HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 E Michigan Ave Revitalization Plan Dept of Planning and Neighborhood DevelopmentDocument:
1994
E. Michigan Ave Revitalization Plan
Department of Planning and
Neighborhood development
•
0
•
•
'City : fLIOOPI
Department of Planningi�iboro oerit
I ea s Qr�ff � n A ou cesIT
nncl
r
1
EAST MICHIG--•.A","t."
�,w.•�x �.-... _ .,�:.., .:vim'-�;
® DEARDORFF DESIGN RESOURCES'/ inc.
Land Planning Ur'ba.-n Design
July 8,1994
Ms. Eleanor K. Love
Planning Manager
Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development
City of Lansing
119 Washington Square
Lansing, MI 48933
Dear Eleanor:
We are pleased to submit the final draft of the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study. We
are grateful for the opportunity to be a part of the ongoing planning'arid urban design
improvements proposed for the Eastside. This plan, as you are well aware, was developed
With local participation as a key emphasis.
We very much appreciate the work done by the members of the East Michigan Avenue
Revitalization Study Committee and we also appreciate the helpfulness and support of you and
your staff. We look forward with anticipation to the implementation of this plan.
Sincerely,
Howa#—D-eardorff IT
President, Deardorff Design Resources/inc.
•
920 Long Blvd., Suite 17, Lansing, Michigan 48911 517 694 7595, FAX 517 694 7596
•
Submitted by:
Deardorff Design Resources/Inc.
Corbin Design
Reid, Cool & Michalski, Inc.
July, 1994
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
0
•
0
Deardorff Design Resources/Inc. would like to acknowledge the efforts
of the members of the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study Committee,
and the City of Lansing Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development
whose ideas and discussions have contributed significantly to this project.
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE REVITALIZATION STUDY COMMITTEE:
Mr. William Allen
Mr. Jon Anthony
Mr. Richard Barry
Mr. David Berridge
Ms. Mary Clark
Mr. Joe Damore
Ms. Beth Donaldson
Mr. Vernon Fountain
Mr. Joseph Guillean
Mr. Robert Johnson
Mr. Patrick Lindemann
Mr. Jim Prister
Mr. Ron Thelen
Mr. Shelton Tyson
Mr. Bill Vincent
Ms. Mary Margaret Woll
CITY OF LANSING, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING and
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT:
Dennis Sykes Director of the Department of Planning and
Neighborhood Development
Eleanor Love Planning Manager
Doris Witherspoon Senior Planner
•
PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION 1
PLANNING PROCESS 3
PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY 5
PLANNING/URBAN DESIGN CONTEXT 7
URBAN DESIGN 11
THE APPENDIX 18
U
•
•
•
•
•
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE REVITALIZATION PLAN
1. PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION
The central purpose of this planning effort was to provide a catalyst for the economic and
aesthetic revitalization of East Michigan Avenue. It has been a cooperative effort involving all
those with vested interests within the study area.
The East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Plan utilized a process that insured the maximum
opportunity for participation by residents who lived in or adjacent to the study area, local East
Michigan Avenue Business owners, representatives of the Lansing School District, and Sparrow
Hospital leadership. (see Figure 1)
I
• A task force committee was assembled with careful thought to include a truly representative and
balanced mix of the various interests and concerns of those listed above. This planning process
featured an emphasis on inclusion and participation.
This planning report is organized in five sections and an appendix:
1. PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION: A brief purpose statement and the overall outline
of the study.
2. PLANNING PROCESS: A description of the workplan and the planning process
3. PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY: A succinct statement summarizing study participant's
definition of planning assumptions, study goals, and key issues and opportunities at hand
4. PLANNING/URBAN DESIGN CONTEXT: The development of alternative vehicular
circulation and land use alternatives to define the planning context for the redesign of East
Michigan Avenue within the study area
5. URBAN DESIGN: A specific urban design vocabulary for signage, lighting, street
furnishings, planting, paving in the context of future development opportunities and
implementation strategies
6. THE APPENDIX: Documentation of committee meetings, public hearings, feedback
• forms, and relevant data used in the study
It should be kept in mind that the ideas expressed in this plan are conceptual and will be subject to
change as additional study and planning work is developed. In particular, a comprehensive traffic
study will be commissioned in the near future to evaluate the traffic impact of the recommendations of
this study and the broader impact of Sparrow Hospital expansion in the context of the East Side. The
plan does, however, define the preferences of the participants at this point in time.
•
2
• 2. PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process involved a workplan generated by the consultant and reviewed both at the task
force committee level and at the initial public hearing. Figure 2 below defines this work plan.
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE REVITALIZATION STUDY
DDR TEAM/WORK PLAN
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■i■
■■ram
��r�■
■■M■
■■■■
■■■■
■■H
■■tom■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
...... - -
LM
■■E7■■■■■■H■G1■■■■■1•■■■■■■�
■■k�■■■■■C�r7C
■■■■■�■■■■�■
■■o■�■■■■■■■■■■■r�■■u■■
MWTCFTIM
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
*COMMmsE MEW Dumxmr DMKK ZWOtRCE&U&
Q. MMXW0XK&W/Mv?Ew ?ft6 d2A&V*
Figure 2
The overall process involved four main steps or tasks; project start up, the generation of alternatives to
develop a consensus direction for the traffic and land use patterns, and the generation and review of
• the recommended urban design by the task force committee and the through public hearings, and the
development of a strategy for implementing the plan.
40
• Project Start Up
This phase of the process involved reviewing existing plans and proposals developed relative to the
study area. These included the following:
LANSING'S EAST SIDE: YOUR INVITATION TO ACTION: Prepared in 1974 by the East Side Planning Association
NORTH-EAST AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Prepared in 1994 by the City of Lansing's Planning Division and the citizens of
the North-East Area.
GREEN OAKS AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Prepared by the Green Oaks Target Association in 1986
BOYS TRAINING SCHOOL PROPERTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMEIYf STUDY: Prepared in March of 1992 by Deardorff
Design Resources for the City of Lansing's Department of Planning and Municipal Development
SPARROW HOSPITAL LONG RANGE PLAN: Prepared by Deardorff Design Resources for Sparrow Hospital in September of
1992
PARKING & TRAFFIC STUDY FOR SPARROW HOSPITAL: Prepared by Carl Walker Engineers for Sparrow Hospital in
October of 1992
These documents were thoroughly reviewed in terms of relevance to the proposed revitalization within
the study area, and to provide useful and accurate data on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as well as
proposed and existing parking. A second task of the project start up phase was to define assumptions,
goals, and key planning issues and opportunities. This was one of the more important steps in the
process because it defined and documented expectations for all participants, thus giving the consulting
team a more precise definition of the task at hand. Section 3, PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
documents these findings.
• Conceptual Alternatives
The next phase of the process involved the generation of conceptual land use and vehicular circulation
plans. The goal of this phase was to develop a consensus direction for the recommended planning
and design framework thus ensuring an urban design plan for East Michigan Avenue that was
responsive to the context of the overall neighborhood/corridor setting.
East Michigan Avenue Design Treatment
The final phase of the planning process was to generate a specific urban revitalization plan and design
that promoted revitalization and established a streetscape and building facade character for the
corridor. A second task of this phase was to develop preliminary cost estimates and a strategy for
implementation.
is 4
•
•
•
PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY
• 3. PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY
Assumptions and Goals
Workshops were staged by the consultant to identify the basic assumptions of the study at the Task
Force Committee level and through a Public Hearing held on March 23, 1994 at Eastern High School.
The following are the Assumptions that resulted:
Please note that these assumptions and goals are not prioritized in -these •listings.
PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
• The plan will consider existing conditions, and future conditions for the short term (5 years) and long
term (20 years).
• The BTS Plan will proceed as adopted by Council.
• The East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Plan will be coordinated with Sparrow Hospital expansion
plans.
• The three schools (Eastern, Pattengill, and Bingham) will continue to function within the study area.
• no existing residential neighborhoods will remain and this plan will define design standards that
address the interface between commercial and residential uses.
• Fast Michigan Avenue will remain primarily in commercial use.
• The planning work will provide for citizen and institutional participation.
Concurrent with the development and adoption of Planning Assumptions, Planning Goals were
established and finalized at the Public Hearing.
PLANNING GOALS
• The plan should minimize traffic and parking conflicts between businesses, residents, schools, and
Sparrow Hospital traffic.
• The plan will encourage the development of off street parking and provide a balance between business
and residential parking opportunities.
• The plan should identify traffic impacts at intersections along East Michigan Avenue within the study
area and locations where significant problems will occur beyond the study area.
• The plan should minimize non local, "cut through"traffic.
• The plan should enhance pedestrian safety.
• The plan should create a "Gateway" image for both the Capitol and, traveling east, the East Side of
Lansing.
• The plan should mitigate the impacts of business activities on the residential neighborhoods including
softening the visual image of parking and buildings that face residential neighborhoods and the
schools, controlling blowing debris, and noise.
• The plan should encourage facade improvements along East Michigan Avenue.
0
. • Ibis plan will serve as a pinto typical guide for the revitalization of retail businesses and their
relationship to adjoining residential neighborhood for the entire length of Fast Michigan Avenue.
• The plan should encourage the retention of existing businesses as well as attract new businesses to
East Michigan Avenue.
• The plan should encourage the conservation and revitalization of residential neighborhoods.
• The strsstscape design will be configured to harmonize with the streetscape improvements along
Michigan Avenue west of the study area.
Finally, as a third part of the March..25, 1994 Public hearing, participants reviewed and expanded a list
of the following specific Issues and Opportunities:
ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
• Conflict between Sparrow Hospital, Pattengill and Eastern schools, and residential neighborhood
traffic on Jerome Street
• Hospital staff parking along Jerome Street east of the Hospital
• Visual Impact of proposed Hospital parking deck along Eureka Street
• Studio De Dance need for drop off and pick up off Jones Street and concern regarding closing Jones
Street in tension with the need to expand the Bingham School playground
• Problem of "bump outs" at intersections on Fast Michigan Avenue with conflict between pedestrian
safety (narrowing roadway) and smooth vehicular traffic flow
• Opportunity to separate Hospital from residential neighborhood traffic at Jerome and Holmes as per
BTS plan.
• Opportunity to provide visual screening of parking aloe the edges of Sparrow Hospital parking areas
along Pennsylvania and Fast Michigan Avenue
• Problem of Holmes Street off set intersection at Fast Michigan Avenue
These planning assumptions, planning goals, and specific issues and opportunities were used to direct
the consultant and the Task Force Committee as they worked together to implement the work plan
and produce the recommended plan for the revitalization of this segment of East Michigan Avenue.
Figure 3 graphically depicts the issues and opportunites involved with the study area.
0 6
0
I
I
r
1 ,
1 +
3
I
+I
Hi
i
I
I
i�
,
3
•
I1
,I
�
I
i
Psi;
a
I
.
