HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 Planning Board Jan-Mar Minutes FINAL APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk March 25,2005
PG 4,2"d para.,3rd line from bottom,"out-way"s/b"out weigh" Approved_April 5.2005
To Clerk April 7,2005
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair.
A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak.
C. Excused absences: Keene, McConnell.
D. Absent: None.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused
absence request from Mr. Ruge for the March 1 st meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (6-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai to approve the agenda.
On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS — None.
4. HEARINGS — None.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
Mr. Jim Vander Galien, 6019 Marsh Road, Haslett, stated that it is not his
intent to have the type of businesses in his center that would prey on the
community. He intends to service the neighborhood.
Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch closed the public
comment period.
6. RECESS was not taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval — March 1, 2005
Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. Czekai to approve the minutes of
March 1, 2005 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (6-0). The minutes of March 1, 2005 were
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 15, 2005 Page 2
APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
a. Z-1-2005, Vacant Lot, Southeast Corner of Turner &W.
Gier Streets, "F" Commercial District to "A" Residential
District
This is a request by Raymond Castelein to rezone the
vacant lot, located at the southeast corner of Turner and W.
Gier Streets, more specifically described as:
Lot 68, Except Commencing at the Northeast Corner
of Lot 68, Thence West 65 Feet, South at Right
Angles of North Line Lot 68 to South Line Lot 68,
Northeasterly to Southeast Corner of Lot 68,
Northwesterly to Beginning; North Gardens
Subdivision, City of Lansing, Ingham County,
Michigan
from "F" Commercial District to "A" Residential District for the
purpose of constructing a single family home on the subject
property.
Staff recommended approval of Z-1-2005, Vacant Lot,
Southeast Corner of Turner & W. Gier Streets, from "F"
Commercial District to "A" Residential District.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously (3-0).
Ms. Foster stated that this case is a good example of the
need for cleaning up a lot of the spot zones in the City that
are not consistent with the master plan.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to approve Z-1-2005, Vacant
Lot, Southeast Corner of Turner & W. Gier Streets, "F" Commercial District to "A"
Residential 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.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 15, 2005 Page 3
b. SLU-8-2004, South side of Edgewood Blvd., west of
Washington Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Planned
NHBD Convenience Retail Center
This is a request by Hicham Jadaoun for a Special Land Use
permit to develop a Planned Neighborhood Convenience
Retail Center on the vacant property located on the south
side of Edgewood Boulevard, approximately 340 feet west of
Washington Avenue. The applicant intends to construct a
25,200 square foot building that would include various retail,
office and personal service uses. All of the uses would be
focused towards providing commercial services to the
immediate neighborhood. The property is zoned "D-1"
Professional Office District which permits planned
neighborhood convenience retail centers, with a special land
use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council.
Staff recommended of SLU-8-2004, South side of Edgewood
Blvd., West of Washington Ave., Special Land Use Permit -
Planned NHBD Convenience Retail Center, with the
following conditions:
1. The buffer area along the north and west sides of the site
contain at least 5 shrubs, with a size of 24 inches in
height and spread at the time of planting, for each 20
linear feet of buffer area;
2. The buffer area along the north and west sides of the site
contain at least 1 tree, with a minimum size of 2 caliper
inches at the time of planting, for each 30 linear feet of
buffer area;
3. Screening of waste receptacles and utility facilities be
provided accordance with Section 1260.040) of the
Zoning Ordinance;
4. The uses be limited to convenience/comparison retail
and office uses that are specifically focused toward
providing services to the immediate neighborhood; and
5. The final site plan be approved by the Planning Board
after the applicant has satisfied all of the requirements of
the Planning Office, Public Service Department, Board of
Water & Light, Transportation Office, Fire Marshall and
City Forester.
In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and
the motion carried (2-1).
Mr. Ruge asked why two of the Committee members voted
against the request. Mr. Czekai stated that he and Mr.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 15, 2005 Page 4
Hollister voted against it because they were concerned
about the predatory business practices of the proposed
check cashing store, insurance agency and dollar general on
an area that has a substantial low income population. Mr.
Czekai stated that he does not feel that the request complies
with criteria number 4 in the ordinance which states: "Will
the proposed special land use represent an improvement to
the use or character of property under consideration and the
surrounding area in general, and will the use be in keeping
with the natural environment of the lot?" Mr. Ruge stated
that the area could benefit from having some retail activity
and that the benefits of this retail center may out-wad out
weigh the negatives. He is not sure that the whole thing
should be rejected because of a couple of businesses.
Mr. Frederick stated that it exceeds the Planning Board's
authority to deny an SLU because of a business that would
be permitted at this location, without the SLU.
Ms. Foster recommended changing the ordinance so that a
check cashing business does not fall under the same
category as a bank. She asked if a developer can be
required to install traffic calming. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
she would look into traffic calming.
Ms. Foster stated that parking should be behind the building
and that the ordinance should be changed to require that
parking be located behind the building. Mr. Ruge stated that
the developer previously stated that he would abort his plans
to develop the site if parking had to go behind the building.
Ms. Foster stated that the applicant could have one tier of
parking in front of the building with the rest being in the back.
Mr. Vander Galien stated that the site and the area in which
it is located does not lend itself to having parking behind the
building.
Mr. Czekai stated that the applicant is very resistant to this
design. He also stated that he is disappointed that the
Board is leaning towards approval when the applicants have
been so negative towards the neighborhood.
Ms. Cordill stated that she shares a lot of the concerns about
the check cashing stores. However, she cannot justify
denying the entire development for this reason.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 15, 2005 Page 5
Mr. Frederick stated that pedestrian access to this center is
critical and he would like to express a clear need to City
Council for traffic calming, pedestrian walkways and the
possibility of an overhead walkway.
Mr. Frederick pointed out that the site plan has to come back
to the Board for approval. He stated that if putting parking
behind the building is recommended as a condition of
approval, Council could overturn this decision. However, if it
is just a recommendation at this time, the Board can address
it during site plan review.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to deny SLU-8-2004, South
side of Edgewood Blvd., west of Washington Ave., Special Land Use Permit -
Planned NHBD Convenience Retail Center.
Frederick . Na v Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . .. . Nay Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nav
Czekai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 2; Nays: 4; motion fails.
FAILED.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge, to approve SLU-8-2004, South
side of Edgewood Blvd., west of Washington Ave., Special Land Use Permit -
Planned NHBD Convenience Retail Center, with the following conditions: (1) The
buffer area along the north and west sides of the site contain at least 5 shrubs,
with a size of 24 inches in height and spread at the time of planting, for each 20
linear feet of buffer area; (2) The buffer area along the north and west sides of the
site contain at least 1 tree, with a minimum size of 2 caliper inches at the time of
planting, for each 30 linear feet of buffer area; (3) Screening of waste receptacles
and utility facilities be provided accordance with Section 1260.040) of the Zoning
Ordinance; (4) The uses be limited to convenience/comparison retail and office
uses that are specifically focused toward providing services to the immediate
neighborhood; (5) The final site plan be approved by the Planning Board after the
applicant has satisfied all of the requirements of the Planning Office, Public
Service Department, Board of Water & Light, Transportation Office, Fire Marshall
and City Forester; (6) The site plan be revised to provide pedestrian linkages
from all sides; and (7) Sidewalks, pedestrian overpasses and traffic calming be
considered by the City to facilitate better pedestrian access in the area.
In addition to the conditions listed above, the Board also included, as a
recommendation, that the building be relocated so that all of the parking, with the
exception of one row, is located behind the building.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 15, 2005 Page 6
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Ruge. . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 2; motion carried.
APPROVED.
Next meeting, Wednesday, April 13, 2005 at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room.
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Chair
Next meeting, Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None.
C. Report from Planning Manager
The Board asked that a letter of support be sent to East Lansing regarding
the speed limit change. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would prepare a
d raft.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Prudden/Motor Wheel Factory Historic
District Study Committee Preliminary Report was distributed to the Board
members for informational purposes only at this time.
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business
District(Tabled February 11, 1998)
b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&
"J"Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled
June 27,2000)
b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
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
5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports
a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence (May 20, 2003)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 15, 2005 Page 7
b. Dollar Store-Willow Street&MILK 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. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed
(August 3,2004)
j. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5,2004)
k. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004)
I. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road& Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of
the tracks-area becoming garbage dump (November 16,2004)
M. Turner Street—first floor residence (December 2004)
n. Keeps Party Store-Aurelius Rd-illegal signs (February 15,2005)
8. NEW BUSINESS — None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Cordill recommended creating a definition of a check cashing store that
differentiates it from a bank.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Mr. Czekai suggested to Ms. Stachowiak that she visit the real estate section of
OTMS.org. He stated that this is the web site for Old Town Main Street.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.031505.doc
Approved as written 3-15-05 Draft to Clerk March 9,2005
Approved March 15,2005
To Clerk March 18,2005
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
-J
:CI
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair. rn � 0
a
7, a
A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Cordill, Czekai, Hollister.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske.
C. Excused absences: Keene, McConnell.
D. Absent: Ruge.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused
absence request from Ms. Keene and Mr. McConnell for tonight's meeting. On a
voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused
absence request from Ms. Keene for the February 15th meeting. On a voice vote,
the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve the agenda.
On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS— None.
4. HEARINGS
A. Z-1-2005, Vacant Lot, Southeast Corner of Turner &W. Gier Streets
"F" Commercial District to "A" Residential District
This is a request by Raymond Castelein to rezone the vacant lot, located
at the southeast corner of Turner and W. Gier Streets, more specifically
described as:
Lot 68, Except Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Lot 68,
Thence West 65 Feet, South at Right Angles of North Line Lot 68 to
South Line Lot 68, Northeasterly to Southeast Corner of Lot 68,
Northwesterly to Beginning; North Gardens Subdivision, City of
Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 1, 2005 Page 2
from "F" Commercial District to "A" Residential District for the purpose of
constructing a single family home on the subject property.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing and
referred Z-1-2005, Vacant Lot, Southeast Corner of Turner & W. Gier
Streets, "F" Commercial District to "A" Residential District to the
Zoning and Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on March 9, 2005 at
4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room
at 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch closed the public
comment period.
6. RECESS was not taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval — February 1, 2005
Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the minutes of
January 18, 2005 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (5-0). The minutes of February 1, 2005 were
APPROVED w/corrections.
Pg. 12, 15t para., 3rd line from the bottom, "bold" s/b "built".
Minutes for Approval — February 15, 2005
Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the minutes of
February 15, 2005 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (5-0). The minutes of February 15, 2005 were
APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Frederick, Vice
Chair
Next meeting, Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 1, 2005 Page 3
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Chair
a. ACT-10-2004, Flowage Easement Across Willoughby
Park
This is a request by the Ingham County Drain Commission
for a flowage easement across Willoughby Park for the
Alton/Washington Road Branch Drain. This drain already
flows into the subject property, which is largely undeveloped.
A copy of the proposed flowage easement is attached.
The negotiated easement would run across approximately in
the middle of Willoughby Park (see exhibit). According to
the applicant, the drain already flows into the Park property
which is largely undeveloped. The flow is easterly from a
point on the west line of the Park (known as Branch No. 1
Drain) to the existing Alton Drain just east of the Park.
The easement would enable the Drain Commission to
access the property for regular maintenance and clearing of
the flowage way since the storm drain is already flowing
across the subject property. The applicant does not intend
to do any improvements such as excavations or installation
of pipes; therefore, existing trees and natural vegetation will
be preserved as naturally as possible. Regular maintenance
work, as necessary, will be the applicant's responsibility to
keep the flowage way clear and free of natural obstructions.
Therefore, the preservation of this site in an undeveloped
state for passive recreational purposes would be consistent
with the natural character of the property.
The Ingham County Drain Commissioner requests that the
City of Lansing grant an easement to connect the flowage of
storm drain from an existing drain to the west of Willoughby
Park to Alton Drain which is located to the east of said park
(see map). The easement will allow the applicant to properly
manage and maintain storm drain in the area (Delhi
Township); and also allow access for future drain
improvement, maintenance, inspection and cleaning.
The property is heavily wooded, entirely undeveloped and
does not have a clear access drive from Willoughby Road or
from Washington Avenue (see aerial photo map).
Surrounded by adjoining residential uses (which are in Delhi
Township) and open space, the City's Master Plan featured
this property to be a dedicated open space/city park and,
therefore, development of any type is very unlikely. The
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 1, 2005 Page 4
storm water presently drains to the west side of the park,
and would continue south and east to the Alton Drain as
indicated on the enclosed topographical map.
Staff recommended approval of ACT-10-2004, to grant a
flowage easement across Willoughby Park as proposed,
provided that the easement conditions preserve the park in
its current state, prevent excavation or the installation of
piping of any nature without the City's permission, and
retains the City's rights to improve the park as it deems
necessary.
In Committee, the members present found that the proposed
easement and its conditions would preserve the park in its
natural state, and protect the City's interests in managing
and developing the subject property.
The members present, by consensus, agreed to report their
unofficial recommendation in favor of Planning Board
approval of Act-10-04, to grant a flowage easement across
Willoughby Park as proposed, provided that the easement
conditions preserve the park in its current state, prevent
excavation or the installation of piping of any nature without
the City's permission, and retain the City's rights to improve
the park as it deems necessary.
Ms. Bruch inquired about the increased flow to the wetland
area.
Mr. Bob Rose, City of Lansing, Department of Public
Service, stated that the rate of flow will not increase. The
City is correcting a problem from the 1950s to 1960s where
the water was draining without an easement.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to approve ACT-10-2004,
Flowage Easement Across Willoughby Park.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Cordill. Ave Czekai. Ave
Hollister Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 1, 2005 Page 5
b. Parks and Recreation Five Year Master Plan Review
Mr. Rieske reviewed Mr. Jemerson's memo.
Mr. Murdock Jemerson, City of Lansing, Parks and
Recreation Department, gave a brief overview of the
Master Plan.
Ms. Cordill inquired about the Baker-Donora Focus Center.
Mr. Jemerson stated that it is a community center with a day
care center on the second floor and a meeting room on the
first floor.
Ms. Foster inquired about commercial street trees. She
stated that it is her understanding commercial street trees
were not focused upon because of their propensity to die
due to poor maintenance. She inquired about putting a
system in place to protect and obtain more commercial
street trees. Mr. Jemerson stated that it would take
approximately $30,000 to replace the Emerald Ash trees and
that is a major focus right now. He also stated that he could
arrange to have the City Forester, Mr. Paul Dykema, at the
next meeting.
Mr. Frederick inquired about the Rivertrail connecting to
Cooley Gardens. Ms. Tanya Moore, City of Lansing,
Parks and Recreation Department stated that the Rivertrail
currently has a connection to Cooley Gardens and it would
be difficult to provide a better connection because of the
physical features of the area.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to approve the Parks and
Recreation Five Year Master Plan Review.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Cordill. . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 1, 2005 Page 6
C. Planning Board comments on Arbaugh and Mutual
Building Historic District Study Committee Preliminary
Reports
Mr. Frederick stated that he found the studies interesting
and he is glad that the buildings are being preserved.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to approve Arbaugh and Mutual
Building Historic District Study Committee Preliminary Reports.
Frederick . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Next meeting, Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None.
C. Report from Planning Manager— None.
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business
District(Tabled February 11, 1998)
b. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&
"J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled
June 27,2000)
b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
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
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)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 1, 2005 Page 7
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. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed
(August 3,2004)
j. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5,2004)
k. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave. -no landscaping (November 3,2004)
I. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road& Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of
the tracks-area becoming garbage dump (November 16, 2004)
M. Turner Street—first floor residence(December 2004)
n. Seymour Street—new cafe—sign in the ROW (February 15,2005)
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. FY 2005-06 Work Program
Ms. Stachowiak reviewed the work program. She stated that staff is
requesting approval of the plan this evening, but that the Board could
continue to review the program and make changes as necessary. She
stated that this plan is presented annually to the Planning Board for
approval.
Ms. Cordill stated that the acronyms should be defined at least once in the
document.
Ms. Foster stated that she would like to see a plan to remove billboards in
the City over a 5 year period and that there would need to be a specific
plan for each entrance to the City.
The Planning Board also discussed the need for more street trees.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve the FY
2005-06 Work Program, with the comments made by the Planning
Board at this meeting being added to the document. On a voice vote,
the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON
Ms. Bruch and Mr. Hollister stated that they will not be able to attend the Zoning
and Ordinance Committee meeting on March 9th. It was decided that the Z&O
Committee meeting would be held at 6:00 p.m. on March 15, 2005 in the City
Council conference room.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 1, 2005 Page 8
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Frederick stated that MDOT has increased the speed limit in East Lansing
and he would like to see the City show its support to East Lansing in its attempt
to keep the speed limit at 25 miles per hour.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai to have the Planning
Board Chair submit a letter of support to East Lansing, with a copy going to the
Michigan Department of Transportation. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Czekai stated that the CDBG program is under fire in Washington D.C. and is
in danger of being discontinued. He stated that this is a very important and
effective program in Lansing. He asked that the Planning Board send a letter to
its federal government politicians supporting the CDBG program and its
continuation.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to have the Planning Board
Chair send a letter supporting the CDBG program to our president and United
States congressmen. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Mr. Frederick stated that there is construction on Luwana Street and the vehicles
have gotten dirt all over the road.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.030105.doc
Approved as written 3-1-05 Draft to Clerk February 24,2005
Approved March 1,2005
To Clerk March 4,2005
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair.
r
O
A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell, Czekali,
Hollister
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske.
C. Absent: Keene.
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 (7-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS— None.
4. HEARINGS — None.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch 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 February 15 2005 Page 2
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
Next meeting, Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Chair
a. Cherry Hill Neighborhood Enterprise Zone (NEZ)
The Committee met regarding this matter on January 25,
2005. Marchelle Smith of the Lansing Economic
Development Corporation, presented the request. The EDC
requests the establishment of the City's 17th Neighborhood
Enterprise Zone (NEZ) for the Cherry Hill neighborhood.
As proposed, the NEZ would be bounded by Lenawee Street
on the North, St. Joseph Street on the south, River Street on
the east, and Grand Avenue to the west. It would include
the proposed Kerr House Village development and the
adjacent Cherry Hill Historic District.
The NEZ program is a plan implementation tool to
encourage the construction and improvement of housing
units located within designated zones. It provides property
tax abatements within designated areas to promote housing
opportunities in the way of new construction, rehabilitation of
existing housing, and adaptive reuse of vacant office
buildings.
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.
Not all property owners within this zone will be making use
of the NEZ abatement. The NEZ works best when the work
proposed would increase the taxable value of the property.
A separate program, through the Mathieu-Gast Act, exempts
normal repair, replacement, and maintenance work from
being assessed until the property is sold. The NEZ
encourages property owners to go beyond repair,
replacement, and maintenance to make major improvements
to their properties.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 15 2005 Page 3
In January, 2005, the Lansing City Council approved the
boundaries of the proposed NEZ for the Cherry Hill area,
and set a public hearing for Monday, February 14, 2005.
If this proposal is approved, the City will still have
approximately 84% of its legal capacity for NEZs remaining.
Staff recommended approval of an NEZ for the Cherry Hill
Neighborhood.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Ms. Bruch inquired about an NEZ being rescinded. In other
words, whether a particular area could eventually no longer
be considered an NEZ.
Ms. Smith stated that, to the best of her knowledge, once it
is an NEZ it is always an NEZ. She said that she would
check into this further.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to approve the Cherry Hill
Neighborhood Enterprise Zone (NEZ).
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . Ave
Ruge. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Next meeting, Tuesday, February 22, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None.
C. Report from Planning Manager— None.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 15 2005 Page 4
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business
District(Tabled February 11, 1998)
b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&
"J"Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled
June 27,2000)
b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
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
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. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed
(August 3,2004)
j. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5,2004)
k. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004)
I. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road& Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of
the tracks-area becoming garbage dump(November 16, 2004)
M. Turner Street—first floor residence (December 2004)
n. Seymour Street—new cafe—sign in the ROW (February 15, 2005)
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Proposed Ordinance Amendment — Garages
Ms. Stachowiak stated that this amendment is to prevent garages from
projecting in front of houses, and that the Board held a public hearing on
this in 2004, at which there were no speakers.
Ms. Cordill requested that the proposal be amended as follows:
New garages, whether attached or detached, shall not extend
beyond the front of the dwelling. The front of the dwelling shall be
determined by the nearest point of the roofed structure to the front
lot line. This restriction shall not apply to garages that setbaG
mere than sixty fG em the f ent lot '� li e, ON PARCELS
WHERE THE PRIMARY BUILDING IS LOCATED TO THE
EXTREME REAR OF THE LOT, LEAVING NO ROOM FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ON THE SIDE OR REAR OF
THE BUILDING. IN SUCH SITUATIONS, THE GARAGE MUST
HAVE A MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 60 FEET. THIS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 15 2005 Page 5
RESTRICTION SHALL ALSO NOT APPLY TO GARAGES where
the doors do not face the street, or corner lots where the garage
faces A DIFFERENT direction from the front of the house. Existing
garages that do not comply with this provision may be improved,
BUT NOT expanded or rebuilt EXCEPT IN CONFORMANCE WITH
THIS ORDINANCE.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to approve the Proposed
Ordinance Amendment— Garages, with the changes recommended by Ms. Corill.
Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . Ave
Ruge. Ave Cordill. Ave
McConnell Ave Czekai. Ave
Hollister Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Cordill inquired about the Boys Training School (BTS) site and stated that the
new buildings are located very close to the street. She was concerned because
of the traffic on Saginaw and Oakland Streets.
Ms. Foster asked about the Planning Board's request to change Saginaw and
Oakland to 2-way traffic.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that nothing has occurred. She and Mr. Rieske stated
that they would speak to the Transportation Engineer about this possibility of this
happening.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Mr. Frederick stated Keeps' Jiffy Mart located at 4013 Aurelius Road has two
signs on the southwest corner of the roof. There is also a pole sign that has had
two signs added to it and there are also several temporary signs on the property.
He said that he would like this matter to remain on the list of pending items as it is
a reoccurring problem.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 15 2005 Page 6
Ms. Cordill asked about the temporary sign on N. Capitol Avenue. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she found the sign and has turned it in for enforcement
action.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.021505.doc
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 2
6. RECESS was not taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval — January 18, 2005
Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of
January 18, 2005 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (6-0). The minutes of January 18, 2005 were
APPROVED w/corrections.
Pg. 1, under Communications, "Abraugh" s/b "Arbaugh".
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
a. Z-18-2004, South of E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar
& Larch, Rezoning from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1"
Business District
This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of
Planning & Neighborhood Development to rezone the
property located south of E. Michigan Avenue, between
Cedar and Larch Streets, more specifically described as:
Lots 20, 21, 22, 26, 27 & the south % of the vacated
alley adjacent thereto, Ranney's Subdivision of Lot 1,
Block 241
from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District, for
the purpose of developing the property for mixed uses (i.e.
residential, office, commercial).
Staff recommended approval of Z-18-2004, South of E.
Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Rezoning from
"H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District.
Staff recommended approval of Z-18-2004, South of E.
Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Rezoning from
"H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Ms. Bruch stated that she was disappointed to hear that the
green space would be eliminated since there will not be that
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 3
many parking spaces added. Mr. Ruge stated that he
agreed but that this should really be discussed during the
UDC portion of the meeting because this is where the Board
can place conditions on the approval. Mr. Ruge stated that
in the zoning portion, the Board cannot condition the
approval.
Ms. Bruch inquired about the park property and stated that
the property was donated by George Ranney for the benefit
of Ranney Park. Mr. Rieske stated that this is covered in the
ACT 285 review.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to approve Z-18-2004, South of E.
Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Rezoning from "H" Light Industrial to
"G-1" Business District.
Ruge. . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that Ms. Bruch and Mr. Frederick cannot
attend the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting and that
there are no cases on the agenda. She stated that there are
ordinance amendments that need to be discussed. Ms. Bruch
asked other Committee members if it would be possible to meet
before the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Ruge stated that the
Committee could meet then. Ms. Stachowiak asked if the
Committee could meet at 6:00 p.m. The Committee members
agreed.
