutes.070506.doc