,U U U W-P• U U uu L-J!..L-kiIL__J fu 1J U LI L.1 UL-3-L-r
Slamresm 1 1 STT i
D.
E5 o
am
IN
. P32
16
a 0 �J ::
a �L❑
: ca UU
. 71
o==` o- ❑ �a Qa`(
o� C�
IJ
-EASTERN—HIGH SC
�1 =Aum
--- A or J C-1 ❑ ;
C
- -
P 241'
x
ti
nu
1 a.hrx rra U I .--
1J0
i_
.p
SPAR
fi'1'a`�•'•""F"a '�« .^..�'�� I i` _.. zt�:Y"�a:C.a?k.'V� '�iit�3�L`::i.-fa
1'
"'Y70 r$ O
l ewra+u+ E
'• C s 1. z - STREET t'•
Issues and Opportunities
1. Conflici between Sparrow Hesp)taL PatengH) and Fasten) i Opportunity to separate Hospital from residential neighborhood
schools, and residential neighborhood traffic on Jerome Street traffu at Jerome and Holmes as per M plan.
2 Hospital staff At— aloe. Jerome Strut eat of the Hospital 7. Opportunity to provide visual screening of parking along the
o mi
r
—f7-
o�it
P 22
nb
r-] f 11 r Ir i ❑ rf'7
0 ❑
r
X n3" IrI O
-Era � _... -•- rn 0
-. i EUREKA .�.
p.
" J. Visual Impact of proposed Hospital packing deck along EaTeka edges of Sparrow Hospital parking area stung Pennsylvania
rat
7a ;e Jt[
lit
�: �+�
1�r
%•�
1Rt;
.r+
••
Sued and East Mkitigao Avenue
.He
'
.:
Le
} 4. Studio De Dance need for drop off and pick op off )ones Street S. Problem of Holmes Street off set intersection at East Mirhtgan
• and concern regarding dosing Jones Street in tension with the Avenue
s need to expand the Hingham School playground
rn...
ill
:'!
a
�L
TV
S. Problem of'bunp oat' at intersections on East Michigan
_]
g
p
♦�.
lit
_
I
Avenue with conflict between pedestrian safety (narrowing
fly
iE
• roadway) and smooth vehicular traffic flow
EXISTING AM PEAK
EXISTING PM PEAK
HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
N
REVITALIZATION PLAN
ISSUES AND OPPORzUNMES ANALYSIS
Lansing, Michigan
DEARDORFF DESIGN RESOURCES/Inc
LJ
L_J
o c too sou
F
Figure 3
0
•
4. PLANNING/URBAN DESIGN CONTEXT
Alternative Concepts
Using the previously generated Assumptions, Planning Goals and the Issues and Opportunities; the
consultant generated three Alternative Land Use and Circulation Concepts. These concepts were
reviewed and discussed first at the Task Force Committee level and then at a Public Hearing staged on
April 28, 1994 at Eastern High School.
The purpose of these alternative concepts was to deepen and sharpen participant's
understanding of the trade offs involved in implementing the planning goals and addressing the
menu of issues and opportunities. In order to assist participants, pros and cons were developed by
the consultant for each concept. These materials and "feed back" forms were provided to all
participants at the public hearing. The following are the alternative concept plans with evaluations
provided to aid study participants in their deliberations and discussions. Figures 4, 5, and 6, shown on
the following pages, graphically represent the Land Use and Circulation concepts.
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION CONCEPT A
This concept provides positive benefits:
1. ThIs concept eliminates cut through business and service traffic along Eureka Street and eliminates school
and hospital traffic from Jerome Street east of Holmes.
2. It also reduces business traffic west of Pennsylvania on Jerome by bisecting Eight St. between Jerome and
East Michigan and, between East Michigan and Eureka.
3. The plan separates Pattengill and Eastern traffic as well as Sparrow traffic from the schools by separating a
Sparrow Hospital service loop from Jerome St. in front of Pattengill.
4. The plan preserves current land use patterns with either separation or shared use of parking for blocks
involving multiple land uses.
The following are negative impacts of this concept:
1. Creates the potential for Eureka Street to become a "bypass" for people wanting to avoid East Michigan traffic.
2. Forces residents south of Eureka to either Pennsylvania, Hosmer, or Clifford St. to go north to East Michigan
Avenue.
3. This plan will create heavier traffic on Marshall because of the elimination of Jerome Street as a through
street to Patiengill and Eastern schools, and Sparrow Hospital.
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION CONCEPT B
This concept provides the following benefits:
1. The concept eliminates service and business traffic for residents along Eureka between Bingham and Holmes
while providing some relief to the Pennsylvania/Michigan intersection by providing a bypass via Eureka and
Bingham.
2. Separation of School and Hospital traffic.
3. Realignment of Holmes at East Michigan to provide a safer Intersection.
4. Using traffic diversions as shown on the plan, cut through traffic will be greatly reduced with major reductions
of along Eureka and Jerome Strests.
0 7
The following are negative impacts of this concept:
1. While through traffic is eliminated for most people along Eureka Street, the residents along Eureka between
Pennsylvania and Bingham would probably experience more cut through traffic.
2. In a similar fashion, more traffic would occur on Jerome between Pennsylvania and Eighth Street.
3. This plan would also create more traffic on Marshall and would likely increase traffic in front of Bingham
School.
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION CONCEPT C
This concept provides the following positive benefits:
1. This concept eliminates cut through business and service traffic along Eureka Street while retaining access
to and from Michigan Avenue for the Eureka St. Neighborhood through the use of a one way loop system.
2. The Sparrow Parking deck traffic will not impact the Eureka St. Neighborhood since both entrances and exits
are separated from Eureka St.
3. The one way loop will allow the narrowing of Eureka St. between Bingham and Holmes, creating a larger
green space buffer for the proposed parking deck.
4. Cut through traffic on Eighth is eliminated by divertma both north and south of Michigan Avenue.
5. The plan separates Pattengill and Eastern traffic as well as Sparrow traffic from the schools by separating a
Sparrow Hospital service loop from Jerome St. in front of Pattengill.
6. The plan preserves current land use patterns with either separation or shared use of parking for blocks
involving multiple land uses.
The following are negative impacts of this concept:
1. Eliminates direct access to Pennsylvania Ave. by Eureka St for the Eureka St. residents between Bingham and
Holmes.
2. This plan will create heavier traffic on Marshall because of the elimination of Jerome Street as a through
• street to Pattengill and Eastern schools, and Sparrow Hospital.
3. The plan will not allow those dropping off and picking up children to have vehicular access to the Bingham
School entrance from Eureka.
0
•
• EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
REVITALIZATION PLAN LAND USE and CIRCULATION CONCEPT A /\_
Lansing, Michigan
Figure 4 DEARDORFF DESIGN RESOURCES/Inc. „
E
•
• EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
REVITALIZATION PLAN LAND USE and CIRCULATION CONCEPT B Ad
Lansing, Michigan Figure 5 DEARDORFF DESIGN RESOURCES/Inc. „
0
Note: Traffic diverter proposed at
Hosmer and Prospect intersections to
separate residential neighborhood and
local business traffic.
• EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
REVITALIZATION PLAN LAND USE and CIRCULATION CONCEPT C jd\_
Lansing, Michigan Figure 6 DEARDORFF DESIGN RESOURCES/Inc. „
3u
• Framework Plan
These three alternative concepts were evaluated by the task force committee and at the public hearing
held on April 28, 1994 at Eastern High School. While the feedback from the public hearing did not
strongly favor one alternative, there was a clear disapproval of Concept A. With further discussion with
committee members and response to all feedback, a modified Concept C was generated. This concept
was reviewed by the task force committee and approved at a meeting held on April 10, 1994. It was
agreed that this plan would provide a conceptual framework and that the planning effort should shift to
the more detailed design of East Michigan Avenue. Figure 7 is a summary of this Consensus
Framework Plan.
The features of the plan include the following:
• The creation of four new businesses that would provide approximately 150 new jobs beyond
those added by Sparrow Hospital Expansion.
• The addition of 212 off street parking places and the removal of on street parking on East
Michigan Avenue from Pennsylvania to Holmes Streets. (Loss of approximately 80 spaces.)
• The closure of Eighth Street between East Michigan and Jerome Streets, and the removal of
three residences to provide the opportunity for additional, business sustaining and creating
parking.
• Traffic will be diverted at Hosmer and Prospect to reduce business traffic in the Green Oak
Residential Neighborhood.
• Traffic will be diverted at the intersection of Eureka and Bingham, and at the intersection of
• Eureka and Holmes to create a two way loop system that will serve Bingham School and
Residents living on Eureka while eliminating hospital and business cut through traffic in the
neighborhood to the south.
• A business/service access alley would be created between Bingham and Jones Streets just
north bf Bingham School to provide better access to parking and rear entrances to businesses
on East Michigan Avenue,
• The Boys Training School Property Plan and the Sparrow Master Plan will be accommodated
by this planning framework.
Three conceptual "tools" were created that could be used along the corridor for dealing with traffic
conflicts between businesses and residential neighbors. The opportunity to divert traffic was
demonstrated at intersections of Jerome and Holmes (proposed earlier in the BTS plan), at Eureka and
Bingham, and at Eureka and Holmes. Figure 8, on the following page, illustrates how a typical
vehicular traffic diverter would work. The purpose is to eliminate business and service vehicular traffic
from residential neighborhoods while still providing relatively easy access for residents. The diverter
islands could be locations for landscape features and pedestrian oriented signage with directions to
schools, parks and neighborhood centers.
A second tool involves creating business access/service alleys that provide linkages to parking and
reduce the number of curb cuts along East Michigan Avenue. Strong visual barriers need to be erected
to buffer residential and school areas from this traffic. These barriers could be masonry walls, wood
fences, landscape buffers, or a combination of two or more of these measures.
9
•
FUTURE HEALTHIEDUCATION
COLLABORATIVE
< ff
z `S :... I I I Fri
El �t- �.qq 7
7 1,7
.. ...... .. . . . ...
.. . ..... ..... ;.
3
CHRISM' EVANGELICAL
LUTHERANCHURCH;
EUREKA
i NOTE. Tiaffic'io be diverted at Hosm'er-and Prospect
to reduce business traffic in reside"Atial
`neighborhood
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
REVITALIZATION PLAN
Lansing, Michigan 6-7-94
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Figure 7
:ing - to be removed fi
Pennsylvania and
ic flow.. f I I . ....... ---
L
r
.... .....
. ....
c. .. ... . ..
,JL L-I
kJ C
..... ...... . .... . ......
. .....
LJ
N
NSENSUS FRAMEWORK PLAN
DEARDORFF DESIGN RESOURCES/Inc.
0 go 100 200
• A third tool involves the taking of the remaining remnant of residential use on a block where all other
uses are retail or business. While there is a strong commitment to preserving adjacent neighborhoods,
maintaining two or three homes adjacent to business and related parking is not a feasible approach.