Next meeting, Wednesday, February 15, 2005 at 6 p.m.
124 West Michigan Avenue, Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
City Council Conference Room
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Vice Chair
a. ACT-17-2004, 122 Smith Street, Acquisition and
Demolition of Duplex
This is a request by the City of Lansing Development Office
to acquire the property with CDBG funds for demolition and
clearance of the existing two unit structure and conveyance
of the property to the adjoining property owners to reduce
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 4
overcrowding. The property is located at 122 Smith St.
(Parcel # 33-01-01-21-381-061), more specifically described
as:
W% of lot 7 of Block 17 of Park Place Subdivision,
City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
The area is characterized by small lots and the properties
along Coleman Avenue are some of the smallest parcels in
the City (55 feet in depth). The widths range from 31 to 49
feet. The depth of these four parcels would increase by
approximately 27.5 feet as a result of the proposal. The
acquisition of the duplex at 122 Smith is critical to increasing
the depth of these lots.
The subject property has a two unit structure that was built in
1912. It is zoned "C" residential, is currently vacant and red
tagged, and has a shared driveway to the east. The
property has been vacant for more than a year. It is
structurally sound and was not recommended for demolition.
Since the property was vacant, the City asked the Greater
Lansing Housing Coalition to purchase the property to
secure ownership. The GLHC has an accepted offer to
purchase it for approximately $42,000. The cost of razing
the structure is an estimated $5,000 to $10,000.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has stated
that the structure is a "contributing" historical resource
located in a potential Historic District and if demolished,
would have an adverse effect. The Lansing Historic District
Commission has also reviewed the request and most of their
comments support the SHPO's position. The Development
Office has also considered either relocation of the structure
and rehabbing it as a one- or two-unit structure; or
rehabilitating the structure at the current site and reducing it
to a single family unit to reduce overcrowding. The Moores
Park Neighborhood Organization opposes the rehabilitation
of the structure in its current location.
Staff recommended rehabilitating the house in place, and
splitting off a portion of the back yard for open space and/or
parking, based on the fact that the density could be reduced
somewhat, and the costs recovered by the renovation and
resale of the house for single-family owner occupancy.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval to
authorize the City to acquire and relocate or raze the
structure at 122 Smith Avenue, and to divide and resell the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 5
property for combination with the adjacent properties at
1715, 1721, 1725 and 1727 Coleman Ave., respectively,
provided:
1. Access easements be created as necessary across
the subject property to allow shared use of the subject
property by the adjacent Coleman Avenue properties;
2. Site plan/design review be required for the subject
property and its redevelopment;
3. Restrictive covenants or deed restrictions be placed
on the subject property to protect the community
character prior to resale;
4. Surveys be conducted of the subject property and
adjacent properties, for the redevelopment of the
subject property, the impact on shared driveway
arrangements, the alignment of the access
easements, lot splits, and the deed restrictions; and
5. Photographic recordation of the building be
undertaken in accordance with State Historic
Preservation Office guidelines prior to the demolition
of the structure.
Mr. Ruge asked if the motion was to sell the property to the
Coleman Street residents. Ms. Keene stated that the motion
was for the City of Lansing to acquire the property and then
to split the property so that the adjacent property owners will
have better access to their properties. Mr. Ruge asked
about the first paragraph of the motion and if the property
would be sold and not given away. He asked if anyone has
spoken with the residents about purchasing the property.
Mr. McConnell stated that the Lansing Housing Coalition has
an option on the property already and the City has had
discussions with the coalition about acquiring and
rehabilitating the property. The City would have the property
and then sell it. Ms. Keene stated that this was one of the
options and that there was no discussion about dollars. She
stated that may be a consideration but she did not believe it
would be a whole lot of money. Mr. Ruge stated that it
would be approximately $40,000 to purchase the property
and an additional $5,000 to $10,000 to raze the building. He
was talking about dividing the cost among the four
properties. Ms. Keene stated that her understanding was
that the residents would not be responsible for the $40,000.
She was looking at the value of the land once the home was
demolished, and that it probably would not be worth a whole
lot. It would then be a vacant lot. Mr. Rieske stated that the
idea of full cost recovery is not included in this option. This
option includes acquiring and reselling the property. He
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 6
stated that what this means is market for sale to the adjacent
property owners. The price is set by City Council and there
is a limit to the amount of negotiation that the Planning
Office can do without City Council authorization. He stated
that the idea is to change the fair market value for its use as
back yards. There would not be a great amount of land
value per property owner. He stated that the cost recovery
angle is sacrificed by this option and was included in the
findings. Ms. Foster stated that basically the City is just
helping with all of the crowding in this area. Mr. Rieske
stated the idea was to benefit and make more marketable
and usable the four pieces of property by acquiring the one
as opposed to having the same problem and trying to make
changes to all four properties. What can be done is to make
minor changes to all four properties by acquiring and
relocating or razing the structure.
Mr. Hollister asked what would happen if the first property
owner would purchase a portion of the property and the
other three residents did not purchase a portion of the
property. Then there would be the City property and the
property that is land locked. Mr. Rieske stated that a lot of
this needs to be resolved and that the Planning Office needs
authorization from City Council to do this. The ACT 285
review needs to go before City Council in order to receive
the authorization from Council. He stated that without
acquiring the property, this particular item cannot happen.
Mr. Ruge stated that the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition
owns the property and the City of Lansing gives them a lot of
money to rehabilitate houses. This house needs a lot of
rehabilitation and if it were kept, it would probably take
$60,000 to $80,000 to rehabilitate the house for resale. He
stated that either way, the City is putting a lot of money into
this property.
Mr. Ruge asked for clarification of the access easements.
Mr. Rieske stated that there are shared driveways and in
one case there is no driveway on Coleman Avenue. By
acquiring the property, there is an alley running east and
west at the rear of this property which is approximately 150
feet deep. There is access through this alley and it could
come down to providing access to parking for the other
parcels. He stated that an alley could be run through there.
Ms. Bruch stated that one could tell from the front that the
homes are so tight and that if there was alley access, it
would help a lot with these properties. Mr. Rieske stated
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 7
that part of the overcrowding problem has to do with parking.
Currently, this is a vacant two-family structure sharing a
driveway with an occupied two-family structure. By
removing this particular piece of property, you get rid of the
vehicles related to this property. There are other properties
along Coleman Avenue that do not have enough driveway
and yard space for cars. He stated that cars take up more
space than what people do. By dealing with this particular
piece of property and adding these easements, off-street
parking can be provided because it is currently in very short
supply. Ms. Bruch stated that in the long run, it is an
improvement for each one of the properties.
Ms. Shirley Murray, representative of Moores Park
Neighborhood Organization and MPROVE, stated that
this group requested the City of Lansing purchase 122 Smith
Avenue and demolish the home. The organization actually
requested this same thing from the City approximately 15
years ago. At that time, Mr. Emil Winnicker (Development
Office Manager) explained that with residents in the
property, the cost of relocating those people really made the
situation prohibitive. To relocate people living at this
residence is a big expense. When the property became
vacant and red tagged two years ago, the organization again
asked that the City purchase the property and demolish the
home. Besides the overcrowding, this property has a long
standing history of being a problem house in the
neighborhood. She stated that this house is two feet from
the fence of the house located next door. Hopefully the
Board will feel better about spending money on this property.
She stated that the organization believes with the house
demolished, the neighborhood's chances of retaining those
homes on Coleman Avenue as private residences would go
up 200 percent. If the house is not demolished, when the
properties on Coleman Avenue become for sale, the
chances of hoping for a home buyer are very slim. There is
room for only one vehicle and this is all that the residents
have. In this day and age, one cannot hope to sell much of
a house to a homeowner if there is room for only one
vehicle.
She stated that the organization is trying to improve the
neighborhood and bring in homeowners. The organization
believes that by demolishing the home, it will make a huge
difference in the stability of this neighborhood.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 8
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to approve ACT-17-2004, 122
Smith Street, Acquisition and Demolition of Duplex.
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
b. ACT-18-2004, South side of E. Michigan Avenue,
between Cedar & Larch, Public Sale of City Property
This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of
Planning and Neighborhood Development to sell the
property located on the south side of E. Michigan Avenue,
between Cedar & Larch Streets, more specifically described
as:
Lots 1 through 23 and Lots 26, 27 and the vacated
alley adjacent thereto, Ranney's Subdivision of Lot 1,
Block 241; and the north % of the east % and the
south % of the east 132 feet of Lot 2, Block 241,
Original Plat.
The Future Land Use Map for the Central Lansing
Comprehensive Plan, 1999 designates this property for
"General Commerce". The mixture of uses meets the basic
intent of the Plan and would strengthen the linkage between
the entertainment related businesses along Michigan Ave. to
the east with those to the west along Michigan and
Washington Avenues.
This proposal provides a uniform development pattern along
the entire E. Michigan Avenue block face, which is effective
in linking the entertainment activities with the Central
Business District to the west, and project a much more
cohesive neo-traditional motif than if the project only
extended along a portion of the block.
Staff recommended approval of ACT-18-2004, South side of
E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Public Sale of
City Property with the following conditions:
1. the location, character and extent of the proposal are
consistent with the "General Commerce" land use and
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 9
design recommendations in the Central Lansing
Comprehensive Plan;
2. efficient use of the current City parking lots (15 and
15-A) will accommodate the development and its
parking needs;
3. there is sufficient public parking within a reasonable
distance to satisfy the added parking demand during
stadium events;
4. legal issues (including easements and the use of Lots
15 and 15-A for stadium parking) would need to be
resolved; and
5. a portion of the property was donated to the City for
the betterment of Ranney Park, and although this
portion is not dedicated parkland, satisfying the intent
of this donation would need to be resolved.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
with the following conditions:
1. Adequate parking be provided on-site and on Lot 15-
A to meet the parking needs of the proposed
development and evening use by neighboring
businesses;
2. The legal issues (including parking arrangements with
Olds Park and utility easements) involving the use of
Lot 15 be resolved to the extent that use of the site for
the proposed development can occur; and
3. The City's obligations be observed relating to the
section of property donated to the City for the
intended benefit of Ranney Park;
and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Mr. Hollister asked if there has been any negotiations with
Take Me Out To The Ball Park regarding the parking issue.
Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office is working with the
City Attorney on this issue and that he is not sure exactly
whether those negotiations have taken place. He stated that
the Lugnuts are on record with support letters. Mr. Hollister
stated that was the Lugnuts manager but not the owner. Mr.
Rieske stated that this is something that will still need to take
place. He stated that this would need to be resolved prior to
City Council approval of a resolution.
Mr. Ruge stated that he is concerned with the parking lot in
the back. The City has been working towards getting the
parking lots to be cooler. He stated that there should be
some kind of a requirement for trees to be in the parking lot
and that this would lessen the amount of parking spaces
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 10
there would be. Ms. Bruch stated that currently there is a
parking ordinance and that the applicant would have to add
trees. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant does not
have to add trees and that the ordinance has not been
passed on by the Board. Ms. Bruch stated that the Board
definitely needs to get these ordinances passed. Mr. Ruge
stated that he would like to see some trees added to cool
down the parking lot during the summer.
Mr. Gillespie stated that he is concerned with this because
there are trees along Larch Street. If he is required to add
trees, he may have to come back with a variance because
with this parking structure it would be difficult to add trees
there. He is not sure if it would be better to make that a
requirement or a recommendation based on a surface lot
requiring trees. He stated that it would be difficult to add
trees in a parking structure.
Ms. Bruch asked about a parking structure versus a parking
lot, and what would be the determining factor with whether
or not it is built. Mr. Gillespie stated that he is currently
working with Mr. Ruff and that they meet every other week.
They are reviewing the parking needs of the City. He would
like to see a parking ramp at this location for retail users,
(i.e. Lugnuts and the Nut House, Rum Runners). Currently,
the City is still determining whether a parking ramp is
needed. He thinks that the City is leaning towards not
needing another ramp with all the other parking lots
surrounding the area and with what the new Boji ramp is
going to do to permit parking with the lot kitty corner from the
community library. When he meets with Mr. Ruff every other
week, he kindly reminds Mr. Ruff that he would love to have
a ramp at this location. Ms. Bruch stated that it is not his
issue but more the City's issue in determining the parking
situation. Mr. Gillespie agreed. Ms. Bruch stated that she
would like to see a parking ramp at this location because
she would like to see the green space. She does not like the
idea of the area in the back being all parking. She stated
that it would be a very poor idea when it comes to design
especially when there are residences here. Where are the
little kids to play? She stated that if there was a park in the
center area, it would be large enough and sheltered. She
would like to see the green space at this location. Mr.
Gillespie stated that he has worked on this plan over the
past few weeks when the architect was in town and after
reviewing it, it would be almost impossible to accommodate
a green space. If one looks at the size of the green space
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 11
currently showing on the site plan, it is really unusable. He
stated that developments like this do not encourage the kids.
It would be more like Cooley Law School professors, MSU
students, and Sparrow Hospital workers. He does not
believe that there would be very many children at all. The
development will have some space on every hall way that
has either a workout facility or a common area. Most urban
developments like this that he has studied in Memphis,
Milwaukee, Akron, Atlanta do not offer an on-site park. The
residents would go to a local city park or use a local area.
He stated that a 4 or 5 acre urban development or even less
in this case is really not standard. The little piece of green
space looks nice on an aerial photo but when it is
surrounded by cars, he would not want his three children
playing that close to the bumpers of cars. He does not
believe that this would be a safe place for children. Ms.
Bruch stated that she would like to disagree on that and
pending the design of the green space and if there is a
parking ramp at this location, some of the parking spaces
could be reserved for this development. In this case, the
development would not need that many parking spaces.
She stated that it would be a sea of asphalt which would not
be very pleasing for any of the residents. She believes that
the developer would get more money out of those lofts if
there is actually a nice spot to look down upon, even if it is
just trees or some picnic tables so that the law school
students can go out there on a nice day and study. Mr.
Gillespie stated that a new site plan has been laid out and it
encompasses the entire area. The entire area is needed for
parking. There are more trees on the new site plan. He
stated that there is berming, a green space and trees but it is
not a big open park. It is not real usable but it is an urban
development on Michigan Avenue, Cedar and Larch Streets
where 37,000 cars a day pass through this area. He is not
sure how practical a park would be at this location. Ms.
Bruch stated that even as a Cooley Law School student, she
would want to have just a little place where she could go out
and study in the sun. If there is a parking deck at this
location, then why cannot some of the parking be shared so
that someone is not forced to have all the parking for the
development at this location rather than the parking deck?
Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office could continue to
work with the developer and handle this through the site plan
review process. The aspect of a parking deck is bond
financed or parking fund financed. He stated that there
needs to be a revenue stream and the revenue stream
needs to fit the cost of the proposal. There are a lot of
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 12
details that still need to be completed on the parking
structure and those are coloring the-discussion about
whether or not to place a ramp at this location. He stated
that if the final decision is a surfaced lot and if the City can
incorporate green space at this location, then the Planning
Office would work with the developer on getting this done.
Ms. Bruch stated that little pocket parks are incredibly
important for the residents. No matter how small the green
space is, it is amazing how well these areas get used. By
placing a picnic table outdoors, people would go outdoors
and have lunch. There are some fast food business there
where residents could grab some food on a nice day and eat
outdoors. She does not want to give up the green space
and say it would be better for cars. This is an urban
development and the goal is to entice people to this area.
She stated that more people would be enticed if there was
some green space in this area than to have places for their
vehicles. Ms. Cordill stated that this reminds her of a
reverse courtyard apartment building which are pretty
common in Chicago. It is a U-shaped building and there is a
courtyard landscaped area. Typically, these are beW built to
the property line and beside the sidewalk. She stated that it
is a nice feature.
Mr. Gillespie stated that he would ask that the Board
encourage the developer to maintain green space in the
development since the plan is evolving and changing. The
development has an Italian bakery, Starbucks, and three
other restaurants who are currently looking. They were
encouraged to live, study and sit on Michigan Avenue.
There are seasonal tables on Michigan Avenue for the
students use so that it looks alive and vibrant so that the
people up above can have their windows open and it looks
like a live development. He does not want people to hide in
the parking lot. He stated that they would encourage
residents to the front of the development to enjoy the trees
and the benches that will be placed at this location.
Mr. Gillespie stated that the new plan does have berming of
green space where there can be park benches. He stated
that the current plan does not work with the green space.
Mr. Ruge inquired about the new plan and if there was one
available for the Board to review. Mr. Gillespie stated that
when he met with Mr. Ruff the last time, he said not to
confuse the issue. Everything is so preliminary and that it is
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 13
not dramatically different. The new plan is a little different
depending on the parking ramp structure.
Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to see some trees at this
location to cool down the parking lot. He inquired about how
to work this out to give Mr. Gillespie the flexibility that is
needed because it is unsure how much parking would be
needed. Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to have some
language so that the strips between the parking spaces be a
minimum of 20 feet wide rather than the typical 10 feet. Mr.
Gillespie stated that this is an early preview and that the
request still has to go before the Board for final approval.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that is does not go before the Board
for final approval. Mr. Rieske stated that the request will go
to City Council. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the final site
plan is approved administratively.
Mr. Rieske stated that it can be recommended in the motion
that the Board further recommends that the developer work
to maximize green space with amenities and then list those
that might be possible with the realization that if it cannot be
afforded then it cannot be done. Secondly, if there is no
space it cannot be done because if necessary parking is
eliminated in order to get green space, it would require rent
parking. This would increase the cost tremendously and the
cash flow required to support that cost. As a practical
matter, if the City can arrive at some language to further
recommend amenities (i.e. green space) in the back and
front, and recognizing the developer's desire to have the
activity pushed more to the front of the building, this would
be helpful in terms of direction with the site plan review but it
would also provide some flexibility on how to accomplish
this. Ms. Bruch stated that it looks like the City is headed for
the parking deck and she believes that everything would be
aided by this. She asked if this would be a City ramp or a
private ramp. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be a City
ramp. Ms. Bruch asked if the City could make an agreement
for the developer to give up 30 spaces to construct the green
space. She asked if part of the parking deck could dedicate
30 spaces to this development. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
she cannot see the Transportation and Parking Office
trading parking ramp parking spaces for green space. Ms.
Bruch stated that it is valuable for the City and for the health
of this development. Mr. McConnell stated that everyone
would like as much green space as possible. One of the
main issues with this development was the parking issues
and having enough parking for the development as well as
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 14
other business and with Take Me Out To The Ball Park. He
stated that with someone compensating the Parks
Department for loss revenue for the donated land, revenue
for parking is a preeminent factor in this case over more
green space. He stated that having some language that
encourages green space as much as possible but not hand
cuffing the developer to have this little park or the
development cannot be done. This would be negative to the
development. He stated that this would be a good
development on Michigan Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak stated
that there is a huge area of green space that belongs to
Board of Water and Light. Ms. Foster asked about
amenities. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there are no picnic
tables at this location but there are benches along Cedar
Street. Ms. Foster asked about having a pathway from the
development to the green space so that people can use it.
Mr. Hollister stated that the current area is a big berm.
Ms. Keene stated she agrees with the green space and she
understands that the development needs to have parking
spaces. There is something that needs to be said for the
aesthetics and adding a park in this area would break up
some of the sea of asphalt. She is hopeful that the
developer can find a way to work it out and if the developer
wants to, there could be some type of resolution to
accommodate this. Mr. Gillespie stated that Arbaugh project
has all asphalt and building. He would like to add trees and
a beautiful structure on Michigan Avenue as the entrance to
the capital. This is the market that he wants and he is trying
to enhance what is at this location. The development is
connecting pedestrians to the downtown. Ms. Bruch stated
that she would really like to see the green space. The
development does require a certain amount of parking
spaces with a parking deck next door. The parking deck
may lay empty for a good portion of the time depending on
whatever activities are going on in the area. Mr. Ruge
stated that there is potential for the parking deck. Ms. Bruch
stated that currently there is a surfaced lot and she inquired
about who owned the lot. Mr. Gillepsie stated that the City
owns the lot. Ms. Bruch asked if there was any way that
there could be an agreement so that some of the spaces can
be used by the development. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
she is not sure. Mr. Bruch stated that she would like to be
sure that this option could be explored. Mr. Hollister stated if
someone is going east on Michigan Avenue the park would
not be seen. The only time that the park would be seen is if
someone was traveling northbound on Larch Street. Ms.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 15
Bruch stated that this park would only be for the residents.
Mr. Hollister stated that there would also be a ball park
across the street and the fountain. He stated that he is all
for the green space but from a practical standpoint he is not
sure how this would work without forcing the City into a
major expenditure. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City
would not feel that the reason for building a parking lot is so
that this area could be green space. She stated that the
purpose for building the parking ramp is because it is
needed and would have nothing to do with green space. Mr.
Rieske stated that if a parking ramp becomes necessary, it
can be designed to incorporate green space, but the green
space would not be the determining factor. If it has to be a
surface parking lot, the green space would have to be
sacrificed. If it can be a parking ramp, then there would be
more flexibility in terms of the use of the square footage that
would be available. In this case, then there would be more
flexibility on what can be done with it. The design of this
development is intended to look good. Ms. Bruch stated that
it is a really good development and that she likes it a lot.
She does not want to see that area become a sea of
asphalt. Mr. Rieske stated that he would forward this to Mr.
Ruff and get settled with some language. Ms. Bruch stated
that is what needs to be done so that this does not become
a sea of asphalt and that it actually is broken up. If the list of
amenities was added, she is not sure what would be a
minimum width. She stated that if there are parking spaces,
usually the in-between isles have 10 feet of green space
where trees can be added. She asked if maybe the area
that faces the opening can be 15 to 20 feet wide so that it
incorporates a wider avenue of trees and could be used for a
couple of benches. If the whole area needs to be used for
parking, she would like to see the center aisle a minimum of
20 feet wide for trees to be added, benches to be
incorporated and a pedestrian walkway added. This would
allow a link to the back. Mr. Ruge asked if there would be
one row of trees and green space in the parking lot. Ms.
Bruch stated not just one row of trees but down through the
middle area where people can walk to their cars and have
the green space aisle be at least a minimum of 20 feet wide.
She stated that this would enhance the development as well.
This could be accommodated and still allow most of the
parking spaces that are needed for this development. Mr.
McConnell inquired about the number of parking spaces for
this development and if it has been determined. Ms.
Stachowiak and Mr. Rieske stated that it has not been
determined. Mr. McConnell asked why the Board is trying to
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 16
put a park in the back of this development when the specific
number of parking spaces has not been determined. Ms.
Bruch stated that the Board is not sure if this area could
even hold all of the required parking spaces. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that this area cannot hold all of the
spaces. Mr. McConnell stated that any green space that is
being proposed would limit parking even more. Ms. Bruch
stated that this area cannot accommodate all the required
parking spaces. Ms. Stachowiak stated that based on the
number of units that a certain number of parking spaces are
going to be needed. Mr. Gillespie stated that the horse shoe
area in the middle will be one covered parking spot per
residential unit. Every residential unit whether it is an
apartment or a condo will have one covered parking spot
within the horse shoe. He stated that the surface lot or
tentative parking ramp will be the overflow for a secondary
car for the residential and for the office/retail/restaurant
users who will be at this location. This is what has been
determined. He asked for some flexibility and that
mandating a 20 foot strip would have severe implications.
Ms. Bruch asked about how many parking spaces are
required to cover all the residents. Mr. Gillespie stated that it
depends on the number of residences that are developed. If
there are anywhere from 78 to 92 units, it would depend on
the number of bedrooms in each unit. Ms. Bruch asked if 92
parking spaces would fit in this horse shoe area. Mr.
Gillespie stated that 92 parking spaces do fit in this area.
Ms. Bruch asked what the layout would be. Mr. Gillespie
stated that it is the new layout as discussed with Mr. Ruff.