The neighborhood preservation battle needs to be fought along clear lines. Where there are clear half
blocks of residential, these homes should remain. A clear example would be between on the North
side of Eureka between Hosmer and Pennsylvania streets. Each situation is different, but
consideration should be given to the reality that some blocks along this corridor were lost a long time
ago. Historically, much of East Michigan Avenue was residential five decades ago, but the reality of
change must be accepted and dealt with pro actively.
s
The Consensus Framework Plan is a pro active recommendation that involved a participatory
approach. It provides the basis for the more detailed urban design plan fort the East Michigan Avenue
Corridor.
Figure 8
IO
0
0
0. 5. URBAN DESIGN
East Michigan Avenue Corridor Design
The design of the East Michigan Avenue corridor was guided by several design principles which serve
the goals defined by the public hearing, most specifically creating a "Gateway" image and encouraging
economic revitalization. The design principle of simplicity was important, since the existing
conditions in the study area have developed over many years with no overall plan to guide the growth.
The result is inefficient traffic patterns, including multiple, confusing entrances and curb cuts, which do
not utilize the available land resources to their potential. The plan, therefore, eliminates curb cuts
wherever possible, consolidates and encourages shared use of parking lots, and provides a signage
system which communicates to the users how the parking system works. Another design principle
which guided the plan was unity. The study area contains a mixture of architectural styles which date
from the turn of the century, to the proposed Sparrow Hospital expansion, which is currently in the
design phase. There is little architectural unity on the street now, so our goal was to create a
streetscape which would become a unifying context within which the current collection of architecture
would exist in harmony with newer buildings in the future. This means that the proposed streetscape
would not be distracting additional elements, but rather a collection of attractive elements which do not
dominate the street. The purpose of these elements is to simplify and organize the circulation patterns
on the street in an attractive way. Beautification of the street will not increase business or revitalize the
corridor by itself. Revitalization occurs when the corridor is attractive, when businesses on the street
have safe and adequate parking, and when the area is easily used and very accessible. The plan
creates these conditions through signage, lighting, planting, and unified streetscape elements and
• furnishings. Figure 25, found at the end of this section, is the Streetscape Plan. This plan shows the
relationships of the streetscape .elements, the new parking and traffic circulation patterns, and depicts
the overall organization of the design.
Signage
The signage system was developed to serve the purposes of unification and identification, and is
composed of neighborhood identification signs, and a wayfinding system for the streetscape. The entire
sign system was designed to be a unified system, using colors to identify specific geographic areas.
Although the signs were designed for the East Side, and our study area in particular, the concept for
the sign system considered the entire city of Lansing, and the way Lansing residents tend to identify the
areas within which they live. Most obvious is the City of Lansing, and then residents identify the
location of their home most generally by the side of town, such as the East Side. Within the East side
are corridors, such as East Michigan Avenue, and neighborhoods, like the Green Oaks neighborhood.
Finally, residents use their street names to identify themselves within a neighborhood. The sign system
recognizes these levels and begins to identify them in a visible way. Figures 9 through 13 show typical
signs, which have a coordinated color, and a Lansing logo. The logo shown is just an example, and it
was created to show how any logo the City adopts would fit within the sign system. Neighborhoods
will have a sign identifying the name of the neighborhood, with colors coordinated to the side of
Lansing in which it is located, and street signs will have the City's logo.
• II
OF L ANC
North :Side I South Side East Side
L F LA OF LAB
Ty OF LANTy OP LAT�T} ()P LAr'�'`c
EAST SIDE EAST SIDE
OF LANC'A
w ()` A
PARK
FOR NOT
�• l�►
PARKING:�i.
HERE
• • •
CONCEPTUAL FREESTANDING NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN
Figure 11 SCALE 1"=1'
• • •
NEIGHBORHOOD AND CORRIDOR SIGNS
Figure 12
SCALE 1/2" =1'
• • •
CONCEPTUAL STREET IDENTIFICATION SIGNS
NO SCALE
Figure 13
• The corridors will have wayfinding cubes in addition to identification signs. A wayfinding cube will
identify the corridor, direct vehicles to parking, and identify specific buildings in the corridor. The
backlit cubes will tell the people that the businesses are open, and help simplify the corridor for visitors.
These cubes will also be color coordinated to the side of Lansing, and will help residents and
businesses identify themselves more easily.
Lighting
One of the goals of this plan is to create a "Gateway" to both the East side and to the Capitol. The
street lighting which exists near the capitol has created a very desirable approach to the restored capitol
building. The plan for creating a gateway is to visually link these two areas by using the same light
fixtures east to Holmes. The existing street lighting is a mixture of "cobra heads" and older overhead
light fixtures, and these lights, although efficient, will not help unify the street. The dual head King
Standard lights will bring the feel of the Capital out to Holmes St., thus improving the approach to the
Capital. The plan proposes a smaller, single head King Standard for the neighborhoods, which will
visually link the neighborhoods to the corridor, but at a residential scale.
Unified Landscape Details
The elements of the streetscape design vary from planters and walls, to bus shelters, street furniture,
and plant material. The specific elements are a part of an overall system, which is designed to visually
link the varied architectural styles along the street. The most widely used element will be a brick wall
detail that is used for planters, edge treatments, and visual screening. The brick wall will use a brick
which is visually compatible with the varying architectural styles in color and texture. The repetition of
• this wall will help unify the different buildings, as well as guiding pedestrian circulation. Other uses
include separation of commercial uses from residential and institutional uses. One specific example is
the wall which separates the Bingham School playground from the parking service drive and Sparrow
Hospital traffic, improving the visual character of the area, and also the safety of the children.
The bus shelters, or "CATA Stations" utilize the color coordination of the sign system, as well as the
brick detail of the planters and walls, to provide necessary shelter and much more interesting bus stops.
These shelters use a component system to keep the cost down, but they are very unique structures,
intended to provide a "sense of place" along East Michigan Avenue. Figure 14 shows front and side
views of the proposed shelter.
The street furniture, along with the lighting, was also selected to match the streetscape elements near
the capital building. This also serves to extend the capital approach, and allows the study area to
become a Gateway to the capital. Elements such as trash receptacles, newspaper stands, bollards, and
benches will all be coordinated and this unification helps to simplify the streetscape. See Figure 15.
The plantings in the area will serve several purposes. The existing trees, if healthy, will not be removed
an replaced with new trees. There are many trees in the study area which are very attractive and
growing well. On the other hand, experience has shown that traditional methods of planting street
trees are not working well long term. Trees grown in tree grates tend to be stunted and small, due to
compaction and soil contaminants. Our plan proposes planters which address these issues, and also
provide room for additional planting. Much of the street is lined with one of two types of planters,
providing a strong edge of trees which will bring the building scale of the street down to human scale.
0 I2
CATA STATION
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
T
• • •
DIRECTIONAL LIGHT CUBE AND NEWSPAPER STAND
Figure 15
• The section of the corridor from Pennsylvania Avenue east to Holmes St. uses the brick planter, and
provides annual flowers. This will increase the impact of the streetscape, and help serve to announce
the Gateway. A low, curb height planter is used for much of the street west of Pennsylvania Avenue,
where space for streetscape enhancement is limited. Figures 16 and 17 depict typical sections of East
Michigan Avenue. Figure 16 is a view of the streetscape elements looking north, and Figure 17 is a
cross section of the street looking east.
The last element is the paving of the streets and sidewalks. The plan shows all new paving for the
sidewalks, which will include brick paving and concrete. One of the goals of this plan is to increase
pedestrian safety, and with that in mind, the plan provides wide brick crosswalks at the street crossings.
These serve to beautify the street, as well as tell the driver that he or she is in a different area of town,
and to slow down. The special paving will increase awareness of the crossings due to their contrasting
color and texture, thus improving safety and awareness of pedestrians. We have also proposed a
section of East Michigan Avenue be paved entirely in brick. This area is in front of Sparrow Hospital,
west of Holmes, and would very clearly indicate to vehicles that they are entering a special place. This
would very clearly identify the Gateway to the Capital, and the East Side.
Facade Treatments
The purpose of the facade treatments is to restore and improve the aesthetic character of the buildings.
The end result would be more attractive buildings, which are more useful and viable as commercial
space. Some of the buildings are not currently fully utilized, and in conjunction with better access and
parking, facade restoration would attract potential businesses. The section of the study area west of
Pennsylvania has very little room for streetscape elements, so the improvement of the facades would
help improve the visual character of the street where planters and other elements can not be used.
Figures 18 through 23 are the elevations of proposed facade enhancements, and these figures are
letter coded to the Streetscape Plan, Figure 25.
• 13
•
•
Figure 16
0
u
Figure 17
0 Special Traffic Problems
Two specific traffic Issues have created the need to Identify additional options that were not shown on
the Consensus Framework Plan or the final Streetscape Plan. The first issue addressed was the
Intersection of Holmes and East Michigan Avenue. The problem was Identified at the Issues and
Opportunities level at an early workshop. The proposed Streetscape Plan involved a solution that
recommended a traffic signal that would delay left turn movements from East Michigan Avenue in both
directions. A second option, shown below as Figure 24, Illustrates the possibility of relocating Holmes
to the east,, south of East Michigan Avenue to aliign the Intersection. This option would require
acquisition of private land east of the existing east ROW line on Holmes Street.
These options as well as any others which may be developed will be examined in the Sparrow Hospital
Development Traffic Study (scheduled for completion In February, 1995), In order to establish the
most appropriate traffic and circulation patterns. The Information and results of this study will be
available to the Planning Board for review and possible inclusion In the recommendations of the East
Michigan Revitalization Study.
SPARROW Hosm Al. PAILK04C
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
om
srAnon11 �;L-J
EAST MICHIGAN AVEfHOLMES ST ^ #4 .-
ALIGNMENT OPTION
Figure 24
14
EXISTING PARKING
Too
H
..i
.d
T
NOTF-- Eighth Street removed to provide
PROPOSEDopportunity for additional parking
:• SPACES
DROP OFF
;DIY ••, ,y+/•.a t i v. ;r%.;����
,:.
Faw
EXISTING PARKING
Ilion
IRA V On
ON
- ,EXISTING PARKING
i
ItID
�4-�
PROPOSED PARKING
(Shared with Pilgrim Church)
it
v r -q v � .u-.: �• � •. - • z .� ii$ii �•+►�rti. ���%%_ �Z�:y%i .11�4��%' a��i. ���%. ��r �. _ � �\�y� N lb
• N
•�-
�f��!�:1�I7�NIIIL .�• ii" •Ii�- /_.►i�Ni�_I�ay+�� //��•, o
� r \�!' M.: ii��a„ I� 4 \\• \•. .�i ate•Q I. .�,•. .. O . ( • �� C •i -, • R.
•• 1..�-- +fit �.• >�'
�O �.•+�•���':/�iC1,t��ir...v. ,c? � �'!.. ��.i/lr.� is � O � %?. :.�r.�:wl'. � C�-►. �.�wa\(7�� ...►'!�/i'.7�„
�o� c`/.�•rxv.is,.a••w►snv\r•�.wu••�� al�..r� ii'W.aai �•.1�17i'�� «..a.�. Jn_.\� �i,v\\��•�a'�• M��2I%l.yi� � ^�
�• . 1 I
i ��INi�..��Ill.�.s/►�4/i �!f111/i.. .��/Ii .�1►\11
,TRANSIT . • • �a1I,.. .aN►w s ..._ _.....
�a '`, c � � � •{� :� 'yea ol'- iii �.�:.�i�' o wryl„ �•: ;'� �� �. •r. o +;, ` `3'ia - 1.'� °'-�` i/
�' � j/ �'tL%����1�/i�1►t`-�/bil'����•/I/Ih��/ - %..�.!•.�,�i��Y.d� ���j���.� - - - T_ '��.7 � ��C�� �%It�J , � • �a� ,e`�
N
o ,s •o •o
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
REVITALIZATION PLAN STKEETSCAPE PLAN
Lansing, Michigan Figure 25 DEARDORFT: DESIGN RESOURCES/Inc.
—L
A
I
i \ A
� cn
L
EXISTING�
IN 22 SPACES
wA
I
CANOPY TREE
CANOPY TREE
LANDSC APE TREATME
EXISTING BUSINESSEXISTING
SPARROW HOSPITALPROPOSED
PROPOS :D NEW BUSINESSSPECIAL
FACADE. RENOVATION OPTION
A
LEGEND
CATA TRANSIT SHELTER
• • � TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAST ARM
g DECORATIVE LIGHT FIX -PURE
® BUSINESS PARKING SIGN
(Unified Sign System)
A second issue that will need further study is the configuration of traffic flow in and around the
entrance to Pattengill School. The current plan proposes dual use of this entrance by the school and
Sparrow Hospital. This Involves parking that would back out onto the vacated Jerome street Into
school traffic and potential ambulance traffic. A second option would involve the designation of
parent and visitor parking for Pattengill School In the existing Sparrow Hospital parking lot. It would
also feature a separate emergency vehicle entrance from Pennsylvania that would be approximately
100 feet south of Jerome. This would completely separate the school and hospital traffic and, in effect,
provide a private entrance for Pattengitl School that would accommodate faculty parking, student pick
up and drop off, and visitor parking. These options, as well as others which may be developed will be
examined in the Sparrow Hosptital Development Traffic Study due for completion in February,1995.
The study will address the interface between the schools and the hospital in terms of safe and efficient
Ingress and egress for all users.
The Information and results of this study will be made avallable to the Planning Board for review and
possible Inclusion In the recommendations of the East Michigan Revitalizaltion Study.
Conclusion
Again, the purpose of all of these elements is to unify and create a context which will pull together the
various buildings and uses along East Michigan Avenue. The Revitalization Plan design calls for the
• removal of the "bump outs" at the comers, and the removal of curb cuts where possible to ease the
flow of traffic. The signage system and new parking areas will simplify the use of the businesses,
making them easier to use and locate. The overall effect of unifying these elements of the study area
and coordinating them with the elements near the capital will improve both areas as well as the East
Side.
•
Implementation Strategy
Public /Private Partnership
The East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Plan will involve a coordinated and cooperative effort to
implement the proposed improvements. A project of this magnitude will require thoughtful phasing
and a multitude of funding sources. The chart on the following page, Figure 26, defines preliminary
costs for the project:
15
• • •
AFigure 18
• • •
BFigure 19
• 0 •
Figure 20
C
• • •
DFigure 21
• w w_
w w w w w ■
ON an Mmwi
EIM30
Al I ON LIA am ME NO MIA =m MW Emu
ME RV aWt� "I Mugu mullMM"
a r z
\\ Y\ \d V� 8 '.
s2
�ffa AN
WO wr mm
(• ( _ j3 * _ �'
Environmental Outhouse
\�
w
n
R.
UZI
..... .....
.. ..... ... .
f 912 1
.... ....
• COST ESTIMATE
DEMOLITION:
ITEM
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
COST
1. Curb
If
$3.25
6,5001f
21,200
2. Bituminous Paving
sf
$0.50
1801000sf
90,000
3. Concrete Sidewalk
sf
$1.00
80,000sf
80,000
4. Benches, Sign Posts, Misc.
Lump Sum
25,000
CONSTRUCTION:
1. Bituminous Paving
sf
$2.25
121,600sf
275,000
2. Special Street Paving
sf
$7.00
64,300sf
450,100
3. Curb & Gutter
If
$10.00
6,5001f
65,000
4. Special Paved Sidewalks
sf
$7.00
57,000sf
399,000
5. Concrete Sidewalks
sf
$3.50
31,700sf
111,000
6. Mast Arms
ea
$65,000
6ea
390,000
7. Street Lights
ea
$6,000
60ea
360,000
8. Bus Shelters
ea
$15,000
4ea
60,000
9. Sign System
Lump Sum
50,000
10. Light Cubes
ea
$2,500
12ea
30,000
11. Planters
If
$300.00
5,0501f
1,515,000
12. Benches, Trash Receptacles,
News Stands, etc.
Lump Sum
250,000
13. Parking Lots
Space
$800.00
262 Spaces
210,000
• 14. Trees
ea
$400.00
225ea
90,000
Consultant fees @ 10%
447,130
Contingency @ 10%
447,130
TOTAL:
$5,365,560
Figure 26
• 16
• Conceptually, phasing is determined by funding opportunities. The most feasible option for funding
streetscape enhancement is the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 or
ISTEA(pronounced "Ice Tea"). These Federal funds are available for historic preservation, pedestrian
and bicycle amenities and projects with a multi -modal emphasis. East Michigan Avenue meets these
requirements in that is a major line of the Capital Area Transportation Authority's bus system that
connects downtown Lansing and downtown East Lansing. The improvements proposed within the
study area will improve pedestrian, bus and private automobile traffic flow as well as provide easier
access to businesses and institutions along this corridor.
The funding of ISTEA projects require, cooperation between the Michigan Department of
Transportation and the Tri County Regional Planning Commission. The process for applying for funds
must be initiated by the City of Lansing. In 1992, $445 million dollars were distributed from this
program for enhancement projects in the state of Michigan. ISTEA is a timely funding source for the
East Michigan Avenue Revitalization project. A strong case can be built in regard to facade restoration
for buildings where historic preservation is the major emphasis of the work. ISTEA funds have been
awarded for historic facade restoration.
While ISTEA funding can fund a majority of the public improvements proposed herein, the
implementation of new small business improvements, such as additional parking, facade improvements
that are not historic in nature, and new building construction, will need other sources of funding. The
recently developed Enterprise Community Strategic Plan for the City of Lansing identifies a Micro -
Enterprise Program which provides an opportunity for new business development and exisiting
business expansion. Local banks have created a loan pool to encourage business revitalization with
below market rate financing. This financing will be administrated by the City of Lansing Economic
Development Corporation.
Residential Neighborhood Revitalization
Existing programs such as "Paint Blitz" and "Neighborhoods in Bloom" are in place to provide
individual property owners with the means to make improvements to their homes and yards. The
plan, however, proposes new signs and public spaces and places where landscape improvements are
proposed at traffic diverters. There is a need to develop local neighborhood pride in creating and
maintaining these areas. The following possibilities are recommended:
1. Neighborhood Green Teams: Using local neighborhood, high school and middle school
students, and also the Michigan State University Extension Service; jobs and job training could
be created to maintain neighborhood public spaces. Again, the Enterprise Community
Strategic Plan defines specific pprogramopportunities and funding sources.
2. Neighborhood Signage: The highest impact per dollar spent to create neighborhood pride
will be signage. This plan proposes $ 50,000 for Phase I neighborhood identity signage. The
City of Lansing should commit funding to this area as a pilot demonstration project that could
be related to other parts of the community.
40 17
• Conclusion
The East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study provides a blue print for restoring not only the
approach to the Capitol but also the renewal of the Eastside of the City of Lansing. With Sparrow
Hospital's commitment to grow($80 million expansion), the Eastside has a "window of opportunity" to
add jobs to the business corridor and to create and stabilize residential property values. The location
of these residential neighborhoods provides opportunities for people to live close to employment,
schools, retail services and parks. The potential to create "walking neighborhoods" is at hand. With
the community and regional access that CATA provides residents, they have access to other
neighborhoods, goods, and services throughout the region.
This planning effort involved people representing many and varied interests, ranging from residents, to
business owners, and large institutions. The result is a cooperative consensus that offers specific
proposals for enhancement and revitalization. East Michigan Avenue can and will become the
community's "Gateway" to both the State Capitol and the City's Eastside.
is
0 18
0
•
•
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
REVITALIZATION STUDY
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25, 1994
WEIGHT MANAGEMENT CENTER
SPARROW HOSPITAL
MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Berridge, M. Clark, J. Guillean, B. Johnson,
E. Love, J. Prister, D. Sykes, R. Thelen, B. Vincent, M. Woll
H. Deardorff (consultant).
The meeting was called to order at 7:45 a.m. by E. Love, Chairman.
The agenda was approved by consensus. A motion was made by
Berridge and seconded by Clark to approve the minutes of the last
meeting on November 18, 1993 as printed. MOTION CARRIED.
Overview of Planning Goals
• Mr. Deardorff distributed copies of a preliminary set of Goals 'and
assumptions regarding the E. Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study.
The Committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing these
products. At the conclusion of the discussion, the consultant was
directed to revise the materials for the next public meeting.
Review of Work Plan
The consultant passed out the revised work plan with tentative
dates and products. The committee reviewed these materials and
identified specific dates, times and locations for each of these
committee and public meetings. The committee adopted the specific
schedule which is attached.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 a.m.
40
U
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING
EAST MICHIGAN REVITALIZATION
March 24, 1994, 7:00 P.M.
Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
The meeting was called to order by Eleanor Love, Planning Manager
at 7:00 p.m.
ATTENDEES:
Mary Clark
Paul M. Scott
Bill Vincent
Kate Koskinen
Bob Setter
Pam Smith
Paul Ross
R.T. Kennedy
Mary Smart
Bill Allen
Doris Witherspoon
Bill Stelmach
Eleanor Love
Jim Prister
Howard Deardorff
Ms. Love briefly explained the E. Michigan Avenue revitalization
study. Howard Deardorff is the consultant for the project.
Mr. Deardorff outlined the area of study which is from the 700
Block of East Michigan at the Chessie railroad tracks and extending
east to the 1200 block to Holmes Street and extending North
(Jerome) and South (Eureka) one block from Michigan Avenue. He
• informed the participants that the following issues will -.be
addressed in the study area:
traffic and parking conflicts
pedestrian and vehicular safety
non -local or "cut -through" traffic
He identified the planning assumptions and goals for the study
area.
These are not in any order of priority. They are:
Planning
Assumptions:
1.
That the plan will consider existing conditions and
future conditions for the short term of 5yrs; long term
20yrs.