There is some green space but there is not a park or a 20
foot area. He stated that there are other areas that have
trees and green space. He asked the Board not to mandate
a 20 foot island because he would not be able to achieve
this. He would like to maximize the trees somehow.
Mr. Ruge asked if Mr. Gillespie could describe the number of
trees and how large the bases for each tree would be. Mr.
Gillespie stated that there will be trees in parking berms and
in areas that would shield the parking from Larch Street. He
hopes to maintain the entire berm along Larch Street with
those trees. He stated that this is conceptual and cannot be
taken to the next level until it is approved. This is all that he
has. Mr. Ruge asked if trees would be in the parking lot or
around the parking lot. Mr. Gillespie stated that the trees
would be around the parking lot.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 17
Mr. Gillespie stated that after studying the Grand Rapids and
Chicago areas, there are parks down the street that
residents can use. If all of the urban developments that
were planned were mandated to have green spaces, buffers
or large parks, it would not happen. He stated that parking
drives all urban developments and that the vehicles are the
driving force in development and planning.
Mr. Ruge asked about parking lot standards. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the requirement is 9 feet wide by
18.5 feet. The standard requirement for a parking lot is 60
feet. Ms. Bruch stated that usually there is a 60 foot bay and
a 10 foot strip. This would allow trees in the middle. If there
is not enough space to do the 60 foot bay, then the
development would lose a couple of parking spaces and
trees would be added. She stated that this would be a way
to incorporate trees within the parking spaces. Then it would
be a sea of asphalt. She stated that it would be healthier to
the trees to have a long 10 foot strip because there would be
more soil and water retention.
Mr. Hollister asked about covered parking. Mr. Gillespie
stated that with the current plan, there is one covered
parking spot. Angled parking was added to the 18 foot that
covered the entire perimeter of the site. The inner circle
would have covered parking also. The intent was to sell the
21 condominiums on the top floor and then work the way
down to the apartments. He stated that there is a market for
21 condominiums and once the market is absorbed at the
top, he would like to keep selling them as condominiums.
There has to be covered parking and it has to be in the
horse shoe rather than a ramp. This is the goal and that is
where some of the green space in the middle is lost in trying
to achieve at least one covered parking space per unit. Mr.
Hollister stated that it would not be a sea of asphalt. Ms.
Bruch stated that it would be a sea of roofing which means
there is even less places for green space. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that trees could not be added if there are going to be
canopies over the parking area.
Mr. Rieske asked if there was a way to add that the Board
further recommends and indicate the green space and
amenities. Include this in the motion and act on the motion.
Then set up a meeting regarding the site plan with interested
parties, Mr. Ruff and the developer to go over these things to
make sure that the thoughts are actually being entertained.
In the mean time what happens is the proposal moves on as
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 18
this is a time sensitive proposal. Mr. Rieske asked if this
was in the public interest to sell this property and have the
legalities been pointed out (i.e. Ranney Park, Take Me Out
To The Ball Game, easements) so that they can be dealt
with. Mr. Hollister stated that there are enough issues. Mr.
Rieske stated that this is a complicated proposal. Ms. Bruch
stated that if the 78 minimum was considered, then there
would be plenty of spaces for trees. If the maximum of 92
was considered, then there would be a lot less options.
Mr. Rieske stated that Mr. Ruff is a landscape architect and
that he is trained in these issues. He suggested that the
Board state its concerns, vote on the proposal and move on.
Mr. Hollister stated that the Board should not put in minimal
requirements because it could be that there would be 4 and
not 5 and then it dies. Mr. McConnell agreed. Mr. Hollister
stated that he does not want to see this happen. He stated
that it would be better to maximize green space to the extent
possible and that is all that the Board can do.
Mr. McConnell asked for a friendly amendment to ask the
developer to maximize the green space. Ms. Keene
accepted the friendly amendment and added that the Board
strongly recommends that the developer and the Planning
staff maximize the green space.
Ms. Bruch stated that she would like some assurance that
something would be planted that will actually cool down the
parking lot.
Mr. McConnell asked for a friendly amendment to the
amendment. He stated that the Board strongly recommends
that the developer maximize the green space in the back
and specifically, if nothing else, to plant trees around the
perimeter. Mr. Ruge suggested that the language say that
the trees be placed somewhere on the property like one tree
every ten spaces or every twenty spaces. This would allow
the developer to place them wherever they can be squeezed
in. Ms. Bruch stated that she would go with the typical
parking requirements. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is
no typical parking requirement and that she has researched
it at length. Each community is different. Ms. Bruch stated
that there would be 90 parking spaces and maybe the Board
can say one every ten spaces. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
would be nine trees. Mr. Hollister asked about the developer
only being able to plant eight trees. Ms. Stachowiak asked
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 19
Mr. Gillespie if he would be able to plant nine trees on the
property. Mr. Gillespie stated that if he does a 380 car
parking ramp, he could probably plant nine trees. Mr. Ruge
stated that the tree requirement should be limited to one tree
for every ten spaces of surface parking. If a ramp is
constructed, then it would be buffered somehow. Ms. Bruch
asked if this would include the street trees that are already
required. Ms. Stachowiak stated that street trees are totally
different and are in addition to this requirement.
Ms. Stachowiak asked Mr. McConnell if he would accept one
tree for each ten surface parking spaces. Mr. Gillespie
stated that if it is 9 to 10 trees, he would find a way to do it.
If he can do more then he will do more. Mr. McConnell
accepted the amendment. Mr. Gillespie stated that he will
own it, maintain it and manage it and he wants his
customers to be happy at this location. He may go over the
Board's limit but he does not want to be limited to where he
has to place the trees.
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to approve ACT-18-2004,
South side of E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Public Sale of City
Property with the following conditions: 1) Adequate parking be provided on-site
and on Lot 15-A to meet the parking needs of the proposed development and
evening use by neighboring businesses; 2) The legal issues (including parking
arrangements with Olds Park and utility easements) involving the use of Lot 15 be
resolved to the extent that use of the site for the proposed development can
occur; 3) The City's obligations be observed relating to the section of property
donated to the City for the intended benefit of Ranney Park; and 4) That green
space be maximized to the greatest extent possible, with a minimum of one tree
for every 10 surface parking spaces.
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave
McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
C. ACT-19-2004, St. Joseph Street between Grand &
Cherry, Vacation of Street Right-of-way
This is a request by Kerr House LLC that the City vacate an
82.5' x 330' segment of the St. Joseph St. right-of-way,
between Grand Ave. and Cherry St., to facilitate the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 20
construction of a 17 unit owner-occupied townhouse
development. The development would be located at the
northwest corner of Grand Ave. and St. Joe, and extend
eastward to Cherry Street. The development site is adjacent
to, but not within, the Cherry Hill Historic District.
A historic structure, known as the Kerr house, would be
repaired and serve as a central feature of the development.
The architecture would be compatible with the era in which
the neighborhood was originally constructed.
Vacating the street would facilitate the creation of a more
intimate residential living environment through the provision
of narrower streets and more landscaping than could
otherwise be allowed on the existing public street. The
proposed vacation of right-of-way, together with the
proposed project it would serve are considered to be
consistent with the Plan with respect to the location,
character, and extent of the proposal, with conditions.
The State of Michigan owns a portion of the land adjoining
the segment to be vacated, some of the vacated right-of-way
would be conveyed to the State. The manner in which the
right-of-way is to be conveyed does not quite meet the
desires of the State or the developer, however. As a result,
it was agreed to trade of some land pursuant to vacating the
right-of-way. The City would retain a utility easement within
the vacated area to maintain the existing storm/sanitary
sewer line and any new facilities associated with the
separation of the two systems.
Staff recommended approval of ACT-19-2004, St. Joseph
Street between Grand & Cherry, Vacation of Street Right-of-
way with the following conditions:
1. The subject segment of E. St. Joseph carries no
through traffic, and its vacation would affect the
abutting properties only;
2. The applicant owns all abutting properties to the
north;
3. The development proposed by the applicant is in
keeping with the Central Lansing Comprehensive
Plan; and
4. Vacating the street would facilitate the creation of a
more intimate residential living environment through
the provision of narrower streets and more
landscaping than could otherwise be allowed on the
existing public street.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 21
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
with the following conditions:
1. Easements be retained by the City for maintenance of
and improvements to existing utility and sidewalk
facilities,
2. A land exchange be executed in the manner
described in the survey prepared by Fitzgerald Henne
& Associates Inc. dated 12/09/04, subject to
Department of Public Service approval; and
3. The vacated right-of-way be retained by the applicant
and the adjoining parcels to the north be combined.
Mr. Ruge asked about the style of the houses. There were
some pictures in the packet that showed the character of the
homes during that era.
Ms. Bruch asked about buffering and she stated that the
house at the northwest corner of the site was not protected.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that there may be something that
could be done.
Ms. Bruch stated that there is a house located to the north of
the site that is abutting the driveway of the entire
development. She would like to see a small fence there to
separate the homes. She suggested adding more trees on
the interior of the site to bring more shade to the area.
Ms. Keene asked if this is a site plan review issue. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that it could be done as a friendly
amendment. Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to add a
friendly amendment to add a minimum of six trees on the
interior of the site and more, if possible, and include more
buffering along the south side of the house on the northwest
corner of the site. The amendment was accepted.
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to approve ACT-19-2004, St.
Joseph Street between Grand & Cherry, Vacation of Street Right-of-way with the
following conditions: 1) Easements be retained by the City for maintenance of
and improvements to existing utility and sidewalk facilities; 2) A land exchange
be executed in the manner described in the survey prepared by Fitzgerald Henne
& Associates Inc. dated 12/09/04, subject to Department of Public Service
approval; 3) The vacated right-of-way be retained by the applicant and the
adjoining parcels to the north be combined; 4) At least 6 trees be added to the
interior of the site; and 5) Additional buffering be added along the south side of
the house at the northwest corner of the site.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 22
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
McConnell Ave Hollister Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
d. Five-Year Consolidated Plan, 2005-2010 - Proposed
funding allocations for FY 2006 (711/05-6/30/06)
The Planning Board held a public hearing regarding this item
on January 4, 2005, at which ten (10) persons spoke,
representing various organizations requesting funding and
support.
Federal budget cuts have caused the City to receive
reduced funding this year. HOME funds have been cut
slightly, the CDBG program was reduced by approximately
$100,000, the ESG experienced slight decreases, and the
American Dream Down Payment Initiative funding was
eliminated altogether. The City absorbed these cuts by
reducing administration, housing rehabilitation, and public
improvements. Aggregate funding for grantees such as
CHDOs, CDCs and shelter providers has remained fairly
stable this year. No new funds are devoted to public
improvements this year because money remains available
from the last program year.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed funding
allocations for FY 2006.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0).
Mr. Hollister recused himself from this case and the duration
of the meeting. He stated that Habitat for Humanity is one of
the potential recipients.
Mr. Ruge asked where in the budget the Smith Street house
would fall. Ms. Boone stated that it would be a part of the
City's Community Housing Development Organization Set
Aside under Proposed Home Program Activities And Use of
Funds found on page 2.
Ms. Bruch stated that she was a little disappointed that there
are zero dollars for public improvements. If the City does
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 23
not keep making improvements then things will continue to
deteriorate. Ms. Boone stated that the City has unexpended
funds from this year that will carry the City through the year.
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to approve Five-Year
Consolidated Plan, 2005-2010 - Proposed funding allocations for FY 2006 (7/1/05-
6/30/06).
Ruge. . _ . Ave Bruch . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Next meeting, Tuesday, February 22, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None.
C. Report from Planning Manager— None.
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. 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. Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
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
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)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 24
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. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed
(August 3,2004)
j. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5,2004)
k. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004)
I. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road & Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of
the tracks-area becoming garbage dump (November 16,2004)
M. Turner Street—first floor residence(December 2004)
8. NEW BUSINESS — None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Ruge stated that he has been pushing for the Board to be involved with site
plan review for a long time and he believes that it would benefit from the Board's
oversight and input. Ms. Bruch agreed and because the Board was involved with
the parking issues of the one development, the applicant was able to have the
parking redesigned and it was even better. She stated that she is not sure how
many site plans are processed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would get the
numbers of how many were processed in 2004. Mr. Ruge stated that the Board
did not have to do every single site plan but maybe certain ones. Ms. Bruch
suggested that the Board review the multiple development site plans.
Ms. Cordill stated that a few years back the Frandor Shopping Center received a
face lift and she mentioned that it was a missed opportunity to define the parking.
When she was bringing her kids back from sledding on Sunday, there was
someone driving in her lane opposing traffic. Part of this is because the parking
lot is not defined let alone having trees or grass. She asked what happened with
this. Mr. Ruge stated that the City had an opportunity to do something about it
but it was not done. Ms. Cordill stated that it is a free for all in some areas.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Ms. Cordill stated that in the commercial district near Durant Park close to
Seymour Street, possibly 727 N. Seymour, there is a little cafe that looks like it
recently opened but it has a tacky sign in the right-of-way. Mr. Ruge stated that
the owner would need a permit for the sign. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City
would not allow this type of a sign in this district. Ms. Cordill stated that it
probably is a visibility issue because it is tucked in on the side street.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 25
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.020105.doc
APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk February 17,2005
PG 12,1s'para.,3`d line from the bottom,"bold"s/b"built" Approved March 1,2005
To Clerk March 4,2005
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, February 1, 2005
"7
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair. i l
A. Roll call: Present: Bruch, Ruge, Keene, Cordill, McConnell, Hollister 3
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Boone, Witherspoon.
C. Excused absences: Frederick, Czekai.
D. Absent: None.
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused
absence request from Mr. Czekai for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (6-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the agenda. On
a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Park & Recreation Five Year Master Plan Review
Mr. Rieske stated that this is something that enables the City to receive parks
and recreation grants and that it is an important asset. He stated that this item
will be addressed by the Urban Development Committee on February 22nd and
hopefully reported to the Planning Board for comments and endorsement on
March 1St
4. HEARINGS — None.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch closed the public
comment period.
D`R A F T Draft to Clerk February 17,2005
Approved 2005
To Clerk 2005
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, February 1, 2005
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair.
A. Roll call: Present: Bruch, Ruge, Keene, Cordill, McConnell, Hollister.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Boone, Witherspoon.
C. Excused absences: Frederick, Czekai.
D. Absent: None.
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused
absence request from Mr. Czekai for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (6-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the agenda. On
a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Park & Recreation Five Year Master Plan Review
Mr. Rieske stated that this is something that enables the City to receive parks
and recreation grants and that it is an important asset. He stated that this item
will be addressed by the Urban Development Committee on February 22"d and
.hopefully reported to the Planning Board for comments and endorsement on
March 1 sc
4. HEARINGS — None.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch closed the public
comment period.
6. RECESS was not taken by the Board.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 2
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval — January 18, 2005
Ms. Cordill moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of
January 18, 2005 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (6-0). The minutes of January 18, 2005 were
APPROVED w/corrections.
Pg. 1, under Communications, "Abraugh" s/b "Arbaugh".
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
a. Z-18-2004, South of E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar
& Larch, Rezoning from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1"
Business District
This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of
Planning & Neighborhood Development to rezone the
property located south of E. Michigan Avenue, between
Cedar and Larch Streets, more specifically described as:
Lots 20, 21, 22, 26, 27& the south % of the vacated
alley adjacent thereto, Ranney's Subdivision of Lot 1,
Block 241
from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District, for
the purpose of developing the property for mixed uses (i.e.
residential, office, commercial).
Staff recommended approval of Z-18-2004, South of E.
Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Rezoning from
"H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District.
Staff recommended approval of Z-18-2004, South of E.
Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Rezoning from
"H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Ms. Bruch stated that she was disappointed to hear that the
green space would be eliminated since there will not be that
many parking spaces added. Mr. Ruge stated that he
agreed but that this should really be discussed during the
UDC portion of the meeting because this is where the Board
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 3
can place conditions on the approval. Mr. Ruge stated that
in the zoning portion, the Board cannot condition the
approval.
Ms. Bruch inquired about the park property and stated that
the property was donated by George Ranney for the benefit
of Ranney Park. Mr. Rieske stated that this is covered in the
ACT 285 review.
Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to approve Z-18-2004, South of E.
Michigan Avenue, between Cedar& Larch, Rezoning from "H" Light Industrial to
"G-1" Business District.
Ruge. . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that Ms. Bruch and Mr. Frederick cannot
attend the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting and that
there are no cases on the agenda. She stated that there are
ordinance amendments that need to be discussed. Ms. Bruch
asked other Committee members if it would be possible to meet
before the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Ruge stated that the
Committee could meet then. Ms. Stachowiak asked if the
Committee could meet at 6:00 p.m. The Committee members
agreed.
Next meeting, Wednesday, February 15, 2005 at 6 p.m.
124 West Michigan Avenue, Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
City Council Conference Room
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Vice Chair
a. ACT-17-2004, 122 Smith Street, Acquisition and
Demolition of Duplex
This is a request by the City of Lansing Development Office
to acquire the property with CDBG funds for demolition and
clearance of the existing two unit structure and conveyance
of the property to the adjoining property owners to reduce
overcrowding. The property is located at 122 Smith St.
(Parcel # 33-01-01-21-381-061), more specifically described
as:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES `'i i February 1, 2005 Page 4
W% of lot 7 of Block 17 of Park Place Subdivision,
City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
The area is characterized by small lots and the properties
along Coleman Avenue are some of the smallest parcels in
the City (55 feet in depth). The widths range from 31 to 49
feet. The depth of these four parcels would increase by
approximately 27.5 feet as a result of the proposal. The
acquisition of the duplex at 122 Smith is critical to increasing
the depth of these lots.
The subject property has a two unit structure that was built in
1912. It is zoned "C" residential, is currently vacant and red
tagged, and has a shared driveway to the east. The
property has been vacant for more than a year. It is
structurally sound and was not recommended for demolition.
Since the property was vacant, the City asked the Greater
Lansing Housing Coalition to purchase the property to
secure ownership. The GLHC has an accepted offer to
purchase it for approximately $42,000. The cost of razing
the structure is an estimated $5,000 to $10,000.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has stated
that the structure is a "contributing" historical resource
located in a potential Historic District and if demolished,
would have an adverse effect. The Lansing Historic District
Commission has also reviewed the request and most of their
comments support the SHPO's position. The Development
Office has also considered either relocation of the structure
and rehabbing it as a one- or two-unit structure; or
rehabilitating the structure at the current site and reducing it
to a single family unit to reduce overcrowding. The Moores
Park Neighborhood Organization opposes the rehabilitation
of the structure in its current location.
Staff recommended rehabilitating the house in place, and
splitting off a portion of the back yard for open space and/or
parking, based on the fact that the density could be reduced
somewhat, and the costs recovered by the renovation and
resale of the house for single-family owner occupancy.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval to
authorize the City to acquire and relocate or raze the
structure at 122 Smith Avenue, and to divide and resell the
property for combination with the adjacent properties at
1715, 1721, 1725 and 1727 Coleman Ave., respectively,
provided:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES " ��' `' � kFebruary 1, 2005 Page 5
1. Access easements be created as necessary across
the subject property to allow shared use of the subject
property by the adjacent Coleman Avenue properties;
2. Site plan/design review be required for the subject
property and its redevelopment;
3. Restrictive covenants or deed restrictions be placed
on the subject property to protect the community
character prior to resale;
4. Surveys be conducted of the subject property and
adjacent properties, for the redevelopment of the
subject property, the impact on shared driveway
arrangements, the alignment of the access
easements, lot splits, and the deed restrictions; and
5. Photographic recordation of the building be
undertaken in accordance with State Historic
Preservation Office guidelines prior to the demolition
of the structure.
Mr. Ruge asked if the motion was to sell the property to the
Coleman Street residents. Ms. Keene stated that the motion
was for the City of Lansing to acquire the property and then
to split the property so that the adjacent property owners will
have better access to their properties. Mr. Ruge asked
about the first paragraph of the motion and if the property
would be sold and not given away. He asked if anyone has
spoken with the residents about purchasing the property.
Mr. McConnell stated that the Lansing Housing Coalition has
an option on the property already and the City has had
discussions with the coalition about acquiring and
rehabilitating the property. The City would have the property
and then sell it. Ms. Keene stated that this was one of the
options and that there was no discussion about dollars. She
stated that may be a consideration but she did not believe it
would be a whole lot of money. Mr. Ruge stated that it
would be approximately $40,000 to purchase the property
and an additional $5,000 to $10,000 to raze the building. He
was talking about dividing the cost among the four
properties. Ms. Keene stated that her understanding was
that the residents would not be responsible for the $40,000.
She was looking at the value of the land once the home was
demolished, and that it probably would not be worth a whole
lot. It would then be a vacant lot. Mr. Rieske stated that the
idea of full cost recovery is not included in this option. This
option includes acquiring and reselling the property. He
stated that what this means is market for sale to the adjacent
property owners. The price is set by City Council and there
is a limit to the amount of negotiation that the Planning
11
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 6
Office can do without City Council authorization. He stated
that the idea is to change the fair market value for its use as
back yards. There would not be a great amount of land
value per property owner. He stated that the cost recovery
angle is sacrificed by this option and was included in the
findings. Ms. Foster stated that basically the City is just
helping with all of the crowding in this area. Mr. Rieske
stated the idea was to benefit and make more marketable
and usable the four pieces of property by acquiring the one
as opposed to having the same problem and trying to make
changes to all four properties. What can be done is to make
minor changes to all four properties by acquiring and
relocating or razing the structure.
Mr. Hollister asked what would happen if the first property
owner would purchase a portion of the property and the
other three residents did not purchase a portion of the
property. Then there would be the City property and the
property that is land locked. Mr. Rieske stated that a lot of
this needs to be resolved and that the Planning Office needs
authorization from City Council to do this. The ACT 285
review needs to go before City Council in order to receive
the authorization from Council. He stated that without
acquiring the property, this particular item cannot happen.
Mr. Ruge stated that the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition
owns the property and the City of Lansing gives them a lot of
money to rehabilitate houses. This house needs a lot of
rehabilitation and if it were kept, it would probably take
$60,000 to $80,000 to rehabilitate the house for resale. He
stated that either way, the City is putting a lot of money into
this property.
Mr. Ruge asked for clarification of the access easements.
Mr. Rieske stated that there are shared driveways and in
one case there is no driveway on Coleman Avenue. By
acquiring the property, there is an alley running east and
west at the rear of this property which is approximately 150
feet deep. There is access through this alley and it could
come down to providing access to parking for the other
parcels. He stated that an alley could be run through there.
Ms. Bruch stated that one could tell from the front that the
homes are so tight and that if there was alley access, it
would help a lot with these properties. Mr. Rieske stated
that part of the overcrowding problem has to do with parking.
Currently, this is a vacant two-family structure sharing a
driveway with an occupied two-family structure. By
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 7
removing this particular piece of property, you get rid of the
vehicles related to this property. There are other properties
along Coleman Avenue that do not have enough driveway
and yard space for cars. He stated that cars take up more
space than what people do. By dealing with this particular
piece of property and adding these easements, off-street
parking can be provided because it is currently in very short
supply. Ms. Bruch stated that in the long run, it is an
improvement for each one of the properties.
Ms. Shirley Murray, representative of Moores Park
Neighborhood Organization and MPROVE, stated that
this group requested the City of Lansing purchase 122 Smith
Avenue and demolish the home. The organization actually
requested this same thing from the City approximately 15
years ago. At that time, Mr. Emil Winnicker (Development
Office Manager) explained that with residents in the
property, the cost of relocating those people really made the
situation prohibitive. To relocate people living at this
residence is a big expense. When the property became
vacant and red tagged two years ago, the organization again
asked that the City purchase the property and demolish the
home. Besides the overcrowding, this property has a long
standing history of being a problem house in the
neighborhood. She stated that this house is two feet from
the fence of the house located next door. Hopefully the
Board will feel better about spending money on this property.