2.
Boys training school (BTS) property plan is the context
within which this study sets.
3.
To coordinate the E. Michigan Avenue Revitalization Plan
with the Sparrow Hospital Expansion Plan to create a win
situation for E. Michigan Avenue businesses,
Institutions, Schools, Residential Neighborhood, and for
the hospital.
4.
The three schools are here to stay, Eastern, Pattengill
and Bingham, and will continue to function within the
study area.
• 5.
The existing residential neighborhoods will remain and
this plan will define design standards that address the
interface between commercial and residential uses. -
2
6. E. Michigan Avenue will remain in primarily commercial
use.
7. The planning work will provide for citizen and
institutional participation.
8. The plan will serve as a proto-typical guide for the
revitalization of retail businesses and their
relationship to adjoining residential neighborhood with
the entire length of the E. Michigan Avenue Corridor. - -
Goals:
1.
The plan should minimize traffic conflicts between
residents, schools, and Sparrow Hospital traffic.
2.
The plan should identify traffic impacts at intersections
along E. Michigan Avenue within the study area and
locations where significant problem will occur beyond the
study area.
3.
The plan should minimize non -local cut through traffic.
4.
The plan should enhance pedestrian safety.
5.
The plan should create a gateway image for both the
capitol and traveling east to the East side of Lansing.
The plan should work for both directions.
6.
The plan should mitigate or soften the visual image of
parking and buildings that face residential neighborhoods
• 7.
and the schools.
The plan should encourage facade improvements along E.
Michigan Avenue.
8.
The plan -should attract new businesses to E. Michigan
Avenue.
9.
The plan should encourage the conservation and
revitalization of residential neighborhoods.
10.-
The streetscape design will be configured to harmonize
with the streetscape improvements along Michigan Avenue,
west of the study area.
Several questions were raised by the participants. Mr Deardorff
indicated that a traffic consultant will look at traffic problems
.as the E. Michigan revitalization study progresses. The
participants agreed that minimizing traffic in the area is
important as well as resolving parking conflicts. There were
concerns that if the current parking situation in the study area
continues, parking will be forced on the residential streets.
Generally anything outside of the study area is not being addressed
in this study, however additional efforts are being made to take a
comprehensive look at traffic.
The group agreed to add one additional goal and expand on two
existing goals:
The plan should minimize traffic and parking conflicts
between residents, school and Sparrow Hospital traffic.
• 3
• The plan will encourage the development of off street
parking and provide a balance between business and
residential parking opportunities.
• The plan should encourage the retention of existing
businesses as well as attract new businesses to East
Michigan Avenue.
In reference to the facade improvements, Mr. Deardorff talked
briefly about the blockface of businesses in the area. The goal of
the facade improvement is to approach businesses along Michigan
Avenue and discuss opportunities for improving the facade of the
building. A historic look vs. a contemporary look was favored.
Mr. Deardorff talked about the work plan. The four major tasks
consist of:
I. Project Start-up
II. Neighborhood/Business Corridor Alternatives
III. Design Treatment
IV. Plan Implementation
I. Project Start-up
Plans and policies are reviewed and goals and objectives
are identified. The public has the opportunity to review
these issues.
II. Neighborhood/Business Corridor Alternatives:
Generate alternative plan ideas and traffic flow ideas.
This will be presented to the public for their review.
III. Design Treatment:
Identify several businesses along Michigan Avenue to
participate with a facade improvement plan.
IV. Plan Implementation:'
Identify resources.
The public will have another opportunity to review the plan at the
April 28, 1994 public meeting.
The plan will be submitted to the Planning Board in June for their
approval. City Council will vote on the final plan at their July
meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
•
• . MINUTES OF THE EAST MICHIGAN
REVITALIZATION STUDY COMMITTEE
April 14, 1994
7:30 a.m.
100 N. Pennsylvania
Present:
Doris M. Witherspoon
Paul
M. Ross
_Sandy Heany
Richard Barry
Vern
Fountain
Mary Margaret Woll
David Berridge
Bob
Setter
Bill Vincent
Jim Prister
Greg
Wetkamp
Paul F. Slavin
Vivian M. Stouffer
Mary
Clark
Eleanor Love
The meeting was called to order at 7:45 a.m. by Doris
Witherspoon.
Mr. Vincent made a motion to approve the February 25, 1994
committee meeting minutes. Ms. Woll seconded. Motion carried.
Ms. Witherspoon briefly reviewed the minutes of the public
meeting. It was noted that the following persons were present at
the March 24, 1994 public meeting:
Ron Thelen
• David Berridge
Vern Fountain
The planning assumptions and planning goals were reviewed.
Mr. Deardorff reviewed the issues and opportunities:
Issues:
- Conflict between Sparrow Hospital, Pattengill and
Eastern schools, and residential neighborhood
traffic on Jerome Street
- Hospital staff parking along Jerome Street east of
the Hospital
- Visual impact of proposed hospital parking deck along
Eureka Street
- Studio De Danse need for drop off and pick up off
Jones Street and concern regarding closing Jones
street in tension with the need to expand the Bingham
School
Problem of "bump outs" at intersections on East
• Michigan Avenue with conflict between pedestrian
safety (narrowing roadway) and smooth vehicular.
traffic flow
• Opportunities:
- Opportunity to separate hospital from residential
neighborhood traffic at Jerome and. Holmes as per BTS
(Boys Training Study) plan
- Opportunity to provide visual screening of parking
along edge of Sparrow hospital parking area along
Pennsylvania and East Michigan Avenue
- Problem of Holmes street off set intersection at East
Michigan Avenue
Mr. Deardorff presented a slide presentation and talked
briefly about the evolution of the East Michigan study. The study
was formed as a result of the BTS plan. The group discussed
several issues: ingress and egress; greenspace, traffic counts and
patterns, land use, vehicular and pedestrian movement,
Mr. Deardorff proposed two plans (Plan A, Plan B) to address
the issues and opportunities (See enclosed). A third alternative
was mentioned which will be discussed at the next committee
meeting.
• The meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The committee will meet on Wednesday, April 20, 1994, 7 : 3 0 a . m
to look at the third alternative and further evaluate the
current alternatives.
The second Public Meeting will be held on Thursday, April 28,
1994 at Eastern High School, 7:00 p.m.,
--------------------------------------------------------------
• April 14, 1994
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION CONCEPT A
This concept provides positive benefits:
1. This concept eliminates cut through business and service traffic along Eureka Street
and eliminates school and hospital traffic from Jerome Street east of Holmes.
2. It also reduces traffic business traffic west of Pennsylvania on Jerome by bisecting
Eight St. between Jerome and East Michigan and, between East Michigan and Eureka.
3. The plan separates Pattengill and Eastern traffic as well as Sparrow traffic from the
schools by separating a Sparrow Hospital service loop from Jerome St. in front of
Pattengill.
4. The plan preserves current land use patterns with either separation or shared use of
parking for blocks involving multiple land uses.
The following are negative impacts of this concept:
1. Creates the potential for Eureka Street to become a "bypass" for people wanting to
avoid East Michigan traffic.
2. Forces residents south of Eureka to either Pennsylvania, Hosmer, or Clifford St. to
go north to East Michigan Avenue.
3. This plan will create heavier traffic on Marshall because of the elimination of
Jerome Street as a through street to Pattengill and Eastern schools, and Sparrow
Hospital:
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION CONCEPT B
This concept provides the following benefits:
1. The concept eliminates service and business traffic for residents along Eureka
between Bingham and Holmes while provide some relief to the
Pennsylvania/Michigan intersection by providing a bypass via Eureka and Bingham.
2. Separation of School and Hospital traffic.
3. Realignment of Holmes at Fast Michigan to provide a safer intersection.
4. Using traffic diversions as shown on the plan, cut through traffic will be greatly
reduced with major reductions of along Eureka and Jerome Streets.
The following are negative impacts of this concept:
1. While through traffic is eliminated for most people along Eureka Street, the residents
along Eureka between Pennsylvania and Bingham would probably experience more
cut through traffic.
2. In a similar fashion, more traffic would occur on Jerome between Pennsylvania and
Eighth Street.
3. This plan would also create more traffic on Marshall and would likely increase traffic
in front of Bingham School.
L L +; 11I! Li
H-
U 1 f
-� f
1 .� Ll 1.1l,L)
oo
I ..... ...n Oyw-ifi..
.n ..—Or\. 1- .._r.
� v..n�.�r.•�nr•+rrn+M
....Ne.. /..M...\qM. 1.... rww
.• erM.� a.... o- r...� -x..w
�.wR_ .r,,,.,.�o...�...r.......r.
EXISTING AM MAK EXISTING PM BEAK
IIOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIOU0. TKAFnC VOLUMES
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE "
REVITALIZATION PLAN ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS
UU0. W0.FF ULSrGN 0.LSOURCFS/lw.. ��
Lansing, Michigan
. �^ry n11..n..IrynMi.�j• nr Mm I�w1r ..n�
r t.w
r
i
r ,
1
I c,
NNE y
VINE 7 I EASTERN HIGH SCHOOL
I I i
' Q RESIDENTIAL
I y, (;_, .,•I = NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL - Ili FUTURE
NEIGHBORHOOD Z , . PATTENGILLIUNIOR IUGH k •�"
i L;FROMF
EROME
a
I +- FUrURE SPARROW HOSPITAL '
r
r4 r i i f .tm I
NFUEow
-
``, — T III! p
rlEwscl C
.: • >
p I
. BUJGHAM
f I 7
Z C �: SCHOOL
{ 111Annlr�
C < R IIDENTIALNEIGHBOR pm o f
o�l x S 0
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
REVITALIZATION PLAN LAND (ISE and CIRCULATIONCONCEPA
DFANII KIT UISIGN PI—Kk;l.'Inl. U LJ
Lansing, Michigan
VwE
W
Z
EASTERN HIGH SCHOOL
z
<
-
i - FUTURE
PATTENCILL JUNIOR HIGH
y
-
0.�
! '
FUTURE - SPARROW HOSPITAL
'c
AVENUE
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE M
REVITALIZATION PLAN LA ND [ISE and CIRCULATION CONCEPT B
Lansing, Michigan OlwHU00.I1 UI}IONM6OURLLVIna
•
MINUTES OF THE EAST MICHIGAN
REVITALIZATION STUDY COMMITTEE
May 3, 1994
7:30 a.m.
100 N. Pennsylvania
Present:
Richard Barry
David Berridge
Jim Prister
Bill Vincent
Mary Margaret Woll
Howard Deardorff
As a follow up to the meeting held on May 3, 1994, the following conclusions were discussed and
agreed upon regarding the Public Meeting held on April 28, 1994 to review conceptual alternatives for
the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study:
1. With the disappointing attendance despite the mailing of 600 invitations, the decisions
regarding preferences for a consensus alternative becomes more of a committee decision.
is2. The consultant presented a tabulation of the feed back sheets (11 submitted). While the
number of feedback sheets returned cannot be considered representative of the surrounding
neighbors, the conclusions are as follows:
A. There was no clear preference for a single alternative. Alternative A received,
clearly, the least preference while Alternatives B and C were preferred almost equally.