She stated that the organization believes with the house
demolished, the neighborhood's chances of retaining those
homes on Coleman Avenue as private residences would go
up 200 percent. If the house is not demolished, when the
properties on Coleman Avenue become for sale, the
chances of hoping for a home buyer are very slim. There is
room for only one vehicle and this is all that the residents
have. In this day and age, one cannot hope to sell much of
a house to a homeowner if there is room for only one
vehicle.
She stated that the organization is trying to improve the
neighborhood and bring in homeowners. The organization
believes that by demolishing the home, it will make a huge
difference in the stability of this neighborhood.
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to approve ACT-17-2004, 122
Smith Street, Acquisition and Demolition of Duplex.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES U February 1, 2005 Page 8
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
b. ACT-18-2004, South side of E. Michigan Avenue,
between Cedar & Larch, Public Sale of City Property
This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of
Planning and Neighborhood Development to sell the
property located on the south side of E. Michigan Avenue,
between Cedar & Larch Streets, more specifically described
as:
Lots 1 through 23 and Lots 26, 27 and the vacated
alley adjacent thereto, Ranney's Subdivision of Lot 1,
Block 241; and the north % of the east 'z and the
south % of the east 132 feet of Lot 2, Block 241,
Original Plat.
The Future Land Use Map for the Central Lansing
Comprehensive Plan, 1999 designates this property for
"General Commerce". The mixture of uses meets the basic
intent of the Plan and would strengthen the linkage between
the entertainment related businesses along Michigan Ave. to
the east with those to the west along Michigan and
Washington Avenues.
This proposal provides a uniform development pattern along
the entire E. Michigan Avenue block face, which is effective
in linking the entertainment activities with the Central
Business District to the west, and project a much more
cohesive neo-traditional motif than if the project only
extended along a portion of the block.
Staff recommended approval of ACT-18-2004, South side of
E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Public Sale of
City Property with the following conditions:
1. the location, character and extent of the proposal are
consistent with the "General Commerce" land use and
design recommendations in the Central Lansing
Comprehensive Plan;
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 9
2. efficient use of the current City parking lots (15 and
15-A) will accommodate the development and its
parking needs;
3. there is sufficient public parking within a reasonable
distance to satisfy the added parking demand during
stadium events;
4. legal issues (including easements and the use of Lots
15 and 15-A for stadium parking) would need to be
resolved; and
5. a portion of the property was donated to the City for
the betterment of Ranney Park, and although this
portion is not dedicated parkland, satisfying the intent
of this donation would need to be resolved.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
with the following conditions:
1. Adequate parking be provided on-site and on Lot 15-
A to meet the parking needs of the proposed
development and evening use by neighboring
businesses;
2. The legal issues (including parking arrangements with
Olds Park and utility easements) involving the use of
Lot 15 be resolved to the extent that use of the site for
the proposed development can occur; and
3. The City's obligations be observed relating to the
section of property donated to the City for the
intended benefit of Ranney Park;
and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Mr. Hollister asked if there has been any negotiations with
Take Me Out To The Ball Park regarding the parking issue.
Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office is working with the
City Attorney on this issue and that he is not sure exactly
whether those negotiations have taken place. He stated that
the Lugnuts are on record with support letters. Mr. Hollister
stated that was the Lugnuts manager but not the owner. Mr.
Rieske stated that this is something that will still need to take
place. He stated that this would need to be resolved prior to
City Council approval of a resolution.
Mr. Ruge stated that he is concerned with the parking lot in
the back. The City has been working towards getting the
parking lots to be cooler. He stated that there should be
some kind of a requirement for trees to be in the parking lot
and that this would lessen the amount of parking spaces
there would be. Ms. Bruch stated that currently there is a
parking ordinance and that the applicant would have to add
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 10
trees. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant does not
have to add trees and that the ordinance has not been
passed on by the Board. Ms. Bruch stated that the Board
definitely needs to get these ordinances passed. Mr. Ruge
stated that he would like to see some trees added to cool
down the parking lot during the summer.
Mr. Gillespie stated that he is concerned with this because
there are trees along Larch Street. If he is required to add
trees, he may have to come back with a variance because
with this parking structure it would be difficult to add trees
there. He is not sure if it would be better to make that a
requirement or a recommendation based on a surface lot
requiring trees. He stated that it would be difficult to add
trees in a parking structure.
Ms. Bruch asked about a parking structure versus a parking
lot, and what would be the determining factor with whether
or not it is built. Mr. Gillespie stated that he is currently
working with Mr. Ruff and that they meet every other week.
They are reviewing the parking needs of the City. He would
like to see a parking ramp at this location for retail users,
(i.e. Lugnuts and the Nut House, Rum Runners). Currently,
the City is still determining whether a parking ramp is
needed. He thinks that the City is leaning towards not
needing another ramp with all the other parking lots
surrounding the area and with what the new Boji ramp is
going to do to permit parking with the lot kitty corner from the
community library. When he meets with Mr. Ruff every other
week, he kindly reminds Mr. Ruff that he would love to have
a ramp at this location. Ms. Bruch stated that it is not his
issue but more the City's issue in determining the parking
situation. Mr. Gillespie agreed. Ms. Bruch stated that she
would like to see a parking ramp at this location because
she would like to see the green space. She does not like the
idea of the area in the back being all parking. She stated
that it would be a very poor idea when it comes to design
especially when there are residences here. Where are the
little kids to play? She stated that if there was a park in the
center area, it would be large enough and sheltered. She
would like to see the green space at this location. Mr.
Gillespie stated that he has worked on this plan over the
past few weeks when the architect was in town and after
reviewing it, it would be almost impossible to accommodate
a green space. If one looks at the size of the green space
currently showing on the site plan, it is really unusable. He
stated that developments like this do not encourage the kids.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 11
It would be more like Cooley Law School professors, MSU
students, and Sparrow Hospital workers. He does not
believe that there would be very many children at all. The
development will have some space on every hall way that
has either a workout facility or a common area. Most urban
developments like this that he has studied in Memphis,
Milwaukee, Akron, Atlanta do not offer an on-site park. The
residents would go to a local city park or use a local area.
He stated that a 4 or 5 acre urban development or even less
in this case is really not standard. The little piece of green
space looks nice on an aerial photo but when it is
surrounded by cars, he would not want his three children
playing that close to the bumpers of cars. He does not
believe that this would be a safe place for children. Ms.
Bruch stated that she would like to disagree on that and
pending the design of the green space and if there is a
parking ramp at this location, some of the parking spaces
could be reserved for this development. In this case, the
development would not need that many parking spaces.
She stated that it would be a sea of asphalt which would not
be very pleasing for any of the residents. She believes that
the developer would get more money out of those lofts if
there is actually a nice spot to look down upon, even if it is
just trees or some picnic tables so that the law school
students can go out there on a nice day and study. Mr.
Gillespie stated that a new site plan has been laid out and it
encompasses the entire area. The entire area is needed for
parking. There are more trees on the new site plan. He
stated that there is berming, a green space and trees but it is
not a big open park. It is not real usable but it is an urban
development on Michigan Avenue, Cedar and Larch Streets
where 37,000 cars a day pass through this area. He is not
sure how practical a park would be at this location. Ms.
Bruch stated that even as a Cooley Law School student, she
would want to have just a little place where she could go out
and study in the sun. If there is a parking deck at this
location, then why cannot some of the parking be shared so
that someone is not forced to have all the parking for the
development at this location rather than the parking deck?
Mr. Rieske stated that the Planning Office could continue to
work with the developer and handle this through the site plan
review process. The aspect of a parking deck is bond
financed or parking fund financed. He stated that there
needs to be a revenue stream and the revenue stream
needs to fit the cost of the proposal. There are a lot of
details that still need to be completed on the parking
structure and those are coloring the discussion about
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 12
whether or not to place a ramp at this location. He stated
that if the final decision is a surfaced lot and if the City can
incorporate green space at this location, then the Planning
Office would work with the developer on getting this done.
Ms. Bruch stated that little pocket parks are incredibly
important for the residents. No matter how small the green
space is, it is amazing how well these areas get used. By
placing a picnic table outdoors, people would go outdoors
and have lunch. There are some fast food business there
where residents could grab some food on a nice day and eat
outdoors. She does not want to give up the green space
and say it would be better for cars. This is an urban
development and the goal is to entice people to this area.
She stated that more people would be enticed if there was
some green space in this area than to have places for their
vehicles. Ms. Cordill stated that this reminds her of a
reverse courtyard apartment building which are pretty
common in Chicago. It is a U-shaped building and there is a
courtyard landscaped area. Typically, these are bold to the
property line and beside the sidewalk. She stated that it is a
nice feature.
Mr. Gillespie stated that he would ask that the Board
encourage the developer to maintain green space in the
development since the plan is evolving and changing. The
development has an Italian bakery, Starbucks, and three
other restaurants who are currently looking. They were
encouraged to live, study and sit on Michigan Avenue.
There are seasonal tables on Michigan Avenue for the
students use so that it looks alive and vibrant so that the
people up above can have their windows open and it looks
like a live development. He does not want people to hide in
the parking lot. He stated that they would encourage
residents to the front of the development to enjoy the trees
and the benches that will be placed at this location.
Mr. Gillespie stated that the new plan does have berming of
green space where there can be park benches. He stated
that the current plan does not work with the green space.
Mr. Ruge inquired about the new plan and if there was one
available for the Board to review. Mr. Gillespie stated that
when he met with Mr. Ruff the last time, he said not to
confuse the issue. Everything is so preliminary and that it is
not dramatically different. The new plan is a little different
depending on the parking ramp structure.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 13
Mr. Ruge stated that he would like to see some trees at this
location to cool down the parking lot. He inquired about how
to work this out to give Mr. Gillespie the flexibility that is
needed because it is unsure how much parking would be
needed. Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to have some
language so that the strips between the parking spaces be a
minimum of 20 feet wide rather than the typical 10 feet. Mr.
Gillespie stated that this is an early preview and that the
request still has to go before the Board for final approval.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that is does not go before the Board
for final approval. Mr. Rieske stated that the request will go
to City Council. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the final site
plan is approved administratively.
Mr. Rieske stated that it can be recommended in the motion
that the Board further recommends that the developer work
to maximize green space with amenities and then list those
that might be possible with the realization that if it cannot be
afforded then it cannot be done. Secondly, if there is no
space it cannot be done because if necessary parking is
eliminated in order to get green space, it would require rent
parking. This would increase the cost tremendously and the
cash flow required to support that cost. As a practical
matter, if the City can arrive at some language to further
recommend amenities (i.e. green space) in the back and
front, and recognizing the developer's desire to have the
activity pushed more to the front of the building, this would
be helpful in terms of direction with the site plan review but it
would also provide some flexibility on how to accomplish
this. Ms. Bruch stated that it looks like the City is headed for
the parking deck and she believes that everything would be
aided by this. She asked if this would be a City ramp or a
private ramp. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it would be a City
ramp. Ms. Bruch asked if the City could make an agreement
for the developer to give up 30 spaces to construct the green
space. She asked if part of the parking deck could dedicate
30 spaces to this development. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
she cannot see the Transportation and Parking Office
trading parking ramp parking spaces for green space. Ms.
Bruch stated that it is valuable for the City and for the health
of this development. Mr. McConnell stated that everyone
would like as much green space as possible. One of the
main issues with this development was the parking issues
and having enough parking for the development as well as
other business and with Take Me Out To The Ball Park. He
stated that with someone compensating the Parks
Department for loss revenue for the donated land, revenue
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 14
for parking is a preeminent factor in this case over more
green space. He stated that having some language that
encourages green space as much as possible but not hand
cuffing the developer to have this little park or the
development cannot be done. This would be negative to the
development. He stated that this would be a good
development on Michigan Avenue. Ms. Stachowiak stated
that there is a huge area of green space that belongs to
Board of Water and Light. Ms. Foster asked about
amenities. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there are no picnic
tables at this location but there are benches along Cedar
Street. Ms. Foster asked about having a pathway from the
development to the green space so that people can use it.
Mr. Hollister stated that the current area is a big berm.
Ms. Keene stated she agrees with the green space and she
understands that the development needs to have parking
spaces. There is something that needs to be said for the
aesthetics and adding a park in this area would break up
some of the sea of asphalt. She is hopeful that the
developer can find a way to work it out and if the developer
wants to, there could be some type of resolution to
accommodate this. Mr. Gillespie stated that Arbaugh project
has all asphalt and building. He would like to add trees and
a beautiful structure on Michigan Avenue as the entrance to
the capital. This is the market that he wants and he is trying
to enhance what is at this location. The development is
connecting pedestrians to the downtown. Ms. Bruch stated
that she would really like to see the green space. The
development does require a certain amount of parking
spaces with a parking deck next door. The parking deck
may lay empty for a good portion of the time depending on
whatever activities are going on in the area. Mr. Ruge
stated that there is potential for the parking deck. Ms. Bruch
stated that currently there is a surfaced lot and she inquired
about who owned the lot. Mr. Gillepsie stated that the City
owns the lot. Ms. Bruch asked if there was any way that
there could be an agreement so that some of the spaces can
be used by the development. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
she is not sure. Mr. Bruch stated that she would like to be
sure that this option could be explored. Mr. Hollister stated if
someone is going east on Michigan Avenue the park would
not be seen. The only time that the park would be seen is if
someone was traveling northbound on Larch Street. Ms.
Bruch stated that this park would only be for the residents.
Mr. Hollister stated that there would also be a ball park
across the street and the fountain. He stated that he is all
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 15
for the green space but from a practical standpoint he is not
sure how this would work without forcing the City into a
major expenditure. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City
would not feel that the reason for building a parking lot is so
that this area could be green space. She stated that the
purpose for building the parking ramp is because it is
needed and would have nothing to do with green space. Mr.
Rieske stated that if a parking ramp becomes necessary, it
can be designed to incorporate green space, but the green
space would not be the determining factor. If it has to be a
surface parking lot, the green space would have to be
sacrificed. If it can be a parking ramp, then there would be
more flexibility in terms of the use of the square footage that
would be available. In this case, then there would be more
flexibility on what can be done with it. The design of this
development is intended to look good. Ms. Bruch stated that
it is a really good development and that she likes it a lot.
She does not want to see that area become a sea of
asphalt. Mr. Rieske stated that he would forward this to Mr.
Ruff and get settled with some language. Ms. Bruch stated
that is what needs to be done so that this does not become
a sea of asphalt and that it actually is broken up. If the list of
amenities was added, she is not sure what would be a
minimum width. She stated that if there are parking spaces,
usually the in-between isles have 10 feet of green space
where trees can be added. She asked if maybe the area
that faces the opening can be 15 to 20 feet wide so that it
incorporates a wider avenue of trees and could be used for a
couple of benches. If the whole area needs to be used for
parking, she would like to see the center aisle a minimum of
20 feet wide for trees to be added, benches to be
incorporated and a pedestrian walkway added. This would
allow a link to the back. Mr. Ruge asked if there would be
one row of trees and green space in the parking lot. Ms.
Bruch stated not just one row of trees but down through the
middle area where people can walk to their cars and have
the green space aisle be at least a minimum of 20 feet wide.
She stated that this would enhance the development as well.
This could be accommodated and still allow most of the
parking spaces that are needed for this development. Mr.
McConnell inquired about the number of parking spaces for
this development and if it has been determined. Ms.
Stachowiak and Mr. Rieske stated that it has not been
determined. Mr. McConnell asked why the Board is trying to
put a park in the back of this development when the specific
number of parking spaces has not been determined. Ms.
Bruch stated that the Board is not sure if this area could
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 16
even hold all of the required parking spaces. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that this area cannot hold all of the
spaces. Mr. McConnell stated that any green space that is
being proposed would limit parking even more. Ms. Bruch
stated that this area cannot accommodate all the required
parking spaces. Ms. Stachowiak stated that based on the
number of units that a certain number of parking spaces are
going to be needed. Mr. Gillespie stated that the horse shoe
area in the middle will be one covered parking spot per
residential unit. Every residential unit whether it is an
apartment or a condo will have one covered parking spot
within the horse shoe. He stated that the surface lot or
tentative parking ramp will be the overflow for a secondary
car for the residential and for the office/retail/restaurant
users who will be at this location. This is what has been
determined. He asked for some flexibility and that
mandating a 20 foot strip would have severe implications.
Ms. Bruch asked about how many parking spaces are
required to cover all the residents. Mr. Gillespie stated that it
depends on the number of residences that are developed. If
there are anywhere from 78 to 92 units, it would depend on
the number of bedrooms in each unit. Ms. Bruch asked if 92
parking spaces would fit in this horse shoe area. Mr.
Gillespie stated that 92 parking spaces do fit in this area.
Ms. Bruch asked what the layout would be. Mr. Gillespie
stated that it is the new layout as discussed with Mr. Ruff.
There is some green space but there is not a park or a 20
foot area. He stated that there are other areas that have
trees and green space. He asked the Board not to mandate
a 20 foot island because he would not be able to achieve
this. He would like to maximize the trees somehow.
Mr. Ruge asked if Mr. Gillespie could describe the number of
trees and how large the bases for each tree would be. Mr.
Gillespie stated that there will be trees in parking berms and
in areas that would shield the parking from Larch Street. He
hopes to maintain the entire berm along Larch Street with
those trees. He stated that this is conceptual and cannot be
taken to the next level until it is approved. This is all that he
has. Mr. Ruge asked if trees would be in the parking lot or
around the parking lot. Mr. Gillespie stated that the trees
would be around the parking lot.
Mr. Gillespie stated that after studying the Grand Rapids and
Chicago areas, there are parks down the street that
residents can use. If all of the urban developments that
were planned were mandated to have green spaces, buffers
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 17
or large parks, it would not happen. He stated that parking
drives all urban developments and that the vehicles are the
driving force in development and planning.
Mr. Ruge asked about parking lot standards. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that the requirement is 9 feet wide by
18.5 feet. The standard requirement for a parking lot is 60
feet. Ms. Bruch stated that usually there is a 60 foot bay and
a 10 foot strip. This would allow trees in the middle. If there
is not enough space to do the 60 foot bay, then the
development would lose a couple of parking spaces and
trees would be added. She stated that this would be a way
to incorporate trees within the parking spaces. Then it would
be a sea of asphalt. She stated that it would be healthier to
the trees to have a long 10 foot strip because there would be
more soil and water retention.
Mr. Hollister asked about covered parking. Mr. Gillespie
stated that with the current plan, there is one covered
parking spot. Angled parking was added to the 18 foot that
covered the entire perimeter of the site. The inner circle
would have covered parking also. The intent was to sell the
21 condominiums on the top floor and then work the way
down to the apartments. He stated that there is a market for
21 condominiums and once the market is absorbed at the
top, he would like to keep selling them as condominiums.
There has to be covered parking and it has to be in the
horse shoe rather than a ramp. This is the goal and that is
where some of the green space in the middle is lost in trying
to achieve at least one covered parking space per unit. Mr.
Hollister stated that it would not be a sea of asphalt. Ms.
Bruch stated that it would be a sea of roofing which means
there is even less places for green space. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that trees could not be added if there are going to be
canopies over the parking area.
Mr. Rieske asked if there was a way to add that the Board
further recommends and indicate the green space and
amenities. Include this in the motion and act on the motion.
Then set up a meeting regarding the site plan with interested
parties, Mr. Ruff and the developer to go over these things to
make sure that the thoughts are actually being entertained.
In the mean time what happens is the proposal moves on as
this is a time sensitive proposal. Mr. Rieske asked if this
was in the public interest to sell this property and have the
legalities been pointed out (i.e. Ranney Park, Take Me Out
To The Ball Game, easements) so that they can be dealt
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 18
with. Mr. Hollister stated that there are enough issues. Mr.
Rieske stated that this is a complicated proposal. Ms. Bruch
stated that if the 78 minimum was considered, then there
would be plenty of spaces for trees. If the maximum of 92
was considered, then there would be a lot less options.
Mr. Rieske stated that Mr. Ruff is a landscape architect and
that he is trained in these issues. He suggested that the
Board state its concerns, vote on the proposal and move on.
Mr. Hollister stated that the Board should not put in minimal
requirements because it could be that there would be 4 and
not 5 and then it dies. Mr. McConnell agreed. Mr. Hollister
stated that he does not want to see this happen. He stated
that it would be better to maximize green space to the extent
possible and that is all that the Board can do.
Mr. McConnell asked for a friendly amendment to ask the
developer to maximize the green space. Ms. Keene
accepted the friendly amendment and added that the Board
strongly recommends that the developer and the Planning
staff maximize the green space.
Ms. Bruch stated that she would like some assurance that
something would be planted that will actually cool down the
parking lot.
Mr. McConnell asked for a friendly amendment to the
amendment. He stated that the Board strongly recommends
that the developer maximize the green space in the back
and specifically, if nothing else, to plant trees around the
perimeter. Mr. Ruge suggested that the language say that
the trees be placed somewhere on the property like one tree
every ten spaces or every twenty spaces. This would allow
the developer to place them wherever they can be squeezed
in. Ms. Bruch stated that she would go with the typical
parking requirements. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is
no typical parking requirement and that she has researched
it at length. Each community is different. Ms. Bruch stated
that there would be 90 parking spaces and maybe the Board
can say one every ten spaces. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
would be nine trees. Mr. Hollister asked about the developer
only being able to plant eight trees. Ms. Stachowiak asked
Mr. Gillespie if he would be able to plant nine trees on the
property. Mr. Gillespie stated that if he does a 380 car
parking ramp, he could probably plant nine trees. Mr. Ruge
stated that the tree requirement should be limited to one tree
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 19
for every ten spaces of surface parking. If a ramp is
constructed, then it would be buffered somehow. Ms. Bruch
asked if this would include the street trees that are already
required. Ms. Stachowiak stated that street trees are totally
different and are in addition to this requirement.
Ms. Stachowiak asked Mr. McConnell if he would accept one
tree for each ten surface parking spaces. Mr. Gillespie
stated that if it is 9 to 10 trees, he would find a way to do it.
If he can do more then he will do more. Mr. McConnell
accepted the amendment. Mr. Gillespie stated that he will
own it, maintain it and manage it and he wants his
customers to be happy at this location. He may go over the
Board's limit but he does not want to be limited to where he
has to place the trees.
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to approve ACT-18-2004,
South side of E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Public Sale of City
Property with the following conditions: 1) Adequate parking be provided on-site
and on Lot 15-A to meet the parking needs of the proposed development and
evening use by neighboring businesses; 2) The legal issues (including parking
arrangements with Olds Park and utility easements) involving the use of Lot 15 be
resolved to the extent that use of the site for the proposed development can
occur; 3) The City's obligations be observed relating to the section of property
donated to the City for the intended benefit of Ranney Park; and 4) That green
space be maximized to the greatest extent possible, with a minimum of one tree
for every 10 surface parking spaces.
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
C. ACT-19-2004, St. Joseph Street between Grand &
Cherry, Vacation of Street Right-of-way
This is a request by Kerr House LLC that the City vacate an
82.5' x 330' segment of the St. Joseph St. right-of-way,
between Grand Ave. and Cherry St., to facilitate the
construction of a 17 unit owner-occupied townhouse
development. The development would be located at the
northwest corner of Grand Ave. and St. Joe, and extend
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 20
eastward to Cherry Street. The development site is adjacent
to, but not within, the Cherry Hill Historic District.
A historic structure, known as the Kerr house, would be
repaired and serve as a central feature of the development.
The architecture would be compatible with the era in which
the neighborhood was originally constructed.
Vacating the street would facilitate the creation of a more
intimate residential living environment through the provision
of narrower streets and more landscaping than could
otherwise be allowed on the existing public street. The
proposed vacation of right-of-way, together with the
proposed project it would serve are considered to be
consistent with the Plan with respect to the location,
character, and extent of the proposal, with conditions.