B. There was strong agreement that the intersection of Holmes and Michigan should be
realigned. There was strong agreement that cut through and/or Sparrow traffic should
be eliminated from residential neighborhoods. There was strong preference for traffic
diversions to eliminate cut through traffic even though it would inconvenience
residents.
3. The committee agreed that the study should move forward to Phase III. East Michigan
Avenue Steetscape and Facade design. The Alternatives Phase should be concluded as
follows:
A. Scheme C should be modified to make the loop south of East Michigan Avenue two
way. The Eight Street mid block diverters should be eliminated. The
Holmes/Michigan intersection should be realigned. The plan should be thought of as a
framework within which the Schools, Sparrow Hospital, Businesses on East Michigan
Avenue, and Residential neighbors can plan to move forward. As we move forward,
certain details of the plan may be challenged and, with the careful scrutiny of the City
• and all parties involved, changes in detailed implementation may be made. The
Framework Plan does, however, does provide a guideline of understanding for future
public and private development and revitalization along the East Michigan Avenue.
• B. The Framework Plan should document a "tool box" of options for dealing with the
separation or integration of land uses, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and parking.
4. There was extended discussion regarding the issues to be addressed in Phase III. of the
study. Concerns were expressed that committee would need more input and review of the
proposed facade and streetscape treatments. Additional meetings were discussed as well as
the possibility of delaying the Planning Board presentation scheduled for June 7, 1994. The
consultant was questioned regarding the specific elements that will be addressed in Phase III. It
was suggested that a detailed list of specifics be developed and forwarded to Committee
members.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 9 a.m.
The next meeting of the committee will be April 19, 1994 at 7:30 a.m. to look at the preliminary
designs for streetscape and facade elements. If an intermediate meeting is needed, the Department of
Planning and Neighborhood Development will notify committee members. The next public meeting is
scheduled before the Planning Board on June 7, 1994.
•
0
•
•
0
JUL 08 '94 11:33AM P&ND DEVELOPMENT OFC
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers
Tenth Floor, Lansing City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1994
I. OPENING SESSION
P.3/13
DRAFT TO CLERK
APPROVED
TO CLERK
Chairman Helen LeBlanc called the meeting to order at
7:32 p.m.
A. Roll Call. Present: Fountain, Goolsby, Horne, LeBlanc,
Marshall, Ruge, Thelen. Ex officio Councilmembers Jones
and Lilly - not in attendance.
B. Excused Absence - None. Forrest - absent. Mr. Thelen
made a motion, seconded Mrs. Horne to excuse Mr. Ruge
from the May 17, 1994 meeting; voice vote; unanimous;
motion -carried.
C. Introductions. Eleanor K. Love, Planning Manager,
introduced staff present: James A. Ruff, Zoning
Administrator= William Burleson, Associate City Attorney,
City Attorney's Office; Louise H. Christian, Planning
Board Secretary; Doris M. Witherspoon, Senior Planner.
D. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as printed.
The Chairman added an item to the agenda, a resolution
distributed at tonight's meeting in support of the
Enterprise Community application. With that addition,
the agenda was approved.
II. HEARINGS:
A. SLU-7-94, 831 & 835 N. Sycamore Ave., Loaves & Fishes -
Homeless/Emergency Shelter.
Mr. Ruff presented the request by Loaves and. Fishes
Homeless Shelter to amend their special land use received
in 1982 in order to increase the capacity to 15 and
expand the facility into 835 N. Sycamore, combining the
two buildings. The property is zoned "C" Residential
which allows residential care facilities with a special
land use permit.
KEVIN J. BOWLING, ON BEHALF OF LOAVES AND FISHES CORE
GROUP, 831 N. SYCAMORE. We have operated the overnight
shelter since 1981. To maintain our current shelter at
831 N. Sycamore, we need to buy the adjacent property at
835 N. Sycamore. Our plan is to connect 831 and 835, and
provide adequate parking. We intend to maintain the
emergency portion of our program at 831 (short-term), and
develop a transitional living program at 835 (long-term).
JUL 08 '94 11:38AM P&ND DEVELOPMENT OFC
P.4/13
•
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 2
I have letters of support from community agencies. For
the overnight shelter, the City Council in 1981 required
that guests could be in the shelter only from 6 p.m. to
10 a.m. the following day. If. we expand to include a
transitional living program, services would be provided
to guests in the transitional living component during the
day if City Council would permit. this.
Chairman LeBlanc said Mr. Bowling provided letters of support from
the Child Abuse Prevention Service, Community Support Services,
Cristo Rey, Southland Clinic, Lansi.n.g Public Schools Adult and
Vocational Education, LCC Student Counseling Center, LCC Women's
Resource Center, Literacy Volunteers of America, Center for
Handicapper Affairs, Friendship Clinic, Ingham County Health
Department, Housing Resource Center, Volunteers of America New Hope
Center, Professional and New Hope Job Clubs, Peckham Vocational
Industries, Youth Development Corps, and Legal Aid of Central
Michigan.
Chairman LeBlanc read into the record letters received in the
Planning Division from New Way In, Wendy Ring, *in support, and
• David DeVinney, 9161 Wisconsin Avenue, in support.
SLU-7-94 is referred to Zoning and Ordinance Committee.
B. SLU-9-94, Radford Road, Reachout Christian Center,
Construct New Church
Mr. Ruff presented SLU-9-94, a request to construct a new
church facility in two phases on property bounded by Wise
Road, off the end of Holmes, along homes on Radford Rd.
near Coachlight Common, and Waverly and Miller. The area
was platted once and then replatted. It has never been
developed for residential purposes. A number of acres
have been sold off; the church purchased a part of the
property to develop the church facility, with a capacity
of 279 persons, on a 16-acre parcel in Phase I. Phase II
would have a larger sanctuary, and the Phase I facility
would be converted to a gymnasium. The property has an
access easement from Consumers Power, so there is direct
access onto Wise Road on the north end.
Chairman LeBlanc asked about access to Radford Road; Mr.
Ruff said there is no access to Radford Road.
The petitioner was not present.
• SLU-9-94 was referred to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee.
JUL 06 '94 11:39AM P&ND DEVELOPMENT OFC
P.5/13
•
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7 1994 - PAGE 3
C, SLU-10-94, 5609-5701-5709 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Spartan
Toyota, Allow "J" Parking for Display of New and Used
Vehicles
Mr. Ruff presented the request by Spartan Toyota for a
Special Land Use permit to utilize "J" Parking District
along Pennsylvania Avenue for the display of new and used
vehicles. They have purchased the old ABC Warehouse
property and are reducing some of the parking area for
landscaping in the front 69 3/4 feet and also providing
parking for sale of new and used vehicles. The toils
Parking District allows this with a special land use
permit. The property is zoned "H" Light Industrial
besides the "J" Parking District; it is about 4 3/4 acres
in size, surrounded by other commercial and warehouse
development. They are also asking for their current
Spartan Toyota and Lexus property be brought up to meet
the standard of the'special land use permit.
The petitioner was not present.
• SLU-10-94 will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance
Committee.
D. ACT-5-94, River Street Closure
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Public Service
Department to vacate street right-of-way of River Street
between Kalamazoo Street and Grand Avenue (Cesar Chavez)
and that the property be utilized for a staging area and
then for a redevelopment site in the future. In the
interim, it would be a parking area and a staging area
for construction of the Intermodal Transportation
Terminal. The City has purchased the properties on both
sides of River Street.
Mr. Ruge asked if the City has excess parking now? Mr.
Ruff said when a site is developed and existing parking
has to be relocated, the parkers have to be relocated
nearby; plus space is needed for construction equipment.
DAVID J. BERRIDGE, CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER.
Mr. Ruge asked if the proposed parking would replace
parking taken over by the new transportation center. Mr.
Berridge said the proposed parking lot is part of the
plan adopted by City Council in October 1989 to acquire
• the land, demolish the properties, consolidate the land
and construct a surface lot. We are following through on
a plan adopted five years ago. Parking is still needed.
JUL 08 '94 11:40AM P&ND DEVELOPMENT OFC P.6%13
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7 1994 - PAGE 4
Mr. Thelen asked how many total parking spaces;
Mr. Berridge said nearly 400 spaces. Patrons parking in
the 150-space lot will be relocated during construction.
Handicapper spaces will be constructed and available in
accordance with ADA requirements.
Mr. Fountain asked about vacation versus closure of the
street. As the item proceeds through committee, closing
rather than vacating should be scrutinized. Technically,
it may make some difference in the future. In some other
areas downtown, streets were closed, rather than vacated,
so that easements for sewer, etc. could be maintained.
It is worthwhile looking at this aspect. Mr. Berridge
said he would be happy to consider the suggestion. Mr.
Fountain said the property is in the floodplain and maybe
even in the floodway and should be checked to see if any
use permit is required to reconstruct the parking lot.
Act-5-94•was referred to the Urban Development Committee.
Chairman LeBlanc said the River and Waterfront Board at
their recent meeting informally discussed the matter and
• requested landscaping of the parking lot and maintenance
of the access to the river and the River Trail, and
perhaps a river overlook. Also, if the site is developed
in the future, that the developer be required as part of
any sales agreement to develop the public portion of the
river bank.
E. LS-4-94, Lot Split, 1539-1545 Ohio Ave.
Mr. Ruff presented the case, a request by Kenneth Kruger,
1539 Ohio Avenue, to split property off 1545 Ohio Avenue
and attach it to his property at 1539 Ohio Avenue. The
split. would increase the size of, his property and
decrease the adjoining property. Neither property would
meet the current subdivision requirements. The property
sizes will increase, 1539 Ohio Avenue from 33-foot lot to
a 36-foot lot, and 1545 Ohio Avenue from a 49-foot lot to
a 46-foot lot. The property is "B" Residential District.
The petitioner's driveway has extended over the driveway
for many years and he is trying to clear it up.
KENNETH KRUGER, 1339 OHIO AVENUE. The agenda gives this
item as 1543; the correct address is 1545.
LS-4-94 will be referred to the Zoning and Ordinance
• Committee.
III. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
JUL Oe '94 11:40AM P&ND DEVELOPMENT OFC P.7/13
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7 1994 - PAGE 5
A. Enterprise Community Application
Order will be first a staff presentation, followed by
audience comments.
,Mr. Thelen made a motion, supported by Mrs. Horne, for a
five-minute recess to allow staff to met up for their
presentation; voice vote; Yeas: 7; Nays: 0; motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Winnicker, Development Manager, summarized the City Is
effort to seek Enterprise Community designation. The
federal government has given communities the opportunity
to be designated as Enterprise Communities or Empowerment
Zones. We designated eight committees, which met in
March and April about the functional areas, housing,
economic development, human services, education and
training, finance, public safety, infrastructure and
transportation, and environment, to be addressed in the
application.