The State of Michigan owns a portion of the land adjoining
the segment to be vacated, some of the vacated right-of-way
would be conveyed to the State. The manner in which the
right-of-way is to be conveyed does not quite meet the
desires of the State or the developer, however. As a result,
it was agreed to trade of some land pursuant to vacating the
right-of-way. The City would retain a utility easement within
the vacated area to maintain the existing storm/sanitary
sewer line and any new facilities associated with the
separation of the two systems.
Staff recommended approval of ACT-19-2004, St. Joseph
Street between Grand & Cherry, Vacation of Street Right-of-
way with the following conditions:
1. The subject segment of E. St. Joseph carries no
through traffic, and its vacation would affect the
abutting properties only;
2. The applicant owns all abutting properties to the
north;
3. The development proposed by the applicant is in
keeping with the Central Lansing Comprehensive
Plan; and
4. Vacating the street would facilitate the creation of a
more intimate residential living environment through
the provision of narrower streets and more
landscaping than could otherwise be allowed on the
existing public street.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
with the following conditions:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 21
1. Easements be retained by the City for maintenance of
and improvements to existing utility and sidewalk
facilities,
2. A land exchange be executed in the manner
described in the survey prepared by Fitzgerald Henne
& Associates Inc. dated 12/09/04, subject to
Department of Public Service approval; and
3. The vacated right-of-way be retained by the applicant
and the adjoining parcels to the north be combined.
Mr. Ruge asked about the style of the houses. There were
some pictures in the packet that showed the character of the
homes during that era.
Ms. Bruch asked about buffering and she stated that the
house at the northwest corner of the site was not protected.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that there may be something that
could be done.
Ms. Bruch stated that there is a house located to the north of
the site that is abutting the driveway of the entire
development. She would like to see a small fence there to
separate the homes. She suggested adding more trees on
the interior of the site to bring more shade to the area.
Ms. Keene asked if this is a site plan review issue. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that it could be done as a friendly
amendment. Ms. Bruch stated that she would like to add a
friendly amendment to add a minimum of six trees on the
interior of the site and more, if possible, and include more
buffering along the south side of the house on the northwest
corner of the site. The amendment was accepted.
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill, to approve ACT-19-2004, St.
Joseph Street between Grand & Cherry, Vacation of Street Right-of-way with the
following conditions: 1) Easements be retained by the City for maintenance of
and improvements to existing utility and sidewalk facilities; 2) A land exchange
be executed in the manner described in the survey prepared by Fitzgerald Henne
& Associates Inc. dated 12/09/04, subject to Department of Public Service
approval; 3) The vacated right-of-way be retained by the applicant and the
adjoining parcels to the north be combined; 4) At least 6 trees be added to the
interior of the site; and 5) Additional buffering be added along the south side of
the house at the northwest corner of the site.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 22
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . Ave
McConnell . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
d. Five-Year Consolidated Plan, 2005-2010 - Proposed
funding allocations for FY 2006 (7/1/05-6/30/06)
The Planning Board held a public hearing regarding this item
on January 4, 2005, at which ten (10) persons spoke,
representing various organizations requesting funding and
support.
Federal budget cuts have caused the City to receive
reduced funding this year. HOME funds have been cut
slightly, the CDBG program was reduced by approximately
$100,000, the ESG experienced slight decreases, and the
American Dream Down Payment Initiative funding was
eliminated altogether. The City absorbed these cuts by
reducing administration, housing rehabilitation, and public
improvements. Aggregate funding for grantees such as
CHDOs, CDCs and shelter providers has remained fairly
stable this year. No new funds are devoted to public
improvements this year because money remains available
from the last program year.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed funding
allocations for FY 2006.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously, (3-0).
Mr. Hollister recused himself from this case and the duration
of the meeting. He stated that Habitat for Humanity is one of
the potential recipients.
Mr. Ruge asked where in the budget the Smith Street house
would fall. Ms. Boone stated that it would be a part of the
City's Community Housing Development Organization Set
Aside under Proposed Home Program Activities And Use of
Funds found on page 2.
Ms. Bruch stated that she was a little disappointed that there
are zero dollars for public improvements. If the City does
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 23
not keep making improvements then things will continue to
deteriorate. Ms. Boone stated that the City has unexpended
funds from this year that will carry the City through the year.
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to approve Five-Year
Consolidated Plan, 2005-2010 - Proposed funding allocations for FY 2006 (7/1/05-
6/30/06).
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Bruch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Keene. . . Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Next meeting, Tuesday, February 22, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None.
C. Report from Planning Manager— None.
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business
District(Tabled February 11, 1998)
b. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N.Grand River Ave., Church in the"F Commercial District&
"J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW(Tabled
June 27,2000)
b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
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
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)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 24
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. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed
(August 3,2004)
j. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5,2004)
k. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004)
I. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road& Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of
the tracks-area becoming garbage dump(November 16,2004)
M. Turner Street—first floor residence(December 2004)
8. NEW BUSINESS — None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Ruge stated that he has been pushing for the Board to be involved with site
plan review for a long time and he believes that it would benefit from the Board's
oversight and input. Ms. Bruch agreed and because the Board was involved with
the parking issues of the one development, the applicant was able to have the
parking redesigned and it was even better. She stated that she is not sure how
many site plans are processed. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would get the
numbers of how many were processed in 2004. Mr. Ruge stated that the Board
did not have to do every single site plan but maybe certain ones. Ms. Bruch
suggested that the Board review the multiple development site plans.
Ms. Cordill stated that a few years back the Frandor Shopping Center received a
face lift and she mentioned that it was a missed opportunity to define the parking.
When she was bringing her kids back from sledding on Sunday, there was
someone driving in her lane opposing traffic. Part of this is because the parking
lot is not defined let alone having trees or grass. She asked what happened with
this. Mr. Ruge stated that the City had an opportunity to do something about it
but it was not done. Ms. Cordill stated that it is a free for all in some areas.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Ms. Cordill stated that in the commercial district near Durant Park close to
Seymour Street, possibly 727 N. Seymour, there is a little cafe that looks like it
recently opened but it has a tacky sign in the right-of-way. Mr. Ruge stated that
the owner would need a permit for the sign. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City
would not allow this type of a sign in this district. Ms. Cordill stated that it
probably is a visibility issue because it is tucked in on the side street.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2005 Page 25
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.020105.doc
APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk January 24,2005
PG 1,under Communications,"Abraugh"s/b"Arbaugh" Approved February 1,2005
To Clerk February 3,2005
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair.
A. Roll call: Present: Ruge, Keene, Cordill, McConnell, Czekai, Hollister.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Boone, Witherspoon.
C. Excused absences: Frederick, Bruch.
D. Absent: None.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused
absence request from Ms. Bruch for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (6-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the agenda. On
a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Abraugh Arbaugh-Mutual Historic Building District Study Committee
Preliminary Reports
B. Letter of opposition regarding PRD-1-2004
4. HEARINGS — None.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Cordill closed the public
comment period.
6. RECESS was not taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 18, 2005 Page 2
A. Minutes for Approval — January 4, 2005
Mr. McConnell moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of
January 4, 2005 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (6-0). The minutes of January 4, 2005 were
APPROVED w/corrections.
Pg. 4, 4t" para., first line, replace "Vandebunte" with "Vander Galien".
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Ms. Stachowiak, Staff
a. PRD-1-2004, Planned Residential Development,
Proposed "Morgan Hill" Site Condominiums
This is a request by Eric Stevenson for approval of a
Planned Residential Development on a 1.875 acre parcel
located at the east end of Larrabee Drive. The applicant
proposes to construct 6 detached, single family, residential
site condominium units on the subject property.
Staff recommended approval of PRD-1-2004, Planned
Residential Development, Proposed "Morgan Hill" Site
Condominiums with the following conditions:
1. The applicant preserve as many of the existing trees
as possible particularly along the rear lot line;
2. The houses be of varying architectural design; and
3. That the storm sewer main be extended as described
by the Public Service Department and that a proper
storm water management plan be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineers.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
with the following conditions:
1. The applicant preserve as many of the existing trees
as possible particularly along the rear lot line;
2. The houses be of varying architectural designs;
3. That the storm sewer main be extended as described
by the Public Service Department and that a proper
storm water management plan be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineers;
4. That the applicant plant trees at the back of the
property to fill in the tree line;
5. That no snout houses be constructed on the
development; and
6. That the road and cul-de-sac be constructed to City
standards;
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 18, 2005 Page 3
and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Mr. Ruge requested a friendly amendment to confirm that
the front doors will face the street.
Ms. Cordill had concerns with the attached garages and that
they play a subordinate role in the design of the houses.
She stated that there was an indication in the plans for 2 to 3
bedroom houses and that the marketability would be higher
for a 3 bedroom house. The setback lines of the properties
to the south show 30 feet in the report. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that the minimum requirement is 30 feet. Ms. Cordill
stated that the report did not actually indicate how far the
houses were from the property lines. Ms. Stachowiak stated
that the houses are a minimum of 60 feet from the property
lines.
Ms. Cordill stated that the lots were very long, some
averaging 168 feet. The shorter lots are 134 feet deep.
Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve PRD-1-2004,
Planned Residential Development, Proposed "Morgan Hill" Site Condominiums
with the following conditions: 1) The applicant preserve as many of the existing
trees as possible particularly along the rear lot line; 2) The houses be of varying
architectural designs; 3) That the storm sewer main be extended as described by
the Public Service Department and proper storm water management plan be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineers; 4) That the applicant plant
trees at the back of the property to fill in the tree line; 5) That no snout houses be
constructed on the development; 6) That the road and cul-de-sac be constructed
to City standards; and 7) That the front doors of the condominiums face the
street.
Ruge. . . Ave Keene. . . Ave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cordill. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
b. Z-18-2004, South of E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar
& Larch, Rezoning from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1"
Business District
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 18, 2005 Page 4
This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of
Planning & Neighborhood Development to rezone the
property located south of E. Michigan Avenue, between
Cedar and Larch Streets, more specifically described as:
Lots 20, 21, 22, 26, 27& the south % of the vacated
alley adjacent thereto, Ranney's Subdivision of Lot 1,
Block 241
from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District, for
the purpose of developing the property for mixed uses (i.e.
residential, office, commercial).
Staff recommended approval of Z-18-2004, South of E.
Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Rezoning from
"H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that in Committee, the request was
recommended for approval. However, it is requested that
this not be acted upon tonight by the Board. The Urban
Development Committee will act on the ACT 285 request
next week and the Committee would like the Board to
address both cases at the same time. She stated that both
cases are included in the same report and can be sent
together to City Council.
C. SLU-8-2004, South side of Edgewood Blvd., west of
Washington Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Planned
NHBD Convenience Retail Center
This is a request by Hicham Jadaoun for a Special Land Use
permit to develop a Planned Neighborhood Convenience
Retail Center on the vacant property located on the south
side of Edgewood Boulevard, approximately 340 feet west of
Washington Avenue. The applicant intends to construct a
25,200 square foot building that would include various retail,
office and personal service uses. All of the uses would be
focused towards providing commercial services to the
immediate neighborhood. The property is zoned "D-1"
Professional Office District which permits planned
neighborhood convenience retail centers, with a special land
use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council.
Staff recommended approval of SLU-8-2004, South side of
Edgewood Blvd., west of Washington Ave., Special Land
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 18, 2005 Page 5
Use Permit - Planned NHBD Convenience Retail Center with
the following conditions:
1. The buffer area along the north and west sides of the
site contain at least 5 shrubs, with a size of 24 inches
in height and spread at the time of planting, for each
20 linear feet of buffer area;
2. The buffer area along the north and west sides of the
site contain at least 1 tree, with a minimum size of 2
caliper inches at the time of planting, for each 30
linear feet of buffer area;
3. Interior parking lot landscaping and screening of
waste receptacles and utility facilities be providing
accordance with Section 1260.040) of the Zoning
Ordinance;
4. The site and building be redesigned to eliminate the
"strip mall" appearance;
5. The uses be limited to convenience/comparison retail
and office uses that are specifically focused toward
providing services to the immediate neighborhood;
and
6. The final site plan be approved by the Planning Board
after the applicant has satisfied all of the requirements
of the Public Service Department, Board of Water &
Light, Transportation Office, Fire Marshall and City
Forester.
In Committee, the request was tabled until the next meeting
on February 9, 2005, if the applicant has a revised plan
available. The Committee requested that the applicant
provide some locations of their existing businesses. The
owner currently owns a few Dollar stores located in Mason
and Eaton Rapids. The applicant made it clear that he is the
renter and not the owner of those properties.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the developer and manager of
the site owns a couple of properties, one located at 3340
Lake Lansing Road and one located at 2018 Cedar Street,
Holt.
The request was tabled to give Committee and Board
members an opportunity to view the properties, see how
they were constructed and how they are being maintained.
She stated that this project could have a significant impact
on the area.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 18, 2005 Page 6
d. SLU-9-2004, 900-928 S. Cedar Street, Special Land Use
Permit to construct a building in the 100 year floodplain
(Spartan Oil)
This is a request by Spartan Oil Corporation to construct in a
building in the 100 year floodplain at 900-928 S. Cedar
Street. The proposed building will replace the 3 buildings
that were destroyed during the fire of August 31, 2004. The
applicant will be required to secure a permit from the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality before any
building permits will be issued.
Staff recommends approval of the SLU-9-2004, Special
Land Use permit to construct an 8,000 square foot building
at 900-928 S. Cedar Review, within the 100 year floodplain
of the Red Cedar River with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with all requirements of the City Public
Service Department; and
2. Receipt of a permit from the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality authorizing the proposed
construction in the floodplain.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
with the following conditions:
1. That the building on the site comply with all
requirements of the City Public Service Department;
and
2. Receipt of a permit from the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality authorizing the proposed
construction in the floodplain;
and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to approve SLU-9-2004, 900-
928 S. Cedar Street, Special Land Use Permit to construct a building in the 100
year floodplain (Spartan Oil) with the following conditions: 1) That the building
on the site comply with all requirements of the City Public Service Department;
and 2) Receipt of a permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality authorizing the proposed construction in the floodplain.
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave
Cordill. . . Ave _McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 18, 2005 Page 7
e. Z-19-2004, 3831-3833 Moores River Drive, "A"
Residential District to "C" Residential District
This is a request by S. Richard Pearse to rezone the
property at 3831-3833 Moores River Drive, more specifically
described as:
Commencing 1221.7 feet North & 85 feet East of
West 114 Post Section 30, Thence East 426.5 feet,
North 123.75 feet, West 255.37 feet to proposed
Southeasterly right-of-way line of Moores River Drive,
South 53 degrees, 56 minutes, 24 seconds, West
211.13 feet to Beginning; Section 30 T4N R2W, City
of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District. The
purpose of the rezoning is to bring the use of the property as
a duplex into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff recommended denial of Z-19-2004, 3831-3833 Moores
River Drive, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District
based on the findings outlined in the staff report.
In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and
the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to deny Z-19-2004, 3831-3833
Moores River Drive, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District.
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
DENIED.
f. Z-20-2004, Vacant Lot, East of 701 Willoughby Road, "A"
Residential District to "C" Residential District
This is a request by Mark Conrad to rezone the vacant lot,
located directly east of 701 Willoughby Road, more
specifically described as:
Commencing 136 feet east of the southwest corner of
Section 10, T3N, RM thence north 161 feet, east
100 feet, south 161 feet, west 100 feet to beginning;
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 18, 2005 Page 8
Section 10 T3N R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham
County, Michigan
from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District for the
purpose of constructing a duplex on the subject property.
Staff recommended approval of Z-20-2004, Vacant Lot, East
of 701 Willoughby Road, "A" Residential District to "C"
Residential District.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve Z-20-2004, Vacant
Lot, East of 701 Willoughby Road, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential
District.
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene. . . Aye
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
Czekai. . . Aye Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Next meeting, Wednesday, February 9, 2005 at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Chair
Next meeting, Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None.
C. Report from Planning Manager— None.
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business
District(Tabled February 11, 1998)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 18, 2005 Page 9
b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&
"J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled
June 27,2000)
b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
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
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. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home (January 20,2004)
f. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004)
g. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004)
h. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to
the outside of building (May 4, 2004)
i. 2702 S.Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18, 2004)
j. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed
(August 3,2004)
k. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5,2004)
I. Intersection of Kipling Blvd. &Vine Street-house for rent, possible registered
rental (November 3,2004)
M. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004)
n. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road& Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of
the tracks-area becoming garbage dump(November 16,2004)
o. Turner Street—first floor residence(December 2004)
Ms. Stachowiak stated that several of the pending items have been taken
care of but she wanted confirmation before any are removed from the list.
She stated that items 51 and 5n have been followed up by the Code
Compliance Office.
She stated that she sent letters to the owners of items 5k and 5m.
She stated that item 5e has been corrected.
She stated that with item 5d, she provided the Board with an update from
the church.
Ms. Cordill inquired about the Cash Advance business located at Mt.
Hope and Pennsylvania Avenues. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was
turned over to the Code Compliance Office after the last meeting and that
it is a chronic problem.
Mr. Czekai inquired about a residence located on Turner Street. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she turned it over to the Code Compliance Office
and that she is not sure what the status is. She will look in to the matter.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 18, 2005 Page 10
Ms. Keene inquired about the status of ACT-1-2003 under the UDC
pending items. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is not sure and that these
cases belong to Mr. Rieske.
8. NEW BUSINESS — None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Keene inquired about the Abraugh project. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr.
Rieske was providing the information as a communication and that it will be
discussed at the next UDC meeting.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.011805.doc
Draft to Clerk January 24,2005
Approved 2005
To Clerk 2005
.Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Cordill, Vice Chair.
A. Roll call: Present: Ruge, Keene, Cordill, McConnell, Czekai, Hollister.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Boone, Witherspoon.
C. Excused absences: Frederick, Bruch.
D. Absent: None.
Mr. Czekai made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused
absence request from Ms. Bruch for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (6-0).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve the agenda. On
a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Abraugh-Mutual Historic Building District Study Committee Preliminary
Reports
B. Letter of opposition regarding PRD-1-2004
4. HEARINGS — None.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Cordill closed the public
comment period.
6. RECESS was not taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 2
A. Minutes for Approval — January 4, 2005
Mr. McConnell moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of
January 4, 2005 with corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously (6-0). The minutes of January 4, 2005 were
APPROVED w/corrections.
Pg. 4, 4th para., first line, replace "Vandebunte" with "Vander Galien".
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Ms. Stachowiak, Staff
a. PRD-1-2004, Planned Residential Development,
Proposed "Morgan Hill" Site Condominiums
This is a request by Eric Stevenson for approval of a
Planned Residential Development on a 1.875 acre parcel
located at the east end of Larrabee Drive. The applicant
proposes to construct 6 detached, single family, residential
site condominium units on the subject property.
Staff recommended approval of PRD-1-2004, Planned
Residential Development, Proposed "Morgan Hill" Site
Condominiums with the following conditions:
1. The applicant preserve as many of the existing trees
as possible particularly along the rear lot line;
2. The houses be of varying architectural design; and
3. That the storm sewer main be extended as described
by the Public Service Department and that a proper
storm water management plan be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineers.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
with the following conditions:
1. The applicant preserve as many of the existing trees
as possible particularly along the rear lot line;
2. The houses be of varying architectural designs;
3. That the storm sewer main be extended as described
by the Public Service Department and that a proper
storm water management plan be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineers;
4. That the applicant plant trees at the back of the
property to fill in the tree line;
5. That no snout houses be constructed on the
development; and
6. That the road and cul-de-sac be constructed to City
standards;
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 3
and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Mr. Ruge requested a friendly amendment to confirm that
the front doors will face the street.
Ms. Cordill had concerns with the attached garages and that
they play a subordinate role in the design of the houses.
She stated that there was an indication in the plans for 2 to 3
bedroom houses and that the marketability would be higher
for a 3 bedroom house. The setback lines of the properties
to the south show 30 feet in the report. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that the minimum requirement is 30 feet. Ms. Cordill
stated that the report did not actually indicate how far the
houses were from the property lines. Ms. Stachowiak stated
that the houses are a minimum of 60 feet from the property
lines.
Ms. Cordill stated that the lots were very long, some
averaging 168 feet. The shorter lots are 134 feet deep.
Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve PRD-1-2004,
Planned Residential Development, Proposed "Morgan Hill" Site Condominiums
with the following conditions: 1) The applicant preserve as many of the existing
trees as possible particularly along the rear lot line; 2) The houses be of varying
architectural designs; 3) That the storm sewer main be extended as described by
the Public Service Department and proper storm water management plan be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineers; 4) That the applicant plant
trees at the back of the property to fill in the tree line; 5) That no snout houses be
constructed on the development; 6) That the road and cul-de-sac be constructed
to City standards; and 7) That the front doors of the condominiums face the
street.
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave
Cordill. . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
b. Z-18-2004, South of E. Michigan Avenue, between Cedar
& Larch, Rezoning from "H" Light Industrial to "G-1"
Business District
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES W v January 4, 2005 Page 4
This is a request by the City of Lansing, Department of
Planning & Neighborhood Development to rezone the
property located south of E. Michigan Avenue, between
Cedar and Larch Streets, more specifically described as:
Lots 20, 21, 22, 26, 27& the south % of the vacated
alley adjacent thereto, Ranney's Subdivision of Lot 1,
Block 241
from "H" Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District, for
the purpose of developing the property for mixed uses (i.e.
residential, office, commercial).
Staff recommended approval of Z-18-2004, South of E.
Michigan Avenue, between Cedar & Larch, Rezoning from
"H" Light Industrial to "G-1" Business District.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that in Committee, the request was
recommended for approval. However, it is requested that
this not be acted upon tonight by the Board. The Urban
Development Committee will act on the ACT 285 request
next week and the Committee would like the Board to
address both cases at the same time. She stated that both
cases are included in the same report and can be sent
together to City Council.
C. SLU-8-2004, South side of Edgewood Blvd., west of
Washington Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Planned
NHBD Convenience Retail Center
This is a request by Hicham Jadaoun for a Special Land Use
permit to develop a Planned Neighborhood Convenience
Retail Center on the vacant property located on the south
side of Edgewood Boulevard, approximately 340 feet west of
Washington Avenue. The applicant intends to construct a
25,200 square foot building that would include various retail,
office and personal service uses. All of the uses would be
focused towards providing commercial services to the
immediate neighborhood. The property is zoned "D-1"
Professional Office District which permits planned
neighborhood convenience retail centers, with a special land
use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council.
Staff recommended approval of SLU-8-2004, South side of
Edgewood Blvd., west of Washington Ave., Special Land
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 5
Use Permit - Planned NHBD Convenience Retail Center with
the following conditions:
1. The buffer area along the north and west sides of the
site contain at least 5 shrubs, with a size of 24 inches
in height and spread at the time of planting, for each
20 linear feet of buffer area;
2. The buffer area along the north and west sides of the
site contain at least 1 tree, with a minimum size of 2
caliper inches at the time of planting, for each 30
linear feet of buffer area;
3. Interior parking lot landscaping and screening of
waste receptacles and utility facilities be providing
accordance with Section 1260.040) of the Zoning
Ordinance;
4. The site and building be redesigned to eliminate the
"strip mall" appearance;
5. The uses be limited to convenience/comparison retail
and office uses that are specifically focused toward
providing services to the immediate neighborhood;
and
6. The final site plan be approved by the Planning Board
after the applicant has satisfied all of the requirements
of the Public Service Department, Board of Water&
Light, Transportation Office, Fire Marshall and City
Forester.
In Committee, the request was tabled until the next meeting
on February 9, 2005, if the applicant has a revised plan
available. The Committee requested that the applicant
provide some locations of their existing businesses. The
owner currently owns a few Dollar stores located in Mason
and Eaton Rapids. The applicant made it clear that he is the
renter and not the owner of those properties.
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the developer and manager of
the site owns a couple of properties, one located at 3340
Lake Lansing Road and one located at 2018 Cedar Street,
Holt.
The request was tabled to give Committee and Board
members an opportunity to view the properties, see how
they were constructed and how they are being maintained.