• Each committee picked two or three strategies that would
be effective in addressing area problems, strategies for
which we have commitments in place.
Four things are mandated to be looked at: The need to
have self-sustaining programs. They have to run on their
own some time in the future. The theme of this area is
jobs, jobs, jobs; employment. The idea is to create
economic opportunities in the communities, or have people
create their own opportunities and getout of poverty.
They must be community -based, with community support.
The last is the vision for change, the need to do
business in a different way than in the past. We tried
to demonstrate each of these four ideas in the core
strategies. We feel we have ten to twelve good core
strategies.
Chairman LeBlanc announced the public comment section.
MARTY ANDREWS, LANSING BUSINESS OWNER. I was on the
Economic Development Committee. Regarding micro -
enterprise businesses, we need to attract larger firms
with more business experience to provide jobs. Another
thing: people at the colleges aren't qualified to train
people for jobs. They can train for basic skills but not
how to run businesses. Regarding community focus
• centers, ten might be too many. One or two --who is going
to pay taxes, and utilities after the grant expiration.
Spend the money researching bringing bigger businesses to
Lansing to provide more jobs.
JUL 08 '94 11:41AM P&ND DEVELOPMENT OFC
P.8%13
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7 1994 - PAGE 6
CATHY PELHAM, 239 ELVIN COURT. I am confused about the
relationship of existing grants to the potential EC money
and concerned that money will be diverted from CDBG. In
the EC application and in CDBG, they talk about
maintenance of effort. We are not to use those special
funds to undermine an ongoing effort. We have been very
careful that the EC dollars would be an expansion or an
addition to existing programs.
BARB WICKERHAM, 539 BAKER STREET, NEIGHBORS UNITED IN
ACTION. I am a VISTA. volunteer, in support. We would
like to see a latch key program instituted. People could
work and know their children are taken care of after
school. We are going to use resources already available,
RSVP program, Foster Grandparents and Youth Illiteracy
Coalition. we are doing a community needs assessment.
CARI HANSON, 907 BURCHAM. I am the other neighborhood
VISTA volunteer. We have talked about projects in the
focus center, immunization clinics, a community library,
and day care. Regarding attracting larger businesses, in
• Atlanta, large corporations sponsor a neighborhood and
provide on-the-job training and other activities.
DEBRA TELLES, NORTH LANSING. Please explain rationale
used in developing the neighborhood focus centers as
opposed to utilizing and expanding existing centers in
the distressed areas, and a definition of "distressed
area". "When I woke up this morning, all of a sudden it
was a distressed area".
Ms. Love said Kingsley is already at capacity, and Foster
is outside the EC area. Instead of enlarging and
centralizing activities for two or three centers, the
idea is to decentralize facilities to be closer to
individual neighborhoods. Regarding distressed areas,
within the area are 14 census tracts having populations
with 25 percent of residents at or below poverty level.
The eight tracts .in the center have 35 percent of
residents at or below poverty level. This is the same
area the City has been working on for at least 15 years.
JOHN SANFORD, 342 CORRAL PATH, EMERGENCY SERVICES
DIRECTOR, RED CROSS, EC HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE, ALSO ON
CAPITOL AREA COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD. I want to speak
to the focus center issue. Head Start is growing, and
looking for classrooms. The closer Head Start can get to
• the community, the less transportation we must have.
Head Start'is in the Donor& facility, will purchase half
of it, and will be involved in continuing maintenance.
CACS expects to continue to be involved. This is money
JUL 08 '94 11:42AM P&ND DEVELOPMENT OFC
P. 9/13
• PLANN_ING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 2994 - PAGE 7
from a new source other than EC. These small multiple
facilities are needed because we are dealing with
community ownership. Each facility would have offices
that would be defined by the community. We can't
consolidate into major centers, rather, we have to get
smaller and closer to home, and focus on a smaller basis.
JENNIFER GRAD, 201 LATHROP, REPRESENTING LANSING
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL. I will be sending a letter with
ideas that neighborhoods interface, but Neighborhood
Council, along with Dr. Frank Fear from Resource
Development, and Dr. Rex Lamour from Center for Urban
Affairs, has gotten to the second stage of a $270,000
environmental grant to interface neighborhood activities
with environmental projects. We are one of 14
applications being sent to the federal government Friday.
We will know by the end of the summer.
Chairman LeBlanc read into the record.some written comments:
Carl Dorshimer, Economic Development Planner, Tri County
Regional Planning Commission,•in support,'with comments;
• Ken Spurber, Office for Young Children. Disappointed that
child care issues were not included in the preliminary plan.
Suggests several possible initiatives to address these;
Mary Margaret Murphy-Woll, President, Eastside Neighborhood
Organization, in support and offering help as volunteer. This
concludes the public meeting on the Enterprise Community
application.
B. East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study Committee
HOWARD DEARDORF, DEARDORF DESIGN RESOURCES. Presented
the plan for revitalization of East Michigan Avenue in
four phases including Project Start Up, Neighborhood
Business Corridor Alternatives, East Michigan Design
Treatment, and Plan Implementation Phase.
The plan assumptions are: (1) consider existing and
future conditions; (2) the BTS Plan is relevant and is
the framework for the study; (3) coordinate the study
with Sparrow Hospital's plan; (4) Eastern, Pattengill and
Bingham are here to stay, and the residential
neighborhoods are here to stays (S) Create design
standards for the interface for residential and
commercial uses; (6) East Michigan Avenue will remain
primarily in commercial use; (7) the Study will be a
participatory process; (0) This plan will serve as the
• prototype for the entire East Michigan corridor out to
US--127 .
JUL 08 '94 11:42AM P&ND DEVELOPMENT OFC
P.10/18
rPLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 8
The goals are as follows: minimize traffic conflicts
between residents, schools, and hospital; identify
traffic impacts at intersections along E. Michigan;
minimize nonlocal cut -through traffic; enhance pedestrian
safety; create a gateway image for the Capitol as one -
approach going from the east to the west, and for
Lansing's east side; soften commercial use impacts on
residential uses; encourage facade improvements along E.
Michigan Avenue; attract new businesses to E. Michigan
Avenue; encourage conservation and revitalization of
residential neighborhoods; and maintain unity in the
streetscape design.
The East Michigan Avenue Design treatment is a part of
this study; we are taking about adding about 180 parking
for businesses along East Michigan other than Sparrow
Hospital in hopes of revitalizing the East Michigan
Avenue community. Parking is key. In terms of signage,
we want to install signage that will enable people to
find a place to park. That will give the businesses the
chance to be successful.
In the implementation stage to identify programs to fund
this, we think the secret is in the Enterprise Community,
not all the money, but the kind of money to pilot things
and get things started. This is an opportunity to
revitalize not just the street, but the neighborhoods
around it, and stabilize and emphasize opportunities in
the neighborhood.
Mr. Ruge left the meeting at this point.
Chairman LeBlanc informed Mr. Deardorf that at the June 21
meeting a public hearing will be held on street lighting in
the downtown area and on Michigan Avenue to Pennsylvania
Avenue. Chairman LeBlanc called for comments from the
audience.
JULIE SOLTOW, 1212 EUREKA. My question is about the
diverter at Holmes and Eureka. It looks like a one-way
loop that goes around the annex to the east.
Mr. Deardorff said it will be two-way, and traffic will
be diverted to prevent cut -through traffic. Holmes,
Bingham and Eureka will remain two- way streets.
PAUL ROBS, ON BEHALF OF STUDIO DE DANSE. I came to
• express the concern of Studio De Danse for the safety of
the students. ,Tones Street is a very viable route used
'by Studio De Danse and the parents. We're very aware of
the concerns of the neighbors against non-residential
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUL 08 '94 11:43AM P&ND DEVELOPMENT OFC P.11i13
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 9
cut -through traffic. The idea of a commercial alley
running from Bingham school, behind the CoMerica Bank,
the Lynn camera building, and outletting onto Jones
street is certainly something that we are interested in
looking at. Thank you.
JON ANTHONY, EASTSIDE COMMERCIAL CLUB. I've been a
businessman on Michigan Avenue for 54 years. I think our
residential areas are coming back. I would like to see
this, and along with Sparrow Hospital, am trying to get
our employees to buy on the Eastaide, and will assist in
the purchasing of houses similar to Sparrow. I would
like to see this a world class city, and everybody on the
east side would like to see that. Thank you.
BRIAN SINGER -TOWNS, 1220 EUREKA. We have to put a
priority on bringing those businesses back onto Michigan
Avenue again; that will help the neighborhood. We've
been concerned about the traffic flow. On Holmes and
Michigan, traffic lights would really help that if you
can't actually straighten the street out.
• Chairman LeBlanc announced the conclusion of the public meeting.
IV. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None.
V. RECESS - None.
VI. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Minutes for Approval: None.
B. Committee Reports:
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee,.Mr. Thelen, Chair.
a. Next meeting Wednesday, June 15, 1994, at 2:30
p.m., planning Division Conference Room
2. Urban Development Committee, Mr. Goolsby, Chair
a. Next meeting Tuesday, June 14, 1994 at 4 p.m.,
Planning Division Conference Room, Second
Floor, Washington Square Annex
Chairman LeBlanc announced that Ms,. Marshall has been appointed to
the Urban Development Committee.
• Mr. Goolsby asked regarding the East Michigan Avenue study, if
committee consideration is being held off until the implementation
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUL 08 '94 11:44AM P&ND DEVELOPMENT OFC P.12i13
•
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 7t 1994 - PAGE 10
plan is completed. Ms. Love answered that she anticipates that it
would come at the July meeting.
3. . Executive Committee - did.not meet.
C. Report from Planning Manage :
Ms. Love said "You've seen most of what we're working on
tonight. I'll leave it at that."
D. Pending Items: Future action required.
1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee:
• a. NCU-2-931 812 Eureka Street, Class A status
b. Z-23-901 2200 Olds Avenue (Committee Held)
C. Z-3-91, 4700 Block Aurelius Road (Committee
Held)
d. Z-8-94, SE Cor. S. Cedar & Pacific, "B" to
2. Urban Development Committee:
• a. East Michigan Avenue Land Use Policy
b. ACT-49-92, Kaplan Street
VII. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fountain to resolve
into a Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution for
the Enterprise Community Application.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows:
On a voice vote, there were: Year►: 6; Nays: 0; carried
unanimously; motion approved to resolve into Committee of the
Whole; Mr. Goolsby, chair.
Mr. Goolsby called the Committee of the Whole to order to
consider the resolution of the Enterprise Community
application.
Mr. Fountain made a motion, seconded by Ms. LeBlanc, 'that the
Committee approve the resolution and forward it to Council.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE on the motion was as follows:
Mr Fountain said this might be the time to make ordinance
amendments to accommodate home occupations and cottage industries,
• while protecting adjacent properties; and to relax building codes
to make these things happen without taking away the entire intent.