She stated that this project could have a significant impact
on the area.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES ` €J d January 4, 2005 Page 6
d. SLU-9-2004, 900-928 S. Cedar Street, Special Land Use
Permit to construct a building in the 100 year floodplain
(Spartan Oil)
This is a request by Spartan Oil Corporation to construct in a
building in the 100 year floodplain at 900-928 S. Cedar
Street. The proposed building will replace the 3 buildings
that were destroyed during the fire of August 31, 2004. The
applicant will be required to secure a permit from the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality before any
building permits will be issued.
Staff recommends approval of the SLU-9-2004, Special
Land Use permit to construct an 8,000 square foot building
at 900-928 S. Cedar Review, within the 100 year floodplain
of the Red Cedar River with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with all requirements of the City Public
Service Department; and
2. Receipt of a permit from the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality authorizing the proposed
construction in the floodplain.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
with the following conditions:
1. That the building on the site comply with all
requirements of the City Public Service Department;
and
2. Receipt of a permit from the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality authorizing the proposed
construction in the floodplain;
and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell, to approve SLU-9-2004, 900-
928 S. Cedar Street, Special Land Use Permit to construct a building in the 100
year floodplain (Spartan Oil) with the following conditions: 1) That the building
on the site comply with all requirements of the City Public Service Department;
and 2) Receipt of a permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality authorizing the proposed construction in the floodplain.
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . . Ave
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Hollister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 7
e. Z-19-2004, 3831-3833 Moores River Drive, "A"
Residential District to "C" Residential District
This is a request by S. Richard Pearse to rezone the
property at 3831-3833 Moores River Drive, more specifically
described as:
Commencing 1221.7 feet North & 85 feet East of
West 114 Post Section 30, Thence East 426.5 feet,
North 123.75 feet, West 255.37 feet to proposed
Southeasterly right-of-way line of Moores River Drive,
South 53 degrees, 56 minutes, 24 seconds, West
211.13 feet to Beginning; Section 30 T4N R2W, City
of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District. The
purpose of the rezoning is to bring the use of the property as
a duplex into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff recommended denial of Z-19-2004, 3831-3833 Moores
River Drive, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District
based on the findings outlined in the staff report.
In Committee, the request was recommended for denial and
the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister, to deny Z-19-2004, 3831-3833
Moores River Drive, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District.
Ruge. Ave Keene. Ave
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. Ave Hollister Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
DENIED.
f. Z-20-2004, Vacant Lot, East of 701 Willoughby Road, "A"
Residential District to "C" Residential District
This is a request by Mark Conrad to rezone the vacant lot,
located directly east of 701 Willoughby Road, more
specifically described as:
Commencing 136 feet east of the southwest corner of
Section 10, T3N, R2W, thence north 161 feet, east
100 feet, south 161 feet, west 100 feet to beginning;
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES "January 4, 2005 Page 8
Section 10 T3N R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham
County, Michigan
from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District for the
purpose of constructing a duplex on the subject property.
Staff recommended approval of Z-20-2004, Vacant Lot, East
of 701 Willoughby Road, "A" Residential District to "C"
Residential District.
In Committee, the request was recommended for approval
and the motion carried unanimously, (4-0).
Mr. Hollister made a motion, seconded by Mr. Czekai, to approve Z-20-2004, Vacant
Lot, East of 701 Willoughby Road, "A" Residential District to "C" Residential
District.
Ruge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . Ave Keene. . . Ave
Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave
Czekai. Ave Hollister Ave
On a roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous.
APPROVED.
Next meeting, Wednesday, February 9, 2005 at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Mr. Czekai, Chair
Next meeting, Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None.
C. Report from Planning Manager— None.
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business
District(Tabled February 11, 1998)
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 9
b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&
"J"Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled
June 27,2000)
b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
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
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. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home(January 20,2004)
f. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20, 2004)
g. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004)
h. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to
the outside of building (May 4, 2004)
i. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004)
j. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed
(August 3,2004)
k. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5,2004)
I. Intersection of Kipling Blvd. &Vine Street-house for rent, possible registered
rental(November 3,2004)
M. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3, 2004)
n. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road& Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of
the tracks-area becoming garbage dump(November 16,2004)
o. Turner Street—first floor residence(December 2004)
Ms. Stachowiak stated that several of the pending items have been taken
care of but she wanted confirmation before any are removed from the list.
She stated that items 51 and 5n have been followed up by the Code
Compliance Office.
She stated that she sent letters to the owners of items 5k and 5m.
She stated that item 5e has been corrected.
She stated that with item 5d, she provided the Board with an update from
the church.
Ms. Cordill inquired about the Cash Advance business located at Mt.
Hope and Pennsylvania Avenues. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was
turned over to the Code Compliance Office after the last meeting and that
it is a chronic problem.
Mr. Czekai inquired about a residence located on Turner Street. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she turned it over to the Code Compliance Office
and that she is not sure what the status is. She will look in to the matter.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES - January 4, 2005 Page 10
Ms. Keene inquired about the status of ACT-1-2003 under the UDC
pending items. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is not sure and that these
cases belong to Mr. Rieske.
8. NEW BUSINESS — None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Keene inquired about the Abraugh project. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Mr.
Rieske was providing the information as a communication and that it will be
discussed at the next UDC meeting.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS — None.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.011805.doc
APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk January 13,2005
PG 4,41h para.,first line,replace"Vandebunte"with"Vander Galien" Approved January 18,2005
To Clerk January 19,2005
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, January 4, 2005
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair.
A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell,
Hollister.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Boone, Witherspoon.
C. Excused absences: Czekai.
D. Absent: None.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused
absence request from Mr. Czekai for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (7-0).
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 (7-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS — None.
4. HEARINGS
A. Z-19-2004, 3831-3833 Moores River Drive, "A" Residential District to
C" Residential District
This is a request by S. Richard Pearse to rezone the property at 3831-
3833 Moores River Drive, more specifically described as:
Commencing 1221.7 feet North & 85 feet East of West 114 Post
Section 30, Thence East 426.5 feet, North 123.75 feet, West
255.37 feet to proposed Southeasterly right-of-way line of Moores
River Drive, South 53 degrees, 56 minutes, 24 seconds, West
211.13 feet to Beginning; Section 30 T4N R2W, City of Lansing,
Ingham County, Michigan
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 2
from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District. The purpose of the
rezoning is to bring the use of the property as a duplex into compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Mr. Ruge stated that it appears that the zoning around the property is all
"A" Residential. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct and that the closest
lot that is not "A" Residential is at the southeast corner of Cooley Drive
and Waverly Road. The lot labeled 001 contains a duplex and is zoned
"C" Residential.
Mr. Ruge asked if there is any reason that the applicants did not ask for a
Class "A" Nonconforming use. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is another
option and that by requesting a Class "A" Nonconformity, the property
would still be nonconforming. The property would need to be rezoned to
"C" Residential to be conforming. In order for the applicant to accomplish
the immediate goal of building a garage for each of the residents on the
property, a Class "A" Nonconformity would accomplish this.
Mr. Frederick inquired about "C" Residential meeting the recommended
density for the Master Plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it does comply
with the recommended density.
Ms. Keene asked if the building has always been a duplex. Ms.
Stachowiak stated it appears that the building has been a duplex since it
was annexed into the City. Ms. Keene asked how long ago this was. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that it was somewhere in the 1960s.
Ms. Keene inquired about the total square footage of the duplex. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she does not have this information and that the
applicant may be able to provide this information.
Mr. McConnell inquired about the current owner utilizing the property as a
duplex. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant has utilized the property
as a duplex and that it is a legal nonconforming use.
Mr. Pearse, applicant and owner of the property, stated that he
purchased the property in 1988 and that it was a functioning duplex at the
time. Since then, it has been inspected by the City regularly. He has
made numerous improvements to the property to make sure that it passes
inspections and conforms to code. He would like to have the property
rezoned properly for its current use. There is a fence very close to the
property which is part of the Moores River Estates condominium
development and his building is within 50 to 100 yards of it. He stated that
there are several duplexes in the Moores River Estates property. Behind
his property on Cooley Drive there are a couple of built-for duplexes there.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 3
Ms. Keene inquired about the total square footage for both units. Mr.
Pearse stated that there is approximately 1100 square foot on one side
and 1,400 square feet on the other side. Ms. Keene asked Ms.
Stachowiak if she could get this information. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
she would.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred Z-19-2004, 3831-3833 Moores River Drive, "A" Residential
District to C" Residential District to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee, scheduled to meet on January 12, 2005 at 4:00 in the
Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N.
Capitol Avenue.
B. Z-20-2004, Vacant Lot, East of 701 Willoughby Road, "A" Residential
District to "C" Residential District
This is a request by Mark Conrad to rezone the vacant lot, located directly
east of 701 Willoughby Road, more specifically described as:
Commencing 136 feet east of the southwest corner of Section 10,
T3N, RM thence north 161 feet, east 100 feet, south 161 feet,
west 100 feet to beginning; Section 10 T3N R2W, City of Lansing,
Ingham County, Michigan
from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District for the purpose of
constructing a duplex on the subject property.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Mr. Mark Conrad, 3990 Holt Road and owner of the property, stated
that he would like to build a duplex on the lot and that just to the right of
the property there are four existing duplexes that look identical. He
purchased the property when the owner passed away.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred Z-20-2004, Vacant Lot, East of 701 Willoughby Road, "A"
Residential District to "C" Residential District to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on January 12, 2005 at 4:00 in
the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N.
Capitol Avenue.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 4
C. SLU-8-2004, South side of Edgewood Blvd., west of Washington
Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Planned NHBD Convenience Retail
Center
This is a request by Hicham Jadaoun for a Special Land Use permit to
develop a Planned Neighborhood Convenience Retail Center on the
vacant property located on the south side of Edgewood Boulevard,
approximately 340 feet west of Washington Avenue. The applicant
intends to construct a 25,200 square foot building that would include
various retail, office and personal service uses. All of the uses would be
focused towards providing commercial services to the immediate
neighborhood. The property is zoned "D-1" Professional Office District
which permits planned neighborhood convenience retail centers, with a
special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Ms. Keene asked if the applicant was currently operating one of the strip
malls anywhere else. Ms. Stachowiak stated not that she is aware of and
that the applicant intends to develop the property that is directly east of
this property for a gas station. This was discussed during a rezoning case
last year. She stated that the property is currently zoned for this type of
use but the applicant will need to go through the site plan review process.
The Board of Water and Light (BWL) has some concerns regarding the
development being a gas station and being so close to an active well
directly adjacent to this site. She received comments from BWL today and
that BWL would like to make sure that this site is developed in such a
manner that is sensitive to it being a well-head protection area as well.
Mr. Jim Vandebun Vander Galien, resident of 6019 Marsh Road,
Haslett and representative of Advance Construction, stated that he
does have other properties: strip mall center located at the corner of Lake
Lansing Road and Towar Gardensand a multi-use building located at 2018
N. Cedar, Holt.
Ms. Keene inquired about the types of businesses near Towar Gardens
Mr. Vandebunte stated that there is a Maytag Laundry, pet care, Little
Caesars Pizza, Subway, and a beauty salon.
Ms. Keene inquired about the types of businesses in the building located
at 2018 N. Cedar, Holt. Mr. Vandebunte stated that there is a pharmacy,
Nationwide Insurance, Allstate Insurance, Bauer Dance Studio and Hot
Prospects Direct.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred SLU-8-2004, South side of Edgewood Blvd., west of
Washington Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Planned NHBD
Convenience Retail Center to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 5
scheduled to meet on January 12, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and
Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
D. Five-Year Consolidated Plan - Proposed Funding Allocations
Ms. Boone gave a brief overview.
Ms. Rosemary Taylor, representative of Local Initiative Support
Corporation (LISC) located at 1000 S. Washington, stated that on
behalf of LISC and the Lansing Community Development Corporation that
LISC supports, she thanked the Board and the City of Lansing for their
support through the use of CDBG Funds. LISC is an affordable housing
organization nationally based with field offices in 39 states. Since 1989,
LISC has been working with the City, 10 area CDCs and non-profits on
housing development projects for low and moderate level income
residents, Economic Development projects in 3 of the City's commercial
corridors and various community organizing endeavors throughout the
City's neighborhoods. Some of the organizations that work with LISC are:
Lansing Housing Commission, Ferris Development, Old Town Commercial
Association, ReoTown Commercial Association, Northwest Lansing
Healthy Communities Initiative, Habitat for Humanity Lansing, Greater
Eastside CDC, Greater Lansing Housing Coalition, Lansing Community
Micro-Enterprise Fund, and Franklin Street Housing Corporation. She
stated that in 2004, the combined efforts of these organizations have
yielded 13 single family homes, 101 multi-family units, 142,414
commercial square feet developed, 34 new businesses, and 183 new jobs
created. Resulting in $13,745,781.88 of public and private dollars
leverage and invested in the Lansing community. This is in large part
possible because of the CDBG funds and the endless support of the City.
She thanked the Board for its past assistance and requested that the
Board continue to support LISC and the revitalization of the
neighborhoods by its consideration of the submitted proposal.
Ms. Denise Peek, Executive Director of Lansing Community Micro-
Enterprise Fund (LCMF), stated that the LCMF receives operation
support from LISC and that she has been with the organization since
March 2000. The LCMF has been around since 1996 and when the
organization first began, she was not sure if it knew how far the
organization could actually go. LCMF has been able to have at least 400
individuals attend its business training program. Of the 400 individuals,
she stated that several new business have been started. There are
businesses in corridors of Michigan Avenue, Old Town, and ReoTown.
She stated that she works hand in hand with these corridors in regards to
finding retail space for those businesses.
The LCMF, without the support of the CDBG funds, would not be able to
function or serve the individuals who want to start a small business. The
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 6
LCMF has been able to expand its business training program and now
offers a 12-week training program that allows individuals to explore
entrepreneurships and self employment. There is also a 15-week course
which is for individuals who are already in business and are looking to
expand their business.
Over the years, she stated that the CDBG funds have been able to
support LCMF's efforts with economic growth and development
throughout the City of Lansing. She thanked the Board for its support in
the past and looks forward to its continued support in the future.
Ms. Priscilla Holmes, Program Manager from ReoTown, stated that
ReoTown is the newest commercial area revitalization in the City and she
thanked the Board for its past support. ReoTown has been in existence
as a 501 C(3) for 18 months and has done well during these 18 months.
ReoTown does appreciate the Board's support of operational expenses.
She stated that there are some funds specifically designated for staff but
there are no funds available on a regular basis for operational costs.
Within the last 18 months, ReoTown has opened the Cadillac Club which
was the former bowling alley. The Skyline building is planned to be
completed in the spring/summer and will have loft apartments. There will
be an architectural firm on the first floor. These two buildings represent
over $3,000,000 worth of investments and ReoTown is very impressed
with it.
There are smaller projects under way and ReoTown has a few new
investors from Old Town. The Quality Dairy has done an expansion of its
dairy plant that is not as visible but has created a significant amount of
jobs.
She stated that ReoTown hosted the Reo Centennial in July 2004 and it
was a huge success. There were no complaints and that was a good
sign.
She stated that ReoTown has a fagade improvement program funded
through the community foundation and has a meeting with the business
people on a monthly basis.
She stated that ReoTown is more than a commercial association and
represents the three neighborhood groups (Moores Park, Fabulous Acres,
River Pointe) surrounding ReoTown. All of these areas are within CDBG
eligible areas and are low to moderate income residents. The area is
clearly eligible in the entirety of its boundaries for CDBG funds.
ReoTown has three seats on its Board that are set aside for these
neighborhood representatives. She stated that ReoTown felt that based
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 7
on the history it wanted to be sure that it is not just representing business
people.
ReoTown received a phone call approximately a year ago from a young
woman who was looking for a place to open an art studio and have an
outreach program for children. Ms. Holmes stated that she knew of a
vacant building and the result is Reach Art Studio in ReoTown. People
can go there to have fun and create unusual things.
She stated that ReoTown is asking for $20,000 and after reviewing the
budget, she realized it would be a stretch. In order for ReoTown to
continue its work, it must do certain things (i.e. recruiting businesses,
stabilizing the business arena, neighborhood improvements). She hopes
ReoTown will receive this amount.
She stated that ReoTown would like to see the historic lights extended
southward from Baker Street to Mt. Hope Ave. because it looks like two
different neighbors but they are a part of the same area.
She thank the Board for its support.
Ms. Susan Cancro, Executive Director of Advent House Ministries
and Chair for the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network
(GLHRN), stated that it is in her function to speak to the Board now
regarding what is done with the emergency shelter grant money that is
part of the budget. She stated that there are several groups in attendance
tonight who are a part of the network. She stated that Advent House has
collectively kept a handle on a very big problem. In the City on any given
day there are 400 to 500 homeless people that can be counted. She
stated that there may be 200 to 300 more who are homeless but are not
counted, and Advent House is aware of them through the grape vine. Of
these people nationally, the average age of a homeless person is 6 years
old. For those who go to Advent House, what is seen verifies this age.
She stated that there are many children and young people who are
homeless. On the streets of Lansing and many other Michigan cities,
homelessness is almost invisible. The services to those in need are good
and in the City, they are very good. This is the work of a collective group
of people including the City that supports Advent House. The GLHRN has
representation of all the shelters and shelter related services in the
community, including Michigan Department of Community Mental Health,
the Lansing Police Department, Board members, and Planning Staff.
Advent House shares what it does and tries to help others understand
what it being done so that services are not being duplicated or acting
alone when everyone should be acting as a team.
Advent House has three houses and is funded through ESG funds for
transitional housing. Families can stay for a long term and get out of
homelessness. Advent House is finding it harder and harder for people to
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 8
move from homelessness because the cost of housing has risen and there
are no jobs. It is a struggle but not an insuremountable one.
Advent House offers other services including a day shelter and on
Christmas Day had a big breakfast orcheastrated by Dr. Joan Jackson-
Johnson who is on the Board. Advent House Served 637 people at the
breakfast and none of these people were homeless but each one is at risk.
She stated that there are a lot of people in need in the community trying to
get additional help here and there. Day shelters are one of the key pieces
not funded by ESG and gives people the beginning of stability so that they
can use the other services that are offered.
She introduced other organizations: Volunteers of America (VOA), the
National Council on Alcoholism and Balentine Stepping Stones.
This is a few of the organizations representing a larger effort to handle a
big problem in the City.
Mr. Patrick Patterson, Director of Operations at Volunteers of
America (VOA), stated that the VOA plays a large part in the emergency
services in Lansing for homelessness. Last year, the VOA provided
overnight shelter to 1,402 homeless individuals and 26,006 nights of
shelter. In cooperation with the day shelter, the VOA served 1,974
homeless people and the average count a week before Christmas was
133 homeless per day. The VOA served 76,002 meals last year in its
community kitchen and 80 percent of those individuals served were
homeless.
He stated that in October 2004 President Bush signed into law the
American Jobs Creation Act (aka The Jobs Act) and that it will likely cut
45% of the revenue from the VOA due to the changes that it creates. The
VOA makes up to 72% of its overall revenue from car donations. As a
result of this, the VOA has notified the Mayor's Office to try to find
solutions but the VOA faces a great shortfall in funding. If the VOA cannot
come up with more money, the VOA will close the day center in March
2005. He stated that there are more hard times ahead and that this may
be worthy of consideration in terms of the action reports.
He stated that the VOA works cooperatively with the New Hope Day
Center who seeks to be the one stop place for homeless services. The
VOA tries to facilitate and continue these services. He stated that the
VOA works cooperatively with other people (i.e. Franklin Street) who help
keep individuals off the streets. He asked the Board to consider their
concerns.
Ms. Patty Jongkind, Program Director of Balentine Stepping Stones,
stated that Balentine receives operational funds for its 16 unit transitional
housing program with supportive services on site. Balentine is serving
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 9
homeless single mothers and serves 22 to 27 families per year with up to
45 children. The ESG funds are crucial in helping the facility to operate its
building. She expressed her appreciation for continued support of the
Board.
Ms. Pat Wheeler, Associate Director of the National Council on
Alcoholism, Lansing Regional Area (NCA/LRA), stated that the
NCA/LRA provides substance abuse treatment services at Glass House
for women and Holden House for men which are long term residential
treatment programs as well as out patient and intensive out patient
services. The NCA/LRA has been in Lansing since the 1960s and seeks
ESG funds to support a case management position for the homeless
individuals who are in the treatment programs. She stated that substance
abuse is one of the primary underlining causes of homelessness and to
have an individual who can focus their time on assisting people as they
are sober, recovering and returning to the community with housing and
employment is something that is very, very important for the individual's
continued sobriety.
The NCA/LRA also participates in the homeless resolution network and in
this capacity worked with other agencies in the community to make it a
united effort in treating the whole person and hopefully resolving their
homeless status over the long haul.
She thanked the Board for its support of the network and stated that it is
wonderful to have the opportunity to interact with the City as the
consolidated plan is put into action and being developed. She believes
that this makes a community special.
Ms. Betsy Bigsby, Interim Program Director of the Old Town
Commercial Association (OTCA) located at 1232 Turner Street,
thanked the City and the Board for their continued support of the
organization and the old town area over the years through CDBG funds
and general funds. She stated that the money provided by the City, the
Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) and private funding has all
been crucial to the OTCA existence and work in the Old Town area. This
is an important form of assistance that the organization and surrounding
area cannot do without. The OTCA's mission is to facilitate the socio
economic development of Lansing's Old Town area through the promotion
of historic preservation, business recruitment and community outreach.
During the past year with City support and funding, the OTCA helped
approximately 6,400 square feet of commercial space, saw the opening of
7 new businesses which created 54 new jobs, provided technical
assistance to over 100 businesses resulting in $86,000 in public and
private funds. The funds provided to the OTCA are used to create
tangible results.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 10
The OTCA helped rehabilitate vacant buildings, provided services to the
community (i.e. Old Town Health Fair), and have assisted in the cultural
economic development of the Old Town area which is used as an example
of a Cool Cities Initiative.
She thanked the Board for its time and support, and requested support of
the CDBG proposal.
Mr. Rick Kibbey, Lansing Eastside Community Development
Corporation (LECDC), stated that the purpose of his request is to support
the work the LECDC is doing on Michigan Avenue and to create a buyer-
based program on the eastside that is appropriate for the market and the
type of housing available on the eastside. There are no other CDCs
currently working on the eastside. The LECDC worked in collaboration
with another CDC for a while and, though no fault of its own, MSHDA cut
them back. Now the LECDC is looking for ways to do this and feels that
the buyer-based program will not only be more economical but more
appropriate for the type of housing stock and type of buyer on the
eastside.
He stated that the work the LECDC does is a product of its own planning
process (i.e Eastside Summit) and several other neighborhoods have also
done a summit. In the LECDC's case, the summit resulted in an action in
creation of an administrative agency and the LECDC does the nuts and
bolts work for this plan.
He submitted a work plan and a budget to City staff and stated that he
would be glad to answer any questions.
He stated that the fagade improvements that are being done on Michigan
have been a tremendous success. It has been very popular and the
LECDC is in its third round of funding for it. This is the way it worked out
and all of a sudden the LECDC found itself with a whole bunch of new
international dining opportunities on the avenue. This summer the LECDC
will be working with residents and businesses to put together a small
neighborhood size festival. The LECDC wants to be a comfortable
neighborhood where people enjoy walking around and where they can
take their kids, have something to eat, listen to some music, go home and
feel good about themselves.
The LECDC is looking for$30,000 to match the same amount from
MSHDA, and are looking for an additional $10,000 for program and
operational costs. This is less than the cost of subsidizing one house and
the LECDC is anticipating being able to do 5 to 8 houses in the area once
it is up and running.
He stated that the purpose of the funding is to keep the LECDC's
operations going. The LECDC will then develop programs and seek
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 11
funding for these programs independent from the operating fund. The
LECDC is looking for the core operating fund at this point.