Mr. Thelon said for the record that he formerly resided in one of
those distressed areas, and it did not suddenly become distressed
this morning.
JUL 09 '94 11:44AM P&ND DEVELOPMENT OFC
P. 13%13
• PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUKE 7 1994 - PAGE 11
On a voice vote, there were: Yeas: 7; Nays: 0; carried
unanimously; the resolution of support for the Enterprise Community
application was APPROVED.
Mr. Goolsby made a motion, supported by Mrs. Horne, that the
Committee of the Whole has met and considered a resolution of
support for the Enterprise Community application, and,the Committee
unanimously recommends that the Planning Hoard approve the
resolution and send it to City Council for their consideration.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows:
On a roll call vote, there wares Yeas: 6; Nays: 0; carried
unanimously; the resolution of support for the Enterprise Community
application was APPROVED.
viii. NEW BUSINESS - None.
IX. COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman LeBlanc said there is one new communication she neglected
to read at the public hearing from the Eleven -Twenty Company
regarding SLU-10-94, 5609-5701-5709 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, in
support; however, they feel the portion of property immediately
adjacent to Keystone Avenue should be restricted to normal
appearance and without the use of banners, flags, etc., for sales
tools, because Keystone Avenue is transitioning to office use.
They feel the appearance of the dealership should be oriented to
Pennsylvania Avenue, and not to Keystone Avenue.
Chairman LeBlanc welcomed new member Jane Marshall. The other item
is vacation schedules --submit them as soon as possible. Chairman
LeBlanc will have to miss the second August meeting. Also, the
first meetings in July, August, and September are on Wednesdays,:
due to elections and holidays.
Mr. Fountain said it may be possible to consolidate the summer
meeting to a single monthly meeting. Regarding the Enterprise
Community boundaries=, the area covers all four NDA areas that were
previously looked at as depressed areas. Ms. Love said it includes
the NSAs and the 21 target neighborhoods that we are operating in.
X. ADJOURNMENT - was at 11:02 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
• Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Lansing Planning Board
e:\wp\data\p1anbd\mn060794
DEARDORFF DESIGN RESOURCES / inc.
Land Planning Urban Design
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO: Paul Slavin
FAX NUMBER: - 810-788-2152
FROM: Greg Weykamp
FAX NUMBER: (517) 694-7596
PROJECT: East Michigan Avenue/Jones St. Traffic Counts
Total number of pages, including this cover sheet: 6
DATE SENT: April 21, 1994
TIME SENT: 11:10 am
PLEASE CALL US IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGESI
is Phone: (517) 694-7595
REMARKS: Paul... Here are the results of my survey last night. These charts show the
results of the information I collected. I do have some information about which way many of
the Studio De Dance patrons left the site, although I'm sure I missed where some of the cars
went, so I did not include this information on the charts. If you have any questions, please call
me.
Thank You,
Greg Weykamp
0
•
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE/JONES ST HOUR TOTALS
TIME
STUDIO DE DANSE
THROUGH TRAFFIC
TOTAL TRAFFIC
4�-530
23
3�
5 7
630
24
37
61
63d -7X
15
23
-15
730-83v
I G
2 3
53
8 �ti -930
8
Z4
3 Z
On the following charts:
1. RIGHT IN and LEFT IN refer to traffic movements from East Michigan Avenue turning
RIGHT or LEFT onto Jones St.
2. RIGHT OUT and LEFT OUT refer to traffic movements from Jones St. RIGHT or LEFT onto
East Michigan Avenue.
3. EAST MICH. refers to Studio De Danse pick up and drop off traffic only.
4. FROM JONES indicates Studio De Danse traffic which arrived from the South via Jones St.
5. OUT JONES indicates Studion De Danse traffic seen exiting the study area to the South on
Jones.
6. Within the chart, all counts referenced with an "S" indicate Studio De Danse Traffic(ie:1 S,
4S)
7. Within the chart, all counts referenced with a "T" indicate through traffic.
These counts were taken Wednesday, April 20, 1994, between the hours of 4:05pm and
9:30pm. The weather was sunny and clear, approx. 55 degrees at 4:15pm; and clear and
cool, approx. 35-40 degrees at 9:30pm.
• EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE/JONES ST. TRAFFIC COUNTS, April 20, 1994
•
•
mummmmmm-_
STUDIO
DANSE
TOTAL
PEDES
• EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE/JONES ST. TRAFFIC COUNTS, April 20, 1994
•
numummmWIDANSE
STUDIO
THRU
TOTAL
PEDES
:7
•
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE REVITALIZATION PLAN
ALTERNATIVES FEEDBACK SHEET
or other Affiliation:
ii: ivame
Address
ALTERNATIVE
RANK
COMMENTS
CONCEPT A
Pro
Con
CONCEPT B
Pro
Con
CONCEPT C
Pro
Con
1. I would prefer less traffic and diverters on local streets, even though less convenient for me.
Agree Disagree No Opinion
2. I would prefer existing cut through traffic over street closings and/or diverters.-
Agree Disagree No Opinion
3. I would like to see Holmes St aligned at the Holmes/East Michigan intersection.
Agree Disagree No Opinion
4. I would like the sidewalk/curb 'bump outs" removed from East Michigan Avenue.
Agree Disagree No Opinion
5. I think the current traffic system is fine just as it is.
Agree Disagree No Opinion
6. I would prefer Sparrow Hospital traffic be separated from Eureka St traffic.
Agree Disagree No Opinion
7. I would prefer all commercial traffic be separated from Eureka St
Agree Disagree No Opinion
Other Comments:
•
1�1
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE REVITALIZATION PLAN
ALTERNATIVES FEEDBACK REPORT
Note: Ranking with lower being better with 1.0 being perfect score,
ALTERNATIVE
RANK
COMMENTS
CONCEPT A
2.375
Pro: 1. Separates traffic without traffic loops.
2. Protects neighborhood south of Sparrow from traffic.
Con: 1. Dislike 8th St. intersection.
2. No access from (neighborhood) south (of Eureka) to Michigan Avenue.
3. Traffic on Eureka forced down to Clifford (& Lathrop) and Eureka.
4. Eureka could be a by-pass for east -west traffic.
CONCEPT B
1.875
Pro: 1. School traffic away from neighborhood.
2. This keeps the Bingham, Jones, Holmes, Eureka neighborhood together.
3. Holmes/Michigan St. meets more smoothly.
4. Diverters on both Bingham and Holmes minimize cut -through traffic.
5. Holmes/Michigan intersection, Eureka protected.
6. Stops a lot of cut through traffic.
7. Encourages cut -through traffic.
8. Addresses most issues directly.
Con: 1. Remove 8th St. diverter, like U-loop for Studio de Danse.
2. Too much isolation of (neighborhoods) south (of Eureka.)
3. No Michigan Avenue access for Eureka, Jones, Bingham.
4. No access to Michigan for Jones St. residents.
5. Residents on Jones St. have no easy access to Michigan Avenue.
6. It seems to bring traffic in the neighborhood with the sparrow exit lined up with Bingham,
then around to Eureka, & Eighth.
7. Not able to get to Michigan Avenue (from South of Eureka).
CONCEPT C
1.75
Pro: 1. Good buffer between parking ramp and Eureka St. Residents.
2. Maximize green space for Eureka residents across from parking deck.
3. Jones and Eureka access to Michigan Avenue.
4. Access to Michigan Avenue East & West.
5. Good pedestrian system.
•
is
Con: 1. Cut through in parking lot (of Pilgrim Church).
2. Holmes/Michigan intersection, possible excess traffic on Eureka.
3. Eureka residents don't have easy access to Pennsylvania Ave.
4. Dislike one-way system.
5. Does not have Michigan/Holmes intersection lined up.
6. Traffic flow from Pennsylvania to Bingham, not able to get to Eureka -Jones area people.
7. Dislike one-way and overall design.
1. I would prefer less traffic and diverters on local streets, even though less convenient for me.
Agree 7 Disagree 1 No Opinion 1
2. I would prefer existing cut through traffic over street closings and/or diverters.
Agree Disagree 9 No Opinion
3. I would like to see Holmes St aligned at the Holmes/East Michigan intersection.
Agree 9 Disagree No Opinion
4. I would like the sidewalk/curb "bump outs" removed from East Michigan Avenue.
Agree 3 Disagree 2 No Opinion 4
5. I think the current traffic system is fine just as it is.
Agree 1 Disagree 8 No Opinion
6. I would prefer Sparrow Hospital traffic be separated from Eureka St traffic.
Agree 8 Disagree 1 No Opinion
7. I would prefer all commercial traffic be separated from Eureka St
Agree 8 Disagree No Opinion 1
Other Comments:
1. Jerome St. must be closed ar Holmes, as previously discussed.
2. I prefer the closing of 8th St. in the same manner as Plans A & C for additional business parking for
the funeral home and Sparrow.
3. Very strongly agree with (Statement) #6 (above).
4. As a Jones St. resident, all tr,ree concepts are agreeable in that they minimize cut through traffic
north/south. Thanks for a thorough, enlightening job.
5. All of the concepts are an improvement over the existing situation.
6. Hosmer as a north/south (route) could be a problem on all concepts.
7. I believe our membership (Pilgrim Church) will be cooperative in solving parking problems; we are
concerned about parking lot cut through traffic.
8. The service loop around Sparrow needs to be studied.
9. I disagree with the thought that commercial activity on East Michigan, east of Cedar, is on the wane.
In fact, East Michigan is the most active and leased neighborhood commercial area, especially when
compared to North Lansing and South Washington. Have church, Spagnuolo and other commercial
entities develop a joint parking area in between their properties, to the rear of the Michigan Avenue
buildings, putting any new Spagnuolo property right on the street. (For block bounded by Eureka,
Bingham, Pennsylvania, and Michigan). The cut off of some streets to direct access to Michigan might
be inconvenient, but should return a sense of neighborhood.
• CACT 11AIt"Ulf`-AAI A\/CAl11C/_IfNKICC CT iC 11AIAl11TC Tf1TA1 C
TIME
STUDIO DE DANSE
THROUGH TRAFFIC
TOTAL TRAFFIC
415 - -+'SC
Z
9
11
�} -445
A
6
►c
A
4
5CG -515
b
13
19
5ts - 530
53o - 545
-7
b
13
50 -6co
2
15
17
b� -615
6
8
14
lal5 -63�
9
$
17
63G -645
4
8
12
645 -ZO
7
6
13
?oo -7i5
3
5
8
7/5 - 73o
I
q
5
73o - 746
O
b
b
745 -bz
7
6
�3
00-816
2
,6
8
815-83o
I
5
b
6
845 -
4
9
13
c9D -916
f
b
7
•
EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE/JONES ST. TRAFFIC COUNTS, April 20, 1994
STUDIO
DE
DANSE
TOTAL
TRAFIC
t_.::. try � \ nr` h. � •QM .t„;�,,
7 /
{ tA0e6'
REVITALIZATION PLAN