Ms. Jean Lodge, Executive Director of Franklin Street Community
Housing Corporation (FSCHC), stated that the FSCHC would like to
thank the City for its 16 years of support on the north end of Lansing.
Great things are happening in the neighborhoods and in the Old Town
area. The neighborhoods are supporting the commercial district and the
commercial district is supporting the neighborhoods.
She stated that in 2004 the FSCHC revitalized 5 houses that were vacant
and there are new home owners in the area with families. For 2005, the
FSCHC is looking to revitalize 6 homes.
The FSCHC administers the only Individual Develop Account (IDA)
program in the City. An individual saves $1,000 and the FSCHC matches
it with $3,000 for down payment assistance or matches it with $2,000 for
education or to start a small business. The FSCHC has had 9 graduates,
5 of which are viable home owners in the Old Town area. There are 2
education participants and 2 individuals for small businesses who started
their own businesses.
The FSCHC needs the support of the City to continue its work in the
administration of the program and also with the help of revitalizing the
substandard houses. She stated that the FSCHC appreciates all that the
City has done and asks for continued support.
Mr. Ron Whitmore, Executive Director of the Northwest Lansing
Healthy Communities Initiative (NLHCI), stated that the NLHCI is a non-
profit community development organization serving the greater downtown
and west side of Lansing. He stated that this area is largely CDBG eligible
and that the poverty rate in the area is approximately 27% and the
homeownership rate is approximately 45%.
The NLHCI does a variety of different types of community development
work (i.e. community building, resource, access, awareness, and
economic development). He is very pleased to see in the proposed plan
that several aspects of the budget include economic development and
infrastructure and physical environment funding all of which would support
the NLHCI's request for funding to support the West Saginaw Oakland
Revitalization project.
The NLHCI makes up the fourth of four corners of corridor revitalization in
the Lansing area. If one has driven down west Saginaw Street recently, it
is easy to see that it is in tremendous need of revitalization and has a very
unwelcoming entry into the City and the downtown area from the west
side. This is a high speed traffic area that makes it very unliveable,
unwalkable and very difficult to sustain a viable business. The NLHCI is
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 12
working with the neighborhoods, residents and businesses to try to
reverse this trend.
In the NLHCI's written proposal to the City, it outlined the status of the
project and requested some CDBG funding to support the project. The
drafted plan was developed with the help of 120 different stake holders
who are involved in a strategic design process throughout 2004. Dr.
Bruch and her students helped to facilitate this entire process. It involves
residents, landlords, business owners, representatives from neighborhood
associations, non-profits, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission,
CATA, MDOT, LCC, Sparrow and several City departments. The NLHCI
worked very hard to get all the important stake holders to the table to help
develop this vision.
He stated that this area was once a vibrant commercial district that served
the needs of the residents of those neighborhoods and the NLHCI would
like to bring it back to that state by doing a number of things: traffic
calming through reducing lanes on West Saginaw, adding bike lanes,
street scape and landscaping improvements, transforming the entry way
coming from the west side to an inviting welcoming entry way into the City,
improve signage in the area through way-finding and neighborhood signs,
develop businesses through facade improvement grants, business
development counseling and assistance and home improvements of key
houses along the Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue corridors. All of
these elements of the NLHCI's plan are consistent with the proposed
spending for the CDBG funds for 2005-2006.
He stated that the City certainly would not be alone in supporting the
NLHCI's efforts. The NLHCI has received over $70,000 of funding from
LISC, Capital Regent Community Foundation, LCC, Sparrow Health
Systems, MSU, Consumers Energy Foundaiton. It costs money to run
these sorts of programs and to implement the proposed plan.
He asked the Board for its support for the work to compliment the other
corridor revitalization effort in the greater downtown area.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred the Five-Year Consolidated Plan - Proposed Funding
Allocations to the Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on
January 25, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development
Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch closed the public
comment period.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 13
Ms. Stachowiak stated that she received a letter from Habitat for Humanity and
that the director was not able to attend the public hearing this evening so a letter
was submitted instead.
6. RECESS was taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval — December 7, 2004
Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes
of December 7, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion
carried unanimously (7-0). The minutes of December 7, 2004 were
APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
Next meeting, Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Vice Chair
Next meeting, Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None.
C. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Zoning & Ordinance Committee meeting
scheduled for next Wednesday has a lot of business on the agenda and
that there are six cases of which some could be rather lengthy. She stated
that Mr. Frederick is not able to attend the meeting and Ms. Bruch would
not be available until 5:00 p.m. She stated that the Committee needed to
decide whether or not to have the meeting at 5:00 p.m. or reschedule to
another day or have another member fill in. Mr. Ruge stated that 5:00 p.m.
sounds fine to him. Ms. Bruch agreed. Mr. Hollister asked how long the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 14
meeting will be. Ms. Stachowiak stated a couple of hours. Ms. Keene
stated that she would not be able to attend because of her classes. Ms.
Bruch stated that she teaches classes and they end at 4:00 p.m. She
stated that this would only be a conflict until March and that it would be
only for the next two meetings. Mr. Hollister asked about moving the
meeting to a different day. Ms. Bruch stated that it would have to be a
Friday for her. Mr. Ruge stated Thursday would work for him. Ms.
Stachowiak asked about a day time meeting beginning at 1:00 p.m or 2:00
p.m. on Friday. Mr. Hollister stated that could be done. Mr. Ruge stated
2:00 p.m. or later would work for him. Mr. Hollister stated that would work
better for him. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Committee members
decided to go with 2:00 p.m. on Friday, January 14, and that she would
call the applicants to inform them of the meeting change. She stated that if
one of the applicants cannot attend for some reason may be the case can
be handled briefly before the next regular Council meeting.
Mr. Rieske stated that he received some late news that the extension
service is goings to be offering the Citizen Planner Program and it will begin
on January 20t and run through February 12th. He stated that there are
various dates and subjects (i.e. roles and responsibilities, plan
implementation, best practices in the art of community planning) and that
Mr. Ruff had asked him to mention this to the Board members. If anyone
is available to attend all the classes, please contact him. He stated that
there is no way to split the classes among Board members.
As an alternative, Mr. Rieske stated that there is some training available
through the Michigan Society of Planning Officials (i.e. Official Training,
Site Plan Review). If anyone is interested, he could make the
arrangements. Mr. Hollister asked if someone had to attend all the
sessions. Mr. Rieske stated that the individual would attend all of the
sessions and receive a certificate upon completion. Ms. Bruch asked if an
individual could split the sessions and take part of them at a different time.
Mr. Rieske stated that his impression was that it cannot be done this way.
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business
District(Tabled February 11, 1998)
b. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&
"J"Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled
June 27,2000)
b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
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
5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 15
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. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home(January 20,2004)
f. 545 Baker Street-Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004)
g. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004)
h. Michigan Ave&Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to
the outside of building (May 4,2004)
i. 2702 S. Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004)
j. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed
(August 3,2004)
k. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5,2004)
I. Intersection of Kipling Blvd. &Vine Street-house for rent, possible registered
rental(November 3,2004)
M. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004)
n. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road & Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of
the tracks-area becoming garbage dump(November 16,2004)
8. NEW BUSINESS — None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Frederick requested an excused absence from the next meeting and possibly
the first meeting in February. He will be going to New Mexico to accompany his
mother on a long train ride and is not sure when he will return.
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve excused
absence requests from Mr. Frederick for the January 18th meeting, possibly
February 1st and however many absences are needed. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (7-0).
Ms. Keene inquired about the moratorium on new rental property permits. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that it failed on a split vote. Ms. Cordill asked if they can
continue to rent homes. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct and that City
Council did not approve the request.
Ms. Cordill asked if there were design guidelines in place for the City corridors.
She stated that there is a business that may have been subject to facade work on
Michigan Avenue located on the south side of the street. She believes that it may
be a message center and it has a dry suburban look. The building sets back from
the property line. She is concerned that when funds go towards facades, the
applicant respects the character of the building and the area in general. Mr.
McConnell stated that this is supposed to be part of the criteria. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that is correct. Ms. Bruch asked if these requests are reviewed through
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 16
the site plan process. Mr. Rieske stated that the individual organizations who run
the fagade programs have their own design guidelines and that the requests do
not go through the department. He has never reviewed any guidelines except for
those of the Old Town Main Street. With the exception of the downtown area
.which does have guidelines very similar to the Secretary of the Interior
Guidelines, he is not familiar with them. Ms. Bruch stated that Board had a
discussion that guidelines could not be set up for everything. Mr. Hollister asked
if there should be guidelines. Ms. Cordill stated that this is not unique to Lansing.
She has seen where different revitalization efforts take hold and that
organizations take local, state or federal monies but no one has a sense of what
it should look like. Ms. Bruch stated that there was a discussion earlier about not
wanting to set strict guidelines for set areas because each area neighborhood
should set their own. She wonders if there should be guidelines to help those
neighborhoods set up guidelines. Ms. Stachowiak wondered since the
Development office administers these funds if the Board could see its guidelines
and make comments. She stated that this would be the channel to go through.
Mr. Rieske stated that one example would be the Cadillac Club and it would fail
by most guidelines. He stated that breaking through the front of a building and
putting a Cadillac inside is just not reflected in the guidelines. He stated that the
club did however turn a bowing pin into a champagne bottle. This is not
necessarily reflective of lack of imagination on the owner's part. Ms. Bruch stated
that these are the unique icons of a city. Mr. Rieske stated it is like the Good
Year tire on 1-94 from the airport going to the downtown Detroit area. Mr.
Hollister stated that he is involved in the Saginaw corridor revitalization and his
question was if those involved were supposed to be following some sort of City
guideline. He did not want the people involved to be out in left field somewhere
doing their own thing. At the same, he wanted to be able to have some flexibility.
He stated that he does not know the answer to it other than maybe have
guidelines for guidelines. Ms. Cordill stated that it is not like creating a
Frankenmuth where it is Bavarian. It is more like respect the character of the
building and the neighborhood and be sensitive to these things. Mr. Hollister
stated that the desire or tenancy is already there within that group but is not
necessarily what will happen. He stated that this group is sensitive to this but
there could be another group that is not.
Ms. Cordill inquired about the City having an urban designer. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that the City has an architect in the Planning Office, Michael Wee, and that
he is heavily involved in the fagade improvements in the downtown area. She
stated that the City's Economic Development Corporation administers a fagade
grant program for the downtown area and Mr. Wee is always involved with it and
gives input into those designs to make sure that it meets the character of the
building. She stated that it is really close to the Secretary of the Interior
standards. As a general rule, the Planning Office does not have the staff to
accommodate this. Ms. Cordill offered this as a suggestion.
Ms. Keene inquired about the Development Office where people apply for CDBG
funding through the City and asked if the Development Office could approve
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 17
funding conditioned upon certain guidelines having to be used. Ms. Stachowiak
was suggesting for instance, Rick Kibbey's organization or ReoTown, have the
facade improvements program. If these organizations are to receive funds, the
City could at least ask to see a copy of their guidelines and maybe offer
comments on them. The organizations would not necessarily have to accept
these comments but at least the City would have some input. Ms. Bruch asked
how this could be done so that the City does ask for the comment and can review
the guidelines. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would have to talk to Ms. Boone
of the Development Office. Mr. Rieske stated that he could bring this up
tomorrow during the course of talking with her about another project. He stated
that this may be something to discuss at the next Urban Development Committee
meeting.
Mr. McConnell asked about requesting a copy of the guidelines so that
Committee members could review them at the next UDC meeting. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she was suggesting that Ms. Boone will be attending the
next UDC meeting and it would be good to discuss this with her. She stated that
the groups who receive the CDBG funding for facade improvement programs
could give the Planning Office at least an opportunity to review those guidelines
and provide comments. This would go through Ms. Boone and she should have
some input on it. Mr. Hollister stated that he does not want to add bureaucracy to
CDCs since he works for one. This is not what he is suggesting. He stated that
the flip side of what is being mentioned is if the funding source chooses to review
the plans, then the organization would let them review it. This would only make
sense. He stated that it would be good City-wide to have some sort of guidelines
so that groups are not going in radically different directions. Ms. Cordill stated
groups need to be sensitive to the style of the building and character of the
neighborhood and the context in which they are working. Ms. Bruch stated that it
might be okay for two neighborhoods to go in different directions because this
establishes the neighborhood to get its character and possibly establish an icon.
Mr. McConnell stated that each neighborhood has its own history so they will not
have the same facades. If everyone is singing out of the same hymnal, then the
City could have some input seeing what the guidelines are. Ms. Stachowiak
stated the City may be able to do this. Mr. Rieske stated that the City in the late
1990s had Historic Preservation surveys with reconnaissance level and intensive
level surveys which included the downtown area, the commercial area of the 700
block of West Saginaw Street, the 2000 block of East Michigan Avenue and the
ReoTown area. This information can be useful in terms of developing guidelines
that are reflective of the various districts. Secondly, there has been a growing
interest in the Historic Preservation Tax Credits that are available through the
creation of national or local historic districts. This is 20% to 25% of the
rehabilitation costs being available as tax credits. He stated that the Arbaugh
building, the Mutual building, and the Prudden Wheel building have applied for
these credits. This is lots of money that comes after the project is implemented
but it does not involve local money for the incentives where all these facade
grants involve the expenditure of local money. If the Preservation Tax Credit can
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 18
be used then the local money can be kept and use leverage state and federal tax
credits instead.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Ms. Cordill stated that there are a lot of signs at the Cash Advance place on the
corner of Mt. Hope and Pennsylvania Avenues. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the
sign inspector is over there almost every week and that the company takes the
signs down and then puts them back up.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.010405.doc
f �� � Draft to Clerk January 13,2005
Approved 2005
M%ATo Clerk 2005
_. Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers
M Lansing City Hall
Tuesday, January 4, 2005
1. OPENING SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Ms. Bruch, Chair.
A. Roll call: Present: Frederick, Bruch, Keene, Ruge, Cordill, McConnell,
Hollister.
B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Boone, Witherspoon.
C. Excused absences: Czekai.
D. Absent: None.
Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hollister to approve an excused
absence request from Mr. Czekai for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (7-0).
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 (7-0).
3. COMMUNICATIONS — None.
4. HEARINGS
A. Z-19-2004, 3831-3833 Moores River Drive, "A" Residential District to
C" Residential District
This is a request by S. Richard Pearse to rezone the property at 3831-
3833 Moores River Drive, more specifically described as:
Commencing 1221.7 feet North & 85 feet East of West 114 Post
Section 30, Thence East 426.5 feet, North 123.75 feet, West
255.37 feet to proposed Southeasterly right-of-way line of Moores
River Drive, South 53 degrees, 56 minutes, 24 seconds, West
211.13 feet to Beginning; Section 30 T4N R2W, City of Lansing,
Ingham County, Michigan
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4. 2005 Page 2
from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District. The purpose of the
rezoning is to bring the use of the property as a duplex into compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Mr. Ruge stated that it appears that the zoning around the property is all
"A" Residential. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct and that the closest
lot that is not "A" Residential is at the southeast corner of Cooley Drive
and Waverly Road. The lot labeled 001 contains a duplex and is zoned
"C" Residential.
Mr. Ruge asked if there is any reason that the applicants did not ask for a
Class "A" Nonconforming use. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is another
option and that by requesting a Class "A" Nonconformity, the property
would still be nonconforming. The property would need to be rezoned to
"C" Residential to be conforming. In order for the applicant to accomplish
the immediate goal of building a garage for each of the residents on the
property, a Class "A" Nonconformity would accomplish this.
Mr. Frederick inquired about "C" Residential meeting the recommended
density for the Master Plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it does comply
with the recommended density.
Ms. Keene asked if the building has always been a duplex. Ms.
Stachowiak stated it appears that the building has been a duplex since it
was annexed into the City. Ms. Keene asked how long ago this was. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that it was somewhere in the 1960s.
Ms. Keene inquired about the total square footage of the duplex. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she does not have this information and that the
applicant may be able to provide this information.
Mr. McConnell inquired about the current owner utilizing the property as a
duplex. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant has utilized the property
as a duplex and that it is a legal nonconforming use.
Mr. Pearse, applicant and owner of the property, stated that he
purchased the property in 1988 and that it was a functioning duplex at the
time. Since then, it has been inspected by the City regularly. He has
made numerous improvements to the property to make sure that it passes
inspections and conforms to code. He would like to have the property
rezoned properly for its current use. There is a fence very close to the
property which is part of the Moores River Estates condominium
development and his building is within 50 to 100 yards of it. He stated that
there are several duplexes in the Moores River Estates property. Behind
his property on Cooley Drive there are a couple of built-for duplexes there.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 3
Ms. Keene inquired about the total square footage for both units. Mr.
Pearse stated that there is approximately 1100 square foot on one side
and 1,400 square feet on the other side. Ms. Keene asked Ms.
Stachowiak if she could get this information. Ms. Stachowiak stated that
she would.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred Z-19-2004, 3831-3833 Moores River Drive, "A" Residential
District to C" Residential District to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee, scheduled to meet on January 12, 2005 at 4:00 in the
Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N.
Capitol Avenue.
B. Z-20-2004, Vacant Lot, East of 701 Willoughby Road, "A" Residential
District to "C" Residential District
This is a request by Mark Conrad to rezone the vacant lot, located directly
east of 701 Willoughby Road, more specifically described as:
Commencing 136 feet east of the southwest corner of Section 10,
T3N, R2W, thence north 161 feet, east 100 feet, south 161 feet,
west 100 feet to beginning, Section 10 T3N R2W, City of Lansing,
Ingham County, Michigan
from "A" Residential District to "C" Residential District for the purpose of
constructing a duplex on the subject property.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Mr. Mark Conrad, 3990 Holt Road and owner of the property, stated
that he would like to build a duplex on the lot and that just to the right of
the property there are four existing duplexes that look identical. He
purchased the property when the owner passed away.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred Z-20-2004, Vacant Lot, East of 701 Willoughby Road, "A"
Residential District to "C" Residential District to the Zoning and
Ordinance Committee, scheduled to meet on January 12, 2005 at 4:00 in
the Planning and Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N.
Capitol Avenue.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES f€ f r January 4, 2005 Page 4
C. SLU-8-2004, South side of Edgewood Blvd., west of Washington
Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Planned NHBD Convenience Retail
Center
This is a request by Hicham Jadaoun for a Special Land Use permit to
develop a Planned Neighborhood Convenience Retail Center on the
vacant property located on the south side of Edgewood Boulevard,
approximately 340 feet west of Washington Avenue. The applicant
intends to construct a 25,200 square foot building that would include
various retail, office and personal service uses. All of the uses would be
focused towards providing commercial services to the immediate
neighborhood. The property is zoned "D-1" Professional Office District
which permits planned neighborhood convenience retail centers, with a
special land use permit, if approved by the Lansing City Council.
Ms. Stachowiak gave a brief overview.
Ms. Keene asked if the applicant was currently operating one of the strip
malls anywhere else. Ms. Stachowiak stated not that she is aware of and
that the applicant intends to develop the property that is directly east of
this property for a gas station. This was discussed during a rezoning case
last year. She stated that the property is currently zoned for this type of
use but the applicant will need to go through the site plan review process.
The Board of Water and Light (BWL) has some concerns regarding the
development being a gas station and being so close to an active well
directly adjacent to this site. She received comments from BWL today and
that BWL would like to make sure that this site is developed in such a
manner that is sensitive to it being a well-head protection area as well.
Mr. Jim Vandebunte, resident of 6019 Marsh Road, Haslett and
representative of Advance Construction, stated that he does have
other properties: strip mall center located at the corner of Lake Lansing
Road and Towar Gardensand a multi-use building located at 2018 N.
Cedar, Holt.
Ms. Keene inquired about the types of businesses near Towar Gardens
Mr. Vandebunte stated that there is a Maytag Laundry, pet care, Little
Caesars Pizza, Subway, and a beauty salon.
Ms. Keene inquired about the types of businesses in the building located
at 2018 N. Cedar, Holt. Mr. Vandebunte stated that there is a pharmacy,
Nationwide Insurance, Allstate Insurance, Bauer Dance Studio and Hot
Prospects Direct.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred SLU-8-2004, South side of Edgewood Blvd., west of
Washington Ave., Special Land Use Permit - Planned NHBD
Convenience Retail Center to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 5
scheduled to meet on January 12, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and
Neighborhood Development Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
D. Five-Year Consolidated Plan - Proposed Funding Allocations
Ms. Boone gave a brief overview.
Ms. Rosemary Taylor, representative of Local Initiative Support
Corporation (LISC) located at 1000 S. Washington, stated that on
behalf of LISC and the Lansing Community Development Corporation that
LISC supports, she thanked the Board and the City of Lansing for their
support through the use of CDBG Funds. LISC is an affordable housing
organization nationally based with field offices in 39 states. Since 1989,
LISC has been working with the City, 10 area CDCs and non-profits on
housing development projects for low and moderate level income
residents, Economic Development projects in 3 of the City's commercial
corridors and various community organizing endeavors throughout the
City's neighborhoods. Some of the organizations that work with LISC are:
Lansing Housing Commission, Ferris Development, Old Town Commercial
Association, ReoTown Commercial Association, Northwest Lansing
Healthy Communities Initiative, Habitat for Humanity Lansing, Greater
Eastside CDC, Greater Lansing Housing Coalition, Lansing Community
Micro-Enterprise Fund, and Franklin Street Housing Corporation. She
stated that in 2004, the combined efforts of these organizations have
yielded 13 single family homes, 101 multi-family units, 142,414
commercial square feet developed, 34 new businesses, and 183 new jobs
created. Resulting in $13,745,781.88 of public and private dollars
leverage and invested in the Lansing community. This is in large part
possible because of the CDBG funds and the endless support of the City.
She thanked the Board for its past assistance and requested that the
Board continue to support LISC and the revitalization of the
neighborhoods by its consideration of the submitted proposal.
Ms. Denise Peek, Executive Director of Lansing Community Micro-
Enterprise Fund (LCMF), stated that the LCMF receives operation
support from LISC and that she has been with the organization since
March 2000. The LCMF has been around since 1996 and when the
organization first began, she was not sure if it knew how far the
organization could actually go. LCMF has been able to have at least 400
individuals attend its business training program. Of the 400 individuals,
she stated that several new business have been started. There are
businesses in corridors of Michigan Avenue, Old Town, and ReoTown.
She stated that she works hand in hand with these corridors in regards to
finding retail space for those businesses.
The LCMF, without the support of the CDBG funds, would not be able to
function or serve the individuals who want to start a small business. The
a:;s'_.'
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 6
LCMF has been able to expand its business training program and now
offers a 12-week training program that allows individuals to explore
entrepreneurships and self employment. There is also a 15-week course
which is for individuals who are already in business and are looking to
expand their business.
Over the years, she stated that the CDBG funds have been able to
support LCMF's efforts with economic growth and development
throughout the City of Lansing. She thanked the Board for its support in
the past and looks forward to its continued support in the future.
Ms. Priscilla Holmes, Program Manager from ReoTown, stated that
ReoTown is the newest commercial area revitalization in the City and she
thanked the Board for its past support. ReoTown has been in existence
as a 501 C(3) for 18 months and has done well during these 18 months.
ReoTown does appreciate the Board's support of operational expenses.
She stated that there are some funds specifically designated for staff but
there are no funds available on a regular basis for operational costs.
Within the last 18 months, ReoTown has opened the Cadillac Club which
was the former bowling alley. The Skyline building is planned to be
completed in the spring/summer and will have loft apartments. There will
be an architectural firm on the first floor. These two buildings represent
over $3,000,000 worth of investments and ReoTown is very impressed
with it.
There are smaller projects under way and ReoTown has a few new
investors from Old Town. The Quality Dairy has done an expansion of its
dairy plant that is not as visible but has created a significant amount of
jobs.
She stated that ReoTown hosted the Reo Centennial in July 2004 and it
was a huge success. There were no complaints and that was a good
sign.
She stated that ReoTown has a fagade improvement program funded
through the community foundation and has a meeting with the business
people on a monthly basis.
She stated that ReoTown is more than a commercial association and
represents the three neighborhood groups (Moores Park, Fabulous Acres,
River Pointe) surrounding ReoTown. All of these areas are within CDBG
eligible areas and are low to moderate income residents. The area is
clearly eligible in the entirety of its boundaries for CDBG funds.
ReoTown has three seats on its Board that are set aside for these
neighborhood representatives. She stated that ReoTown felt that based
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 7
on the history it wanted to be sure that it is not just representing business
people.
ReoTown received a phone call approximately a year ago from a young
woman who was looking for a place to open an art studio and have an
outreach program for children. Ms. Holmes stated that she knew of a
vacant building and the result is Reach Art Studio in ReoTown. People
can go there to have fun and create unusual things.
She stated that ReoTown is asking for $20,000 and after reviewing the
budget, she realized it would be a stretch. In order for ReoTown to
continue its work, it must do certain things (i.e. recruiting businesses,
stabilizing the business arena, neighborhood improvements). She hopes
ReoTown will receive this amount.
She stated that ReoTown would like to see the historic lights extended
southward from Baker Street to Mt. Hope Ave. because it looks like two
different neighbors but they are a part of the same area.
She thank the Board for its support.
Ms. Susan Cancro, Executive Director of Advent House Ministries
and Chair for the Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network
(GLHRN), stated that it is in her function to speak to the Board now
regarding what is done with the emergency shelter grant money that is
part of the budget. She stated that there are several groups in attendance
tonight who are a part of the network. She stated that Advent House has
collectively kept a handle on a very big problem. In the City on any given
day there are 400 to 500 homeless people that can be counted. She
stated that there may be 200 to 300 more who are homeless but are not
counted, and Advent House is aware of them through the grape vine. Of
these people nationally, the average age of a homeless person is 6 years
old. For those who go to Advent House, what is seen verifies this age.
She stated that there are many children and young people who are
homeless. On the streets of Lansing and many other Michigan cities,
homelessness is almost invisible. The services to those in need are good
and in the City, they are very good. This is the work of a collective group
of people including the City that supports Advent House. The GLHRN has
representation of all the shelters and shelter related services in the
community, including Michigan Department of Community Mental Health,
the Lansing Police Department, Board members, and Planning Staff.
Advent House shares what it does and tries to help others understand
what it being done so that services are not being duplicated or acting
alone when everyone should be acting as a team.
Advent House has three houses and is funded through ESG funds for
transitional housing. Families can stay for a long term and get out of
homelessness. Advent House is finding it harder and harder for people to
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 8
move from homelessness because the cost of housing has risen and there
are no jobs. It is a struggle but not an insuremountable one.
Advent House offers other services including a day shelter and on
Christmas Day had a big breakfast orcheastrated by Dr. Joan Jackson-
Johnson who is on the Board. Advent House Served 637 people at the
breakfast and none of these people were homeless but each one is at risk.
She stated that there are a lot of people in need in the community trying to
get additional help here and there. Day shelters are one of the key pieces
not funded by ESG and gives people the beginning of stability so that they
can use the other services that are offered.
She introduced other organizations: Volunteers of America (VOA), the
National Council on Alcoholism and Balentine Stepping Stones.
This is a few of the organizations representing a larger effort to handle a
big problem in the City.
Mr. Patrick Patterson, Director of Operations at Volunteers of
America (VOA), stated that the VOA plays a large part in the emergency
services in Lansing for homelessness. Last year, the VOA provided
overnight shelter to 1,402 homeless individuals and 26,006 nights of
shelter. In cooperation with the day shelter, the VOA served 1,974
homeless people and the average count a week before Christmas was
133 homeless per day. The VOA served 76,002 meals last year in its
community kitchen and 80 percent of those individuals served were
homeless.
He stated that in October 2004 President Bush signed into law the
American Jobs Creation Act (aka The Jobs Act) and that it will likely cut
45% of the revenue from the VOA due to the changes that it creates. The
VOA makes up to 72% of its overall revenue from car donations. As a
result of this, the VOA has notified the Mayor's Office to try to find
solutions but the VOA faces a great shortfall in funding. If the VOA cannot
come up with more money, the VOA will close the day center in March
2005. He stated that there are more hard times ahead and that this may
be worthy of consideration in terms of the action reports.
He stated that the VOA works cooperatively with the New Hope Day
Center who seeks to be the one stop place for homeless services. The
VOA tries to facilitate and continue these services. He stated that the
VOA works cooperatively with other people (i.e. Franklin Street) who help
keep individuals off the streets. He asked the Board to consider their
concerns.
Ms. Patty Jongkind, Program Director of Balentine Stepping Stones,
stated that Balentine receives operational funds for its 16 unit transitional
housing program with supportive services on site. Balentine is serving
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 9
homeless single mothers and serves 22 to 27 families per year with up to
45 children. The ESG funds are crucial in helping the facility to operate its
building. She expressed her appreciation for continued support of the
Board.
Ms. Pat Wheeler, Associate Director of the National Council on
Alcoholism, Lansing Regional Area (NCA/LRA), stated that the
NCA/LRA provides substance abuse treatment services at Glass House
for women and Holden House for men which are long term residential
treatment programs as well as out patient and intensive out patient
services. The NCA/LRA has been in Lansing since the 1960s and seeks
ESG funds to support a case management position for the homeless
individuals who are in the treatment programs. She stated that substance
abuse is one of the primary underlining causes of homelessness and to
have an individual who can focus their time on assisting people as they
are sober, recovering and returning to the community with housing and
employment is something that is very, very important for the individual's
continued sobriety.
The NCA/LRA also participates in the homeless resolution network and in
this capacity worked with other agencies in the community to make it a
united effort in treating the whole person and hopefully resolving their
homeless status over the long haul.
She thanked the Board for its support of the network and stated that it is
wonderful to have the opportunity to interact with the City as the
consolidated plan is put into action and being developed. She believes
that this makes a community special.
Ms. Betsy Bigsby, Interim Program Director of the Old Town
Commercial Association (OTCA) located at 1232 Turner Street,
thanked the City and the Board for their continued support of the
organization and the old town area over the years through CDBG funds
and general funds. She stated that the money provided by the City, the
Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) and private funding has all
been crucial to the OTCA existence and work in the Old Town area. This
is an important form of assistance that the organization and surrounding
area cannot do without. The OTCA's mission is to facilitate the socio
economic development of Lansing's Old Town area through the promotion
of historic preservation, business recruitment and community outreach.
During the past year with City support and funding, the OTCA helped
approximately 6,400 square feet of commercial space, saw the opening of
7 new businesses which created 54 new jobs, provided technical
assistance to over 100 businesses resulting in $86,000 in public and
private funds. The funds provided to the OTCA are used to create
tangible results.
fQal FA
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 10
The OTCA helped rehabilitate vacant buildings, provided services to the
community (i.e. Old Town Health Fair), and have assisted in the cultural
economic development of the Old Town area which is used as an example
of a Cool Cities Initiative.
She thanked the Board for its time and support, and requested support of
the CDBG proposal.
Mr. Rick Kibbey, Lansing Eastside Community Development
Corporation (LECDC), stated that the purpose of his request is to support
the work the LECDC is doing on Michigan Avenue and to create a buyer-
based program on the eastside that is appropriate for the market and the
type of housing available on the eastside. There are no other CDCs
currently working on the eastside. The LECDC worked in collaboration
with another CDC for a while and, though no fault of its own, MSHDA cut
them back. Now the LECDC is looking for ways to do this and feels that
the buyer-based program will not only be more economical but more
appropriate for the type of housing stock and type of buyer on the
eastside.
He stated that the work the LECDC does is a product of its own planning
process (i.e Eastside Summit) and several other neighborhoods have also
done a summit. In the LECDC's case, the summit resulted in an action in
creation of an administrative agency and the LECDC does the nuts and
bolts work for this plan.
He submitted a work plan and a budget to City staff and stated that he
would be glad to answer any questions.
He stated that the facade improvements that are being done on Michigan
have been a tremendous success. It has been very popular and the
LECDC is in its third round of funding for it. This is the way it worked out
and all of a sudden the LECDC found itself with a whole bunch of new
international dining opportunities on the avenue. This summer the LECDC
will be working with residents and businesses to put together a small
neighborhood size festival. The LECDC wants to be a comfortable
neighborhood where people enjoy walking around and where they can
take their kids, have something to eat, listen to some music, go home and
feel good about themselves.
The LECDC is looking for $30,000 to match the same amount from
MSHDA, and are looking for an additional $10,000 for program and
operational costs. This is less than the cost of subsidizing one house and
the LECDC is anticipating being able to do 5 to 8 houses in the area once
it is up and running.
He stated that the purpose of the funding is to keep the LECDC's
operations going. The LECDC will then develop programs and seek
r
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 11
funding for these programs independent from the operating fund. The
LECDC is looking for the core operating fund at this point.
Ms. Jean Lodge, Executive Director of Franklin Street Community
Housing Corporation (FSCHC), stated that the FSCHC would like to
thank the City for its 16 years of support on the north end of Lansing.
Great things are happening in the neighborhoods and in the Old Town
area. The neighborhoods are supporting the commercial district and the
commercial district is supporting the neighborhoods.
She stated that in 2004 the FSCHC revitalized 5 houses that were vacant
and there are new home owners in the area with families. For 2005, the
FSCHC is looking to revitalize 6 homes.
The FSCHC administers the only Individual Develop Account (IDA)
program in the City. An individual saves $1,000 and the FSCHC matches
it with $3,000 for down payment assistance or matches it with $2,000 for
education or to start a small business. The FSCHC has had 9 graduates,
5 of which are viable home owners in the Old Town area. There are 2
education participants and 2 individuals for small businesses who started
their own businesses.
The FSCHC needs the support of the City to continue its work in the
administration of the program and also with the help of revitalizing the
substandard houses. She stated that the FSCHC appreciates all that the
City has done and asks for continued support.
Mr. Ron Whitmore, Executive Director of the Northwest Lansing
Healthy Communities Initiative (NLHCI), stated that the NLHCI is a non-
profit community development organization serving the greater downtown
and west side of Lansing. He stated that this area is largely CDBG eligible
and that the poverty rate in the area is approximately 27% and the
homeownership rate is approximately 45%.
The NLHCI does a variety of different types of community development
work (i.e. community building, resource, access, awareness, and
economic development). He is very pleased to see in the proposed plan
that several aspects of the budget include economic development and
infrastructure and physical environment funding all of which would support
the NLHCI's request for funding to support the West Saginaw Oakland
Revitalization project.
The NLHCI makes up the fourth of four corners of corridor revitalization in
the Lansing area. If one has driven down west Saginaw Street recently, it
is easy to see that it is in tremendous need of revitalization and has a very
unwelcoming entry into the City and the downtown area from the west
side. This is a high speed traffic area that makes it very unliveable,
unwalkable and very difficult to sustain a viable business. The NLHCI is
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 12
working with the neighborhoods, residents and businesses to try to
reverse this trend.
In the NLHCI's written proposal to the City, it outlined the status of the
project and requested some CDBG funding to support the project. The
drafted plan was developed with the help of 120 different stake holders
who are involved in a strategic design process throughout 2004. Dr.
Bruch and her students helped to facilitate this entire process. It involves
residents, landlords, business owners, representatives from neighborhood
associations, non-profits, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission,
CATA, MDOT, LCC, Sparrow and several City departments. The NLHCI
worked very hard to get all the important stake holders to the table to help
develop this vision.
He stated that this area was once a vibrant commercial district that served
the needs of the residents of those neighborhoods and the NLHCI would
like to bring it back to that state by doing a number of things: traffic
calming through reducing lanes on West Saginaw, adding bike lanes,
street scape and landscaping improvements, transforming the entry way
coming from the west side to an inviting welcoming entry way into the City,
improve signage in the area through way-finding and neighborhood signs,
develop businesses through fagade improvement grants, business
development counseling and assistance and home improvements of key
houses along the Saginaw Street and Oakland Avenue corridors. All of
these elements of the NLHCI's plan are consistent with the proposed
spending for the CDBG funds for 2005-2006.
He stated that the City certainly would not be alone in supporting the
NLHCI's efforts. The NLHCI has received over $70,000 of funding from
LISC, Capital Regent Community Foundation, LCC, Sparrow Health
Systems, MSU, Consumers Energy Foundaiton. It costs money to run
these sorts of programs and to implement the proposed plan.
He asked the Board for its support for the work to compliment the other
corridor revitalization effort in the greater downtown area.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Bruch closed the public hearing
and referred the Five-Year Consolidated Plan - Proposed Funding
Allocations to the Urban Development Committee, scheduled to meet on
January 25, 2005 at 4:00 in the Planning and Neighborhood Development
Conference Room at 316 N. Capitol Avenue.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each)
Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Ms. Bruch closed the public
comment period.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 13
Ms. Stachowiak stated that she received a letter from Habitat for Humanity and
that the director was not able to attend the public hearing this evening so a letter
was submitted instead.
6. RECESS was taken by the Board.
7. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval — December 7, 2004
Mr. Frederick moved; seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve the minutes
of December 7, 2004 without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion
carried unanimously (7-0). The minutes of December 7, 2004 were
APPROVED.
B. Committee Reports
1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair
Next meeting, Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 4 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Avenue, Department Conference Room
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Keene, Vice Chair
Next meeting, Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — None.
4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — None.
C. Report from Planning Manager
Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Zoning & Ordinance Committee meeting
scheduled for next Wednesday has a lot of business on the agenda and
that there are six cases of which some could be rather lengthy. She stated
that Mr. Frederick is not able to attend the meeting and Ms. Bruch would
not be available until 5:00 p.m. She stated that the Committee needed to
decide whether or not to have the meeting at 5:00 p.m. or reschedule to
another day or have another member fill in. Mr. Ruge stated that 5:00 p.m.
sounds fine to him. Ms. Bruch agreed. Mr. Hollister asked how long the
—''is C., 743 -a
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 14
meeting will be. Ms. Stachowiak stated a couple of hours. Ms. Keene
stated that she would not be able to attend because of her classes. Ms.
Bruch stated that she teaches classes and they end at 4:00 p.m. She
stated that this would only be a conflict until March and that it would be
only for the next two meetings. Mr. Hollister asked about moving the
meeting to a different day. Ms. Bruch stated that it would have to be a
Friday for her. Mr. Ruge stated Thursday would work for him. Ms.
Stachowiak asked about a day time meeting beginning at 1:00 p.m or 2:00
p.m. on Friday. Mr. Hollister stated that could be done. Mr. Ruge stated
2:00 p.m. or later would work for him. Mr. Hollister stated that would work
better for him. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Committee members
decided to go with 2:00 p.m. on Friday, January 14, and that she would
call the applicants to inform them of the meeting change. She stated that if
one of the applicants cannot attend for some reason may be the case can
be handled briefly before the next regular Council meeting.
Mr. Rieske stated that he received some late news that the extension
service is going to be offering the Citizen Planner Program and it will begin
on January 20` and run through February 12th. He stated that there are
various dates and subjects (i.e. roles and responsibilities, plan
implementation, best practices in the art of community planning) and that
Mr. Ruff had asked him to mention this to the Board members. If anyone
is available to attend all the classes, please contact him. He stated that
there is no way to split the classes among Board members.
As an alternative, Mr. Rieske stated that there is some training available
through the Michigan Society of Planning Officials (i.e. Official Training,
Site Plan Review). If anyone is interested, he could make the
arrangements. Mr. Hollister asked if someone had to attend all the
sessions. Mr. Rieske stated that the individual would attend all of the
sessions and receive a certificate upon completion. Ms. Bruch asked if an
individual could split the sessions and take part of them at a different time.
Mr. Rieske stated that his impression was that it cannot be done this way.
D. Pending Items: Future action required
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee
a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business
District(Tabled February 11, 1998)
b. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District&
"J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002)
2. Urban Development Committee
a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled
June 27,2000)
b. Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
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
5. Board Member Code Enforcement Notification Reports
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 15
a. Teen Challenge-wood privacy fence(May 20,2003)
b. Dollar Store-Willow Street& MILK Blvd.-landscaping &buffering (May 20,
2003)
C. Grovenburg property-dumpster in ROW(July 1,2003)
d. 2714 W.Jolly Road-church with large statue in front yard (January 20,2004)
e. Jolly Road-tree trimming business operated from a home(January 20,2004)
f. 545 Baker Street- Mount Hope Church outreach (April 20,2004)
g. W.Willow Street-Grace Tabernacle Church-no landscaping (May 4,2004)
h. Michigan Ave& Shepard Street-sign business-several banner signs nailed to
the outside of building (May 4,2004)
i. 2702 S.Cedar Street-no landscaping (May 18,2004)
j. Cavanaugh Road-weeds across from Hawk Island Park have not been mowed
(August 3,2004)
k. Michigan Ave&Virginia Street-Sparrow Hospital property-no screening and
buffering (October 5,2004)
I. Intersection of Kipling Blvd. &Vine Street-house for rent, possible registered
rental (November 3,2004)
M. 2410 S. Pennsylvania Ave.-no landscaping (November 3,2004)
n. Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius Road& Pennsylvania Ave., northeast side of
the tracks-area becoming garbage dump (November 16,2004)
8. NEW BUSINESS — None.
9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON — None.
10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Mr. Frederick requested an excused absence from the next meeting and possibly
the first meeting in February. He will be going to New Mexico to accompany his
mother on a long train ride and is not sure when he will return.
Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. McConnell to approve excused
absence requests from Mr. Frederick for the January 18th meeting, possibly
February 1st and however many absences are needed. On a voice vote, the
motion carried unanimously (7-0).
Ms. Keene inquired about the moratorium on new rental property permits. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that it failed on a split vote. Ms. Cordill asked if they can
continue to rent homes. Ms. Stachowiak stated that is correct and that City
Council did not approve the request.
Ms. Cordill asked if there were design guidelines in place for the City corridors.
She stated that there is a business that may have been subject to facade work on
Michigan Avenue located on the south side of the street. She believes that it may
be a message center and it has a dry suburban look. The building sets back from
the property line. She is concerned that when funds go towards facades, the
applicant respects the character of the building and the area in general. Mr.
McConnell stated that this is supposed to be part of the criteria. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that is correct. Ms. Bruch asked if these requests are reviewed through
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 16
the site plan process. Mr. Rieske stated that the individual organizations who run
the fagade programs have their own design guidelines and that the requests do
not go through the department. He has never reviewed any guidelines except for
those of the Old Town Main Street. With the exception of the downtown area
which does have guidelines very similar to the Secretary of the Interior
Guidelines, he is not familiar with them. Ms. Bruch stated that Board had a
discussion that guidelines could not be set up for everything. Mr. Hollister asked
if there should be guidelines. Ms. Cordill stated that this is not unique to Lansing.
She has seen where different revitalization efforts take hold and that
organizations take local, state or federal monies but no one has a sense of what
it should look like. Ms. Bruch stated that there was a discussion earlier about not
wanting to set strict guidelines for set areas because each area neighborhood
should set their own. She wonders if there should be guidelines to help those
neighborhoods set up guidelines. Ms. Stachowiak wondered since the
Development office administers these funds if the Board could see its guidelines
and make comments. She stated that this would be the channel to go through.
Mr. Rieske stated that one example would be the Cadillac Club and it would fail
by most guidelines. He stated that breaking through the front of a building and
putting a Cadillac inside is just not reflected in the guidelines. He stated that the
club did however turn a bowing pin into a champagne bottle. This is not
necessarily reflective of lack of imagination on the owner's part. Ms. Bruch stated
that these are the unique icons of a city. Mr. Rieske stated it is like the Good
Year tire on 1-94 from the airport going to the downtown Detroit area. Mr.
Hollister stated that he is involved in the Saginaw corridor revitalization and his
question was if those involved were supposed to be following some sort of City
guideline. He did not want the people involved to be out in left field somewhere
doing their own thing. At the same, he wanted to be able to have some flexibility.
He stated that he does not know the answer to it other than maybe have
guidelines for guidelines. Ms. Cordill stated that it is not like creating a
Frankenmuth where it is Bavarian. It is more like respect the character of the
building and the neighborhood and be sensitive to these things. Mr. Hollister
stated that the desire or tenancy is already there within that group but is not
necessarily what will happen. He stated that this group is sensitive to this but
there could be another group that is not.
Ms. Cordill inquired about the City having an urban designer. Ms. Stachowiak
stated that the City has an architect in the Planning Office, Michael Wee, and that
he is heavily involved in the fagade improvements in the downtown area. She
stated that the City's Economic Development Corporation administers a fagade
grant program for the downtown area and Mr. Wee is always involved with it and
gives input into those designs to make sure that it meets the character of the
building. She stated that it is really close to the Secretary of the Interior
standards. As a general rule, the Planning Office does not have the staff to
accommodate this. Ms. Cordill offered this as a suggestion.
Ms. Keene inquired about the Development Office where people apply for CDBG
funding through the City and asked if the Development Office could approve
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 4, 2005 Page 17
funding conditioned upon certain guidelines having to be used. Ms. Stachowiak
was suggesting for instance, Rick Kibbey's organization or ReoTown, have the
facade improvements program. If these organizations are to receive funds, the
City could at least ask to see a copy of their guidelines and maybe offer
comments on them. The organizations would not necessarily have to accept
these comments but at least the City would have some input. Ms. Bruch asked
how this could be done so that the City does ask for the comment and can review
the guidelines. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would have to talk to Ms. Boone
of the Development Office. Mr. Rieske stated that he could bring this up
tomorrow during the course of talking with her about another project. He stated
that this may be something to discuss at the next Urban Development Committee
meeting.
Mr. McConnell asked about requesting a copy of the guidelines so that
Committee members could review them at the next UDC meeting. Ms.
Stachowiak stated that she was suggesting that Ms. Boone will be attending the
next UDC meeting and it would be good to discuss this with her. She stated that
the groups who receive the CDBG funding for facade improvement programs
could give the Planning Office at least an opportunity to review those guidelines
and provide comments. This would go through Ms. Boone and she should have
some input on it. Mr. Hollister stated that he does not want to add bureaucracy to
CDCs since he works for one. This is not what he is suggesting. He stated that
the flip side of what is being mentioned is if the funding source chooses to review
the plans, then the organization would let them review it. This would only make
sense. He stated that it would be good City-wide to have some sort of guidelines
so that groups are not going in radically different directions. Ms. Cordill stated
groups need to be sensitive to the style of the building and character of the
neighborhood and the context in which they are working. Ms. Bruch stated that it
might be okay for two neighborhoods to go in different directions because this
establishes the neighborhood to get its character and possibly establish an icon.
Mr. McConnell stated that each neighborhood has its own history so they will not
have the same facades. If everyone is singing out of the same hymnal, then the
City could have some input seeing what the guidelines are. Ms. Stachowiak
stated the City may be able to do this. Mr. Rieske stated that the City in the late
1990s had Historic Preservation surveys with reconnaissance level and intensive
level surveys which included the downtown area, the commercial area of the 700
block of West Saginaw Street, the 2000 block of East Michigan Avenue and the
ReoTown area. This information can be useful in terms of developing guidelines
that are reflective of the various districts. Secondly, there has been a growing
interest in the Historic Preservation Tax Credits that are available through the
creation of national or local historic districts. This is 20% to 25% of the
rehabilitation costs being available as tax credits. He stated that the Arbaugh
building, the Mutual building, and the Prudden Wheel building have applied for
these credits. This is lots of money that comes after the project is implemented
but it does not involve local money for the incentives where all these facade
grants involve the expenditure of local money. If the Preservation Tax Credit can
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES�IV m�4p �WJ January 4, 2005 Page 18
be used then the local money can be kept and use leverage state and federal tax
credits instead.
11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS
Ms. Cordill stated that there are a lot of signs at the Cash Advance place on the
corner of Mt. Hope and Pennsylvania Avenues. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the
sign inspector is over there almost every week and that the company takes the
signs down and then puts them back up.
12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board
PBMinutes.010405.doc